Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May

< April 2011	Deletion review archives	June 2011 >

31 May 2011[edit]

1313 Mockingbird Lane – Recreation permitted, and restored to mainspace. – Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has been rewritten rather well in userspace by Wacomshera (talk · contribs), here. The new article has sources to show that, with releases on notable record label Sundazed Records and commendations from local publications, as well as multiple sources including a 2-page spread in a book, they do pass WP:BAND. - filelake shoe 14:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing this, Filelakeshoe. I didn't know the correct procedure for resurrecting an article, so this is helpful. I just want to point out to whoever is going to review this that (I think) because "1313 Mockingbird Lane" is probably more well known as the Munsters mansion address, this article should come back as 1313 Mockingbird Lane (band). Wacomshera (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, Filelakeshoe just messaged me that he thinks it's fine as 1313 Mockingbird Lane. I defer to the experts! Wacomshera (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally see any problem with moving that to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 15:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, though I do note that the deleted versions at the mainspace title will need to be restored under it. From what I can see, Filelakeshoe userfied this for Wacomshera without restoring the deleted page, so we'll need to undelete them to maintain attribution. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks pretty good. I recall the band, from Albany, NY, where I have lived for over 20 years. The article is now sourced well. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation reason for deletion has been adressed. Yoenit (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support request I recommend having "(band)" in the title because I found the article while doing Munsters-related reading. Wefihe (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation, well written, well sourced, well done! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Allow re-creation per above. Wefihe's suggestion above makes sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 May 2011[edit]

29 May 2011[edit]

Soxman – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was originally deleted by nomination. ~~The original nominator no longer even has a wiki page and left immiediately after nominating this deletion, implying something other than integrity.~~ His claim was that there was no verifiable sources or citations for the individual. The claim was that I referenced articles written for my Google news site, which I consider a verifiable source as it is recognized by the biggest search engine in the world as a legitimate news source. Still, I rewrote the article providing multiple citations of print news articles, and programs he appeared as a guest on and I also included links to electronic versions of a sample of the writer’s works for the Tribune company and to his appearances on WGN television, WCIU, and on MLB.com, all legitimate independent sources. What more do I need to do to establish notability for a local Chicago individual? The request for speedy deletion told administrators to at least review external links before deleting. I know you all have to review several of these a day pro bono but I feel as the I have satisfied the requirements. When considering to comparable individuals please see Ronnie Woo Woo, Andy The Clown and Robert Szasz, who also have approved articles for simply being fans. This fan is a proven journalist as well with documented works on the proposed article and popular in Chicago Sports media, especially among White Sox fans. Comparative to other published articles of similar stature, the fact that I complied with requests for citations and provided external links where one newscast refers to him as “the biggest fan in Chicago,” and MLB.com recognizes him, I feel this warrants reconsideration. I would also if possible like his images reposted as the bot deleted them automatically when the page was deleted. Thanks for any consideration you can offer or guidance you can provide in offering approval. Please ensure my last submission deleted on May 28th is the one considered as it is in compliance with all requests of the deleting admin. sportsbankSportsbank (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Nominator identifies no flaws in the unanimous AFD. The fact that the AFD nominator left Wikipedia (after five years and a long record of legitimate editing) has no bearing on the merits of this nomination. Just because a source turns up on GNews doesn't mean it satisfies WP:RS, especially for a BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse + close Per the nom's here's rationale, the Nominator of the DRV doesn't have a wiki page and has focussed solely on this topic, implying something... Seriously speedy close per the basic principal that DRV is not a platform for attacking other editors. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast. I told sportsbank that if he had additional sources that he can present them here so let's see what he has. I have temporarily restored and blanked the article. The original version deleted at AFD can be viewed here and the new version deleted by G4 is here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you also tell him that coming here and bad mouthing the original nominator was a good idea? To be clear it should be closed until such time as the nominator is willing to raise the review without the accusations of bad faith. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsbank, one thing that's really working against you is that the original nominator has identified a serious conflict of interest on your part. Your username strongly suggest that you are associated with thesportsbank.net. While COI editing is not prohibited, just discouraged, it's a problem for this article for 2 reasons. 1. A minor indicator that a subject might be notable (but in itself not enough to satisfy WP:N) is if an editor unconnected with the subject "takes note of" the subject and writes an article about it but you are not that editor. 2, Some people who patrol new pages and participate in AFDs will see this obvious COI and !vote "delete" without checking for sources as thoroughly as they otherwise might because they assume the article is "spam". If Soxman is really notable and as popular as you claim then it would have been better to wait until one of his many fans wrote the article. If you look at the histories of Andy the Clown and Robert Szasz you will see that they were not written by the subjects themselves or anybody associated with them. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, without prejudice against recreation should better sources turn up. The presence or absence of a nominator is irrelevant. The deletion debate centered on notability -- the degree and nature of coverage and "notice" obtained by the subject. The discussion reached a unanimous conclusion that editors felt the sources did not support an article. The administrator closed on that basis, correctly respecting the consensus. If there is a significant (non-trivial) change and the problems with sourcing ceased in future, then undeletion or re-creation could be considered. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unanimous debate; as FT2 points out there is nothing preventing recreation in the event that someone finds better sources. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok can some please assist me here as I think the point of my request for review is being lost. You can remove any references to the sportsbank as I beleive the merits of the indivudual and the article stand on their own. This is not in any way about self-promotion for any site I'm affiliated with. I aplogize if my criticsim of the nominating editor was taken as an attack but if you review the comments about the person I wrote about was also slammed by the editors referred to as a buffoon and an idiot. Is this fair? Mr. Ritzman you have been fair and helpful in this review and I truly thank you for that. The only request that I have is that the article is reviewed based on the merits I presented. The article was deleted based on the fact that there was no citations and no verifiable sources outside of the sportsbank. I provided many more citations, external links to multiple media outlets where the person has made appearences. Simply stated, what more do I need to to to establish notabilty? Can we please focus this review on the content and not poor wording choices on my part? I have not seen an arguement in favor of deletion based on the reasons the article was originally deleted. I provided citations and verifiable links, none of which are associated with the sportsbank. Can we please make the basis of resotration consideration start with the corrections I have made? All endorsement for deletions are being made on the basis of the orginal article, not the one I just created. As I am a sportwriter in Chicago and a stringer for the Washington Times, would any topic I write about in Chicago Sports or in D.C. politics present a conflict of interest? Thanks for any consideration you can provide and again. SportsbankSportsbank (talk) 16:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've undone the edit to the original edit and replaced it with a strike through of the relevant part, please don't make such edits, it makes some of the other comments in this debate lose context. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Hey, I never went anywhere... --Endlessdan (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC) (the original AFD nominator)[reply]

So how exactly is someone with a verifiable history of media coverage and notability suddenly deemed not notable enough for a Wikipedia page? There were plenty of citations and references to Soxman outside of The Sports Bank which were wholly disregarded by the deleting party. It now seems this appeal has turned into an argument of semantics, instead of focusing of the real issue at hand (Soxman is deserving of an entry as a notable member of the Chicago White Sox fanbase, just as Ronnie Woo Woo does. Please address the proper concerns rather than worrying about the context of the comments in the debate. Anderspc (talk • contribs) 13:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m one of Soxman’s fans, a Chicago native and actually a Cub’s fan who reads his works for the commuter edition of the Chicago Tribune. I would gladly attempt to submit and article for him, but honestly the second submission is better than what I could write as it covers all elements that I would put in the submission, and links that I would consider verifiable. Even the first submission which appears to have existed challenge free for almost three years was well-written, but some content appeared to be based more on his lore than verifiable content. Funny, one of the links the writer submitted is to a superstation WGN piece of Ronnie Woo and Soxman. So how one can be considered “wiki worthy” and the other not, is somewhat confusing to me. I’d gladly re-write the article if someone can take the time to tell me how to improve the May submission beyond what’s there. Otherwise I vote to expediently restore the second submission. Worldofwikicraft (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi – Closure endorsed. Arguably the original discussion was defective, but there is no consensus here for overturning the close as out of process. – Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spartaz closed the debate with a mere 'The result was "Keep"' without explicitly stating which articles to keep, as there were several in that debate. As there was only one real vote (and that was to delete) on this particular Wangtang, either an AFD for it needs to be opened or we duke it out here. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 13:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its obviously keep all since there was no support for the deletion argument and your contention that the places didn't exist were contested. Frankly bulk nominating a bunch of places with the same name and expecting anyone to pull a decent consensus from it was misplaced. Perhaps I could have gone no consensus but I didn't read it that way. Endorse own close Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is obviously over this one article, and not the others, so can you not read? I was talking about the other articles to provide context. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not. :-) but then I'm assuming good faith and not assuming that everyone is guilty until proven otherwise[1]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see discussion about all of the five villages/towns/whatever, and the only one that comes anywhere close to deletion is Wangtang (northwest of Guilin), Guangxi. I see the discussion on it as no consensus, but it is well within administrative discretion to choose to keep it instead. Yes, Spartaz should have been clearer on exactly which articles were closed as what, but no, his close is not unreasonable. I don't see the point in doing anything here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you think the preferred course of action would be to nominate that one for a separate AFD? —HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, in a couple of months. I'll grant that consensus on this article wasn't strong in the AfD, but there still is no reason to rush into another AfD. lifebaka++ 00:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the latest in HXL49's personal vendetta against me, exemplified not only by the comments s/he made in the deletion, which no one bought, but continued harassment on my talkpage, [2], where her/his argument has now changed just to the articles' "quality". I see s/he is spewing further venom at this venue. This sort of crap should not be dignified nor rewarded. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And neither should you be rewarded for creating such bullshit. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No reason provided that justifies overturning the expressed/numerical consensus (or lack thereof). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this DRV is to review the AFD, which you seem to not have done; instead, you only said, perhaps as part of drive-by participation, "no reason provided". This is hogwash. Danaman5 found no sourcing to indicate that the one settlement of this discussion exists. That is my reasoning, and it alone suffices. Here is his quote: "Regardless, I can't find any Wangtang that matches the description of "northwest of Guilin", so I'm going to vote Delete on that article." If you really wish to see the lack of evidence, then wade through these lists of villages: Lingui County, and Longsheng County. You would probably find the same information on the county government websites, and do not dismiss it simply because you cannot read it. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The original AfD was about half a dozen articles, each of which contained nothing but the name (in Roman letters only, no original Chinese) and geographic location. Most of them were identified by a few editors who found them on Google Maps - although none of them was a city, they all were small villages (pop. 1,000 at most), and some were tens of kilometers away from where the articles claimed to be (with degree-min-sec precision, too!). This one, noone has been able to identify so far. Google Maps is pretty good at showing small villages, especially located along major roads (which, as experience has shown, are more likely to appear in GEONet database - they list some small villages if they happen to be road junctions), but there is definitely no Wangtang shown there at that location or anywhere that can be sensibly described as "NW of Guilin". There is the town of Wutong (五通) some 5 km to the west of the purported location (on Hwy G321), so if anything, the article can be renamed that way. -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As Vmenkov said above, there is no evidence that the Wangtang referenced by this article even exists, which is why I voted to delete it in the original AFD. It may be that there were not enough participants to add their own deletion votes and thus create a "consensus", but that merits a relisting, not a keep. The other keep votes in the AFD were all related to different Wangtangs, which invalidates the arguments of "numerical consensus" made above. I guarantee that if others had weighed in on this particular Wangtang, they would have come to the same conclusion (for example, although Vmenkov didn't explicitly vote on the original AFD, you can see above that he agrees with me). Unless someone can find evidence that this village exists, on what grounds could it be kept?--Danaman5 (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article created since Jan 2008. No updates and references for over 3 years. Can't find credible information on google. --Visik (Chinwag Podium) 07:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To all you people who're new to deletion review, welcome! The closer will probably disregard what you say because DRV isn't AfD round 2 and arguments that belong at AfD don't belong here. My own position is endorse per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: the AfD is over, consensus was reached, and I'm not seeing any problem with the debate or any failure on the closer's part whatsoever. If you still feel the material should be deleted, wait a decent length of time and then nominate it at AfD again.—S Marshall T/C 19:51, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cough cough...decent length of time would be 7 days for me...I could well re-nominate it much sooner. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I've watchlisted it in case you're serious.—S Marshall T/C 20:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I have done something similar before, and I am not afraid to repeat. When confronted with certain users (neither you nor Hullaballoo, though), (sometimes brutal) persistence is called for. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 20:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The closing admin's result is in line with the consensus. I would also like to say to some of those above that this review is not another AfD - it is to discuss whether the closing admin closed the discussion in line with the discussion. In this case, to close as 'delete' would clearly have been wrong (incidentally, the lack of further reasoning by the closing admin seems to me to infer that it applies to all of the listed articles. I can't help thinking that if the result had been a simple statement saying 'delete', the nominator would not be here to complain that the closing admin had not explicitly said in their closing rationale that the delete referred to all of the articles!). The only other possible consensus would have been 'no consensus', but that would also have defaulted to keep. Again, it would have referred to all the articles. The only time in a mass-nomination that the closing admin needs to say which articles the closure results refers to would have been if some had been deleted and some kept PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of what I have learned, with this particular village, what the closing admin should have done was to relist it, as there was only one substantial vote, and not write "no consensus". I cannot see why it is not clear that I am only complaining about this one entry and not the whole batch. And regarding the "delete all" point...that would not be likely anyway given that in applicable XFDs, I have never seen anything other than "delete all" if that was the result. I consider not writing "all", be it delete or keep, to be sloppy and bad practise. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, it seems that a number of commentators are not understanding the nature of the discussion that took place. All of the keep votes given at the AFD were for other villages of the same name, not the one in question here. On this village, no consensus had yet been reached when the AFD was closed. There was one delete vote (my own), and nothing else. Second, I think that the accusations that I or others are just rehashing the AFD here are ill founded. When so few people have weighed in on a particular item up for AFD, the proper procedure is to relist it. It is completely right and proper to discuss at DRV whether or not the closing admin followed proper procedure, which is what we are doing here. The fact that others are now weighing in with AFD-style delete votes just shows that the AFD on this particular village did not get enough comments while it was running, and should be relisted.--Danaman5 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Danaman. And also, to Visik and Vmenkov...in the (possibly likely) event I would need to discuss this village at a new AFD, be prepared to copy your own arguments, as I cannot do that for you without your explicit consents. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain the close, as either keep or non-consensus and if desired, nominate this village individually at a new AfD. This is not the place to discuss the underlying merits of the case. The close was correct--there was no way of being sure of delete from the material presented in the nomination. DGG ( talk ) 12:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Pampi1010/University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems – Recreation not permittedl. There seems to be a very clear consensus that concerns about the use of unfree images to create a gallery of seals and logos has not gone away and no credible reason to suggest that the NFCC would permit their use in this way in contravention of foundation edict. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deleting admin is not active according to another admin. I have substantially edited the article. It has become a separate article for the University seal. I believe a separate article is necessary to represent the seal of the university which itself has a significant and colorful history. College insignias are also substantially edited to inform/educate the readers the 400 years-rich tradition of the university. I'll be changing the images into the valid ones as soon as this article is undeleted. Planning to change the title to University of Santo Tomas insignias. Pampi1010 (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Santo Tomas seals and emblems, the article was deleted in 2009 as a non-notable gallery of non-free images. If you intend to replace every instance of File:Example.png with a fair use image, this portion of the problem has hardly been rectified. Chester Markel (talk) 06:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm willing to do so. Am I going to change it right now? (But I think, it's not allowed right now) Or later if it gets undeleted. Thanks! Pampi1010 (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, articles shouldn't contain extremely large galleries of non-free images, per WP:FU. Chester Markel (talk) 17:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just focusing on the issues above - there seem to be two issues,
1. Whether the seal merits an article. Pampi1010 says it does and I have no issue with him working on an article, or requesting a copy of any previous deleted text to develop it further.
2. The non-free image issue. It really cannot contain a gallery of these, or list of minor variants. It can contain a (minimal) number of selected important or non-free examples if reasonably necessary and unavoiudable. I am sure Pampi1010 understands a sizable non-free gallery would be a problem. Would he be willing to immediately remove or comment out any included non-free images and then consult if the final article is proposed to use more than a couple of non-free images?

That might solve it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chester Markel and FT2.

I just hate the fact that my article cannot contain that portion. But! I'm not stubborn :) I just have a few more concerns:

I still have images that are not yet in Wikipedia (sorry for not knowing the right Wikipedia term), so if I'll upload them, I'll have the ?copyright? of the images, right? Will the pictures still be valid in the article?
What if I make an individual article for every seal/logo, sans the aspect of their importance, would that make my article a hub, thus becoming an acceptable form of a gallery?
I'm wondering, what did this article do to exist. Gallery of French coats of arms
What if I put this article in Commons (heck, I don't even know what exactly Commons is for, haha), can it be link from a Wikipedia article?

FT2, I'm willing to remove everything that's not allowed. Thanks again! (talk) 02:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

# No, copyright lies with the person/entity who created those emblems/seals.

# No, galleries of non-free (copyrighted) images are forbidden.

# Those emblems are hunderds of years old, so copyright is not an issue.

# Wikicommons does not allow non-free images, so they would be deleted. Yoenit (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My question: # I'm wondering, what did this article do to exist. Gallery of French coats of arms

An answer: # Those emblems are hunderds of years old, so copyright is not an issue.

What if I change the template of the images, so no copyright will be violated? The creator of the logos has passed away a couple of years ago. Pampi1010 (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template is a document of the copyright status, changing the template doesn't change that status. If the status shown on the templates are wrong, then yes they should be fixed, however (1) you can't assume just because the creator is now dead that the copyright is void - it doesn't work like that, many countries have copyright extending beyond the death of the author (2) it's up to you to demonstrate your changing of the copyright status on the images is correct, mere assumption (and I suspect from your question here you don't really understand too much about copyright) is not allowed and if seen as being you trying to get around the issue by showing false information could lead to sanctions. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New changes. So you see, the article has two parts: University seal and College insignias. The College insignias contains the section being disputed, so I have removed it. The University seal part is a new one (new from the 2009 article). And it will contain images that were created from 1619 to 1868. The copyright of this new images would not be a problem like Yoenit said previously, right? Thanks! I hope I have settled the issue. Thanks admin! Pampi1010 (talk) 07:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but how come no admin is replying? Newer discussions have gotten the final decisions... Not that I'm demanding anything, I just wanna see some replies, so Id know what to do. Pampi1010 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 May 2011[edit]

Igor Sushko – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I am the nominator, since the deletion in a matter of short space of time, this person have became notable since he have competed in two Super GT seasons, so I feel I do have the first say to allow for the reversal of this deletion Donnie Park (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the original discussion focused on the lack of third party reliable sourcing providing non-trivial coverage. I've done a brief search and not turned anything up, what sources are there? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the criteria for inclusion mentions having multiple reliable sources - unless it can be shown that there are more reliable independent sources which provide non-trivial coverage, in which case I'd be open to changing my recommendation here! -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 23:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem undeleting this, notwithstanding the valid concerns above about sourcing. Sushko appears now to meet the letter of WP:ATHLETE, and since he is racing in Japan there is presumably coverage in Japanese. Perhaps undeletion and moving to incubation pending better sources would be a reasonable option. Chick Bowen 04:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, since recreation allowed. Nothing is wrong with the 2009 AFD. If the subject subsequently has satisfied a relevant SNG, then a new article can be created without overturning the initial deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 May 2011[edit]

Slammiversary IX – Overturning to redirect. Even among participants with different bolded "!vote" positions, there seems to be agreement that redirection is the best result, although the original closing admin's choice of "no consensus" was a reasonable one. – RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No valid 'keep' rationales for this future event which is not yet notable Chzz ► 21:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bah- It was closed as a no-consensus with leave to immediately open a new AFD if desired. Why bother bringing it here? Umbralcorax (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Chzz, you want this to be overturned to "delete"? In the AfD, you were the only person arguing for outright deletion; everyone else either said the article should be kept or redirected. Granted, the "keep" rationales in this case were very weak "arguments to avoid," and there was a solid case for redirection. However, the general sentiment in the discussion was the content should be preserved; multiple editors wrote that redirection would only be temporary, until the event occurs and reliable sources become available. There definitely wasn't any consensus to delete. You can still propose redirection of the article on its talk page; however, since the event in question is coming up soon, it's probably not worth the effort. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Redirect The keep arguments were worthless but there was a strong enough support for redirect that this would have been the best outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
endorse I think a redirect (keeping the page history) would have been the right outcome given the lack of sourcing (and allowing it to be recreated in a few weeks) and the discussion. That said, it's a reasonable close given that exceptionally high probability of this being notable in a few weeks (we aren't a bureaucracy and all that). Hobit (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Redirect to Slammiversary, as voiced in the XfD, consistent with the main problem being WP:CRYSTAL, looking forward a few weeks (multiple participants noting that deletion is not appropriate with the impending event). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's strictly necessary to overturn to a redirect, which is simply overturning one flavour of "keep" to another. But I do agree that as a matter of editorial judgment, a redirect would be the best outcome.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to incubate There was agreement that this article was not ready for mainspace and needed to be improved. And the article now is advertising by having a link to Ticketmaster as a "reference". WP:NOT policy states, "Those promoting causes or events...should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so." I'd also suggest that admins boldly slap articles like this in the incubator, before pointless AfDs get started, followed by equally pointless DRVs; because, if this article is really not notable, the time to decide that is after the event. Unscintillating (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are right to say it is a recurring problem; for example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over the Limit (2011), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Capitol Punishment, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor Series (2010), this AN/I archive. That's why I requested DRV - to try and establish whether such articles are deemed acceptable, and whether volume of !votes is overcoming policy/guideline. And redirecting without deletion can cause problems - see e.g. recent history of "Destination X 2011". Scan down the user talk page of the person who created this article (Slammiversary IX, subject of the DRV) - User talk:Supermhj8616. This DRV isn't policy-wonking or wiki-lawyering; it's an effort to stop what I perceive as Wikipedia serving to advertise events which are not yet notable, and it slipping by due to weight of numbers of fans, instead of policy/guideline rationales. Chzz ► 22:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Verifiability is core policy. That demands that all unverifiable information is removed. Do that - really do it. Remove all unverifiable information. Then the sensible thing is probably to redirect. It can be immediately unredirected when the event occurs (or when verifiable commentary emerges). Other option is to leave a sub-stub with a description, venue, and date. In either case, no deletion is required. So why are we here? Enforce WP:V and leave the rest.--Scott Mac 23:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favour of enforcing WP:V, Mr. MacDonald - and it says, If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Chzz ► 23:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the date, time and venue are verified. So there's no need to delete it, since the existence of the planned event is verifiable. If that's all the verifiable information you have then redirect it, or leave a sub-stub. Either will do.--Scott Mac 00:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've tried that, it was still a WP:PROMOTION after I removed some excess material, and the material I removed will likely need to be restored if the event occurs. I don't think that Wikipedia is a bulletin board for announcements of future events. Unscintillating (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is happening in roughly two weeks, it has been promoted by TNA since the Impact after Sacrifice, as well as many wrestling sites have several articles written about it already. If you want any more reliable information on it, there's plenty on ImpactWrestling.com as well as Slammiversary.com. Both are official TNA websites. - Sir Pawridge talk contribs 00:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NotNewsReports, just being well-sourced is not enough for transient events; and WP:Notability (events), which refers to breaking news report. See also WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:FUTURE. I'd say that this ref is purely promotional, "Slammiversary IX celebrates 9 years of TNA action! All of your favorite iMPACT Wrestlers will be featured..." Unscintillating (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no consensus, because there wasn't any. The article can still be redirected as an editorial measure, at least until better references are available. Chester Markel (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. The primary role of the closing administrator is to hit, or not hit, the delete button and in this discussion nobody but the nominator was saying "hit the delete button". Closes such as "redirect" or "merge" are secondary. If Deryck Chan had hit the delete button then we would be here overturning it. With all due respect, my advice to Chzz is to withdraw this review and renominate the article for deletion as suggested by the closing admin. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect "Keep votes" were: "Trust me, I know about this subject", "Look on Google and that proves everything", and "It's happening soon". None of those are policy-based. In contrast, the redirect votes are: "no coverage in reliable sources", "event has not yet occurred", and "precedent AfD". Unless the closing admin is simply counting votes, the merits of the redirect arguments outweigh those of the keep ones, and the article should have been redirect accordingly. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's stopping anyone from just redirecting it? Stifle (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect as an "editorial decision" would be subject to the rules of BRD and 3RR so would be useless for "defended" articles. A redirect for Slammiversary IX would be reverted faster then a Grawp sock gets blocked. I suspect that's why a lot of articles where a redirect/merge would suffice go to AFD. Bulbasaur is the perfect example of this, 3 AFDs for an article that will "never" be a red link. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak overturn to redirect, the poor keep rationales should be discounted. The last redirect recommendation was a verbatim copy, and redirect is a secondary outcome at AfD, but the redirect arguments were stronger. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why DRV? Why delete, when it'll be notable soon? Pointless 'wiki-lawyering'? Allow me to respond, and if you still think it shouldn't be deleted - fine, I'll say no more about this, or any other similar case.

Throughout the entire life of this article, nobody has supplied anything resembling a reliable, third-party reference.

The article was created 1 May; I PRODded it on 3rd May. The PROD was removed on 8 May, so I AfD'd 9 May. After re-listing, it was closed NC 24 May. After discussion with the closer, I filed this DRV.

During all this time, Wikipedia has had an article with no reliable third-party sources, acting to promote a non-notable future event; this would appear to be a failure of our due process.

It's happened before, with other future PPV wrestling events. I hoped DRV might help show that due process actually did work.

As for the idea of simply redirecting - I would have if I'd thought it'd work; as demonstrated on many previous occasions (some mentioned above), if redirected, it simply gets reinstated. Heck, even when deleted they get re-created, but at least then I can point to a discussion or consensus.

If this DRV does fail to follow actual policy and guidelines - viz. keeping an article that clearly fails all inclusion requirements - then, fair enough, I know when to drop a stick and I will.

