Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June

30 June 2010

Eric Frimpong – Deletion endorsed – NW (Talk) 01:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Eric Frimpong (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I respectfully submit that the closing admin did not correctly gauge consensus in the deletion discussion. There were 5 deletes and three keeps. I was a major contributor to the article and would have !voted keep but missed the AfD due to being ill. I kindly suggest that the AfD should have been closed as no consensus, defaulting in keep. Basket of Puppies 17:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse but allow incubation or userification for improvement. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC) This is an article about a footballer who's been convicted of rape, and I think I know what Tim Song might say in defence of the close. We really can't leave an article like that in a half-written condition in the mainspace, because it's not NPOV and it risks harm to a living person. I agree with Jclemens that there's no problem with incubation or userfication of the content in an unindexed space until it's finished, at which point we can assess whether it's appropriate for mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 18:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse sounds like an "AfD, round 2" nomination, and in any case the article was a BLP1E at best. Since the 1E in question happened to be a rape, we need to be extra careful about this, and I would oppose userfication or incubation for this particular article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I don't see the BLP1E argument being rebutted in the discussion. I also note my agreement with the second sentence of S Marshall's comment. T. Canens (talk) 18:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The three keep votes each argued that the subject passed GNG because of the legal case: an implict concession of BLP1E, really. That makes those !votes weak. Now many of the delete !votes didn't rise beyond mere assertions, but BLP1E was raised, it wasn't rebutted, and that gave the closing admin more than enough room to close as delete on a 6-3 headcount. The closure was supported by consensus and policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse Deletion was a proper use of BLP policy. ` DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse but I'll point out that the subject of this BLP would probably prefer the page be kept here, at least for now. There is, as the deleted article hints at, a strong argument (being made in something like an 8-part newspaper series) that he's not guilty of the rape. That said, the article would seem to violate WP:BLP1E (though the subject would almost certainly have met WP:ATHLETE in a few months given he was an early draft pick) and deletion is _well_ inside of admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 12:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The community support for limiting coverage of living people more tightly than "notability" is strong. The sources available are emotive, lacking a distant perspective, which we try to achieve. It's very possible that we'll have an article covering this person's story one day, but not yet. The popular media is carrying strong allegations of a miscarriage of justice, but joining the cause is not what we do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse Consensus was read correctly in light of both the vote and standing policy on these matters. Firmly agree with Mkativerata and SmokeyJoe. Orderinchaos 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

PowerFolder – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 05:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PowerFolder (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Dear Wikipedia admins, I'm the project manager of PowerFolder open source file synchronization software. Thank you for your work on wikipedia, but could you please restore our article on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerFolder We have a major presence (1 mio+ download and about 250k users), but very limited marketing instruments so our visibility in the net does not reflect our actual size. Our customers / We support: UNDP: http://www.undp.org/ ICANN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN Many education institutions such as Havard Universtity. We also offered wikipedia free license of our commercial product. On SourceForge.net our rank varies between 500-2000. Thank you for your understanding. Best regards, Christian Sprajc We have a large and growing user base (1 mio+ downloads of the free version), are used by all sizes of companies/educational institutions/charity organisations (undp/havard+mit/icann/bollore)and have a active open source(http://sourceforge.net/projects/powerfolder-/) and closed source development. Our appearance on the web(in form of press releases..) is not so strong but that is not the way our marketing works (we rely more on white-labeled resellers to ensure our growth). We would highly appreciate if the page deletion could be reverted, since users referred by your side always have been good and long term users of PowerFolder, so it seems that they had an advantage from the wikipedia article as well as we had. 62.143.92.100 (talk) 16:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse close -- it was relisted, and the best it got was a single "weak keep". No prejudice to recreation if suitable sourcing can be found, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse but allow userification or incubation for improvement if desired. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse AFD was perfectly valid and even ran an extra week. Also pretty obvious WP:COI/Spam issues ("restore our article", etc). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Administrator abuse on Wikipedia – Decision endorsed – Peripitus (Talk) 12:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Administrator abuse on Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Somebody's going to bring it here, it might as well be me. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Restore to userspace. If we don't allow people to discuss this stuff on Wikipedia, then we'll drive meaningful discussion about how Wikipedia should be governed offsite, and that can't possibly be a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - My god, just let this shit go, for once. There was no possible way that discussion was going to end up as anything else and the delete calls were far more grounded in reality than the axes-to-grind keeps. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Tarc. If someone wants to userify it as an essay for their userspace, so be it.--Milowent (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse The early close was not the best choice, but Sarek's evaluation of consensus was sound. The original authors of the article seem to have no interest in turning it into an essay, the information from the article that might be suitable for merging into Criticism of Wikipedia is still available in that article's history and this article's policy problems otherwise preclude userfying it, so I support the deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted. I nominated this for deletion, so my opinion ought to be unsurprising, but I also think that not having the article under discussion was the inevitable result of discussions regarding this article. I won't endorse the early close, because I think that allowing controversial discussions to run the full period is best as a way to foreclose tendentious objections, but fundamentally nothing in the discussion overcame the lack of independent, neutral sources for "Administrator abuse on Wikipedia" as a topic in itself. Moreover, I think nothing was likely to overcome it, given that requests for such sources were repeatedly met with explicit WP:OR and synthesis. I have no objection to material on this topic being included in Criticism of Wikipedia, provided the material otherwise meets the high standards we should require for all self-referential coverage. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. While the AfD was closed before the usual time had been elapsed, I don't think there's any question that a broad range of Wikipedia editors had an opportunity to comment, nor does it seem likely that there would have been any significant new views added to the AfD. (There also seems to have been a consensus that the article could not be rewritten to satisfy Wikipedia policy, so the only remaining argument for leaving an AfD to run its full time is also moot.) The sole open question is how long we're going to let this DRV run while the same arguments get rehashed again. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per above. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Restore as article or to user space. The page was progessing towards an informative and well-referenced article. It is ironic that an article on administrator abuse was "closed before the usual time [which is ridiculously short alerady] had been elapsed" by administrators. Thank you all dear AfD regulars (whether real admins or merely acting as such) for this nice demonstration of administrator abuse --- and of how blind you have become to the problem at issue. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Tarc. Future participation can be made in the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Jclemens (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse I don't see how this could ever be appropriate on Wikipedia, even in user space. Besides, close seemed to be correct whether going by numerical count or by policy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 'Endorse or Userfy'Restore to userspace -- I would host it in my userspace, as one of the first contributing authors. There were suggestions to broaden the scope and turn it into an essay or add the content as appropriate to other articles that are already in existance. I'd like to do that -- if I don't get to it within a couple of weeks then delete from userspace. Minor4th • talk 19:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Comment-- As one of the original creators, I do not think the AfD was closed prematurely. There was a full discussion and broad participation, enough to reasonably determine the community consensus. There were some substantive changes being made to the article as the discussion was progressing, but not significantly enough that it would change the consensus on the AfD. No reason to prolong the process in an AfD, although the discussion of these types of problems needs to continue somewhere in the appropriate venue. Minor4th • talk 20:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Weak endorse I probably would have let this run for the full 7 days, considering the nature of the article. Still, I cannot believe that the outcome would be any different had this lasted another 4 days. I'm not sure that userfying this article is a good idea. Userfication is so articles can potentially be improved and reintroduced to mainspace. I don't think this article will ever cross the threshold of being a decent article. AniMate 20:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC) AniMate -- I agree the article probably won't ever make it to mainspace, but is userification improper to improve the material and work it into other articles? Or essay? Either way, I have the code and can work on it off wiki if it can't be userfied. Minor4th • talk 21:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - full discussion was had, no need to go to a full 7-days, completely within admin discretion. Disclosure, I wanted to keep the article, and was its co-creator. GregJackP Boomer! 20:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I really dislike closing discussions early and think doing so generally causes more problems than it solves. That said, we end up in the right place by the wrong method. Bah, weak endorse. I don't know what the right thing to do was, so this was probably as good as anything.Hobit (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Restore to userspace No doubt this would not be deleted at MfD, as the !votes were substantially to Keep/Userfy/Merge. Principle of "least harm" dictates userfication at this point. Collect (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC) That mis-states the !votes, which were Delete: 36 / Merge: 14 / Keep: 10 / Keep as essay: 3 / Move off-site: 1. That puts Merge+Keep+Essay at 27 against Delete+Move offsite at 37. (And, yes, I know.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC) ^^^@ Beyond My Ken-- Endorse: 10 / Restore to userspace: 4. (saved you having to count) Minor4th • talk 23:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Four calling birds, three French hens, two turtle doves... (Sorry, didn't help, gotta count something...) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC) "When I'm alone, I count myself!"--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I'd like to count on myself, but I'm never around when I need me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - It was the result we were going toward anyway, and IAR isn't just policy, it's one of the Five Pillars. -- ۩ Mask 03:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse-Closer properly measured consensus. Not sure that closing early was the best decision, but I can't see that a full seven days would have changed much in the long run.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse, this was pretty WP:SNOWy. I think closing early was probably a fine decision given the increased likelihood of flamewars had the discussion gone on (anyone interested in making any Nazi comparisons soon?) Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Restore history under redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. Such calls (mostly "merge") were not well answered. Delete !votes did not make a snowy delete, but the debate was persuasive that the article should not continue as it was. Issues of merge belong at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia. Deletion smacks of censorship. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC) There were plenty of reasonable objections to the page title, as well, and those were definitely not well answered. A naive redirect is not a good idea. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC) As a redirect, the page title issues go away. POV titles are not a problem for redirects, unless the problem is with incoming links, in which case the solution is to deal with them the same as most double redirects. That said, I wouldn't object to the multiply raised suggestion to rename the redirect, unnecessary but doesn't hurt. I do not see what would have been naive about a redirect close. It is entirely consistent, even more so, with your nomination and your comment above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC) You are probably miinterpreting what I meant by "naive" - which is my fault since I chose to say it. I don't mean to imply that redirecting with the history intact would be bad; I have no strong feelings on that at all. What I mean is that redirecting without carefully considering the consequences (that is, "naively") would be bad. A careful consideration of the consequences suggests to me that if the history is to be preserved, it should be preserved at some other title. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I think we agree that restoring the history under a less emotive title, as suggested in the debate, and not clearly rejected, is a reasonable way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - it looked like a pretty clear consensus to me. If someone wants to tinker with it in their user space, I don't see a problem there. --B (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - Don't censor critisism. Essay could become an important reference. - Stillwaterising (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Weak Endorse - Personally, I feel that if avoiding unnecessary drama and incivility was the intention, then perhaps a strong invocation to civility and assumptions of good faith posted as a comment would have been a preferable as a first step, rather than simply closing it. I've had this on my watchlist since it was listed, and I imagine I'm not the only one whose intention to participate has been thwarted by this early closure. Editors are entitled to expect a seven day AfD so that they at least know how long they have to make up their minds. However, this was probably headed to a deletion, and I see no reason why any restoration to the user- or project-space cannot be done by simply requesting userfication from an admin, rather than another discussion here. If people want that deleted, they can take it to MfD.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse The close was correct, and consensus was read correctly. Orderinchaos 09:45, 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.

Mimi Macpherson – No real consensus, though I think it's leaning towards "overturn to keep". I am not sure what that normally means for DRV purposes. However, as the subject of the article has requested deletion and there is no solid consensus to ignore that request, I am closing this discussion as "Keep deleted". – NW (Talk) 23:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mimi Macpherson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closing of this afd was against consensus with by a ratio in excess of 2:1[1].Specifically those expressing keep opinions(17/28) listing sources that establish notability for multiple reason over an extend time period, where as those expressing delete(8/26) focused on one portion of the subjects life that occured and a direct request to Jimbo for the article to be deleted. After the discussion I ask the closing admin Could please explain what further information is necessary to ensure that the article can be re-created[2] the response was the closure was discretionary closure[3] and that it's best reviewed at DRV. Further discussion occured with a poor faith claim of canvassing for a drv occuring because "australian editors" where questioning the closure at[4], hence my delay in raising this at DRV now and not two weeks ago Gnangarra 04:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC) closing admin advised of this discussion Gnangarra 05:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Note that the entire article history appears to have been oversighted. That should pretty well curtail a specific and substantial discussion here. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Struck since the title has been fixed. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC) note:Spelling error on my part the article has not been oversighted. Gnangarra 05:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Still, reading through the AfD discussion, I'm siding with DGG, Jimbo, and the closing admin and endorsing the close. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I usually stay out of DRV's over my decisions, but the history is still there, at a different capitalisation, see Mimi Macpherson (sorry, admins only.) Courcelles (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Thankfully I saw the article before it was deleted. I would have preferred this article get kept. I stand firmly behind my keep !vote even taking into account the request from the subject of the article. But our deletion guidelines clearly afford discretion to administrators to give weight to a request from the article's subject - indeed whatever weight the closer thinks to be proper. DRV shouldn't interfere with the proper exercise of discretion. In any other circumstances, this was a clear keep outcome: numbers, strength of argument, etc. all tended that way. That meant this closure was pushing the boundaries of discretion, but I cannot say the discretion was exceeded. Notability was ambiguous; there was a clear request from the article's subject; the closer gave significant weight to that, as he or she was entitled to do. As an aside regarding the comments about this debate being unduly affected by Australian input: us Australians might by and large be descended from thieves and prostitutes but we can and do think differently from each other.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse The close was made within the discretion available to the closing administrator and in line with deletion policy. While there may have been a numerical advantage to those making the "keep" argument, in my opinion AfD is more than a mere counting of votes - the weight of argument needs to be considered as well. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, the argument for deletion was quite strong, even before taking into account the discretionary weighting given to a request for a living subject. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep I understand and appreciate the idea of a no-consensus close to delete of a marginally notable BLP, but I feel this really stretched the watermark too far into "notable" territory by our own notability guidelines. I fear this is a precedent. My feeling is that the guidelines need to be tweaked to allow such an article to be deleted, and that leaving this as discretionary leaves wikipedia wide open to manipulation by people outside the editing community. My idea would be some modification to General Notability Guidelines for people notable by appearance in secondary sources but arguably not for anything encyclopedic that there is some scope for deletion (need to brainstorm it), but that as it stands I am not happy with the process. Outright deletion struck me as overkill to prevent article imbalance or institution of the problematic material. We have finer policies (semiprotection, reliable sourcing and undue weight all of which can deal with this issue) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep. This close makes a mockery of the supposed system of having consensus on deletion decisions; it takes us closer to a position where what really matters is not what anyone who posted their feedback argues, but what the closing administrator would have voted. Rebecca (talk) 07:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted, which is not quite the same thing as "endorse". I have a great deal of sympathy with Courcelles on how much weight to give to an article subject's request for deletion on a marginally-notable BLP, and I'm pleased that the article was deleted, which I see as a correct result. However, Rebecca's point (above) is very close to the mark: what's the point of having a discussion if the closer disregards what's said and agreed? I do fear that Courcelles may have stretched the closer's discretion beyond its legitimate limits in order to achieve this outcome and I'm not comfortable with using the word "endorse".—S Marshall T/C 08:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Comment The discussion was not pointless. The discussion was an opportunity for editors to put an argument that has some consensus and is strong enough to outweigh the presumption in favour of the subject's wishes. Without wanting to put words in Courcelles' mouth, in this case he.she obviously did not think the evidence at the discussion outweighed this general presumption. This won't always apply to every deletion request made by a BLP of course. I can think of many cases (former parliamentarians, convicted mass murderers, CEOs of major global firms etc.) where I could see a strong argument for retention being made at an AfD that would outweigh the general presumption in favour in the subjects wishes. In this case, the subject was a marginally notable person, who is no longer a public figure, and was best known for her familial relations, so the closing editor gave her wishes more weight than the weak consensus to keep at the AfD. -- Mattinbgn\talk 08:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Comment/Question/Request Would it be possible to postpone this DRV for a couple of weeks. My discussion with the subject of the article about the possibilities of the article continue, and she has asked for some time to think about it and will get back to me soon. As you can imagine if you google her name, the bulk of what is on the Internet and easily accessible to her is negative to the point of offense, and I made the case to her that a solid Wikipedia entry on her - if such can be created - could be beneficial. I would like the opportunity to explore further with her to learn more about what quality non-tabloid sources, possibly from pre-Internet days, could be found. If nothing more useful could be found than what existed at time of deletion, I would still support deletion. Serious efforts were made to improve the article, and it was significantly improved, but it still amounted to nothing more than a string of non-notable events which would not have been in the press save for her sister. I think more time, before a definitive discussion is held, would be useful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per all endorsers above, Courcelles made a tough call within BLP guidelines, even some who wanted to keep the article are supporting him. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep: The closing statement used the split in opinion between editors who said she is notable to editors who said she is not notable, to argue that her notability was ambiguous. The closing statement used this to justify deletion, combined with the subject's request. It was erroneous to use the split in votes to say her notability could not be defined. Instead, her notability should have been determined according to Wikipedia:Notability guidelines, with reasons given as to how it was applied according to those notability guidelines. In this case, Mimi McPherson is a household name in Australia (ask any Australian), and is a high-profile figure, and ticks every box in the Notability guidelines.--Lester 11:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Comment Continually asserting that "McPherson (sic) is a household name in Australia" does not make that any more true. You need to provide evidence other than your say-so and simply saying "Ask any Australian" isn't any better. I am an Australian (last time I checked at least) and I am not convinced she was ever a household name and she certainly wouldn't be one now. Regardless, my opinion (and yours) does not add up to actual evidence. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per longstanding belief that non-notable or borderline BLPs should be deleted upon reasonable request from the subject. It's particularly odious once a harmful BLP has been deleted to keep trying to bring it back against the subject's wishes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Comment Somewhat agree, but I am sure the DRV initiator was acting in good faith. I wonder if Jimbo explained to the subject that the deletion process would involve multiple editors pouring over her life and casting judgements in a range of forums for a period of a month or more with the final results archived for posterity ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I brought this to DRV in good faith I believe the subject meets WP:Notability and thats its not marginal in any way shape or form. I was part of the initial m:BLP Task Force, I have been an OTRS agent for a couple of years and have alot of experience with cleaning up or deleting BLP that are marginal. I'm not here to drag this person through all the hoops I can find to cause any harm to the subject. My reason is because this closure has significantly shifted the bar on what is notable, BLP's do no harm and the discretionary actions of admins such a shift needs to be question especially as there has been no community discussion on the change. Gnangarra 15:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC) "BLP's do no harm", huh? Well, that's certainly an interesting statement. Perhaps you'd care to explain just how harmless they are to Ms. Macpherson... and when you're done with that, I believe there's a Mr. Seigenthaler who'd likely find your position on the subject rather intriguing as well. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Could explain how an article adds in any way to the harm done by the existing news stories? Hobit (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Well, Hobit, we're not responsible for any harm done by existing news stories. But we are responsible for any harm done by a Wikipedia article. And the big deal about this is that a conventional news source is accountable for harm because it can be sued. A Wikipedia editor, more than likely, can't (usefully) be sued. So we have a situation in which we're responsible for things that we can't be held accountable for, and that's not really okay at all. But given that that is the situation it puts a huge onus on Wikipedians to do no harm. (And incidentally that's also why I choose to edit under my real name, with my date of birth and location on display: I choose to be personally accountable for what I do.)—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Well, in any case we couldn't (successfully) be sued for repeating a true statement (the sex tape exists) let alone citing other sources who say it. So immunity to a lawsuit in this case isn't relevant. The relevant question is if we have a responsibility to take down a page of someone who requests it for whatever reason. And I think the answer has to be no. The bar we've chosen is that a largely private person who is otherwise boarder line notable should have the right to have their page taken down, and that's something I agree with fully. I think we'd agree we'd not take down a page on Hillary Clinton just because she asked. So where is the line? To me, someone who is barely notable, per WP:N, is someone who has only a handful of RSes about them. That is how we define notability, so it must be how we define "boarder line" notability. The only real question, per our policies, is if she is past that point. I'd say she clearly is given the massive number of sources about her. Other folks are arguing that "well she never really did anything, she's just related to someone important". Well, A) I think that's pretty insulting and B) I think it doesn't matter why she got the opportunity to do all she did, she did those things and people covered it -- in depth and in numerous places. Keep in mind this includes winning a non-trivial award and hosting a nationally broadcast TV show. The next question is "why do our policies single out those that are boarder line notable"? And the answer is that A) we'd look silly (and be less useful) not having an article on Hillary Clinton and B) we assume someone who _is_ quite notable will have all that material out there to be found in any case. A quick web search turns up a massive number of hits for the tape including copies of it. We aren't adding a drop to that rainfall, and that's exactly why we don't delete articles of people by request unless they were boarder line to begin with. Hobit (talk) 12:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep. Whilst I understand the decision to default to keep in relation to BLPs of marginal notability, I think that the notability of the subject in this case was proven to be beyond 'marginal'. It was a tough AfD to close, but I think the closing admin made the wrong choice here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse Delete Per DGG's original comment. What has Mimi done that is notable (as supported by reliable sources.) Her fame is established, her notability isn't. In originally supporting delete, I checked several pages of google looking for sources describing notability, looked at the sources cited in the article some of which were questionable sources, none of which describes notability, looked at sources describing notable envrionmentalists in the world and in Australia, she wasn't listed there, and asked editors supporting keep to bring sources thtat establish notability to the discussion. No new sources appeared. While Mimi may have accomplished things which were commendable, and was press worthy for things that weren't, none of it is per Wikipedia notable. If new sources come to light establishing notability, and the article is improved, I'd be happy to endorse keep.(olive (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)) comment your request for more sources was answered by User:Lester in the afd who linked to a google search which identified 610 articles in the Sydney Morning Herald that had coverage of Mimi, and 279 News limited articles. Both of these are unquestionably reliable sources, as is the Aunty who has sort her opinion for the 7:30 report and covered her in Australian Story along with mirade of other citations in the afd after your comment. as for what she has done thats notable try TV Presenter, Radio Personality, Business Women of the Year but all of this was argued in the afd and sourced in the article. Put simply by WP:GNG says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article ....significant coverage 610 articles over 15 years in the SMH alone Y. reliable sources --SMH,ABC Y, independent of the subject[5] Y. Gnangarra 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Comment/reply I didn't request more sources, I requested reliable sources that established notability, of which there are none so far. There are differences between events which are significant in and to a life, and establishing the notability of that life per Wikipedia to begin with. Coverage isn't notability. DUI, bankruptcy, and unfortunate video tapes would probably not have been mentioned had not the person already been aligned with a famous person. What glues the events of this life together in terms of the press is the connection, not the events themselves. For example claims to be a notable environmentalist are not supported by lists of notable environmentalists in the world or even in Australia. Whether a string of events and professions in a person's life create notability is debatable, and certainly the closing admin. acted in the best way possible by noting the border line instance of notability and defaulting to protect the subject of the BPL. "Do no harm"(olive (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)) Overturn to keep. "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." The important thing to note is that she's not "relatively unknown" or a "non-public figure." So what if she's Elle Macpherson's sister? The article was about her business career (and getting awards for it), conservation work, and her modelling career. She is definitely a public person, see her description of herself on MySpace: "Mimi Macpherson; award winning businesswoman,and Environmentalist. Mimi’s success and popularity had stemmed from being a pioneer in the Tourism and Whale Watching Industry in Hervey Bay at the tender age 21."[6] She's hardly shying away from publicity. Setting this precedent of deleting biographies if the subject complains to Jimbo if things like drink-driving convictions or bankruptcies are mentioned risks a cull or whitewashing of biographies. Invalid deletion arguments included things like "to be notable a person has to do something notable", which is a total fiction, and WP:BLP1E was thrown into the mix with no basis whatsoever! What is this "one event" that she is supposed to be only known for? Her conservation work? Her business career? Her modelling? Her radio work? Her TV work? (I think that's five things, though my maths might be shaky here). The closing admin asserted that it had been shown in the discussion that she is "at best, borderline notable", but the only way to conclude that would be by a biased reading of the debate. Most participants asserted with strong evidence that she is clearly notable. The article was mostly neutral and well sourced, though I would support removing the mention of the alleged sex tape, as we're not a gossip site. Fences&Windows 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn in no way is she non-notable or "boarder-line" non-notable. Per WP:N she's clearly notable. If you take DGG's argument that she has to have done something "notable" I'd argue that hosting a TV show is certainly that, as are her efforts in whaling. That she was involved in a sex tape (people have sex, who knew?) and is closely related to a well-known person (who I have no clue about) is irrelevant. Clearly if there were no consensus in the discussion we should delete the article per policy. But that was a keep discussion both by number and even more so by strength of argument. The delete case is _really_ weak here. To get to that result you'd have to A) ignore our own guidelines B) believe that the article couldn't be fixed. I don't see it. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Restore to userspace No doubt this would not be deleted at MfD, as the !votes were substantially to Keep/Userfy/Merge. Principle of "least harm" dictates userfication at this point. Collect (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse As I said at the AfD, to be notable a person must do something notable. The accidents of sourcing relatives of celebrities is not notability: the GNG when applied blindly gives absurd results in both directions. She is not notable in any of the mini-careers. Notability is not a popularity contest. DGG ( talk ) 21:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC) This verges on the ludicrous. She was the host of a TV show (more than one if I understand correctly) and won an award for how well she ran a company. Both saw significant coverage. I actually find it insulting (to her) that you somehow claim that either A) none of those were significant (the media disagrees which is how we normally settle these things) or B) she only was as successful as she was because of who her sister is. If you're going to claim the second one I'd really like evidence of that. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC) "to be notable a person must do something notable." I guess you'd better go delete Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom then. Hesperian 06:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse - This person is, at best, marginally notable. There are valid arguments for and against notability, but it is not a slam dunk. Add in the fact that the subject of the article has gone through the trouble of contacting one of the founders of WP in an attempt to get the article deleted, and it's clear to see that this close was absolutely correct. WP has no need for articles on marginally notable people, especially when those articles are doing harm to them. SnottyWong spout 21:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Seems to have all sorts of claims to notability, not the least of which is a massive number of articles on her (how we define notability in these parts). Could you explain why this isn't a slam dunk for notability? I mean host of a TV show would likely be a slam dunk by itself given any coverage in a RS (of which there is plenty). Award winning business person (with coverage of said award) would certainly be enough. Environmentalist work and coverage there of would be enough. All of them? That's a slam dunk. What are you seeing that makes you think otherwise? Hobit (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep. The guideline refers specifically to "relatively unknown, low-profile" figures. Whatever one may think of the subject's notability, the AfD had clearly established that she was not, by any stretch of the imagination, "relatively unknown". As such the deletion of this article, while done in good faith, was against what consensus there was and imposes an unwelcome precedent on AfDs, where the administrator's closing is, after all, supposed to reflect what the community has decided. Frickeg (talk) 22:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure, this was an excellent close, well thought-out and based on policy and consensus. Some of the above arguments purport that the close was ‘against consensus’ apparently determined by a ‘2:1 ratio vote’, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don’t just count up the votes and whoever has the most wins. Consensus fully supports the deletion. The closing admin also acted well within discretionary boundaries when considering Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Biographies_of_living_people, which states: "When closing an AfD about a living person whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to the admin's discretion.” At best, the subject’s notability is marginal or borderline; none of the ‘keep’ arguments meet WP:BIO requirements, virtually all of them merely cite how ‘popular’ or ‘famous’ she is in Australia – this is not Notability and fails WP:BIO. Clearly, the subject’s notability is ‘ambiguous’ at best, and the closing administrator correctly took into account the subject’s request that it be deleted. Good close. As for the ‘canvassing’ issue, see WP:DUCK. Dreadstar ☥ 01:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Um, the arguments that she has extensive coverage in the media (and I do mean extensive, we're talking 100s of articles that at least mention her and many (10s?) solely about her) means she meets WP:BIO with flying colors. Sure few keep !votes said much about meeting WP:BIO because no one felt she didn't. The only questions were WP:BLP1E and what happens when a person requests deletion. The keep arguments also didn't argue she met WP:V, but that's because there was no claim she didn't. Should it be closed as delete because no one argued she met WP:V? Hobit (talk) 02:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC) If you honestly think that the discussion at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mimi Macpherson constitutes canvassing, I suggest actually reading WP:CANVASS, not just waving it around in an attempt to de legitimise those who disagree with you. It is entirely legitimate (and in my view, positively beneficial) to notify groups/projects about discussions that may be of interest to them. The rest of the discussion was more about the meta-issue of BLPs. But, hey, feel free to smear ... -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Wasn't the supposed canvassing done by someone who wanted it deleted? While I'm strongly on the keep side, I don't think there was a canvassing problem there per se. The announcement was fairly neutral though later discussion leaned pretty hard toward delete. Assuming Nick-D and Mattinbgn didn't set this up ahead of time (and I can't imagine they did) I don't see what was wrong with informing a project relevant to the discussion. I might prefer discussion not happen in that notification, but good luck on that one. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I'm not going to discuss the canvassing issue, which was cited (as far as I can see) solely as a reason for the delay in the nomination and which no one else has felt the need to bring up. However, the statement "consensus fully supports the deletion" is demonstrably false and requires rebuttal. I think we can all agree that there was no true consensus at the AfD, but there is clearly an argument that consensus leant towards keep - and numbers are only one of many factors indicating this, as I'm sure anyone who reads the AfD can see (including, I note, several editors who supported deletion). Frickeg (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I'll do it for you then Frickeg. I notified the editor who accused you of canvassing that it was an extremely bad faith accusation and that he should redact his accusation. He/she's done nothing. Very poor form from a long-time admin.The-Pope (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep. Deleted against consensus, and she clearly meets notability guidelines. Within Australia, she is widely known and the subject of much coverage in her own right. There may be BLP issues to resolve if the article is rightfully restored, but those are not grounds for deleting the article for a notable personality. StuartH (talk) 02:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep. This sets an unacceptable precedent. She was clearly notable before the sex tape. This is established by the segment about her on Australian Story, an independent reliable source; by her work in the media; by her business awards; and by her numerous media mentions. The sex tape has added to that: a search on Google Books and Google Scholar reveals numerous academic discourses discussing the sex tape alone. We don't delete articles on notable people just because they ask nicely. Hesperian 06:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion but allow recreation without BLP violations. Clearly she doesn't fall afoul of BLP1E, and she has enough credits to her name that we can have an article. Start over with something neutral and keep it neutral. AniMate 06:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep. Should have been closed as "no consensus - keep". Notability clearly established through multiple references over many years across numerous fields of endeavour. If reference to an "explicit video" bothers the subject then there are other, more effective ways to deal with this rather than deletion of a worthy article. WWGB (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Comment, just to clarify my eariler comment "consensus fully supports the deletion" means there was no consensus to keep. This is contrary to the false claims that the article was "deleted against consensus". It was not deleted against consensus; consensus supported the closer's decision. Dreadstar ☥ 18:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to Keep - Notability is not ambiguous as the closing admin claimed in the opening of their statement. Consensus to keep with most "keep" voters citing significant coverage from reliable sources should not have been ignored. WP:BLP1E, which states it is meant for "low profile" individuals," does not apply as this person willingly has not been private and even appeared in a national television show.--Oakshade (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn: The closing admin cites the deletion criteria for when there is "living person whose notability is ambiguous". However, in this case, I believe that notability is not ambiguous - notability under the General Notability Guidelines was easily established. If this deletion is allowed to stand, it makes a mockery of our "consensus based approach" and all that. Buddy431 (talk) 06:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep Whilst sometimes I agree that popularity does not equal notability, for people, especially "celebrity" people such as TV hosts and the like, I think popularity does equal notability. It is therefore interesting (and unmentioned to date, AFAIK), that Mimi ranked in the top 500 Australian viewed articles in Jan 2010[7] (ahead of a current NBA player and the lead singer of one of Australia's biggest bands, dropping to top 800 in May[8]. This puts her in the top 250 viewed articles about Australian people. This, coupled with the extensive coverage in reliable sources means that the against the consensus closure to delete was incorrect. Her notability isn't borderline or dubious (at least to Australians), so the default to delete was incorrect. You can bet that any BLP issues will be kept to a minimum as I'm sure most of the very experienced Aussie editors who have !voted keep in the AfD or above will keep a close eye on the article from now on.The-Pope (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep I actually sympathise with the closing admin's position, but I think this particular example was the wrong case to apply it. This was a person whose independent notability was not in question. Aside from this, the consensus was clear to keep amongst those who had contributed. Quite frankly, I think sometimes there is a headlong rush to delete when observing Wikipedia's rules on the article's content and then putting the thing on protect/flagged revisions/whatever is fashionable now is a better way to do things. Orderinchaos 09:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn, as above -- good solution, wrong problem. I really haven't any feelings either way about the article, but my own reading of the the deletion discussion did not bring me to the same conclusion as the closer. The notability of the subject for our purposes was clearly and sufficiently established in that discussion. As seriously as we should take Ms Mcphearson's requests, so long as the article is adhering to the policies we have, we can only do so much without treading a path of whitewashing -- which is where I fear this decision takes us. Perhaps those who desire deletion would do better to spend their efforts achieving more restrictive/prescriptive notability guidelines.— cj | talk 14:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep. I don't think there's any legitimate way to dispute that the subject satisfies the GNG. That said, there's no disputing that this article has been problematic for quite some time (see [9]). The issues involved are symptomatic of a much broader problem: that too many "celebrity" bios are bulked out with nonencyclopedic content: "dating" histories, traffic court reports, trivial comments made in interviews, gossip, accounts of embarassing but insignificant public behavior, ad nauseam. Rather than occasionally deleting articles where the unencyclopedic content overwhelms the legitimate and distresses the article subject, the response here should be to more rigorously excludes such worthless content from articles and, if necessary, limit the editing privileges of editors who insist on inserting such content in violation of the principles underlying WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse my own close. I normally avoid my own DRVs like they were the plague, but this one, I feel compelled to make a last minute comment in. In the absence of the subject's request, this close would be a textbook no consensus- while there is a majority of !votes to keep- there are legitimate and significant policy-based delete votes to press this one into no consensus, default to keep. Adding the subject's request- gives the closer- me in this case- discretion to default to delete under the deletion policy that we have. A no consensus- even a outright keep close- I would have been willing to endorse as well- there will never be any easy cut and dry answers when policy gives discretion and multiple, equally valid results could have been arrived at. I will always give a lot of credence to a subject in distress who simply wants out- and will make no apology for doing so. Not a blind adherence- no- no amount of pleading from him would ever get Tony Blair deleted. A relatively low-profile person? The first tenant of BLP is do no harm. Courcelles (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 June 2010

Massachusetts Academy (comics) – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Massachusetts Academy (comics) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is the sort of close which should not be carried out by a non-admin. While at face value, it appears that there is a consensus to keep, this consensus can in this sort of case be over-rided by the global consensus against these sorts of articles - see, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baxter Building which was on a very similar fictional element. The policies concerned are WP:GNG, WP:PLOT and WP:BKD, and I feel very strongly that while there may be a case for keeping this article, the fact that there are no policy based arguments to keep means that this closure was inappropriate. While a merge is a possibility, I think there is a case for simply deleting this article, seeing as there's plenty of coverage of it at Hellfire_Club_(comics)#Massachusetts_Academy. I therefore think that this closure may need to be reconsidered. Claritas § 20:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Could you please provide a link to your discussion with the closer before you started this DRV? I can only find your notice of this DRV on his talk page. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Well, a discussion was not started, I got the FYI to come here only. You are welcome to request reconsideration, but there was support for the long established content, which is mostly a list format, the content factuality is not as I saw disputed, the issue is that it is primarily sourced, in my summary I mentioned the merger and suggested further discussion on the talkpage. There was only one delete vote comment, from the person that is asking for the review. There were four clear supports vote comment, including two experienced Administrators, the nominator was neutral after he disputed the prod nomination by Claritas. I understood the citation issue and considering the comments suggested the merge discussion continue on the talkpage. There was no attempt at discussion on the talkpage. As per these comment I support my closure and comment to consider and discuss merger. I am also happy to have my closure reverted and allow an uninvolved Administrator to re-close. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse and censure DRV requestor for 1) ignoring consensus, and 2) failing to ask for a closing rationale. Look, Claritas, we get the fact that you don't like fiction. That doesn't give you an excuse to waste everyone else's time on your crusade to delete it. Guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, and Wikipedia is governed by consensus--which is against your interpretation. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. If guidelines ruled over clear AfD consensus we would have little need for AfD. Consensus here was clear and a merger (which can be of very little content) can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Claritas was the only person arguing to delete; although the nominator (Artw) was not clear on his intentions, his rationale seems to indicate that he wanted to bring the article to AFD for discussion rather than wait for the PROD to expire. At worst, this appears to be a No Consensus. As Off2riorob said in his closure, merge and redirect options can be discussed on the article talk page. BOZ (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I'm of the view that a non-admin closure can simply be reverted. Non-admin closure is reserved for uncontroversial closes; the act of disputing the close shows that the non-admin closure was not uncontroversial; therefore the non-admin closure may be voided using the standard WP:BRD procedure, QED. So I've never protested when one of my non-admin closures was reverted (which has happened twice iirc). However, in this case reverting the close for an admin to re-close it seems completely pointless to me, since few admins would delete on the basis of that discussion and any that did would be snow overturned at DRV in any case. I think there's room for us to consider whether non-admin closures are within DRV's remit at all, because by definition there's no use of admin tools to review.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Interesting thoughts. Non-admin closes are pretty rare so I don't know how much of that has already been discussed. Do you think only someone who hadn't participated in the discussion should be able to revert such a close? Otherwise, the effect would be that only admins could close any non-unanimous XFD... Which may be what we want, I don't know. postdlf (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC) As this is heading for a snow endorse we may as well jack off about NACs. Every editor will have different views on the circumstances in which an NAC is justifed - NAC is just an essay after all. I wouldn't go so far as to say that anyone can revert an NAC; it is useful to have finality in deletion discussions. At DRV, I think we should review NACs: DRV is about deletion actions not the use of administrative tools. But I prefer to review NACs here as if they were ordinary closes. It's pointless to say "this isn't a justifiable NAC, it needs an admin to close it" when the outcome would otherwise be quite clear. So in assesing this DRV I've just pretended that Off2riorob was an admin (in any case, I think this NAC was justified). The best way to deal with non-admins taking NAC too far is by leaving polite disgruntled messages on their talkpages. Of course, most who regularly perform NACs are probably RFA hopefuls so cocking them up isn't exactly going to look good on their record.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Well, I would say that non-admin closures were a distinct minority until Ron Ritzman came on the scene, at which time they became rather common.  :) I also non-admin close AFDs, and neither RR nor I show any signs of being administrator hopefuls. I would say that it's not optimal for a debate participant to revert a non-admin closure but there are certainly circumstances in which they ought to be able to! Can we agree that it's suboptimal but permissible for a debate participant to revert the close?—S Marshall T/C 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC) I think the obvious solution is for you and Ron to be admins. That would solve most of the problems. :-) Hobit (talk) 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Endorse The confusion in this appeal is illustrated by 1 the misunderstanding that GNG, PLOT, or BDK or policies: the first is a default rule in one section of a guideline that explicitly permits exceptions, even more than any guideline does; there is no consensus that PLOT applies to anything more than the overall coverage of fiction, not to fictional elements; as for BDK, it it's an inactive wikiproject page--not only can no wikiproject can make policy on its own, but the page says specifically at the top "This page and its subpages contain their suggestions"--not even a proposed guideline, , not even a reasonably established essay, but the suggestions of one or two individuals . As for the specific article in question, even the person bringing the appeal thinks there may be a good case for keeping the article. However, I disagree with S Marshall: DRV is the venue for appeals of all deletion-related questions, no matter who does them or in what manner. It's not an admin-only board. We have frequently reviewed whether a non-adminclose is proper, and I can't see where better to do it. And, the appeal does call attention to an earlier aberrant AfD that might well be revisited, for it shows that our method of determining results ion this type of articles is essentially random. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC) This review is in my mind missing the main ingredient, the person that objects, non admin closure should not be an excuse to open a DR and wander off. With the objection raised and the comments from BOZ I would at the most reconsider closing as no consensus' to delete, main issue lack of independent citations. Comments from the AFD discussion regarding merger or redirect can be continued on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per everybody except the nom. Citing an AFD closed against the apparent consensus in a field where application of the underlying policy has long been the subject of dispute is really, really unconvincing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Comment - please can all who have endorsed the closure read the policy WP:BKD, and explain why per WP:CONLIMITED the closure is not in violation of a global consensus. Claritas § 12:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid that it's unacceptable to misrepresent WP:BKD as a policy. It's a guideline that explicitly permits exceptions. WP:CONLIMITED calls itself policy but it directly contradicts the fifth pillar, so we have yet another case where Wikipedia's rules are confused, confusing and contradictory. In such cases how to implement the rules is always down to editorial discretion. But simply put, a local consensus certainly has the authority to decide a rule should be temporarily suspended in the case of a particular article—although in practice, it would take such an overwhelmingly convincing consensus to allow (say) a copyvio or an unsourced negative statement about a living person that I do not foresee either of those things ever happening. However, in this case the closer correctly decided that to allow a fictional topic to stand is hardly in the same league and that the consensus should therefore prevail.—S Marshall T/C 15:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC) BKD also contradicts WP:SS, for that matter. Furthermore, assertions regarding WP:CONLIMITED can actually be applied in reverse: the notion that certain subsidiary fictional elements of notable fictional topics can ever be deleted outright (as opposed to merged or redirected to the notable fictional topic) is itself an aberrant local consensus. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC) As I read it, the guideline section WP:BKD is concerned with elements of fiction that derive from only one work of fiction. That's what all the examples deal with, at least, and it makes sense, because ordinarily the elements of one work of fiction can be summarized within an article on that single work. I don't see it giving much relevant guidance to elements of fiction that derive from multiple works of fiction, in serial and/or franchise fiction, which poses different issues. In any event, even if it was relevant, nothing in it could mandate a deletion, certainly not against the consensus in an AFD. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 June 2010