I think it's a great pity, that sheer volume of fans are able to override Wikipedia policy in this way. Note, I'm not claiming that is the case here in DRV - I'm talking about the various AfD's mentioned; here, I think people endorsing are, largely, seeing this as pointless/bureaucratic because it will become notable in some weeks. Well, so be it - if that is the de facto policy - that we do permit articles on these non-notable future events - fine; I'll stop worrying about it.

Thanks for your time. Chzz ► 04:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you actually asking for? You haven't said that I can see. I think you would be happy with "redirect and protect"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the DRV, of course, is to assess whether the AfD closure was correct - I don't think it was; I think, as often happens, votes were counted instead of assessing the actual policy/rationale. I suppose I was also trying to establish precedent regarding how these articles are handled. All I can do is, what I did - PROD, AfD, complain if AfD is closed poorly. The problem with just redirecting (in this case) is, we leave the history - which could well be used in recreation; as it contains no RS at all, that is worrisome. In most cases, 'redirect' could work, followed by monitoring and then (as may be necessary) protection until the event, but as described - by the time it's gone through AfD, relist, DRV - it does start to look pointless. I suppose the over-riding issue - in this DRV - is, the concern that this article has survived deletion despite not coming close to meeting policy inclusion requirements (let alone guidelines). Chzz ► 05:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endrorse No consensus close as the correct reading of the debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Previous closing admin: Moo. (to echo the first comment's Bah) I don't really care what happens to this article / my decision, which is why I didn't bother to comment until now. What I really wanted to say throughout the debate was that the longer we get stuck in these discussions, the longer Wikipedia would've kept the page, and the longer we would've "promoted" (in Chzz's own words) the event for them, which is not ideal from Chzz's point of view. (see our discussion) Anyway, this debate is about to be closed, and from the current state of this debate, good luck to the admin who closes this, I hope your decision's fate is better than mine... Der yck C. 20:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [3] Chzz ► 02:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Doctors wife screenshot.jpg – Closure Endorsed – Peripitus (Talk) 09:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel a bit sorry for King of Hearts (talk · contribs) who closed this one, because he's in a rather difficult position. I think that there was a (weak) consensus to delete. There was a 50-50 split of !votes, but if we're going to play the WP:CON game and do some assessment of quality of argument, then it must be said that at least some of the 'keep' arguments failed to address NFCC8 – ie. they failed to rebut the point made by those lobbying for deletion that not seeing the image would not harm readers' understanding of the article. I think that there is also some equivalent of WP:MUSTBESOURCES going on here with regard to critical commentary. For instance, Masem (talk · contribs) stated, "At the present time there is no sourced discussion of the elements in question, but I know they exist," (his emphasis not mine) but this position does not seem compliant with WP:NFCI, which stresses that there must be critical commentary in order for the image to be included. Admittedly some tangentially relevant material was added to the article after the comment I just quoted was made – but it was tangential, because none of it made it necessary for readers to see a picture. Background information on the fact that the design was the result of a competition doesn't require people to know what the design looks like to a 100% plausible depth, and more than one editor in the discussion agreed that the proposed wording "...composed of a glowing TARDIS console, protected by TARDIS walls on two sides but open on the others..." seems sufficient for purpose.
Anyway, much of that was actually a discussion of the image itself rather than the process, but simply because I think that balancing the quality of the 50-50 !vote split is the only way forward here. Either that or agreeing that in this case, no-consensus should default to deletion. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 10:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep There were 4 Keep and 2 Delete !votes. That's not 50-50 and certainly wasn't a consensus to delete. Warden (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, because I count three delete !votes. Admittedly it's not 50% exactly, but it's approximate enough that the WP:CON-quality-assessment-thing can come into play. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 10:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the meaning of "overturn" is going to be ambiguous, as there's going to be people saying "overturn to delete." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin: You claim that Xeworlebi's "keep" !vote lacks substance. But aren't Future Perfect and Scott Mac's !votes just parroting what you said? So as I see it, votecount doesn't matter, and except for a brief disussion with Col. Warden at the beginning the whole thing was pretty much one-to-one between you and Masem. And I do not see a consensus emerging out of that discussion on whether it contributes significantly to the article. As for the default decision for "no consensus," I think that is best left for a sitewide discussion. (The previous one failed to get any useful results despite the massive participation, so we would need to try harder in getting a consensus.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete this is about copyright material. Under foundation mandate, and community policy, we must be very conservative about what we permit. We are a FREE encyclopedia - and we should avoid UNFREE material unless it is entirely justified. This is not. The problem with Dr who screenshots, is that we have a number of devotees, who have continually sought to find images to fill infoboxes, and then find loophole in the NFCC to get them through - when they've failed another image has been uploaded, and those who have been seeking to enforce our FREEness have been forced to continually nominate for deletion. This matter has already been on ANI and resulted in one upload ban. If it isn't absolutely clear that the upload is justified, the result must be delete. It is certainly not absolutely clear here.--Scott Mac 10:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the uploader, 1) I think I've uploaded only 1, maybe 2 DW-screenshots in the past, and if it was 2 , that got deleted and I didn't fight it because I agreed with the assessment of those seeking its deletion. I am not zealous about having screenshots for episode articles and in fact have agreed with their common removal in the past. 2) Most know that I'm one of the vocal defenders of NFC policy, so I know there are specific cases when NFC can be completely avoided. That said, I checked the talk page of the article and figured that there's at least two , if not three, valid reasons that can be sourced to secondary materials (presently not in the article but a google news search easily shows them), which greatly strengthens the NFC use. Would I do this for every DW episode? Hell no. I may make a few "mistakes" (images later found to be unnecessary by NFC) but I know I'm thinking every NFC requirement when I upload images, so I don't think characterizing anyone that defends these DW images as a zealot that wants to fill every infobox with a picture. I fight this one because I think there's a line that some editors are enforcing that is stronger than what present consensus across the board (every NFC image, not just episode ones) based on the subjectiveness of NFCC#8 as well as the concept of equivalent free replacement. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete - Copyrighted content with a non existant fair use claim. Off2riorob (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close DRV isn't meant to be AfD part 2 as the above two users seem to think it is. Per the discussion at the AfD, it seems clear to me that the No consensus close is appropriate. While I may have my own personal opinion about the image in question, my personal opinion doesn't factor into the purpose of DRV, which is to see whether the close of a discussion was done properly. This one was. Making any arguments for or against the image or article in question and then voting in accordance with that personal belief is at odds with the purpose of DRV and I think both Scott MacDonald and Off2riorob should re-read what it says up above, namely, "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome" This includes the people voting in it shouldn't be using it for their own personal opinions. Silver seren^C 10:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close per Silver seren. Close was done properly and according to the original discussion's outcome. Also, NFCC is highly subjective and open to interpretation. Those arguing for deletion are the ones that have a detailed knowledge of the subject and subsequently think they can describe it in detail, when in reality that wording is useless to the casual reader, who may not even know what a 'TARDIS' is. This is a common error in that editors do not realize that the target audience is not a group of fans, but rather readers that have no knowledge and come here to seek it. — Edokter (talk) — 11:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I explicitly stated numerous times (eg. "I agree that it would not be possible to perfectly convey the console's appearance without a picture,") that it could not be described perfectly by words. The point both I and Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) made was that readers didn't need a perfect comprehension of what it looked like. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 11:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question wether a reader needs to comprihend one aspect of the article is one of an editorial nature rather then wether this image does or does not aid in that comrihension. The editorial aspect is outside the scope of NFCC#8. — Edokter (talk) — 11:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether "an image's omission would be detrimental to readers' understanding" (or, in the words I used above, "that readers didn't need a perfect comprehension of what it looked like") is precisely the subject of NFCC8. ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 11:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another DRV that hinges on the closer's assessment of the "quality of the argument". Treasury Tag's position is that his view was qualitatively better and should have been weighted higher than the "keep" position, which was most usefully presented by Xeworlebi. Treasury Tag would be correct if NFCC#8 applied, so the key issue we need to decide is whether King of Hearts ought to have found that it did.
Xeworlebi and Treasury Tag both stated their positions in the discussion. Then they repeated themselves until the close, in a conversation that might be summarised as "Does apply!" - "Does not!" - "Does so!" And that was it. These users failed to engage with one another at any deeper level than simple contradiction.
In the circumstances, there is no reason why King of Hearts should have weighted one higher than the other, so we have to endorse the finding of no consensus. And I agree with Silver seren (above):- DRV isn't FfD part 2, so arguments that would have belonged at the FfD don't belong here. In the normal course of things we're supposed to evaluate the close, not decide whether we agree with it.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I only repeated myself because TreasuryTag claimed I did not address one of his points, while I did, not necessarily my stance but the validity of my response. TreasuryTag has a long history of trying to discredit every disagreement with him in whatever way possible, including saying the person did not respond to every part of their post, and that there comments are not valid because of it, which was an invalid assessment of my comment on his behalf. I only tried to clarify that I did to the closing admin. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I'd agree that there's some weak arguments going on on the keep side, but this is another of those images where it hinges strongly on personal opinion of NFCC #8. There's quite clearly no consensus on the matter in the discussion, and pulling a delete closure out of that discussion would have really looked like an admin "supervote". ~ mazca ^talk 11:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) endorse close, it's up to the closing admin to assess the quality of the arguments made by the parties, not the deletion nominator. TreasuryTag believes his opinion to be more valid than the rest, the closing admin didn't, and that's about it. While I personally find closing an FfD as no consensus isn't a particular good idea in the first place, taking that the closing admin misread a post and changed his delete, I understand why it was done, as I guess the only other way was to reopen the FfD. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 11:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to delete The picture just does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" as required for NFCC 8. At first and second glance it's the two actors standing over a console, and it needs a lengthy caption to explain what the image is showing. This explanation just duplicates a fuller one in the text, from which the same understanding is gained, making the image purely decorative. Removing it would not decrease readers' understanding of the topic one bit.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. The discussion never reached a consensus. The main reason the discussion (and quite a few related ones) didn't reach consensus is that the community is divided on the application of the underlying policy. The NFCC policy, interpreted strictly as written, along the lines some participants here argue, wouldn't allow many sorts of nonfree images that community practice accepts -- for example, most nonfree images of deceased persons would also fail NFCC#8 under a strict reading. Probably no less important, our NFCC policy doesn't fit in well with the Foundation resolution, which appears to accept images of this type generally because they complement articles about contemporary copyrighted works (WMF resolution, bullet #3). Rather than these contentious, divisive, and generally unproductive serial debates over individual images, we need a systematic discussion about the fact that our practices regarding images have become difficult to reconcile with our NFCC policy, which itself doesn't line up well with the Foundation resolution. My personal opinion is that most of these "identifying images" for TV episodes aren't well-chosen enough justify the use of the particular image involved, and we might be better off with a blanket rule against them than burdening the community with repeated debates. But that's a policy discussion we've never had (or perhaps had so long ago we need to revisit it.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A good way to supersede an image that isn't "well-chosen" is to choose a better one. A think a lot of editors dig in harder to support less important images when the choice presented by someone favoring deletion seems to be that mediocre image or no image. postdlf (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse nc close, there was clearly no consensus to delete, and there was a good-faith disagreement about NFCC#8 that was not clearly resolved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as "no consensus." Of all the non-free content criteria, #8 is certainly the most open to interpretation. In the FfD discussion in question, there was disagreement over whether the criterion was met – whether the image "significantly increased readers' understanding of the topic" – and nothing resembling a consensus formed between the participants in the discussion. In taking this to DRV, TreasuryTag is essentially asking us to discard the opinion that NFCC#8 is met in this case, when in fact that opinion is no less valid than his own opinion that NFCC#8 is not met. Whether text can "adequately describe" the subject of the screenshot is really up to interpretation; this is not a clear-cut case where one side's arguments were clearly of a higher quality or correct. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure per A Stop at Willoughby. NFCC#8 calls for an editing judgment and so is not subject to authoritarian declarations of what objectively constitutes policy compliance. Particularly in a case such as here, where we're undoubtedly on safe legal ground (a single screenshot from a TV episode in an article about that episode) and there's no replaceability issue (the subject of the article is a copyrighted audiovisual work). So there's no compelling reason to be more strict than consensus supports. That said, there are probably better screenshots to use from this episode; I'd prefer one that more clearly and prominently illustrates the Idris character. But again, that's an editing judgment. postdlf (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Personally, I'm inclined to think here is a good FUR, and an article about an episode, etc. not only may but should have a screen shot if possible: visual media cannot be properly understood in words. But at the discussion there clearly was not consensus, and when that's the case, the only thing to do is to admit it. I don't think there is presentely general consensus on the acceptability this type of image , so it isn't surprising that a discussion of an particular one would reach that result. I agree with Postdifl, though, that we might find a better image for the purpose. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the NFCC make the burden for providing the rationale that the image meets the requirements is with the person requiring to keep the image and as noted by many above this resulted in no-consensus, it appears that burden hasn't been met, therefore this should have been deleted. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of what 82.7.44.178 said, please note that the top paragraph of FFD says "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them or no objections to deletion have been raised." (emphasis mine). NW (Talk) 16:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a bit of a running debate. The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. is from WP:DEL in a section that applies to FfD as well as AfD and MfD. Let's just say consensus isn't hugely clear here. An RfC to clarify might be a good choice... Hobit (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, it says "eligible" but not required. Given this isn't the first NFC image to close kept as "no consensus" from its FFD, there's really nothing technically wrong with the admin closure here in terms of NFC and timelines. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agree with Masem about "eligible". Given that the use of such screenshots is so widespread, we're talking about a community practice that may be supported by a broader consensus than is evidenced by the FFD debates. We need a broader community debate on the principles involved. When the principle is clearly supported (eg, no nonfree images of living persons as general illustrations in BLP), it's more appropriate to require consensus to keep in the face of a reasonable challenge. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interestingly, that line that you've quoted in bold was added to the FFD header unilaterally by JMilburn (talk · contribs) on 18 August 2009 [4], in the middle of a period when the question was being intensively considered at WT:FFD (See Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_deletion/Archive_6#No_consensus), apparently the most extensive discussion there has so far been on the question. One admin subsequently gave the following assessment of the discussion: "Guidance to this question is provided in the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no consensus regarding potential changes to this rule allowing no consensus discussions at Files for Deletion to be closed as delete." Given that it still appears to be the practise that "no consensus" -> keep (as also found in eg this DRV, 25 June 2010), perhaps JMilburn's change to the FFD page header should be reverted. Jheald (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might be interest in this discussion, no real consensus to make a change doesn't appear to be an issue, it seems the view is that once it's there and remained unchallenged, that's it, it's for those who want to change it back again who need to gain consensus. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking again that's quite a long discussion, a way down the question of common practice is bought and the circumstances about the original change to policy made, with response like "multiple discussions have failed to repudiate the 2007 change." i.e. based on that discussion the onus would be on those who don't like that text to repudiate it. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. Where text has successfully stayed in place for two years, it certainly should be given consideration. But where the text was added without consensus and conflicts with the practice guideline and does not represent practice and has been repudiated, then it should probably go. Jheald (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Those were the conditions in the example I gave, the text was added without consensus and against practice. The concept there of repudiation was, someone has to gain consensus to undo it, I don't see why a different standard would be applied here. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure I agree with the parallel. Looking at the CSD discussion, I agree with what you wrote at the time about the text in question there: "I don't actually believe the 2007 change is illegitimate in that it reflects the practice adoped, i.e. it has consensus by virtue of what we do." If an article has survived AfD then in general it should not be CSD'd, another process should be used -- that seems to be generally sound advice, and in line with what we do. I'm not surprised it hadn't been repudiated. But any such wording has to be interpreted with common sense. Jclemens seems to have be in a band of one, trying to stretch it to an edge case where it plainly shouldn't apply. That compares to here, where the rubric at the top of WP:FFD does not accord with practice, and has been repudiated at DRV. I raised the issue of removal here, rather than just going in and doing it; but it seems to me it is confusing, it doesn't reflect current practice, and so it should go. Jheald (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It wasn't supposed to be an exact parallel. The issue there was that a clause was added which was worded loosely, in that situation that loose wording led to some editors insisting on a very literal reading, which was against the way DRV normally reads it, against the way many admins adminster it (and in my view against the spirit of the problem it was addressing). Did we say this is nonsense, that's been repudiated here and every time an admin deletes such an item? No there was an insistance that as it was standing "policy" that a broader community discussion was needed to change it. My comments about not being illegitimate were about the general principal not the very literal reading. In this case we have a standing "policy", we have some admins not administering it that way, we have perhaps some disagreement here about it. So surely the resolution should follow the same lines? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        as a note I don't agree that it's as simple as being made out. FFD covers all sorts of media to be deleted, NFC is a specific case and the text as written is in line with the NFC policy, which was my original comment. NFC requires those wanting to keep it to gain consensus to keep it. Media outside NFC perhaps there is a good case for keeping the process inline with the normal keep the status-quo aspect of no-consensus. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        No: see Legal burden of proof. What WP:NFC places on those wishing to keep content is perhaps more accurately the burden of making a case. If no substantive case is made to keep the image, it is enough simply to say the image should be deleted without having to make a specific case. However, if a substantive case is made to keep an image, those who would delete it must then establish why that case is false. Both in law howver, and in guidance and practice here, the question of who has the burden to make the case is separate from the question of how to assess the final verdict -- which eg in a court would still require a majority of ten jurors out of twelve to find an accused guilty. Similarly, here, the closing admin must take account of the arguments presented, weighed according to their conformance with policy, and the burdens laid on each side; but having done so, it then falls for them to assess whether there is a consensus to delete. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Your parallels to law are irrelevant, wikipedia isn't a system of law, so jury standards and legal burden of proof are irrelevant. "It is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" - that is the standard. Your "those who would delete it must then establish why that case is false." again the actual standard is "those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". If we don't have consensus that the rationale is valid, the burden still remains with those wishing to retain the image.No consensus means there isn't a consensus of the validity, hence that burden hasn't been met. In cases where NFCC#8 come in to play your apparent expectation is that delete comments will "prove" a negative. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The burden is to provide a rational, not that every editor has to agree with it, and then it falls back on the system used for everything; which is no-consusnus = keep. The burden is thus creating consensus that the rational is not valid. If there's no consensus it indicates a substantial group believes it does not violate the NFCC; you say no consensus means there isn't a consensus of the validity, but the opposite is just as correct; taking that the NFCC is much more restrictive than the actual law, there should be zero legal problems if the image is kept. But anyway this really isn't the place to discuss this. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 08:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The burden is to provide a valid rationale. No one has said everyone has to agree with it, but there has to be a consensus that it's valid - in this case it isn't. I'm not sure how you reach "The burden is thus creating consensus that the rational is not valid" when the policy is quite clear that it isn't the case. If you want to take the legal analogies and apply it here, say I'm accused of a crime, the side the burden is on has to prove the case to the relevant standard for me to be convicted. Here the side the burden is on has to prove the case to the relevant standard, they haven't met that burden so they don't "win" the case. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The people trying to delete the image are the ones claiming that the rational is not valid (accusation of committing a crime) contradicting the uploader's given rational (that they did nothing wrong), they are the ones that have prove the case that it is not valid (conviction). Acting without consensus is against the very nature of consensus. No-consensus means and always has meant keep in the past across the whole of Wikipedia. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 19:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        accusation of committing a crime – folks, snap out of it. Crime? Seriously? ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 16:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You never cease to amaze with your dumbfounded and oblivious remarks TreasuryTag. It's called an analogy. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 17:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        To be precise, it's called a spectacularly bad analogy. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 18:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. An example of a good image, which does add to reader understanding over and above the text, showing how various important elements of the story were realised; and which also does provide an image very distinctively of this episode that will usefully jog the minds of those that have seen it, so also adding to the degree of understanding of the subject that our article will leave them with. Arguments made for keeping in the original FfD were more developed, more convincing, and more supported than the blank undeveloped denials if its opponents. On that basis, the judgement of the closer to close as "no consensus to delete" seems entirely justifiable. Jheald (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close though I think keep would have been a more accurate reading of the discussion. That the console itself was part of a contest -and- that how it looks was claimed (and generally agreed) to be relevant to the article is enough to overcome the generic appeal to NFCC#8 that I'd say the stronger arguments were on the keep side by a fair margin. But NC was well within admin discretion, so I'll not be suggesting that this close be overturned to keep. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close "no consensus" seems a valid closure in this case. Note - I personally think it should be deleted, but that is entirely beside the point, because DRV is not XfD round-2. Unfortunately, the FfD did not get consensus to delete the image. Chzz ► 00:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, weakly, and similar to Chzz above: I voted delete in the FFD, and still think del would have been the better outcome, but since there was at least some tangible claim to a policy-conformant justification in this case (though, in my view, a very weak one), and assessing it was something of a judgment call, I can't blame the closing admin for making the formally correct nc closure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close: its all been said by SilverSeren et al. DRV should have never been started.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DRV should have never been started. I guess that's why there are more than four people who've argued for an overturn then. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 07:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all of which (besides the Overturn to Keep) are using AfD style comments, which is not appropriate for DRV. Silver seren^C 08:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 May 2011[edit]

University of California Anti-Chinese racism – Deletion endorsed; closing early per WP:SNOW and (with apologies to Floquenbeam) WP:NOYOUDONTGETTOKEEPYOURCRAPONWIKIPEDIAFORSEVENDAYSJUSTBECAUSETHATSWHATTHERULESSAY. – T. Canens (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ deleted my article before 7 days. I have nothing to do with MITBBS. CallawayRox (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Whether you have a connection or not is irrelevant; there is a concerted external effort to go after this guy, and this article was just one in a list of attack pages on the subject. there was no way in hell it was ever going resolve to a keep, this WP:SNOW is quite applicable. Tarc (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Heck, the article was probably G10-able. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"entirely negative in tone and unsourced" [5] [6] CallawayRox (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The more detailed article on attack pages makes clear "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted." Sailsbystars (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the article was clearly an attempt at using synthesis to circumvent previously established consensus on deleting one of the articles established at WP:Articles for deletion/2011_UCLA_racism_controversy and the consensus established at ANI. The deletion barely requires discretionary power, if at all. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 UCLA racism controversy. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The discussion was properly interpreted. Considering the nature of the article and the multiple other related articles that have been deleted by other administrators, closing the discussion early was appropriate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; this was an irredeemable article. The first incident described therein was deleted as a standalone article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 UCLA racism controversy (closed by me) per WP:NOTNEWS, which would also apply to coverage of the second incident. Lumping them together does not magically make them into an encyclopedia topic, and it more just serves to blow either one out of proportion. And it seems clear that there is a persistent effort to attack the professor involved in the second incident (as noted at ANI). Easy and obvious WP:SNOW case here. postdlf (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. Can we close the DRV early as well? Them From Space 20:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. If this had been the first article created about this topic, I might question the quick close. But the history of this subject makes it clear that deletion was the only likely outcome, and there was no need to wait the traditional number of days just for the sake of process. --RL0919 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clearly an appropriate exercise of admin discretion. A community determination has been reached, with a solid consensus, about the suitability of the content in general, and given the clear BLP problems involved it shouldn't be allowed to be recreated, despite any pretextual and superficial tinkering with the form, without prior community discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Larry_wilde.jpg – Restored. Please add the relevant templates to the file page. – T. Canens (talk) 07:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File is released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts) by the copyright holder according to VRTS ticket # 2011043010584179 MorganKevinJ^(talk) 02:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

restore Looks like a straightforward undelete case (I'd missed that Morgankevin is an OTRS volunteer until just now) F4/F11 no longer apply. Hobit (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

UCSD Kubiak Lab Rules Incident – Deletion endorsed, per WP:SNOW. I'm closing this early due to clear offsite canvassing by nominator. – T. Canens (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This incident has received both official response from the involved department as well as the professor himself. It's also reported by 3-4 local and national newspapers, as well as international attentions in China and UK. I can provide more detailed list upon request.

And I'm very certain the page does not contain any original judgement or comment, which is why it baffles me how it can be placed under wikipedia:atp category. Since it's the result of several hours' polishing by a number of users, I would expect the administrator who kills it to take remotely comparable time in understanding and assessing the notability of this article. Sadly this was not the case.> Helloterran (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. There's no evidence that this event will have lasting effect or enduring notoriety. Additionally, although I didn't see the last version of the article, previous versions had definitely attacked Kubiak in a way not supportable by the available information. Kevin (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you can add a current event tag on the page and wait to see whether to merge it into other articles or simply delete it when majority of editors agree that the influence of this incident has indeed faded away. In any sense, this current event has stirred quite some online argument as well as received considerable media coverage. It certainly did not deserve a rash speedy deletion.

It would be best if you look at the latest version of the page before its removal, and tell me where do you think it's inappropriate. Helloterran (talk) 07:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. I can't see any evidence that a page with this name has been deleted. What page was deleted, by whom and with what justification, please?—S Marshall T/C 07:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I omitted "UCSD" in the article title. Can you try again?Helloterran (talk)

Thank you, Helloterran. I'm now quite satisfied that this content didn't belong in our encyclopaedia. Endorse. All the best—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a link to any of the exact articles, but a TON (like, over a dozen I think) articles about this incident have been created and deleted, mostly under G10 because of the tone they took towards Kubiak. This issue has also been discussed at AN/I. Kevin (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There're certain styling and wording issues with that article. But in the latest version I believe it's been polished quite diplomatically. On the other hand, the repeated speedy deletion without any hint to improve the article itself demonstrated lack of common sense of some administrators. By that I mean explicit racial discrimination in public space is a severe matter regardless of the context.Helloterran (talk) 07:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am "some administrators." If you're going to insult my 'common sense,' at least call me by name. I deleted this article because Wikipedia is not the news, and because it seemed to me that the only reason to create an article on Wikipedia about this minor incident is a desire to widely publicize it so that more people will think badly of this professor, so that he can be publicly humiliated for the world. I think that Wikipedia tries to avoid doing that to people. A teacher made a joke on his web site. His students didn't think the joke was funny. It was removed from his web sites. A few local and special-interest news sources mentioned it. Now it's over. I am not seeing any reason to create an article on this subject that is not based in a desire to harm its subject, a person of no particular note. Someone else tagged the article for deletion, I noticed its creator edit-warring to remove the tags, and after reviewing the article, I agreed with the tag and deleted it, so the creator would stop edit-warring. If he'd followed instructions for appealing the block instead of edit-warring to remove the tag, it could have stayed up long enough for some discussion to happen, but I feel okay about the choice I made. If this is undeleted, it should be because we've found some sign that this is of lasting historical significance. Personally, I don't think it is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The professor denied that he was actually the person who put up the comment, and seemed to suggest that it was a member of his lab group, which probably means a grad student. As far as I know, his assertion has not been disputed in reliable sources. Kevin (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict after more research; great minds think alike} Ah, I was mistaken. This indicates, which seems plausible, that the joke didn't even come from the teacher, but from his graduate assistants. The article I read omitted that information. That gives us even less reason to humiliate the man on an international scale. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 09:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, the very epitome of WP:NOTNEWS. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted I can't see the article (cache is of a blank page) but I'm not at all certain this was/could be a G10 and I hate to see the speedy criteria stretched. That said, it has clearly got massive NOTNEWS problems (and frankly it shouldn't even have been news IMO) and there is no way we'll end up hosting this article. Hobit (talk) 13:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. I managed to find the cache (add "UCSD" to the URL and it shows), but it was blanked before deletion. There doesn't seem to be any way that this can meet WP:EVENT even if it wasn't a G10, and if it was we shouldn't even consider restoring. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the related Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#concerted web campaign versus UCSD professor, which lists three more titles this has been deleted under. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 UCLA racism controversy, closed as delete, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of California Anti-Chinese racism, ongoing. lifebaka++ 18:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now the Guardian, official school newspaper of UCSD has reported this issue. Link Chinese American rights groups are now asking Office for Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination to provide follow up on their investigation and to come up with measures to prevent such incidents from happening in the future. (Gyucdavis (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Endorse deletion. Anyone (with the appropriate access) who looks in detail at the history of that article will see me trying to improve its neutrality and to make it less about the individual professor (who, by all accounts, had no personal knowledge of the "lab rules" on the site). Most of my attempts were reverted wholesale, either without comment or with comments that demonstrated willful disregard for BLP policy. Let's be very clear here; this was an article that was intended to reflect as badly as possible on a living person, written by people motivated by a desire to do him as much damage as they can, and willing to edit war to keep the article as negative as possible. Sounds like an attack page to me. So take your pick - yt seems like a legitimate G10 to me, and if not, a valid use of IAR on BLP grounds. And even if you don't buy that, it fails WP:NOTNEWS by almost unanimous agreement and so would have no chance at AfD. Thparkth (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that there are some people who are trying to make the wikipedia entry into a personal attack, however you can't dismiss that there are more of us who are trying to keep the article neutral by adding the statement such as Prof. Kubiak claimed that he wasn't aware of the content of the website, etc. I would suggest to lock the article at a version that is acceptable to everyone and keep it the way it is for a while, and maybe, if this thing dies down in a couple of weeks, we can delete this article. (Gyucdavis (talk) 17:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment At ANI DGG indicated he's going to work on an article for the professor involved in the next day or two. So the right thing is to (very briefly) include this there. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This is one article in a part of a coordinated attack on a living person. No-brainer. Tarc (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as attack page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, either as attack page or as unequivocal NOTNEWS violation. Come back in six months if there is sustained coverage and impact of this incident and then we'll talk, but there's absolutely no reason now to believe that will be the outcome. postdlf (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. utterly lacking in encyclopedic significance, fails NOTNEWS, vioaltes WP:BLP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. So a professor is pranked by students who put racist content on a page he doesn't monitor closely. How many times a *week* do you think this happens in the US? Two hundred? Five hundred? I'd say more like two or three thousand times a week. This is a big thing only because some bored reporter heard about it and thought it could fill two minutes' time on the local news. The majority of edits to this article seem to be trying to call the professor a racist - which in this case is completely unsupported by the facts. --NellieBly (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 May 2011[edit]

Winnipeg NHL Team – Can be moved back if/when the team are confirmed to actually be included in the NHL. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article Winnipeg NHL Team was an out of process Speedy Deletion that was unilaterally executed by User:Dr. Pizza. I have read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, but I cannot find any criteria that allows an administrator to unilaterally speedy delete a well-referenced article about a subject which meets the General notability guidelines. I raised the issue here with the deleting admin about what criteria he used to justify such deletion and he replied here by stating that he went by his “own Criteria” to delete. Excuse me, but it is not proper for an administrator to have his own deletion criteria upon which he is justified to unilaterally delete articles contrary to the Wikipedia Deletion Policy, and I request that Winnipeg NHL Team be restored, with the understanding that any editor may nominate this article for deletion pursuant to established deletion policy. Dolovis (talk) 14:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted. Dr. Pizza tagged it for deletion, but the responding admin, User:Bwilkins, instead moved it User:Dolovis/Winnipeg NHL Team (we call this userfication). I think this was a reasonable action, since the content is clearly useful but events are still unfolding that will determine, among other things, the appropriate name for this article. You are welcome to continue working on it in your userspace, and indeed to move it back into main space if you feel there is an appropriate title for it. Chick Bowen 14:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to main space under what criterion do we remove from mainspace articles which mightpossibly need a title change? Userifying an article by deleting it from mainspace is a deletion, not an edit. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other possibilities as well. First for context, this is clearly regarding the idea of the current NHL team the Atlanta Thrashers being relocated to Winnipeg, something that has been rumored and covered for some time. The fact that the page uses the name Winnipeg Thrashers makes that clear (though debatable since I am not sure if they plan to use the Thrashers name, reuse the Jets name or a new on completely) In that case there are two potential redirect targets. They are Winnipeg Jets#Potential revival and Potential National Hockey League expansion#Winnipeg. It could also be a redirect to the orignal Jets team as well. The more I think about it a dab page may make sense especially if there will be two different NHL teams in Winnipeg.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is just title problems. We can deal with that by editing. Names change, and when they do we move pages. In the meantime, so neutral name can be found. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion/relocation - This just simply isn't how you go about adding information to the Wikipedia, by forking off content into new and weird titles. There is a single article for a single Thrashers franchise, and that is located at Atlanta Thrashers, which already has a section about the possible move. Edit there, please, don't create new articles on existing topics. If the team does end up moving, the current article would be renamed. Tarc (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Tarc is mistaken on his point. the Atlanta Thrashers article will remain and it will not be moved to a new title. The Winnipeg NHL Team will and should have its own article. See Atlanta Flames and Calgary Flames; Colorado Rockies and New Jersey Devils; Hartford Whalers and Carolina Hurricanes; Minnesota North Stars and Dallas Stars; Quebec Nordiques and Colorado Avalanche; Winnipeg Jets and Phoenix Coyotes. Dolovis (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, restore to article space this should not be one admin's call. Send it to AfD if needed, but this doesn't seem to be a speedy candidate. That said, I'd urge the DrV nom here to think carefully about leaving it in userspace and improving (and/or allowing time to pass so sourcing improves) rather than moving it back to article space.Hobit (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse userfication. The article wasn't deleted it was userfied. This is a huge case of WP:CRYSTALBALL since there is no actual Winnipeg NHL team and the team hasn't officially been anounced that it is moving. It is all speculation at the moment. Can be redirected to one of the two articles already covering the topic if this particular name is so important to the nom. But this clearly shouldn't be a stand alone topic until there actually is a Winnipeg NHL team. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse userfication. The article was premature speculation and a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL that never would have survived an AFD. Userfication allows Dolovis' work to be retained, and will afford him the opportunity to move back into mainspace if rumour and speculation do become fact. Reso lute 16:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move to user space. There is a whole lot of speculating going on right now. Information about the possible sale and its ramifications should be in the Thrashers article until there is something official. Canada Hky (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn move to userspace with creator's consent, restore to mainspace, and replace with a protected redirect to Winnipeg Jets. There are only a few circumstances where an admin should unilaterally move a new article to the creator's userspace without his or her consent; this is not really one of them. None of the criteria for speedy deletion applied, not even A10. However, I agree with Resolute's opinion that this article largely consists of rumors and speculation, which is a problem indeed. As such, I suggest moving this back into mainspace and replacing it with a protected redirect to Winnipeg Jets – surely a sensible target. That way, if and when the Thrashers move to Winnipeg, the article can be restored and unprotected, and other editors can build on Dolovis' pre-existing content. This is a bit of an unusual solution, but I think it fits the situation. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue a move from mainspace to userspace is not a deletion. While it may or may not have been the best thing to do in this case, the content is still accessible on Wikipedia, so a DRV is not really the best venue for discussing the move. Jclemens (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An acceptable WP:BOLD userfication. Not a speedy, not a deletion. Any editor can do it (the mainspace redirect is speediable). Any editor may revert the move. Any editor may then list at AfD. Talk page discussions are also allowed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse userfication. At this point, the Thrashers will most likely move to Winnipeg, perhaps next week, perhaps after the Cup Finals. With the userfied article, the article can be improved by editors at WP:HOCKEY to a point where whenever the move is officially announced, the article will be complete and moved. The name of the team, the colors, the coach, the general manager, etc can be updated as they're announced as well. Since the team will likely start in 2011-12, all that information will come out in pretty short order. Patken4 (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of redirect out of mainspace Currently the article is somewhere between a blatant hoax, WP:NotNewsReports, and WP:FUTURE. It was reasonable to move a copy to userspace before the deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse userfication I just checked some news reports, and it does not yet appear to be a done deal. Perhaps soon, and much of the material in the userfied article may be relevant then, but not now.--SPhilbrick T 13:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 May 2011[edit]

Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997) – List on AfD – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I happened to come across the article Best & Co. yesterday and noticed that the content seemed to be discussing two entirely separate retail chains that happened to share the same name. (Maybe they are actually connected in some way; this was not established by the article.) Since there is no reason for two unrelated topics to share an article, I moved the content about the newer chain to Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997). It was immediately nominated for speedy-deletion due to A7, which I contested on the grounds that the content had been added to the other article presumably in good faith, had thus not been intended as its own article, and it seemed fair to allow at least the opportunity to establish its own notability. It does not seem fair to me that whomever added the content should possibly return and see that the content was moved to a separate article and then immediately deleted on the grounds of not being good enough for a separate article. I also note that (I believe) the article did mention the brand is "known" for its trunk shows and was discussed in at least one book, which seems to me to be enough of a "credible claim of significance or importance" to grant it at least a prod or an AFD. I expressed these points to deleting admin User:Vegaswikian, which was unproductive; he/she added the content back to Best & Co., which I re-removed because putting the content back to where it doesn't belong certainly doesn't seem to solve the problem as far as I can tell. I know nothing about the brand myself except what was in the article; I would not oppose a prod nor would I defend the article in an AFD. I just think the process so far has not given the topic a fair hearing. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the creator says. I make no assertion that this topic actually justifies an article; and it gets nominated for speedy deletion as being not notable, why is there an issue? Also, while the article was deleted, the material was not. It is still contained in the original article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the content; my moving it to a new article was essentially procedural. It is analogous to someone completing the AFD nomination process for another user, despite not having a personal opinion on whether the nominated article should be deleted (which happens all the time). I performed a cleanup move, it led to a poorly-handled process, and then, yes, I felt the need to try to correct the process despite having no personal stake in the outcome. Also, please note that (as far as I can see from reading it) the speedy-delete criteria is not that the topic must be notable, but that it should make some assertion of notability, which it does. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What assertion of notability was made? I can only see The company is known for its trunk shows (with no evidence), which does not appear to me to be an assertion of importance or significance (which is what the CSD actually say) - although the deleting admin should not have used the word "notability" in their summary, from the content of the article, it was clear that the word "significance or importance" should have been used instead.(oops... I must have read a comment on another deleted article!) Endorse deletion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the deletion log ‎ (A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). Vegaswikian (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Restore and list at AfD having seen the arguments below, I think it is fair to take this to AfD, so that a consensus can be found. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be overly harsh of us to censure the deleting admin for removing that content under CSD A7. But this isn't to say that this Best & Co. can't have an article. All that's been said to you is that it can't have that particular article. If you can produce something with a couple of reliable sources then there's nothing to stop you adding it to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 22:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you direct me to the speedy-delete criteria that indicates that lack of reliable sources is a cause for speedy deletion? Because the only mention I can find of such at WP:CSD appears to say that lack of reliable sources is not a reason to apply A7. (The same page states, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.") I am not arguing that it is, or is not, possible to provide such sources to establish notability; I am arguing that "the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions", which is one of the stated purposes of the Deletion Review process. (I don't think I've said anything about censuring an admin; casting an attempt to overturn an improper decision as an attempt to punish the decision-maker hardly seems productive in determining how to best uphold policy.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no speedy deletion criterion for a lack of reliable sources. But the current wiki-culture makes it a bit of a waste of time to create an article without sources, because if the creator doesn't source it and defend it, nobody else will. Nowadays I often find I can't write content because it's so time-consuming just stopping people deleting the stuff I've already written.—S Marshall T/C 18:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, I have said many times (but clearly nobody has interest in actually reading or understanding this situation) that I would be fine with the article being prodded or AFD-ed, for not having sources or whatever other reason. My objection is to the speedy delete because I do not feel this case falls within the speedy-delete criteria, and there are reasons why there are several different deletion processes in place. That the article could be deleted via prod or AFD has nothing to do with whether it was speedy-deleted was done outside of the criteria for speedy-deletions and should thus be overturned. Theoldsparkle (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore This was not a clear speedy. I saw the article on the list, and decided not to take action in either deleting it or removing the tag because I was unsure how to handle it. From the content as it existed, I though perhaps it should be merged--I had not noticed it had just been split. I see now from the explanation that I would have done better to remove the speedy, as in all cases where one is not positively certain it should be a speedy, because the policy says that any doubt should be so handled. I apologize for putting off the issue when I saw it, instead of boldly following policy. I cannot blame another admin from thinking otherwise and having no doubt, but I should have trusted my own judgment. (perhaps I hesitated to do so, because I had just had a complaint about doing exactly that in another case, of declining to delete an article where I thought the article was probably speedy deletable but from the circumstances of creation had some doubt about it. ) (And, just to complete the circle of possibilities, had today a complaint from the author of that article, about my warning him against creating spam links to the subject in question. He was in fact sufficiently insulted by the warning to say he was leaving Wikipedia, and it is possible that he might be a useful contributor.) DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question As has been pointed out to me several times, I have the option of re-creating the article in a manner that will allay the concerns that led it to be deleted. Do I have the option to withdraw this deletion review request (thus accepting the deletion of the article in its previous state) so that I may proceed with re-working it? (If I have that option, I hereby choose to do so.) If I can't close this discussion early, may I still go ahead and create the new article before the discussion is closed? I'm sorry if this information is posted and I missed it. Also, if it's possible for an admin to restore the deleted article to my userspace so that I may refer to it in creating an improved version, I would appreciate that favor. Thank you. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The deleting admin quite accurately noted that the article included no assertion of significance. This is a slightly unusual case, because the article creator is claiming (without evidence or sources) that the company/brand he wants to create a separate article about is unrelated to the notable company/brand it claims, on its website, to be the current form of. (This isn't a BLP violation, and it's not actionable business defamation, but it's still something to be uneasy about in a Wikipedia article.) The creator is also compounding the problem by insisting that all substantive content relating to the current brand/company be removed from the article on the original brand/company, and has been edit warring to keep it out. This is getting messy, due to the article creator's insistence on getting his own way on matters that are essentially editorial discretion, and he needs to understand he's got no basis for believing that he's allowed to override the views of a greater number of other editors and control the content of the relevant articles, without getting consensus first. If he were making a credible BLP or NFCC claim, for example, the situation would be different. But he can't be the judge in his own case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I'm pretty sure that you don't need evidence to claim that two things aren't related. I'll add that to the list of truly bizarre logic I've encountered during this ordeal. Second, I did check the company's website before creating the spin-off article, to see if there was any sign it was connected to the original company. I admit: I did miss that tiny "Established 1879" in the logo, which is good enough proof for me. I'm baffled as to why it made more sense to you to argue with me this long about it, instead of just pointing out that part of the logo, which would have taken about thirty seconds. Another addition to that list, I guess, along with most of the other stuff you've said here and on my Talk page (including that making any change to an article without first getting consensus, even if there's no reason at all to think it will be controversial, is edit-warring). I've already logged my attempt to withdraw this discussion above, but I assume that will continue to be ignored or perhaps portrayed as something wildly different, as my repeated, fervent attempts for someone to explain their point-of-view have been taken as repeated assertions that I'm not interested in anyone else's point-of-view. A lot of people here have done a lot to lower my general opinion of Wikipedians, which was already pretty awful. My most fervent apologies for attempting to improve the encyclopedia by organizing information logically and upholding deletion guidelines. I'm sure I'll be banned soon enough for trying to fix a typo or something. Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and list at AfD as a contested speedy. For A7s, this should be automatic, not requiring discussion at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and List at AFD. This is an unusual enough case that I feel it would benefit from a variety of opinions, and not just a summary speedy deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Userfy as per Theoldsparkle. Unscintillating (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's not much point to undeleting or userfying. The content has already been restored to the main article on the subject, and the editor who initiated this review has acknowledged that the "new" company presents itself as the successor brand to the original, so that separate articles aren't appropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Third Summers brother – Closure endorsed. There is a clear consensus below that the close was within administrative discretion. – Eluchil404 (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I contacted the closing administrator, but he considers that his decision was the more appropriate. He closed the discussion as a no consensus, stating that he evaluated that one of the sources, Comic Book Resources (CBR), used in keep arguments, had respectable coverage of the topic and was reliable, and, for that reason, he gave equal weight to keep votes. However, as I pointed out to him, that CBR was a reliable third-party source was not in contention but that it was the only reliable source that treated the topic and that it does not give reception or significance for the fictional plot-point or discusses the plot-point in detail since it merely repeats part of the plot. So, I believe that with a single source, the keep arguments did not address the lack of notability per the WP:GNG because lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic and mere republications of a single source do not always constitute multiple works. I also commented to the closing administrator that I feel that his rationale ignored the other concerns raised in the AfD. Keep arguments did not address the WP:PLOT concerns and barely touched the WP:OR or WP:SYNTH concerns. These are also part of WP:DEL#REASON along with lack of notability. There was also a simple majority of delete !votes, 6 delete !votes vs. 5 keep !votes. As stated in WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and underlying policy, and I believe that, since keep arguments only pointed out to CBR as a reliable source to address the concerns regarding the WP:GNG and did not provided multiple reliable sources or properly addressed the other concerns, the strength of argument and underlying policy was with deletion arguments, which were a majority. The closing administrator believes that this was more a disagreement in how policy should apply while I believe that the deletion arguments showed that the article does not meet the policies and should have been deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Reasonable close, clearly within the closer's discretion. The article is a wretched collection of fannish speculation, but it's an article about a fictional concept, with no content that's offensive under any important content policy, and the dispute isn't really whether to keep any of the content, but how much to keep and where to keep it. Under these circumstances, the case for overriding the expressed community sentiment, which clearly doesn't achieve consensus, is pretty weak, and the closer's judgment should not be overturned. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh - Wait a month or so and renominate if it doesn't get cleaned up. An article on a plot point of a comic book is beyond all boundaries of absurdity, but overturning a NC finding is a long-shot at best. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : WP:PLOT ??? there are quotations from interviews and informations about the authors. WP:OR or WP:SYNTH ??? All the work of investigation has been made in one CBR source. A vote for the deletion is valid when the arguments are valids, only the notability can be a reason for this deletion. The people who vote for keep have addressed the deletion concerns. Some contributors state that CBR is not the only reliable source that treated the topic, there is some informations in Wizard Magazine about the subject. So let them the time to clean the article and to find other reliable sources. If it doesn't get improved after a month, the deletion is not the only option: Xymmax has writen "Editors may wish to consider carefully if an appropriate merge target can be developed". Kurt Parker has written "I think all editors that were against the merge before would not be for the merge instead of losing the article's information completely." --Crazy runner (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)--Crazy runner (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that this was within the closer's discretion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I have almost never !voted here to reverse a non-consensus close; it would take a really clear drastic error to justify doing so, because the close does not preclude further discussion. I agree with Tarc's recommendation for how & when to proceed. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I couldn't find a consensus here which is why I passed it over when closing most of the remaining AFDs from that day's log. That's a pretty good indication that no-consensus was the right close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment - I just wanted to acknowledge this discussion. I don't want to rehash the statements from my close, which were fairly summarized by the nominator. I'll leave it as I still don't see a consensus to delete in the discussion in question. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (no consensus to delete). Delete would have been a stretch, no consensus is easily justified. Separately, I note from the XfD that WP:NOR was a major problem, and that WP:NOR is rarely a good reason alone for deletion verses merge or merge & redirect, and that bloated fiction is usually best condensed into fewer articles leaving behind redirects with history intact. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I remember when this was a Big Debate in Xmen world, I agree its Fanboy WP:OR and would probably have argued delete. I see no reason why the closers is out of line. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hydration for Health Initiative – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bertieri4 (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC) The article was deleted because of lack of sufficient sourcing in news and scholarly references. However the Hydration for Health Initiative is a notable scientific organisation for healthcare professionals with the aim to communicate the fundamental need for healthcare policymakers and practitioners to proactively provide healthy hydration advice. The initiative activities and messages are based on published scientific evidence. In addition, the initiative is cited in the November/ December 2010 issue of the Journal of Nutrition, http://journals.lww.com/nutritiontodayonline/toc/2010/11001. Other papers have been submitted to journals since its establishment in 2009, but these have not yet been published due to the lengthy peer-review process. The initiative has an educational remit and is not a promotional resource as it does not promote bottled water or Danone Waters mineral water brands. Reference to Danone Waters is intended solely for transparency. An expert group of international researchers and academics - recognised and respected in the field of nutrition, hydration, physiology, medicine, noteworthy in their own right - oversee the activities of the initiative. The Initiative is not limited to the website, but it organises annual scientific meetings attended by hundreds of physicians and the proocedings of these meetings are published in notable peer-reviewed journals; it also develops educational and information materials for use by healthcare professionals. Some of these materials have been reviewed and approved for use by the International Society of Nephrology. The reason why such information is not widely available on the web is because it is restricted to healthcare professional use. Please consider reinstating the entry and I can modify the article to address some of the concerns about commercial product promotion. I have already discussed this option with the admin, and he advised me to bring my reasons to this forum.[reply]

Comment - this was previously listed on May 19, but for some reason was deleted. —BETTIA— ^talk 10:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is correct. We don't know why it was removed but we have re-posted the information to request a deletion review re the Hydration for Health Initiative. Bertieri4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. AFD accurately closed, nothing here contradicts the AFD arguments. A health "initiative" is not notable merely because it targets a notable health problem. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Hydration for Health Initiative is an important source for healthcare professionals and has been the subject of this recent web-based release: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/02/prweb5105314.htm Bertieri4 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Press releases are not reliable sources for determining notability. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Hydration for Health Initiative is also involved in developing tools for advising the general public on healthy hydration: http://madhousefamilyreviews.blogspot.com/2011/04/thirsty-pete-new-app-asks-are-you.html Bertieri4 Bertieri4 (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Blogs are not reliable sources for determining notability. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it would be difficult to overturn that discussion without some clear evidence of solid sourcing. The journal issue sponsored by this group doesn't cut it (not independent nor really covering this group in any detail), and nothing else really seems close. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No evidence of notability was discovered while the discussion was active, and as noted above, press releases and blogs do not feed the weasel. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No evidence of notability was found or provided - and as you mention above in opening this review, The reason why such information is not widely available on the web is because it is restricted to healthcare professional use - that would seem to me to show that this is not something suitable for a general encyclopedia. You might find a better venue for the information at AboutUs.org, Yellowikis, Wikicompany, MyWikiBiz or WikiIndex.org. There is also Medpedia which includes a Network & Directory for health professionals and organizations - although you should note that "Anyone with medical knowledge is welcome to become part of Medpedia's community. However, to qualify to edit or contribute to the main content, approved editors must have an M.D., D.O., or Ph.D. in a biomedical field." (quote from Wikipedia's article on Medpedia) - basically, if you are not one of these doctors, you can make a suggestion and a qualified doctor will approve the submission PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion "The reason why such information is not widely available on the web is because it is restricted to healthcare professional use - as an excuse for not having sources is utter nonsense. Medical information of all sorts at a professional level is available widely on the web, including the contents of thousands of medical journals. Proprietary data is not, but if the only information is proprietary, the subject is not or at least not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Clear AfD result. Rings of promotion loud and clear. Advise authors to read WP:COI. If there is even a hint of promotion, the sources must absolutely be multiple, reliable, and independent. The worthiness of the subject is irrelevant. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Riscos.info – Deletion endorsed as a reasonable speedy. However, as is typical for speedy deletions, there is no prejudice against an editor creating an article on the same subject that overcomes the speedy deletion criteria. If Trevj or another editor already has a userspace draft that achieves this, they are welcome to move it to this article name. – RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