Masonic Temple – Restored and relisted at AfD by the closing admin. – T. Canens (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Masonic Temple (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Despite there being 3 times as many keep !votes than there were delete !votes (and no apparent lacking in strength of argument on either side), the closing admin somehow reasoned that this should close as delete. The closing admin cited concerns about the sources that were brought to the AfD to support its notability, and it's my opinion that a supervote was cast. I'm not an admin, but it's very difficult for me to read the comments on this AfD and see how anyone could possibly interpret the consensus of these comments to result in deletion. When confronted on their talk page, the closing admin apparently wanted to start a second argument about the sources, and invited editors to contribute on the talk page. An editor who was in favor of deletion even expressed his surprise that the AfD resulted in deletion. Despite all of these comments, the closing admin has expressed his intention to relist the AfD for more discussion in the near future, which is what triggered this DRV. SnottyWong verbalize 15:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC) This is entirely moot. Spartaz Humbug! 16:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC) You made it moot after the fact. You intentionally restored the article and relisted it at AfD despite being notified that a DRV had already been started. DRV is the appropriate venue for the WP community to decide if the article gets relisted. Your relisted AfD should be speedily closed pending the outcome of this DRV. There is nothing a new AfD is going to accomplish that the original one (49KB, 6000+ words) already didn't. The sources were already presented and discussed at length. I truly don't understand your intentions here. SnottyWong spout 16:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn deletion. There was no consensus to delete the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn deletion There was no consensus for deletion mark nutley (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Hold this DRV: How to proceed is being discussed at WP:ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (2nd nomination). Fences&Windows 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Much as I hate to say this I would overturn. The votes for deletion are significantly ahead of the votes for retention so the rationale for deletion needs to be very easily defensible. Spartaz didn't assess the sources himself, he balanced the assertion that they supported retention against the arguments that they were weak and tangential sources. I happen to agree but in this instance, given the clear majority, feel that he should have probably assessed the sources himself. Notwithstanding that I happen to agree with his assessment of the arguements. ALR (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Moot this DRV per Spartaz' own restoration and resubmission to AfD. However, had that NOT been the case, I would have agreed that the close should have been overturned. Spartaz is to be credited for proactively remedying a subomtimal close. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Peachfuzz – Deletion Endorsed and consensus accepted by nominator. Please feel free to come back if further sources emerge – Spartaz Humbug! 17:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Peachfuzz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There are four reasons. Firstly, due to the page being deleted shortly after an editor's response, it was not possible to act on the advice provided by this editor for enhancing references (most of which were added to the article after June 17 2010, in response to issues raised in the call for deletion). Secondly, new references from national magazines have since then been found which will bolster the list of reliable references. Thirdly, the nature of some of the existing references have been misunderstood by editors as being links to promotional material, whereas they are actually references to reviews of records and performances in established music publications. Fourthly, besides the references, this user believes the page meets a number of the criteria for notability, and that this was not specifically addressed by editor responses in the deletion discussions (such as: 4. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)). Schmozzle (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion - The only editor who disagreed with deletion is Schmozzle (talk · contribs), who also started this DRV, and who also has a huge conflict of interest with this article, as he claims to have been a member of this band. The AfD was open for 7.5 days, and no one was able to find sources to establish notability in that adequate period of time. This is a no-brainer. SnottyWong spout 15:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC) There was some discussion of a lack of web sources because this band pre-dated the flourishing web. Actually, printed sources are preferred sources. Web-based sourcing may seem preferred but this is because (1) web bas sourcing is easier to do from the comfort of your computer chair and (2) for new subjects, published printed sources (books) take more time to be produced and read, and longer to be computer searchable. As articles improve, and become less new, web citations should decrease. So, there is no hard bias against printed sources. If someone can provide independent reliable sourcing that discuss the subject in some depth, then please bring forward these sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I was the closing administrator and I honestly didn't find this closure difficult or controversial, rather the AFD discussion struck me as quite straightforward. Reading the AFD again now, I still come to the same closing decision. The appellant did not make any attempt to contact me to discuss his concerns regarding the closure prior to filing this DRV. However, I'm not at all invested in the closure and I am happy for the community to decide if it should be endorsed or not. I've now searched for this band in the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre and I only found two articles which mention it in passing. The band apparently disbanded in 1995 so it's not that old and you'd expect to find at least some online sources for a notable band that was operating in the last 15 years. Additionally, the appellant, also the author of this article, is a self-declared member of this band so he has an obvious and blatant COI and I would urge him to follow Wikipedia's COI guideline and refrain from writing material about himself, his band(s) and his colleagues. Sarah 03:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion - (did !vote delete in AfD) - as far as I can tell nothing was wrong with the closing of this, no reason to restore or re-list. Codf1977 (talk) 08:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse Not exactly the most thorough and considered AfD debate I've seen, but the consensus was clear enough. Also, it appears the closing admin has now done a double-check of sourcing and stands by the conclusion, so this is quite a safe outcome to endorse. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse, I have the feeling one could probably dredge up enough sources for this band to get them over the notability line, but given the arguments presented in the AFD, the closing admin made the only reasonable close. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC). Folks, thanks for taking the time to consider this. You do seem to have a consensus and I respect that. I do want to add a couple of things in closing though. Firstly, since the first deletion tag was first applied, I've found a lot of extra references (eg reviews in magazines like Rolling Stone, TV Week etc, and more details of dates, times of live to airs etc). The reason I hadn't done this before is simply because the article - which has been around for 5 years - was looked at by numerous editors over the years with little adverse comment, and the original article was at least as detailed as other band ones on Wikipedia. SO as far as I thought, it met the standards required. As for the COI - nothing I can do about that; I was in the band and that's that. In response to Sarah's comment, I didn't talk to her about it before the deletion review request solely because, although I've officially been an editor for 5 years, in reality I'm pretty new to Wikipedia processes. It takes time and sometimes trial and error to understand how a system like this works, and how to operate within it. I'm still learning. I do appreciate Sarah's time and care in looking at the issue. (And no, the band has not been operating in the last 15 years. That's basically when we broke up). Cheers Schmozzle (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Schmozzle Thanks for the reasonable attitude, Shmoz. Articles which were written by someone who has a COI are always given more scrutiny, and for good reason. If Peachfuzz truly was a notable band, then eventually someone (other than a member of the band) will create an article on it. Otherwise, it just wasn't meant to be. This kind of article is not uncommon on Wikipedia (see WP:GARAGEBAND). While you're in this reasonable mood, maybe you should carefully read WP:COI from top to bottom and take it to heart (if you haven't already). I hope this process hasn't discouraged you from future editing, but I also hope that your future editing will focus on subjects with which you are not directly affiliated. SnottyWong verbalize 13:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 June 2010

Microsoft Office 15 – Deletion endorsed but the consensus is that there is enough sourcing emerging to permit the attempt of creating this again. (note that the article will still be subject to the usual deletion processes (G4, prod of AFD) if the sources provided don't cut the mustard). – Spartaz Humbug! 03:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Microsoft Office 15 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) MO2010 is finished. So I'm sure that at least some info about MO15 should be known. Georgia guy (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC) [10], [11], [12], [13]. Looks like we are mostly in the "well-founded rumor" stage but growing quickly. Endorse close as the right reading of the AfD but I think we're close to being ready an article. Note the close was 2 months ago and lots of stuff has popped out recently. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Just write a new article with the now available sources. DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn (redirect to Microsoft Office), criticism of the close not intended, but the redirect option was always viable, and with new sources arising it looks increasingly likely that the subject may become suitable for an article. To help editors with this question, and to be obvious with WP:copyrights compliance, the history should be available. Neutral as to whether the time for restoration is now, it could still be just rumour mongering. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC) If a new article gets written using none of the original material (which would seem likely given the rumour status of it), then there is no issue with copyright compliance. --87.112.76.227 (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Restore with redirect to Microsoft Office with no prejudice in the future to spin out into its own article. It looks like sources are beginning to come in and support the speculation about the new MS Office version. –MuZemike 07:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse, I would suggest a protected redirect for a year. --B (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - The closing admin made the right call on this AfD, and does not deserve to have their decision overturned. If there truly are sources for MO15, then start a new article with them. If they're not good sources, the article will get deleted again. I also agree with B's suggestion of a protected redirect. SnottyWong express 15:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Your two suggestions would seem to be contradictory. If it's protected no one can create it... Hobit (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse but allow re-creation per the sources Hobit has found. If it's got a name that multiple RS'es (and Infoworld is a great RS for IT stuff) are using to discuss it, it's probably ready for a stub article. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Relist and Recreate - If Windows 8 has an article, then why not Office v15? T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs • count) 02:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Umm ... Windows 8 has a redirect, not an article, and it's closer to release than Office 15. --B (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Phoebe Dynevor – Close endorsed – Spartaz Humbug! 03:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Phoebe Dynevor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Clear consensus in Afd to delete, not redirect. closing admin claims "I think a redirect accomplishes the desired result which I would have hoped everyone would have agreed with" [14], which is simply a supervote and not consensus. LibStar (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure. Closer honored consensus that the article content be removed, and drew a guideline supported conclusion that a simple redirect of a plausible search term would best serve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Closing admin – The exact same result occurred (i.e. the content is still gone, albeit with a redirect it is still in the edit history), as I mentioned on my talk page already. I note that closing admins are encouraged (and have been for a while) to explain their closes whenever necessary, which I did. I also tried to look at the strength of arguments given, and I thought MichaelQSchmidt made a cogent argument for redirection at the least, not to mention it's common practice to redirect even subjects which are not considered notable. –MuZemike 02:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. "Redirect" is not incompatible with "delete". The content is gone. There may be a debate about whether an admin should delete the page before redirecting, or protect the redirect, but that debate need not be had here. Closing admins should be applauded for looking for redirect opportunities where a page is deleted. I should add that a redirect is something that anyone can do at any time. Even if the article was deleted, another editor could have come along and created the redirect. Any objections to a redirection can be taken up at RfD.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per closing admin's logical, policy-based explanation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse, closing admin's explanation makes sense, fits policy and consensus - as stated above "Redirect" is not incompatible with "delete"." Dreadstar ☥ 05:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. This is a clear case of how AfD is "not a vote"™. Several users argued that the subject of the article was not notable and so the article should be deleted; MQS agrees that the subject is not (yet) notable but suggests a redirect since she is a plausible search term; the closing admin sees that there is a consensus that she is not notable but that a unrefuted, policy-based argument has been made to redirect; he closes as redirect, retaining the history since there is no compelling reason to delete such content absent BLP or copyvio conerns. In many cases redirection is a good alternative to outright deletion and should always be considered by the participants at AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse, with congratulations to MuZemike, who's once again exceeded my expectations. What an excellent close.—S Marshall T/C 10:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Redirection is preferable to delete, and there is no evidence that the delete !voters considered redirection and no one argued against it for seven subsequent days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Eluchil404. Note specifically that all BLP content left accessible in article history by the redirect is appropriately sourced. SNOW time? Jclemens (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse nothing is lost by the redirect, which the closing admin notes is a plausible search term. Alansohn (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 June 2010

I'll Get There. It Better be Worth the Trip – Overturn. AfD at editorial discretion. – T. Canens (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I'll Get There. It Better be Worth the Trip (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This article was only in the stub form and was not allowed to grow into what could be an informative article on one of the only books of the 1960's to be aimed at teenage readers and have gay characters. I had not heard of this book and came to Wikipedia to read up on it's history, controversies and impact at the time of publishing. Isn't this what Wikipedia is for??. The deleting admin firstly used a incorrect speedy deletion critia, then deleted it again (after I had added more sources) when a very broad speedy deletion. Fosnez (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC) More info here: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/new-titles/adult-announcements/article/13959-flux-to-issue-40th-anniversary-edition-of-seminal-john-donovan-novel-.html Fosnez (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC) As the deleting admin, let me state what User:Fosnez says on my talk page. He says he had "not heard of the book and I came to the biggest encylopedia in the world to read up on it." He didn't find it, but created an article which said in part it "will be reissued in September 2010 from Flux, an imprint of Llewellyn Worldwide". I gave G11 as the reason when deleting this stub for the second time. Moriori (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC) And so, if I were to leave that part out (which I considered a valid encyclopedic fact, considering it has been out of print for decades and is being re-released), will the article pass your tests? Fosnez (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC) You asked for a review. This is it. Moriori (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. As a book, it's not eligible for A7 deletion. The cached text is certainly not unsalvageably promotional, and hard to characterize as overly promotional, so the G11 (second speedy) deletion wasn't valid, either. The PW link above makes a pretty decent case for notability, so there's no IAR justification for deletion. Take to AFD if one must. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. I can't see anything promotional in the cache'd version presented above, let alone exclusively promotional (ie G11). And of course A7 does not apply to books. So unless there is something that I am missing (eg the cache'd version is the wrong version), it appears this deletion was not in accordance with WP:CSD.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC) "certainly not unsalvageably promotional, and hard to characterize as overly promotional". Huh! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) Overturn not only does A7 not apply to books, but a book being reissued decades after its publishment strongly suggests a measure of notability anyway. I see Moriori's concern that the article be used as a promotion platform, and I do feel that if Fosnez has a WP:COI of some kind, they should do the ethical thing and plainly state so. That said, the deletion should be overturned. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I have no COI, I saw the book mentioned on Reddit and came to check it out. If you would like, please feel free to check my edit history, I have been (in the past) an active member of this project. Things seemed to have changed a lot since I have been away though. Kind of disheartening... Fosnez (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. You can't A7 a book. No prejudice against AfD afterwards—but DRV interprets speedy criteria restrictively, and that is as it should be.—S Marshall T/C 19:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC) List at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn as an inappropriate speedy Google News Archive verifies the duration of coverage. I doubt that an AfD is even really necessary. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn as an invalid A7. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:32, 28 June 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 – Speedy close, no changes since last DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_7 – Dreadstar ☥ 19:43, 24 June 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) now supported with reliable sources Politowski55 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Speedy close I assume you mean User:Politowski55/Mikie_Da_Poet. You already listed the exact same thing here Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_June_7 which was closed again on 14th June, the changes between you listing and now are : [15] which changes the body of the text in no way. Suggest this gets closed and added to WP:DEEPER --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 June 2010

Money (Michael Jackson song) – Recreation not permitted. – T. Canens (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Money (Michael Jackson song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) I have fixed the article and established notability. I have established that this article and its topic is notable by adding more sources. Plus this now has TEN references, that alone should prove it. Check out the improved version here -[16] OttomanJackson 00:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Do not restore as an article - My god, THIS again? All this amounts to is trivial coverage, one-liners like In "Money," he stews, "They use me for the money/ they don't care," while in "2 Bad," he barks, "I'm tired of you hustling me." from the Daily News. These are reviews of and coverage of the album as a whole; not a single source is dedicated to this particular song. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I also didn't see any in depth coverage of the song in any of the sources. OttomanJackson, can you point out any in depth coverage of the song? Hobit (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose recreation of this article. Not enough notability or information to warrant a stand-alone article, thus, it fails WP:NSONGS. It should remain redirected to the HIStory album article. Pyrrhus16 12:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose per Tarc and Pyrrhus16's comments. Crystal Clear x3 00:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose recreation. Coverage is for the album not the song, so it fails WP:NSONGS. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Recreate I found the info the article needs. The sheet music is only about Money, therefore I found "a single source dedicated to this particular song". There also was an old version which was deleted see here[17] and Could an admin please restore it as a user subpage which I created and I think this old version might have useful info. I would like it put here User:OttomanJackson/Money (Michael Jackson song) (Original version) —Preceding undated comment added 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC). Sheet music does not establish notability any more than a script would for a movie. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose recreation but endorse salting. SnottyWong gab 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 June 2010

FolderPlay – Restored per consensus that A7 does not apply to this topic. Any editor may PROD or AfD the article at his or her discretion – Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
FolderPlay (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The Article was deleted for A&, but this is an article about software product, to which A7 does not apply m656 (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Isn't this web-related software, and thus speedyable under A7? Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Only web content is speedyable under A7, but not web applications. In addition, this is an application for mobile phone, not for web. It is absolutely not speedyable under A7. m656 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC) If this is web-related, it's web content. Third parties, please note that m656 is unclear about this criterion in general: on my talk, s/he thinks that it's just for biographies. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn speedy, list at AfD, not a valid A7 as far as I can see. It appears to run on the local machine (cell phone). I very much doubt it will make it it at AfD, but I've been wrong before. Hobit (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Quoting the rules about A7: This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software, or other creative works. Please not that Nyttend is not clear about this definition, thinking that "web-related" is here same as "web-content", which is simply not so. This is an article about a software product which is a mobile phone application. It is no more web-related that any software at all, it runch even when the phone is off-line. But even if it were web-related (which it is not), it still would be software (outside A7 domain), and not "web content". Software is software. m656 (talk) 04:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn speedy. A7 shown to be inapplicable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn, overly broad interpretation of A7 methinks. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC) While I agree that A7 did not apply, are there actually any reliable sources at all?—S Marshall T/C 16:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn speedy, as above, just prod it and let it (presumably) go away without more discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC) With 5 people saying that A7 does not apply, and none disagree, would it be possible to un-delete the page now? m656 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn Speedy and take it to AFD. It'll more than likely die a quiet death there, but A7 can be shown not to be applicable in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC). Overturn Speedy and automatic list at AfD - It's very unlikely that this article will not get deleted subsequently, but it is not deletable under CSD A7. Also, it runch even when the phone is off-line. SnottyWong squeal 23:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Forward 50 – Deletion Endorsed without prejudice to allowing a single properly sourced article to be produced. – Spartaz Humbug! 02:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Forward 50 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The article was deleted without due diligence within the group nomination. It was listed (in this order) as follows: 2007 Forward 50 2008 Forward 50 2009 Forward 50 Forward 50 While I do agree that separate annual lists may be not notable, the root article, Forward 50, is. I believe that the article fell wictim of being last in the list, so that voters may easily miss its sepatate status to consider its merits in its own. Therefore my first objection is procedural: the list is not homogeneous and cannot be voted by a single vote. Further, the voters are quite possibly were put off track by a passionate eloquence of IZAK, who attacked both the newspaper The Forward and my intentions. I will not discuss his argument, since they are totally irrelevant: the intentions, neither mine not of the newspaper are irrelevant here, since wikipedia's policy of inclusion is not truth or correctness: it is notability and verifiablity. The votes of kind Delete Absolutely. --ChosidFrumBirth (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Delete. This list is just a newspaper gimmick "just newspaper gimmicks" may be quite famous.Bar-abban (talk) Delete per Izak, this is a self-published list meant for advertising Huh? For advertising of notable persons who already notable?Bar-abban (talk) have nothing to do with established wikipedia's inclusion criteria. In fact, it is very easy to verify that "Forward 50" received significant attention. First, google search for "Forward 50"+list gives 30,000 hits The list is discussed in detail in respectable sources, such as Haaretz[18]. Of course, the list is not without controversy, but wikipedia's purpose is to uncover this controversy, no to take one side or other as our colleague IZAK did in his nomination. Finally, (and this goes towards the reason I created this page) the list is mentioned in a number of wikipedia articles, (in fact, this waqs my very first edit of wikipedia) so it is reasonable to expect that this term is explained somewhere in wikipedia. Once again, I don't care about deletion of the annual lists, but the main article was reasonably referenced from independent credible sources, it was not considered by its own merits according to wikipedia policies, and is necessary for the overall interlinked network of information in wikipedia. My final remark is about closing of the vote: formally the admin was right, since it was 100% delete vote, and I am at a loss on what I would have done in their position. Bar-abban (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion but allow re-creation with better sources. I did recommend "delete all" in this AfD discussion. I understand why Bar-abban believes that an article about the Forward 50 list in general may be more appropriate than an article about the individual annual editions of the list. However, at the time the article Forward 50 was deleted, the only sources in it were from Forward.com. I have no objection to the article being rewritten to include reliable independent sources to support the list's notability. If Bar-abban wants a copy of the article restored into their user space so they can work on it, that can be done by myself or another administrator. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Please restore it for work. I believe the article had independent references, but it is quite possible I forgot to complete the work with he article, since it is of little personal interest to me and I have only occasional time to work for wikipedia. Bar-abban (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC) I've restored the article to User:Bar-abban/Forward 50. I would recommend waiting for the conclusion of this deletion review, at least, before trying to move it back into the main space, but you can certainly edit the article in your userspace in the meantime. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Whatever the outcome of the review, I believe that its contents may be included into the "The Forward" article. I may agree that a separate article may be unnecessary, but some description of the list somewhere in wikipedia is quite appropriate. Bar-abban (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse the deletion, since a unanimous debate with that much participation could not be closed any other way, and because admins who obey the consensus shouldn't have to take any crap from DRV for doing it. Some brief mention of the Forward 50 probably does belong in the magazine's article. In view of sourcing concerns, I'm opposed to allowing re-creation as a separate page unless a reliably-sourced userspace draft is presented to DRV first.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I think some of your remarks are unfair. I was not giving any "crap" to the closing admin. Rather opposite. My goal (achieved) was to have this article restored so that the work be continued. I was doing so out of respect to the labor of the original writer, since it was not big trouble for me to add 2-3 lines into The Forward, make a redirect, and forget the whole story. Please notice that I was not requesting the restoration of the separate annual lists which were my creation. Bar-abban (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) No, I don't think you personally were trying to give the closer "crap" at all. It's certainly happened in the past that closers have taken crap for obeying the consensus, and I don't think that's fair, so in these circumstances I tend to be quite forthright in my defence of them.—S Marshall T/C 14:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks. Bar-abban (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC) allow re-creation of a single combination article.. The usual sort of compromise I favor. (And, if it's relevant, I would support articles on each of the people listed, using their inclusion as part of the evidence for notability.In fact, I hope to start writing them .) DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse – there was no possible other outcome here. I won't oppose recreation if the issues will be adequately addressed. –MuZemike 16:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per S Marshall and Allow Recreation per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse the deletion. The article was clearly nominated as part of a group nomination, and none of the editors who participated in the AfD (all of whom unanimously voted to delete) commented that this particular article should be kept while the others should be deleted. If this article is restored, it should be userfied until it can be proven that the objections raised at the AfD can be overcome. SnottyWong spout 23:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Request: Being a petitioner, I suggest closing this discussion, not to waste other editors time, since I agree with the presented arguments and I am satisfied with the outcome (article reastored). A final afterthought request, I would also like to have the other "Forward 50" articles restored in my user space, since, as User:DGG noted, some of the listed people may deserve a wikipedia article, and it would be good to have the list at hand. Bar-abban (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 June 2010

Dell Schanze – The deleting administrator's rationale and the points raised by DGG and others who endorsed the deletion appear to raise fundamental problems with the existence of this article, and perhaps of any article on this subject. – Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dell Schanze (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Article speedily deleted by User:HJ Mitchell, on the grounds that the individual was borderline notable, and the negative aspects were insufficiently sourced for WP:BLP - he cited the New York Times as an example of what would be sufficient sources, however he later admitted to having no idea about Utah media. The main sourcing is of the largest circulation newspaper in Utah, and the oldest newspaper in Utah, both quite respectable, not tabloids. Discussed with HJ, and he suggested I bring it here, and he would restore the revision history, but blank and protect the page during the discussion. For what it's worth, this article was in a considerably worse state when it survived the only AFD it faced, handily. I believe the version I wrote, from scratch, is quite conforming to WP:BLP. As for notability, Dell Schanze is a self-made multimillionaire, a daredevil, and a four time political candidate for important office, including the Libertarian party nominee for governor, and you'll see the sources have "noted" as much. I have 30 entries in the References section, but could easily make it 60, if I wanted to list every source's coverage of every event. No objection to it being recreated and immediately taken to WP:AFD, but surely this is not a WP:SPEEDY deletion candidate. GRuban (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Comment from deleting admin. I stand by my decision to speedily delete this article as a G10 candidate. My biggest concern is that the article is, in my opinion, heavily slanted towards very negative aspects of the life of a living person. I'll butt out now and defer to the consensus. The history is intact for people to make up their own minds based on the content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I have no objection to discussing where you think the article is slanted, and unslanting it. In fact, I'd be very happy if you would help balance; as that was my intent. I never heard of this guy until seeing that this article needed writing (that's true about most articles I write :-)), but I think I like him. He tried to do the best for his employees and customers, how can you not like that? --GRuban (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn - I don't see it as particularly negative. --B (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Undelete but remove the "Legal problems" and "Sport" sections. He was acquitted of most of the charges under "legal problems" and all of it amounts to trivia and tabloid items. --B (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC) overturn The individual in question is controversial. That doesn't mean that we delete the article. This clearly isn't an attack page. the individual is clearly extremely notable. (I'm curious if the deleting admin would try to delete Kent Hovind under G10). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC) "Extremely notable"? Howso? --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn, but consider permanent semiprotection for the article, which was a magnet for inappropriate attacks. Sometimes a biography is going to be dominated by negative content because the subject is determined to make a public fool of him or herself, as quite a few aspiring politicians do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Could you give examples of such "public fools" for which we have similar articles? --Ronz (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Perennial candidate lists about 100 articles about regularly unsuccessful candidates; many are quite colorful. Cal Worthington is a flamboyant salesman without the legal problems. Crazy Eddie was a flamboyant salesman with much more serious legal problems. Madman Muntz, the first of the flamboyant salesmen, is a Wikipedia:Featured article. --GRuban (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. I'm with B on this. Ronz's argument doesn't seem to me to hold water; it appears to boil down to other stuff doesn't exist.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry if anything I've said sounds in any way like an argument. I'm simply asking for clarification to determine if others' arguments have any foundation based upon policy or precedent. --Ronz (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Part of the Zen of Wikipedia consensus is, we don't do precedents. The fact that one article is kept doesn't justify keeping another, and equally the fact that one article is deleted doesn't justify deleting any other article. Policy is a different matter—here we're looking at WP:BLP, which says that we can't say anything negative about a living person unless it's immediately followed by an inline citation to a reliable source. Note that this doesn't mean that our coverage of living people must be positive. It just means it has to be sourced. WP:NPOV is also relevant. GRuban's point seems to be that neither of these policies are violated by the article, and this places an onus on those seeking deletion to show where there's a policy violation and then to show that it can't be fixed by regular editing.—S Marshall T/C 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, not wishing to start an argument best had elsewhere, in a BLP, the "burden of proof", so to speak, lies with those wishing to restore the content that was deleted in good faith as a BLP vio. See WP:BLP#Restoring deleted content. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Quite right, and the only proof permitted is inline citations to reliable sources. But once this has been done, then doesn't the onus shift onto the delete side to show which negative material is uncited and which sources aren't reliable?—S Marshall T/C 01:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC) When no one is offering policy, I'll settle for examples to get editors to give substance to their arguments. So you think maybe some of the sources meet BLP? Is this your argument? --Ronz (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC) No, I don't "think" that "some" of the sources meet BLP. I'm positive that the Deseret News, the Deseret Morning News, the Daily Herald, and the Salt Lake Tribune are definitely reliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 06:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for explaining your argument. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse and protect against re-creation I do in fact see this as as essentially a page making fun of the person. We can quibble over whether that makes it an attack page or not, but it remains inappropriate for an encyclopedia. That the Deseret News feels he is fair game for a respectable newspaper amazes me a little, but even if they descend to that level, our rule is NOT TABLOID. In 2007 at the previous AfD I initially said delete, but changed it to no opinion, giving the extremely poor reason that I was deferring to the more experienced editors: my instinct however inexperienced was right then. I leave open the possibility of an article about Totally Awesome Computers. We have repeatedly held that coming in at the bottom of an election does not make for notability, and neither does conviction for misdemeanors or getting into minor flying accidents. The pervasive negative wording in all versions is so disgraceful that if we did decide to have an article on him, it could only be fairly done by deleting and starting over, for the version history even if not in the article would be prejudicial. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Upon looking further, I agree that the "legal problems" and "sport" sections should be removed as he was acquitted of the more serious charges and it's mostly trivial stuff anyway (would Obama's article include a speeding ticket?) But the rest of it seems sourced and neutral. --B (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse G10 asks us to look at the purpose of a page, not just its content. A veneer of sourcing - and the inclusion of the occasional non-disaparaging paragraph - cannot be allowed to obscure what is essentially an attack page. I have read this article word for word and in my view it is quite arguable that its sole purpose is to disparage its subject. This was a very bold call by HJ Mitchell. It is certainly a very debatable call. In the circumstances that the subject is marginally - if at all - notable, I am minded to endorse it. Now there are many individuals whose articles will contain largely negative content. But these articles can still be written without disparaging the subject. This article crosses the line, in my view, once it is read word-for-word.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC) If you're interested in "purpose", speaking as the author, trust me, I had no intention of making the page an attack on him. I was going for balance based on the sources I could find, you know, NPOV. Those who think I didn't make it are welcome to help. Personally, however, for me, he's a self-made multi-millionaire, daredevil sportsman, devoted to his family, employees, and customers, that adds up to pretty cool. Strange, maybe, but cool. There are also quite a few blog posts on the Internet from satisfied customers, saying, essentially, that he seemed weird, but made good computers with unbelievable warranties. I couldn't find an RS saying that, or I'd have added it in, but I certainly read them. --GRuban (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks - trust me I'm not alleging you had the purpose of attacking the subject of the article. The article probably looks that way to me because the two principal sources used make fun of the subject. And in any case I'm starting to think it might be me who is reading this article incorrectly.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn is there any negative material that isn't sourced? Is there any real doubt this guy isn't notable? In the worst case, send it to AfD (again). But no way is this a G10. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC) G10 isn't just about sourcing of negative material; it's about the overall tone and purpose of the page. Many well-sourced articles have been punted under G10.--Mkativerata (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, but there's a line somewhere. We don't delete Richard Nixon, nor would we if the tone of the article was negative. Well sourced negative information shouldn't be a reason to delete an article, especially one that make it through an AfD. I don't see the tone has overwhelmingly negative, but if you do I'd suggest cleanup rather than deletion is the way to go. Hobit (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC) The reason I thought deletion more appropriate here is because of the lack of notability of the subject. But I’m beginning to think, given the number of editors !voting to overturn here, that it's my reading of this article that is off-base.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. I was the first admin to delete this under WP:BLPDEL. the current version is much much better than the article that stood before it. GRuban has done an outstanding job of rewriting it from scratch and uploading a fully BLP-compliant article on a controversial figure. I was actually getting ready to decline the speedy when it was deleted. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC) <Blushes> Aww, gee. Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn and send to AFD. Not a speedy by a country mile. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn speedy deletion and let community decide faith on AfD. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn but keep only recent revisions. I can appreciate Wikipedia's need to not look like a tabloid, even if the material is well sourced. The most recent version is hardly a BLP violation, and a sudden speedy is completely inappropriate in my view (in favor of AfD). I do agree with DGG's suggestion that the history could be prejudicial, and could see myself supporting the idea that the embarrassing versions (embarrassing to Wikipedia, more so than Schanze) ought not to influence the future of the article Casascius♠ (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (previously edited this article as User:Reswobslc) Overturn questions of notability are properly addressed by community consensus at AfD. There appear to be no valid grounds for speedy deletion. Alansohn (talk) 05:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. It's not "heavily slanted towards very negative aspects"; on the contrary, the version just prior to CSD glorifies the subject as a cross between Madman Muntz and Howard Hughes. It might be all BS - I'm not familiar with the subject and has not checked refs in depth - and it might burn at AFD in no time, but this requires a proper AFD. East of Borschov (talk) Endorse per DGG. Seems way too overtly negative in tone, and the information included looks trivial enough (for notability purposes) that it only serves to defame the subject. –MuZemike 16:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse It's a article that disparages its subject, per DGG. Just because something has a source doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia per WP:BLP and WP:NOT. What's less clear in written policies and guidelines is that a news source that is considered reliable may still publish articles that fail WP:RS and especially WP:BLP standards for sources. In this case, all the secondary sources disparage the subject, and appear to be caught up in local feedback loops. I interpret Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops to mean that we should ignore such sources. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC) "feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article"? You think the Deseret News, the Daily Herald and the Salt Lake Tribune are getting their information from Wikipedia? --GRuban (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the question. By "local feedback loops" I meant that the local news appear to have been caught up in feedback loops local to the area, and as a result repeatedly wrote poor-quality, disparaging articles on the subject. As such, the material is not "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Comment CSD states (which I'd missed): "a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." Isn't this an open-and-shut case at this point. The speedy is clearly invalid yes? ... Hobit (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Good point, but I think Wikipedia's approach to BLPs requires the same caveat, and BLP has changed significantly since the Sep '07 AfD. This is the second time this article has been deleted since. --Ronz (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC) It's still an invalid speedy and should be at AfD (and have attack-stuff removed if needed) rather than hit with a speedy. Hobit (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse Speedy deletion on BLP grounds: even if sourced, the tone is inappropriate and the amount of irrelevant content is too high. I agree that a focus on the business which includes relevant info about the proprietor could be appropriate, but the article in the form it was most recently G10'ed was a fair call. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn but rewrite slightly to overcome the negative BLP concerns. Not speedyable and probably quite notable, but the article as deleted does lean slightly towards the negative aspects. Rewriting to overcome this would improve the encyclopedia most. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC) endorse BLP trumps N so this is a valid action and doesn't preclude the production of a more balanced article. may of the keep votes seem to ignore the BLP aspects... Spartaz Humbug! 08:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Would you be willing to work with me to help balance the article? I did my best to avoid any BLP issues, but would love to know what you see as violating that. --GRuban (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 June 2010

Lucas Cruikshank – No consensus to overturn either the AfD close or its later modification by local consensus. No consensus as to whether the role of DRv should be expanded to consider these questions. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lucas Cruikshank (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Lucas Cruikshank has began branching away from only being a YouTube personality. His information is currently scattered around the Fred Figglehorn article. After proposing a split that stood unopposed for two weeks, I attempted creating the article here and here, which was quickly reverted. I hope that this article can be cleaned up as I propose. 117Avenue (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Speedy close -Merging and/or splitting an article is an editorial decision, and thus should be discussed on the appropriate talk page (which, indeed, it is.) Given the prior merge outcome of the AfD, discussing such a split before performing it makes sense, but there's really no action for DRV to take. I just checked the talk page of User:Seresin (the editor who reverted the split) to suggest he join the split discussion, only to discover that he, in fact, directed 117Avenue to open a DRV. With due respect, he is incorrect: a DRV is not necessary in this case. Furthermore, the split discussion has gone on quite a while with no negative input. Given that, I've boldly restored 117Avenue's version, as it appears satisfactory to me. Opposition to this should take place at Talk:Fred Figglehorn#Proposed split.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I intend to nominate the Cruikshank article for deletion if it is allowed here to split regardless of why, so I have no particular objection so this DRV's being speedy closed (though I do not advocate such action). ÷seresin 00:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Another AfD would not be entirely inappropriate, although your reasoning for opposing the split would be more than welcome at Talk:Fred Figglehorn#Proposed split.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC) As I recall, we did approve the change of Articles for Deletion to Articles for Discussion , though we never changed the instructions or even the titles of the pages. In that spirit, a disputed split or merge that can not be resolved otherwise could appropriately come here--in practice we often end up doing it anyway: discussion here can sometimes lead to a merge result. The other means of Dispute Resolution aren't necessarily well adapted for this. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Would that mean we'd have to change "deletion review" to "major editorial decision review"? –MuZemike 16:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Comment: Allow article recreation, but it will be subject to an AfD. Suggest that 117Avenue first create draft in userspace (hit me up if you want me to review before going live. I suspect many are unaware at the depth of coverage on this guy.)--Milowent (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I linked to the drafts in my first comment, and they are currently occupying the pages. 117Avenue (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Paint Crew – Duplicate complaint, nothing to do here. – Jclemens (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paint Crew (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) What's wrong with their website and uSAtoday? How is that not good enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.125 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC) The WP:GNG requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. THeir own website fails the independant part of that, of course they'll write about themselves, anyone can do that, I could - wouldn't make me notable. The USA Today fails as (1) it isn't about the paint crew and doesn't mention them it's about the arena and (2) Even it's coverage of the arena is trivial covering just a few sentences. The other sources in the article were things like blogs (isn't a reliable source) or comments made on articles which also aren't a reliable source. If you want to fix this find somes references which talk directly and in detail about the paint crew (not things/people associated with them, but the paint crew itself). If you post some such links here then people will be better able to evaluate if a viable article meeting the standards can be met --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Speedy close – already discussed a week and a half ago at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 11#Paint Crew with the same reason; it's also likely that all the IPs are from the same person. This is pretty much disruptive at this point, and this should be added to WP:DEEPER. –MuZemike 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I know who this is – this is the anonymous coward(s) from Southern California who has/have been wikistalking and harassing Ricky81682 ever since his block of Okip. [19] and [20] nail it right on the head. –MuZemike 18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 June 2010