So far unable to reach consensus with deleting admin. Reinstatement of article would permit the inclusion of additional refs by editors to confirm notability. Initial copyright issues were misinterpreted and have been addressed at Suspected copyright violations/2011-05-13. Trevj (talk) 09:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not understand some of the prior discussion for this article. This says CC-by 2.5 is not a compatible licence for text import to WP. My reading of Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can_I_add_something_to_Wikipedia_that_I_got_from_somewhere_else.3F suggests to me it is compatible. The small number of backlinks is commented on here but I think that may be a Google feature no longer supported (and it never works well for me!). This search shows many references (but I have not assessed their reliability, etc.). It is looking to me that if this article has not been through AfD then it should be listed there or restored.Thincat (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The deletion was not for a copyright concern (and I don't think there are any copyright concerns) but for want of notability. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The matter is almost exactly as Stifle says. No copyright concerns, but notability concerns. (Actually what the deleting admin found wasn't that the subject was non-notable, because individual admins don't get to decide that on their own authority. Notability can only be decided based on a community consensus. What the deleting admin found was that the article contained no assertion of notability, i.e. that there was nothing in the article to indicate why it should belong in an encyclopaedia.)
There is no obstacle to creating a fresh article with this name that explains why the material belongs in an encyclopaedia, and I suggest that rather than waiting a week at deletion review, you just run your eye over WP:YFA, make sure the subject is suitable for an encyclopaedia, and if you think it is, get on and write it.—S Marshall T/C 11:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. AIUI there are umpteen articles which were initially created without any assertion of notability. Such assertions have subsequently been able to be added by the community. I assert that an entry for the site belongs in the encyclopedia because it informs readers of its purpose, history, features and subsites without them having to follow external links. I'll try to work on the userspace draft in the mean time. And I'm happy to wait for the outcome of the discussion, rather than recreate the article now as suggested. --Trevj (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The correct outcome if other articles like your article have not been deleted is to delete the other articles, not restore yours. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This principle is understood and appreciated, but I wouldn't expect such an outcome to be immediate for such articles. Wouldn't a reasonable amount of time be granted for an article with potential to be improved? --Trevj (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - there are no claims of significance or importance within the text of the article that I can see. It explains that the site is a resource for RISC OS C programmers - but does not explain why it is significant.
The fact that other articles have been created without assertions of significance or importance (which is what the Criteria for speedy deletion actually say, rather than assertion of notability) is neither here nor there - we are discussing this article.
You seem to be saying "Let it stay on Wikipedia, and I'll assume that other editors will find references to show why it is important or significant"... which is not how Wikipedia should work.
Before commenting here, I looked for some useable references - there are no Google News ones at all (including the News Archive), no Google Books hits, and only one Google Scholar one, which is a mention in the bibliography of an MSc Thesis - but that mention refers to one sentence in the thesis. I could not find any significant coverage at reliable independent sources which would be able to show an assertion of importance or significance could be made.
I am assuming that (as you are expecting other editors to find such references) you couldn't either. Of course, if I am mistaken, then could you provide some suitable references here? If you can, I'd be happy to suggest restoring the article so that you can add them to it - although I should point out that the references provided in the draft at User:Trevj/Archive/riscos.info are either from riscos.info itself (i.e. not independent), or are basically press releases (i.e. from riscos.info itself to various organisations) or are minor coverage (single sentence mentions). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi and thanks for sharing your opinion. Regarding locating references, I'm unable to do so myself as they're likely to be in printed magazines not personally owned by me. Likely sources are Archive and Qercus. Therefore, I've put the word out that I'm seeking additional references. Please note that I've specifically not canvassed for opinion in this discussion, i.e. while I've linked to the draft article, I've explained the position on canvassing, and I've requested people to please stay out of any relevant discussions they may find... I hope that's OK. Regarding Google refs, this is obviously a convenient way to attempt to judge significance or importance. However, it's certainly not the only means and I believe that relevant references exist in printed magazines. If such refs aren't forthcoming before this discussion is closed (and if the consensus here is to not overturn the deletion), I propose to include them at a later date within a new incarnation of the article. --Trevj (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'd like to note at this point that my belief that such references exist should be considered with respect to WP:AGF. While this is obviously a niche topic area, my understanding of WP:NOTNOTHERE is that diversity in interests is to be welcomed. We're here to build an encyclopedia, after all. --Trevj (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP;AGF is an issue here, I don't think anyone believes you are acting in bad faith. I'd also see no reason to question your sincerity in the belief the sources are out there somewhere, however your belief no matter how strong doesn't remove the requirement to actually make those concrete. Diversity in interest also isn't an issue, niche subjects can and are written about, however they need to meet the same basic standards, generally in order to fulfil the basic non-negotiable standards of an encyclopedia - verifiabilty and no original research etc. there would need to be decent coverage in third party sources. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to clarify that I do not believe that you have acted in bad faith at all in this matter. However, believing that there must be sources available is not sufficient for keeping an article - otherwise that could be the argument used at all these discussions. As I said above, if suitable sources could be found (as you say, they will probably be off-line, as we haven't been able to find on-line ones) before this discussion is closed, I'd be quite happy to change my opinion here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I'm impressed with the civility of this discussion and I understand that no one has accused anyone of acting in bad faith. I was merely seeking to highlight the sincerity of my arguments, and now see that I should assume the assumption of good faith in any case. Apologies to all. --Trevj (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this not been incubated or userfied? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User already has a copy here --82.7.44.178 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did request that it be incubated rather than deleted. This was on the article's talk page. I'm sure there are simply too many articles marked for speedy deletion for everything to be considered in an ideal manner - which is probably why the request appears to have been overlooked. If the article deletion isn't overturned, incubation would be preferable to simply retaining the userfied version. This is because it would carry more perceived legitimacy, which IMO would encourage further work by other editors. --Trevj (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as an article (I commented previously). I am not saying the deletion was wrong because I cannot make out what was deleted and whether it made a notability claim. The current user space version makes two (referenced) claims of notability in the first paragraph. Whether these are ultimately adequate is not a matter for DRV (I would suggest "keep" at any AFD). Since S Marshall says the creator could restore the article now, I am sure this is right. If an article has been speedy-deleted for lacking a claim, then, once "any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source"(WP:CSD#A7) is supplied, the article should be able to be restored without being subjected to ersatz AFD discussions here at DRV or elsewhere. Thincat (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there's (even marginal) support for me to recreate the article, I'm happy to go ahead with that in due course. Whatever's easiest. I'm really not too fussed about the ultimate decision and am not interested in proving a point or anything. But at the moment, I feel it could be fruitless if I recreate the article in light of some the (useful and constructive) comments above. --Trevj (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the speedy deletion is overturned, then it would appear that WP:PROD remains a possibility. But in any case, the draft article in its current state is a big improvement over the one initially created. In arriving at it I've learnt a little more about editing standards, which I should be able to use elsewhere to improve other articles. --Trevj (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion, incubate, do not restore to mainspace yet. I agree with JamesBWatson (talk · contribs)'s assessment of the userspace draft's sources. The references are either primary sources or passing mentions, neither of which establish notability. I have been unable to find the assertions of notability necessary to prevent WP:CSD#A7. Thus, I disagree Thincat (talk · contribs)'s position to restore the page to the mainspace. Because the userspace lacks reliable sources that establish notability, it would be deleted at AfD if no sources were added. Per Trevj (talk · contribs)'s request above, I think the best resolution is to incubate the page to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Riscos.info to allow more time for editors to find sources for it.
If the closing admin chooses to incubate the article, I ask him/her to undelete the revisions from Riscos.info and history merge them with the changes Trevj has made at User:Trevj/Archive/riscos.info before moving the content to the incubator. Cunard (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A section on 'Notable hosted projects' has now been added to the userspace draft. --Trevj (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section does not add to Risco.info's notability because notability is not inherited. What would make Risco.info notable per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline would be at least two secondary reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Risco.info. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Is there a further objective definition of this, please? If not, it could be argued that a subjective interpretation for niche subjects could imply a considerably lower threshold in order to be considered adequate. A number of the references certainly include non-trivial coverage. It should also be noted that WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay rather than being policy, although I do understand that the hosting of notable projects alone doesn't confer notability on the site. --Trevj (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 May 2011[edit]

Pech (Dungeons & Dragons) – Nothing to do here. If you'd like to delete the redirect list it at WP:RFD. – Chick Bowen 19:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of this article's deletion discussion was delete, which is correctly noted on the talk page, but the article never got deleted. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is currently a redirect with the history restored by the deleting admin. I can't see any reason for additional action here.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- To elaborate on the Cube lurker's comment, it has been a redirect List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters since November of 2009, which seems like an appropriate course of action. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I couldn't tell from the history that it was ever deleted. I would disagree about the redirect being the correct action since that list doesn't contain an entry for Pech, but I'll have to open up a whole new discussion on the original page about that. Thanks for your help. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi there is an entry in the 'TSR 2016 - Monster Manual II (1983)' section (page 99).--Cube lurker (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well...crap. I could've sworn I did a search for that. I guess I won't bother then. Thanks again. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 May 2011[edit]

21 May 2011[edit]

File:John Coltrane 1960.jpg – No consensus. Although the "overturn" side has presented a substantial argument that the free alternative would not "serve the same encyclopedic purpose [of identifying his likeness] as the non-free image" under WP:NFC#UUI, not all seem to agree. Note that the possibility of finding a free image (especially after someone attempted to look for them) is not a valid reason for deletion. But in the end, a free alternative exists, and an extremely good reason is needed to make an exception to that. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was the best photo of him; it was closed and deleted by an author with the reason, that another file already existing (a mugshot), which hasn't any encylopedia value, as it shows Coltrane at the age of 19 and doesn't depict his music career. There was a keep vote with the reason, that it was a fair use image. And thus it needs a deletion review. Thank you. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fut.Perf's argument for deletion seems pretty reasonable, I'm less sure of the closers argument (which ideally would have been in the actual discussion). Is their no free image you can find of Mr. Coltrane performing? Hobit (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. "First, do no harm". John Coltrane is a historical figure of the first order whose claim to fame has little to do with being arrested at age nineteen. Unfortunately, he lived in that limbo between 1923 and the appearance of portable digital cameras. The notion that a mug shot is an adequate free portrait strikes me as not only false, but could be read as racially insensitive. In this case, it is also rules lawyering that's getting in the way of making an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As below, the picture isn't regarding an arrest, so I'm not sure where you get "little to do with being arrested at age nineteen" from. People not actually looking to the material in question but "guessing" getting in the way of making an encyclopedia again?--82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the picture is or isn't an actual mugshot, it looks like one; and with pictures, what they look like is the main issue. I generally don't think it's a good idea to remove encyclopedic content on the grounds that something better may someday be found. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You quote "first, do no harm". Can you please tell us where you've quoted that from? Stifle (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's from startrek, I think. --Damiens.rf 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hippocratic Oath, if I remember correctly. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. And a rule that doctors swear to follow has what relevance exactly to a Wikipedia deletion review discussion? Stifle (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I see here is zeal for purity doing harm to the encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, at least procedurally. The closing admin wrote that, in this case, a mugshot of the subject is an acceptable substitute for a picture of the subject playing the saxophone. This was essentially an endorsement of Damiens.rf's nomination, indicating that WP:NFCC#1 is not met. However, NFCC#1 says, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." John Coltrane is famous for his prowess as a jazz saxophonist and not for being a criminal. It is therefore unreasonable to suggest that a mugshot "serves the same encyclopedic purpose" as a picture of Coltrane playing the saxophone. Victor Falk, arguing that the now-deleted image should be kept, successfully refuted Damiens' point. As such, I cannot see how SchuminWeb's close was proper. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale still applies, even after more recent comments in this dicussion. Coltrane was famous as a jazz saxophonist, not for his service in the Navy; therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest that the Navy shot "serves the same encyclopedic purpose" as a picture of Coltrane playing the saxophone. My call for overturning this deletion on procedural grounds stands. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per WP:MUG. If he was alive, then we'd have a good reason to use a NF picture that wasn't a mugshot that has nothing to do with his notability. While some parts of WP:BLP do change upon death, I just can't see this being a common-sense approach. No picture would be better than a mugshot in this case. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the alternate picture in question is labelled "United States Naval Reserve portrait of John Coltrane. While this may look like a mug shot, it is an actual official service photograph." rather than a criminal mugshot. If it makes a different or not, it seems the clear the intent is not to depict him as a criminal which doesn't entirely tie up with some of the comments above. Additionally it is PD so could be cleaned up to look less like a criminal mugshot it so desired. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the numbers from the US Navy image and inserted it into John Coltrane (not my most elegant edit ever but it does the job). Even before, however, this was in no sense a mugshot and the notion that it portrayed Coltrane as a "criminal" didn't really make sense. Chick Bowen 00:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. I have looked into this further, and the more I do so the more I am convinced that not only might there be a free photograph of Coltrane available at some point, there is likely to be so. I don't have a Flickr account, but I'd recommend that someone who does might contact Roberto Polillo and ask (very nicely!) if he might donate one of his many photos of Coltrane under a free license. He links to our articles from his Flickr page, so he is aware of us. Chick Bowen 02:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for the link you gave me! I asked him if he can give one of his pictures under free license. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, at least based on what's been raised so far. The article needs a better image, but as was maintained in the FFD discussion, there's no reason to believe that an expired-copyright image can't be found. Since the current image isn't actually a mugshot, the line of argument should carry little weight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
overturn produce the free alternative, before deletion. first do no harm. Slowking4 (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per A Stop at Willoughby. I do suspect a good free image can be found. But we don't have one and reasonable searches (by myself and others) haven't turned one up. With luck asking owners of those images to release them as free images might buy us something, but unless (or until) then, I think it's reasonable to continue using this image. I'd probably not believe that for someone less important then this guy, but even I, someone who dislikes jazz, know who this is. And the current image is really unacceptable (even with the very nice work by Chick Bowen) as it still looks like a mug shot *and* doesn't illustrate him doing what he's known for. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, replaceable. "Do no harm" does not mean "do no harm to articles", it means "do no harm to living people". The photo was used for identifying him, for which the available free photograph suffices. Even if it did not, the potential existence of a free photograph is enough to delete. The image we have isn't great, but we don't accept non-free images just because they're "better". Stifle (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? There was a keep vote with the argument, that it was a fair use image.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But the point isn't merely that this image is better; the point is that the free alternative does not "serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Coltrane is famous for being a jazz saxophonist. The encyclopedic purpose of the image use in this article should not be merely identifying Coltrane's race and physical appearance; the purpose should be identifying him as a jazz saxophonist – which is why he's notable. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the audio samples do that so much better than any image ever could. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but not a thousand notes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not require all images in bio articles to depict the person doing what made them famous. Bios for professor don't need a picture of them teaching or researching, bios for actors do not require an image of them on stage, and bios for pornstars don't... you get the point. As Hullaballo put above, it's not the picture that will establish him as an musician. But everything else. --Damiens.rf 05:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, of course. Even so, there's something fundamentally absurd about using this image over the deleted one in an article about one of the most famous jazz saxophonists of all time. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to grasp the fundamental absurdity. But this is just me. --Damiens.rf 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there also something fundamentally absurd about a free content encyclopaedia using non-free content? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question that's unfortunately out of DRV's scope, but I'll gladly respond on your talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - We don't use a non-free image if a free alternative exists or could be created. Arguments above are asking us to ignore this policy, like Slowking4 asking us to produce a free image before deleting, and Hobit adminting a free image can be found but nevertheless defending the use of the non-free one. --Damiens.rf 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect a free image can be found. I spent about 45 minutes and could find nothing close. Is there one out there? Perhaps. But I've no idea where else to go other than writing owners and asking them to release their image under a free license. The only one chance I see of that happening (not owned by a corp.) someone else is pursuing. Hobit (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coltrane died in 1967; no new free images are going to be created. About all you can do is hope that some day you find a photo taken by someone willing to release it under a free licence. Any policy that purports to require the deletion of encyclopedia material on such a slender hope is no policy at all. Once its actual operation gets noticed by a wider community of editors and it affects an important article, support for it evaporates. Let's not be afraid to say so. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Monika Star – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

After discussion the result was delete. But the votes were 6 for keep and only 3 for delete. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia system, but how is it possible?--Cavarrone (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This count is inaccurate. There were 4 delete !votes, not 3, when the nominator is counted, and only 4 keep !voters (one SPA !voted from two accounts and an IP before Floquenbeam blocked [7]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you contact the closing admin as directed at the top of this page? If not, could you please do so? To answer your question, AfD is not a vote. The closer evaluates the arguments about how the article meets, or doesn't meet, our inclusion guidelines. I've briefly looked things over and it does look like the article may meet the (very low) bar of WP:PORNBIO with the two nominations. It also might meet WP:N given the articles on AVN that discuss her (I don't recall if that source is broadly considered reliable). I'd like to hear the closer's reasoning before commenting further however. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A close without giving any reasoning against apparent consensus does not offer encouragement to contact the administrator. It might have helped if Cavarrone had, but I can perfect well understand why he might have felt the admin would be unresponsive. ) It's time that a full explanation should be required if there's a close against apparent consensus. or otherwise the AfD should be automatically reopened for someone to close who is prepared to offer some guidance to the users. The admin is not free to ignore consensus unless he thinks the arguments for the consensus side are against policy, and a finding like that requires an explanation. A close against apparent consensus without a reason deserves even less respect that a !vote without a reason. A !vote without a reason can mean "it's obvious," but a close against consensus without a reason cannot mean "it's obvious", and can not unfairly be taken to mean "the majority is wrong, and I have so much contempt for them I need not explain why. " I have no opinion on the article: it seems to be a question of the reliability of sources, but the sources are outside my area. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not only is it not obvious why the closer chose to close it in that manner, it's also arguable that the GNG is met, even if PORNBIO is not. Closing against numerical consensus should require a much higher bar than that, per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find the reliable sources that would make it appropriate to have a BLP with this title.—S Marshall T/C 22:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Three of those six keep !votes came from the same SPA editor, whose comments had nothing to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and who did things like post links to a "Pornstar Escort" site where you could book an "appointment" to "spend time" with the article subject, plus tons of cutting and-pasting from porn studio PR. It looks like the closer gave these exactly zero weight, and that was perfectly appropriate. That leaves four (not three) delete !votes, from nominator Dismas, from Edison, from Carrite, and from Sandstein. Each of these was well-reasoned and based in deletion policy; each stressed the lack of reliable, nonpromotional sourcing. It looks like the close gave each of these !votes significant weight. There were three keep !votes, one a "weak keep," from Morbidthoughts, JohnSmith877, and Cavarrone. Morbidthoughts's vote is solid and well-reasoned, but it rests on WP:PORNBIO, an SNG which is often disputed, which Jimbo Wales has criticized, which in practice has been shown to be a bad fit with the GNG. Cavarrone's vote was a "weak keep," and therefore presumably given less weight. Johnsmith877's !vote was simply "per Radio29," without any reasoning, and "Radio29" was one of the socks used by the SPA. The closer presumably gave it little or no weight. Therefore we have: by pure headcount, a 4-4 !vote, and certainly nothing resembling a "keep" consensus; weighting by the strength of expressed argument, something between 4-1.5 and 4-2, certainly within the range where the closing admin could reasonably elect to delete; and when other relevant factors are taken into account (like the ongoing dispute over WP:PORNBIO and the fact that Johnsmith877 is an extremely inexperienced editor with negligible substantive editing (125 edits over 6 months), even in the porn field he concentrates on), it's hard to argue that this close doesn't fall well within the discretion granted to the closing admin. I certainly agree that the closer should have provided an explanation here, but the outcome was clearly appropriate. If by any chance it's found inappropriate, though, it should be clear that relist rather than keep should be the next step; after only a single week, with unweighted !votes evenly divided after the socks are discounted, and strong policy arguments supporting deletion, a simple keep would clearly be unjustified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- HW, I know that there are often very spammy issues with porn bios, but could you address the following sources [8], [9] and [10]? Are they reliable and independent? If so, I think at least the letter of WP:N is met (though S Marshall's point is still there...). If not, this is a clear delete. Hobit (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't but the idea that everything posted at avn.com meets our RS standards. The third source you list is a perfect example of the problems in using it. The AVN page [11]is a barely-retouched copy of a corporate press release, which can be found here [12]. Sample comparison: Press release -- "KarinaOnline.com will feature a Chat Room (wherein Karina will engage in weekly "chats"), an extensive Photo Gallery (with never-before-seen images), a Diary, Exclusive Video Offers and a few promised "surprises!" AVN -- "The site will feature a chat room where the Finnish-born actress will do weekly chats, a wide-ranging photo gallery with several never-before-seen images, a diary, exclusive video offers, and what Sin City calls "a few promised surprises."

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with treating AVN as generally meeting RS requirements. We just can't tell when they're posting press releases and presskit pieces, which certain;y aren't independent of the subject and generally haven't been fact-checked in the slightest, and when they're actually posting journalism (industry-serving as it may be). The AVN article here is bylined and identified as "Video News", but it turns out to be a publicity release from one of AVN's advertisers, almost word-for-word written by the advertiser's PR department.

The other two pieces don't look any better -- they're not even bylined, and all the information in them seems to come directly from either the advertiser's or PETA's PR departments (and, of course, they concern the same event). And I can't find any other coverage of the "event" -- no mention on PETA's own site, no news stories, nothing. I just searched for PETA and the name of the boutique involved -- zilch. I didn't expect much, didn't even require than any of the porn performer's names be mentioned, but nothing. There's no wire service or newspaper coverage supporting these stories. The information comes directly, unfiltered from the participants; it's certainly not independent, and there's no indication of factchecking.

I'm not saying AVN can never be a reliable source. But it's fundamentally a promotional magazine serving the interests of its advertisers, and its website isn't limited by the physical or fiscal factors that limit the hardcopy magazine, so it can host virtually anything its advertisers want. So just finding a story on avn.com doesn't mean that the story meets our RS requirements, and we can't, and shouldn't assume that it does. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail! I'm going to stay neutral on this until the closer swings by. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add closing statement. Please Spartaz, provide a brief closing statement so that participants who are not as familiar with the process as you can more easily understand. This is a matter of accessibility of the project to newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just in case it wasn't clear, I haven't been ignoring this, I simply haven't been here. I'll add a closing statement to the AFD this evening if I can get time and explain the close in more detail but, for the moment, I should comment that spa votes are traditionally given much less weight then established users in AFDs and that sources not assertions win prizes. AVN isn't a reliable source - there is no evidence of fact checking and the "articles" are spammy and promotional, so this was an unsourced BLP where extensive efforts to find sources had failed. Deletion arguments by experienced established users around the total absence of RS were far more compelling then the keep arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing own close per the detailed rational I just posted to the AFD.
- I was asked at DRV to provide a closing rationale. I apologise for not doing this sooner but I have been away for a few days and wasn't approached about the close or notified about the DRV until later. In essence this is a classic case of where WP:CONSENSUS isn't the same as counting snouts on each side. There is widespread acceptance that spa voters and non-policy based arguments get very little weight in closes compared to opinions from established users who cite policy based arguments and unlike many recent AFD discussions this one was graced with contributions from a number of experienced editors who expressed concern about the lack of reliable sourcing and the view that the subject hadn't passed V or RS or BIO. Looking through the keep arguments there is an assertion that AVN is a reliable source but this contention isn't widely accepted by participants - which I can understand given issues with fact checking and regurgitation of press releases being frequently cited in the past to argue that AVN is neither peer/fact checked nor independant. Otherwise arguments about the number of films, contarcts signed, appearances on Howard Stern or who she married are not arguments grounded in any policy and were discarded. This leaves one opinion that this meets PORNBIO by multiple AVN award nominations but the actual nominations are group rather then individual catagories and it is not clear that this counts in the same way that a headline nomination would do so. Certainly the arguments about awards cut no ice at all with the majority of experienced editors and in closing I found their arguments to be well grounded in core site policy around the requirement to source articles of living persons. There clearly had been an extensive search for sources including *ahem* some off-line examination of magazines so I believe it is a reasonable assumption that there are no suitable sources for this article. Since sub-guidelines are supposed to be an indication of the liklihood of sources existing as the clear indication is that they do not I believe that it is right to discount the PORNBIO argument and go with the BIO/V/RS arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I believe a NC close would have been ~~a better~~ my reading of the discussion, but I think the closer came to a conclusion within the bounds of admin discretion given the SPAs and nature of the sources. Hobit (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The keep votes were given less weight because they were 1) from spas and 2) weakly argued. Spartaz's summary above is well-thought out. Them From Space 06:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 May 2011[edit]

The Global Townhall – Deletion endorsed. This has WP:SNOW as applicable, as well as that it is virtually unanimous. – -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The search term used to justify speedy deletion of this page was inaccurate and invalid. Said company is three words, search used to justify deletion was only two words producing invalid results. New additional information is also provided to support the reversal

Reason given “fails WP:CORP. potential hoax or at the very least blatant self promotion. nothing in gnews [13], despite the grand claims of being involved with notable people. lacks reliable sources. also note the excessive and unnecessary use of categories. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)”[reply]

Proof of involvement with notable people can be ascertained with a correct and relevant search term that shows acknowledgment of The Global Townhall interview on notable person's official sites Google. To cross check notable people who were claimed to be interviewed; here are three examples of notable people at a glance who reposted the interview on their Official Site as an external reference:

2010 No.1 Women’s World Tennis Champion, Caroline Wozniaki’s Official Site:
Bestselling author David Baldacci's Official Site
Caddy Shack actress Cindy Morgan’s Official Site:

If they did not interview with said company they would not post it on their official site.

Evidence that the CEO and Founder of The Global Townhall is actively involved with notable people is evident here as a Board Member of The International Relations Council which can be found on this IRC Board of Directors list. The IRC hosts global dignitaries from around the world including Prime Ministers and Secretary of States at events in Kansas City, of which the Founder would be obliged to attend as a Board Member. The exceptional speaker list can be found here.

The CEO and Founder of the company is also listed as a Coalition Member alongside Senators, Congressmen and other notable people at a DC energy policy organization Set America Free.

Here are pictures Hall of Fame Astronaut, Story Musgrave visiting with the CEO of The Global Townhall and being introduced to influential people in Kansas City:

It is a valid point that the categories was wrong and do need to be changed. That was my error in changing them as I did not think "Urban Planning" which someone had added was accurate.

I will attempt to answer this question posted from Perdon on the Articles for deletion/The Global Townhall page:

"Puzzled What does "The Global Townhall (TGT) is a Kansas City based company dedicated to collecting ideas from successful people around the world to help main street excel." mean? Anyone know? Peridon (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

"Main street" is a term made popular again through the recent Wall Street crash, referring to everyday people trying to make an honest living to provide for their family.

As examples of what the above statement means in real terms, I will cite an interview conducted with Australian billionaire Ken Talbot. The interview provides tips from the billionaire on how to become financially successful, to help people on "main street" prosper. The interview also focuses on how billionaires and policy makers can help poverty stricken Africans (main street there) while conducting their mining business in Africa

The interview with Pakistani celebrity Veena Malik helps women in Pakistan from being killed by their fathers in honor killings by bringing cultural awareness through her following as a celebrity.

The interview with Australia’s Biggest Loser Fitness Trainer, Michelle Bridges is intended to help keep people at a healthy weight therefore having a better quality life.

So clearly, notable people are obviously involved and associated with the company and if you review the content of the interviews they are all intended to help people. The page was not a “blatant advert” as claimed, but a review of what it does and who is featured on the site.