Don Martin (public affairs) – Deletion endorsed. The consensus below is that the ultimate close of the AfD was within admin discretion. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Don Martin (public affairs) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) As the closing admin, I wanted to get the input of others on this unusual case. When I first read the AfD, I felt that the claim to notability was marginal at best, but that there seemed to be a solid consensus forming in favor of keeping. This was particularly true in light of the rush of keeps near the end of the AfD. I was also pursuaded, in part, that somebody claiming to be the subject was involved with the AfD. That person at first was not sure about keeping the article, but eventually !voted in favor of keeping. After the AfD concluded, somewhat of an edit war broke out on the page and as the closing admin, a few requests were brought in to see if I could help mitigate the situation---which I was planning on doing tonight. When I logged on this evening, I discovered that the subject and about half of the participants in the XfD were involved in a Sock/Meat puppetry issue. Based upon the Marginal notability of the person involved, the abuse of system/self promotion, deception by the subject, etc I decided to go ahead and delete the article. Based upon this history, I wanted to have this reviewed by others. IMHO, this should either remain deleted or be sent back through AFD... but I wanted input from others and won't take an over rule personally. ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC) NOTE: Per a request at my talk page, this has been userfied at User:GregJackP/Donald G. Martin User:Milowent /Donald G. Martin.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC) wow, that is very odd, I can see why your brought it here. I'd say a relist is probably the right outcome, but deletion isn't at all unreasonable given the issues. So weak endorse with a suggestion that a relist might be the best way to go. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn or Relist - With all due respect to Balloonman, I believe the AfD was closed incorrectly. Ty posted a copy of the AfD discussion with the socks redacted at User:Tyrenius/M - it clearly showed that 4 reliable editors wished to !keep, and that 3 reliable editors wished to !delete. The subject/puppetmaster also showed !keep, if that matters in this DRV. At best (understanding that this is not a !vote) there is no consensus, and certainly not consensus for deletion. At worst, it should be relisted. GregJackP (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC) GregJackP, would you please disclose your obvious connection to the subject. I seriously have my suspicions that you are actually the subject of this aricle, right back in here in some devious way strongly trying to keep and manipulate the data in the piece. Why are you fighting so stridently against the deletion of a pile of advertising crap from the site? It is not even an interesting article, for crike's sake! Your behavior again smacks of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares Your opinion is not the only valid opinion. Please refrain from making attacks at people who disagree with your point of view, especially since so far your most compelling argument has been "who cares about some egotistical PR manager ". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Greg, just to remind ya, AFD is not a !Vote, but the strenght of argument is weighed. As the primary claim to fame is his book, he fails WP:Author. When I revisited the discussion, I also had to weigh when some of those keeps weighed in. As they did so after a number of socks stepped in, you have to wonder what effect the Socks had on their !votes.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I agree completely that it is not a !vote. I also agree that he fails WP:AUTHOR, but felt that he met WP:GNG - with the coverage from the lawsuit (most of those refs were removed in the consensus on the content, including a national trade publication) and several other refs over the years, I thought he met that standard. Part of the issue was the unmitigated garbage introduced by the socks, which is why I thought Ty's post (above) would help. GregJackP (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Actually AFD is a !vote. The ! in front is the negation operator. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse with barnstar. What an excellent decision.—S Marshall T/C 06:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC) :Restore and relist. Tough circumstances - closing admin has said he/she won't take it personally and this !vote of mine certainly shouldn't be taken as criticism. Once we ignore the keep socks, there were still enough reasonable arguments on the keep side to stand in the way of deletion. And there wasn't a hell of a lot on the delete side; at least not enough in my view to constitute consensus to delete. Restore the page, lock it and the AfD down if need be, and relist.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I'm changing my mind now that I've seen Balloonman's comment at 14:50, 18 June 2010, suggesting it would have been closed as delete until the late socking was taken into account. This makes me confident that the deletion wasn't a direct response to the socking, but rather a restoration of the close that would have been made but for the socking. And that close would have been within discretion.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Just to add to that point, personally, I do not believe that notable subjects should have too much say in wether or not they have an article. If they are notable enough to have one, they are notable enough to have one whether or not they want it. (Although they can ask and their opinions should be taken into consideration on the subject.) In my original statement, I indicated that if Don changed his mind and wanted to have the article deleted, I would support that request. I made that statement because I found the case to be that borderline that the socks did sway my stance. I also took the comment he made at the SPI as an indication that the best course of action would be to delete it. (Which is why when I was asked to undelete, I said no, but would open a DRV on the subject.)---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Restore and relist: as Balloonman said, it's worth wondering what effect all those socks had on the process. I think this should be relisted now that the sock army have been dealt with, as I don't feel there was any clear consensus for delete with the removal of the sock comments from the AfD. Note also that notability had been discussed on the talk page for the article towards the beginning of its discussion history, and consensus was reached that it was notable (one participant was Austin3301, one of the socks, but other unrelated editors such as myself and GregJackP also contributed to this discussion). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Giftiger, please disclose your connection to the subject. The way you, Minor4th and GregJackP are carrying on about this, taking it to deletion review and so forth, it begs the question: Why is this handful of editors arguing so vehemently against deleting this article? It just doesn't make any sense, no matter how objectively I look at it. I believe you, Minor4th and GregJackP are all involved somehow with the subject of the article or it would not matter that much to you. Why are you arguing so strongly in favor of keeping the article? It is ad garbage! No value to Wikipedia! If it is worth keeping, please explain why you think it should be kept from Wikipedia's standpoint and not Don Martin of Don Martin Public Affairs in Austin, Texas. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares I have done a very thorough job of explaining why it should be kept from the perspective of wikipedia in both the AfD and here. I have no connection to the subject whatsoever and this is not the first time you have accused (not even asked, but accused) myself and all other editors collaborating on this article of this. If you continue to make unfounded accusations I will consider it a personal attack. The statements you have made here clearly demonstrate that you haven't made any effort whatsoever to read, understand, or respect the opinions of others and I will not be responding to any further accusations or unfounded statements; next time I will simply template you for personal attacks or not assuming good faith, whichever is most appropriate. Thank you. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Restore and relist - Close call. I understand the close given the sockpuppet circumstances, but I personally participated a great deal in the discussions and previous AfD and vetting of the subject and came to my own keep conclusion, along with other non-sock editors. I think there's a good chance that many of the keeps were legitimate and not influenced by the socks. I think a new AfD discussion is appropriate now that the socks are gone. Minor4th (talk) 06:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Minor4th, please disclose your connection to the subject and explain why you are so opposed to the deletion of an obviously fringe attempt at self promotion. You are the one who nommed my first article, Valley Entertainment Monthly over the edit wars we had on the Martin piece. You think a newspaper is less notable than some stuffed shirt from Texas whose business effectively is hired by private corporations to influence public opinion? Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares Reply - This comment from Nineteen Nightmares is intolerable on several fronts. First, I have nothing to disclose. I do not know the subject and have no connection to him or his business in any way. I got involved in this debate by responding to a RfC on a legal issue about the lawsuit. It was my intent to limit my participation on the article to that one comment, but I got drawn in to the drama. Second, we did not have an edit war on the Martin piece -- you included an external link to an unsourced document that had nothing to do with Martin or the article, and you called it "full transcript" when it was not a transcript at all; I reverted your edit, and if I didn't call it vandalism it was only because I was assuming good faith. If the article had not been deleted, I could provide a diff. In response to reverting your edit, you accused me of sock puppetry, COI, attempting to own the article, taking it too personally, etc. You then reported me to AN/I noticeboard as a persistent vandal or spammer, but you have apparently not taken to heart the outcome of that report or the counsel you received when you were blocked. This is about the fourth or fifth time you have accused me of a conflict, and that is ludicrous, as has been pointed out to you several times. Third, the BLP policy applies to all Wiki pages as I have learned and it's inappropriate to refer to Mr. Martin as a "stuffed shirt" -- and in the interest of full disclosure, it is I who initially referred to him as "co-sleaze #2" and was reprimanded for my comment as being disrespectful and in violation of the BLP policy, which it most certainly was. And finally, my AfD nom of "your" (speaking of WP:OWN) VEM article has nothing to do with Don Martin other than the fact that I became aware of the non-notable subject as a result of my participation in various Don Martin discussions. You habitually attack editors and make these absurd accusations whenever another editor disagrees with you. Your behavior has been the subject of many disruptions, a block, and various admin attempts to bring you into the realm of civility. Your participation on the Don Martin has been nearly as egregious as Don Martin's and the socks. You cannot accept the idea that your edits are not the last word or that consensus might not support your view. You rarely make a comment without including some seriously offensive insult directed at someone who just happened to disagree with you. Please stop. -- Minor4th (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I'm not sure where it can be inferred that any editor participating in this discussion ever viewed AfD as a straight numerical vote. The purpose for summarizing the previous keeps and deletes was to determine if there was a consensus without the socks. There was clearly no consensus when the socks are ignored, but there was a rough consensus in favor of keep. In either event, policy instructs that the article is kept and the AfD closed. I know Balloonman said that he was leaning toward delete until the last few keeps, but looking back at the XfD, three out of the first five votes were "keep" so I'm unsure how the discussion could have ever been construed as a consensus for delete. Considering the strength of the arguments in favor of keep or delete, there is no way to come up with a consensus to delete. I have just spent a good deal of time reviewing the deletion policy, AfD process and the process for closing, and deletion review policy because I want to make sure I understand what actually is within the bounds of discretion for an admin to delete an article without discussion or without rough consensus. I have found that an article that does not meet the notability guidelines or verifiable/reliable guidelines can be summarily deleted. The AfD was previously closed with the comment "Marginal notability, but enough to be kept." The participation of socks does not negate the rationale for keeping the article the first time around. Ambiguous notability BLP's can be deleted if requested by the subject even if no consensus is reached. This does not apply either --although the notability of Don Martin is contested, his notability was determined by the closing admin to be sufficient for keeping the article, and the subject requested that the article be kept. Should his bad behavior override BLP policy or deletion policy? No. I don't see anywhere in policy that an entire AfD can or should be disregarded out of process because there were socks participating in the discussion. I do not believe that admin discretion reaches that far, even when dealing with sockpuppetry and even when dealing with BLP's. Having reconsidered this issue and after having reviewed the various policies and guidelines, I do believe that the article was improperly deleted against policy as a punishment or as a reaction to a puppetmaster and without consideration of the prior legitimate arguments in favor of keeping the article. Notability was established in the XfD, and this deletion review is not the proper place to take another pass at having the article deleted on notability criteria. Giftiger, you probably don't completely agree with me now that I have changed my opinion about the appropriate bounds of admin discretion (and nothing personal, Balloonman, it's just my evaluation of the policies and guidelines I read). Minor4th (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Bewilderingly, there appears to be support for returning this marginally-notable BLP that's creating sockpuppetry and conduct issues to AfD, thereby at least temporarily restoring it instead of giving Balloonman's outstandingly wise decision the snowball endorse that it deserves. In view of this would anyone object to me linking this discussion on the BLP noticeboard for their input?—S Marshall T/C 11:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I think that is an excellent idea. We need as much light on this one as possible. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares With the sockpuppets dealt with (hopefully for good), I'm not sure there's really a reason to list this on the BLP noticeboard anymore; the article seems well sourced and there are no longer interfering influences from sockpuppets to disrupt the consensus process. Clearly there is some debate as to its notability and other concerns though, so I have no objection to it being listed on the BLP noticeboard to better discuss this issue. I believe it should also be returned to AfD however, in any case. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Restore and relist as an outside observer of this whole affair - it seems that restoring the article in the shape that Tyrenius left it, without any socks, and hopefully without any more to come in either direction it might actually survive, although it might not either...Modernist (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse closure I feel the closure was well within normal and reasonable admin discretion. Sure the keeps and deletes were split but we don't merely "count votes" here but rather weigh arguments and the issues regarding notability and sourcing compliant with Notability has never been overcome. Some people asking Balloonman to reconsider on his talk page seem to be viewing AFD as a straight numerical vote and just counting the bolded deletes and keeps, which I think is unfortunate. I don't have any objection to another AFD and in light of the tainting of the last one by socks, I was intending to take it back there anyway, but I really don't find this closure objectionable or problematic and I'm quite comfortable endorsing it. Sarah 14:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I have to disagree, and find your position to be a little disingenuous. On the closing of the SPI, I believe that you noted that the !vote was tainted by the socks and that it should be readdressed. My purpose in noting the count was to show that there was no consensus, not to state that the numerical count was what was the deciding factor. If one looks at both the history of the article (and its archives), there were numerous refs that proved notability, and not just from the local area (i.e., the NY Times article mentioning Martin). It is my contention that the irritation over the puppetmaster's actions clouded the issue and made the arguments of reliable editors be summarily dismissed. To summarily dismiss these arguments is an abuse of discretion, IMHO. I believe that this is also the position of Minor4th, Giftiger and Ty, or at least that is how I understood it. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Er, wow, okay "disingenuous", that's rather insulting. "On the closing of the SPI, I believe that you noted that the !vote was tainted by the socks and that it should be readdressed." So what? Of course the AFD was tainted and it needed to be readdressed and Balloonman has readdressed it by reconsidering his closure in light of the SPI. After the SPI results came back, I suggested to Balloonman that he might want to look at the SPI and revisit the AFD, so I'm not sure what the problem is or what's so disingenuous about me being satisfied with the fact that he did exactly that. Balloonman was clear in his initial closure that the notability had not been clearly established and the keep was pretty borderline and he noted that he'd support deletion if the article subject requested it - that's not an option we offer people who are clearly notable so it's indicative of how borderline the closure was. Thus I don't consider his subsequent closure of delete as being very far away from the initial closure of keep that was so borderline the subject's opinion would be enough to tip it over into a delete, and so I find the reclosure reasonable and within typical admin discretion. Additionally, I raised the issues of the questionable and borderline notability and the lack of the type of sources required by the notability criteria a number of times, even pointing to Balloonman's closing AFD note, so this isn't something I'm just pulling out of my ear because I'm annoyed with the socks and I find that suggestion really insulting of my integrity as an editor and an administrator. Here again you seem to be missing the point about the sourcing and notability. Sure, there are lots of articles - to use your precise phrasing - "mentioning Martin" and that's perfectly fine for verifying facts in the article, but it's not sufficient for establishing notability. Secondly, most of these sources "mentioning Martin" aren't actually about him but rather occurred during the course of his work as a pr specialist - quoting him from press releases, quoting him as a spokesperson or pr representative of an organisation, about projects he's involved with etc, i.e. typical articles you'd expect to see pop up for any working pr specialist and I don't see those types of articles alone as sustaining notability for a pr specialist any more than, say, having 100 articles written by a journalist would support their notability. We still require the type of coverage described in the notability guidelines in order to sustain an assertion of notability and justify the article. I still think you're missing the point about numbers - we've had AFDs closed - and upheld at DRV - which have actually gone significantly against the majority commenting on the AFD. The closure can and will go against the majority if the strength of arguments are with the minority, so looking at a 50-50 split and claiming that means there's no consensus is misunderstanding the way AFD works and the way that admins look at them. Sarah 06:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC) An example of an AFD being closed against the clear majority and subsequently upheld at DRV is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Masse, with 7 keeps against the nominator and a weak delete, closed as delete and upheld at DRV here. This is obviously a very different situation to the current case but I'm just using it as an example for the people not very familiar with AFD and DRV who don't seem to understand the issue of numbers and strength of arguments. Sarah 10:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Abuse of discretion was probably too strong on my part, but I still believe that the arguments of reliable editors were discounted due to the actions of the socks. GregJackP (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Sarah, my comments above were not meant to be insulting, I was just trying to explain how it came across to me. My impression of your comments was that the AfD !vote was tainted by the socks - as it clearly was - but then that once the socks were removed, we discard the reasoning of the other, presumably reliable, editors? It would be just as easy for any of us to feel insulted by the implication that our arguments were not valid or otherwise "strong" enough, but I have made a choice to WP:AGF and believe that you have a different opinion, not that you are belittling us or our arguments. I agree that mere mention of a PR specialist's name is not sufficient for notability, just as I believe that the single book on postcards does not confer notability, but that is not the only thing here. There are references for his involvement in Legi/Slate and the Texas Government Newsletter, in the TDSL/WMI lawsuit (the later had numerous refs explicitly discussing Martin and his role), etc. Reasonable people can disagree without taking it personally. As I stated, my comments were not meant to be insulting, but to point out a stance that appeared to me to be inconsistant. At no point did I impugn anyone's integrity, nor do I believe that any of the admins involved are just pulling things out of thin air - but we are all human and subject to error, mistakes, emotion, and inadvertant mis-interpretations. I just think that Wikipedia would be better served to relist, and don't see a point to one's statement that the other side does not have a clear understanding of either the AfD or DRV process just because they are making a different argument. Perhaps S Marshall's idea of listing this on the BLP noticeboard will help by getting some fresh eyes to look at this - I know it worked when SheffieldSteel came in to look at the lawsuit section. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC) (ec)Just for the record, when I first read the AFD, I was leaning towards delete to begin with because I didn't think a book on postcards established notability and with his removal from the lawsuit it diminished that facet as it was clearly a case of WP:BLP1E. But Don's support of keeping the article and the flood of "puppets" at the end, pursuaded me to keep it--which is why I prefixed the original keep with "Marginal notability." Those puppets/Don, pushed my decision to keep. But again, I have no problem if we decide that Don's actions tainted the process enough that a new AfD is required.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I wouldnt call it an abuse of discretion. I think it's within Balloonman's appropriate sphere of discretion to delete the article under the circumstances. However, I think a better practice, considering the non-sock editors who spent a great deal of time on the article and AfD discussions, would have been to notify such editors and seek input before deleting. At least three of the major contributing editors (4 including Ty) seek review and/or prefer that the article be kept. I am not pleased at all with the behavior of the numerous socks and the manner in which they manipulated the article and related discussions, but the fact remains that I and others spent considerable time and effort balancing the article, vetting the subject, and very carefully considering notability as well as reliability and verifiability of sources. Who enjoys seeing their efforts laid to waste? -- Minor4th (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Kinda like you nominating my first attempt at contributing here, Valley Entertainment Monthly which you know I spent considerable time trying to improve. How can you say this stuffed shirt from Texas (an individual with spotty refs at best) is more notable than a paper with the following interviews: Stan Lee creator of Spider-man, Incredible Hulk, Fantastic Four Mart Nodell Beat Farmers before Country Dick Montanta died Kevin DuBrow now deceased Ian Moore Mart Nodell creator of the Green Lantern, 1940. Frankie Banali among many others. Real non-notable. Its nice everyone is so objective here. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares Completely agree with Minor4th here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, seeing your efforts laid to waste is always a risk in participating in this project. It's something you have to learn to tolerate if you want to contribute to this project. It also doesn't matter what the contributing editors want. The contributing editors have a vested interested and have stated they don't want to see their work go to waste, so they're invested in the outcome. This is purely about whether the deletion was within policy - not whether you agree with it or whether Martin agrees with it or whatever. Sarah 06:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Just to clarify, obviously the fact that I put such a degree of work into contributing to this article is going to mean I don't want to lose this work, but more importantly I feel that throughout this process, a collaboration of at least 4 previously uninvolved editors agreed that the article was notable, reliably sourced, and suitable for wikipedia, and agreed on changes which could be made to overcome the problems of POV and the appropriate level of detail on various sections in the article. We gave the article a thorough vetting and it's not simply that I don't want to see that work wasted, it's more that that work's primary aim was to evaluate the article's suitability in the first place; but it seems to me that all four users in support of keeping the article at AfD are being disregarded because of the actions of a group of socks, it deserves more thorough discussion with the exclusion of these outside influences; a lot of rather weak arguments for deletion were thrown around the AfD, and at one point NineteenNightmares made some very scathing comments and accused many of us being sockpuppets before the sockpuppets actually joined the conversation, as well as dumping the contents of his talk page into the AfD discussion in an attempt to obstruct the process. I'm not sure if NighteenNightmares has a personal issue with the article, but he was one of two or possibly three delete arguments I believe, and the arguments essentially amounted to "I don't like it". It should speak volumes as to his own personal motives here as he filed the AfD immediately after it was closed as keep not once, but twice, with procedural closes both times. This should not be taken as a personal snipe at NighteenNightmares, but I did feel that his arguments on the Afd perfectly demonstrated why the keeps seemed to have the advantage both in terms of numbers (which of course is not important) and strength of arguments (which is). With the exclusion of the sockpuppets now, I feel that a new AfD would better reflect consensus, and given the unusual circumstances and that there didn't seem to be a clear consensus reached in the last AfD (though I maintain that it seemed to be swinging towards keep), a future AfD should be very carefully considered before being closed in either direction. Sorry for the essay. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not trying to defend 19NIghtmares (I've been very critical of his behaviour, have given him some very strict warnings and declined his unblock request) but I think it's very unfair to start making this about someone who has elected to not even participate in this discussion. This isn't about the personalities involved and there have been a number of very problematic editors on both sides so I really don't think it's productive to start going down that path. In all fairness to 19Nightmares, I think he inadvertently got the idea about re-nominating the article from me. I told Martin that if he would not release his intense grip on the article and allow it to undergo normal Wikipedia editing so it could be brought in line with policy, it would end up having to go back to AFD and I pointed out Balloonman's clear closing comments that the "keep" was borderline and that there were still outstanding issues that needed to be resolved. Not long after, 19Nightmares renominated it. I obviously didn't mean him to go and do that and had he allowed me to give him advice, I would have suggested waiting at least a month or two as an AFD four days after the last one was closed is just not going to fly. I disagree that 19Nighmare's arguments amount to "I don't like it". His arguments are based on the subject not being notable, the sources not being sufficient to support a claim of notability, and self-promotion. As for the claim the AFD is being disregarded, you're misunderstanding this completely. Please read Balloonman's comments above where he explains very clearly that he did not delete the articles in reaction to the socks, that when he closed it originally, it was very borderline and without the late votes from the socks, he would have closed it as delete. Balloonman is a very honorable man so I have no reason whatsoever to doubt his word on that. This is not disregarding the AFD. Also note one of the people who participated in the AFD and voted to keep, DGG, an administrator, has endorsed the closure. Sarah 10:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Balloonman's reason for deletion recites the subject's deception and abuse of process. Honorable as he may be, it cannot be said that Balloonman did not delete as a reaction to the socks. Although DGG now endorses close/delete, in the XfD DGG found Martin to be notable. How can this be explained as anything other than a reaction to the socks and disregard of the previous AfD? --Minor4th (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC) "it cannot be said that Balloonman did not delete as a reaction to the socks" *Blinks* Uh, yes it can - that's exactly what he and I and others have been telling you! As for your question about DGG, it can be explained by simply believing that DGG sincerely believes the close is reasonable. You can see below for DGG's own explanation. Sarah 07:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Balloonman said at the start of his revised close that it was a reaction to the socks: "Revised verdict to Delete based upon [21]." Ty 08:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC) He's explaining why he's reviewed his close, that he reviewed it because the SPI revealed the AFD was infested with disruptive socks. That doesn't mean that he deleted it "as a reaction to the socks". There's a very important distinction between evidence prompting someone to review their closure, and someone closing as delete because of the evidence. The act of reviewing the AFD was a reaction to the revelation of sock disruption, the deletion was not. As I've said, Balloonman says that he didn't delete as a reaction to the socks and I have no reason to disbelieve him. Sarah 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Of course I'm aware that seeing one's effort laid to waste is the risk of participating here. Sarah, it seems you're parsing words from my comment out of context. As Giftiger said, the whole purpose of that effort was to discern notability, the result of which was a keep based on sufficient notability. No doubt Balloonman is an honorable man, but even honorable men make mistakes. The deletion was out of process and outside policy. The article closed with a keep on grounds that did not change when the socks were disregarded. It was then closed without discussion and unless anyone is saying that Martin was notable two weeks ago and now he's not, the close/delete was against policy. At a minimum the article should be relisted for AfD because in fact this discussion has turned into what amounts to an AfD discussion on notability. Minor4th (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC) No, it wasn't "against policy". I don't mean this to be insulting, but you're still very inexperienced (400 edits and two months) and so far all the uninvolved experienced editors, admins (including an admin who participated in the AFD and voted to keep), and an arbitrator have all endorsed the closure as within the admin and deletion policies. Of course people make mistakes and I understand you're upset that your edits have gone to waste but the community doesn't agree with you that he did make a mistake. Your comments there about the AFD make me think you still don't understand the process. I'm not going to continue replying here because its apparent the deletion is being endorsed, so there's no need to waste further time discussing it, but I see from your contribs that this was your first AFD and I'd just like to encourage you to spend more time at AFD and get more experience and I think you'll then get a better understanding of it. Sarah 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (ec) Restore and relist Thanks to Balloonman for raising it here. I felt his decision was an attempt to settle the matter cleanly, but the presence of the socks had a disproportionate effect in undermining others who wanted to keep the article. As mentioned above I've done a rough edit at User:Tyrenius/M to see what it looked like without the socks, and posted a summary at User_talk:Balloonman. What impressed me was the reasoned strength of argument by the four experienced editors who wanted to keep the article (and a fifth who questioned deletion), including DGG, who argued, "I think the varied aspects make him probably notable. The one that I think is clearest is codeveloper of Legi/Slate, important software about which we ought to have an article." Martin is also a significant figure in another article, Texas Disposal Systems Landfill v. Waste Management Holding. On the delete side were only three editors, including the nom, who did not revisit the discussion following his initial one sentence; Nineteen Nightmares was the main proponent of deletion, and fails to convince with arguments such as, "who cares about some PR firm or its egotistical owner? Notable or not, this type of article doesn't have any business being on Wikipedia." Ty 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I think it's stretching it to say that Fred was questioning deletion. He was questioning a strange rationale to "speedy delete" (which then swung to the opposite extreme and became a "speedy keep") but Fred offered no opinion on this particular article whatsoever. Sarah 16:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC) FYI -- It was my strong, speedy keep and the "strong, speedy" part was meant to be tongue in cheek as a kind of lighthearted jab at other votes that contained similar modifiers Minor4th (talk) 19:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC) It wasn't actually. Fred didn't reply to you- he responded to the 4804BT sock. It just looks now like he was talking to you because the socks have corrupted that page so much. There had been a comment at one point by 4804BT directly under your comment which was a speedy delete, then when Martin changed his mind and decided he would vote to keep his own biog, 4804BT came back and changed his comment to speedy keep. At some point (I can't be bothered going through the diffs to find it) the puppets refactored the page and removed 4804BT's vote, making it look like Fred was talking to you when he (and I) were not. 4804BT then came back and posted an entirely new keep. Sarah 10:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse I would normally say relist, after an AfD affected so much by sockpuppettry, but in this case, for the reasons given by Balloonman in his closure, I think he made a good and perceptive closure making appropriate use of donoharm. (I did not think so at first, but re-reading it now, has convinced me.) My view seems to essentially be the same as S Marshall's DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC) As has been noticed above, this is a revised opinion from my opinion at the AfD. The purpose of Deletion Review is so we can review our earlier decisions--not just examine other people's opinions, but our own also. I thought it was possible to have a article: after listening to the discussion, I now realize that it would be fundamentally unfair to do so. I have never supported using "do no harm" when very extensive coverage has already been done in major international media. This is not such a case--this is a relatively minor figure that only barely meets WP:N. I have now read more carefully the legal decisions; the case is actually a precedent only for a narrow ruling about the nature of instructions to a jury, a matter which in no way pertains to him personally. This is one of the situations where "do not harm" was intended for. It may not be the primary role of an encyclopedia to be a vehicle for compassion, but it certainly not our role to be a vehicle for malice. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC) I can't see how "donoharm" applies, when the subject's own wish is to keep the article, with the knowledge that the lawsuit section was part of it. In fact, his wish to keep it was sufficiently strong for him to enlist several sock/meatpuppets to support him! Ty 09:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse, admins have particularly broad leeway in dealing with discussions tainted by irregularities such as socking, and they also have broader than normal discretion in dealing with BLPs. I simply do not see how that doubly-widened discretion has been abused here. T. Canens (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I certainly don't think that Balloonman has abused process here, and I don't think the decision should be overturned; but as a result of the previous disruption caused by sockpuppets, I believe this should be relisted at AfD and see what consensus says without the socks obfuscating the page. Even if this remains deleted, I believe the subject meets inclusion criteria well enough that it could be introduced at a later date after redrafting to make sure there's no COI taint left in it (though I believe all or at least most of that was removed by myself and other editors collaborating on this article.) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Articles can always be reintroduced, so long as they are not substantiatively the same as what was deleted. Non-notable individuals become notable or supporting documentation/evidence surface to prove their notability.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Indeed, that was what I was getting at here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Note: At this point in the debate, having explained my intentions, asked for objections and seen none, I listed this matter on WP:BLP/N.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Admin made a well informed decision well within admin discretion. This close would not stop someone from writing a well sourced article that shows notability at a later time. I commend Ballonman for re-evaluating the situation and making changes that seemed appropriate. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Balloonman thought that the article already showed notability. His first close said, "Marginal notability, but enough to be kept". Ty 18:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC) I reached that conclusion in part because of the wave of "keeps" at the end. Marginal means barely enough... notice I also indicated that if Don Martin wanted to delete the article I would support that position as well. If a person is truly notable, then, IMO having an article on WP is not something that the subject gets to determine. They can request that it is deleted, but unless the persons notablity is truly marginal, it shouldn't. Nor does a person generally get to keep an article because they are ok with it. But in the original close, I explicitly mentioned Don's !vote to keep. Why, because I found the arguments to keep that marginal---that without his support (and the socks), I might have deleted. When I revisited the AfD after the Socks were revealed, as indicated in my revised closing statement, I saw Don's comment about his professional reputation and how it bothered him. As I indicated in my original statement, if he changed his stance and wanted it deleted, I would support that request. That is how marginal I saw his notability. A law suit which is a clear case of BLP1E and a book that fails WP:AUTHOR.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Regardless of your reasoning, clearly you felt the article to be notable, even if only marginally. The addition of comments from sock puppets doesn't change the article from being non-notable to being notable, so I'm not sure why the sockpuppets changed your mind regarding notability if you were leaning towards not notable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC) In which case, you need to remember what conensus is all about. When writing closing statements/opinions, you need to incorporate the views as impacted by consensus. Here consensus was biased by Socks. Even with that input, I phrased my statement with several indicators that the article was marginal and that if the subjected wanted it deleted, I would have no problem supporting that rationale. Which I would only do with people whose absense would not be meaningful.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Strongly Endorse The subject of the article has made a mockery of Wikipedia, gamed it for his own selfish promotional and business purposes and continues to try and influence the piece. I worked on it for two weeks to try and clean it up and constant sock reversions of the sales data was enough to drive someone insane. Good job, Balloonman, as usual! Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares Just FYI, it is not being suggested that the article be deleted "forever", nor is that wikipedia process. The article may still be recreated later providing it addresses the issues for which it was deleted at AfD. In addition, an article does not become inappropriate because an individual attempts to manipulate it for inappropriate reasons. Such an article should be edited, not deleted, and if your entire argument is simply that a user has tried to manipulate the article, then this isn't a valid argument for deletion or for endorsal as it does not meet policy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Minor4th did the same thing on the first AfD for Martin with his "strong, speedy keep!" Did you chastise him, too? I doubt it. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares Personal attack removed from preceding comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Minor4th gave a detailed explanation of his viewpoint and justified it with policy. You did not. The two situations do not even compare. I have removed the personal attack directed at me from your previous comment. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Okay, I've changed it to "Strong Endorse." That should clear up any problems you're having with understanding my vote. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares Endorse admin Balloonman's discretionary criteria. As for the frustration expressed above by several of the contributing editors, the fact that all of us have put in many hours of work only to find our articles deleted for any number of reasons forms part of the rules of the game here. If the article in question is so meaningful and of such notability as to warrant several editors and at least three admins having to spend much time on it, please re-submit it with all the necessary modifications required to ensuring it is accepted at Wikipedia. Otherwise, let's please get back to deleting outright vandalism, proposing speedy deletes and wikifying worthy articles. And if there's any time left over, maybe we can create that pending article we all have on our desktops. --Technopat (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion as well within admin discretion. Balloonman has explained that he was initially inclined to delete, but was swayed by the support from what then turned out to be the subject's socks. In those circumstances his decision to change his close to delete seems to me perfectly justifiable, and his further decision to bring it here for review absolutely the right thing to do. JohnCD (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse I think Balloonman made the right decision here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse close/delete without prejudice -- suggest that the DRV be closed as endorse/delete without prejudice toward resubmission. There is enough support for Balloonman's close/delete, the Don Martin article has been moved to GregJackP's userspace for improvement; most of us have spent too much time on this issue when there are more productive uses of our time. In the spirit of donoharm, perhaps we should close this discussion and endorse Balloonman, with knowledge that the editors who care to improve and resubmit the article still have that opportunity. I will go back and strike my previous vote in favor of this one. Minor4th (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Comment - partially concur. I won't strike my desire to relist, but it is a moot point, there is clearly a consensus to endorse. So I agree with Minor4th that this should be closed. Plus, Balloonman has been kind enough to move the article to my userspace, where I can try and see if I can bring it up to standards. Don't expect anything soon, it is not my top project, and if I determine it is pointless, I'll abandon it, but I will give it a shot. If someone wants to help, let me know, I'll be glad to have you working with me on it. I think that we should also take into consideration what Jimbo said in regards to a related dispute and conflict on his talk page - "And that's for all of us to be a bit more forgiving and a bit less inclined to anger. Don't insinuate that people are being dishonest." Good advice. GregJackP (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC) GregJackP, please notify me if and when the piece is put back on the Main Page. Thank you. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares Sure, no problem. It won't be any time soon though. GregJackP (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse close This process (DRV) is basically designed to ask "did the closing admin follow consensus appropriately?" After reading the relevant related discussions, I am suitably convinced that Balloonman correctly interpreted the consensus based on the facts known at each stage. Orderinchaos 01:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) NOTE: GregJack just dropped a note on my talk page that he was http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABalloonman&action=historysubmit&diff=369689540&oldid=369382561 retiring.] Unless somebody wants to have the Don Martin moved to their namespace, I think it should be deleted from the namespace if/when this is closed. We shouldn't leave unattended BLP's in namespaces. If you want it moved to your name space move it yourself (and share the link here) or let me know and I'll move it for you.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Hey Balloon, is the retirement springing out of drama generated from this marginal BLP? I am happy to take over the page in my userspace, though I will probably stub it down to what's actually notable.--Milowent (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I don't know what his motive is beyond his comment on my page. I'm going to move the article to your space.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bulbapedia – Recreation not permitted absent some evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. – T. Canens (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bulbapedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Bulbapedia may not have had enough notability before to warrant an article, but it certainly seems worthy now. Here is the evidence supporting its restoration: Gamepro article In this article, Gamepro calls Bulbapedia "the Internet's most detailed Pokemon database project." Another Gamepro article Once again, Bulba is mentioned. Geekosystem They mention Bulba here, too. Official Nintendo Magazine They were mentioned in an official Nintendo magazine. Escapist Magazine Once again, a mention of Bulba. Meta:Talk:Interwiki_map/Archives/2009-11 Meta:Interwiki_map As you can see, they are listed on the interwiki map, here. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (writing_about_fiction) And I quote: Alternative outlets for fictional universe articles Some other Wikipedia-like projects prefer in-universe perspective. These are a good alternative for editors interested in such topics. The following is a partial list: Bulbapedia — Describes the Pokémon universe. Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create And I quote: 5. Any one of the 56 distinct regions in the Pokémon video game series or lieking mudkipz, or hering dat someon lieks mudkipz. Remember, not everyone is a Pokémon fanatic. Just most people, and they use Bulbapedia. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources It says here that because Bulbapedia is a wiki, it is not a credible source. However, Bulbanews is a moderated news network. That is a credible source, as they are always taking great care to ensure that their news and information is 100% correct. On the encyclopedia dramatica (which I cannot link due to the spam filter,) you can read a frequently quoted line from an infamous Wikipedia admin which mentions them by name. I quote: From Ryulong To "Aywana Txxxxxxx" < xxxxxxxxxx@lycos.com> Listen. I don't care if you are 13, or whatever. Stop vandalizing my page at the Japanese Wikipedia. It's your own fucking fault for impersonating me TWICE and I got my user name changed to the one that I should have had in the first place. Go edit Bulbapedia. I couldn't care less what you do over there. If you want, bring up your ban to the ArbCom at the English Wikipedia, but then all you can edit is your case. Just LEAVE ME ALONE YOU GOD DAMN CHILD. Cnet article And I quote: "There are a lot of changes to previous iterations of the game, and if you want to read up on those, we refer you to the Bulbapedia article, since this is a review, not a list." Cyberciefs:Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes This book by Mathieu O'Neil mentions Bulbapedia in a list of encyclopediae. School Library Journal And I quote: "Bulbapedia, the Internet's largest informational resource on Pokémon (with over 16,000 articles on the subject), uses the words "information" and "database" to describe the Pokédex." Mania.com This article mentions SOVA, which actually began on Bulba. All of these links mention Bulbapedia. Some praise it, others use it as a reference. Library Gaming Tool Kit Games Radar Article Another Games Radar Article Yet another Games Radar article Another from the School Library Journal Another Gamepro Article 1up.com Destructoid.com And another Games Radar article Given this monstrous amount of references and acknowledgements, I'd say Bulbapedia/Bulbagarden has more than passed the notability requirements. This is why I am requesting this review.Neo(T) 01:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comment: The deletion was over 5 years ago. I wouldn't object to a new article being created if it can meet notability guidelines. I am not sure if those sources are good, as I know little of Pokemon.--Milowent (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Response: Actually, it was recreated and deleted multiple times since the initial deletion. I think this is because it had been on AfD, of course. In addition, a previous review request failed on February 18 of 2009, I believe. However, this was all quite awhile ago, now, so I feel that it is necessary to take another look at it.Neo(T) 02:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, one more thing: On the credibility of these sources, a good few of them have Wikipedia articles through their owners. Dan Abrams owns Gamepro and Geekosystem and Demand Media owns Escapist, the School Library Journal, and Mania. In addition, the article before may need to get a bit of a rewrite, as it was probably not enough to properly communicate the notability of the website. I personally do not do so well with content (I'm more of a fix-it guy, myself,) so I'll have to leave that part up to others.Neo(T) 03:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comment the general notability guideline requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independant third-party reliable sources. The non-trivial part pretty much excludes anything which is merely a mention, lists etc. which seems to be all you list above. Reliable sources certainly excludes wikipedia - it isn't a reliable source. It doesn't matter how notable the sources themselves are if the coverage isn't non-trivial then it's no use, the source's notability doesn't rub off. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC) In situations like this, I would suggest a userspace draft is the way forward. I would probably be supportive of the article, but it's been deleted so many times that we need this extra step first. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Like they said, the sources have to talk about Bulbapedia in detail, and not be trivial mentions. If you can create a good userspace draft using sources like that, then maybe it can have an article. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I just wanted to agree with the statement by Blake: I'm not seeing any detailed coverage of Bulbapedia. If you think there is, could you highlight the one or two articles that go into the greatest depth? Looking over the first few I'm not seeing enough. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 June 2010