The site is also a treasure trove of encyclopedic information from one of Leslie Nielsen’s last interviews (listen to the audio clip on his interview page) to comments from a Commanding 3 Star General on US involvement in the Egyptian Revolution, to whether a Senior Senator plans to run for President.

At the very least, the unsubstaniated word “hoax” should be removed from the reason for deletion page as it is a violation of Wikipedia civility code, it is completely unfounded and also derogative.

Thanks for your consideration in reversing the deletion and removing the word "hoax" given this new information. I have also notified the person who deleted the page of my intent to appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lassiew (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion; allow userfication for creation of improved article. I do not think that the close of the deletion was out of order. I do not think the AfD nominator's description of the article as a "potential hoax"—and I stress the word potential—was in bad faith. That said, a reworked article might be able to make a case for notability. Looking at the concerns about the sources, it might be better to start from scratch, but if Lassiew would like to start from the deleted text, I would have no objection to that being placed in user space for editing. —C.Fred (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, and don't let this user work on a usrefied version. This is a long-term promotional single-purpose account, who has also been wildly spamming links to their website all over the project for years. They should not be made to feel welcome here, at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy -- article as it stood was clearly promotional, and I'm not seeing independent coverage which would establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin. Apart from the list of celebrities whose interviews were hosted at the website at issue, the article was quite brief, entirely promotional, and not neutral in tone, as the quotations excerpted in the AfD discussion (company dedicated to collecting ideas from successful people around the world to help main street excel) make clear. While the user remains free to try to work up a new version in their user space, I don't see much point in refunding the original article; there wasn't much there anyways, and its non-neutral text was itself the problem. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Dreadfully sourced, highly promotional article with no credible evidence that either the website or the journalist who operates it is in any way significant. Just a laundry list of celebrity interviewees embedded in an inarticulate lump of prose that never even explained that the "Global Townhall" was simply a website compilation of celebrity interviews. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Sarek and after seeing the extent of their spamming (and fixing it). Mato (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and I see no reason at all to userfy. The author of the article has evidently put some effort into preparing a case for this deletion review, but unfortunately has done so without an understanding of Wikipedia's standards, and has also included some points which are quite irrelevant. For example, the author says that it was wrong to cite a Google news search for "Global Townhall", as the correct title is "The Global Townhall". However, I have repeated the search including "The", and the result was Your search - "The Global Townhall" - did not match any documents. The author refers to "Proof of involvement with notable people", but notability is not inherited from notable people one associates with: we require evidence that the subject of the article is notable in its own right. "Evidence that the CEO and Founder of The Global Townhall is actively involved with notable people" is even less use, as the notable people are two removes away from the subject of the article. The author says "The interview with Pakistani celebrity Veena Malik helps women in Pakistan from being killed by their fathers in honor killings by bringing cultural awareness through her following as a celebrity", "they are all intended to help people", etc, but Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The closure was perfectly correct, totally in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I also see no merit in the suggestion to userfy. For one thing, the article was substantially promotional, and for another I see no evidence anywhere that the subject is notable, and if not then there is no way that it can be edited to make it into a suitable article. No amount of rewriting of an article can turn a non-notable subject into a notable one. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, not a hoax, but as pointed out above, there is not enough notability on this company itself to justify an article (and having read the text of the article, I'm still not exactly sure what the company is even supposed to do). Maybe courtesy blanking the AFD would be a good idea? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse per closer, Sarek, JamesBWatson, Hullaballoo, and Future Perfect. No independent sources, and promotional, however not a hoax. Disagree with blanking AfD, as that's an internal page, and isn't a BLP or attack violation. — Becksguy (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for blanking the AfD. Someone thought it might possibly be a hoax and tentatively raised the possibility ("potential hoax" was the expression used). No support was given to this suggestion. It is totally unreasonable to suggest that we should hide or suppress the fact that such questions have been raised every time anyone suggests there may be a problem somewhere which is not then confirmed. It is in the nature of discussions that possible problems are raised and not supported: it happens all the time on all sort of discussion pages, and we don't then censor the information that the question was raised in discussion but not supported. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A description on Wikipedia policy re establishing notably as per JamesBWatson’s statement on my talk page:

“I'm afraid you have missed the point about notability. "Official statements from an active Commanding General (who replaced General Petraeus's position) on how the US Army perceive the Muslim Brotherhood after the Egyptian Revolution" may establish notability for the Muslim Brotherhood, but they are not statements about the "Global Townhall", and do not indicate notability of that. The answer to "why there would not be a page about the source they come from, notable or not" is quite simply that Wikipedia policy is to have articles only on subjects which are notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)”

Focusing on this guideline a statement from a Commanding General "may establish notability for the Muslim Brotherhood, but they are not statements about the "Global Townhall", and do not indicate notability of that.” - JamesBWatson

Here is a list of notable people making statements specifically about The Global Townhall including the General mentioned above.

"I have read your column (The Global Townhall) with joy! Great interviews and discussion points. Thank-you for sharing; it is great work." General General Robert L. Caslen - 3 Star US Commanding General

"WOW, this little enterprise came out just beautiful, it is a work of art and it was outrageous fun as well! I love your autobiographical musings on the website; your interviews are rich. The Global Townhall is a great forum! I really enjoyed talking with you Gabrielle" Story Musgrave - United States Astronaut Hall of Fame

"I would have to say that Gabrielle Reilly is one of the most interesting and dynamic people I have come across for a long time, we should all stand aside and listen to HER stories. I loved the question's she asked and would love to read anything she has to print, this woman is going place's... I love the Global Townhall. xx A fan Kelly Le Brock." Kelly LeBrock – Known for The Woman in Red and Weird Science

“Enjoyed talking with Gabrielle Reilly of THE GLOBAL TOWNHALL about balancing female sex appeal and making each year a happy journey.” Cindy Morgan – Known for Caddy Shack and Tron

“The best interviewers are the ones who make you think and Gabrielle (Reilly) does just that.” NJ Burkett - Emmy Award Winning correspondent known for his coverage of 9/11.

You can see many more comments specifically about The Global Townhall made by notable people here with some cross references from there official social media.

There is an abundance of comments specifically about The Global Townhall from notable people. So according to the guidelines from JamesBWatson above, a statement from the notable person actually has to be specifically about The Global Townhall to establish notability. Given the many notable people making specific statements about The Global Townhall a page therefore is warranted. Lassiew - User talk:Lassiew

None of that constitutes substantial coverage. The fact that a number of people have made remarks such as "I love the Global Townhall" is not enough to establish notability, even if you can produce reliable sources that show that they said those things. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are changing what you said would extend notability above? What is the motive for that?

They are not a "number of people" as you try to minimise, but more accurately, a remarkable number of notable people including some of the world's brightest and most globally influential, who publically proclaim The Global Townhall as notable, relevant and visionary.

The Global Townhall does have very extensive coverage on Official Sites of notable people which is used constantly as a reliable source amongst the media. Not just a quote in an article, but pages and pages that specifically feature The Global Townhall.

FYI here is the latest interview with the General who created the Iraq "Awakening" that changed the course of Iraq and was the basis for Petraeus's strategy. World changing stuff. Note The Global Townhall CEO attending a National Security Roundtable with these Generals including a picture of her recieving something from them: http://www.theglobaltownhall.com/general_macfarland

Wikipedia will evidently be behind the times if it does not include a page on The Global Townhall. Lassiew - User talk:Lassiew —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

19 May 2011[edit]

Jeeva Artist – Overturn and list on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeeva Artist#AfD – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:CSD#A7 Pvrmagesh (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reason that we should overturn this deletion? At the time of deletion, the article read: "Jeeva (Artist) is an advocate turned artist. He is a lawyer by education, Artist by passion and a designer by profession. He can be best described as an Artist, Teacher, Movie Critic, Writer and Lawyer. He is currently a President in Chitrakala Academy. " I don't see anything there that would qualify as an assertion of notability as defined by WP:CSD#A7, depending on what Chitrakala Academy might be (evidently it is not Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath, because the head of that seems to be M.K. Shankaralinge Gowda). So I would say this is a justifiable deletion. Chick Bowen 21:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I've gotten no response to my question above, I will endorse for now. I am not convinced of my colleagues' interpretation of A7 below; I don't see how "President of Chitrakala Academy" is an assertion of notability if there's no assertion of what the Academy is—it could just be a private teaching studio (based on what I could or rather couldn't find on Google, I'm thinking it probably is). Since the article was userfied no additional assertions have been added. I can't imagine any point to sending this to AfD. Chick Bowen 19:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted to User:Pvrmagesh/Jeeva Artist. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7. See User talk:Pvrmagesh for his attempts at establishing the importance of this living individual. The key point there is that the subject wrote a book which received a "Special Mention" at the National Awards in India. That alone would not be enough to assert notability under WP:N or even WP:AUTHOR; in my opinion, it is not even enough to reach the lower "assertion of importance" bar set by CSD A7. An article might have been appropriate if his book had won a more significant award. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised that "he is currently a President in Chitrakala Academy" is being considered a sufficient assertion of importance, but if the consensus is that it constitutes such an assertion, I won't object to this deletion being overturned. I think HW raises a good point below; this probably should not have been deleted so quickly (one minute after creation). However, I can certainly understand how it's frustrating to encounter a new biography with so little actual content. Pvrmagesh, please read WP:BEEF. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn any plausible indication of possible importance or significance is enough. CSD A7 says very specifically that it is not necessary to show notability. It is not even necessary to show likely notability, Saying someone is head of a school is a reason why that might be considered in good faith to be significant or important, and that is enough. It may not be, depending on what the actual school turns out to be, but it's enough reason to need an argument to be deleted, We only speedy delete under A7 when we can clearly tell that it cannot possibly be important. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD per DDG. Any assertion of importance is good enough. I doubt it will survive AFD, but it's not clearcut enough to be an A7. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn more or less per DGG and on editor's request. The original article was speedied one minute after the editor began writing it, and even in that state included a rudimentary assertion of significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to be asking a lot of questions of you, but could you let me know how you can tell the article was only one minute old? I can't figure out how to see the creation times, only the deletion times. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page was restored to userspace, so you can look at the history and see that it was created at 12:47, then look at the deletion log and see that it was deleted at 12:48. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, I should have thought of that! Hobit (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Assertion of importance was there, though borderline IMO. And speedying what looks like a reasonable stub one minute after creation is probably not a good idea. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 May 2011[edit]

Blackarachnia – Merge endorsed. Any remaining issues (such as disambiguation) can be handled through talk-page discussions, though the consensus here is that the status quo is satisfactory. – Chick Bowen 00:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original article was MERGED for lacking notability. She's a main character of 3 TV series and several comic limited series. She's been a character in a video game, and had TWO different Happy Meal toys made in her image. I've added a lot of sources to the article in my userspace, to help establish notabilty. User:Mathewignash/Blackarachnia#Toys Mathewignash (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- The article was merged, not deleted, which allows us non-admins to see the state of the page as it was before the AfD discussion. And I don't see that very much has changed. The outcome of the original AfD hinged on notability; the commentators felt that there were few reliable, independent sources and these only mentioned the subject in passing. The sources you've added in your userspace draft do nothing to address this. They are not reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in detail; they are the same toy catalogues, fanzines and official Transformers promocrap that has been shown time and time again to be insufficient. I do not see any way of overturning what was pretty clear consensus on the back of these poor sources. Reyk _YO! 23:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question You've said the same many times. Your blanket statements are useless and don't prove anything. Would you mind telling me exactly which of the sources I listed are NOT reliable? Which of the many books, magazines, web sites or whatever you speak of? Be specific or drop your tired old accusation. This article has 30 citations, and a seperate section for external links to sites. It has a detailed introduction, and almost every section had a source of one kind or another. It's much improved over the original article. Mathewignash (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God forbid anyone should have a different opinion on these articles than you! Fine. You want a detailed analysis of your "sources"? Here you go, my analysis of every source in your userspace that wasn't in the original:

1- the voice actor was such-and-such. Passing mention.

2- "She can turn into a spider". Passing mention.

6- Beast Wars Part 1- the work of fiction itself; cannot be used to establish notability

8 and 9- Ditto.

10- Passing mention in an encyclopedia of animated characters.

11- Two sentences of plot summary on a bloggish site of dubious reliability

12- Another primary source

13- Does not mention the subject

14- I can't look this one up, but I'll bet it says nothing more than that she was a hidden playable character. Passing mention.

17- Transformers fan encyclopedia.

18- Toy Catalogue

19- Toy review on a fansite

20- Toy catalogue

25- Again, I can't verify this one. Does it say more than "packaged along with Optimus Prime"? Doubtful.

26- Review at a fansite

27- Toy Catalogue

So you see, my description of your added sources as a bunch of passing mentions, toy catalogues and fansites is entirely accurate. The reasons for the original close have not been addressed, and the consensus should not be overturned. Reyk _YO! 23:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed my sources were UNRELIABLE. Do you even know what that means?

1 - Reliable third party book.

2- Reliable third party book.

6- Reliable as it's primary.

8 and 9- Ditto.

10- Reliable third party book.

11- Reliable news site http://www.mania.com/about-us/

12- Another primary source, AND THUS RELIABLE.

13- Does not mention the subject, the subject is the book she appears in. Source itself is reliable.

14- Reliable third party book

17- Reliable third party book

18- Creator's web site, reliable.

19- Profesional review web site by a noted expert, reliable.

20- Creator's web site, reliable.

25- Third party magazine reviews the figure, reliable.

26- see 19.

27- Creator's web site, reliable.

So what is UNRELIABLE about any of it? Mathewignash (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also said they needed to be independent, and cover the subject in detail. I explicitly said so. These two are what most of your sources fail, thus not establishing notability, which is the reason the AfD consensus came out to be what it was. If you spent anywhere near as much time reading the posts you argue with as you do scrabbling around for marginal sources you might actually start addressing peoples' concerns instead of talking past them. I have said my piece; my opinion on your so-called sources will not change and I find it a waste of time to continue with this conversation. Reyk _YO! 00:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the few cited to the Hasbro web site, what source are not indepentent? Mathewignash (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be trying to pick out individual facets of what he said rather than the whole "They are not reliable, independent sources that cover the subject in detail" i.e. each fails one or more of the three. The expansion source by source of the problems perceived is given above, the rest is arguing about the semantics, and isn't really relevant to the discussion. Nor is arguing that each one doesn't meet any given one of the three when it isn't the specific issue he highlighted in his above list. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted, but we can overturn to delete if you like?—S Marshall T/C 23:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't try to be funny, the result was "merge", but in reality, the page was just redirected, no material from the page was carried over. This is the appropriate forum, as the instructions say "Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions."Mathewignash (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  It's not the closing admin's responsibility to do the merge, that's for interested editors to do, I guess if it hasn't happened it suggest no one is that interested or sees anything appropriate to merge. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I think 82.7.44.178 has identified the problem. Mathewignash, did you think it was up to the debate closer to carry out the merge?—S Marshall T/C 08:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - My point is I believe she has enough individual notability to have her own page, not a merge to a SINGLE TV series character list, and I provided numerous sources about her. Mathewignash (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid you seem to be the only one who thinks she's notable.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
when an afd closes with a merge, it should be forced as any other close would be. A merge means a genuine merge, retaining the unduplicated content, but placing it within another article. A merge is different from a redirect, where only a linking sentence is retained. To merge only a small fraction of the content is normally to violate the close. This is commonly seen as the successive removal of content until there is nothing there , at which point the redirect is usually deleted on the basis of there being nt target for it. Now, nobody expects the closing admin to continue to monitor the article , but it the article is edited destructively, and this cannot be resolved on the talk page, I think the first step would be to appeal to the closing admin to ascertain his intentions. If there is no satisfactory results, I think the appropriate place to go is here at deletion reviews,which can examine all aspects of copyright policy. DGG ( talk ) 13:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If an AFD debate had never been had and a section over time shrunk or disappeared we wouldn't try and enforce it's restoration to former size, since we look to the current consensus about the appropriate level of content. Offering merged content some sort of "protected" status as a result of and AFD debate is against the way things work. In fact we'd normally direct someone who wants to demerge that all they need to do is gain a consensus on the talk page, no need for the process here. Similarly if someone does want to shrink that section what would they do? Take it to AFD to get that section cut down? Of course not they'd just do it and if controversial discuss it on the talk page. In this case it doesn't seem that relevant if no one bothered to do the merge and no one is stopping someone doing it now, then what's the issue? If as part of that a discussion on the talk page considers things differently after this amount of time (be that to trim it, or it should be broken out into another article or whatever), then surely that's the way things are supposed to work? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fair enough. If that's true, then I will remove my suggestion that this page have a deletion review, and i'll take it to the talk page and wait for some feedback. Mathewignash (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is "copyright policy" relevant? WP:Copying within Wikipedia applies for merges – if content is actually copied – but missing attribution usually doesn't come into play unless the source page is deleted. Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and ban Mathewignash from all toy/fiction-related articles, please. We are back here week after week after week to deal with yet another insipid "here's another toy guide!", "here's another toy website!", etc...the same problems that have sent the overwhelming majority of his favored articles to the dustbin this past year. Fans of fiction, esp sci-fi and fantasy, sooner or later just have to come to the realization that not everyone, esp 3rd party, reliable sources, is as into the made-up universes as they are. I can rattle off dozens of errata on Arthas, Nagrand, or death knights, but I fully understand and am quite content with them being redirects. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seriously? That's your contribution? I take one page out of the dozens, one that had some support to keep, I userify it, I research it for months online, as well as in books and magazines, I take it to the notability noticeboard to get advice, I impliment changes that people suggest, and I bring it here for review, and you suggest a "topic ban" for me and call my work "insipid"? How about some HONEST debate on articles instead of attacks? I've asked for review on a half dozen articles in the 5+ years I've been on Wikipedia, I do them one at a time, and only after very careful consideration and review with other editors. Mathewignash (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't just here, it is every lame AfD where you source the same toys to the same exact sources. Over and over and over again. Doing the same thing and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, as they say. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ban nobody from contributing to anything. Encourage those who want to work on fiction of any sort to write and improve their articles. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I encourage people that are capable of doing so within the confines of our notability and reliable sourcing guidelines. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I can understand that some editors are tired of having to evaluate Mathewignash's sources, I think it's better to discuss here than a poorly watched talk page, followed by silence assumed to indicate consensus, recreation, reverting, and a new AfD. An alternative is WP:WikiProject Transformers, but then I'd expect to see complaints about how that WikiProject is not aligned with site-wide notability standards. Common complaint, not intended as a comment on WikiProject Transformers in particular. Flatscan (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC) Flatscan (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It just appears to be seems little it terms of improved sources the article been reactivated.Dwanyewest (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose re-creation Normally, I would support restoring this and relisting at AfD for broader analysis; however, Reyk has provided a rather thorough explanation of the new sources' inadequacy here. Without a satisfactory refutation of Reyk's comments from Mathewignash (or another interested editor), I cannot support re-creation of this article, as a new article would be unlikely to survive AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The article List of Beast Wars characters includes a suitable description of the character instead of merely listing her. It is true that Blackarachnia was a recurring character on the Beast Wars TV show, but there are also other recurring characters who don't have their own articles, such as Tigatron, Silverbolt, and Quickstrike. JIP | Talk 18:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really address one problem though, that Blackaracnia was also a regular character on Beast Machines and on Transformers Animated. Why does the page redirect to ONE of the three shows she was in? Seems like a disambig would be at least a little better. Mathewignash (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That causes an interesting question. What should be done if a character has a significant role in several series, but none of them is significant enough for the character to have his/her own article? The character's name should be redirected somewhere, but where? JIP | Talk 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't put an actual page about Blackarachnia there because people insist she's not notable enough to have one, can we get a simple disambig, saying something like "Blackarachnia may refer to a character from Beast Wars, Beast Machine or Transformers Animated TV series." Then we link to the character pages for those three shows at least? Then I can merge her page content into those three pages? Mathewignash (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per above. JJ98 (Talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Would ANYONE like to take a stab at the one big flaw in the merge result though? Blackarachnia appeared as a regular in THREE TV series. How do you merge her content and redirect to ONE of those series? Unless someone can address this problem, I don't see this as a valid solution. I'd REALLY like some other option. disambig page, or whatever. Otherwise, if someone is looking up the character from one of the other shows, types in the name, they get redirected to the WRONG tv program. Mathewignash (talk) 10:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A disambig page linking to sections in three different list articles (as opposed to an article entirely about Blackarachnia) would be OK by me. JIP | Talk 16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First, List of Beast Wars characters is a better target than the other two lists because Beast Wars was the first series with this character in a prominent role. Second, a disambiguation page doesn't make sense, because "disambiguation" means that multiple topics are being distinguished. "Blackarachnia" doesn't refer to multiple topics; it refers to a single character. That's just one topic, even though the character appeared in three series. Third, the best solution I can come up with is this: linking to the other relevant lists from the subsection to which Blackarachnia redirects. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackarachnia from Beast Wars and Beast Machines is the same character, but the other one from Transformers: Animated is a different character who shares the same name. Mathewignash (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to your own userspace draft, the Transformers Animated Blackarachnia is simply a new version of the same character. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Move Under Ground – Undeleted. Can be relisted at AfD if an editor wishes to do so. – Chick Bowen 00:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was significantly expanded after the AfD started. The IP editor who on May 10 added the sections about reviews and foreign editions "commented" in the AfD, but didn't explicitly indicate that the article should be kept. However, I think the changes at that point clearly demonstrate notability, and it shouldn't have been deleted given those changes. No other editors commented on the final version of the article -- the IP was the last to weigh in. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admins comment I don't think admins should substitute their opinion for a consensus so i wasn't prepared to overturn this but it wasn't clear to me that there had been substantial improvement. Further community discussion of the improvements is required but that should be at AFD not DRV as process was correctly followed. Suggest relist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly concur that the article had been substantially improved, to the extent that notability had clearly been established (notable publisher, shortlisted for notable awards, and tons and tons of notable third-party reviews). Remember, AfD is not a vote; one 'look how drastically I've just improved the article' outweighs 20 "get rid of this pathetic piece of crap". As such, I advocate that the deletion be overturned and that the article be restored. DS (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to comment without being able to see the alleged improvement, if I am unable to see the article how can I comment? - I do know that a couple of promo reviews and nominations for promo awards that the book didn't win does not make a notable book. The details worthy of note about this book would/should fill three lines of the authors article. Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an article on tor.com 5 years after publication isn't terribly promo. Neither is being a nominee for the Bram Stoker Award for Best First Novel.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article temporarily undeleted for the sake of this DRV debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for allowing access - as I see from reading the reports the book did not sell well, with a major chain backing out of ordering any copies of the paperback and so he released it on a free download commons compatible license. Anyway - the article was improved during the AFD and as the article has a few reviews and so within guidelines that is notability so I won't object to overturn. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still think a redirect is in order.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will likely be the subject of future discussions, so I hope you won't mind my asking: Why do you think that the article improvements do not justify an article in this case? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Reviews prove notability. I certainly agree with Spartaz that an admin shouldn't generally over-ride consensus, but there are exceptions, and one of them is that if the article was improved during the AfD in a way that addresses the issues, the opinions that did not take account of this are no longer relevant. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete with no prejudice to redirection/merging by a later discussion or to another AfD. It certainly seems improved enough that the !votes for deletion are no longer very relevant. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete I will not denigrate Spartaz's decision to close this AfD in this way; this sort of discussion is surely difficult to close. However I think that, at this point, the article should be undeleted, with relisting at AfD or redirection subject to editorial discretion, per the improvements prior to the AfD's conclusion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pamela Stein – Resolved with nothing further to be done. – Chick Bowen 00:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: User:NuclearWarfare previously closed this discussion as "History restored but all revision texts revdeleted" at 15:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC), and reopened the discussion at 04:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC).

History only undeletion requested. The reason I am requesting this was that the review decision was "redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1987"; it was not delete. It is counter-intuitive that the history should be deleted when the redirect is created. I have raised this with admin who did the deletion at User_talk:Courcelles#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pamela_Stein, but he said that the deletion was intentional.

If Wikipedia is not willing to restore the article history, then the AFD should be more honest and state that the result was "delete", because that is what in fact has happened in this case.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reading Courcelles' response, I have to ask: was there in fact a BLP violation in the history?—S Marshall T/C 17:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that NW has restored the history after revdeleting the BLP violation, which would seem to address the issues here. I think this debate can be closed with that result.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete - with no objection to a redirect. I think thats what he meant anyways. There can be nothing of any value in the history anyway, there is nothing of value in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support history-only undeletion. Most of these Playmate list articles were created by cutting-and-pasting existing articles, rather than history-preserving merges, and deletion of the individual articles without preserving access to the history may therefore not be appropriate under the licenses involved. So far as I know, there is nothing particularly objectionable in the article history. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history the content on this person at List of Playboy Playmates of 1987 was created by coying and pasting the content of this article (with some very minor changes it's the same as the content that is there today) so we have to keep the history around for attribution reasons. Hut 8.5 17:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're going to do that, you need to be very careful in re BLP. There are definitely things there that shouldn't be restored, and never should have been added to the encyclopaedia in the first place. Courcelles 20:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to comply with our legal obligations we have to do one of the following:

Restore the history of this article
Copy the edit history to a subpage talk page of the redirect target and link to it from the edit history
Delete the target article.

I don't particularly mind which, but BLP doesn't excuse us from complying with Wikipedia's licensing. Hut 8.5 21:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely convinced that such a thing is needed, as the blurb in the article is two lines long. Nevertheless, I have undeleted the article history and revdeleted the revision texts. NW (Talk) 01:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This solution is satisfies WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, as I have already discussed with NW, it doesn't correspond to the apparent consensus in this DRV, which is to restore the history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing the current state, but my opinion is that most comments (excluding yours) do not distinguish between the minimum licensing requirements, which allow revdel as applied by NuclearWarfare, and full page history restoration. Consensus is not as clear-cut as it appears at first glance. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with other users that the original version of List of Playboy Playmates of 1987 was created as a collection of unattributed copies. Marina Baker, Luann Lee, and Brandi Brandt (the longer entries) are obvious copies. I started with a {{Copied}} for Marina Baker. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list had been trimmed significantly and the copied content was not mentioned at the AfD, so it was difficult to see that copying had occurred until someone pointed it out. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore history: Easy to do.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history. The result of the AfD was redirect, and that should not have caused the history to be deleted. If there was anything problematic in the history, only the problematic revisions should have been deleted, not all of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the close of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect, there is no consensus for, as a rule, deleting or not deleting the page history before redirecting. It's left to the discretion of the closing admin. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should note that per my discussion with Courcelles at User talk:Courcelles#Pamela Stein, the only BLP violation being alleged was the presence of the subject's children's names. But the vast majority of the revisions didn't mention the children's names. Per my request to User:NuclearWarfare at User talk:NuclearWarfare#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 18#Pamela Stein (closed), who referred me to User:Courcelles where I raised the issue at User talk:Courcelles#Pamela Stein, I have alredy undeleted the revisions that didn't mention the children's names. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I'm reading this diff correctly, it should be possible to restore the removing edit by User:Epbr123 (history, "rm unsourced") also. That would allow a more precise oldid to be referenced by {{Copied}}. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So...the history has been restored by NW, with the revisions containing BLP violations having been deleted. I don't think there's anything left to be done here. For what it's worth, I think deleting the history should usually be up to the closing admin's discretion when the AfD result is "redirect." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to restore any BLP-violating revisions here. The history's already been restored to the maximum extent that it's restorable within policy.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 May 2011[edit]

Dominic J. Marino, DVM – Not ready to be restored to mainspace – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I believe I have fixed any issues regarding notability. Katiecoggins (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: revised draft is at User:Katiecoggins/Dominic J. Marino. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a date of birth, a place of birth, a nationality, or any of the other usual biographical information available from a reliable source?—S Marshall T/C 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continue rewriting It's not the routine bio that is being asked for that would make him notable -- what would make him notable is the work he did. But I see no real evidence that he is. The references are self-published or local or directory listings. The article is written by repeating the same things several times over --a hallmark of promotional writing. The awards are minor and local. The accomplishments are minor and local--and qualified by "one of the first" , "helped develop", "one of the few" and so on -- another hallmark of promotional writing. The institute he founded is local. He has held no national positions, he has never been on a veterinary school faculty. But checking Google Scholar, there are a number of publications in good journals with citation figures in the 20s, which along with his book, might prove him a specialist in his field according to WP:PROF. That the article does not mention these implies it is the work of an editor with COI who does not understand Wikipedia. There are the similarly promotional articles by the same editor at Canine Chiari-like malformation, New York Veterinary Foundation, and Long Island Veterinary Specialists, all of which are somewhat dubious. DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 ice hockey bios – Restored by deleting admin. – DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Contrary to WP:DEL, the following 15 referenced (actually 19) stub-articles were unilaterally speedy deleted after their BLPPRODs were removed by 3rd parties. This matter has been discussed on the deleting admin's talk page. I would have put them altogether into one request, but I did not know how to format such multiple request. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The players in question, with explanations of who they are

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Alexander Galchenyuk: Alexander Galchenyuk (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A professional ice hockey player with a 21 year pro career; played in the 1998 Olympic games with Team Belarus; played in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team Belarus; played 9 seasons of major league hockey in the Russian Superleague; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Vasiliev (ice hockey b. 1984): Aleksei Vasiliev (ice hockey b. 1984) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A former major league ice hockey player who played in the Russian Superleague; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Fleury: Damien Fleury (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A professional ice hockey player who has competed in two IIHF World Championships (2008 and 2011); passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Rodman: David Rodman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A professional ice hockey veteran of 14 seasons; he has competed 7 times at the IIHF World Championships (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011) with Team Slovenia; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremie Romand: Jeremie Romand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This ice hockey player was a member of the 2008-09 French All-Star Team; he comepted at the 2011 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team France; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Janil: Jonathan Janil (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

An ice hockey player who competed at the 2011 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team France; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Desrosiers: Julien Desrosiers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This ice hockey player is a 6 time French All-Star and the 2008-09 MVP; he has twice competed at the IIHF World Championships (2008 and 2011); passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matej Hočevar: Matej Hočevar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A professional ice hockey veteran; he has competed twice at the IIHF World Championships (2009 and 2011) with Team Slovenia, passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Moisand: Maxime Moisand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

An ice hockey player who competed at the 2011 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team France; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eskesen: Michael Eskesen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A professional ice hockey veteran; played in the 2011 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team Denmark; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitja Šivic: Mitja Šivic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A professional ice hockey veteran of 14 seasons; he has competed 7 times at the IIHF World Championships (2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011) with Team Slovenia; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Arrossamena: Nicolas Arrossamena (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This ice hockey player competed at the 2011 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team France; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Kemi: Philip Kemi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Rookie Elitserien player (major league); passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Trabichet: Teddy Trabichet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This ice hockey player was a 2009-10 French All-Star; he has competed twice at the IIHF World Championships (2008 and 2011) with Team France; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Žiga Pance: Žiga Pance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A professional ice hockey veteran; he has competed 3 times at the IIHF World Championships (2009, 2010, and 2011) with Team Slovenia; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ziga Jeglic: Ziga Jeglic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

2011 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team Slovenia; ; passes WP:NHOCKEY; Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Quemener: Ronan Quemenerc (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A member of France's men's national ice hockey team; named as the French League Best Goaltender (2010-11); passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Dosdall: Cory Dosdall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Minor league hockey player with 100 plus games played; passes WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesper Jensen (ice hockey b. 1991): Jesper Jensen (ice hockey b. 1991) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

2011 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team Denmark; passes WP:NHOCKEY; Contrary to WP:DEL, this referenced stub-articles was unilaterally speedy deleted after a BLPPROD was removed by a 3rd party. Dolovis (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of putting these into a collapsed box to combine, I hope you don't mind, Dolovis. Any way, I am the deleting admin, and I deleted these sub-stubs per WP:IAR following comments at User talk:Dolovis#One-line stubs. Dolovis has a habit of creating these one sentence sub-stubs based entirely of a list entry of a roster spreadsheet. He's created dozens, perhaps hundreds of these. In a large number of cases, there is no non-trivial coverage of the individuals. Simply put, we can't create a proper BLP. We can't even create a proper stub. So much so that corensearchbot has incorrectly tagged his creations as copyvios because these articles literally say nothing beyond what can be found at eurohockey.net. He has received feedback about these single sentence articles being problematic on multiple occasions, yet refuses to listen to editor concerns. Such refusal goes well beyond just article creation, as many discussions with Dolovis end with him simply shutting down conversations, leaving threats and warnings on the other editor's talk page, wikilaywering or selectively applying guidelines to suit his own wishes. Given polite discourse from several editors has failed, and given most of these sub-stubs are of individuals that have little or no coverage reliable sources and consequently are BLPs that we can't actually expand into proper articles, I took the action of deleting the latest batch. In doing so, I invited Dolovis on his talk page to recreate if he could find sources to create a viable stub article. Reso lute 15:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repsonse to Resolute: I do object to Resolute hiding names and mini-bios of these notable sports persons. All of these articles are proper stub-bios about notable ice hockey players. Each players meets the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Contrary to Resolute's assertion, each article contains more than a single sentence: and in addition to the written content, they also contain infoboxes, and links to reliable sources pursuant to WP:VERIFY. These articles all comply with WP:STUB. The basic concept of creating a stub article is to provide adequate context for other editors to expand upon. That is what I have done. A stub article is the starting point for most new articles. It can not, and should not, be expected that every new article will be fully expanded to form a good article on its first edit. To mass-delete numerous stub-bios about notable sports persons, after other editors have removed the BLPPRODs, and after only a couple of days of existence, is contrary to wiki-policy. Dolovis (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis, could you pick one of the articles you have listed here? I'll undelete that for you if you agree to expand it as much as you can. If you are able to expand it at least a fair amount, then I think you would have a stronger case for undeletion. NW (Talk) 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To allow for a fair deletion review, I think that all of these articles should be temporarily un-deleted so other editors can judges for themselves the quality of the articles; but if you will just un-delete one I will select Alexander Galchenyuk who is a former professional ice hockey player with a 21 year pro career; played in the 1998 Olympic games with Team Belarus; played in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships with Team Belarus; played 9 seasons of major league hockey in the Russian Superleague; and he is currently an assistant coach with the Sarnia Sting. [14] Dolovis (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And that one was your largest creation, at two sentences. Two sentences that did not mention his Olympic or pro experience. Or any biographical history beyond his birthdate. My offer on your talk page stands, and as you have indicated a willingness to expand this article, I will restore for you. As I will any other article you choose to put a real effort into. I do have to wonder why you didn't choose one of the French national team members, however... Reso lute 17:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French IIHF World Championship players are also deemed notable per WP:NHOCKEY, and Resolute knew very well the acceptable quality of both the Alexander Galchenyuk article and the player before he deleted it. The edit comment by the 3rd party who removed the BLPPROD reads: "Are you freaking kidding us? He played NINETEEN PRO SEASONS". Dolovis (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand how NHOCKEY works. Meeting the criteria doesn't guarantee an article or provide notability. NHOCKEY is just a guideline to help you understand when there is likely news articles supporting notability. You still have to actually go and find them to proove it. As it says at the top of the page meeting the guideline does not mean an article has to be kept or can't be deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, meeting the criteria of an applicable SNG is generally taken as demonstrating the existing of an assertion of significance sufficient to prevent A7 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disagree at all. Was commenting on his comment about an article being notable because it met nhockey. Don't disagree that it is certainly an assertion that it may be notable per A7. -DJSasso (talk)

You are still missing the point. Your continued references to the BLPPRODs is immaterial. As is your incorrect argument above that you are being asked to create "good articles on the first edit". What you are being asked to do, and what you are simply choosing not to, is to put effort into these articles. The kittens analogy is apt, and you would be mindful to consider it. Your statements above on Galchenyuk above offers twice what you bothered to put into the article. Why? The articles you are creating offer little context, no substance and no idea of what point in time they refer to. Instead of taking the time to find a couple non-trivial sources on these players, you just whip out whatever shows up on a roster list somewhere and leave a mess for someone else to fix. We both know that you won't put the effort in to make viable articles, stubs or otherwise unless pressured to. Thus, here we are, because you are wasting the time of several editors at this point. Reso lute 19:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)All the articles were single line (two depending on the size of your window). So its a bit disingeneous to state that he is incorrect and that there was more. There wasn't more. Infoboxes are not excuses to not put any information in prose. External links as well are not sources (though they can be uses as them if they are put as inline sources). WP:BLP is something that it looks like you need to read. Requirements for creating articles for living people are much more stringent than creating stubs for non human subjects. For example creators of BLPs are expected to source specific statements about their subjects. And should ideally have sources to also indicate their notability when they create them. No one is asking you to have a fully developed article. They are asking you to comply with BLP so that one line articles that could theoretically be harmful to a living person are not created. Its hardly too much to ask you to take two minutes to actually do more than just copy names off a roster and start an article. I would also note alot of the infoboxes on the types of articles in question are often empty and on a number of occasions you have created articles with references that don't actually lead to an existing webpage or talk about the player they are supposedly referencing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KITTENS. I'll put effort into reviewing a deletion if there's been some effort gone into the article. There hasn't, so I won't; it would be less effort to re-create these microscopic sub-stubs as proper articles than to debate the matter here. (For closure purposes this should be read as endorse without prejudice to re-creation of a proper article.)—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wayne Gretzky article was created with the five words; "The Great One". Now retired.[15]. Most every article starts as a stub, and as Wikipedia is a community project, it is not solely on the article's creator to deliver a finished article. Despite what Resolute claims, every article that I have created has context, substance, and non-trivial sources on these players. And if you disagree with me, the proper course is to nominate the article for deletion, pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, so that the community can decide if it should be deleted or not. No single admin should have the unilateral power to speedy delete an article that, in his personal opinion, is not worthy. Dolovis (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the effort you put into that reply, you could have created a proper article. And then I would very happily be defending you at AfD or DRV. Seriously: why not put this thought and effort into content creation?—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these articles should be sent to AfD were the community would decide their fate, and not just 'speedy deleted' based on the unilateral whim of an admin. The fact is that none of these 15 articles would need your defense in an AfD as they would all certainly be a "Strong Keep" under the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again since you appear to ignore it every time someone tells you. WP:HOCKEY isn't a guarantee of an articles notability. It is just a guideline to help people understand when articles are likely to exist about a player so that you know you should go and find them. Most (not all) of these players above are not very likely to have in depth articles about them since they play in countries that don't cover hockey all that much which is why you have been asked to find sources that cover them in siginificant detail as required by the WP:GNG and not just roster listings etc as you have. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If notability is the issue, then I encourage you to un-delete these articles and nominate them for AfD, as that would be the proper procedure to following pursuant to WP:Deletion policy. Dolovis (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't the issue, I was just commenting on your comment that it would be a definite keep. The issue is creating BLP articles without good sources. Unsourced BLP info can be deleted immediately. Creating one line articles on BLPs without any sources on it that contain significant info on them creates a big issue with BLP. All anyone is asking you is to take a few extra minutes and find a source beyond a roster listing and then source some information in the article when you create it. It doesn't have to be a fully fledged article. But it should contain some information. You have given more information in this discussion on some of these players than you did in any of the articles which leads us to a no context situation in some of them. -DJSasso (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't listening to what S Marshal, or indeed, what no less than SIX different editors are telling you: you aren't putting any effort into these sub-stubs. You are just creating a mess and leaving it to someone else to fix. That is the reasoning behind my deletion: to clean up the mess. I respect Geni's criticism below, and assure them that this application of IAR is a one time effort. Anything more would easily become pointy. The question, Dolovis, is whether you will respect the advice of several users who are asking you to be more prudent in your article creations. Reso lute 20:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Due to their very nature professional sports players tend to generate an unreasonable amount of coverage and thus it's not really legitimate to argue that they can't be sourced. Mass deleting articles because you don't like the way a user is creating them is not an apropriate use of admin powers. The issue should be taken up with the user and if that fails the normal disspute resolution procedures.©Geni 23:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy overturn. Out-of-process deletions not citing any valid speedy deletion criteria. There appears to be no dispute that the individual articles each included assertions of significance sufficient to survive A7; such assertions have been present in each of the articles I spot-checked, and the deletion notes would not otherwise have needed to cite IAR as supporting deletion. The stated rationale == "per WP:IAR. Sub-stub BLP with very little hope of being expanded or properly referenced" -- is on its face not a reasonable basis for speedy deletion, particular since, in most of these cases, the issue seems not to be the availablity of sources, the the ease of access to English-language sources. "Little hope" for improvement does not meet the strict standards we set for speedy deletion; "no reasonable hope" is more accurate. The removal of the relevant BLPPRODs by other editors who apparently did not insert sourcing into the articles should receive some attention, but speedy article deletion is not the appropriate response to whatever misbehavior of that sort may have occurred. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all and AfD any thought not notable. A player for a national team in any sport is notable, as we have always held. Deleting an article that asserted it via speedy A7 is not right. There are two possible proper things to do with low quality stubs that nonetheless indicate clear notability : one is to improve them, the other is to ask someone else to at least by tagging it. A stub that identifies someone and indicates the importance is not a sub-stub. It's a genuine, valid stub, and nobody need feel the least bit blameworthy for making them. Some people help Wikipedia by writing a few good articles; some write sketchier articles, but fewer of them. As the encyclopedia is a continuing project relying on the principle of communal sourcing, to start articles and hope others will finish them is acceptable procedure, and I would not even ask someone who did it to change the way they work, I commend Dolovis for creating valid stubs. I commend him all the more that he has greatly expanded them. Some of them were challenged very early, before he could reasonably have had a chance--exactly the way we do not want to treat editors. It would be very regrettable if the personal view of a few editors—totally unsupported by policy pr consensus—that stubs are unhealthy, were permitted to affect Wikipedia; the very use of the term sub-stub or the like is a signal that improper criteria are possibly being used. Not even a source is necessary for a valid stub, though of course it is necessary that one be added. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the right place for the issue of mass stub creation may be ANI or RfC/U, but speedy deletion isn't the right way forward unless the articles actually meet the criteria. These don't seem to. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment I fully expected my decision to delete would be controversial, but it was done with the aim of improving Wikipedia. The improvement Dolovis has made to Alexander Galchenyuk as a direct result of this action is precisely what I was hoping for, and as such I consider my effort time well spent. I respect the emerging consensus here, and will undelete the remaining articles. It is my hope that we will see similar efforts in the future. If so, then Wikipedia is better for it. Reso lute 14:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all. The criteria for speedy deletion are "the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus support to, at their discretion, bypass deletion discussion and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media". To unilaterally delete an article in a situation where no CSD applies is therefore to act against the consensus formed out of thousands of hours of policy discussions, and to privilege the judgement of one administrator over the express will of the community. IAR is an inadequate justification for such deletion except in the most obvious, most urgent, and least controversial cases... and these were not. Thparkth (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

iPad 2 – This is not a DRV issue, since there is no actual deletion discussion involved. WP:ANI is probably the best venue here. – T. Canens (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The unadvertised deletion discussion was closed by a non-administrator (who had already participated in the discussion I should add) after only three people had participated. The merger was then enforced by an admin with full page protection The merger left out key information and dispersed iPad 2 throughout the article making it very difficult to read. Previously iPad (original) and iPad 2 went through successful deletion reviews and were permitted to be recreated. Both reviews concerned the administrative actions of the closing admin of this deletion discussion. I will not hesitate to proceed with desyssopping procedures if I encounter over-assertive edits from this user again. Marcus Qwertyus 03:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 May 2011[edit]

techophilia – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page depicts a group which has more than 300 user and is famous across the NCR region of India Voxedup (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - A quite correct application of speedy deletion criteria for non-assertion of notability. A student tech group? Really? I'm sorry, but go make a blog or a facebook groupTarc (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Proper A7 deletion. No assertion of notability as well as a general lack of verifiability. –MuZemike 16:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Correct speedy deletion of a student group with no minimal claim to significance that would make them a potential encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Colonel Warden/RIP – No Consensus to endorse or overturn and our jury says..... I made the endorsed and overturn arguments deadlocked at 23 each give or take a couple either way and there is no way to take any kind of meaningful consensus from that. There are arguments on each side and closing with any kind of outcome would simply be a massive great super vote. So trouts all round and feel free to relist this if anyone can stomache running this absurd discussion a third time... – Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closing administrator admits that this is an out-of-process deletion. It is my understanding that the closing administrator is not supposed to argue himself but weigh what was argued by other users. The closer argued that not consenting to the deletion of your userpages is disruptive (is arguing for a keep automatically uncivil now?) that it had no purpose (those in favor of keeping were a majority and dissagreed) and that it was a personal attack, despite the fact it's a simple list of user names. Those might be valid arguments in a delete !vote but not in a closing administrator's remarks: they should stick to the facts and obvious extensions of consensus. Despite ample bad faith among the deletion supporters there was no valid reason other than they felt offended by a list of editors that have left the project that had interactions with the author. In the absence of any overwhelming reason the closing administrator should have looked at the consensus, which was at worst no consensus. The administrator vastly overreached to impose his preference by caveat. WP:IAR does not mean that rules should always be ignored, but that they should not be followed contrary to common sense. This is not a "common sense" deletion it was a very contentious MfD debate which should not be ended by admin override. As a side note I am not the page's author however I did participate in the MfD. I have no personal stake in the DRV here except that I think allowing such deletions is in poor taste and sets a highly questionable precedent. HominidMachinae (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse deletion- closing admin got it right. Colonel Warden revealed the nature of this page as an attack page when he started edit warring to keep the name of a non-departed enemy on it. When asked what the purpose of it was, and whether that purpose could be served by having a file on his computer, Colonel Warden could not provide a convincing or satisfactory answer. The fact is that the page was divisive and seen by many editors as a vehicle for dancing on the graves of people CW didn't like. There are times when consensus goes against mere strength of numbers. This was one of those times. Reyk _YO! 07:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of the edit warring the Colonel seemed to have been unaware that Bareck was Jacks news account. As the list included at least 3 former wiki friends, the suggestion that its an attack page fails AGF and no credible argument was advanced as to why the Colonel isn't entitled to good faith. So the numerically superior view reflected consensus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my closing, I do believe that an assumption of good faith ought to stretch to cover the initial creating of this page (and maybe just to the edit warring). However, it is at breaking point beyond that.--Scott Mac 16:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, a pragmatic approach and an elegant solution to Colonel Warden's evasive wikilawyering. Per Reyk, Colonel Warden's insistence on including a non-departed user (especially despite their wishes) is illuminating. pablo 08:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Closure was certainly correct. The page was demonstrably, by the content of the debate and the surrounding actions, a poor thing to retain here and we are well rid of it - Peripitus (Talk) 09:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There are no legitimate grounds for a "hit list" to be hosted on Wikipedia, particularly if any of the subjects on the list object to it. Bringing this to DRV when the result is a foregone conclusion is getting close to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. – iridescent 10:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a perfectly reasonable DRV. There was a stunningly blatant super vote against consensus from someone who was most displeased at the Colonels success in getting a Middleton article to DkY. Further aggravating matters were two of your fellow arbs, who despite being heavily exposed to Jacks charm and good humour due to the case theyre currently presiding over, had the gall to argue strongly in his favour when they clearly should have recused. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've just argued that the Colonel is entitled to our assumption of good faith (and I agree) but apparently I'm not entitled to the same assumption from you? "someone who was most displeased at the Colonels success in getting a Middleton article to DkY". For the record, I hadn't clocked that the Colonel was responsible for that and, even had I, it would not have affected by judgement - but, of course, that would be assuming my good faith, rather than assuming (without evidence) my vicious propensity for revenge.--Scott Mac 16:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a question of appearances. You were arguing for deletion at the recent Middlenton AfD against the Colonel who created the article and whos view prevailed. Theres no question you objected to the DyK. Its good to avoid the appearance of revenge which is partly why your supervote invited a DRV. For the record I never doubted your impartiality, as you seem to be of high integrity, just excessively confident in your ethical judgment. Id usually be more careful not to risk others making inferences from my comments, especially about generally excellent contributors like yourself, Brad etc, but you guys don’t seem to be extending the same courtesy to my good friend the Colonel! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly DID extend the assumption of good faith to your "good friend". The essence of assuming good faith is looking beyond the "question of appearances" (especially when they are simply your own negative portrayals) and dealing with the issues. Dredging up unrelated issues and speculating that they may have bearing on the debate is the tactic of smear and bad faith, despite your protestations to the contrary.--Scott Mac 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youre right about the essence of AGF. But folk in authority ought to be able to think in more than one dimension at once; its not wise to ignore the question of appearances. And one of the related "issues" is your open lack of caring about both sides of this little conflict. If youd be more sensitive to the views of both sides, you may have been able to create some genuine concensus and persuaded the Colonel to agree the page is no longer a net postive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think lots of people tried to persuade the Colonel of exactly that. Since you are now reaching for things to attack me with, and using AGF as a weapon to assume the worst of me, I think I'll disengage. I can no longer assume your good faith.--Scott Mac 17:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - its a shame user:ColenalWarden didn'tjust move it to his own computer himself. Off2riorob (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closers comment nothing much to add to my closure. It is just possible to assume good faith (although poor judgement) in creating this. The excessive wikilawyering to retain such a page, without utility, shows a fundamental (and perhaps wilful) misunderstanding as to what community means, and the object of Wikipedia processes and guidelines. They do not exist for their own sake, or to allow people to play games with them for no possible benefit to the project. When they are used as such it is time to ignore the rules (which is policy) and to tell people to stop being dicks.--Scott Mac 11:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Despite being a huge admirer of the Colonel, fully accepting the clear and credible reasons he gave for the page, and very disappointed at the one sided views on offer here. Some of the editors who feel its an attack page are clearly good faith, and so Scott's correct on one point, the page is divisive and doesnt seem to be a net positive. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DRV reviews the close, which was carefully reasoned. I'm satisfied with the reasoning being within policy, in good faith, and carefully balancing the responses at xFD, which is what DRV is about. We do (rarely) expect users to make decisions that are for the betterment of Wikipedia even if not anticipated by the letter of policy; Scott Mac convinces me that he has carefully reviewed the concerns for and against and that he reasonably concludes this is a rare case for being one of them. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Detailed rationale: To review this decision is also to review the evidence that an exception is required (we aren't 1/ policy wonks, 2/ a suicide pact, or 3/ blind). These 3 edits convince me there is an above average chance the closer has correctly read this: in this deleted edit a user is added under present and past usernames. At least one past username is long retired and the user has gained the trust of a number of well respected users who concur that he has tried to "make good" the past (see various ANI/RFAR threads). The user removes themselves from CW's list and asks to be left off and is forcibly reverted and re-added together with their past account names. The self-removal is repeated and the page creator edit wars to prevent the user removing himself. The evidence and behaviors (together with other evidence noted in the xFD) suggest that concerns related to the motive for the page are plausible, the page is not clearly serving a valid purpose and its effect is that of an invalid purpose (and given the controversy I am unconvinced that this list cannot be kept off-wiki per WP:UP: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors"), it is clearly divisive, and one user has asked to be "left out of it" suggesting they don't see it as neutral. The judgment by the closing admin is therefore tenable, and deletion "with a dash of IAR" is indeed a valid close. Therefore respecting the closer's action as being within reasonable expectation of a thoughtful close. (Disclosure: I am not 100% familiar with all the background but familiar with enough to believe this is a reasonably accurate post) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