Mario's Cafe Bar – Speedy deletion overturned. The consensus below is that the article was not eligible for a G11 speedy as exclusively promotional. It may be listed at AfD at any users discretion. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mario's Cafe Bar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Page was speedied despite several citations to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. There's also the record holder status. I recognize that some in the community might feel that the subject is insufficiently notable, but the appropriate venue to make that determination is at AfD not via a speedy deletion. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn Assuming the 1 sentence version I see in the cache is what was deleted, I can't see how this is a G11. I suspect it meets WP:N, but no objection to a listing at AfD if desired. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse but permit recreation in more neutral terms The version I'm looking at is clearly promotional but there should be no objection to writing a new NPOV version - which will be much faster too as you can do that immediately and its going to take a week for this to close. Spartaz Humbug! 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Please temporarily restore the article so it can be assessed. I'm unable to see what you're looking at, but I know several citations and multiple sentences were included in the article at one time. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Since you wrote the article why would you need that? Just recreate it. I'll drop the references on your talk page but we certainly don't need to restore the price of large breakfast surely. Spartaz Humbug! 16:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Oh look you already have the text of the article at User:Freakshownerd/Mario's_Cafe and that was deleted several times under G11. Howabout you simply rewrite this to remove the faux advertising and stop wasting our time with bogus userfication requests. Spartaz Humbug! 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC) What's in my userspace is not the same as what was in mainspace, as you must be aware since you provided me with a group of citations that had been added. Are you purposely disrupting this DRV to prove some kind of point? An article with a reasonable claim to notability isn't a good speedy candidate. As a world record holder and a subject that has been covered in the media, AfD is the appropriate venue if you'd like to have the article deleted. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - Copy exists @ User:Freakshownerd/Mario's_Cafe - I endorse Spartaz's comments. Re-write and submit via WP:Articles for creation (as per the discussion on my talk page). Codf1977 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC) What's in my userspace is not a copy of the article that was in mainspace. Numerous additional citations were added and I believe the content was also expanded. The article makes a very clear claim to notability, record holder in Guinness booki of world records, and included citations to substantial coverage in reliable inddependent sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC) References included: http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/4648566.Food_fight_over_who_serves_the_biggest_breakfast/ http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/4448355.Mario___s_brekkie_gut_buster_gets_internet_fan_club/ http://www.supersizedmeals.com/food/article.php/20081209-10_egg_Big_Breakfast_Challenge http://www.cityam.com/the-capitalist/glamorous-dragon-has-sights-tv-den http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2988347/Worlds-worst-jumbo-junk-food.html http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/leisure/foodanddrink/eatingout/3943812.Bolton_s_amazing_10_egg__big_breakfast_challenge/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakshownerd (talk • contribs) 17:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry to be blunt - but did you actually read my last response on my talk page (see here) the CSD had nothing to do with notability but with promotion. Codf1977 (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Of course it's very difficult to dispute your claim of promotional content since you have yet to identify what in the article was promotional and since editors seeking to comment can't see what was there. Promotional content would seem to me to be an editing issue, and as there is no dispute that there is a reasonable claim to notability, the article should be restored. Please note that I've created several articles and I'm not interested in promoting any of the subjects, but if you can improve the content and bring up to a higher standard then please feel free. If you think I have a COI with the subject then you're welcome to take that up at th appropriate noticeboard. Freakshownerd (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Both Spartaz and I, here and at our Talk pages have given you advice on what you should do - there is nothing stopping you re-creating the page - I really don't see the reason to keep this DRV going any longer. Codf1977 (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Because the one-sentence article, at least, wasn't a valid G11 (IMO). I'm unclear what the problem is with restoring and listing at AfD. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn and list at AFD. Original text wasn't unsalvageably promotional, which is the requirement for G11 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Restore without prejudice to an AfD, no need to bicker over the speedy deletion.--Milowent (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn with a credible claim of notability and several sources, this is not a speedy-eligible article. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Tokyo Electron – Page recreated; history restored – NW (Talk) 06:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tokyo Electron is one of the Nikkei 225. LittleBen (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) The deleted text was "Tokyo Electron is the biggest producer of semiconductor equipment in Japan and the world's second biggest which was founded in 1963." There is nothing else there. Theoretically we can undelete this but really its needs a proper rewrite and community standards have changed in the last 3 years. It might have been a valid speedy in 2007 but not in 2010 but its pointless reviewing this now, just go ahead and create some real content there. Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC). Thanks, guess I can use the Japanese version as the basis for a new article. LittleBen (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Just rewrite it. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Restore Ridiculously notable. The stub that was there was a fine beginning. Very poor deletion decision. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC) We did things differently 3 years ago. Why wait a week when you can start again immediately? Spartaz Humbug! 15:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC) What was already created on this subject before being deleted improperly should be restored. If I could do that myself I would. I suggest you do so immediately so no more time is wasted in this discussion and we can all get back to improving article content. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Why? There is no reason why something as short as this can't be just recreated and the author can request a histiry undeletion anytime they like after they have done this without waiting a week for the DRv to run its course. We clearly won't overturn something 3 years old but will allow recreation so why not just do it and get the article back up quickly? Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Just do it-Anyone should feel free to just go ahead and write an article on the subject, no review needed. History restoration is fine, although I'm not sure how useful it would be if the content is as sparse as explained above.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Write the article- just start over. One sentence was deleted back in '07. Do you really need it restored? Reyk YO! 22:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Now moot, I see. Someone restore the page history properly so that we can actually comply with our copyright licensing promises, please.—S Marshall T/C 06:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Plineraynerslane.JPG – Request fulfilled. – T. Canens (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Plineraynerslane.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) It's currently at Commons, where a deletion request was made there. I would like to have this temporarily undeleted so we can confirm this is the same picture and understand why it was deleted from Wikipedia, particularly whether or not there are copyright issues. (The admin who did the original deletion is currently inactive.) Prosfilaes (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC) The uploader was User:Greaterlondoner but his userpage lists him as inactive as well. The pictures do look the same. Taking a look at the talk page I see that he simply wanted to revoke his GDFL release of the image. In such cases I don't favor deletion if the picture is useful since the license is explicitly not revocable, but Commons should follow whatever procedure they have for these cases. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Okay, thanks. The deletion request has been closed at Commons (as a keep), so this can definitely be closed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 June 2010

Sophie Anna Everhard – Deletion endorsed. There is no consensus below that the close was outside admin discretion, but there is consensus that a new article asserting notability through citations to reliable sources (which the deleted article lacked) would be appropriate if it can be written. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sophie Anna Everhard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) There was no consensus for deletion in the AfD, and no reason for deletion was given by the closing admin. Moorsmur (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Weak overturn to "no consensus" – that's a toughy, as a few of the arguments there on both sides were not terribly convincing. But I think cutting all that out, I still don't see a definitive consensus for deletion established. –MuZemike 23:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC) The relevant part of WP:ENT requires that the actress "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". No one in the discussion has shown that she had a "significant role" in two productions - the only one given as significant was Dylan Marvil. I accord less weight to claims that a guideline is satisfied when the argument goes against the guideline's plain text. Also, I should note that ÅlandÖland (talk · contribs) was subsequently blocked as a sock of a banned user. <sarcasm>Oh, and thanks for discussing it with me in advance, you know, as the instructions require. I really appreciate the chance to correct any mistake I have possibly made before being dragged to DRV. </sarcasm> T. Canens (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC) That AfD did not appear to contain any analysis of the article's sources whatsoever, and I do not see any evidence that anyone attempted to search for other sources while the debate was ongoing. It seemed to me that both sides thought they could get away with asserting their case instead of discussing the evidence. In fact, I find that AfD wholly unsatisfactory. I'm a bit tempted by MuZemike's view, but on balance I'm not sure I would want to go as far as overturning Tim Song in this case. I'd prefer restore and relist in the hope of getting a debate that's more helpful to the closer.—S Marshall T/C 23:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) The only sources in the article are an IMDB link and a link to the official website. T. Canens (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Which means there are no reliable sources in the article. It remains to be established whether one could be found (and I rather doubt it, but that's really AfD's job). Failing that, the AfD should exhaust the possibility of a valid redirect target.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Within admin discretion, especially once we punt AlanOland's !vote for being (a) crap and (b) from a banned user. But I recognise SnottyWong's delete !vote is not particularly helpful either. In closing based on objective strength of argument, weight must also be given to Glenfarclas's valid replies to the keep !votes. I say "within admin discretion" here because "no consensus" was open to be made as well and I can understand those that would argue that close would have been preferable. But DRV needs to recognise that there are many tough AfD calls and allow reasonable latitude for administrators.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Relist in my opinion, the actual article is borderline. (anyone who wants to see it might as well look at IMdB, for that's basically the information present in the article) But Snottywog's !vote should be disregarded entirely based on his self-admitted intention to vote delete on everything helped by the ARS. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse- Article was relisted so that consensus could be established, and the discussion thereafter was clear consensus to delete. And strongly protest DGG's attempt to discredit Snottywong's opinion by trying to paint him as some kind of knee-jerk anti-ARS zealot. This misrepresents both SW's stated intentions and his actual arguments at the AfDs in question. We've had two drama ridden threads on this issue already, and the overwhelming consensus is that Snottywong has done nothing wrong. So quit trying to find excuses to get people you don't agree with excluded from these discussions. Reyk YO! 07:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Those voting keep did not adequately demonstrate the assertion of notability to meet WP:ENT. No sources were presented to show this person meets the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 08:11, 17 June 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) 09:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to pursue his request by responding to queries. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC) overturn to NC per MuZemike. Neither side had a strong enough argument to claim consensus to do anything. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. I'm of course the one who nominated this article in the first place, but I do feel that this was well within the bounds of of admin discretion. Numbers-wise, the !votes ran four-to-two for deletion, discounting the vote of a blocked sockpuppet. Argument-wise, there's not much to say other than that the actress had one role in a straight-to-video movie, and two unimportant bit parts in single episodes of TV shows. The delete !votes established that; the keep !votes showed essentially no understanding of how to try to connect the actress's roles to to any actual guideline like WP:ENT.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Closure as delete seems to reflect consensus of the discussion and the status of the old article. That said, nothing prevents an editor from beginning a new draft in user space, adding reliable sources and addressing the concerns raised in the AfD, and then sending the closing admin a note about the new article. If the closing admin agrees that the new article is sufficiently improved, the new article gets moved into mainspace. Otherwise, we go back to DRV to determine that the new version is sufficiently different from the old that G4 doesn't apply. Also, the old article was pretty bare bones, but I have no objections to restoring it to place it in the WP:Article incubator. —C.Fred (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Vayden – Uncontested request to allow article, based on acceptable userspace draft. Unsalted title and moved article to mainspace – Jclemens (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Vayden (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) A couple weeks ago, the Vayden wikipedia page I edited was deleted for reasons I now both completely agree with and understand. Since then, I've put together a more fitting page, yet it seems I cannot recreate it with the new content because "it's currently protected and can only be edited by administrators." I was then directed toward this page. I'm unsure on what step comes next, so here is a link to my proposed page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MetalMilitiaESP/Enter_your_new_article_name_here MetalMilitiaESP (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Unsalt and allow recreation – I think the userfied copy looks good to place into the mainspace. –MuZemike 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Speedy unsalt because a user in good standing wishes to add good faith content and we boast that this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. No prejudice against a later AfD discussion if necessary.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation. I'm sorry if the directions were confusing but you managed to do exactly what you should have done. You've written a 'userspace draft' that clearly addresses the concerns that led to the deletion of the page and so I and others now support allowing its recreation. However, unsalting and allowing the page back will not prevent it from being nominated for deletion via WP:AfD if someone still fells that the band fails to meet the relevant notability criteria (WP:BAND). Eluchil404 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Joseph P. Overton – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joseph P. Overton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Wiki stated I could create the article Joseph P. Overton, who is not a living person but quite dead and also the originator of the Overton Window theory of policy and consequences among government and the public. Please restore the article as Joseph P. Overton is not copyrighted material nor was any content lifted word-for-word from any source. I did gain biographical info to write this stub from the Center where he was working when he died in 2003. Please restore this article. Thanks... Wikistubwriter (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC) According to google cache the article contained the sentence: He was a member of the State Bar of Michigan and was appointed by Gov. John Engler to the Michigan Appellate Defender Commission upon recommendation by the Michigan Supreme Court. [22] says - He was a member of the State Bar of Michigan and was appointed by Gov. John Engler to the Michigan Appellate Defender Commission upon recommendation by the Michigan Supreme Court. which appears a direct copy to me. However being a word for word copy isn't a requisite for copyright violation. If you can read both and easily see that one was derived from the other then that's likely a copyvio. I can't write my Barry Rotter novel about an aspiring wizard, it'd be a copyvio without copying stuff word for word... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Speedy endorse, clear-cut copyvio, no question of restoring. Of course there is nothing wrong with the nominator rewriting in his own words. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Strong endorse per Stifle and 82.7.40.7. Said material is under copyright by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy (as stated on the bottom of that web page). We don't copypaste or plagiarize here; we write stuff in our own words and then cite where we get our stuff from. –MuZemike 23:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 June 2010

Atlético Peruano – Closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Atlético Peruano (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article was kept because it was deemed notable under the claim that it was national league runner-up of 1915. However this team never played in the national league (1966-present) and never played in the professional league (1951-present). Therefore, in addition to the arguments listed on the AfD page, this team is not notable. MicroX (talk) 23:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) The claim is the national tournament, whether that is the same as a national league I guess is a question. That was referenced but I've just removed the reference since following the link evokes warnings of malware from Firefox and Avast. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse as accurate interpreation of deletion discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse – There were no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I don't see how this could have been closed any other way. Also, in the future, please try and discuss the AFD closure with the closing admin first – something which you did not do. That may sometimes save a trip here. –MuZemike 23:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Comment – but there were also no valid arguments against my nomination. Atletico Peruano never played in the national league which was the reason why the users GiantSnowman and Eldumpo believed it should be kept. Ok, next time I'll let the admin know; sorry about that. --MicroX (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse this closure, since it was entirely in accordance with the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Ok checklist... Verifiable. Check Not a BLP. Check Listed for 7 days minus some "change". Check No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Check Endorse close. Though no consensus or "relist" would also have been valid calls. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

WMEJ – Non-admin closure overturned and discussion reopened. – Stifle (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
WMEJ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Non-admin closed as "snowball keep" but the keep !votes were all of the form WP:ILIKEIT - the WP:BROADCAST inclusion guideline is just that: a guideline describing the kinds of subjects that will get non-trivial coverage. The article has no non-trivial independent sources and never has had, the sources are exclusively primary, including a record in a database of radio stations (see WP:DIRECTORY for why we don't mirror directories). I'd have no problem at all with a rewrite to add sources but this is a situation where a pile-on vote of people who think every radio station is inherently notable, appears to override the much wider consensus that articles must have non-trivial reliable independent sources. I did propose that we remove the "Wikipedia is not a directory" clause since in areas like schools and ice hockey it appears that we are a directory. This looks like yet another attempt to set up a corner of Wikipedia which is a directory. Guy (Help!) 07:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Admin is wasting the community's time. This was a snow keep from the very beginning and Guy is guilty of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. All radio stations (be them AM, FM, or LP) and television stations (be them full or low power) are notable and this has been held up by several AfD and countless admins on the case. Sorry if Guy (a Brit) doesn't think an American radio station station is notable and doesn't want to follow consensus, but where is there is there. This is a waste of the community's time and should be marked resolved per the AfD. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I am overturning this non-admin closure on strictly procedural grounds; WP:NAC specifically states that WP:SNOW non-admin closures are not permissible. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Steve Mckinnon – Keep deleted. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steve Mckinnon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I was told that i had copied and pasted what had been deleted before where each time. where i had actually edited it each time only small changes each time but was hoping to get help from the admin each time on where it was wrong if if it was write. i was also told by the admin that it looked like i was writting it on myself. you would hope that i would know more about myself then this or some one that i was conected with. i was also told it looked suspect as i had never edited anything before and now i was writting this. doesnt everyone have to start some where ? Trupwr (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC) This user has been asked several times not to keep reposting the same promotional text, but has done nothing else. I have tried engaging with him but he does not seem interested in discussing the issues with the content, only in reposting it, verbatim, time after time. Just taking "still going strong" off "Training from 4 years old with Shotokan Karata, reaching Black belt then started fighting kickboxing at age 16 now 32 and still going strong" does not actually fix the problem! Guy (Help!) 07:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Why don't you work on the draft copy and let us know when it's ready? WP:NCHD is a great place to get help. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC) the draft copy is ready Trupwr (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid the one source in the article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N or WP:BIO. Do you know of any newspaper coverage or other coverage of this person? If not, it's not going to make it here... Hobit (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 June 2010

Debrahlee Lorenzana – No consensus to overturn deletion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:17, 21 June 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) User:Courcelles closed the afd citing WP:Notnews and WP:BLP1E, yet Debrahlee Lorenzana has received coverage that extends beyond BLP1E. In fact, she has continued to receive coverage even today. As per WP:BASIC: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. As she has been the subject of numerous published material which qualifies for WP:RS, she is presumed notable. Some articles from today from Lorenzana&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1 google news Dressed for distraction?, Hindustan Times Call off the bod squad - this boob has been exposed, New York Post Andrea Peyser Takes on Debrahlee Lorenzana; Gets Called Jealous By Her Own Readers, The Village Voice Hottie Banker's Breasts Are Driving Andrea Peyser Crazy, Gawker Smallman12q (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - This woman is known for nothing else than getting fired for having a great rack, so what part of "one event" is confusing? Continued coverage for one event is still WP:BLP1E, as the closer correctly found these arguments to be better than the typical "keepitsnotable" entries. Tarc (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn - I don't expect this DrV go to anywhere, because there is a bias against articles on tabloid characters like this, notwithstanding huge international coverage, because some editors deem them unseemly. Anyhow, for deletion review, the question is whether the closer properly determined the consensus of those who participated. Here there was no consensus, it was evenly split. Maybe that was a dumb lack of consensus, but so it stands. As I noted in a civil back and forth with the closer, User_talk:Courcelles#Debrahlee_Lorenzana, "I find it interesting how the word 'consensus' gets mangled at times in support of closings. The term simply means 'the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned.' Consensus is a form of snout counting, but it is actually more biased against deletion than snout counting. E.g., a vote of 5-4 to delete would require a delete result in an AFD if we were simply vote counting, but that same vote demonstrates a lack of consensus if we are trying to determine consensus as to that article." In my opinion, the proper outcome would have been to either relist or to close as no consensus. When the closer ignores the lack of consensus and picks one side or the other, that's an application of a supervote, not a determination of what the consensus was. I realize this happens in contentious AfDs where the unseemly content make some feel it subjectively unworthy, but I do not agree with that point of view. Certainly, whether the deletion is upheld should be irrelevant to whether the subject has a "great rack." Its whether the rack is notable, as demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources, which it easily met here. WLP1E is a closer call, I admit.--Milowent (talk) 04:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - The user who requested the review is the same user who created the article and who was most active in arguing for keeping it. However, he has not yet managed to present anything that would come even close to demonstrate notability beyond WP:BLP1E. His whole argument in the afd-discussion, repeated again here, is that because she has been the subject of published material, she is notable. In doing so, he demonstrates a failure to understand the policy of WP:BLP1E. This WP:HOTTIE briefly made the headlines when she had some juicy pictures taken of herself and sold them to the press alongside an unsubstantiated claim that she had been fired, long ago, for being "too hot". So apart from being the subject of only one (very minor) event, she also looks to be engaged in self-pro motioning here. In short, the story was not notable, she is not notable, and Smallman12q, for all his many posts about this subject, has not succeeded in demonstrating that she is famous for anything else than WP:BLP1E. His continued insistence that you are automatically notable just because you have appeared in the press ("the subject of published secondary source material") makes me question whether he has even read and understood that policy. Last but not least - before the closing administrator made his decision, another administrator had already commented, saying that he had strongly considered closing it, and that he also supported deleting the article.Jeppiz (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Balloonman was right. The keep !votes were weak, pushing into WP:OR. The secondary sources were not about the subject, but the event. BLP1Es should be redirected to the article on the event, and deleted when the event itself is not notable. At worst, relist for more discussion, due to the fairly complex reasoning. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse I looked at closing this as delete myself yesterday but it appears I can't work out how to get my afd closing script and twinkle to work together so I didn't. Straightforward BLP1E case - I'm pretty sure that a biography needs to have more context then "girl with large norks gets publicity for claiming to have been fired for having said large norks and then makes money by .. er showing off said norks... Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse Basically a classic example of a BLP1E case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Looks like a defective debate, rather than a defective close, to me. The Telegraph article and the Daily Mail article, which should have been found and discussed at the AfD but weren't, constitute significant cleavage coverage in reliable sources. The coverage makes this a plausible search term. We can expect that there will be end-users who will search for Debrahlee Lorenzana on Wikipedia. However, the BLP1E point was convincingly made and not to be discounted; this lady doesn't merit her own article. What the AfD should have considered, but failed to even mention, was a redirect to Employment discrimination, which is an article that could seriously use some of the reliable sources I've just linked.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC) A redirect to Employment discrimination prior to the conclusion of her arbitration case would not be WP:NPOV.Smallman12q (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Why not? Her case is that she was discriminated against, and we can report that without saying she was discriminated against.—S Marshall T/C 18:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC) A redirect to employment discrimination would imply that there was employment discrimination.Smallman12q (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comment-I believe that I do have an understanding of WP:BLP1E. WP:BLP1E states: 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. Debrahlee Lorenzana continues to get coverage from reliable source 2 weeks after her initial "event". Instead, she now appears to be getting coverage for her hiring of Gloria Allred. Coverage from today Debrahlee Lorenzana (PICTURES): "Too Sexy for Citibank" Hires Celebrity Lawyer Gloria Allred, CBS 'Too Sexy' Banker Lorenzana Hires Feminist Lawyer, My Fox New York Bank babe busts out big guns, New York Post 'Too hot' ex Citibank worker now hires media-savvy feminist attorney, Sify Debrahlee Hires Superlawyer Gloria Allred, Who Says "Victim" Is A Hero For Surgically Enhanced Bankers Everywhere, Business Insider Smallman12q (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn The closer seemed to understand that there was no consensus but still wanted to arrive at a conclusion despite this lack of consensus. In this case, the result should either have been a result of no consensus or an extension of the discussion in the hope that other ideas might emerge such as the merger suggested above. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC) The comment above is an example of a misunderstanding that we see very often. Since we use the word consensus, some users seem to think that anyone can veto any decision. It is not required that all editors involved in a discussion reach a consensus, on the contrary, that is rather rare. Neither is an AfD-discussion a simple vote. It's the strength of the arguments that matter, so I cannot see any reason in saying that the decision should be overturned just because not everyone involved agreed. Then we could never decide on any article.Jeppiz (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC) If its only the "strength of the arguments that matter," could an article be kept if a vote is 10-1 to delete? Consensus literally means "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned," and here, there was no consensus because those participating were evenly split about what the outcome should be. The Colonel isn't saying it should be overturned because "not everyone involved agreed," but because there was no consensus (which by definition does not mean all must agree). If only "the strength of the arguments" matter, then the closing admin essentially becomes a judge and the numbers should be ignored. I have to imagine there are long old debates on what consensus vs. strength of arguments means somewhere in archives, maybe someone will point me to them.--Milowent (talk) 13:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I can't recall a specific example but there have been lots of cases where one good keep vote has trumped a hatfull of poor deletion votes. Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I can't recall a specific example either. The "merits of the arguments" view is traditionally used to justify deletion in despite of the snout-count. A keep against the snout-count is a very, very rare outcome.—S Marshall T/C 18:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Maybe but it works in favour of keeping articles at times as well Spartaz Humbug! 19:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Our system of "rough consensus" does not not require unanimity - outlying or maverick opinions may be overidden for the sake of expedience. But when the balance of opinion is evenly divided, as in this case, we have the very opposite of consensus. In such cases, it is quite improper to declare that a simple majority or narrow advantage constitutes consensus. That seems to have been the sense of the closer's statement - that one side had a marginal advantage - and so the close should be overturned as being non-consensual. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Nonsense, a bunch on non-policy based opinions cannot skew consensus away from well argued policy based opinions now matter how even the policy based and non-policy based snouts. Generally what counts in the close is what sources, how good are they and what is the overall opinion of those sources... Spartaz Humbug! 20:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC) No. It is a core principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and that our policy pages are not laws. Per ignore all rules, the community is sovereign in its pursuit of our overriding objective - construction of the encyclopedia - and so cannot bind itself with rules and regulations which trump community consensus. It is only external constraints of copyright and other real-world laws which can defeat the community and these are reflected in in our criteria for speedy deletion which were not applicable here. There was no decisive policy argument here - it was a toss up between interpretations of notability, not news and the like - largely subjective and discretionary and so best suited to a community verdict. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Invoking IAR to get a favored result in an AfD is the epitome of a losing argument, I'm afraid. Let's deal with the actual issue at hand rather than grasping for the 11th hour reprieve. Tarc (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Calling a 50-50 split a consensus is the epitome of a bad close. This is the actual issue here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC) So the "actual issue" is that you, once again, labor under the delusion that AfDs are head counts? Tarc (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Comment Aside from receiving additional coverage from her hiring of Gloria Allred, Debrahlee Lorenzana has recieved coverage from her firing of Jack Tuckner Debrahlee Lorenzana (PICTURES): Woman "Too Sexy for Citibank" Fired Lawyer, But Why?, CBS Shocker: Lawyer in Too-Hot Banker Case Has a Seamy Past, New York Magazine Bank babe fires lawyer after sex harass claims, New York Post Was Debrahlee Lorenzana's Former Lawyer Jack Tuckner Fired for Being into Spanking?, Village Voice Blog Debrahlee Lorenzana Trades Up: Gloria Allred Takes Her Case, Jack Tuckner Wishes Her the Best, Village Voice blog 'Too hot' ex Citibank worker fires lawyer after sexual harassment claims, Sify Smallman12q (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn If BLP1E applied, this would be a reasonable close, but it doesn't. "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." In no sense is she "low-profile". NOTNEWS might apply here, but we've generally allowed "news" stories when there is large amounts of coverage, and the !votes in the discussion indicated this is the case. Given the discussion I don't see how it can be closed as a delete outcome with BLP1E not obviously applying. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, I do think we need to drop this "special" treatment of tabloid style stories. Just because, IMO, this is a stupid story there only to get eyeballs, doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on the topic. We aren't suppose to make that call, the breadth and depth of coverage should. There is plenty here. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC) An appropriately titled article on the court case would be a good addition. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC) overturn Very notable, ongoing dispute. Claims that this is "tabloidish" are not viable given the serious discrimination issues that the situation brings up. There's no BLP issue given that the individual has gone out of her way to get publicity for her dispute, so the do-no-harm test says we aren't doing harm. The individual has international ongoing coverage in multiple languages, so BLP1E is not a good argument. Based on numbers result should have been no consensus at most, and there's no compelling policy reason to close this as deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Aren't you forgetting that there is nothing at all to back up the discrimination claim. Not a single witness, any written evidence or anything of the kind. As you quite rightly point out, this individual is actively seeking media attention for being "hot", the discrimination claim looks like a cheap marketing trick.Jeppiz (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC) What the evidence actually may be is irrelevant to the depth of coverage. But here the claim appears to be in the early or "complaint" stages well before any witnesses or evidence is called. See [23] (new article from today, good analysis of the legal claims at issue). But I've seen mention[24] of a "friend and former colleague", Tanisha Ritter, who seems a likely witness for her.--Milowent (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn Very substantial coverage and of lasting interest as the subject relates to sex discrimination and appropriate dress for the work place. Making the article about the legal dispute instead of the individual, if there is a case name or other title that can be used, would be fine too. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Most of what you say is pure speculation. At the moment, we have no idea of knowing whether there has been any sex discrimination or whether the dress at the work place has had anything to do with it. If this turns into a court case, the situation would change, but that doesn't look likely at the moment and speculation about how it may turn out is just crystalballing. Let's look at what we have at the moment instead: a woman who claims, without any evidence, to have been discriminated against for being too hot (long ago, but only discovered it now), then sells some hot pictures of herself to the media. I fail to see how any of that is notable.Jeppiz (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC) An otherwise non-notable individual may become notable provided that there is sufficient 3rd party coverage on that person from sources that fall qualify for WP:RS. As per WP:BASIC: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Debrahlee Lorenzana has been the subject of hundreds of pieces of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. I would also like to point out that there currently Debrahlee Lorenzana currently cannot sue Citibank due to a mandatory arbitration clause. The policy on Wikipedia is to maintain a WP:NPOV and as such we should speculate as to whether or not she has evidence of her alleged discrimination...that would go against WP:CRYSTAL.Smallman12q (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC) You made this point about WP:BASIC in more or less every post in the AfD so since it has already been address, I just repeat that your interpretation, that everyone who has been mentioned in published secondary source material automatically is notable, is contrary to how most of us understand the policy. Your other argument is new, but I don't see it strengthening an overturn. What you're saying is that there will never be a court case. Fine enough, that rules out every possibility that this event will ever have any impact on discrimination at work. All we're left with is a WP:HOTTIE making a claim about herself being too hot. Even though that has been publishedm I don't see it as very relevant or notable and even though there are a certain number of articles, they are all about the same non-notable event so WP:BLP1E still applies.Jeppiz (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) WP:BLP1E states 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. I'd like clarification as to what exactly constitutes an "event". Debrahlee Lorenzana was in the news for two weeks for what appears to be several related events: November 2009 suit suing citibank for alleged discrimination w/ pictures subsequently stating that it would be an arbitration case suggested that she would be fired from JPMorgan The publicity of the Discovery Video Starting Anti-Sexual Harassment Group called "Women Against Sexual Harassment" her firing of Jack Tuckner her hiring of Celebrity Lawyer Gloria Allred So do the above all constitute one elongated event? Or are they separate and related events? You also state that Even though that has been publishedm I don't see it as very relevant or notable and even though there are a certain number of articles, they are all about the same non-notable event so WP:BLP1E still applies. Could you please elaborate as to why you consider this/these event(s) to be nonnotable? What are you notability guidelines?Smallman12q (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse in my opinion a correct interpretation of consensus where valid arguments based on basic content policies (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) outweigh those based on Wikipedia:Notability - a guideline which should act within those policies. Guest9999 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Comment As of June 21, she is still receiving some coverage: Debrahlee “They Fired Me Because Of THESE” Lorenzana Adds New Shots To Her Defense, DealBreaker Debrahlee "Too Hot For Citi" Lorenzana Has A Twitter Account, A Facebook Profile, And A Bunch Of New Pictures, Business Insider Gloria Allred is the real avenger, HoumaToday Smallman12q (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Yogurtland – Unsalt and allow recreation from userspace draft at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yogurtland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Article was deleted in 2008 and is protected from re-creation. This is now a notable fast-growing international franchise [25] with over 100 locations. I have created an initial article which is ready to post. TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Where is the initial draft? I can't see it obviously in your recent edit history, it's often a good idea to post it such as User:TrbleClef/Yogurtland so the references used etc. can be seen. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC) OK, I've posted it there. TrbleClef ♮ (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Do not restore. The draft is a combination of indiscriminate information, directory type information, and promotion. There is no secondary-source content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Allow move to userspace without prejudice if nominated at WP:AFD. It may be promotion, but is not blatant promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I request temporary undeletion of the four deleted versions, including the author histories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted draft is really just a menu / product list, and the "sources" are its own website and a brief blurb on a trade website that doesn't look like a RS and isn't substantial in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Not yetRestore. I agree that the current draft is not ready for prime time. However, secondary sources do exist.[26] I've posted some suggestions at User talk:TrbleClef#Yogurtland on how to improve the draft.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2010 Article now has sufficient sourcing to demonstrate notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Restore Manifestly notable. Once it's up anyone who wants to can help improve the content. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Restore I have removed the indiscriminate information and added several secondary reliable sources to the article. This article from the OC Register is one example of the many sources about Yogurtland. I will work on the userspace draft later in the week, as it can be expanded from those sources. Cunard (talk) 06:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I have expanded and sourced the article from more secondary sources. This article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin is another source that provides significant coverage about Yogurtland. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Good effort Cunard, but did you read the first comment ("Must be a slow news week, now she's posting commercials, you column is getting lamer and lamer"). The sources with significant coverage of the subject, are they independent? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I don't see how a comment from a reader of the column can discredit its reliability/independence. The article clearly states that the author, Erika Engle, "is a reporter with the Star-Bulletin", a reliable newspaper. The article is written neutrally so I consider it an acceptable source to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC) The prominent comment detracts from the reputability of the article, the column, the author and the publisher. I believe that reputability is a necessary quality of a secondary source used to establish notability. It (the comment) is not a king hit, but is does resonate with my suspicion that some sources are non-independent (ie sponsored). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC) The comment, which must be reached by clicking on the "Read all 8 comments" link is not "prominent". I don't understand how an unfounded comment can call into question "the reputability of the article, the column, the author and the publisher". If you were not to factor the comment into your decision of whether or not the article is acceptable, do you consider the article to be promotional? Cunard (talk) 05:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC) The arguable underlying truth of the comment is the real issue. Yes, I think the article looks promotional, but more importantly, I suspect that the published sources may be surrupticious paid or for-favour promotion. I don't see real commentary on the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC) It seems that you are questioning the journalistic integrity of Erika Engle, a columnist for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin. That is a serious charge to make, especially when there is zero evidence of this being the case. I acknowledge that the article does not have negative commentary about Yogurtland but that doesn't mean that it is "surrupticious paid or for-favour promotion". An indicator that the article is not an ad is that Engle writes "Johnston [who established Yogurtland Hawaii Inc.] could not be reached for comment". If she were paid by him to write the article, there would likely be several quotes from him. However there are none. A second indicator is that the article erroneously reported that the price for yogurt would be 30 cents an ounce instead of 39. It appears that Engle had little contact with people from Yogurtland prior to writing the article. Cunard (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Those are good, valid points. Note that I am supporting the move the mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Allow creation- The draft as I first saw it wasn't quite ready for prime-time. The version now however, is a perfectly acceptable stub that passes muster from my point of view.Umbralcorax (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation Sources seem fine. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Restore-The franchise is large enough to be considered notable. There are some articles in Nation's Restaurant News.Smallman12q (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dieselpunk – AfD closure to delete endorsed, history restored behind redirect. Further discussion about how to create an article on the subject that meets Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines should be held on the article's talk page. – trialsanderrors (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dieselpunk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Overwhelming keep comments, closing admin recognised deletion would be contentious. Szzuk (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn as Keep An admin's job is to interpret consensus, while leaving the job of determining adherence to policy to those participating in the discussion. In this case, the admin cast a supervote that was in direct conflict with the actual consensus at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Those are the words I was looking for. Szzuk (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC) They're not votes though. The admin is allowed to go along with the suggestions in the review that are best aligned with the policy. The keep votes were not based on policy.- Wolfkeeper 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC) There is a reason the judicial system in the western world uses a jury and not diktat from a judge. Judges despite being clever, well educated and principled get it consistently wrong, a jury gets it consistently right. Admins have to stick to intrepreting consensus, not thinking they know better than consensus. Szzuk (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC) We don't have a jury system here currently, because our 'juries' are too easy to vote stuff, so we have a judicial system.- Wolfkeeper 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Keep, in the absence of consensus to delete Although I !voted to Keep this, I'd be pushed to claim that it demonstrated a clear overall consensus to keep it, or that the issues identified by the nom are addressed as yet. However there was certainly no consensus to delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) "Dieselpunk" is a word that's in Wiktionary (wikt:Dieselpunk) and as such should not in any circumstances be a redlink. We shouldn't have redlinks where we could more helpfully direct people to sister projects. I think the closest to "delete" that the debate might properly have come is "soft redirect to wiktionary". Since that option was not properly considered, the debate was unsatisfactory and it failed to give the closer all the options he needed to make a proper close. Normally with an unsatisfactory debate I would go with "relist", but there's no point sending this back to AfD, because there are no circumstances in which a "delete" outcome would be appropriate. AfD is not the correct venue for further discussion. I'll run with overturn to no consensusstruck, see below with a recommendation that a discussion should take place on the restored talk page about the possibility of replacing the current (poor) material with a soft redirect to Wiktionary.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn as above. Closer's role is to assess consensus, and to the extent the discussion reached consensus it found that the problem with the article were better resolved through the editing process than by deletion. The closer provided no valid policy grounds for overriding that consensus determination. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC) The closers role is to assess consensus with respect to policy, not count !votes. The keep votes do not seem to have been based on policy.- Wolfkeeper 16:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse That an AFD is not a vote is the most basic principle there is; it's not simply about consensus, it's about consensus about whether it meets our policies. !Votes are NOT VOTES! The article was deleted for being not being found notable according to any reliable sources; it is not an exaggeration to say that no reliable sources were found, even when they were looked for. The article really is just desperately trying to hide this unfortunate fact. If we allow this kind of article to remain in the Wikipedia, then the Wikipedia really is screwed, it becomes generally unreliable, because you can't rely on anything it says.- Wolfkeeper 16:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, this entire encyclopedia was created by consesnsus. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Uh.. no. c.f. with wikiality. We don't do wikiality. AFDs are about how things agree with the policies, not simply the majority in AFDs.- Wolfkeeper 00:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC) No, MichaelQSchmidt is right. Our customs and rules only continue according to consensus. Policy only has force of argument on the basis of the consensus that the policy enjoys, and subject to interpretation and arguments that more deeply explore the ramifications of past policy. Arguments at AfD should be informed by documented policy, and arguments are weak where they appear ignorant of the communities record of consensus as written, but, AfD is not necessarily bound by policy, per policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC) As one of the people that originally voted keep, I think that there would be some merit in having a little more discussion in a merge of this article - that which passes "verifiability" - into retrofuturism. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Wolfkeeper. I did not !vote in this AFD but did comment and was aware of the proceedings. Although the "keeps" were clearly in the majority, I don't think the closing admin had any choice other than to close as delete, as there were few keep arguments which addressed policy. I find the reference to votes and judges/juries to be a bit troubling as this is neither an election nor a trial. If we simply tally votes on these things we might as well dispense with AFDs altogether as vote-stacking would become the norm. I suppose the only other option would have been to close as no-consensus, which defaults to keep, and then we can take it to AFD once again with hopefully more clear arguments pro or con. freshacconci talktalk 17:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Actually I don't think that's really an option in this case. freshacconci talktalk 18:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus. AfD is not a vote, but the AfD process is still supposed to matter. This is not an easy case, but multiple established editors made reasonable policy arguments for keeping the article. There was no certainly no consensus to delete, and no other overriding policy reason here to delete the article in the absence of such consensus. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC) The only keep !vote that involves policy reasons seems to have been by Duggy 1138, who wanted to keep the article even though he stated that there were problems with notability. But if the topic can't even be shown to be notable with reliable sources, then the wikipedia should not have that topic. We don't keep articles in the hope that one day notability can be shown. That's not the notability policy.- Wolfkeeper 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Are you really trying to claim that Dieselpunk is a neologism within Wikipedia? (Many things at AfD admittedly are) Straight off the top of Google - Molly 'Porkshanks' Friedrich's Dieselpunk Headphone Mod from over 2 years ago. That's by someone who's an internationally recognised artist and sculpture in the genre, well enough known to be invited to contribute to the recent Oxford Museum of the History of Science show. Legwork is still needed, yes, but pretending that Dieselpunk doesn't exist outside this article is farcical. What will you suggest when Claire's Accessories start selling wrenches? (the malls are already doing goggles and cog hairgrips) - Re-write a new article in a hurry and claim that we've always been at war with Eurasia? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Can we keep the hyperbole to a minimum? Nowhere does Wolfkeeper that the term is a neologism within Wikipedia nor does he claim it does not exist. That's what you call a straw man argument. What he's saying is that there are no reliable sources at this time to support this a word in wide-usage. Steampunkworkshop.com is hardly reliable source. freshacconci talktalk 20:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. No keep !vote made any reference to how the verifiability issues had been dealt with, or even explained why the article should be kept despite them. Stifle (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn The closer failed to determine the consensus of the discussion and inserted his own opinion instead. This action failed to follow the relevant deletion guidelines for administrators as it did not "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Except, that's exactly what the closing admin did. From the page you link to: "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions." The emphasis is mine. Please illustrate how the closing admin "failed to determine the consensus" or did not "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants". By the very link you site, it clearly states that consensus does not trump policy (which is not negotiable). freshacconci talktalk 22:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I am very familiar with these policies and considered them in my evaluation of the article. I introduced consideration of the similar retro-futurism article into the discussion and recommended merger. The close made no reference to this reasonable compromise nor did it make any reference to any of the other recommendations made by the other editors who participated in the discussion. The closer's method seems to be to ignore what the participants say and to form his own opinion of the matter ab initio. This is quite improper because it treats the idea of finding of consensus with contempt and so will naturally outrage the editors whose good faith opinions have been ignored. In this case, only one editor supported the deletion nomination and so the finding that there was a consensus to delete is absurd and makes a mockery of the process. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Note: If this DRV closes as "endorse" then I shall simply create the soft redirect to wikt:dieselpunk that I mentioned above, unless someone gives me a specific reason why that should not be done. I'm mentioning this now so I don't appear to be doing an end-run around consensus.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC) As the closer, a soft redirect seems reasonable to me. Shimeru 23:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, I see Wolfkeeper's just popped over to wiktionary to nominate it for deletion.  :)—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep per overwhelming consensus at AFD #3. With respects, the closer had it fully within his ability to tag the article for citations or tone or style, but should not have substituted personal belief for consensus... specially as Wikipedia is a work in progress that itself does not expect to be immediately perfect and so encourages that articles be improved over time and through regular editing. Addressable issues are a reson to fix or tag for fixing... but not for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC) WP:V is not a policy that can be overridden by consensus. There may be grounds for an article on the topic, but this article wasn't it. Shimeru 23:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Doesn't that beg the question, could it have been fixed? Or am I missing something important?—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC) You're missing that this is the third delete of an article at this page, and there's still no reliable sources or verifiable notability established. This isn't deleting it before it could be fixed, this is deleting it because it still isn't fixed, and apparently it can't be fixed right now, even though we tried. Perhaps in months or years this will change. I hope so. In the meantime, we can't have this article.- Wolfkeeper 00:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC) User:S Marshall is aware of it being a third AFD. We all are. The discussions showed that while it was a third article by the same name, the content had so changed that editors commenting at the AFD opined overwhelmingly to keep. And yes... now that its gone, how can it now be "fixed" by those seeing its possibilities at AFD #3? An administrator's acknowledging that others thought it had potential would have been reasonable cause to either keep close as no consensus, with an stern admonishment that the article would likley return to AFD if not improved to meet the potential others saw. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC) No. It has to meet the notability policy or it goes. Anything else is lying to the reader about its relative importance. We've had three attempts at this article and all three have failed.- Wolfkeeper 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC) It might, I suppose, be rewritten. I wouldn't swear that there are no reliable sources out there. The article, however, had none that supported it, so we're talking about a rewrite from scratch in either case. Shimeru 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Amazingly, I can manage to get my head around the concept that there are no sources. :) I'm not arguing to keep the content, Wolfkeeper, and for the avoidance of doubt my position is that it's probably not possible to write a useful amount of sourced content in that space. What I'm arguing is that it's dumb to leave "dieselpunk" as a redlink that encourages a new user to write an article. It's simply creating a future argument with yet another frustrated new user—plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks. Find somewhere to redirect it. Since you don't like the wiktionary article, maybe redirect it to steampunk?—S Marshall T/C 00:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse Keep votes don't reference policy, and completely fail to rebut the nominator's rationale. And given the history, the page should probably be salted. If someone wants to work up a draft in userspace, that's great, but in order to avoid wasting the community's at yet another AfD and DRV, s/he have to clear it with an admin before moving to article space. Yilloslime TC 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Your statement is false. Multiple editors on the Keep side explicitly cited policy. The only editor on the Delete side besides the nominator did not reference policy. Instead his argument rested upon notability - a guideline which turns on the quality and extent of sources provided. Determining whether the sources provided were adequate is a discretionary judgement, not an absolute one, and it is not the closer's job to apply his own personal opinion in this non-policy matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Discusions intended to reach consensus are why those discussions take place. Calling such a waste of the community's time is not helpful. And as for woking on it in userspace... why? So that it might be sent to AFD a 4th time as a recreation if returned to mainspace? Why not overturn and then send the thing to WP:INCUBATE? Either it gets fixed and then returns, or it does not. Strange that such a reasonable option was not considered as an alternative to deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep. Closing administrator must work by consensus. Also, Google news search shows plenty of places where this term is used [27], just read through the summaries that appear in the results. The lat two results for a Google book search [28] show it used in "Bestsellers: popular fiction since 1900" and in a book about a game that describes itself as "dieselpunk fantasy roleplaying". Google itself shows 175,000 results, meaning a lot of people do use the term out there, it quite common. Anyway, overturn because of consensus, and because no one who wanted it deleted spent even a few seconds actually searching for sources before declaring they didn't think it existed. Dream Focus 01:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Please do not accuse your fellow editors of acting in bad faith. You've been around long enough to know that deletion review is not the place to argue a subject's notability and that counting hits is not accepted practice. This is the venue for discussing the decision, not the subject. - Eureka Lott 03:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Note: At about this point in the debate, Wolfkeeper redirected the title to steampunk.—S Marshall T/C 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Which shows a certain amount of - pardon the term but it's appropriate - ignorance of the topic, as anyone who had read the written article or is involved in the dieselpunk scene knows that it has much more to do with retro-futurism and the lowbrow art scene than it does with steampunk, despite sharing a similar cyberpunk-derived name. Which is exactly the sort of bias I think this page has been running into from the start, regardless of whether it was referenced well enough. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Ignorance is seemingly OK, so long as it's verifiable. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC) A wikipedia with editors more in tune with pop culture than academia would be a bad thing. Wikipedia is an academic project and many of the editors will be academic, as such there is an in built bias which I believe has come to light in the decision to delete and this drv. Something did spring to mind - the dusty old judges in the UK who occasionaly end up in the media saying "Who are The Beatles". Szzuk (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is academic? Have you seen the drivel that's out there? One-episode soap starlets, one-series baseball quarterbacks, every Indian village with a modem, In popular culture sections that start with pokemon and work downwards? Dieselpunk is the least of its worries. Whilst The Times is admittedly still restricting itself to Goth and Steampunk and hasn't really cottoned on to Dieselpunk yet (wait until there's a Tim Burton film though), there's a large and serious coverage of Dieselpunk within its own scene, something that shouldn't be ignored by being too sniffy about what counts as an acceptable source. To have one of those calling most loudly for deletion unilaterally redirect the name to the wrong target is even more bias. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I wasn't actually disagreeing with you. Szzuk (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Several problems with this. First, it seems odd that Wolfkeeper can simply make a unilateral decision against the consensus. Second, it makes less sense to redirect it to steampunk than to it's original redirection, which was to cyberpunk derivative. At least that was more descriptive than the one sentence in steampunk. Certainly Jonnybgoode44 was right that retro-futurism is a better fit. Larry442010 (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I didn't see any consensus, and that page does actually mention dieselpunk at the moment in connection with a game. If you want to redirect it somewhere else, that's not a problem for me.- Wolfkeeper 03:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) This is not what you said in the discussion, where your position seemed to be that the topic had been so little noticed that it should be deleted altogether. If you have now changed your opinion, then we have the absurd situation of an article being deleted when no-one really supported the nomination except the closing admin. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC) This topic fails WP:NOTABLE which is about whether something is verifiable and reliable and is suitable for its own article. Therefore this article topic isn't suitable right now, and the deletion was done perfectly properly. - Wolfkeeper 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn (keep). There was certainly not consensus to delete. If those advocating "delete" are right, they need to do a much better job of convincing their peers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC) We don't work on "consensus" i.e. vote-counting, we work on whether the article meets the policies. The admin is expected to weigh up the arguments and he did so here.- Wolfkeeper 14:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC) We do work on consensus, rough consensus if necessary. The real measure of a killer argument is when it sways other participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - Much as Orly Taitz is now barred from filing lawsuits in some jurisdictions, we're about at a similar point for those filing frivolous DRVs here. AfDs are not votes, and if the keepers' positions are weak and ignore basic policy about notability and sourcing, then they are discarded. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn If there were no reasonable sources for the term we could delete. But [29] would seem to include a number of reasonable sources. I'd prefer this be a subsection of steampunk and redirect there, but the discussion was pretty clearly to keep and enough reliable sources exist. [30] too. So by the !vote it's a keep and meeting WP:V is easy so we keep. Hobit (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC) That's actually about the best anyone has come up with, but even then, they're basically one sentence, trivial mentions, and they're all in the context of it as a form of steampunk, which is where we're currently redirecting anyway. The bottom line is that we don't have have any truly substantive reliable sources for this topic.- Wolfkeeper 16:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Yep, I don't disagree. I think the sources for a stand-alone article are weak. But _my_ opinion of the sources isn't overly relevant at this point. The question is, is the "keep" !vote consensus utterly outrageous? Given that WP:V is clearly met and WP:N is (barely) debatable we defer to the AfD discussion. Again, I'd prefer an undelete and then redirect/merge to steampunk until such time as better sources show up and will push for that if this gets undeleted. Hobit (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to Keep- The heart of WP:IAR is that, absent pressing reasons to delete, such as a copyvio, local consensus can override policy. What happend in this afd is that those who voted keep felt that in this case, the policy wasn't adequate in this case, and could be ignored for the greater good. The closing admin should have respected this consensus when closing the afd, instead of overriding it. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Light. Some order emerges from the confusion. Sooner or later someone hits the nail on the head. That is the overturn and close. Credit. Szzuk (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC) IAR doesn't allow for ignoring policy in this case, because it applies only when the result of ignoring the rules improves the encyclopedia, and ignoring certain basic policies (like WP:V) cannot improve the encyclopedia but can only degrade it. Similarly, if there were for some reason an AfD with an overwhelming consensus to delete, say, Oxygen, the close should be keep as long as the article met applicable policies and guidelines. Shimeru 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC) The WP:IAR page says quite simply If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. It doesn't say "this excludes WP:V". The question is does deletion improve wp? Not does deletion follow policy. Deletion didn't improve wikipedia. Szzuk (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC) WP:IAR is not a trump card nor a logical paradox: there is no negotiation on WP:V. freshacconci talktalk 20:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Then why doesn't IAR say that? It is the extreme case of course. However I've seen negotiation on WP:V and I'm sure you have, there was no negotiation in this case, that was the problem. There were plenty of sources and the closing admin unilaterally decided they weren't up to scratch. I don't doubt the admins good faith, however I do doubt that his one pair of eyes went through those sources more thoroughly than the dozen or so other afd participants. Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Well, that's something you'd have to take up at the WP:IAR talk page. But WP:IAR is not a core policy, it's not one of the five pillars, which are non-negotiable. I personally don't like WP:IAR being waved about like it somehow invalidates all arguments. It's a common-sense guideline that is useful for cutting through wikilawyering. I don't see that as the issue here. freshacconci talktalk 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Common sense said leave the article alone and save us all the convuloted discussion. Szzuk (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Freshacconci, ignore all rules is one of five pillars of Wikipedia (the fifth one listed on the five pillars page). Whether or not it should be applied in this case, it is definitely a core policy of Wikipedia. Calathan (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Pillar or not, it is not something to invoke lightly, any more than one will drop a nuke to break up a street fight. People scream "IAR!" to justify pretty much anything these days, especially in policy debates. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) It applies in this case. You can see this by reading the drv from start to finish. Closing admin also knew deletion would be controversial as evidenced in his deletion comment. He chose not to apply one of the pillars. Szzuk (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Sure, IAR is available per the pillar, but it would likely only apply if there was consensus to employ it in the original AFD, or consensus to employ it in this DRV. Neither seems to have been happening. You can't just unilaterally call IAR, turn around twice and click your heals, it's not magic!- Wolfkeeper 04:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Consensus at the afd was a) keep because the cites are ok or b) this is notable, pop culture is hard to cite so apply IAR. Closing admin should have applied IAR, deletion of the article didn't improve wp, this drv doesn't improve wp. Szzuk (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) You can't ignore verification because "pop culture is hard to cite." Verification is one of the five pillars, too. (It's part of the second, along with NPOV, BLP, and OR.) IAR states that "Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles presented here" (emphasis added). Since V is part of one of those five general principles, it is a firm rule, and IAR can't be used to ignore it, consensus or no. Shimeru 07:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) You're stating your interpretation of the pillars, fair enough. I don't see anything meaningful coming from a discussion of your interpretation. It could only go around in circles. To me it's pretty simple, do whats best for wp. Best regards. Szzuk (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion – I was not convinced by the arguments for retention here one bit. Arguments for deletion OTOH seemed to be more grounded on verifiability and "no original research", and the closing admin's rationale seems valid. –MuZemike 17:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn There was no consensus to delete. The closer should have !voted and tried to help bring about consensus instead of delivering a "supervote". If many of you are convinced this should be deleted, then participate in the AFD process where we're supposed to gather this consensus.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Strong Endorse. I don't mean to pick on one editor, but this keep !vote explains best why the delete decision was correct, "Issues with original research, verifiability, and notability are best handled by editing adding tags, removing uncited/poorly cited material". Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says, "Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies (verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons) as applicable. These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." When the argument for keeping it is, "well sure it has original research and isn't verifiable, but let's just slap a tag on it", that is when the rules require the closing admin to step in and disregard that argument. Consensus cannot override core content policies. --B (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC) It was not agreed that the topic was unverifable as numerous sources were produced and discussed. AFD is not required to produce an article of GA/FA quality immediately and it is our clear editing policy to retain poor articles in mainspace so that they can be found and worked upon. The core policies could have been observed by reducing the article to a stub or merging its contents into a related topic such as steampunk or retro-futurism. It is our policy to save what we can and deletion should not be used as an easy out when such options are available and actively being suggested. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus-While I don't disagree that many, if not all, of the keep arguments were poor ones, that in and of itself is not enough to delete the article. If we discount each and every keep, we have a nominator and one other editor in favor of deletion. Had this AfD ended in that state, I sincerely doubt the debate would have been closed as delete; it would have either been closed as no consensus or re-listed. Deletion (aside from the purposely narow criteria for speedy deletion) requires consensus, bottom line. Even if an admin vehemently believes an article fails to meet policy, unless it qualifies as a CSD, they should not delete it without consensus. A lack of consensus to keep does NOT equal a consensus to delete.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Weak endorse- At what point can a flurry of weak votes overwhelm a small number of strong ones? I think the closing admin was acting with their discretion to disregard the spurious keep votes and place more weight on the strong delete ones. Reyk YO! 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC) This whole debate's essentially moot, and I've stricken my !vote, since the practical upshot of this debate has been the creation of a redirect. The outcome has, de facto, already been overturned from "delete" to "redirect", and since we're not a bureaucracy, I don't think the closer of this DRV need do much else—except perhaps to consider whether it's appropriate to restore the history under the redirect because of our copyright licence provisions. It's not strictly necessary but the closer may feel it's good practice.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Not really. Redirect wasn't seriously discussed at afd or here. If the decision is to overturn anybody that redirects will have their edit reverted as per this discussion. The recreation and redirect was trying to preempt the outcome of the discussion. I'm not sure why you can't see this. Szzuk (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC) On the contrary, I think Wolfkeeper's redirection was in absolutely good faith, and I think your jaded view of his edit is unsupported by evidence.—S Marshall T/C 10:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not the only one that has mentioned the recreation and redirect were inappropriate. Szzuk (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Before the most recent attempt an article was created, the page was a redirect to cyberpunk derivatives. That's also the target of the current redirect, so we're back to where we started. I see no malicious intent. - Eureka Lott 00:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to either keep or non-consensus. I have no opinion on notability of this sort of subject, but there was not consensus to delete. A redirect without deleting the history is essentially a keep, because the redirection can always be reverted as an editorial decision especially if improvements are made; a redirect without is essentially a delete, because it does not leave material that can be reused. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to keep Per weight and strength of arguments. A no consensus outcome might have been reasonable, but delete is a novel conclusion that doesn't appear to be based on the discussion that took place. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 June 2010