Your three links to CW's deleted page history entries can't be read by regular editors, FT2. — Becksguy (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's the nature of deleted revisions, I'm sorry. But any admin would be able to confirm they show what is described. More complete description added. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The administrator who closed this exemplifies everything that is harmful to the future of Wikipedia. A ruthless administrator who continues to abuses his authority to push an extreme agenda which he has admitted: shrinking wikipedia to an "encyclopedic paper size". This conflicts with Colonel Warden's and other editors more tolerant and expansive view of wikipedia, and indeed it conflicts with WP:PAPER itself. Unfortunately this is not the first time nor that last that "The administrator vastly overreached to impose his preference by caveat." The only reason this administrator is still an administrator is because he has a vast network of powerful allies who share these same extremists harmful views. The MFD itself was closed early by typical fiat common by this group, at that time the !vote was roughly 15 keep - 11 delete - 1 merge. I await the typical backlash for these comments by the same small group of extremist editors. Okip 14:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I one of these "extremists"? You'll notice I !voted to keep at the original MFD. But I still that the closer acted appropriately, in my view, aned endorse the close, even though my stated view in the one MFD I contributed was the opposite to this decision. Not assuming everyone is in a conspiracy would be good - most people aren't. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okip might like to review this article. This DRV is about the MfD, if you want to examine my conduct in general then please consider a more suitable venue.--Scott Mac 14:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okip is angry at something to do with wikipedia but that doesn't excuse him sporadically returning from his retirement to attack contributors. Okip hasn't made a single edit to a wikipedia article for over a year. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure per several comments above include Scott MacDonald (closer), Peripitus, and Iridescent. I note Scott MacDonald's offer to e-mail the page contents to Colonel Warden if he needs them. I recommend early closure of this DRV. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain what would justify an early closure here? Hobit (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that spending a week discussing this issue is absurd. One of the project's most precious resources is the community's time and attention, and it should not be squandered in this manner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tend to agree, though I find much of the fault with the nomination of a user page after it had been already kept and with the out-of-process deletion. In any case, I'm one of those people who think having fair processes is key to keeping users here. I think lots of people leave because they feel they are being bullied/streamrolled in the corners of Wikipedia. To allow it in such a visible place sets a very bad precedent that is harmful to Wikipedia. As a lawyer I'd hope you'd agree that the perception of fairness is sometimes nearly as important as actual fairness. I think we can disagree if the result was fair or right, but agree that closing contested discussions early often doesn't feel fair to the losers. It's a case of changing the rules midstream. I'm fine with it when there is an actual reason for the rush, but I don't see it here. Hobit (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would think that experience indicates, when the community is divided on a matter like this, efforts to abort discussion and force a resolution by fiat almost inevitably result in greater division, greater "squandering" of time and effort, and otherwise inflame the problems that the actors involved intend, or claim to intend, to reduce. I would hope that the almost uniform repetition of this effect, time after time, will taken as evidence that a substantial part of the community finds resolution-by-fiat to be more damaging/divisive than the underlying problems, indicating there is no consensus for taking them under applicable policies, and that such actions will be more determinedly avoided in the future. In plain language, it simply doesn't work, and it gets folks more upset than the original discussion would have. That what was recognized, I though, in the ArbCom decision I mentioned above, and it's disappointing to see people wikilawyering and otherwise dancing around and away fromthat well-reasoned conclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm afraid your reasoning is just as faulty as the $75 trillion dollars claim of damages of the RIAA [16]. Do you really think people spend their time on this as a substitute for doing something useful? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse because the close was well-explained and an entirely valid reading of the specific and general consensus. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 15:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and snow close this DRV. Scott Mac should be applauded for his efforts to end the drama created here by certain users on a daily basis. I'm unsure what interest a 2-month-old user would have in starting this DRV rather than allowing Colonel Warden to make that decision. Seems rather inappropriate. —SW— ^express 17:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closure was well-reasoned and grounded in policy. I've got no beef with Colonel Warden, and can even AGF that the list was created with the best of intentions, but the fact is that, regardless of its intent, the contents could have been, and indeed were, "viewed as attacking other editors" by multiple editors in good standing. Deletion was the right call here. 28bytes (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion may be the right call (though I disagree). Can you justify the clearly-against-policy speedy here? Hobit (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak overturn I'd rather not have this page around. But I strongly cannot endorse this deletion. The fact that a previous MfD ended without deletion makes an out of process deletion extremely problematic. The last MfD was in September. Another MfD of the page would have been perfectly fine. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It probably wasn't worth bringing this here for the sake of the page , which is relatively trivial, but it certainly was in order to object to the outrageous close as attack page, which it was not. It simply listed the names of a few WPedians from various camps on deletion issues. I'm sorry to have to say this, but the deletion request was essentially a personal attack, and I see supporting it here as either failing to understand it as such, or as supporting the attack on people one disagrees with. I correct the closer's statement above as follows: "It is just possible to assume good faith (although poor judgement) in ~~creating~~ nominating this. The excessive wikilawyering to ~~retain~~ delete such a page, without utility, shows a fundamental (and perhaps wilful) misunderstanding as to what community means, and the object of Wikipedia processes and guidelines." DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CW edit warring to keep a User on the page when they objected is a clear reason to delete the whole page. All such lists are nothing but trouble. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- (to DGG) Couple of things. A deletion depends of the merits of the page and the strength of argument for deletion as revealed through the debate - not on the precise wording of the nomination or (generally) the motivations of the nominator. Thus most of your reasoning is irrelevant - since it is a criticism of the nomination, of which my closure makes no comment. Second, if you read my deletion reasoning, I reject (assuming good faith) the notion that the page was intentionally created as an attack - yet I accept (again assuming good faith) that many people might reasonably interpret it to be such. The clincher is that its continued existence serves no purpose (and the creator has not given a valid reason for its retention) other than to cause disruption. Our "rules" do not exist to keep things that serve no current purpose (whatever the original motivation in creating them) other than to disrupt. If the "rules" do point in that direction - then insisting they be followed is by definition "disruption to prove a point" and ignoring the letter of them is explicitly within the IAR policy. by Scott Mac

IAR is not intended to give scope to allowing deliberate provocation of an editor by a confirmed sock puppeteer. I recognize you thought you were doing well to terminate the discussion by any means available, but you should have found another way, such as using NPA to throw out the nomination. It was not a good faith nomination. It was the nomination that was created to disrupt. (I think it might have been possible to get the Col. to withdraw the page by some quiet negotiation.) DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely are right, that isn't what IAR is for, so you'll be delighted to know that isn't what I used it for. Perhaps the nomination was a personal attack, perhaps it was bad faith. I really don't know or care for the purposes of a close. If you think the behaviour of the nominator needs examined, then let's do that via a discussion of behaviour elsewhere but- we don't keep pages to punish nominators. The state of mind of the nominator was not something I gave any thought to at all - and nor should I. Various editors in good standing interpreted this page as being an attack, and I assumed their good faith, just as I did that of the creator. Do you now care to address the relevant issues of my closure?--Scott Mac 20:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a shot at it. What number (or percent) of people must view a page as "an attack" before it can be speedy deleted as one? How clearly does it need to be an attack page? I'd argue that if opinion is split, a full MfD is the way to go. Do you disagree? Hobit (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse snow close I brought this to DRV for the same reason that I originally posted to the MfD discussion. I got the sense that an innocent user was being ganged up on by a group of savagely uncivil editors trying to delete an innocent userpage. However now that enough people who are being civil and are not related to people embroiled in the list controversy have seen this and by far most endorse deletion, it is obvious my interpretation of the situation was mistaken. No need to prolong the drama in my opinion. And to clarify I meant to disrespect to the closing admin: a DRV to confirm you made the right choice should lay the issue to rest forever, I simply had procedural questions here. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, though DGG made an excellent point and it would be considerate to leave this open for another 12 hours in case the Colonel wishes to have his say. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose any snow close of this DRV. It's clear there is an ongoing discussion with sufficient opposing votes to render WP:SNOW inoperative. — Becksguy (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and reopen discussion. Because the discussion ran for only about half the prescribed period, the community was closely divided, and active, substantive discussion was ongoing, no substantive close could be valid. Therefore, only the claim that this was a valid G10 can justify deletion. The use of G10 in this context is questionable at best, and, more important, use of G10 here apparently is strongly disapproved of, if not outright barred, by a relevant ArbCom decision on such use of userspace.
In the Tobias Conradi arbitration, the ArbCom set out, unanimously, a set of principles to be applied to matters of questionable material in userspace. In particular, while ArbCom said that laundry lists of "lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind" were not appropriate if they created "some kind of perennial 'hall of shame' or list of 'disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users'." The3 MFD diwscussion, cut short, had generally and correctly focused on whether the disputed page fell under that description. But ArbCom went on to say that "administrative deletion" was to be "avoided" unless the matter was "egregious" or "agreed [to] by usual processes." (There is a third exception, not relevant here, regarding off-page linking to material available in page history after being removed from a current page.)
Therefore, the G10 deletion, which is clearly "administrative deletion," fails. The case is not "egregious," as evidenced by the fact that the page survived a prior MFD on similar issues and the fact that the community was clearly divided in the cut-short recent MFD. The division manifested in the recent MFD also clearly had not reached the stage where deletion was "agreed [to] by usual processes." With standard "administrative deletion" not allowed in this case, all that remains is whether IAR is an adequate justification for the deletion. I believe that IAR can never, standing alone, be a justification for an administrator's disregarding a relevant ArbCom action.
I understand that Wikipedia does not run by precedent alone, that ArbCom does not unilaterally set policy, etc, etc. Those principles are most relevant when evaluating community consensus, and least relevant when evaluating the exercise of adminstrative authority. Administrative authority (like Arbcom authority) is to be used for two reasons, to enforce or implement WMF policy, and to enforce or implement the consensus of the Wikipedia community, usually as expressed by policy or guideline. Unilateral use of administrative authority, in a manner inconsistent with the expressed exercise of ArbCom authority, is probably never appropriate, and certainly requires both rare and exigent circumstances. This deletion fails that test. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When arbcom wrote those things, I seriously doubt the intention was to provide a ground to allow people to retain quite useless pages in the face of objections, and at the cost of disruption. Do you want me to ask them? Whether it was an "administrative deletion" or a simply close is yet again one of the pedantic distinctions through which IAR is designed to cut. Our precidents and processes are there to serve the core purposes of the encyclopedia, not to allow people to prolong arguments that move precisely in the other direction.--Scott Mac 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reasonable way to maintain this was a "simple close," given that discussion was ongoing and the standard discussion period was barely half-over. I do think ArbCom intended to strongly deter unilateral administrative action in this area, given the examples of heavy disruption which had resulted from past disputes, most prominently with regard to userboxes. I think ArbCom might well have preferred allowing "quite useless pages" to remain in preference to allowing the sort of ill will that may fester after deletion by fiat. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on policy and Arbcom:

The Tobias Conradi case was in 2007. Arbcom's words were eventually incorporated into user pages guidelines. The guideline is stable and clearly states: "in other namespaces [than mainspace] there are restrictions aimed at ensuring relevance, value, and non-disruption to the community" and covers "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors" (even if that is not its purpose, the issue is if it can be perceived as such). This list, though strictly speaking only an uncommented list of usernames, was widely felt to be a list of opponents or disputants of some kind and be an implied attack on other users or "laundry list" by listing them in a list of some kind of "wrongdoers" or "graves to dance on" or "past opponents". Right or wrong, that is the feeling that a significant number of people had from it. It was sufficiently problematic that one person listed there sought to be removed and the list creator edit warred to keep them on it. Usual processes include nomination at xFD, second nomination when matters resurfaced, closure by IAR (which is a "usual process" when applied correctly, though not a usual occurance), and DRV to discuss the correctness of the close. The close represented the closer's understanding of consensus and community sentiment, and it looks like it has been received as an appropriate and thoughtful balancing of policies and priorities, as witness the significant number of endorsers - including users such as myself who actually !voted "keep" at the MFD, and the DRV nominator who has said he's now satisfied the DRV can be withdrawn since it was not as he believed when he drafted it.

In brief I do not see a breach of any Arbcom ruling (please do ask them if unsure), and this is in line with normal process and completely within long-standing userspace guidelines. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overrule per nom and DGG. This would be a harmless user page, before it was publicized. The deletion is a horrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion Page ran afoul of a number of guidelines. Deletion was a great way to remove a divisive, borderline attack page without drama or dragging its creator through the mud. -- ۩ Mask 21:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I hope that almost all of us can agree that the goal here has to be to reduce the politicization of deletion processes. I think that some people participating in this debate on both sides have been guilty of doing the opposite. I do think that somebody else should have closed the MfD; I think it might have been better (might have been) if the MfD had run its course. But ultimately, administrators have to have some way of reducing cycles of increasing political tension short of blocks (which historically haven't helped). Given that this page fairly clearly had an inflammatory intent, it is well within administrative discretion to delete it. Chick Bowen 23:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Humm, the last MfD strongly claim to the opposite conclusion about the intent. Further, folks like kww (certainly not an ally of CW and someone who is very familiar with CW) felt that there was no such intent. Could you explain how you can so clearly see this intent? I'll not deny it's possible, but I find that intent unlikely given who was on the list. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This looks completely clear-cut to me. By my reasoning:-
1) The purpose of DRV is to determine whether the deletion process was correctly followed; and
2) The closing admin admits that the deletion process was not correctly followed; and
3) Good faith users object to the deletion; therefore
4) We have absolutely no choice but to overturn.
I can't agree with Chick Bowen's view at all. The goal isn't to "reduce the politicization of deletion processes". It's to check the process was correctly followed, and remedy if not. And I can't agree with FT2's view, because an IAR speedy would only be appropriate if there were some pressing reason why the content needed to be deleted now, and there simply isn't. And I can't agree with Reyk's view because it's predicated on the assumption that this was an attack page, but I don't see a consensus to that effect in the actual debate. In fact, what we have here is an IAR speedy deletion in a situation where there was no consensus to delete. We can't let that stand.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not commented on the speedy or snow aspects anywhere, and have not stated any view for or against them at all - so this "disagrees" with me on a point I haven't given any view. I commented on the end product only, with which I agree, not the exact process by which it got there. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I have all due respect for what you say, FT2, your recommendation, if implemented, would have the effect of permitting, and tacitly approving, the speediness/early close/snow closure/whatever other justification was used to terminate the debate and implement the closer's preferred conclusion in this case. That's why I can't agree with it.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't 'recommended' anything or suggested an 'implementation'. either. I've said that in this case, I'm content with the end result being valid via the wiki principle of "product over process". As pointed out above I !voted to "keep" so my view on the close can hardly be any reflection of personal wishes in the matter but a pure assessment of the close, its likely reasonableness, and the likely effect (if any) of the 3 days it cut short. None of which makes me think that this did harm. A sole argument that process wasn't followed is not a strong basis for an argument in wiki terms; "product over process" has been a principle in discussion closure since forever. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you say that, but I'd invite you to compare what you just said with what's written in the box at the top of this page (point #2, just under "challenging deletion decisions"). And I'd also invite you to ask yourself whether it carries weight, at a deletion review, to say either "endorse because I agree with the outcome" or "overturn because I disagree with the outcome". My position is that these arguments carry very little weight. It's a common meme that DRV is not AfD round 2.

I do have reasons why I think Colonel Warden should be allowed to keep this material in an unindexed space that aren't process-based, but in fact, at DRV, process-based arguments are often the most effective ones, so I'm working with the best tools that I have...—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's informative. We do agree DRV isn't an xFD version 2 rehash. Procedurally WP:DRV covers speedy deletions and xFD closure errors which are substantial. This clearly wasn't a speedy deletion (4 days debate and weighing up points is not in any way a "speedy" deletion even if a CSD reference was cited in the rationale). I tend to judge "substantial" by whether the process issues are likely to have prevented xFD from fulfilling its aim. The aim of xFD is to gain wide publicity for an informed debate, and allow enough time (usually 7 days) for views and consensus to be shaped. For reasons stated elsewhere I feel that while undesirable, the aim of xFD was not thwarted by the early close, hence the procedural issue was not ultimately "substantial" - it didn't have a practical effect. This was not a snap close after 18 hours following unilateral "pile-on". It was an extensive debate and it seems unlikely to me that another 3 days would have changed the validity of the given close. We may differ, but I hope this explains my view as you have explained yours. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I still need to challenge your position on that, because I view the statement that "This clearly wasn't a speedy deletion" as rather untenable. The close was three days early (which, by itself, is often sufficient to overturn at DRV). It cited a speedy deletion criterion. The debate was ongoing, it was contentious, and good faith users might well have wished to contribute further. They would have expected to have more time to phrase their remarks. There are good faith users who choose to keep an eye on the "in closing" lists, and add their opinions to the more contentious ones, on day seven. They have been denied the chance to comment. Our deletion processes, if correctly followed, would have allowed this.

In short, on the facts, I can't agree that this is anything other than a speedy deletion outside process.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Per S Marshall. This whole thing is silly and frankly everyone almost all of you endorsing should be ashamed. Anything kept by a previous discussion is ineligible for speedy deletion barring issues like copyright or other newly discovered problems. Period. This would appear to be a simple attempt at winning a race to close and that strikes at the heart of how Wikipedia is supposed to work. On the merits this A) This list causes little harm. B) This list has little use. C) This wasn't worth the dramaz to delete, have around or speedy. Certainly I think those of you endorsing should try to take two steps back and see how you'd feel about this if it wasn't CW involved. I'm having a very hard time seeing how this can be viewed as anything other than personal, especially given the split nature of the discussion previous to the speedy. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact check needed. This was not speedy deleted; it ran for 4 days as an MFD rather than a full 7. Would you like to classify my stance as "personal"? My only input at MFD was to "keep" (as stated before), yet I feel the close was valid and endorse it. Others have routinely taken care to comment on the content not the creator too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was speedy deleted. G10 per the closing statement. Did you miss that? Hobit (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citing of a speedy delete criterion may or may not reflect what actually took place. A deletion which ran for several days via MFD and was closed with a full rationale that considers all views (rather than citing a CSD criterion and nothing else) is not a "speedy" deletion whatever the closing statement might say, even if it looks to CSD for part of its rationale. Again, product not process - the same close 3 days later would have been much the same both in policy compliance and substance. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, you are claiming that the closing admin was mistaken in his rational and meant something other than what he said? I find that difficult to understand, let alone how you could then endorse that. But, granting that for a moment, what justifies the early closure? Was it a SNOW candidate per WP:SNOW? In general IAR is a bad thing to use unless either consensus was crystal clear (which I don't think you can claim it was) or if harm would occur by not using IAR (which doesn't appear to be claimed by the closer in any case). Could you explain what you see that justifies the early closure? Hobit (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is purely on the product of the MFD, not the process by which it was reached or the exact wording of the rationale. I'm not that concerned if it was closed a few days early, there was considerable discussion and the rationale was well described. The process does not appear to have had an effect that was likely to have harmed the project or significantly changed the likely outcome (eg, compared to likely result of same admin closing it after 7 and not 4 days). The closer's rationale could be expressed equally well or better without referring to IAR or CSD -- so those are not core to the decision to delete. IAR is at best just part of his reason for performing the same close early that he could validly have done after another 3 days. That's process not product. What counts most is the decision related to the page, which got considerable discussion and a thoughtful close. I'm ok with that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see a valid reason for the early close? If so, could you spell it out? On the other side, I do have an issue with early closures. My worry is the "race to the close". We've been very (very) careful about not closing AfDs early in part for just that reason (there was a glut of early closes a number of months ago and a long discussion about why this was a bad idea). Hobit (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a need for an early close, but I'm not convinced at all it prejudiced the debate. It's not like it was closed after 18 hours after one side had a "pile-on" or anything. Admins differ in approach and such, so I'm prepared to accept that with the ANI thread and drama, an admin made a judgment to shut it down early based on the significant responses at that point and a clear careful explanation of the reasons why he felt ultimately deletion was better. As I said, I might myself have left it open or !voted "keep" but I'm satisfied that the debate was a fair one and the close careful enough, to not demand a re-opening on procedural grounds. Others may differ, of course. As for the principle you raise, I agree in general, early closes are best avoided, mainly because they do inevitably raise drama and (if very early) sometimes suspicion or opposition. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we pretty much both agree on everything other than how important it was that the closure was done outside of standard policy. We both agree that early closes are generally a bad thing and (I think) that there was no need for one here. I see that as exactly the kind of thing DrV should overturn (per our mandate to see that things are done properly and fairly), you see a final result that is acceptable and therefor need not be overturned. It comes down to the question if an early closure is simply being bureaucratic to overturn, or if it is a clear wrong that must be righted. I'm not sure how you can justify an early closure here if you think the general principle has any merit at all, but I guess that's why we are on opposite sides of this discussion. I will say I'm still greatly worried by your denial that this was a speedy delete via G10 given that is what the closer stated was going on. Ah well. For the record I would have no real problem with the deletion of this (though I would prefer keep) had it been closed after the full 7 days. Hobit (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The page seemed harmless, but I didn't actually vote in the MfD, just offered a few opinions, but it seems that the MfD was clearly trending towards delete. Predictabnly, the ARS folk and the gaggle of interested parties that usually bloc-vote right alongside have showed up, though. Tarc (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're mentioning "interested parties", I can't help noticing the anti-ARS bloc-vote has also showed up in force and bloc-voted...—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit of difference between bloc-voting to support a little wiki-buddy and bloc-voting to uphold policy and common sense. Not that I'd expect you to see that. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't see any irony in that at all, do you? :)—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The irony in what, you about lose yet another DRV? :) Tarc (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to procedural closure Any other outcome encourages yet more abusive and disruptive nominations, and part of the closer's own position would be stronger with a procedural close.
Analysis shows incoherency in the closing. Is this

a delete by consensus,
an early closure using G10, or
IAR?

Case (1) Why does the closing list a "delete" closure and defend the positions of those who wanted the page deleted, but then closes the discussion early? Was there a threat to Wikipedia to continue the discussion? For my own part, I was not allowed to reply to the most recent comment under my !vote for a procedural closure. Claiming a delete consensus and then immediately self-reverting to an early closure claiming a speedy process has the appearance of an agenda to support the nomination. (This appearance is not part of the G10 itself, which explains part of the support for the G10.)

Case (2) is an early closure using speedy delete G10 criteria, which comes from Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Early_closure subsection "Speedy delete", which states, "...the nominated page unambiguously falls under at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion, particularly criterion G10 (attack page)..." It is absurd to argue that the G10 was unambiguous when this page has already survived an MfD with a "snow keep".

Case (3) IAR, is that it is the best thing for Wikipedia. How can supporting a personal-attack nomination be the best for Wikipedia?

Note that the G10 requirements under WP:CSD do not by themselves require that the attack aspect be unambiguous, so by declining to procedurally close the MfD before asserting G10, the closer has weakened his/her position. My personal opinion is that in overturning to a procedural closure with a null outcome, to leave the G10 deletion standing, as a standalone administrator deletion supported with IAR, and subject to a new and independent DRV. Unscintillating (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent pasted a copy of the deleted page to his user page, User:Milowent#User:Colonel Warden/RIP. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly inappropriate. Nominated for speedy deletion under criteria G4 (recreation of deleted material). N419 BH 06:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Flatscan, how did you find that? I cut and pasted that recently to remind me to look into what the hell everyone is going on about, before the google cache of the page (which is where I got it from) expired. Scott deleted it and I don't intend to re-post it onwiki, I now posted it off-wiki for my interest.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went to your user page from an unrelated discussion. I give a little more detail on your talk page. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are repeated rumors of edit warring above before the nomination, for those of us that cannot see the edit history, by what definition is this being called edit warring? There was edit warring between the nominator using his IP address and a third party after the nomination, right? Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From a quick glance at the history I see five logged-in users and one IP editing this page over the last week, for a total of 24 edits from May 8 to May 14. Chick Bowen 04:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How many times did CW revert Barong? Is there a basis to call this edit warring? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - CW reverted three times. Then there is a lot more editing and reverting by other people. I have no opinion about what to call this, but merely trying to answer your reasonable questions. Chick Bowen 05:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking - it was more than this. After the initial addition 5 attempts were made to remove it prior to MFDing the page (2 as an IP, 3 as an account, clearly the same person) and the self-removal was reverted by CW 4 times:

Edit history prior to MFD

06:27, May 10, 2011 -- UserX -- nominated for deletion (MFD)
06:26, May 10, 2011 -- UserX -- removed self (5th attempt)
21:40, May 9, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- reverted UserX manually and added another user
01:16, May 9, 2011 -- UserX -- removed self with edit summary "unseemly grave-dancing" (4th attempt)
17:43, May 8, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- reverted UserX using UNDO
11:43, May 8, 2011 -- UserX -- removed self with edit summary "removing my prior account; leave this be Colonel Warden" (3rd attempt)
10:02, May 8, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- reverted UserX using UNDO
09:59, May 8, 2011 -- UserX -- removed self (2nd attempt)
18:31, May 1, 2011 -- Colonel Warden - edited page layout
18:29, May 1, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- reverted UserX using UNDO
09:22, May 1, 2011 -- UserX -- removed self (1st attempt)
08:24, May 1, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- added UserX -- edit summary "update"

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FT2's table is inaccurate in several ways. In particular, it omits some of Barong's incivility. Here's a corrected version:

Edit history prior to MFD

06:27, May 10, 2011 -- Barong -- nominated for deletion (MFD)
06:26, May 10, 2011 -- Barong -- removed self with edit summary "yes, we know you're a wp:dick, colonel ;"(5th attempt)
21:40, May 9, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- reverted manually and added another user
01:16, May 9, 2011 -- Barong -- removed self with edit summary "unseemly grave-dancing" (4th attempt)
17:43, May 8, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- reverted using UNDO
11:43, May 8, 2011 -- Barong -- removed self with edit summary "removing my prior account; leave this be Colonel Warden" (3rd attempt)
10:02, May 8, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- reverted using UNDO
09:59, May 8, 2011 -- 125.162.150.88 -- removed self (2nd attempt)
18:31, May 1, 2011 -- Colonel Warden - edited page layout
18:29, May 1, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- reverted using UNDO
09:22, May 1, 2011 -- 125.162.150.88 -- removed self (1st attempt)
08:24, May 1, 2011 -- Colonel Warden -- added User:Jack Merridew aka User:Gold Hat, User:Davenbelle, &c. -- edit summary "update"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 2011-05-22T07:33:14 (UTC)

So those claiming the page-owner was "edit warring" claim that 4 reverts in 9 days in your own user-space is edit warring? Is there any basis for such a claim? Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm inclined to say this should be overturned, I certainly disagree with the way that the deletion was handled. But honestly, the page really added nothing to the project and caused a lot of drama (perhaps unfairly), so I think that the best thing to do would be to drop this and move on. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn While I think the closing admin did what he thought was best, ultimately it was improper to speedy delete instead of basing a decision in full on the discussion. The correct remedy is to reopen the deletion discussion for a short period of time and have an uninvolved editor make a decision as per policy. At this point, I think the page is stupid but what's the point of having all these policies and procedures if we're just going to wing it? I know some people are in favor of winging and ignoring all rules, but that normally results in injustice like it did here. One single admin's personal opinion does not outweigh the sum of all of our ours. EdEColbert^{Let me know} 05:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closing admin summed up the original discussion perfectly. Whether or not it was originally intended as troll/attack a number of editors feel it is one, and the owner's refusal to remove it seems more pointy than anything else. N419 BH 05:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Comment Just look at what we have here; claims and counter-claims of bloc-voting, some agf-related doublethink, yet another comeback from the battleground king, a quite stunningly irrelevant WP:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR from an established admin, a overlong and subjective summary of other people's !votes …
This all seems to me to reinforce the view that the original page was disruptive and divisive and the decision to remove was a good one; the encyclopaedia is much better off without it. pablo 09:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Given that the page was kept uncontroversially at the initial AFD only a few months back, it might be better to infer that the recent deletion nomination was the real cause of the disruption. Certainly many of the comments here are made in good faith, but it's hard to escape the feeling that the real heat here was generated by an ongoing, pre-existing dispute centered on personalities rather than encyclopedic value. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beside the point, which is that there was disruption.
    You could also argue that the nomination was precipitated by Colonel Warden's insistence on adding and re-adding an active editor (thus clearly not 'resting in peace' ) to his little list against that editor's express wishes.
    The deletion was a bold and sensible attempt to reduce that disruption. pablo 08:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion – such "Hit lists" are de facto attack pages which serve no purpose in the betterment of the encyclopedia and as such was a proper deletion; going through the process for the sake of process is not going to change that. –MuZemike 16:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that it was a snow keep last time around, could you explain how you can be certain a normal closing of this wouldn't have resulted in the material still being here? It's pretty hard to call it a clear attack page when it was kept last time around... Hobit (talk) 02:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd: Aid memoirs? Hit lists? Everything related to the discussion of this silly list has been absurd. Let the whole thing die, we really have better things to do.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like reposting the list? –MuZemike 20:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, I removed that and Milowent has accepted it. I think it was a perfectly good faith action on his part.--Scott Mac 20:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, me reposting the silly list (surely a vicious attack!!) is included.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During a DRV, it's customary to temporarily restore the page under question, unless it's a BLP or copyright violation, per WP:DRV#Temporary undeletion. CW's RIP user subpage is clearly neither, and several editors have expressed an interest in the original content and history relative to participating in this DRV. — Becksguy (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously seen the material during the last MFD and now from Google cache, I can attest to the fact that it isn't a BLP violation, isn't a copyright violation, nor is it an attack page (and therefore does not meet the requirements of CSD G10). I also noted that the deletion log for the page [17] shows the second MFD as being closed as delete, instead of the speedy deletion, which is yet another irregularity.