Buck Humphrey – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Buck Humphrey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) The summary discussion indicates he was simply a campaign worker and the Deletion discussion began prior to inclusion of his current position. Buck Humphrey is a Democratic politician from Minnesota who is currently the Chief of the Office of Communications for US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in Washington. [31] I believe the article did not included his current position at the beginning of the AfD discussion. He receives media attention as part of his current position. [32] [33] He is involved in national Democratic politics, is a member of the Democratic National Committee and was a superdelegate at the 2008 Democratic National Convention. [34] He has been the Minnesota state campaign chairman for a major Democratic candidate in every Presidential election cycle since 2000: Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004 and Hillary Clinton in 2008. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] Contrary to the Deletion discussion he was not limited to being a campaign worker. He has been generating media coverage as a political candidate regionally since running against the incumbent MN Secretary of State in 2002. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] His endorsements are reported in the press. [51] [52] He is quoted in connection with campaign politics involving MN. (i.e. contested Senate results Coleman v Franklin) [53] He does receive press in connection with being from a well known political family. Part of the argument for deletion was that he inherited rather than earned his notability. [54] [55] He receives mention in national press coverage that very few MN politicians can match. USA TODAY [56] CBS News [57] Fox News (fair and balanced?}[58] Chicago Tribune [59] Baltimore Sun [60] Boston Globe [61] and even ESPN [62] I was not an editor of the article but was the last to post to the deletion discussion and the only “strong keep”. Eudemis (talk) 21:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC) While Eudemis provides a large number of citations, I believe that a closer look at them is necessary. First a few of the links (2 or 3) do not mention him and a few are about his failed political career. Unfortunately, most require a payment, but the extent that they can be read, he is mentioned trivially at best. Humphrey was a campaign manager for a number of politicians, as such he has been oft quoted, but as a representative of various campaigns that he manages---not because he is independently notable. If any of the sources provided were about Buck, I would gladly restore the article myself. With the exception of the ESPN article, which gave him 2 short paragraphs, virtually everything citation is a short sound byte because he is Hubert Humphry's grandson or a campaign manager. Here are typical citations: Four {out of 14} have endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton: Mondale and Democratic National Committee members Jackie Stevenson, Rick Stafford and Hubert "Buck" Humphrey. ---mention is nothing but his name. CIS spokesman Buck Humphrey said agency staff has been reallocated to deal with the number of applications expected when the program begins Thursday Hubert (Buck) Humphrey IV, state director for Gore-Lieberman 2000, said he hoped voters would stay focused on the issues. Hubert (Buck) Humphrey IV, a top leader of the Kerry campaign presiding over a celebration at Grandma's Saloon in Minneapolis, exulted... Hubert (Buck) Humphrey IV, Clinton's campaign manager in Minnesota, tried to put the best face on her prospects, but added, "it's going to be tough." ... while a few hours earlier his son, Hubert "Buck"Humphrey, introduced U.S. Sen. John Kerry's state leadership team... (Apparently his father is also notable, as the article was about his dad.) Hubert (Buck) Humphrey, Clinton's campaign manager in Minnesota, said the results are "similar to some polls I've seen nationally where [Obama seems to do a little better..."] Hubert “Buck” Humphrey, grandson of Vice President Hubert Humphrey, said his concern is that voters need to look at why Coleman should be voted out of office, not listening to a list of problems the Democratic candidate faces. deals with his introducing a film on his grandfather former VP Humphry. "I have a general impression that Sen. Obama has not been so organized in Minnesota as Sen. (Hillary) Clinton," he said, noting that Clinton's campaign director in Minnesota is Buck Humphrey, a descendant of famed Minnesota politician Hubert H. Humphrey. "We're aware that their support is very crucial, especially the folks who have not been involved," said Buck Humphrey, Minnesota co-chairman of Kerry's campaign. HubertBuck Humphrey IV head of Al Gore's campaign in Minnesota said his campaign planned to print only a small number of signs Buck [Hubert Humphrey, grandson of the late vice president who is running the [Al Gore] campaign here out of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party headquarters, just as suddenly was able to get Mr. Gore in Minneapolis for a big rally Sunday.] Hubert "Buck" Humphrey, Gore's Minnesota field organizer, quoted in USA Today. On the net " Believe it or not, ESPN provided the largest piece on Buck! In a large article on Minnisota Gopher Hockey, the author gives a short anecdote in the first two paragraphs about Buck using a hockey rink for a meeting rather than community center or union hall because it highlights how Minnesotans are so into Hockey not because Buck himself is notable. I would love to see a reason to keep this article, but the sources provided are not meaningful, they are all trivial in coverage that are quoting him as he relates to others who are notable. Unless we are willing to state that campaign managers, spokespersons, and pr publicists are notable because their job position puts them in the limelight where they might be quoted, then I can't see how these non-significant sources meet our notability requirements.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) BTW Eudemis, if you want to salvage the article, what we need aren't a large quantity of sources, but rather sources explicitly about Buck... and ones announcing his failed campaign aren't necessarily going to do it. I do believe that his relationship to his grandfather has brought more attention to him than the average politician/person in his role, but we need sources about him, not ones that are quoting him talking about somebody/something else. We need coverage that isn't trivial in nature. EG not merely a sentence introducing a soundbyte as a campaign manager.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 12:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The sources were evaluated at the AFD and found wanting; DRV is a place to raise problems caused by failure to follow the deletion process properly. It is not a place to list articles because you disagree with the outcome. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. This is scarcely a man of lasting international importance, I see no evidence of significant achievements of any kind, and the consensus is that he's insufficiently notable to merit an article under our BLP criteria—which is probably because he's received somewhat less coverage in reliable sources than, say, the average Big Brother contestant.—S Marshall T/C 11:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse as accurate assessment of discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I'm not sure which links Balloonman believe don't mention him, but I went back through all of them and couldn't locate the ones to which he's referring. I tried to state in the first sentence what I believed was wrong with the deletion discussion. As I was the last poster to the deletion discussion, other posters would not have evaluated the links as they were not a part of the article.Eudemis (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I guess the operative word is "mention", mere mentions aren't enough, the WP:GNG requires the articles to be about him in a non-trivial way, mentions don't pass that bar. For WP:V we also need articles about him, not mentions of what he's said, meetings he's attended etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC) There were two or three where I couldn't find his name and the FIND didn't work. It is possible that I simply missed them and mispelt his name while looking for it. But if that is the case, then I would state that the coverage in those 2 or 3 articles would be trivial. Again, go out there and find sources that aren't just quoting him because he has a job/position that puts his role as a mouthpiece. Find stuff where he is being interviewed because HE is notable or that is covering him in a meaningful manner. If you have those sources, let us see them. *I* didn't see anything beyond trivial mentions of him. If I missed something, let me/us know. If there are better sources, let us know. Heck, if there is a source that we can't see because we haven't paid the fee, point it out and let us know what it is about.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately I can't see any more of the teaser articles than you can. (Scottish ancestry prevents me from subscribing.) He has been interviewed fielding questions on TV about becoming a candidate. KSTP is mentioned here [63], but longer responses as in full length question-and-answer interviews normally don’t appear in newspaper articles simply because that isn’t their format. He has been on NPR as a Secretary of State candidate[64] and was featured in a magazine Law & Politics.[65] Longer opinion pieces by him have appeared in the press(San Francisco Chronicle Prop 52 )[66] as his take on issues. Some of the online articles are complete and not blips. [67] I do get a sense that notability here is a bit of a moving target. Eudemis (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse: Its a shame that the deletes outweighed the keeps (including my keep !vote), but thus was the consensus. I agree with Eudemis that the guy is clearly notable, as he has been the subject of significant coverage dedicated solely to him, but that's not the inquiry here.--Milowent (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse close appears to be an accurate reading of consensus. This looks like a bit of an "AFD round 2" nomination, honestly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. (Disclosure: I was the AfD nominator and was unaware of this DRV until now.) Consensus, based on analysis of the sources, was clear. "I believe the article did not included [sic] his current position at the beginning of the AfD discussion" may be so (i.e., his current job was in fact not mentioned in the article), but I mentioned it, with a link to the relevant page on the CIS Web site, in my nomination, so the participants in the discussion certainly were able to take it into consideration. Deor (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Falls of Cruachan derailment – Closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Falls of Cruachan derailment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) First off, I don't think the closing admin gave this nearly enough thought, and I believe he merely rushed to close it to avoid drama because the reversal of an earlier non-admin closure had led to an ANI post about the Afd. And on that point, in his closure edit summary he states "lack of deaths has been agreed as not meaning lack of notability". I do not agree that the lack of deaths was the primary subject of the debate, and despite starting out with the words 'non-fatal', the lack of deaths was certainly not my primary reason for deletion, merely a necessary precursor. Second, my actual deletion rationale centred on WP:EVENT. The article was, and after seven days, still is, a collection of news reports about an incident that was newsworthy, but not notable as defined by EVENT. Precious few of the keep voters seem to understand what the difference is, and are happy to base their votes on the presence of sources that merely exist due to their value to news sources as news. The closing admin has a duty to recognise the consensus inherent in something like EVENT in that regard, and weigh these types of arguments appropriately. In addition to not directly addressing this distinction, it's a simple fact that many of the keep votes were simply variations on a theme of WP:INTERESTING, WP:VALINFO, WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM, WP:PRETTY, and even some resembling WP:EVERYTHING, and so again, they should similarly be given the appropriate weight. i.e. not much. So, even at this point in the DRV rationale, it should become clear that anybody calling this result on a simple vote count or a rough calling of consensus, has potentially made a mistake. Third, in addition to those flawed arguments, several were simply improper violations of WP:CRYSTAL. Such arguments should be discounted immediately in an Afd as being invalid. However, to hammer home the point, it should also be noted that some editor's initial inappropriate predictions that this should be kept because it would go on to be a notable incident due to the apparent failure of the unique Pass of Brander Stone Signals warning system, turned out to be false, as it was quickly confirmed it would not have prevented the incident. Thus we are left with an article on a non-fatal derailment whose sole claim to notability is apparently the newsworthiness of the drama of the incident and the closure of a road. Not compelling, certainly not w.r.t. to EVENT. Fourth. Some of the keep votes are just blatant violations. Eraserhead for example, said "its actually a well-written article regardless of whether the accident is particularly notable in general". Kiko4564 for example simply said, "This is not a exact news report, it's more of a description of events.". Neither of these are even remotely acceptable as reasons to keep an article, although at least Kiko4564 goes some way to recognising the deletion rationale, even if he doesn't answer it. In that respect, even after the earlier points, as of this stage in the DRV rationale, it becomes beyond clear that any attempt to vote count this Afd and declare an overwhelming keep outcome loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned. A couple of people even voted keep based on the draft guideline Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents), which is a draft going nowhere. It is stale, verging on rejection. It is presumably not supported by enough people to be promoted to a guideline because it seeks to confer notability on wholly arbitrary terms, and does not seem to gel with EVENT in the slightest. So again, these are simply more invalid keep arguments. Fifth, this Afd was advertised to railway and Scotland projects. Now, that's not a problem in of itself, but given the number of votes such as, and I quote, "the worst derailment in Scotland this year" from Ggoere, then I am not convinced that this has resulted in a proper and neutral appraisal from editors who otherwise understand what EVENT is all about. It is not unusual for people to look at articles about their chosen field of interest through rose-tinted spectacles w.r.t notability, although to his credit, we at least had one rail specific editor in Quantpole who recognised this phenomenon, and voted delete, and he's been here a while. But its also apparent that a lot of the voters apparently arriving due to the notices look to be very raw and inexperienced editors, which again should be considered by the closer. We don't have a noticeboard where EVENT type Afd's can be advertised, so I think this needs to be taken into account by the closer. And I will simply point out to anyone not aware, that saying 'its important to Scotland' is not as weighty as it sounds, given the fact it has a smaller population than London. And suffice to say, 'important railway incident in London' would get you nowhere at Afd. All in all, I am struggling to see enough original and valid arguments in that Afd that actually count as valid keep votes, let alone enough that directly address or rebut the deletion rationale, WP:EVENT. Given the fact that every single delete rational invokes EVENT, or its parent NOT#NEWS, I fail to see how 'keep' is a correct reading of the consensus, so it should be overturned to either delete, merge, or at the very least, no consensus, to allow the necessary passage of time to see if the various predictions that this has historic notability, come true. As a lasting note, due to my natural cynicism for Wikipedia and having seen the success rate of DRVs that require some though in general, I fully expect many people to rock up here and not bother reading, let alone responding, to anything written above, and simply endorse. So if you intend to endorse, at least give the pretence you have read and understood the above. That's all I ask. And if you still don't, I really could care less, because to have that shown on the record is good enough for me, even if the decision is still endorsed. MickMacNee (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC) I read carefully your detailed rationale and I appreciate the work and thought you have put into it. I apologize for !voting at the AfD after seeing it on ANI and without fully realizing that Wikipedia:Notability (railway incidents) was unlikely to be adopted. Nevertheless I believe the article clearly passes WP:GNG and I therefore endorse the close as keep. --John (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. My gut instinct, I admit, was "clear WP:NOTNEWS case", but there are a lot of precedents for Wikipedia articles on non-fatal railway collisions. Mick above argues (if I understand correctly) that this is artifically inflated by the "biggest-fish-in-a-small-pond" effect of having happened on Scotland's relatively small railway network, and that we wouldn't have an article on a comparable incident in London. However, that's not the case as there are lots of comparable articles in Category:Railway accidents (Norwood Junction rail accident, Spa Road Junction rail crash, Bexley derailment, King's Cross derailment, all in London, for instance). I recognise that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't per se a valid argument, but there comes a point where the volume of other stuff becomes Wikipedia's custom and practice; I'd argue that we've reached that point, and that this clearly meets both WP:GNG and Wikipedia precedent. – iridescent 21:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC) rebuttal of the various incidents held up as precedents MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Norwood Junction - a perfectly valid article per EVENT it seems. It contains direct evidence that the incident led to major network wide changes, and as such, I don't think it is even remotely comparable to this article Spa Road - my railway history is a litte rusty, but I would be truly amazed if the recommendation for ATP came from this single SPAD, and SPADs due to human error at that time were to say the least, not rare. And even if it did, which I doubt, the article contains zero evidence that it did, and zero evidence that it actually meets the GNG anyway, which is what you would expect if it had. Hard to see how the article belongs here, or how it compares to this incident Bexley - the claim of notability here is presumably the idea that a conviction from the HSE makes the incident automatically notable. This might be debatable, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it is an example of evidence notability that this article won't hope to emulate for a few years yet, if at all. And the sourcing situation is exactly the same as Spa Road. King's Cross - just a rather pathetic stub all round tbh. 'This incident was notable because of the political consequences for Jarvis'. O rly? Given the fact the article stops there, we are at a loss to know how or why. And again, the sourcing situation is exaclty the same as Spa Road. It's a stretch to claim this incident is comparable, particularly with no contractor's involved and apparently no mistakes made. So, while you might claim this article meets the GNG, which is an argument that by necessity has to simply ignore EVENT even exists, I don't think any of these sepcific examples are of any use in proving anything with respect to this specific incident, so yes, in that case, I think OSE well and truly applies here, in the negative sense. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse as keep. I fully admitted when I made my original keep !vote that I was at risk of violating WP:CRYSTAL, but I have since been proved correct as the line is not scheduled to re-open till at least 8 June. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 21:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. I did look again and in more depth at my original decision to vote keep, which I admit I didn't consider too deeply. My reasons to endorse are the original reasons I gave for my keep vote, as well as the following reasons. 1. Rail accidents are rare and more likely to be notable than an accident with a similar level of harm to humans on, for example, roads. 2. The line has been closed for quite a long time and is still closed. Some reports suggest it could be closed for almost another month. 3. It took 5 days to recover the carriages. My instinct is that if it takes more than 100 hours to pickup a train carriage that is quite a big operational disruption, especially if the carriage in question causes the temporary closure of the main access road to a fair sized area, even if that area is sparcely populated. The level of disruption suggests notability to me. 4. The circumstances are worrying, as it seems that a system designed to prevent this type of accident failed to prevent it. Accidents that occur despite specific systems being in place to prevent them are more notable than those that occur where no system is in place. 5. In the light of 4 and the comments of Bob Crow I sense possible future trouble. I am aware of WP:CRYSTAL but given that there is a current safety dispute I feel there is a place for a Wikipedia article for this incident on the basis of current facts, without reliance on any predictions. I would also suggest that this could blow up into something big, given the current dispute on single manning in Scotland, but I know this isn't in strict compliance with Wikipedia policies so isn't strictly a reason. 6. In essence, if I came to Wikipedia to find the facts on this accident and found there was no entry, I would be surprised that fairly disruptive rail accident I heard about on the news wasn't on here. 7. In the past such an accident would most likely have been deadly, and it distorts the record not to record modern incidents. 8. Previous rail accidents on a par with this have entries. This is similar to 1, but is different. 9. Finally, this was not exactly close on numbers and most of the keeps gave reasons over 1 sentence. I am in no small part going Endorse because the admin was right to close this AfD with this decision. Just because you don't like the decision or the reasons people have for going a particular way doesn't change the consensus.Dolive21 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Regarding 4, it's simply wrong to claim the system was designed to prevent it. It has already been stated by Network Rail it was designed specifically excluding falls from that height. And frankly, Bob Crowe would stick his oar into anything if he thought it would help his cause, I really don't think we can consider him an impartial expert on whether there is or isn't a 'safety dispute' here, and there is no other evidence of any dispute that I can see, just more and more speculation. The rest is covered already, but those positions needed correcting tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC) There's a lot of alphabet soup to consider in that nomination statement, and I'll take each in turn. 1) WP:EVENT is a guideline that explicitly allows for occasional exceptions, and I would read that AfD as a strong consensus that the said article should be an exception. 2) WP:INTERESTING, WP:VALINFO, WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM, WP:PRETTY and WP:EVERYTHING are all links to WP:ATA. ATA is an essay that editors are free to disregard, and one may safely assume that a consensus of Wikipedia editors chose to disregard it. They should be at liberty to do so. ATA is essentially a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say at AFD, and its logic is in places distinctly shaky. My personal view is that ATA inherently contravenes the fifth pillar anyway. 3) WP:Notability (railway incidents) is a failed guideline, and here the nominator has a point. !Votes based on this should have been given less weight. 4) The canvassing argument does not appear strong to me, as the messages seemed tolerably neutrally-worded. 5) The WP:CRYSTAL argument is a strong and effective one. WP:CRYSTAL as a variant of WP:NOT is a policy. A number of !votes in conflict with this should be disregarded entirely. 6) I'm surprised that the nominator doesn't refer to the WP:NOTNEWS point that was raised by one IP address and by Mandsford. This seemed exceptionally strong to me, and I think that argument deserved extra weight. Overall I'd assess that debate as containing a substantial number of relatively weak arguments on the keep side and two very strong ones on the delete side, and I'm of the view that it might have been better closed as "no consensus". However, we don't usually overturn "keep" to "no consensus" at DRV because of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, so I can only default to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Just to be clear, there's no allegation of canvassing, I'm just talking about how there is nowhere to go and get people who are interested in EVENT to come and weigh in at Afd, and the very real imho phenomena that rail/Scotland editors are always going to err on one side and not the other in borderline cases, as is actually seen in some of the comments. And on a meta note, I'd be gobsmacked if a proposal to elevate ATA to core policy ever failed. It's only an essay because it is inherently opinion, albeit massively accepted, and I'm sure you won't find it routinely, or even exceptionally, being ignored by closers. If that's happened here specifically, I'd really like confirmation of that, because it really would save me a lot of time in future Afds. MickMacNee (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, many !votes in violation of ATA properly should carry no weight, but if you show me a closer who ignores a remark purely because it's an ATA, then he's treating essay as policy, and I'll call for his mop. There are things consensus can't do—no consensus could be strong enough to allow a copyvio, or unsourced defamatory remarks about a living person, for example—but consensus can certainly prevail over essays.—S Marshall T/C 01:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. I've been thinking for a couple of hours about what to write here in support of why I think this should be endorsed, but S Marshall has, conveniently for me, explained it better than I could. There are very few "invalid" arguments at AfDs. There are then arguments that can be given more or less weight, applying objective standards (eg votes based on clear factual errors, or applying an essay as if it was a policy). There were objectively weak arguments here, but even recognising the weakness of many of the keep votes and the strength of two of the deletes - there just wasn't enough to find a consensus to delete (or, more importantly, enough to find that a "keep" close is outside admin discretion). Disappointing outcome for me because I probably would have sat on the delete side.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse as keep. I have carefully read the comments by MickMacNee but, although some of the reasons given for Keep were flawed, this does not detract from the good reasons that were also given by several reviewers. In any case the incident satisfies standard Wikipedia EVENT guidelines in that this is of lasting significance for railway accident prevention, not just an ordinary derailment that is a transient news event. (I entirely agree that the latter are not notable, and fought a losing battle some years ago to stop such minor incidents being included in the main list of railway accidents. This is a special case, and thus fulfils Wikipedia notability criteria and counters arguments 5 and 6 above). As for the statement that "some editor's initial inappropriate predictions that this should be kept because it would go on to be a notable incident due to the apparent failure of the unique Pass of Brander Stone Signals warning system, turned out to be false, as it was quickly confirmed it would not have prevented the incident" misses the point entirely. There is a known and recognised danger here, and it had been assumed for 130 years that the system would guard against the problem adequately; this now needs to be questioned. The system worked as designed, but it DID fail to prevent the accident, which could have had serious consequences. For anyone who is actually active or interested in the field of railway accidents, this certainly makes it a notable incident. Finally, the view that some voters are "raw and inexperienced editors" must be set against the fact that some voters are certainly long-term and experienced editors who have written significant wiki-articles on related subjects from scratch. I am also disappointed that MickMacNee, in taking the issue to appeal, criticised the decision of the admin and the way it was made, as well as various contributors. Hyperman 42 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, Network Rail's statement that the boulder screen was not designed to prevent this type of incident is ingenuous. It was designed (in 1880, long before Network Rail) specifically in conjunction with a second safety precaution; boulders within the screen that looked unsafe were wired back to the screen. It would appear that the latter has been allowed to lapse, possibly with gradual staff reductions over the years (there were originally specially appointed signal watchmen). See John Thomas, p83. So maybe Bob Crowe's comments should not be so lighlty dismissed after all! Hyperman 42 (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Well, I've been working on the assumption that no, based on their comments, that this system was absolutely NOT designed to prevent this incident, falling as it did from below the screen, and yes, while this interests the railway trade press (as does everything and anything, 95% of which is not notable), it's quite different to the claims made in the Afd originally. And again, without any confirmation, it really would be improper analysis to start alleging that a) the boulder below the screen was evidently unsafe and should and would have been wired, and b) it intentionally through negligence, wasn't. Infact, these are serious allegations. And yes, you can argue this might shine a light on it and lead to a review, but again, CRYSTAL, etc. As for EVENT and rail safety, I don't disagree, see the Norwood Junction example for a brilliant EVENT compliant article, but the evidence of lasting significance absolutely has to be post-event, otherwise, we are not encyclopoedia editors, we are journalists. MickMacNee (talk) 00:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC) That is your assumption, I suggest you consult the original authoritative source which I have given. It is also your assumption that this is only of interest to the railway trade press, and not active historians or professionals involved in safety. Fair comment that my question on whether the boulder should have been wired was speculative - which is why I have simply put it in this talk discussion and not in the main article.Hyperman 42 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, while endorsing Keep, I do think that the article as it stands has a lot of news-type information that is not of lasting value, and could be shortened to remove this at a later date. The basic facts and the investigation details (with the RAIB accident report when available) will have more permanent significance. Hyperman 42 (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC) My assumption is based on contemporary sources. Your assumption is based on your own research using sources that do not refer to this incident. To the extent that forward prediction is even allowable, then one approach is admissable for an Afd argument of whether this incident will become significant or not, the other is simply not, being improper original research. As for safety professionals using Wikipedia? I sincerely hope not. And historians study history, which is why making sure we only cover events of demonstrable historical significance after the event, is a core part of EVENT. MickMacNee (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC) So you are saying that a recent press release should be given maximum weight, but that a quote from a long-established classic book on the subject is "original research" and should be downgraded?! No wonder you have a natural cynicism about Wikipedia if you think that is the way it works! And yes, safety professionals, like all people, do look at Wikipedia, and contribute to it. It is a good way to share one's knowledge with the wider population. Better to be involved and to help to shape the content of articles than to leave it to those with less knowledge! Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC) And if your book, published in what? 1966? Turns out to not be in full posession of the facts from 1966-2010, what then? I think in that situation, it's pretty bloody clear from an OR perspective that a contemporary press release cannot and should not be contradicted or be otherwise downgraded by it. It's valid for background only, and even then, it's specific use needs to be carefully considered, especially if people are editting with the idea that their role on Wikipedia is to educate others using their specific insight, rather than simply write an encyclopoedic article reflecting sources, which is in theory, something anybody can do, because the material should be coming from the sources, not one's own knowledge or analysis. Experts are free to contribute and use Wikipedia, but they hold no special status here, and do not need to, as described below. However, someone who thinks they are an authority on the subject, is obviously at a higher risk of ignoring the provisions in EVENT requiring proof of historic notability after the event. If that's happened here and not been caught, then there has been an error. In a perverse way, I actually hope there is a major, and I mean major, change in the field of railway safety or operations resulting from this incident, because if there isn't, marking this as notable this is a major failure, whichever way it's looked at. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Also, someone with a good knowledge of a subject can see immediately whether certain incidents will clearly have a lasting significance. As a trivial example, it was obvious to everyone that the Hudson River plane crash was going to have major historic significance from the moment it happened, even though nobody was killed. Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC) If you are suggesting that CRYSTAL could be shortcutted on the testimony of experts, that's never going to happen. Wikipedia might be hamstrung by not requiring people to read and understand guidelines like EVENT before they are allowed to vote in an AFD, but it's never going to demand people's credentials before being able to do so - nobody here is ever considered an expert outside of simple policy knowledge, there is no need to be. And I don't know where the Hudson crash came into it, but it is yet another example of an article that would have met EVENT in an instant, because it has been carefully crafted to cater specifically for breaking news, but it is again just another example of an event that was not remotely comparable to this incident. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - failing WP:EVENT is given as the reason for deletion. The following are all part of WP:EVENT. From WP:EFFECT It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable. At the moment, we don't know the long-term effect of the accident. WP:GEOSCOPE An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it. The accident was reported worldwide, as evidenced by the reference from the Sydney Morning Herald used in the article. WP:PERSISTENCE The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance... ...However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. The accident has been reported on solidly for over a week. If it were a minor derailment with maybe a short mention at the time it happened then I'd agree that it was non-notable. WP:DIVERSE Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. I believe that this has been met. The BBC and The Scotsman are the two main sources, but there are plenty of other sources such as First Scotrail, the RMT Union, the Associated Press, the Daily Mail, the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency and The Times to name a few. WP:BREAKING Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain. Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain. For example, June 22, 2009 Washington Metro train collision was started just 60 minutes after the crash occurred. The rescue operation was still ongoing, an investigation was yet to begin, and the final death toll was unknown. Yes, the article was created with the anticipation that notability would be established later. One has to do this to stand any chance whatsoever of its appearance at WP:ITN. That said, WP:BREAKING also says Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. The article was nominated for deletion 2 hours 22 minutes after it was created, clearly in breach of the recommended "few days". WP:EVENT is a guideline. It is a well-established principle that WP:V through (many) WP:RS = WP:N. Which brings us to the WP:GNG. The article meets all points under WP:GNG - Significant coverage, Reliable, Sources, Independent of the subject and Presumed. Mjroots (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC) EVENT is a notability guideline, it is a topic specific interpretation of the GNG with direct focus on articles whose sole sources are derived from the news, which is why it is wholly meaningless to say, 'oh well, it doesn't need to meet EVENT because it meets the GNG'. But with regards to EVENT, you have conveniently cherry picked every bit of its wording that supports immediate creation of an article, without remotely listening to its overal message, or the bits you left out. For example, you pluck out the Australian coverage, without clarifying it was a simple news wire reprint, you claim a weeks 'solid reporting' as significance, when it is only because the train isn't cleared yet and really says not one thing about its lasting significance (and I'm dubious as to how solid that was). Moving on, your claim that First Scotrail and the EPA are diverse news sources is, well, innovative, but the section is really talking about demonstrating evidence of plentiful original reporting from actual news sources, and not as above, wire reprints. But by far the most worrying comment is that you created this article so quickly because you have to be fast to get an ITN spot. If that doesn't show where the presumption arrow went in the 'does this meet EVENT yet or not?' thought process, I don't know what does. And to go back to the start, you've simply misrepresented the EFFECT part completely. That section demands evidence of lasting impact, but rightly does not require it for all things, for obvious reasons. It is most certainly not a charter to create first, then wait and see, on simply any and every news event. Some sections you just completely missed out, such as depth, presumably because there just is not any depth of coverage here at all. As for the timing issue, everything that needed to be known was pretty much known at the time of nomination, as was pretty well explained in my original nomination note. MickMacNee (talk) 06:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Depth of coverage - An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The accident already has received significant coverage. The in-depth analysis will come in time - the first of this should be on 16 June when Rail Express is published. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC) This is a DRV, not AFD2. But to address this as brand new arguments, then unless they bring out a special edition, or devote the entire issue to the incident, then no, for a railway incident, coverage in Rail Express is not what anybody can reasonably consider in depth coverage for the purposes of EVENT. Maybe a full page spread ten years from now, which is more likely if all the predictions of historical significance here come true, but not straight after the incident. And that is in the same way that ongoing general news coverage, for being ongoing news, is not evidence of significant coverage of a news event. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC) The speedy creation of the article is entirely within the spirit of WP:BOLD - If you see something that can be improved, improve it!. The improvement I made was the creation of an article where none existed before. Mjroots (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I am sure the people on the new pages patrol would disagree. I think everybody would agree that notability is the only thing to consider when deciding to create a page or not. Infact, I'm sure this is the first time I've ever even seen BOLD be mentioned in this context. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. Clearly fails WP:NOT#NEWS, a policy. Closer vote-counted. Abductive (reasoning) 06:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse; consensus is ultimately the determinant of whether an article passes or fails to comply with some policy of some sort, and it has spoken here. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Note WP:TIS, WP:TWP and WP:UKRail informed. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. I !voted incubate in the AfD because I thought it failed WP:EVENT. The arguments given against this show that not only was consensus against this, but also that there's a serious policy case for keeping the article. As such, the close was correct. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. There was nothing wrong with the close and this is little more than forum shopping. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I know you are a new admin and everything, but I really really hope this was not a serious comment. Or is your intention here to have a chilling effect, to dissuade people from taking the legitimate steps detailed in WP:DP to allow people to challenge what they see as an erroneous closure? The closing admin certainly never had an issue with me taking this perfectly legitimate step. Infact, I can confidently say that one Afd-Drv cycle is not, and never will be, considered forum shopping, except in the most egregarious cases. If people think that this is an egregarious case, then I will glady retire right now. And if you want to discuss forum shopping, then I would like to know what specialist expertise in deletion review argumentation that members of the Scotland/Railway projects would have, to justify a second solicitation of comments? MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Comment. No one even responded to my comment at the AfD so I'm in a huff. {end sarcasm} A lot of votes seemed to be based on conjecture or personal opinion (thinking warning systems had failed etc), or basically It's Notable type votes. But who's kidding - this was never going to be closed as delete. I would have liked to have seen more reasoning from the closing admin however - preferably based on arguments rather than numbers. Quantpole (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Applying such guidelines as WP:NOTNEWS in cases like this is a matter of editorial discretion, since there is really no argument that the GNG has not been met. While I think the consensus determination does not reflect sound editorial judgment, there is no basis for rejecting it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Point of order - NOT#NEWS is policy, the GNG and it's news topics cousin/son EVENT are the guidelines. MickMacNee (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC) long comment on a recently discovered MjRoots posting about my possible motives MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Comment. MjRoots has been talking about me and this Afd all over the shop it seems, and I just found this one comment of his which needs addressing - My gut feeling is that it was nominated because the nominator didn't manage to create it himself. I was trying for an ITN which is why the article had to be created as soon as possible to get a credit if it had made ITN (it didn't, but will get a DTK instead). - I would like to clarify, but it should just be obvious seeing my views on EVENT in here and at the Afd, that I absolutely and categorically did not get the hump for not having created this first. I had no intention of creating this, not after the pertinant details became clear, and when they did become clear, that's when I nominated for deletion, because from then right up to know, the pertinent details did not change, and the subsequent news coverage was entirely predictable and entirely routine. The article Gyaneshwari Express train derailment is an example of the kind of article I do sometimes create with the goal of getting on ITN - a huge incident whose notability became clear almost instantly, although even in that haste there were fuckups, like Wikipedia spreading the apparently false account that it was a bombing - such are the perils of treating Wikipedia like a generator of news stories. But, if we are getting into the realms of gut feelings here, then let me state mine - I think it's pretty clear now and with above comments, that this article only came about because MjRoots arguably wrongly believed it was worse than it was, perhaps more deadly, or with a more dramatic fire and worse injuries, but he went for creation immediately not to be BOLD, but to go for ITN (for the filed copy see here), which incidentally then rejected it out of hand when the pertinant details became known. Then, as it became pretty obvious it was an incident of merely marginal notability, he was stuck with it, and switched to these tenuous interpretations of EVENT when he has acknowledged its existence at all, as well as other improper speculation and novel aguments, while padding it with all the RS/V news he could find, no matter if the article then started to blatantly resemble an improper news report or not (and look in the history for some prior revisions when it was worse than it is now, even though I Afd'd it, I was at least until recently was trying to keep it on track as an encyclopoedic article - possibly a mistake now given all the 'well written' keep votes, I won't be making that mistake again certainly). At times, the article and the arguments for keeping it became very close to simply defending the use of Wikipedia to host what was really a Wikinews story in a permanent drafting phase, for the benefit of interested people, rather than to get an early start on what is sure to be an historically notable incident worthy of a proper encyclopoedic article, with all the UNDUE implications that carries. Feel free to look at the wikinews article and see if you can spot what the difference is. Had someone done a follow up report to cover the recovery (there's still time to do so infact), arguably the article would now be not just partially, but utterly, redundant, until the RAIB report, which won't be for months, if not years, and which may or may not back up the claim for notability. There's a lot of talk in here that somehow EVENT is just ignorable, but people really need to look at the case history and Afd precedents that went into creating it - it has been designed specifically to act as the Go To guideline for breaking news type articles, an appropriate extension and interpretation of the GNG. Reverting back to the GNG because EVENT is inconvenient, is not a good move, and is akin to the similar retrograde step of reverting to just RS and V and WP:ONLYGUIDELINE, when the GNG turns out not to be met. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I have not been talking about you all over the shop, MMN. That was one post from one admin to another. I admit that I did have an ITN in mind, but I stand by my assertation that the event itself is notable, meets WP:GNG and I would have created it in any case even had I not had ITN in mind. I understand the reasons why it didn't make ITN and have no issue with its rejection there. Secondly, it is allowed for an editor to make interested parties (i.e. Wikiprojects) aware of discussions by neutrally worded announcements. I believe that my notification of both the original AfD and this DRV discussion are neutrally worded, and therefore not forum shopping. At not point have I stated to any WP that I want editors to comment in any particular way. They are free to make their own decisions based on the arguments presented. As for MMNs arguments about the state of the article, may I respectfully point him towards British Airways Flight 38, which started off in a similar manner, was nominated for AfD as non-notable because "nobody died", and is now in pretty good shape some 2½ years on. Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Some articles are created in a pretty much complete state, while others take time to achieve this. As MMN is so fond of linking to various guidelines etc, here's one for him - WP:STICK. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for pointing out WP:STICK, Mjroots! It and the related articles gave me some great laughs - it's good to remind ourselves not to take things too seriously! Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Well, as said above, you tell me what particular expertise Railway/Scotland editors bring to a DRV discussion that warrants a second notification? Or is it not the case that you are more than happy for this discussion to proceed as Afd Mk 2? Are we likely to see any particularly informed views on whether the closing admin applied correct weighting of opinions and views in that Afd, as you would expect in a DRV discussion, thanks to their special interests, or are we just going to get some of the same views I've described in the review rationale, which if they had been appropriately weighted in the first place, would not have to be solicited twice by you here and now. Those second notifications have as much relevance to this DRV as if you had notified WP:FOOD. I've held off posting this to TALK:EVENT or TALK:DP or any other place where one would actually expect to find such expertise, but it's things like this that make me think I probably should, just to even up what is a pretty obvious disparity between local views here, and site wide views as demonstrated in EVENT. As for comparing my nomination to someone else rather foolishly thinking the first hull loss of a major airliner is not going to be automatically notable, either by EVENT or by simple precedent, well, it's laughable to be honest. Why people don't read you making such innappropriate comparisons, ones which you cannot hope to replicate using either rail incident articles, or a credible and accepted topic specific guideline, and yet can still come away thinking this article has been created on solid grounds, is beyond me. But this DRV is not for discussing this phenomenon, we are notionally here to see whether the closing admin has correctly counted or discounted such views in the Afd. I fear actually for what new precedents or fringe guidelines you are going to try and open up or introduce if this article is kept on such shaky logic, and ultimately whether we will simply see Wikinews stop covering railway incidents all together, certainly British ones, creating a huge systemic bias flaw in the process, thanks to the efficiency of Google News UK (another issue which was raised in the Afd which nobody seems to have picked up, not least the closer), having effectively been disenfranchised. People spent many man-years pouring basic common sense into things like EVENT, but all for nothing I fear, in the face of the existence of BA 38 amazingly. Yes, you can likely make this article a GA, hell, you could possibly even get it FA if you doggedly avoided all the howls of protest and stuck to your guns on the technicalities that it's been kept once at Afd so you can't object now, but we've already been over how non-relevant that is to good old basic encyclopoedic worth in the Afd itself. MickMacNee (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse this article clearly passes WP:N and does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS. As HJ said above this is subtle forum shoping.--White Shadows stood on the edge 19:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse MMN you need to give it a rest, you're really starting to troll. FinalRapture - † ☪ 21:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse I have wasted half an evening looking at this whole thing and see nothing much wrong with the process of the AfD, and no reason to think the result was flawed. Globbet (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC) That's more time than the BBC wasted rustling up some original reporting to tell people everything is now back to normal after this incident. I counted 8 new words. That is some sweet gig right there if people honestly think that represents in-depth, significant, persistent, news reporting. I may just apply. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC) I would say that the BBC were very sensible then! Always reuse good material rather than reinventing the wheel. Compare that with the thousands of new words and hours of everyone's time spent on this debate... Hyperman 42 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, they know exactly how to run themselves as a news organisation. The irony is lost here though. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse: Did the closer properly determine the consensus of those participating? Yes, it is was strongly in favor of keeping the article even with some of keep rationales going beyond normal policy considerations. The nomination simply failed to sway those participating.--Milowent (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse: I initially was cautious about supporting keep, and considered the merits of merging into a related article, but I now believe that the incident is worthy of its own article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 12:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse: This was notable enough for there to be enough reliable sources for a good informative article to be written. Edgepedia (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse close appears to be an accurate reading of consensus. This looks like a bit of an "AFD round 2" nomination, honestly (yes that's a quote, but it applies here) Hobit (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC) If you can point out a single part of the review rationale that is a deletion rationale, rather than a review rationale, you might have a point. But it is a 100% a review rationale. I'm sorry some people don't like having to answer it, and some people haven't even bothered as predicted, but it's there, and needs to be said and on record for future people who will likely wonder how this managed to survive in 2010 when we have guidelines like EVENT, and how basic opinions like 'sourced, lots of sources' are considered remotely relevant for an article about news events. If you want to discuss the aspect of whether this has descended into Afd2 or not, then you need to look at the actions and comments of a few other people tbh, but certainly not me. MickMacNee (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Fair comment. I think some of your points _are_ AfD2 type stuff (Point 2 in particular is a re-argument if WP:EVENT applies which the AfD seemed to conclude it did not), but even then it is a reasonable issue as part of a DrV. Sorry, up late. I've struck that part of my comment. Hobit (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC) No, my point 2 is whether or not the closer recognised that EVENT was the reason for the nomination, given his brief close statement and summary, which didn't leave any indication as to whether he did or not, and thus whether he took proper account of this in assessing the arguments. There really can be no argument that it is intended to apply to this article as an event per its opening sentence - "This guideline is intended to explicate the primary notability guideline with regards to current and past real events, as well as breaking news". If the argument is that it's simply not applicable for some meta-reason, like it's just a guideline not a policy, or IAR, then that's fine, but again, it is down to the closer to say whether that was a large part of his closing of that debate as 'keep per consensus'. It would actually be pretty handy for everyone if the conclusion of this mega-debate is that there is some specific aspect of this incident that means EVENT doesn't apply in that sort of meta-way, and that collective wisdom can somehow be incorporated going forward, to stop future nominations. But I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly have no idea what the conclusion of the various arguments is in that regard, for the various reasons put forward in the review rationale, and I for one would have no qualms about invoking EVENT in a similar Afd, because I'm not seeing where it's been defeated here. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I understand your point, which is why I felt "it is a reasonable issue for the DrV". That said, the traditional way to overcome WP:Event is to show a breadth of coverage and some of the !votes to keep touched on this. I do agree the closer's statement could, and should, have been expanded. Hobit (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse keep. The strongest argument on the "delete" side is that the subject is a mere news event, and thus fail WP:NOT#NEWS. It is a good argument, and an argument well grounded in policy. However it is not a deal breaker argument. There are numerous "recent" subjects whose presence in Wikipedia is supported, and as long as the article passes the minimum standards of verifiability, neutrality, and previous research and coverage, it is the community, and not a self-appointed AFD closer who should draw the line. AFD closers have some discretion, but they should not let their personal opinion override the community consensus. I cannot see the AFD closer had much choice here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Drug Addicts Anonymous Uncontroversial request fulfilled.--Mkativerata (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Drug Addicts Anonymous (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) User requests here that the page text be userspaced so that he can work on it. Kind regards, Captain n00dle\Talk 12:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Note: The requesting user was 101Bullets (talk · contribs) please move to his namespace and notify him not me ^_^ Captain n00dle\Talk 13:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Done User:101Bullets/sandbox S.G.(GH) ping! 22:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 June 2010

Alexis Jordan (singer) – Userfy to User:Robert Moore/Alexis Jordan (singer). – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alexis Jordan (singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I noticed that it was deleted on May 14, 2010, but since then she has gotten more press attention, especially in the June 19, 2010 issue of Billboard. I think that the article deserves another look. Robert Moore (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC) g4 only applies to articles that are substantially the same. if there has been substantial additional coverage since the afd you can rewrite it. but make sure it is different and meets our various guidelines. think this should be closed.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Userfy so that Robert Moore (talk · contribs) can work on the article. This article from Us Weekly and this article from AOL's Popeater, in conjunction with the June 19, 2010 issue of Billboard (which I have been unable to find an online copy of) may be enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Featherlite Coaches – Restored – ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Speedy deletion on article with a claim of significance (most expensive cars ever made) that had a source to that effect. Article had a hang on tag on it, but no effort by deleting admin to contact person who added tag. Restored as a bad all around speedy deletion.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Not a good speedy deletion candidate. Sourced content about a notable company that could easily have been merged into the article on the parent company if there wasn't a desire to keep it as a stand-alone article. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Sources about the company, its products and the NASCAR race it sponsors and named after it include: http://charlotte.bizjournals.com/charlotte/stories/2008/06/02/story17.html http://www.dexigner.com/design_news/6873.html http://www.racingwest.com/series/west/2007/5/results.html (about a NASCAR race sponsored by and named after the company) http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/10/30/027081.html http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=29894009 http://www.amadascoach.com/pdf/AmadasFeatherlitePressRelease12-18-08.pdf Freakshownerd (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn and restore. The cache'd version of the article makes credible claims of significance or importance (eg making big costly buses and being the official bus manufacturer for NASCAR). We can debate the sources at AfD, if required. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Once again, we have a speedy deletion where the {{hangon}} tag was manifestly in place and, as far as I can see, zero communication between the nominator and the deleting admin has taken place. But before I reach for my , were there any discussions on the deleted article's talk page?—S Marshall T/C 08:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC) The talk page doesn't appear to have ever been created, so no. --RL0919 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 June 2010

Paint Crew – Doh! – Spartaz Humbug! 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Paint Crew (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Jackass "Ricky" hates on Perdue probably because USC ball just got fucked in the ass by the NCAA. How can you be against their official website as a credible source? What's not credible about quoting Mark Titus for what Mark said? And what's wrong with USA today? 3, count them, 3 reliable sources and it got gone. The Paint Crew is mentioned at all the broadcasts. Folks just got to listen to Purdue ball and learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.20.202 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC) You are reminded not to make personal attacks against other editors, or you will be restricted from editing; I strongly urge you to refactor your above comment ASAP. That being said, I see nothing wrong with the discussion one bit; nobody else has bothered to make any other comments apart from merging or deletion, so I endorse the decision. –MuZemike 07:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC) well fuck you too if you have no respect. Why the fukc should the Nittany Nation the Izzone and the grateful red be here but not the paint crew? What's not reliable about the crew? Why do four anti-Perdue haters decide what happens?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.40.234 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Alright I'll play your game. What's wrong with citing the official website and two newspaper articles? That's 3 sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.40.234 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Sources in a Wikipedia context should be independent of the subject. I would point out that the AFD was closed as merge, so that the topic will still be covered in Wikipedia, just under Purdue Boilermakers men's basketball rather than in its own article. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC) For context for observers, between the 07:59 and 08:06 comments I closed the DRV due to the nominator being unable to conduct debate in a civil manner. I do not intend to reclose it right now; another admin might. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Stifle was right to close it. Someone close it again. The nominator can come back when he's sober.—S Marshall T/C 13:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Stephanie Johnson – Withdrawn – Shimeru 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stephanie Johnson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I closed the discussion as merge about two weeks ago primarily based on sourcing concerns. Earlier today, the merge was undone on the strength of an added reference. I reverted to a redirect since the reference is to NBC.com, and therefore (in my opinion) a primary source, not indicating notability. One of the other editors involved has asked me to open a discussion here, so I am doing so. Is this sufficient to overturn the AfD and un-merge? For the sake of convenience, this diff shows all changes made to the article between the AfD close and just prior to my redirect. This is a procedural nomination; obviously I endorse my own close, but I am not opposed to recreation of the stand-alone article if consensus is that there are now sufficient secondary sources. Shimeru 01:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Restore Stephanie Johnson is the daughter of one of the most famous super couples in the history of Days of our Lives, Kayla Brady, and Steve Johnson. The character was first introduced in 1990 so there shouldn't be a notability issue here. If references are the problem some can certaintly be added. The Horton and Brady families are the main families in the show. Stephanie is a direct line in the Brady family. I can go add some refs myself. The point is it should be restored. And the ref that User:Gabi Hernandez added wasn't a primary source. It was a daily recap about all characters from the NBC site, which is considered a secondary source. The character is also in many of my Soap Opera reference books. Sami50421 (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I added more references to make the article more notable. It should be able to act as a stand alone article now. Sami50421 (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I thought that the current consensus is that DRV doesn't overturn a "merge" to a "keep" or vice versa, because there's no use of administrative tools to review, and the matter can be resolved just as well via the normal talk-page discussion and WP:BRD. Has that changed?—S Marshall T/C 14:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Kinda, yes. We agreed that the decision to close as merge could be reviewed but since this is new information it looks more like an editing decision so personally I'd prefer to see this discussion taking place at the article talk page. Spartaz Humbug! 15:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC) As Spartaz says. We will review it if here is some reason to, but it is rarely necessary, because consensus can usually be reached on the talk page. DGG ( talk ) 15:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Is there some reason why a DRV is necessary here, then?—S Marshall T/C 15:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Broader input. The involvement at the article page and subsequently talk pages was two editors in favor of reinstating the article, one opposed, and the AfD close was cited. That's not going to create a consensus. Apologies if another area would have been more suitable for this, but DRV seemed like the most obvious place to reconsider an AfD result. Shimeru 20:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Keep as a redirect - There's nothing to be seen but primary sources and bios of the actresses that played the character. No real-world context or notability to be had. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Check again. There is a number of sources from outside the soap opera realm. The character has notability, and it can be proved if allowed to do so. Gabriela Hernandez 19:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabi Hernandez (talk • contribs) Give back her own page! Stephanie has a been major character on the show for the past three years so can you please do it? --Razzfan (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Well, I don't see why we shouldn't provide the broader input Shimeru asks for. It's true that the AfD close was appropriate and in accordance with the consensus. I also haven't found any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. But on the other hand, I don't see why having a separate article for this TV show character would be such a terrible disaster for the encyclopaedia, and if good faith editors wish it—as they apparently do—then I don't see why we should stand in their way. I think that while there are still serious issues to clear up, it's not a good use of our time to try to be the notability police over such a harmless piece of content.—S Marshall T/C 21:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC) One of the authors in question has provided evidence of reliable secondary sources to be added to the article. As such, this DRV is now irrelevant, and I'm closing it as withdrawn. Thank you for your time. Shimeru 20:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 June 2010

SHAYTARDS – Keep Deleted. The consensus below is that though there were definite errors in the deletion process in this case, the article content is not appropriate for Wikipedia and that speedy criterion A7 does apply. – Eluchil404 (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SHAYTARDS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) SHAYTARDS is one of the most popular users on youtube. Shay Carl definitly a YoutTube celebrity. If CTFxC aka Internet Killed Television has a wikipedia page I would think that SHAYTARDS HAS to definitly have a wikipedia page. I'm shocked that they didnt already. So, then I created one but it got deleted instantly. SHAYTARDS is even more popular than CTFxC and somehow they get a wikipedia page. CTFxC's total upload views is 76,205,601 and SHAYTARDS total upload views is 123,970,318. Shay carl also isnt on the youtube celebrities list and charles trippy and alli speed are. If you look up the definetion of celebrity on wikipedia this is it: a person who is easily recognized in a society or culture. If you were to ever watch the SHAYTARDS then you would know hat they ALWAYS get pointed out while they are out vlogging. I Highly suggest listen to both my suggestions. And if you let me create a SHAYTARDS page I will take the time to make it as best as possible. Thanks. Falcons8455 (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC) The cached version indicates the speedy deletion was contested at the time. What grounds for contesting the deletion were cited, how did Wikipedians respond to that contest, and what discussion took place with Falcons8455 on the article's talk page? The reason I ask is that just from looking at the users' talk page histories, I don't see much evidence that we've fully complied with the last sentence of Wikipedia's fourth pillar. I also wonder whether the nominator has been told about the guidelines and policies that informed the decision to delete. From the nomination, it would appear that he hasn't, and if that's the case then Wikipedia hasn't exactly covered itself with glory here.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Im not to sure why it was deleted. I was making the article and then there was this thing put on top for requested delete. Then I try to put the hangon thing and say my reason for why it shouldnt be deleted and after im dont writing it I click save and then the whole page and everything is gone. I would really like a chance to get the page started and make it as good as possible. Falcons8455 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, that's how I was afraid you might have seen it. I'll be honest: I don't think DRV will overturn this deletion for you. On the facts of it, Starblind (below) makes policy-based points that it's hard to argue with. When he talks about coverage in reliable sources, that's what Wikipedia's definition of a "celebrity" is: someone who's made the mainstream news, and received more than just a passing mention. But you really ought to have had a proper explanation of notability in general and the details of how notability is applied to internet content like Youtube, and you should've had that explanation at the time. When DRV participants find themselves explaining these things to a good faith nominator such as yourself, that's always a sign that Wikipedians could've handled things better, earlier. It's also a sign that you need to see some FairProcess from us, i.e. a genuine discussion that takes account of the things you say and reaches a conclusion that you find intelligible.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse until we see a reason to undelete that isn't based on WP:ILIKEIT, WP:BIGNUMBER, or WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Specifically, let's see the substantial coverage in reliable sources you plan on using to source the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I'll use the same type of sources as this page: Internet Killed Television. Its pretty simple. I guarantee I can get plenty of sources the same as that other wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcons8455 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Would this be a good source for SHAYTARDS? http://mashable.com/2009/11/09/owas-photos-videos/ Falcons8455 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC) If there was an article what in depth coverage does that provide which would enable us to write verifiable information about the subject? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC) what? Falcons8455 (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC) It's a fairly simple question to understand, and one that you will be asked time and again here at Wikipedia, because it's how we do things. Sources that covered the subject in depth were asked for. You suggested one. You were asked where in that source the in-depth coverage is. The answer appears to be that it is nowhere. There's nothing in that putative source that documents this subject in depth. Uncle G (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion but not for the reasons given above. ILIKEIT, BIGNUMBER, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "reliable sources" are arguments for AFD. Endorsing because the cached version of the article gives no indication why the subject is important or significant. Nothing in the article indicates why this series is different from any of the other countless videos uploaded to YouTube. However, the deletion log should read "A7" not "Uh huh". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry about that ... when I deleted it, I saw that it had been recreated multiple times and I incorrectly thought that it was not a serious article because of this sentence, "It all started when he wanted to do something big for his birthday." Since it had been deleted multiple times, I didn't investigate further beyond only seeing a youtube link and I incorrectly assumed it was a joke/hoax page. (Obviously, it was not and I should have left a better deletion summary.) --B (talk) 03:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted as the article gives no indication, and none appears to be forthcoming, as to why the person is important or significant, but, as per S Marshall, strongly criticize several of the steps taken so far. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC) On seeing B's response, keep deleted per Stifle. I would be grateful if the closer of this DRV would avoid using the word "endorse". It's quite apparent to me that the deletion process was not correctly followed in this case. Refreshingly, B offered no excuses for that and indeed apologised, which mitigates any ill-feeling caused by his inattentive use of the tools.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC) What do you mean Ron? The article showed all the awards that Shay carl was up for. I think that shows how differnt he is than other youtubers. He was basically on every award nomination list there was. Plus that is just 1 source that could be used. Falcons8455 (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Looking at the version shown by the google cache, I see the big pink speedy tag, the "hangon" tag and this text... SHAYTARDS is a reality web series which documents the lives of Shay Carl and his family. It all started when he wanted to do something big for his birthday so decided to upload a video to youtube everyday of his 29th year of his life.. Absolutely no mention of any award. Is there perhaps another version of this article we should be looking at? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC) The most recent version had an infobox and this text: SHAYTARDS is a reality web series which documents the lives of Shay Carl and his family. It all started when he wanted to do something big for his birthday so decided to upload a video to youtube everyday of his 29th year of his life. The previous two versions of the article were almost nothing beyond personal information (names of family members, etc). --B (talk) 00:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC) How does a person get nominated for these awards? I used to work for a tiny six-person company that had nominated itself for countless awards and always put out a press release talking about how it was nominated for this or that prestigious award, but it was marketing drivel, not something that it had actually achieved and it was in no way a notable company. Is there anywhere that anyone outside of youtube fandom or the blogosphere has taken note of this individual? If not, it is not an appropriate topic for inclusion on Wikipedia. This is not a judgment on whether or not his videos are entertaining or he is a talented person - it is simply a statement that this is not a topic within the scope of Wikipedia. --B (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Matthew Hoh – Userfy/history merge to User:Freakshownerd/Matthew Hoh to allow recreation of a draft with new sources. Draft may be moved to mainspace at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mathew Hoh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The subject continues to be noted in the media and is one of the most prominent critics of the Afghan War strategy. Here are some of the media citations including several since the close of the AfD. The BLP 1-E closure appears faulty. http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Seeks_New_Balance_In_Afghan_Intelligence/1930910.html http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/10/27/afghanistan http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8565517.stm http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/16-Dec-2009/We-have-the-time/1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/01/matthew-hoh-interviewed-b_n_341553.html http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2010/02/201028910504706.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/16/taliban-indistinguishable-enemy-afghanistan http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Afghanistan/us-civilian-surge-afghanistan-decade/story?id=9971367 Freakshownerd (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Article deleted on 6 March for lack of notability; BBC news mentions him on 13 March; The Guardian mentions him again on 16 May. (The other sources' coverage predates the AfD.) However, I would question whether the BBC or the Guardian source is anything more than a passing mention. So there's evidence of ongoing coverage, but not enough coverage for him to be independently notable. I also note that Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) now contains a total of six mentions of Hoh, including some prominently-featured quotes, which gives us an obvious redirect target. I'll endorse NuclearWarfare's close as a correct reading of the consensus at that time, but go on to say that in view of the new evidence before us, a redirect to Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) could reasonably be created.—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC) You don't think stories like this one http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html in the Washington Post and the ongoing reporting on his views amount to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources? Wikipedia is better off excluding coverage of an officer and diplomat with first hand experience who is one of the most noted critics of the Afghan War strategy? The coverage of his experiences and views and the nterviews of him by Fareed Zakaria, Al Jazeera, etc. etc. as well as the countless citations in all sorts of international media aren't enough? What exactly is the one event that he's being deleted in regards to? Is the Afghan War a BLP-1E? Freakshownerd (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC) I haven't considered the Washington Post story. The reason why I haven't considered it is that when the AfD took place, that source already existed. You see, this isn't AfD round 2. We're basically here to think about two things: first, did the closer make a clear mistake?—In my experience that particular closer very rarely makes mistakes at AfD, and when there's doubt he apologises and opens a new discussion. I don't ever recall feeling that Nuclear Warfare should be overturned here. But second, and more productively, are there new sources that we need to consider? That's why I read the BBC and Guardian sources quite closely and formed my opinion on the basis of them: because they're sources that the AfD didn't take into account.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Please address how Matthew Hoh qualifies as a BLP-1E despite the very substantial coverage over many months in reliable independent sources, including extensive discussion of his years of military service in the army, as a diplomat, and most recently as an outspoken critic of Afghan War strategy who has been interviewed, discussed and cited in numerous media sources. Do you expect his significance as the highest ranking U.S. official to resign over the Afghan War strategy to disappear or diminish in coming months? Freakshownerd (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I don't think he is a BLP1E. I'm also on record as having said, several times, that I don't like the BLP1E rule at all. But the consensus is against me on that, because the AfD's already happened.—S Marshall T/C 16:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC) There's also this award http://www.ridenhour.org/recipients_03h.shtml he just received in April (after the deletion discussion). And S Marshall's comments are a bit misleading because the ABC news story was on March 3 and was not discussed at the AfD that closed March 6. And Hoh is not simple "mentioned" in these articles. There are paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs about him. The Washington Post story, as an example, is 4 pages long and focused entirely on Hoh. So apparently they deemed his story notable. Freakshownerd (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC) My suggestion is one that I make pretty often here, which is that if you can improve on the article that was deleted at AFD, you're welcome to recreate it, since it's not protected. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation Initial deletion was borderline and there's a lot of post-AfD sources that are clearly relevant to establishing notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC) no need to overturn just recreate and it will not be deleted under G4, however is the original deleted content required? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Restore the article before deletion. The original version doesn't seem to have any glaring concerns and seems fairly stable. Agree with the others that notability is clearly now established, and we can move forward with this. –MuZemike 07:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation I was one of the editors that was for the initial deletion which I strongly believe was proper at the time. However, the award and subsequent coverage I think has turned the tide and I would be in favor of a recreated article with reliable sourcing and minimal POV. He is a historical figure at this point and noble enough for wiki. On a side note, how come nobody bothered to notify editors involved in the original deletion discussion of the proposed review, thats kinda rude. Bevinbell 11:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Restore I came looking for encyclopedic information on a name i'm hearing [the news]. There's little more notable than an insider taking moral, and effective, action against America's wars, at personal career risk. - Rgrant (talk) 05:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User talk:SQL – undeleted by user – –xenotalk 04:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:SQL (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) User talk pages are not eligible for speedy deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Just adding - unable to inform deleting admin because he has protected his improperly deleted talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 10:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Will also add that because the page is protected, it is impossible for editors with it on their watchlists to know that this DRV is happening. DuncanHill (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Note added. You needed only to ask. --B (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Thank you for adding it. It's a shame that DRV processes do not include such a mechanism as a matter of course. DuncanHill (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC) You could either be bold and modify the text of step four at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review to include this instruction not only for pages that were kept, but for any page that presently exists (and to ask an administrator to do it if the page is protected) or you could discuss such a change on the talk page. That may be a little heavy on the instruction creep, though. Please understand that administrators are not your enemy and if you need something done (like adding this tag to a protected page), you need only to ask. It's not something that's necessarily going to occur to everyone simply because most pages discussed here are deleted redlinks anyway. --B (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC) He's retired, why does it need to be undeleted? Stifle (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Because 1) he still has admin tools, 2) the history may contain information relevant to previous admin actions he has taken, etc and 3) no valid reason for deletion has been proposed. DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Comment: For some background, please see User talk:Newyorkbrad#User talk:SQL. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Comment: For additional background, admins can see deleted conversation here, where SQL was asked why their talk page history had been deleted. — Satori Son 14:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC) That's nice for them, any chance mere mortals might be let in on it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC) That link doesn't work - I think [68] is what he is really looking for. There isn't really any specific background there (nor would I expect there to be as obviously it was public at the time he said it.) Without wanting to give exactly what he said out of respect for his privacy, I would sum up what he said as "there is a good reason for it to be deleted". --B (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Very sorry about the broken link, and I agree with B's summary. I would also note that I could not locate any instance of SQL specifically invoking WP:Right to vanish at any point. I have also sent them an email to notify them of this discussion. — Satori Son 16:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Strong overturn as abuse of admin power and against guidelines. Admins are meant to be no different to other users and other users would have been denied a speedy delete and very probably denied deletion at WP:MfD, so this admin should have gone through MfD. If we start to allow one rule for admins one rule for everyone else we're on very dangerous ground. Additionally we don't allow user talk pages to be deleted in case there's anything of later use in the history. We have no way of knowing what may be of use so saying it isn't useful now isn't a persuasive argument. Yes if it looks like it would be useful in the future someone could come to DRV then but how many would a) know what to do and b) be bothered, therefore I think it's best if this is undeleted. I second DuncanHill's comment about being able to see his reasoning, at the very least someone should restore that conversation. Dpmuk (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC) How often do you have a need to review the talk page of a user who has been retired for over a year? --B (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn, because there's no reason why a retired admin's talkpage ought to be treated any differently from a retired non-admin's talkpage. Before that's done, though, please would an admin examine the history of that page closely to see that there's nothing in need of oversighting. Also, SQL's admin rights ought to be revoked for the time being. He should be able to request their return without a fresh RFA on satisfying bureaucrats about his identity. (The reason for this measure is because the nasty, cynical part of me is worried that an inactive admin account might have a commercial value.)—S Marshall T/C 16:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Why shouldn't a retired non-admin be permitted to have their talk page deleted? How is having his page restored going to preclude the possibility that his account could be compromised/sold/whatever? --B (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC) B, have you failed utterly to pay attention? SQL is still an admin. DuncanHill (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC) B is replying to me, and in context, I think his remark makes perfect sense. I don't agree with him, but I'm sure he was paying attention.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Correct, the question was over the issue of a double standard and my contention is that any non-malicious user who wishes to retire and stay retired should be permitted the courtesy of having his or her talk page removed from public view. --B (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC) No idea. But for whatever ridiculous reason, it's not done. According to WP:RTV, a user's talk page is only deleted after a MFD discussion, if at all, so an MFD ought to take place in this case as well. As for the possibility of a compromised account, I said two separate things in my remark and I think you've conflated them together.—S Marshall T/C 06:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Well, rules are rules isn't a reason. Obviously, I don't agree with that current language. As with many things on Wikipedia, it's a moving target - it did not used to be there and was added unilaterally without discussion in February 2009 [69]. I think it's a bad rule because it precludes someone who is undergoing harassment from being able to vanish without airing it in public. (Again, I have no idea if this was the case with SQL.) --B (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC) As I recall, the language at RTV was changed to bring it into line with what SPEEDY already said, and with accepted practice. I do not recall such opposition in the past to requests to have improper deletions of talk pages overturned. DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC) There is good reason for it not to be listed as an explicit criterion - so that mildly disruptive users cannot demand that their pages be deleted, then resume their antics under a different account. There are some things that are clearly appropriate to delete, but for which a firm rule cannot be created because of its potential for misuse. I consider this to be one such thing. We delete user talk pages from indefblocked users all the time (see Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages). I would think we would want to be at least as polite with our good faith users. --B (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC) You still haven't produced any specific reason why this out-of-process deletion should be allowed to stand. If you want the Criteria for Speedy Deletion to be changed to allow admins to speedy their own pages and then make themselves unavailable for discussion of their (entirely unknown in this case) reasons, then do so at the relevant page. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I think that in the absence of a pressing reason to ignore the rules, they should be applied. I also think it's DRV's role to see that they are applied. I agree with DuncanHill that the onus is on you to show why the rules should be ignored. The onus is certainly not on me to show you why the rules should be enforced!—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC) No rule should be enforced (or action taken) unless the benefits outweigh the harm. Wikipedia is not the US Congress - we have rules because they are generally agreed to be the best/most efficient/whatever way of doing things, but they aren't divine revelation and that's why we ignore them as needed. The benefit of restoring this page is that it's potentially more convenient to research someone's two-year-old contributions for a potential RFA. The harm is that it potentially violates SQL's privacy or makes it easier for someone to harass him. The potential harm seems to outweigh the potential benefit. --B (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC) There is no right to privacy here, from the moment one hits "submit". This Bush-era "you don't need to know" cloak and dagger stuff is bullshit, to put it mildly. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Surely, there is at least some slight difference between the level of accountability that should be required of our government and the level of accountability that should be required from someone who is potentially a 13-year-old kid. --B (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Well now, there's a can of worms. Yes, to my eternal despair, there are children among our admin corps. Tell me there's a child protection issue and I'll not only endorse the deletion but personally request oversight for the contents of the page. But aren't you also saying the page history is innocuous?—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I went back two years and everything was innocuous. (I have no idea what SQL's age was and I guess/assume he is an adult - I have no reason to believe he is underage. My only point was that a demand of strict accountability from someone who is no longer editing is not a workable demand and it is certainly ridiculous to equate clandestine secrecy of the government - and that's both parties, not just the Bushies - to deleting a page on Wikipedia.) I do agree with you that persons who have not reached legal majority should not be admins and I don't particularly like allowing any editors who are not of legal majority, though I recognize that I am one of very, very, very few with this viewpoint. --B (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Well, I didn't say anything about governmental secrecy; Tarc's sometimes fond of hyperbole. I don't often agree with Tarc, to tell you the truth. (Stop press! Sky falls! S Marshall agrees with Tarc at DRV! Satan was unable to comment as he's taking an unexpected skiing holiday.) But stripped of hyperbole, in this case Tarc raises a point that I do wish you'd take a little more seriously. Sometimes a matter "... depends not upon what actually was done but upon what might appear to be done." In this case, no matter how innocent the motive, the appearance is that an admin is to be permitted to disregard the rules without explaining in any specific detail why that should be allowed. And there's every reason to believe that no matter what you personally might wish, a non-admin would not receive the same privilege. This smacks of an unpleasant double-standard.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn-No reason for this page to be deleted. Even if he really must have the page protected, at the very least the history ought to be visible.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. User talk pages should not be deleted without a very good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per ""there is a good reason for it to be deleted". --B (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)". We don't want to know the details. If B is satisfied, I am satisfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I should clarify and I apologize if this wasn't fully clear from my comment, I was summarizing his comments on his talk page as "there is a good reason for it to be deleted", not saying that "there is a good reason for it to be deleted" is my conclusion. I am NOT privy to the reason he wants it deleted and he did not specify what it was. I can speculate/assume/guess that he was being harassed and/or had a privacy concern relating to something in the history, and I fully support him leaving the talk page deleted so long as he does not return and reclaim the admin privileges, but I do want to make it very clear that "there is a good reason for it to be deleted" is my summary of his comments, not my analysis of the situation based on any actual information. I hope that's clear ... I didn't want to copy/paste exactly what he said out of respect for his privacy in case there is something in there he would like to have remain hidden. --B (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Probably more important than his reason for deletion is: Is there anything particular on the talk page that really shouldn't be deleted - ie something related to ongoing issues involving active editors? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC) I don't see anything ... I went back to mid-2008 and looked at each version prior to archiving. Most of the conversation was just stuff relating to his bots. I didn't see anything along the lines of wikidrama. The worst I saw was in June 2008, someone arguing about their bot being declined. There are exactly 200 edits since October 2008 (when he basically went inactive, returning sporadically until March 2009), and the majority of those from eyeballing it are various posts from bots (eg, delivering the Signpost). I'm not inclined to spend all night and look all the way back, but I don't see anything particularly exciting in the last two years. --B (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - if he returns, the page can be restored. There is no reason that someone who is not active should be required to maintain their talk page. Plenty of Wikipedia users are harassed in real life because of their Wikipedia activities and if someone who has been retired for a year feels more secure by having his talk page deleted, so be it. --B (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC) (ec)That's a reason to blank, tag retired, and protect, but not for an admin to hide his history of public correspondence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC) If there is a privacy prtoection reason, or other, I think an "uninvolved" admin should do it. Admins deleting their own talk pages looks bad. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Keep deleted per B and per Newyorkbrad, but should SQL return at any stage it should be undeleted without further notice. It would greatly help matters if SQL resigned sysop tools at this time. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Comment Newyorkbrad has actually said that there is no special circumstance requiring the page to be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Restore the page - I see no legitimate or policy-based reason to allow a retiring admin to cover his tracks like this. If there are individual revisions that are for some reason problematic, then oversight can be requested. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Cover his tracks? His admin actions are all still open to scrutiny by anyone - the only thing that is changing is his talk page history is only open to hundreds of people instead of millions. --B (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC) No, it is impossible to scrutinize his actions without access to any justification or reasoning he may have given. It is now impossible for any non-admin to make reference to anything that may have been said on his talk page - whoever said it - so it is not only his behaviour that can no longer be assessed honestly, but also that of anyone else who contributed to the page. DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Well, my first thought is that this is an issue not unique to departed user talk pages. There are plenty of deleted pages with extensive histories (anyone remember Esperanza?) and we're certainly not going to undelete all of deleted Wikipedia just in case someone might have said something rude at some point in time that needs to be scrutinized. My second thought is that the content since October 2008 is mostly trivial (with the single exception of the conversation about the deleted talk page, mentioned above) and I looked back to June 2008 and found nothing controversial. Even if someone's contributions are being scrutinized, it's rare that anything more than 2 years old would be particularly relevant. My third thought is that if there is a specific request (eg, please review a particular user's deleted comments for this RFA or please look at SQL's talk page for a particular conversation about a bot that he mentions in a certain BAG request), that request can be accommodated by an admin. I think the unlikely potential for a two-year-old talk page to matter outweighs the reasonable right to privacy that we should afford our editors. No, I don't know what the situation is, but I can certainly imagine it. For example, I was harassed some time ago in the real world by an individual who was seeking to harass anyone associated with the deletion discussion of his article. If I were concerned about the possibility of that harassment continuing, I wouldn't particularly want years of talk page hanging around for this person or similar people to search through for more information about my family, etc. Forcing users to leave their talk pages here for all eternity only makes them more likely to be subjected to harassment. --B (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC) On the Esperanza point, the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy (specifically an informal fallacy). We're discussing the undeletion of a user talk page, not Esperanza or Daniel Brandt. On the harassment point, that's something that if true would outweigh DRV. But it does need to be shown to be true. If it's not so shown then the double-standard is the more damaging issue.—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC) No, it doesn't need to be shown to be true. Both the benefits of restoration and the benefits of deletion are hypothetical benefits. There is the hypothetical benefit that someone might want deleted content from the page for a legitimate reason and there is the hypothetical harm that someone might want deleted content from the page for harassment. Both are hypotheticals, not things that we have actual knowledge that they will happen. We do have an appropriate remedy for restoring the needed content if/when it is actually needed (get an admin to do it) but we do not have an appropriate remedy for stuffing the genie back in the bottle if we undelete the page and someone starts using it to harass this user. Nor do I accept that there is a double standard - my contention is that any good faith user should be permitted the same courtesy, so if there's no double standard from me. --B (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC) B, the double standard is that admins can delete their own talk pages contra-policy and get away with it, and non-admins can't get their talk pages deleted at all, because it is contra-policy. As to "We do have an appropriate remedy for restoring the needed content if/when it is actually needed (get an admin to do it)" I'm sorry but you appear not to have noticed that non-admins have no way of knowing whether there is anything that need restoring! It is not a viable or appropriate remedy. We are left with the situation that one admin (you) claims that another admin (SQL) has nothing on his talk page that needs keeping - and you won't allow any non-admins access to the history and content to verify this. However honourable your motive, the effect of your position is to create an impression of admins scratching each other's backs and erecting barriers to non-admin participation. DuncanHill (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC) You're assuming that admins are a monolithic group that all thinks alike. You can ask any of hundreds of other admins to look at it. There is also a new user group called researcher that we do not yet use, but could be implemented to allow trusted non-admins to review histories in the same way we now have non-admins with rollback, IP block exemption, or other formerly admin-only rights. I just don't agree that the only remedy for the hypothetical problem that someone might find something somewhere in the history useful is to restore it. If good faith non-admin users are not being permitted to have their talk pages deleted when they vanish, then that's a problem that needs to be resolved, too. --B (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Mike Godwin has already made it very clear that non-admins user-groups will never be allowed by the Foundation to see deleted material. As for good faith - I do not believe that an admin who deleted his own talk page contrary to policy was acting in good faith. How about you show some good faith in the non-admins participating here and undelete for the duration of this discussion? Or can't we be trusted to behave responsibly with the allegedly entirely inoccuous contents of the page? "I want it deleted" is nowhere near a strong enough reason to invoke IAR - which is apparently the only justification you can give for the deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I wasn't aware of that ... I wonder why they created the user group then ... strange. The issue isn't with you not being trusted - were it in my power, I would give you the ability to view the page right now. The issue is with making public whatever portions of it may affect SQL's privacy. I will do him the courtesy of sending him an email to (1) invite him here should he so desire and (2) ask his permission to restore it temporarily, with the possible exception of whatever part he may feel would be a violation of his privacy. --B (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC) The new user-group is for the "trial" of sighted revisions or whatever it's being called nowadays. It is in your power to make the page visible right now. Newyorkbrad has already confirmed that there are no special circumstances requiring it to remain deleted. As to asking SQL, I emailed him shortly after starting this DRV, another editor above has indicated that they have emailed him, so I don't see what good another email from you will do. You don't need his permission to restore either temporarily or permanently. If there are specific edits within it that are problematic, then Oversight is the correct way to deal with them. Anyway, I'm off to Scout camp for the weekend, won't be on here again till Sunday evening. DuncanHill (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC) If Brad is comfortable with restoring it, please feel free to ask him to do it. I am not comfortable with it, but that's just me - I speak only for myself, not for anyone else. --B (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Asked him before coming here (conversation was linked by him above), he appears to think that it shouldn't be deleted but he won't undelete it. Makes no sense to me, DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC) (ec)SORRY! Just realised you were talking about "researcher" and I was talking about "reviewer"! Sorry about the mix-up. AFAIK, "researcher" is a closed Foundation user-group, but will look into that more closely after camp. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Restore: or he resigns the admin bit. There's accountability and transparency behind the admin corps or there isn't. This is binary. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Agree. The admin bit should be removed, due to the talk page deletion, and more so due to the talk page protection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Or, let's say I don't really "endorse" the action, so perhaps this should be allow or leave deleted. While the filing of this DRV and the "overturn" position may formally be supported by the guideline against deleting user talkpages, the fact is that the idea of restoring this page is a solution in search of a problem. The amount of wikitime that we spend on process and guidelines for process and guidelines' sake, such as this one, instead of addressing real problems of current relevance, is staggering and is becoming untenable. ¶ Given that this user has not edited substantially in well over a year, it is not as if the deletion is interfering with discussion of any current wiki issue, or with discussion of user conduct. The fact that the user remains an administrator is more of an issue, and I would see a problem with leaving the full history of the page deleted if he were actively administering, but again, other than actions related to this page itself, SQL has no administrator actions for more than a year, and it may be that the main reason he has not yet resigned is that he is not checking his e-mail if anyone asked him to. ¶ The bottom line here is that SQL served Wikipedia well and honorably for a long time, and has decided, for whatever reason, that he does not want to be part of the project any more. It is understood that departing from the wiki will never involve eradicating all the traces of one's former presence. But here SQL has asked, as a parting wish, that we leave deleted the archive of two- and three- and four-year-old conversations on his talkpage, and I see no harm in honoring his wishes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Disagree that disagreeing with admins giving themselves special COI benefits, such as arbitrary unilateral talk page deletions is bad, let alone untenable. However, with at least one admin in good standing prepared to say "I see no harm in honoring his wishes [talk page deletion]", I guess it is OK. Preferably, such deletions would be requested for another admin to perform. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 June 2010

1541_Ultimate – overturn and restore, with an articles for deletion nomination at editorial discretion – Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
1541_Ultimate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The page is about a multifunction utility cartridge for the Commodore 64 that (among other things) simulates a 1541 Diskdrive via files stored on an SD-card, released in 2008. There was no reason to speedily delete the page other than User:JzG believing false accusations of me being a sock puppet, blocking me (has been revoked by User:jpgordon meanwhile after my unblock request) and deleting an article I created while he was at it. A7 does not apply, as a quick search for "1541 Ultimate" on Google (25800 hits) and "1541u" (25600 hits) will confirm. G11 does not apply, in the section about the success of the cartridge I was merely stating the facts. I am in no way affiliated with the guy making these cartridges, i just happen to have bought two of them, being - like many others - a very satisified user. It might sound like advertising, but this cartridge's stellar success within the c64 user community is simply the truth - If you need a hundred people from the c64 scene to confirm this, i can happily provide them, some are even active on Wikipedia! ;-) I would also like to point out that I also wrote the article on the MMC64, a competing product by a different manufacturer -- clearly i would not advertise my competitor's product if I was doing advertising, would I? ;-) Also, i'd like to stress that a rule for speedy deletion was violated: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations. ". When I first wrote the article, the unit was very new, and there was not much on it on the web apart from forums -- and yet even back then the guys involved in the A7-deletion discussion (blanchardb and cobaltony) said that it already was a borderline case (check my talk page, it's all in there). This has changed a lot since, and when I re-added the article a few months later, i added links to reviews or youtube videos of the cartridge being made. This time the article passed without a deletion request, and has remained online largely unchanged for almost two years now. Oh, and i did try mailing User:JzG about both my unwarranted block and the deletion of my page, no reply (though some edits show he was online since and hence notified of my mails) DeeKay64 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC) DRV can't help you resolve any issues with blocks or address any complaints against administrators, unfortunately. DRV deals with contested deletion decisions about content pages, and that's all we do here. It would help us to review the deletion if you could list the reliable sources that discuss this C64 cartridge and confirm its notability. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid the tripod page doesn't meet the criteria for that.—S Marshall T/C 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC) This is not meant as a complaint against an admin (though I would like to know how to do that if that's possible! ;-) and my block has been removed already. I only mentioned this to give the full picture, that A7 and G11 may not necessarily have been the real reason for deleting the page. This is merely about the restoration of the 1541u article. Here's a few reliable sources from both the article and Google: http://www.retrozentrale.net/?p=1087 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxX-aabjl94 http://video.aol.ca/video-detail/retro-review-mmc-replay-vs-1541-ultimate-auf-commodore-64-teil-24-mmc-replay-test/3639114738/?icid=VIDURVHOV03 I'm not quite sure what kinda sources you expect for a c64 cartridge made in 2008 - Can't give you any review on Tom's Hardware if that's what you're asking! ;-) As for notability: Isn't 26000 unique hits on Google big enough? -- DeeKay64 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Complaints about other users should go through WP:DR. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. Not clearly spam/advertising, and game cartridges are not currently a valid CSD:A7 category. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn and restore. A7 clearly doesn't apply: A7 is limited to discrete categories of article subjects that do not include any kind of product. In my view, G11 is also inapplicable. Parts of the article are certainly spammy, but the article is not exclusively so.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn A7 only applies to real people, animals, organisations and web content, not computer hardware. Though the "public reception" section was a little spammy G11 only applies if the spam is so pervasive that the article would have to be rewritten almost from scratch to fix the problem, which isn't the case here (removing that one section would probably be enough). Didn't meet any other CSD criterion. Hut 8.5 10:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah, on reflection I concur. Restore to mainspace, although I'm not confident the article would survive AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn as per Stifle. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Enlightenment for Beginners_by_Matthew_Blythe – deletions endorsed with userfication/emailing of content at administrator discretion – Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Enlightenment for Beginners_by_Matthew_Blythe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Enlightenment for Beginners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This is a page describing my book, how it came to be, the publishers details, ISBN, number of pages etc. a link to the book preview on google books, a quotation from the books cover and an image of the front to cover of the book I uploaded to wiki commons. This is not advertising. This is my first night on wikipedia EVER and the very first article I have written, I probably could have written it better or given a chance to fix it but it was deleted immediately without so much as a "speedy delete" tag. I did duplicate the page which was given a "speedy delete" tag which was fair enough but deleting BOTH pages was just plain unecessary. I have tried to contact the admin four times but no response! Too busy I guess? Thanks for reveiwing, nobody is perfect least of all me but I do my best. Mattblythe (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse my deletion. The barefaced cheek of talking about "my book" and expecting us to re-instate is truly amazing. "Contact the admin four times" - what on earth are you talking about: you tried once and I am responding within minutes. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I sent you FOUR emails you please check the wiki communications channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I think your expectation of response from RHaworth is unrealistic. Everyone here are volunteers, the article was deleted at 20:28, you were here complaining of lack of response 1 hour later. What's the absolute urgency? Looking at the cached version I would have to agree it has a promotional tone, doesn't appear to give any indication as to why it is important or significant so would fit at least one of the other speedy deletion criteria. In general I think you may have difficulty meeting wikipedia's inclusion standard on this, the basic one being the general notability guideline which says the book itself must have been the subject of non-trivial coverage multiple independant coverage reliable sources, i.e. the world at large must demonstrate interest in this. Since this has only just been published (and self published at that, suggesting that a publisher wouldn't be interested in it) it'd seem unlikely that will be the case. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC) OK then notoriabilty is the issue here, not advertising. You are basically saying come back when you are famous enough LOL ok just remember one day you were discussing things with me in real time not in the future. Who is the judge regarding infamy? Do you speak for the world at large? Google me! That isn't what I said, I said it was promotional in tone. I also highlighted that there were other issues and the likely highest hurdle of being consiered notable in wikipedia's terms. Being famous isn't important there are plenty of people/things who wouldn't be considered famous but meet wikipedia's inclusion standards. Googling you is not important for this because (a) Hits on google don't make for something notable in wikipedia terms (indeed a google for my name says 253,000 who many are to do with me and how many are significant coverage by third parties is a different matter) and (b) the article was about the book, not about you. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC) agreed, never heard of you. The point was he never would have deleted it had I not duplicated the article (in error) but since it is open to discussion: Importance of civility During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions. Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms—this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage. And now he wants to delete the picture of the book cover which I submmitted to the wiki commons open source so that anyone can view it *sighs* I took this picture with my own camera up the downs where I live :::::* Unsurprisingly, I have nominated File:Enlightenmentforbeginnerscoverfront.JPG for deletion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC) citing the reason as SPAM! This photo was/is DIRECTLY relavent to the article in question. PERSONAL more like ;-) 3252 book covers on wiki commons can't all be wrong !! http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=book+cover http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Enlightenmentforbeginnerscoverfront.JPG#File:Enlightenmentforbeginnerscoverfront.JPG You deleted an article I spent the last three hours working on. How was it advertising? I merely described my book, added the date it was published and the books publication details, ISBN, number of pages etc. and quoted a section from the cover. The was a small part about "how the book came to be" and a link to the book on google books where readers can see a preview. And a CC image of the frontcover. HOW WAS THIS ADVERTSING? I am new to wiki just signed in today. Just becuase I wrote the book doesn't mean I cannot write an article about it. Please restore this page "Enlightenment for Beginners by Matthew Blythe" this is a unique page describing a book that has recently been published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 21:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC) You might like to take a look at what wikipedia is not and also the conflict of interest guidelines --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I will thanks Endorse It was more than open to RHaworth to conclude that G11 was met here as the tone of the article was exclusively promotional. If you want to recreate the article in a non-promotional tone, you're free to do so, but bear in mind WP:COI. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC) RESTORE OK how can I get a copy of the article so I have the opportunity to fix UPS I meant re-write, since I wasn't given the opportunity? Userfy, but require Mattblythe to read WP:COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Thankyou SmokeyJoe at least then I get a chance to fix it! I read the COI's thanks Yeah, userfy it. It's a new user's first article and to refuse userfication would be far too bitey. But I think it's important to set Mattblythe's expectations correctly here: an article on this book would probably not survive a deletion discussion if it was moved to the mainspace now. It'll be ready for the mainspace when it's been discussed in reasonable detail in reliable sources (plural, as in, more than one reliable source) that's independent of the subject. I'm sorry, Mattblythe. I can fully understand why you'd want to come to Wikipedia and tell us about your book. But we have to have sensible rules about what's allowed to be included and what isn't. If we didn't have those rules, you'd never be able to find anything on Wikipedia except marketing spam. The guideline we use is summarised on this page and I'm afraid it's applied rather strictly.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks S Marshall this was the bit I liked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI#How_not_to_handle_COI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 23:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse, do not userfy, but email the content to the user if desired. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your book, and it is very unlikely that the article would be acceptable to Wikipedia in any format, as the book was [self-]published last Sunday. As S Marshall says, we need to set Mattblythe's expectations correctly. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse per Stifle. While not wishing to WP:BITE a new contributor, I think that to userfy this would not be kind or helpful; it would raise expectations that somehow the problems of notability and COI could be overcome by rewriting, and would only lead to frustration and wasted effort. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Having my book advertised on wiki is really not important to me, to use_fry the page seems like a compromise from the purpose of wikipedia (being an encyclodpedia) I might rewrite the article but I would remind you that I am responsible for my expectations, what you are talking about are the expectations wikipedia has of its contributers which I am not repsonsible for. Likewise "frustration and wasted effort" are your projections since I am experiencing neither of these emotions. Kindness and being helpful are stated quite clearly in the wiki guidleines. Email me the contents? I wrote the contents! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Delete and I do not think there is any purpose to be served by userifying, for there is no realistic chance of it every becoming notable enough for a Wikipedia article (if by any chance it becomes widely reviewed or a best-seller, I will apologize for my bad judgment by writing a proper article on it myself). We see "advertisement" and "promotional" here in the sense of an article whose function is to publicize something for the primary purpose of encouraging people to buy it--or read it or see it, in contrast to give information about it. The article as written seems clearly to do that--it's basically a request to read the book. If the book became notable, there is almost nothing in the present text that could be really used, so the article would need to be deleted anyway because it cannot be revised through normal editing. I am personally prepared to do a total rewrite a few times a week on such an unencyclopedic article if the subject is very clearly notable and important, but this subject clearly isn't , at least not now. I don't want to discourage the author, and I understand S Marshsll's gentle intentions, but it wouldn't really be realistic or ultimately kind to userify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 06:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Apology Accepted Gracefully wrong is fine by me ; ) I especially like the Fruedian slip "every" re-read "for there is every chance of it becoming notable" thank you DGG I look forward to reading (and editing) your fininshed article in due course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattblythe (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Stan James – deletion overturned but AfD-listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan James – Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Stan James (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Was speedily deleted by User:TexasAndroid for being 'unnotable' when clearly is. User hasn't replied to my discussions. Note: is a UK bookmaker (company). Christopher Connor (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Texas replied here. Did the article say that the organisation is notable in any way? Thincat (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC) List at Afd. Reasonable contest of a speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn with option to list at AFD. Most definitely notable. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Could someone please post up a link to the deleted article for non-sysops? Thanks--Mkativerata (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn but be prepared for a listing at AFD. Two admins who can see the article differ as to whether it asserts importance/significance of the subject. Hence it should go through AFD prior to any deletion. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn per Thincat and Stifle. Also per the deleting admin using WP:CORP to justify the article's deletion on his talk page. Whether or not a subject meets WP:CORP needs to be discussed at AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Thimio Gogozoto – Relist at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Thimio Gogozoto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) There wasn't a consensus to delete the article(but a consensus to keep it) and I had added a citation for the medal which the closing admin didn't notice. ~~--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 07:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC) It's usual to wait longer than 28 minutes between asking the closing admin to reconsider and opening a listing here, bearing in mind that people can be offline or busy. Also, despite your message to him, AFD is not a vote; arguments based in policy can be given higher weight. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I agree with everything Stifle says, but I would just like to add that it's possible the source provided may have explicitly refuted the case for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC) It's possible that Shimeru didn't even notice that there was a source.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, its not for the closing admin to substitute their own opinion of a source above the consensus of the discussion and I'm tempted to ask how would you know if Shimeru noticed it bearing in mind you didn't wait for them to reply to your request to reconsider. Spartaz Humbug! 11:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC) In his closing statement he said Lacking a citation for that medal, there's nothing here., while there was citation which I had added 2 days ago I cannot assume anything else except the fact that he didn't notice it.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC) If there's a newly found source that challenges many of the delete !votes, and it wasn't known to most of the participants, then recreation may be in order. Recommend userfication. What is this new source? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC) For the sake of clarity the source was He was also posthumously decorated with the civil medal For Patriotic Activities (Albanian: Për Veprimtari Patriotike). Without clarity on the nature of the entry (for example was it a single entry on a list or an in depth discussion of the subject or the nature of the award) we really cannot form any kind of judgement on whether this reference or the award demonstrates notability. So more detail from the nom would be really cool. Spartaz Humbug! 15:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC) No it's not just a list, the paragraph is about education in that period and because Gogozoto's education was partially funded by the Albanian state which gave funds to members of the Albanian minorities in neighbouring countries in order to study abroad there are two short biographies of him and his brother.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I would like to add that User:CrazyMartini was just indefinitely blocked by delanoy as sock of User:Greek And Proud. Even with his vote, it would have been a 6:5 keep [70], without his (as banned user), it should be 7:5 keep. Still, I don't understand how a 6:5 keep was closed with a delete: it's the first time I see this. --Sulmues Let's talk 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Duh. It's not the votes that count, but the arguments used. The guy is not notable, get over it. Athenean (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Relist. That AfD was tainted by sockpuppetry so its conclusion is unsafe.—S Marshall T/C 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC) The blocked editor has since asked to be unblocked and his unblock request is pending. He is a new user who was aggresively BIT by the article creator. His unblock request is in good faith, but even if it is declined, there is no reason to undo the result of the AfD. The arguments won't change, and that's what matters, not +1 or -1 vote. Athenean (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC) What are you saying? Can you please provide evidence that Zjarri bit Crazy? All I saw is this. Zjarri never answered the sock. --Sulmues Let's talk 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC) What am I saying? Look at the talkpage of CrazyMartini's first account: Zjarri posted TWO warnings within 3 minutes of each other, then RAN to WP:AIV to denounce the guy. If that's not BITing I don't know what is. And if you recall, it was you who said that new users should be welcomed, not bit (unless that only applies to new "Albanian" users, only). Athenean (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)A new user? You think? While I admire your ability to assume good faith, that user's first edit was to add himself to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Members. And J.delanoy indefblocked him; J.delanoy wouldn't have done that unless he was satisfied that abusive sockpuppetry was involved. I certainly agree that user was a duck for a Greek sockpuppetteer. As for the weight of the arguments, the nominator of this DRV makes a case that there was a source that AfD participants failed to take into account. It's a reasonable point for him to make and there does seem to be some evidence in support of it. A do-over wouldn't kill us in this case.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC) He may yet be unblocked and given a second chance. In which case a do-over would be a waste of everyone's time. As for the source, it is not even verifiable and extremely obscure, all we have to go on is the word of the article creator. Which I can be forgiven for not taking. Athenean (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Now I'm really confused. You'll assume good faith on the part of a user who's been indefblocked for sockpuppetry, but you won't assume that ZjarriRrethues—an autoreviewer who's never been blocked—is telling the truth? And the source is verifiable, in the sense that it meets WP:V. It's not ZjarriRrethues's fault that you don't have access to it (see WP:SOURCEACCESS), and it's not his fault it's not in English (see WP:NONENG).—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC) ZjarriRrethues is a nationalist SPA of an extremely aggressive nature. The other user was indefed after only two edits, and only because Zjarri BIT him the minute he joined wikipedia (he posted no less than TWO warning templates on his page within THREE minutes of each other, then ran to AIV to try and get him blocked; the very paradigm of WP:BITE). Zjarri also has a track record of falsifying and manipulating sources, this [71] being the perfect example. Do take the time to read and look at the edit history of Battle of Bizani, it is very illustrative. I am perfectly willing to assume good faith on behalf new users; with Zjarri I know exactly who I am dealing with, and am done assuming good faith. I also have good reason to believe he is a sock of a banned user, and plan to file an SPI in the short future. Stay tuned. Athenean (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Ah, I just note that Zjarri just "sanitized" his talkpage, removing what I was talking about [72]. Athenean (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I have started more than 50 article 19 of which are DYKs so the verdict of whether I'm a nationalist SPA is on them. Btw Athenean has reported me [73] again and well the result it obvious since I'm still here as is Sulmues here whom you also considered as a sock of the same user. As for Alexikoua's comments I have nothing to comment, if another user considers using almost exact quotes from a book as pov that's a content dispute.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC) You deliberately cherry-picked what suited your POV out of the source, and completely ignored the rest. The paradigm of tendentious editing and deliberate misuse of sources for the purpose of POV-pushing. And that's not just me saying that. Athenean (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Athenean the verdict is on the book and this is a discussion about Thimio Gogozoto which should be relisted to AfD.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 23:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC) That AfD's conclusion is even more unsafe than I thought. The personal animosity between the participants is concerning.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Not a reason to re-list. The point is, Zjarri has misused and manipulated sources in the past, so asking the community to take his word on an extremely obscure non-English source is a bit rich. I see no reason to re-list, nothing will change, the person is simply not notable no matter how it is spun. Athenean (talk) 23:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC) It's really sad that Zjarri. behaves in such a way accusing without evidence. He was twice disruptive the last 24h hours (disruption in Battle of Bizani&meatpuppetry accusations) and although I adviced him to avoid such activity, his answer was to remove my comments from his userpage... Alexikoua (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC) The user was banned by an admin because he regarded him as I did as a meatpuppet and that's the whole outcome.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 05:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Actually you were misusing the warning tags (you sent 2 warning tags in 3 minutes, the second was completely useless).And NO admin ever said a word about meatpuppetry. An admin said that he was unfairly blocked [[74]]. You should be carefull when launching accusations without evidence & denying any kind of discussion in your talkpage is the worthest kind of response, even the more extreme wp:spa accounts are reluctant to perform immediately.Alexikoua (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Reminder: Deletion review is explicitly a drama-free zone. Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Relist; I think in the view of the disputed charges above concerning the AfD the article should be relisted, but with a delay until after the puppettry charges are resolved one way or another at the proper place. We work by rough consensus, not exact voting, and arguing over a close vote count is not to any purpose. When the new AfD starts, I would advise that the participants keep to the actual issues of the notability of the subject, not the behavior of each other. Neither Deletion review nor AfD is the place for this sort of discussion, and I heartily endorse Stifle's suggestion that they not continue the current exchange. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Relist. Per DGG. user:CrazyMartini has been readmitted to Wikipedia as he promised that he would behave. --Sulmues Let's talk 02:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Do not Relist: As stated by mulitple parties. Only if we have additional sources we can reconsider but I don't see why this has a sense making it right now (assuming more good faith?).Alexikoua (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Do not Relist One participant was blocked, and then unblocked. So the two cancel each other out, everything is back to where it was, and there is no reason to re-list. Athenean (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC) This isn't a vote and if it was it would be a 6 Keep 5 Delete even with CM and the DR isn't a vote too.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC) This DRV, and this AN/I thread, are a disgrace to Wikipedia's discussion pages, which are supposed to be collegial and consensus-seeking. Please would you all stop replying to each other.—S Marshall T/C 21:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Ah, didn't notice this before. About the medal... since you never answered on my talk page, I'll ask here. Is this medal the highest reward for valor in Albania, comparable to the Victoria Cross or the Medal of Honor? That's the standard promoted by WP:MILPEOPLE, which seems the closest set of criteria for this article. If it is, and we have a reliable source confirming that it is and that this man received it, then he is notable. If it's not (and you seem to be describing it as a "third-class medal," which suggests that it is not in fact the highest award for valor), then he would need to have received it multiple times under the MILPEOPLE criteria. Shimeru 21:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC) As I had written in the article he received a medal along with the other Albanian veterans and it's of the same rank although not the same exact medal. Does it have to be the same exact medal? --— ZjarriRrethues — talk 18:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sure that there is not enough to make him notable. He is not treated as an individual in one source and I see no medal claim somewhere.CrazyMartini (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC) If it's the only medal he received, then according to MILPEOPLE, it would need to be Albania's highest reward for valor, yes. Unless you've got a reason why MILPEOPLE shouldn't apply to this article? Shimeru 23:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC) There is one reason why MILPEOPLE can't apply here: The International_Brigades that participated in the Spanish_civil_war did NOT represent their countries. They were military units of anti-fascist volunteers from different countries, who traveled to Spain to defend the Second Spanish Republic, and they mostly represented their Communist Parties and/or communist ideas. In this circumstance you can see that you can't make a Military case which would be for a regular army. In fact, it was not even a regular army, it was an army collected by Communist Parties accross the world. If someone wasn't a member of a communist party or recommended by one, it would be interviewed by the NKVD (see also International_Brigades#Formation_and_recruitment). Indeed, the international brigades of the Spanish War are a very sui generis case. The medal received by Gogozoto is third level (out of roughly 30 levels), the first level being People's Hero of Albania. Gogozoto couldn't be Hero of Albania because he didn't die for Albania, and only a handful of people had that medal (10-20 people). He couldn't have had a second level medal either, because all these second medals relate to country specific activities (see [75]). The highest medal that could have been awarded to him, was awarded to him, and it reads "For Patriotic Merits", which means that he was given recognition from his country for his actions, which made him a hero of his country abroad. This is it, Wikipedia probably doesn't have all the policies for every subject, so I'll leave it to you. But this is the highest award for an Albanian who has given his life for a cause other than the Albanian cause. Can't be Hero of the People of Albania (or second level) if he died for Spain. --Sulmues Let's talk 03:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Relist Because the lack of a reference was explicitly mentioned by the closing admin as the reason for deletion, a relist to evaluate the new source provided by ZjarriRrethus will be helpful. I note also that a participant in the debate wrote "Keep if [the medal] can be verified". Sulmues mentions above that "this is the highest award for an Albanian who has given his life for a cause other than the Albanian cause", which may or may not allow Thimio Gogozoto to pass MILPEOPLE. Therefore, I support a new discussion to garner consensus about whether the medal allows him to be notable. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC) I'll support that line of reasoning. Shimeru 06:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 June 2010

Luigi Padovese – Request fulfilled; AfD closed as speedy keep. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The nominator has retracted this request Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luigi Padovese. As this is a currently hot article, could an admin close the rfd? --Túrelio (talk) 08:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Done. For what it's worth, this isn't a DRV issue - and any editor can close a speedy keep; doesn't have to be an admin.--Mkativerata (talk) 08:48, 7 June 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 – Endorse continued deletion. No evidence that userspace draft meets inclusion criteria. – IronGargoyle (talk) 05:56, 14 June 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) (article|XfD|restore) Page was deleted because it lacked facts supported by references. Now, the page has both at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Politowski55/Mikie_Da_Poet Politowski55 (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - three of the links are just official pages. Anyone can have their content at iTunes - their bar for inclusion is very low. The FoxNews story is just about local rappers and gives no reason to believe that he is notable. --B (talk) 12:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Kim Ki Whang – Relisted back at AFD by closing admin. – -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kim Ki Whang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) <Hasty Deletion, Insufficient Discussion> Folks, on the archive of the discussion for deletion, I see only two persons participating. One Astudent0 suggests that this is a "weak delete", to the effect that he can't find any independent citations. Other than that they think it's a good article. A reason for not finding any independent citations may be this: at the time of Grandmaster Kim's teaching days, he went by the americanized name style of "Ki Whang Kim", rather than the traditional/modern "Kim Ki Whang". A Google search for "Ki Whang Kim" produces at least ten pages of citations from a very wide variety of sources. For example to choose almost at random: Richard Williams professional "iridology" homepage mentions his award of black belt in 1965 from Ki Whang Kim: During this time, Dick was awarded his Black Belt in 1965 by Ki Whang Kim, at that time the highest ranking Black Belt in the country. From Tang Soo Do World website one Gene Garbowsky we see: Although known as an outstanding sparring competitor Master Garbowsky has also won numerous forms grand championships including the late Grandmaster Ki Whang Kim’s famous Eagle Classic in 1995. from USA Dojo we see: During the 1960’s and early 70’s, Anderson was extremely active in karate, sparring hours every day, teaching, and gaining a reputation as a good hard-nosed practitioner. As he was nearly forty when competition really became popular, and as he was in demand as a referee, he turned his attention that direction. Most of his involvement at that time was with the East Coast Korean group, and he had a close association with Ki Whang Kim, Richard Chun, Henry Cho, Kang Rhee, Kim Soo Jin, Jhoon Rhee, Mon Soo Park, and Chong Lee to name a few. The list goes on and on. So many people are anxious to include Grandmaster Ki Whang Kim (Kim Ki Whang) in their pedigree of qualifications. It is clear that he was notable within the community of practitioners of Korean Martial Arts in the USA. Reference to the original article, or to revisions of the original within the first few weeks of existence, will show lots of citations of verifiable external references including to Black Belt Magazine. For example, Black Belt Magazine includes many of Ki Whang Kim's students in their "Hall of Fame". Try to search for "whang" in Black Belt Magazine Hall of Fame webpage. Really, this may be the most hasty and senseless deletion in the history of WikiPedia. --Thardman22 (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - goodness, this is the most hasty and senseless deletion in this history of Wikipedia? I think there are at least one or two others somewhere along the line. The sources you gave are trivial mentions. Is there a reliable source that is actually about him, not just mentioning him in passing? The article was almost completely unsourced and had the tone of a eulogy, rather than an encyclopedia article. (A lot of it actually reads like it was copied from an obituary ... "And that is how it should be, according to a kindly man with a subtle sense of humor who survived and prospered through a lifetime ..." doesn't sound like an encyclopedia article.) --B (talk) 03:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Could someone please link to the deleted version of the article? Thanks--Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I have restored the history. Please see [76] for the last version prior to deletion. --B (talk) 03:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Does anyone have access to HighBeam (I really should subscribe)? It seems he has a Washington Post obituary. And if there's anything substantial in that obituary, I'd be inclined to think we should undelete the article despite the AfD.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC) From looking at the number of places he is mentioned in other articles, I'm inclined to agree that he is notable, but look at the deleted text - it's a lot of uncited flowery language ... so while I think an article on the topic is appropriate, the one that deleted is not appropriate. --B (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I can't disagree with that. I'm thinking the best option might be to userfy the deleted version, cut the guff out of it and then use the Washington Post obituary. I'm tempted to volunteer for the task myself. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC) A little confusion about the name is, in the circumstances, quite understandable. I'll endorse Cirt's decision as fully in accordance with the debate, and I'll also volunteer to help Mkativerata write a replacement article that overcomes the issues raised in the AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Relist The discussion should not have been closed at that point; we normally now relist AfDs with so little participants. I think in this case the number of participants was affected by the overly promotional style of the article, which should not have been a factor--I know that I saw the way the article appeared to be written, and passed over that AfD without actually examining it (I can't work on literally all of them). But the excessive material on his philosophy and so on could easily be removed. DGG ( talk ) 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Relist and Re-Write Here is an early version which has a variety of credible links in support of history, and credibility as a major player in introducing Korean Martial Arts (Tae Kwon Do/Tang Soo Do) to the USA Revision as of 05:06, 9 January 2009. Some of those links contain significant history to Kim Ki Whang especially in the 1960s/1970s, including many remarks from his peers and fellow sensei. Please recall that I was the original author but haven't had much to do with maintenance after my initial efforts. A variety of re-writing and additional contribution has occurred, with many revisions added by people withing to pad their pedigrees, so to speak. The probable true authority still living and available for contact is Jim Roberts who was a student and took over Kim Studios. Another detailed history is in PDF at "Sabang Kwon Hyung: Master Kim Ki Whang's Legacy by Grandmaster Kim Soo" which gives a lot of background detail on Kim's origins in Korea and his education and professional life there prior to coming to the USA. I must apologize for my "flowery tone" and did try to write an encyclopedic and accurate eulogy; I was one of his students. Many of us had chosen him over similarly-ranked instructors and studios in the same region of the country (for example, Jhoon Rhee because of notable differences in philosophy. As the difference in philosopy and instructive approach was fundamental to the teachings, perhaps some more-direct wording is essential, but I believe it also essential to include some of it to show differences between Kim's Tang Soo Do of the USA and traditional Korean Tae Kwon Do, for example. Also, perhaps with different wording, I would like to retain some mention of his faith and associations with the YMCA, these were very important to him, as were his competitions which he organized. Thardman22 (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I'm being misquoted. I never said it was a good article--I did say there were some claims that might show notability if they had independent sources. I just reread the original article and it looks worse than I remember. I would say that the article should not be restored. However, I wouldn't object to a new article on him if it had independent sources that showed notability. I'd suggest the author of the new article take a look at WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Relisted. No objections to a relist. Please see [77]. Discussion can be continued at the AFD, until such time as another admin determines consensus after additional comments at the AFD discussion page. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Note: Discussion may now continue back at AFD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Ki Whang. -- Cirt (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 June 2010

Edward_Novitski – Deleted content not useful for creating a new article, text emailed to user as requested --B (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC) – B (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Edward_Novitski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This page was deleted for reason A7 (No indication of importance). We are currently composing a replacement page that is properly documented and would like to read the deleted page to see what it contained. Could you please temporarily undelete this page, restore it to my userspace, or email it to me? PaulNovitski (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)  Done - I'll email you the text per your request, but there is nothing whatsoever useful there. --B (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikibin – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikibin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Deleted without discussion. I wanted the information in the article, and found it deleted. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. Wikibin is a collection of articles deleted from Wikipedia. Each individual article was deleted for lack of notability. Does gathering them together somehow make them notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I would tone down the personal attacks if I were you. That said, endorse speedy deletion. There is no claim of significance nor anything else in which I could find besides the website itself. –MuZemike 07:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Clarification – I was referring to the versions that were deleted per WP:CSD#A7 in my above endorsement, the personal attacks in the version deleted per WP:CSD#G3. –MuZemike 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Sysops, is this the only deleted version? If so, G3, A3 etc... --Mkativerata (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) There's more to it than that, Mkativerata (look at the logs). But even though there is more to it, the deletion process certainly appears to have been correctly followed, and I do not see how our encyclopaedia was improved by the addition of an article on this subject.—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Yeah I just can't see the versions behind the logs. Could there be a decent article about this site? Probably not but I don't know. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Well, it's a site for people who're butthurt about Wikipedia. Such a thing can be notable enough for its own article (e.g. Wikipedia Review). But this one isn't.—S Marshall T/C 11:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC) There's another version by the OP with the same attacks on "Deletionists and taggers"; the earliest deleted version is a single paragraph that's ridiculously spammy (Wikibin "praises freedom of speech and aims at the preservation of articles that are deleted from Wikipedia.Its creation signified the first systematic effort to extend the scope of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which enshrines the freedom of speech to the internet sphere.", etc.), added by Mirellos (talk · contribs). Nothing to see here. Tim Song (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - none of this discussion has actually addressed a relevant issue. The question is, has this website been covered by a reliable source? If not, it doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. The content of the website itself is irrelevant - the question is whether it meets our inclusion guidelines. --B (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Send to AfD The connection with WP is a sufficient claim of importance to pass speedy. It may well not pass AfD, but the community should decide. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. I'm not entirely comforable !voting - especially to endorse - without seeing the real deleted version of the article. I'm not sure it is as simple as "nothing more to see here": as DGG suggests, the connection with wikipedia alone could form the basis of a claim to significance or importance. However, I think overturning this and sending it to AFD would be futile, for two reasons. First, I can't find any coverage of the website anywhere. Secondly, with an A7 deletion there is no prejudice to recreating an article in the future. From Tim Song's comment it appears the deleted article was far from acceptable standard. If someone wants to recreate a better article, go for it.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 June 2010

Blue-necked – Articles have been restored, and the AFD has been reopened and relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 14. – –MuZemike 02:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blue-necked (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I was on a wikibreak while the AfD for Blue-necked, Blue-ring, Blue-rumped, and Blue-spotted was taking place. I am the creator of at least Blue-necked and probably the others, although I cannot be sure of that because they have been deleted and I am not an administrator. If I recall correctly, these four pages were disambiguation pages primarily listing birds. Birders commonly refer to birds by their "colour-part" names alone, therefore I believe these four pages should be reinstated. The deletion discussion left out the relevant information that there have already been two discussions about disambiguation pages of this type and both lead to the preservation of the pages in question. These two discussions can be found here and here. I have brought this information to the attention of JHunterJ, who has notified me that he would not object to a deletion review. I then contacted User:kurykh, the deleting administrator, and requested that the pages be reinstated. Kurykh also recommended a deletion review, therefore I have brought this concern here. Disambiguation pages do not require reference sections; written sources demonstrating that "colour-part" names are employed for a given bird may be difficult to find, but the employment of such names is a widespread convention that is not restricted to specific birds but is generally applicable. Neelix (talk) 18:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The deletion review process is provided to deal with cases where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a de novo hearing of the matter. The deletion process has been properly followed here, so endorse deletion. Stifle (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Relist or overturn without prejudice to relisting. Neelix, the page creator, has made an important substantive point relevant to these articles, which was not made by the other participants in the deletion discussion and therefore not considered by the closing administrator. Although Stifle's point would generally be well-taken, in this instance the potential long-term interests of making the relevant articles more accessible from these dab pages if Neelix is correct, outweighs any purely procedural point. This of course is not any form of criticism of the closing admin. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse original close, but permit re-creation. Reyk YO! 01:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I can understand the basis for that !vote ("the closer acted correctly but the article-creator can try again"), but it is really more suited to cases of "it might be acceptable to have an article with this title, but the existing article isn't it." Here, "permit re-creation" isn't really apt because there's nothing wrong with the content; if the article is allowed to be restored, so far as we know what used to be there is what the content would be, so requiring re-creation from scratch would mean either an interim userfication of the deleted content or the creator's having to input it again, neither of which would be productive; hence I think "overturn without prejudice" is a better fit here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Strictly speaking, the rules were followed. But I do not see how the encyclopaedia was improved by the deletion of these pages, and I can see how some end-users might be helped by their reinstatement.—S Marshall T/C 10:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC) That sounds like a WP:USEFUL argument --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Like most users who've been watching Wikipedia's deletion processes for a few years, I'm well aware of WP:ATA. It's not a guideline or policy. It's an essay that I'm free to disregard, and I disregard it fairly often. ATA is essentially a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say at AfD. Certainly, no essay can prevent me from prioritising value to end-users over process—see the fifth pillar.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC) I think if you read it as a list of things people aren't allowed to say, then I think you miss the point. As to if "no essay can prevent..." I would hope not, what should make you think is the logic and argument behind the essay, both your and my statements here aren't direct quotes of policy. Should they be disregardable on that basis? That particular part of the essay is based on principles of WP:NOT which to keep everyone happy is a policy. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Anything that can help end-users find the content they seek is absolutely justified. Conventional encyclopaedias have contents pages and indexes; our equivalent is CLN and redirects or disambiguations from plausible search terms.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC) The choice of two mechanisms to benefit the readers is between including a partial-title match list (which is what the disambiguation page appeared to be) or have no page at the title. The benefit of deleting the page is that the reader would go straight from the search box to the search results, which is the appropriate result if there are no topic actually ambiguous with the title. In this case, it may be that the partial title matches are actually ambiguous with the title, but that isn't indicated by the articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid I still don't see why it's a good idea to replace a disambiguation page with a redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to create an article that duplicates existing content.—S Marshall T/C 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC) What red link is that? The deleted articles have no incoming Wikilinks from the article space, and wouldn't be expected to. Wikilinkers use the complete name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC) When I type "Blue-necked" in the search window, the first thing I see is a redlink encouraging me to create an article. Then I get a list of partial matches.—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC) "You may create the page "Blue-necked", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered." isn't any more encouraging than, say, You may create the page "204 competitive matches", but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered." I don't think making those red links blue is a compelling argument for creating a partial-title match list -- some titles that might be searched on should remain red. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC) I'm afraid that what's needed isn't a compelling argument for creating a partial-title match list, but a compelling argument for deleting it once created. While I see the point that you're making, I'm not entirely persuaded by it.—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Ah, you disagree with the current consensus against partial-title match lists. That's fine -- we don't have to try and address that here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC) You've linked to consensus to delete three particular partial-title match lists. If there's a more general consensus that they shouldn't exist, then that's a discussion I haven't seen yet.—S Marshall T/C 19:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC) — Found it: it's at WP:D#Partial title matches. Considering that.—S Marshall T/C 19:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC) What WP:D#Partial title matches actually says is: Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context. For instance, the Mississippi River article could not feasibly be titled Mississippi, but it is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi". — Neelix's nomination statement contains the words: Birders commonly refer to birds by their "colour-part" names alone. Do you dispute whether this is true, JHunterJ?—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC) My response is not a dispute of Neelix's statement. My response is The bird articles do not indicate that common reference, if it exists. Creating partial title match lists without any indication in the articles that the title is ambiguous is problematic, because it leads to things like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied (which started its WP life as Pied). To keep disambiguation pages from becoming indiscriminate lists, we discriminate based on article text, which has the added benefit of being subject to the usual article guidelines for verifiability when needed. But like I said, this wouldn't be the forum for changing the consensus on partial title match lists. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC) That could easily be addressed by amending the articles' text, assuming Neelix's remarks are verifiable. Thanks for your own view, which brought me to a corner of Wikipedia's guidelines I hadn't previously encountered, and introduced an argument I hadn't previously thought of. What's clear to me is that there's more to talk about here, so I have enough information to !vote.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC) And, for what it's worth, if it's amended into the articles' texts (with or without citations, as long as the consensus at the article is for its inclusion), I would expect the disambiguation page to be recreated, or would do so myself if I discovered the situation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Relist. I agree with NYB: substance and outcomes are more important here than process. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Relist- Nothing against the actions that were taken at the time, either by the nominator or the closing admin. That said, when a new and potentially convincing argument is made by someone unable to participate in the original discussion, it would help us all to ignore the letter of the rules and allow further discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Relist and let's have the discussion where it belongs, on AfD. Dealing with pages like this is a fit subject for IAR, since it is one of the special cases which are not really dealt with adequately in existing guidelines. If it comes up frequently, a rule to include it can be written. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Comment It is true that disambiguation pages do not require reference sections (and are actually required to avoid them), but in the case of synonyms, it is still preferable to add text to the article indicating the use of the title (alone) to refer to the subject. If it is difficult to source but generally applicable, there may be no objection to its inclusion on an article for a given bird. If that's not required, then I suspect it will be harder to clean up the partial-title match lists where there is no ambiguity, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Designated, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of things described as pied, and in those cases, the current consensus is the reader is better served by immediately reaching the search results list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Relist per Umbralcorax.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC) If left deleted, the redlinks should be converted to redirects. People interested in particular things do tend to use abbreviated names. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Being left deleted and being converted to redirects are mutually exclusive results. Being converted to redirects to what, exactly? People using uncommon abbreviated names for particular things might find them in the search results. If there are common abbreviated names, those should be mentioned in the article and then a redirect (if there's only one) or a disambiguation page (if there are several using the same abbreviated name) should be created for navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 June 2010

Macedonia–Indonesia relations – No consensus to overturn, closure endorsed by default. – Tim Song (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Macedonia–Indonesia relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Six votes for keep, six for delete plus the nom. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macedonia–Indonesia relations.) Hardly what I would call consensus to delete. Also, considering the ongoing proposal to make these articles have per se notability akin to populated places, I suggest overturning to no consensus or extending debate.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Did you talk about this to Black Kite before raising the DRV, Cdog? By the way, in view of how these DRVs inevitably play out, I just want to say that if anyone was thinking of popping by to tell us that it's not a vote: it's okay. You don't need to. We already know that.—S Marshall T/C 01:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse While marked as neither keep nor delete, Chris Cunningham (Thumperward) is clearly also arguing for delete. So it's 8 to 6 in favor of deletion, and as the closing admin notes in his statement, only one of the keep !votes actually references relevant policy/guidelines. Numerically, this is NC leaning towards delete, but when factoring in the strengths and weakness of the arguments, consensus favors deletion. Yilloslime TC 02:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to non-consensus. Whether or not we count votes, we don;t count votes that exactly that 6-6 vs 8-6 is substantially different. That much disagreement from established editors in a clear failure of consensus. And anyone who thinks there is any degree of consensus in this area more generally hasn't been following recent discussions--while I might conceivably like to see all such pairs have automatic notability, I strongly doubt there is consensus for anything like that. How to deal with individual articles when nobody agrees on the standards is a problem--the current practice seems to amount to a coinflip. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC) weak overturn it's perhaps within admin discretion though I personally think NC would have been much better. I certainly disagree with the closing statement given that keep !votes based on notability can't be regarded as weak. I agree with DGG that the coinflip nature of these discussions (based on who closes) is an issue in need of a solution. Hobit (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn per both DGG and Hobit. When 8-6 is accepted as one side wins then we are out-of-synch with our own fundamental principle of consensus-based decision making. __meco (talk) 06:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. The closing admin is not impartialJudged to harshly I think --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC). In a previous DRV, see [78], the closer expressed a highly opinionated position on the subject of low-key international relations articles generally. As the holder of such opinions, he should not be closing related discussions. Note that these international relations articles are currently the subject of policy debate. While that debate is progressing, these AfDs are not really helpful, and contentious administrative actions by a partisan is definitely not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Trouble is, SmokeyJoe, that it would be hard to find anyone who often closes AfD's who doesn't have an opinion on these. If we demand a fresh admin for a bilateral relations close, then we'll run out of admins before we run out of bilateral relations AfDs.—S Marshall T/C 07:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Disagree very much. Admins generally do a very good job of acting impartially, of shelving personal opinions when closing discussion. Black Kite is no exception, although he is a person with sometimes strong conviction. This time it is special, because he appears, to me anyway, to have a view that is very strong. I certainly don't suggest that a closer on one subject can't close similar subjects, but I do suggest that debaters on a subject not close discussions on similar subjects, and especially not when their contributions to the debate were strong. Even if it just for the sake of appearances. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse, within admin discretion. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Sigh ... Endorse. Look, sorry, if the "Delete" votes had been (in general) as weak as the "Keep" ones were here, it would've been an easy Keep (or at least NC). A quick examination. "Macedonia is notable. Indonesia is notable. Ergo, the topic of the foreign relations between these nations is a notable one". No, actually it isn't. "it will be expanded. Wikipedia has many smaller stubs than this one". WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I discarded these two. "sufficient reliable sources for a standalone article". A WP:ITSNOTABLE vote. "The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the Wikipedia Notability standard". Another ITSNOTABLE. I gave these less weight. Most of the Delete comments expand on why they're being made and make some relation to policy. Therefore, I saw a clear policy-based consensus to delete. Yes, I did make a comment on a previous bilateral relations article, but I saw that one as an extreme case which was being gamed by certain editors. This one is a "normal" AfD which should be closed in a normal way, which is what I did. And SM is right above - at this rate, we won't have any admins that are seen as uninvolved in this area - after all, this DRV has just ruled me out of closing any more, and I'm one of the admins that often tidies up the difficult or controversial AfDs that no-one else wants to close. I don't vote-count, and the day I do, you can ask for my admin bit. If that means DRV every time then fine; I do have a better than average record at DRV, which must count for somthing, hopefully. Oh, and cheers for informing me of the DRV, CDog. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) OK, I guess I read a tone of annoyance of "an extreme case which was being gamed by certain editors" as an annoyance with so many relations articles of dubious notability. But what about the five references pointed to by TM? Are they discounted because they were not then in the article, or because "Macedonian Information Agency" is not an independent source. They do contain secondary source material on the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I agree. However, one single valid "Keep" !vote versus a number of valid "Delete" !votes is simply a Delete. If there was a reasonable Merge or Redirect target I'd go for that - anyone who follows my AfD closures knows that I always like to keep the history if it's at all viable - but in this case I don't think there is. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Claiming that my vote "The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the Wikipedia Notability standard". is an example of WP:ITSNOTABLE is in shameless disregard of policy. The fact is that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is a mere essay, while the explicit references in my vote to WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N are the bedrock policies that guide Wikipedia. If a vote can be tossed out with a mere wave to WP:ITSNOTABLE, any vote can be tossed out. This demands an explanation. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I apologise if I've offended you, but if you simply say "these sources are enough to prove notability" when other editors have pointed out that they may not do, and you cannot rebut those claims (especially as the last comment in the AfD), then you leave yourself open to having your comment given less weight. If you had explained why those sources are enough, and rebutted the arguments of those who disagreed, then I would happily take that into account (as I did with TM's comment). Black Kite (t) (c) 16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I explained my vote, based it on three relevant policies -- WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N and received no objections from any other participants. None of the delete votes presented any explanation for why these sources are not enough, and you have simply imposed your own personal bias for deletion to toss out votes you don't like. If you can point to a policy that requires me to do a word-for-word rebuttal of all delete votes in order to cast a valid keep vote, I'd love to see it and find out why it only applies to keep votes. The claim that WP:ITSNOTABLE applies to the votes here and can be used to disregard votes is a complete and total falsehood. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, that's not enough. If you provide a !vote which says "this is notable, and these sources prove it", you need to explain why that is the case, in exactly the same way that someone who opines "this is not notable, these sources are not good enough" needs to do. One of the delete votes pointed out that "Our notability requirements are quite clear that if we are to have a stand alone article on a topic, then some of those sources must also be independent of the subject, and they must "address the subject directly in detail ... this article cites no such sources". You need to explain why this editor is wrong. I saw no comment that met such criteria. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry that you are willing to abuse the administrative authority you have been granted to manufacture policy by whim. You claim of using WP:ITSNOTABLE to ignore votes is completely and totally baseless, and you don't even appear to believe that anymore. Furthermore, the fact is that you only applied this essay-based standard to keep votes, while ignoring the non-policy-based delete votes that accord with your personal biases on the subject. There was no consensus for deletion, and it was only by firmly placing your thumb on the delete side of the scale that the result was manipulated to justify your personal bias for deletion. Please point out which policy requires me to deliver a word-by-word rebuttal of the votes you like in order for you to consider them valid. Even an essay would help your claim. Alansohn (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I wondered how long it would be before someone yelled "admin abuse". There was a clear consensus for deletion once the weak and/or non-policy-related !votes were taken into account. That's what I did; that's what I stand by. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC) @Alansohn "None of the delete votes presented any explanation for why these sources are not enough..." Are we talking about the same AfD? What do you call this if not a detailed explanation of why the sources are insufficient? Yilloslime TC 17:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Alanshon, WP:SENSE should be sufficient enough to inform oneself of basic premise of "if your argument sucks, it will not count for much". This is why we have admins; to make judgments on behalf of the users that confirmed their RfAs, much the same as why the USA has an Electoral College, as pure democracy is a bare step above mob rule. Your argument here now is verging on farcical. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Tacr, are you serious that you consider an argument for retention citing the fact that the article meets WP:RS, WP:V an WP:N "sucks" and should therefore be discounted, we have gone from democracy to the totalitarian dictatorship of individual admins. Sure, we might get a fair and honest benevolent despot every now and then, but far more often we get admins who decide to cast supervotes instead of trying to respect consensus. As is attributed to Winston Churchill, "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". Give me mob rule any day, because the system you support here is beyond farcical. Alansohn (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Mere assertion when faced with more detailed opposing opinion is the weaker argument. Your comment here "citing the fact" is a continuation of mere assertion of correctness, clearly other commenters disagreed that it was "fact". The suggestion that such arguments were discounted is not the same as the deleteing admins statement "I gave these less weight."--82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC) That's pretty much as I would have responded. This user simply gave a "its notable because I can point to these wiki-acronyms", without giving an actual rationale as to why. Tarc (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse deletion no actual admin wrongdoing or improper action is cited by the filer. A difference of opinion is not a valid reason to file a DRV. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. The rough consensus of policy based arguments seemed to be delete, and is certainly within admin discretion. Quantpole (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse, although for different reasons than what Black Kite gives. In general, a roughly balanced AFD discussion with reasonable arguments on both sides ends with a "no consensus", and closing contrary to that needs to be because one side has nothing. Clearly, there are some rather poorly reasoned keep votes in this discussion, (Macedonia notable+Indonesia notable=relations notable is not a position which enjoys any sort of consensus, and would allow just about any meshing of novel concepts were that idea accepted) but as long as there is something reasonable on the "keep" side, I don't discount votes as long as they are made in good faith. The question comes down to whether the sources listed by TM are sufficient to hold the ground for this article. A look through those sources shows to me that these relations are really quite vague ("memorandum of understanding"); the kind of diplomatic politeness you see between virtually all countries. I can understand that it is within the closer's discretion to not accept those as sufficient; especially when there is no discussion on how those sources can be used. I voted to overturn the Cyprus-Norway deletion because the arguments there were reasonably stronger on the "keep" side, but in this case I cannot see that much of a case has been made. A tough call, but within acceptable admin discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn as no-consensus / keep In addition to blatantly ignoring consensus, the closing admin's rationalization to toss at keep votes as not being based on policy is strongly rebutted by my vote to keep, which read "The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article meet the Wikipedia Notability standard." My vote, and another vote that directly referenced the sources in the article, were improperly ignored with the shameless excuse of WP:ITSNOTABLE, which is clearly in conflict with what this is intended to mean. It appears that the closing administrator cast a close the way he would have voted rather than trying to assess actual consensus. Why were keep votes summarily ignored while delete votes were not policy based and were not tossed out? Apparently any appeal to policy for retention is invalid while any argument to delete is deemed inherently valid. Wikipedis consensus is worthless if admins can arrogate themselves the authority to toss out votes they don't like to close as only they see fit. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Nothing to do with "not liking" anything; if you claim that sources back up the notability of the subject when they actually only mention it in passing - as pointed out by a number of contributors - then you cannot expect your !vote to be given the weight of those that do link the sources to notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC) As with all bilateral relations AfDs, I see that we've collectively managed to achieve a close without closure, which leads to a DRV without closure. Black Kite—I'll endorse this one, but I want to add that I've reflected on what SmokeyJoe says and I think he has a point. I think you closed this in good faith and in the belief that you're uninvolved in bilateral relations, but I also think that in future it might be better if you !voted instead of closing.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I think not - I won't close any more, but equally I don't really care enough about th subject either. The original article which I commented on was unusual - the topic didn't actually exist, leading to Wikipedia having a fictional article (which still exists - disgrace really). This one isn't, and most are similar to this. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Ugh. Please, don't give in to this blatant attempt to bully you away from AfD closures. I used to see this shit time and time again in the I-P topic area; any time an admin intervenes to enforce policy there, the friends of the guilty party scream "OMG INVOLVED ADMIN" forever after in an attempt to get that admin disqualified from future interventions. This is sickening. Tarc (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I apologise for my failure to assume good faith. What is the I-P topic area? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I was referring to Marshall's comments with what I said above, and I-P == Israel-Palestine. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I accept Black Kite's explanation. I went too far in attempting to read thoughts and emotions through a few typed sentences. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn to no-consensus The new trend appears to be to discount all keep !votes on procedural grounds, saying the are not properly formatted, or they don't cite policy in a way that satisfies the closing person. Its the equivalent of the hanging chad for Wikipedia. Discounting my comment "sufficient reliable sources for a standalone article", is just silly since I defined Wikipedia policy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse- from a reading of the original AfD it seems to me that the keep opinions either did not refer to policy in the first place or were explicitly refuted by other editors. Closing it this way is within the administrator's discretion. Reyk YO! 23:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Comment. I think there may be material that can be used from TM's five sources in creating content. This doesn't require undeletion, because I read that the material wasn't in the article anyway. I recommend adding such material to Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia, on the basis that Macedonia is the smaller nation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse as within admin discretion. I agree with the admin discounting two of the keep votes for the reasons they state. Looking at the rest of the votes I find the delete votes better argued and more directly related to policy and as such I found the delete arguments compelling. Dpmuk (talk) 10:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse — as noted before, AFD is not a vote, and the closer gave a good explanation for why the discussion, when interpreted within the framework of Wikipedia policy, pointed towards delete. *** Crotalus *** 17:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Weak overturn. Very nearly a valid close, but looking at the sources found by TM I think the WP:ITSNOTABLE-type votes that were (understandably) disregarded seem to have some validity. Taking this into account the consensus doesn't seem strong enough to delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse—the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly, and used their evaluating discretion wisely. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 09:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn/No consensus As a contributor to the discussion and editor of the page, I am not sure if I should comment here, but I'd say the discussion did not come to a consensus. I feel that the sources I provided were enough for a keep, though certainly they were not definitive. Putting0 that aside, I don't think it is right to put aside non-canvassed editors opinions simply because most of them did not cite policy. Between the sources provided and the close number of opinions on each side, a no consensus option would have served us better.--TM 12:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Uno bus route SHTL – Speedy closed/restored--PRODs don't need to be DRV'ed – Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Uno bus route SHTL (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I have found a number of external independent references mentioning the subject, making it notable. As the administrator in question is currently being discussed for misuse of the administration tools I have decided to raise the issue here instead. Please could I at least have the article restored to my userspace so I can add the references I have found then resubmit it for inspection to see if it is of sufficient quality. BigToe7000 (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Undelete as a contested prod about a potentially notable article albeit that the contest of the prod has come about 8 days after the prod expired. There doesn't appear to have been anything wrong with this deletion although I can't see deleted contributions. This should have been raised on Fastily's talk page first, regardless of what is "currently being discussed". --Mkativerata (talk) 21:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Indeed, I was unfortunately not around and did not notice/expect the deletion until afterwards. I apologise but I just want to see if there is some small chance I could improve this article and demonstrate that is is notable. BigToe7000 (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Qotsa37/Disco Curtis – Recreation not permitted at this time. – Tim Song (talk) 12:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Qotsa37/Disco Curtis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I've been working on this page in my userspace, but it's create protected in mainspace. However, I would like to create it with the permission of the admins. qö₮$@37 (talk) 19:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC) If there's a single reliable source in the userspace draft, it wasn't obvious to me. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC) That was my thought too, but I didn't check them all. Qotsa37, is there anything in there that meets the requirements of WP:RS? Hobit (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Deny recreation, does not meet WP:BAND based on the article as it stands. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:NorwaySpiral.jpg – B's argument that this is not an acceptable image for fair use appears to be policy based and therefore wins the discussion – Spartaz Humbug! 15:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:NorwaySpiral.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) The article where the image was in use was never notified using the {{ifdc}} template. However, this is optional. Had it been applied some users might have actually participated in the XfD ,and that is my main contention, that no one but the nominator did. I'm not sure if file nominations get relisted as is standard protocol for articles and categories, if so it should have been. Now I simply move that the file is undeleted and the process restarted. meco (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Undelete and relist. Discussion participants were only the nominator and closer. More discussion with an interested participant is a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC) I can see the argument for deletion, and NFCC is very strong and taken very seriously on Wikipedia. But, that image is very far from easy to replace. It relates to a phenomenon that's extremely unlikely to be repeated, so all we will ever have is the images that were taken at the time. And I believe the image would significantly enhance readers' understanding of the subject. In view of this I'm not convinced that sufficient discussion took place, so I'm with SmokeyJoe on this. Undelete and relist.—S Marshall T/C 12:48, 3 June 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) 13:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) No on both. __meco (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC) undelete and relist nothing procedurally wrong here, but not an unreasonable request and it appears there may be arguments sufficient to meet the NFCC requirements. Worth a discussion. Hobit (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Undelete & relist, agreeing with Hobit. qö₮$@37 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC) There's a default in FFDs that the image be deleted if no opposition is raised, and this was properly followed here. There's no requirement to notify anyone of FFDs (although it is strongly encouraged and also very helpful). In the circumstances I must endorse the closure as the deletion process was properly followed. However (and a discussion with the deleting admin would almost certainly have attained this result) I support relisting per WP:IAR as the image is very likely to be worthwhile. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse - this image is not acceptable to use regardless of what notification may or may not have been given. --B (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Unless you provide an argument for why you state that, your opinion makes no ground for discussing. __meco (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) It's a news media photo and there is nothing iconic about the photo itself. There is no legitimate fair use claim for ever using a non-iconic news media photo because it deprives them of their right to collect loyalties. Think about it ... if it were legitimate to use such photos under a claim of fair use, no newspaper would ever pay for a photo again - they would just take what they want and call if fair use. Please see item #6 under the images section of WP:FAIR#Unacceptable_use --B (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC) To that I would assert that I could see arguing points going counter to that, but more prominently I feel that a full discussion of the Fair Use issue would be preferrable and that could not take place unless a renewed discussion was allowed to take place, so even if that is your position I think for the sake of a would-be precedent in this case the matter would be best served by allowing a full discussion taking place by undeleting and relisting the image. __meco (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC) News media photos are often just speedied as clearly invalid fair use claims. In the past, we've talked about adding a specific rule (and at one point, there kinda was), but couldn't come up with exact language that would allow things like Falling Man but would exclude other modern news media photos. --B (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 June 2010

Lady – Snow endorse. – ÷seresin 00:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lady (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Non policy reason given for premature close. Snowball is an essay, not policy, and when User:Ktr101‎‎ tried to close it as a non-admin snowball 2 different people complained on his talk page, one of which was voting for keep. This was undone, but the admin User:Dcoetzee then repeated the action, giving the same result. Basically, there's no reason to close a review early, it was far, far too early, and there were delete votes, and multiple people who commented, but did not vote keep. Closing AFDs early with non policy reasons is not acceptable. If everyone agreed that it was snowball fair enough, but that didn't happen. I agree that deletion is a long shot, but long shots are allowed. Fundamentally, AFD is not a vote, the principle is that a single opposite vote can carry the day, the reasons given were improper, and it's not snowball anyway, and hence it was closed totally incorrectly and unreasonably early (it had only been running about 4 days). - Wolfkeeper 04:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. I'm not the project's biggest fan of snow closes but this was fair enough. To overturn this at DRV I'd have to think that (a) the close was improper; and (b) letting it run for 7 days could have lead to a different result. Neither is the case.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse, there being no reasonable probability that, had the debate been allowed to run the full 7 days, the result would have been different. The policy you are looking for is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Tim Song (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse the snow closure. The weight of argument was never going to be in favour of deletion, given that the nomination was based on a misunderstanding of NOTDICT.—S Marshall T/C 06:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse exactly per Tim Song. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC) To clarify, I endorse the state of affairs (the article being kept) because the debate was never going to go any other way. The process followed and the manner by which the debate was closed was lamentable, however. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Sympathise with Wolfkeeper, the AfD did not not meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Speedy keep and the use of SNOW "is discouraged". However, an article honestly sourced from Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition will never be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Encyclopedias make as many mistakes as we do; so that can't be a policy, even an unwritten one.- Wolfkeeper 11:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC) but it is policy that we cover everything conventional encyclopedias cover--though we should use other sources also--they are a standard of what is certainly encyclopedic notability; accuracy is another matter. I know of no topic where the 11th EB is the final modern standard of scholarship, and all articles primarily based on it need to be carefully checked and rewritten--but the topics there are all of them still worth inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC) There's a big difference between covering something, and having the same topics. We don't in general have the same topics; and topics define the article layout.- Wolfkeeper 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Comment This is not a question of Bureaucracy, it's about admins like you guys prejudging the issue. If you judge the issue post-review, that's your role, but you don't get to do it mid-flow, and post-review you have to give a POLICY reason. He didn't do that either. That stops right here, right now. Too many AFDs in my experience are being closed improperly.- Wolfkeeper 11:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse. A perfectly reasonable SNOW close. Nsk92 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC) No, it really isn't, several people didn't get a chance to comment, as snow points out, there's a difference between a long shot and a snow.- Wolfkeeper 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC) There is no SNOW close. The policy is Speedy keep, and it doesn't meet that either.- Wolfkeeper 15:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC) WP:SK says "WP:SNOW is a valid keep criterion for an early close, and is not subject to any of the other criteria necessary for speedy keep." ErikHaugen (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Ah, I see you just added that. In any case, previously it said "SNOW may be cited for an early close, but its use is discouraged" - ie, one MAY say SNOW and close early with keep. I think the previous wording was more consistent, I think it should be reverted. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse- Close may not have met the letter of WP:SNOW, but it certainly met the spirit. There is no way, based on the arguments put forth in the AFD, that the article could or should have been deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I do agree with Stifle above, however, that process could have been followed better. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Comment So at the risk of skirting WP:POINT, I'm going to remove or seriously water down 'WP:SNOW is not a valid speedy keep criterion.' from Wikipedia:Speedy_Keep, since the closing admin specifically used it, and you've done nothing to overturn it. Speak now, or I action it.- Wolfkeeper 16:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "WP:SNOW is a valid keep criterion for administrators and is not restricted by the restrictions on Speedy Keep".- Wolfkeeper 17:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC) If I may, I'd like to make a point. The closing of this afd, while maybe going against the letter of WP:SNOW, still falls under the aegis of WP:IAR. While you may disagree with it, the consensus thus far is that the article is valid, and that the close was good. Your zeal in improving this social experiment we call an encyclopedia is commendable, but I wonder if perhaps you might consider relaxing on this particular issue. Continuing to press things with this much ardor does not help your cause. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I think you should revert. Your change doesn't change anything for this particular afd - it already said one may close early for snow - and confuses snow with "speedy keep". ErikHaugen (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Strong Endorse There was clearly not a snowball's chance in hell that the article would be deleted, and although WP:NAC would not generally permit a non-admin to use SNOW, the result of eventual Speedy Keep was strictly within policy. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) The policy doesn't permit an admin to do it either. It specifically says that they can't do Speedy or Snow.- Wolfkeeper 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone, admin or not, can perform a snow closure in the right circumstances, and there's no policy that says otherwise.—S Marshall T/C 18:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC) On the contrary, right now, the deletion rules say that there is no snow keep. It's speedy keep, and there's criteria for that, which were not met here.- Wolfkeeper 18:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I'm not aware of any rule that says "there is no snow keep". When you say "deletion rules", do you mean the deletion guidelines for administrators?—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse as a valid expression of WP:IAR if nothing else. Three more days of discussion would have been nothing else than a time sink. I wasn't thrilled with the original NAC as there were outstanding delete opinions, but overturning this at the point would be little more than process to satisfy process. Courcelles (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Basically you're in effect saying that any admin can close any AFD at any time provided the position is at a numerical disadvantage. Snow is, after all, just a count of heads, it's straight vote. But it's too easy to do vote stuffing.- Wolfkeeper 18:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse I closed that because there really was no way in hell it would've been deleted. As I said before, only a sleu of socks would've likely done something to get it deleted. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse Wikipedia is not and has never been a bureaucracy (see WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY), and we don't jump through hoops of pointless process for its own sake. If that's what you're here looking for, sorry but you may want to consider some other more bureaucratically-oriented website to contribute to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse- There is no possible way this deletion discussion could have ended any other way. While I would have let it run for the full seven days, there is nothing to be gained by sending this back to AfD. It would certainly be kept. Overturning this decision would be disrupting Wikipedia to make a pointless. Reyk YO! 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Endorse it's an obvious snowball keep, at any rate. —fetch·comms 20:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Snowball endorse There's no policy for this, but that doesn't matter, obviously. The DRV is ended.- Wolfkeeper 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Comment There's no policy for this, but that doesn't matter, obviously. This is actually a correct and un-ironic statement of the way Wikipedia works. WP:IAR is a cornerstone of Wikipedia policy. Administrators (and other editors) do what is best for the encyclopedia regardless of the exact wording or tagging of the policy pages at the moment. There are limits, essentially governed by consensus, but people are generally reluctant to overturn an action they believe to have been correct even if the process was faulty. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 June 2010

Antje Thiele – Article undeleted. The article was deleted via speedy deletion, so I don't think there is any need to go through the full seven day process. Anyone is free to list the article at AFD should they wish to do so. – NW (Talk) 20:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Antje Thiele (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This article was speedily deleted within nine hours of its inception, even though it was a stub and even though it gave credible statements of importance re: the subject. Perhaps the deleting editor did not realize it was a stub, and/or perhaps he is not fluent in German (I'm not either anymore but I can read enough to basically understand the various pages of this German actress's CV and personal site and so forth). I contacted the deleting editor and after discussion he suggested I post here. Here is the article (I archived it on my userpage for future reference): [79]. I've added a stub tag and added a sentence. It's still a stub because my German is slow-going, but it gives credible importance. I would like to have this article reinstated as it did not meet A7 requirements for speedy deletion (it did supply credible importance), and it was never given a chance to come to fruition. By the way, the deleting editor has continued to cite notability as a criteria for his speedy deletion, but that is not a criteria for speedy deletion per stated Wikipedia guidelines. Softlavender (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn and list at AfD A7 is boarderline. I'd say being in a movie we have an article on is an indication of importance. Also I have large issues with the deleting admin citing WP:ENT as a reason to delete (on his talk page and on Softlavender). Wow, not so good there. That said, there will have to be significant improvement to pass AfD. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Comment. I'd like if I may to take this space to simply give the original raison d'etre for the article in the first place. The name was a redlink in the cast list of an article that I had stumbled upon here on Wikipedia (Anonymous (film)), and that article was such a horrible mess I "adopted" the article and have been gutting and cleaning it up since then. After my cleanup, there were still two redlinks in the major cast list, and as I hate redlinks in articles I have adopted, and as we as Wikipedians are always encouraged not to remove redlinks but to create articles instead, I took it upon my self to create this article even though it presented difficulties insofar as the German language was concerned. I'm surprised lately that I'm getting so many automatic speedy deletion tags from simply starting a stub from a redlink -- this is new. Is it a newer and more stringent crackdown? I've created a fair number of articles, but never gotten the SD tags like I have in the past month. What's up with this? Does Wikipedia want us to create articles and propogate information, or not? (Sorry to go off on a tangent!) Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Hmm. I'm a bit concerned that the only source given that actually mentions Antje Thiele is her online CV. We could overturn, but there's not much point if the article wouldn't survive AfD. Got any reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Personally, when I'm considering writing an article about a German, the first thing I do is check to see if de.wiki has an article about them. It's not a foolproof method of determining notability for en.wiki's purposes, but it's often indicative. There's no article on de.wiki about Antje Thiele. Please don't be put off if this deletion isn't overturned. En.wiki's got huge gaps in it for German speakers to fill. For example, most of the biographies of the Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prizewinners are still redlinks, and personally I think it's inexcusable that we're writing articles about what to name your cat when there's so much important stuff still to write. I'd love to collaborate with you on some translations.—S Marshall T/C 16:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Comment. I've frequently noticed that German Wikipedia is a much lazier, much less active, much less informative, and in fact much more inaccurate site. For one small example, English Wikipedia article on German composer Leon Jessel (another article I adopted) is more than twice as large, and much much more accurate and informative, than the one on German Wikipedia, even though 90% of the available info about him online and elsewhere is in German. That's just one small example that I've seen repeated many many times. Germans seem in the habit of coming to English Wikipedia when they want to find something out, so their own site isn't edited very much. By the way, I hear you about don't be disappointed whatever the outcome, but my personal point/feeling is that once the Roland Emmerich movie comes out in January, we'll virtually have to have the article anyway in my opinion, because she plays the wife of the protagonist, so why delete it now only to reinstate it in January? Softlavender (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Also, please don't take the attitude that what may happen in an AfD is a foregone conclusion. Nothing is ever a foregone conclusion, and we need to follow WP guidelines for speedy deletion here. One step at a time. The article is still a stub. Thanks very much. Softlavender (talk) 17:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Well, as a counterexample, the Germans have de:Helene Wessel (first woman to lead a German political party) -v- our shameful redlink Helene Wessel. De.wiki isn't en.wiki—a lot of their articles completely lack inline citations!—and I'm not pretending it's perfect, but there are a lot of low-hanging fruit out there for a German-English translator to pluck.—S Marshall T/C 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn and list at AfD Let's do it right. Probably fails wp:ENT, but I think A7 is way out of line. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn WP:ENT isn't a test relevant to A7. This article asserted significance or importance and did so credibly.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn a credible claim is made in this article draft. If more sources can be found then it doe snot even have to go for an AfD. Currently [80] and [81] do not mention the topic, but are about the play. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the comment; I've substituted a ref there that mentions her. Softlavender (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn; article included a credible claim of significance, a lower standard than notability, so speedy deletion was inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn: The article asserts a minor level of notability. Ghits number 8450, which is moderate. I think this article needs expansion and more sourcing, but essentially, it is about a rising actress. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Please be aware that Google searches are not references. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Overturn. When an editor in good standing contests the speedy deletion of a non-offensive article, it should be undeleted by default, to be listed at AfD if someone still thinks it should be deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.