The content of the page itself was simply a list of usernames. Some of those individuals got along with Colonel Warden while others did not. Many of them are indeed memorable figures and I can understand the reasoning behind the page creation. I really don't see it too much differently from Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians, with the exception of WP:MW not listing blocked users.

While the "RIP" title might be considered by some to be somewhat contentious, and the page would probably be better off named something else, I don't see how the actual content of the page could be considered an attack. (The MFD close itself states "I am speedy deleting this under CSD G10, with a dash of IAR. Now, let me explain. Technically, this may not actually be an attack page. [...]" [18]). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist No opinion on the content of the page, but this was an out of process speedy deletion, plain and simple. The MFD was still in progress and speedy deletion is being misused here. The comment of "Alternatively, I am amiable to overturning this closure, and allowing you to place {{db-author}} in the page yourself." [19] further shows the speedy deletion was improper as it clearly shows the deleting admin is casting a "super vote". I find some irony in the deleting admin having signed [20] Wikipedia:Petition against IAR abuse and yet doing this exact sort of IAR speedy deletion. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Clearly an out of process speedy deletion. Agree w Tothwolf, EdEColbert, and Hobit that this is not acceptable.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question for closer Could you explain what justified the early closure? G10? IAR? Something else? Why would waiting for the full 7 days have been the wrong thing to do? Hobit (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Closer appears to have ignored the arguments for keeping, and the discussion was closed prematurely right in the middle of discussion before the seven-day period was up. Administrators are supposed to consider the merits of the argument and while this may in some cases cause controversy, they should avoid needless controversy by steamrolling opinions they disagree with. If there are arguments on both sides, presented in good faith, it is much better to stick to the timetable, not interrupt the debate out-of-turn, and in any case the closer needs to explain himself much better than this, otherwise the "hack through and do it now, process by darned" admins are given an undue amount of power. Considering that CW's opponents, such as Kww, argued for keeping indicates that this was nowhere near as clear cut as Scott Mac thought it was. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please re-read the close. This close was a proper application of policy. Wikipedia's processes and conventions exist to improve the encyclopedia, they do not exist to be used to retain material that (by anyone's estimation) does not help the encyclopedia and has become (whatever the initial intention of the creator) a source of disruption and dissension. To insist that the page be kept, not because it is any way helpful (it is quite the opposite) but because it technically doesn't violate "attack" or "userspace policy" or even because the closing admin didn't follow the rule on timings, is itself a violation of policy. It breaks Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Further, as much as the guardians of process here hate IAR, IAR IS policy. IAR is specifically for cutting through rules that prevent an obvious improvement to creating an encyclopedia. Many of the "keep votes" on the MFD were based on a misreading of policy here, and thus can be discounted. If DRV is about upholding policy, then surely it must uphold this close. Because policy does note allow technicalities of process to be used to keep stuff that's become counter-productive to our key aims. If this closure is overturned, and because of process technicalities, either another MFD is caused, or a divisive (and useless) page is kept, then policy will have been violated.--Scott Mac 08:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This debate's been full of opinion statements made in the emphatic declarative, and they're getting shriller and more strident as time wears on. I would particularly take issue with the phrase "This close was a proper application of policy". Actually, while editors are encouraged to ignore the rules in their efforts to improve the encyclopaedia, our custom and practice is that use of the administrative tools is more circumspect. We elect admins to enforce the rules, not to ignore them. This isn't to say that there are no circumstances in which an IAR speedy would be appropriate—I can construct scenarios where I would approve of it—but this certainly wasn't one of them. A debate was ongoing, and there was no consensus at the debate.
    I rather suspect that this debate only came about because a user didn't want his former name associated with his current one. In my opinion, the right to vanish only applies if you've actually vanished. If you're still editing, then I think it's entirely reasonable for editors to want to associate your name with your previous edits, and to keep track of your changing Wiki-identity in their userspace. Using MfD to hide your previous identity is definitely not okay unless you're vanishing. I'm pleased that this debate has publicised the associations between certain accounts.
    Personally, I'd prefer it if everyone—and certainly everyone who edits BLPs—displays their real name, location, and date of birth on their userpage. It might encourage a bit more of a responsible attitude to the Wiki. I reluctantly accept that some Wikipedians are children, or vulnerable people, who need to hide their real life identity. I do not accept that they get to change their Wiki-identity like they change their socks.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - But your argument boils down to citing a set of rules and processes in order to defend the retention of a perfectly useless page that was causing disruption and ill-feeling. That is explicitly not what our processes are designed to allow.--Scott Mac 11:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't speak for S Marshall, but I think the problem is the following "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." I've yet to see a clear justification of breaking the "discussions last 7 days" rule. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        My point (which is in addition to others that I've made during this DRV) was that it's not a "perfectly useless page", because among other things, it's CW's record of the associations between different accounts belonging to the same people. My position is that he's legitimately entitled to keep track of that information in his userspace.—S Marshall T/C 13:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps CW can look them up over at facebook, then. User-space isn't a personal rolodex. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you think users should be able to switch accounts at will, Tarc?—S Marshall T/C 17:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't have the slightest idea as to what that means. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Why do you think Barong nominated the page for deletion in the first place? Was it perhaps out of an innocent and righteous sense of outrage on behalf of his dear departed wiki-chums?—S Marshall T/C 19:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. As the deleting admin himself pointed out within his reasons for deleting, the deletion was a) out of process, and b) based on a technically incorrect reading of CSDG10. Dolovis (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn purely on procedural grounds (I would have !voted "delete" at the MfD). This was an inappropriate use of G10. Especially in the context of a running AfD which was obviously trending towards "no consensus", it was inappropriate for one administrator to privilege his own judgement above that of the community. Thparkth (talk) 14:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn It should've run for seven days as the rules state. You can't just ignore the rules because you felt like it, or you feared someone else might close it differently than you would if you didn't beat them to it, or whatever reason he had in his mind at the time. Dream Focus 16:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job assuming good faith in your assumptions of the closer's intentions. —SW— ^comment 16:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting to be a bit difficult to assume good faith when we've not gotten an answer about why there was a rush to close. I'm hopeful that we'll get an answer about why waiting a few more days wouldn't have been acceptable. I hope you'll agree that an IAR action should come with a justification. There was, in the closing statement, a justification for the deletion, but not one about why IAR was used to speedy a page that's not eligible for a speedy --or-- closing a debate early (which ever it is he's done, it seems unclear to a number of people myself included). Hobit (talk) 17:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you manage to assume good faith without my immediately answering every question? Look, this is rules thing again, isn't it? Yes, it could have waited two days- and in hindsight it might have given less excuse for people to rule-pick on it. But my point is that our "rules" and processes simply don't exist to allow people for inexplicable (or incredible) reasons to insist in retaining matter which can easily be removed off-line, and objectively serves no purpose other than to be a source of distraction and disruption. To restore such material on the technicality that I didn't wait long enough is again to disrupt the encyclopedia to prove some point - and is a clear violation of Wikipedia's principles. You are simply missing the point of my closing even by asking the question?--Scott Mac 17:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, I feel that having a reason given for the early closure would be helpful and given you've responded to other issues (including this), I hope you'll find the time to explain why waiting wasn't the right thing to do sometime soon. As far as I can tell you've not yet given an answer. You've explained why you shouldn't be overturned (just a rules thing, IAR is policy) but not what justified the early closure in your mind. The only reasons I can see are A) to reduce drama B) the page was so bad that having it those extra days was damaging to Wikipedia or C) you wanted to be sure you got to be the one to close it. None of those seem like good reasons given the situation (and AGF), so I'm hoping you'll clarify. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Noting that I've responded to Hobit's similar question to me, above. Mentioning it here only because that addition higher on the page might be overlooked otherwise.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. Restore page and continue MfD to actual consensus (which might have ended up with CW's agreement to simply remove the former account name of a known puppeteer and account abuser... but we'll never know). 15 months ago in my own failed RFA, one of the biggest worries of those who voted against my receiving the tools was a concern that I "might" ignore consensus and close AfDs based upon personal opinion, rather than upon proper application of policy or guideline. In Scott Mac's close of the MfD, I see exactly that fear realized in another. His own closing statement grants that the page was not a violation of applicable policy and guideline, and yet his too-early close of an ongoing discussion that looked to be a non-consensus keep did not allow the prossesses set on place to be followed. Circumventing that process, and substituting guideline with a personal opinion, has resulted in more disruption than did the mere prior existance of a userspace page consisting only of names of closed accounts. Userspace subpages are never required to be "encyclopedic". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Overturn The page should have been deleted. But such a divisive use of WP:IAR, when the exact same outcome could have been achieved with a lot less drama simply by following process, is not something I will endorse. TotientDragooned (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Switch to Overturn after reading and reflecting on Hobit's excellent point above. TotientDragooned (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit makes a very valid point. WP:IAR is set to allow such action if it improves the encylopedia: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I cannot see how deleting a non-indexed, short list of inactive user accounts improves the encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Bad close, non-applicable speedy, much as stated in the close. Closer should have !voted just like everybody else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist for another seven days. A lot has been brought up here, but it is mostly tangetial to a proper MfD discussion. Reserve closing to a completely uninvolved admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorseand trout CW for causing drama. Scott was right by the definition of WP:UP#POLEMIC "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." CW created such a page where several editors felt there was a negative vibe. Thus qualifies under CSD 10 which allows deletion upon sight. Scott did what the letter of the law advises. Could the MFD running the course continued a few more days? Probably, but so far I see alot of I dont like how the close was handled but nobody seems to be reubuting the close on policy based merit which DVR requires The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A) but nobody seems to be rebutting the close on policy based merit which DVR requires From the top of this page: "2. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions." I think we generally have agreement that this was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions ("If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations."), so DrV overturning is quite reasonable on that basis. Do I think there are good arguments to keep? Certainly. Am I arguing them here? No, this isn't MfD2. The arguments belong in MfD not DrV (where they were made).
- B) WP:UP#POLEMIC isn't part of the speedy criteria, nor should it be. WP:UP can be a reason to delete things, but not, in-and-of-itself, a reason to speedy. The bar for G10 is higher than "can be viewed as". Frankly lots of things "can be viewed" as an attack page. G10 is for things that one can expect reasonable consensus would agree is an attack page. Just like all other speedies, it's for clear cases The prior speedy keep of the same material and the on-going MfD make it pretty plain no such consensus could be reasonably thought to exist. Keep in mind speedies are for clear cut things. This wasn't that (again not just my opinion but the previous MfD result and the MfD discussion). Again, the relevant passage from WP:CSD applies to G10s as much as any other speedy:
  - Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.
- Hobit (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - But your argument still boils down to citing a set of rules and processes in order to defend the retention of a perfectly useless page that was causing disruption and ill-feeling. That is explicitly not what our processes are designed to allow. And now you will restore a perfectly useless page and doom the encyclopedia to more distraction and disruption because some "rules" weren't followed. This is the antithesis of Wikipedia's core policy.--Scott Mac 20:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - First of all, I and others don't think there was a need, in policy or any reality, to delete this. Was it helpful? Not really. Was it worth deleting? No. The point we became doomed to distraction and disruption was when you speedied this. Before that we just had a highly-attended MfD. Now we have drama. Secondly, as far as I can tell you still haven't explained why it was so pressing to delete this out of process rather than waiting a few more days. It seems a reasonable question. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's misrepresenting the facts. What you'd had was an edit war (see above), and two MFDs, none of it discussing anything that had any bearing on the encyclopedia, all because instead of removing a useless page, CW insisted in proving some point by retaining it. All that distraction had happened before I came along. What I saw was sane editors saying "it is useless, now disruptive, let's delete it" and others saying "it is useless, but there's no rule against it, and technically CW it isn't..." (which is using rules to retain something that had become unhelpful, which is an abuse violating WP:BURO). Now, perhaps I could have been patient and waited two more days because of some other rules. Maybe with hindsight that would be better. But bringing this useless page to DRV was obly going to cause more disruption to prove some minor point - and restoring it even more. It will simply end up back on MFD - and cause even more disruption. Well, on your head be it. Overturn it. I wash my hands of it. Upholding rules and process obviously matters more than worrying about whether they are being used to further disruption, trolling and deliberate provocation (which is exactly what CW is doing by insisting in keeping this on-wiki). Make you process people - but the resulting disruption is on your head.--Scott Mac 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In reviewing the edit history of the page, only edit warring I see is from User:Jack Merridew while using 125.162.150.88 and Barong. Edit summaries used by Jack such as "unseemly grave-dancing" [21] "yes, we know you're a wp:dick, colonel ;)" [22] (followed immediately by an MFD [23]) are not helpful. Further self-described trolling by Jack was also disruptive: [24] [25] [26] [27] "see prior edit summary; trolling Bish's comments, now ;>" [28] "fix ;)" [29] "but i don't care ;>" [30] Is this the edit warring you are describing?
        I see something small turned into large scale trolling/disruption from Jack which spilled over to User talk:125.162.150.88, ANI, and even Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification with a MFD even being used. If this is the type of behaviour Jack is going to continue to engage in, I see a community ban in his future. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Hobit - I've already noted above why I don't consider this to be a speedy deletion. Even if the closer cited a dozen CSD criteria, the reality is this was a lengthy several day debate and a balancing of arguments. DRV's coverage of speedy deletion is because genuine speedy deletions don't have any process beyond "admin see / admin delete". This one well and truly did. A closer is entitled to early close a debate for good cause. The closer believes, honestly and in good faith, that good cause existed, and you believe honestly and in good faith it wasn't needed. My point to both of you is "product over process" - and 4 days debate with careful reasoning and encouragement by other policies to look at the broader picture (WP:UP and other arguments cited) convinces me not that it was "perfect" but that in the broader picture the close was a reasonable one. Hence endorse. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per Hobit. Scott keeps saying that this is "a perfectly useless page that was causing disruption and ill-feeling." However, this does not in this case adequately justify summary deletion under G10, IAR, or any combination thereof. As anyone who frequents MfD knows, perfectly useless pages are routinely discussed and, after a period of seven days has elapsed, deleted by an uninvolved administrator. There should generally be a good reason for closing a MfD discussion early. In this case, Scott cited "CSD G10, with a dash of IAR" when deleting the page. Did G10 apply to this page? According to our speedy deletion policy, pages should only be speedily deleted "in the most obvious cases." So, was this an attack page? Evidently, there is disagreement over whether it should be interpreted as such; the page survived a previous MfD, and there was significant disagreement in the MfD about whether the page was an attack page. Given all of this, I think that this deletion cannot be justified under G10. Now, Scott wrote in his closing statement, "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The technical definition of an attack page, or the details of the userspace policy, do not exist for people to wikilawyer about them, or worry too much about their precise definition. They certainly don't exist to allow the continuation of something that has no purpose and has become disruption, in order to defend some vacuous technical point, and keep a page the only conceivable benefit from [what] could be achieved by non disruptive means." This reasoning, used to justify ignoring the rules, is fundamentally flawed. In Wikipedia's deletion processes, we operate under the principle that the closing admin interprets the consensus of participants in discussions and don't substitute their own opinion for that consensus. In deleting this page because he thought it was disruptive and worthless, even when many participants in the MfD (and the previous MfD) disagreed, Scott was violating that principle. IAR should not be used to justify such controversial actions, period. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- I still cannot see how this constitutes an attack page. Any drama and disruption resulting from this page has been generated entirely by the deletion process and the rather high handed action of the closing administrator. Seriously, there must be better things to do than carry on about rubbish like this. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."

"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.

--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tothwolf: These edit summaries were responses to other people's edit summaries, and make more sense in context. Tothwolf, a recent ban motion failed to pass at ANI only a short time ago. Any by the way, everyone, the RIP page was restored by the deleting admin a couple of hours ago, so this discussion should now be closed. Unless you wish to continue arguing for a full week; in that instance I would be happy to re-delete the page for you so that due process can be served. </mock> --Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becksguy has above referenced WP:DRV#Temporary undeletion, which states,

Admins participating in deletion reviews are requested to routinely restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}}

template, leaving the history for review by non-admins.

So maybe I'm wrong but I have assumed that the undeletion was so that we could look at the edit history in detail.

Unscintillating (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The {{TempUndelete}} template has now been placed on the page under discussion. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Speaking as somebody who was on the list, I know for 100% fact that my presence there was intended as an attack. He originally had the attack list under a different (obvious) name to that effect, and there was a fuss kicked up about this AN/I (?), so he just renamed it to this to try to hide the fact that it was still an attack list, but the function is/was the same. Just because he renamed it to hide the fact doesn't make it not still an attack list.Rememberway (talk) 03:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And your name is now not on the list? Was it removed because you asked for it to be, or was it because you began editing another's userpage without discussion? And if the list has been renamed, and as of its previous snow keep was not considered an attack list, why should we assume in bad faith at a later date that it must somehow still be? It seems that the only unchanging thing on Wikipedia is personal opinion of another's intent. I see a list of a few closed accounts on a page that says absolutely nothing negative or positive about any name on the list. Period. So what makes the listing of a few inactive accounts on any user's non-indexed subpage an attack, if no attack is being made? Last I heard, WP:AGF had not been rendered historic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rememberway's talk of a different name for the page in question seems to be 100% fantasy - perhaps he is confusing it with something else? The details of his own case may be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wolfkeeper/Archive. We perhaps do need another page to keep track of editors who start new accounts to evade sanction. Is there some general community resource for this? Colonel Warden (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question... We have Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, but it is primarily used for indef blocked or community banned individuals who continue to abuse the site and other editors. That does seem to be an area not really handled by either Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Need more dramaz. The vanishing act of User:Barong in front of ArbCom wasn't satisfying enough; nor was the 5:6 hung committee. Clearly more user-centric discussions are needed between the old hands. Just think of that child in Africa! Or of the Wikipedia Review. I fear they may run out of topics. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to now be moot as the deleting admin has restored the article. Not clear to me if this should be relisted or dropped. I'm personally okay with either. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trouts all around!
1) To Colonel Warden, for 1a) keeping it online at all, and 1b) under such a name rather than something unquestionably neutral like "retired editors with whom I've interacted"

2) To the closer, for shortcutting a process that did nothing but inflame the drama.

3) To those calling for Colonel Warden's head, using this as a pretext. The best thing to do with a wiki-personality you don't like is to ignore them and work on a different area of the encyclopedia.

Overall, this was pretty doggone pointless, although I appreciate how it clarifies the scope of IAR: IAR is for mainspace ("the encyclopedia") or for something that directly threatens the existence of the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like Best overall summary to date. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had supposed that RIP was simple and bland but, in the spirit of Jclemens comment, I have renamed the page "Inactive accounts". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Be aware that after this is closed, I will probably delete the page again myself. Scott MacDonald's action was completely correct; we will not have pages like this on this project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, really? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this because as most popular electee of arb com, you carry derived powers of a god-king? You are "right", there is no need to have the consent of the community? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the saying... Don't go poking hornets' nests? Just sayin... --Tothwolf (talk) 04:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two perhaps naive questions. 1) Brad --I read into your note that your take from this conversation is that the consensus is probably that the page should be restored; otherwise, there would be no page to delete. Am I reading your post correctly? 2) Do you have a supervote? If I recall correctly, Jimbo does, but perhaps others do as well and I'm not up to speed. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. As someone who finds the Colonel's shortcomings a matter for wry amusement rather than outrage I wandered along fully planning to express steadfast neutrality. It's somehow a little reminiscent of the storm in a teacup about Jack Charlton's "little black book". Along the way I also found myself endorsing Jclemens remarks (above). I do however think NYB's statement needs some clarification. If it had been made by some neophyte admin I might have been tempted to remind them on their talk page that attempts to coerce (or by extension otherwise influence by the use of authority) the actions of editors "through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite" was potentially subject to a block. Doubtless I am missing something and I would appreciate a clear explanation. Who, specifically, is "we"? Ben MacDui 11:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That read like a majestic plural to me; my understanding was that Newyorkbrad was claiming to speak either for Arbcom or for Wikipedia as a whole. If so, the politest assumption is that he'd been drinking alcohol.—S Marshall T/C 12:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- like Ben MacDui, i was looking at the "ScottMac dramafest" with amusement; oh is he acting out again? the disappointing thing is the endorsement of his actions by NYB. it tends to undermine the credibility of arbcom. if you want people to edit in article space, then you should not reward drama in wikispace. i support the comments of DGG above, when you ignore his advice, you could look like an idiot (just saying) Slowking4 (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The MFD discussion should have gone on for seven days, and the original closer was wrong in closing it early. However, the page seemed to exist for nothing except creating drama, and I read it as an acceptable closure under G10. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:01, 21 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Just wond'rin if there are any more pointless ways than this that people could be wasting so much time that could be put to better use? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question at stake is of whether Wikipedia is a community-run project, or it is subject to the better judgment of elites. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ironic e/c)Indeed. More effort has gone into agonising over this little internal sideshow, than ever went into examining how this editor got away with getting a BLP violation on the Main Page where a subject had a trivial DYK factoid on his supposed independent notability hung from a tabloid source containing barely 20 words on that, while the rest was a hit piece all about his more famous relations. A failure traceable directly to his regular habit of over-inflation of sources at Afd, an issue I believe has already been the topic of an Rfc/U, which he appears to have evaded and avoided. It's unbelievable. 6,800 readers saw that disaster. How many have read this silly RIP list? 68? MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there are, there are. This doesn't approach the scale of the hyphen vs. en-dash argument. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So much for people's wish to respect process too. Twice now I've had to remove the Colonel's false claim on the page's own talk page that this review has been closed with an 'overturn' result. Now, people were claiming that this page has a completely benign non-disruptive non-divisive reason for existence yes? Explain that then. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There do indeed seem to be some behavioural issues. Unfortunately, dispute resolution doesn't work. We won't do punitive blocks. People try punitive MfDs, and then out-of-process punitive deletions. There is a problem, and it is not the list of names. I ask the Colonel: Please be more careful. Is MickMacNee's statement correct? I would say that misleading is far more disruptive than vandalism, and we block indefinitely for repreated vandalism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put an {{ArticleHistory}} on the talk page to record the page's history. This only provides 3 options for a DRV event: "endorsed", "relisted" or "overturned". The latter seemed the best of the three as Scott Mac seems to have overturned his close by restoring the page in question. This action was again out of process so, of course, it's hard to get an exact fit with a template which is expecting more normal events. Perhaps Mick can tell us whether he still supports the Petition against IAR abuse which he started or whether he now favours such anomalous action? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in telling you anything until you drop your Ostrich routine over infinitely more serious policy/procedure issues than what happens to your 'aid memoire'. Maybe you need another sub-page to help you every time your memory seems to fail you then. MickMacNee (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Warden, could you also please explain why you removed the {{TempUndelete}} template from the page? Since we don't have one that says "The deleting admin restored the page and stormed off" it seemed the most appropriate available template. Yet you have removed it? Thanks --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like an unreasonable thing for Colonel Warden to have done. {{TempUndelete}} implies a seven-day restoration for the purpose of DRV. Scott's edit summaries and subsequent, ah, language imply that this restoration is not just for the period of the DRV. This doesn't seem like a situation where a standard template is appropriate. If you absolutely insist on adding a header box of some kind to Colonel Warden's userspace, then I would suggest a custom one. Or you could simply leave the Colonel's userspace alone and do something else.—S Marshall T/C 21:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response, S Marshall, but I was more looking for Colonel Warden's rationale. It seems a reasonable enough question. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOOT - The closing admin, Scott MacDonald, restored the page. From the Deletion Log: ( 21:58, 20 May 2011 Scott MacDonald (talk | contribs) restored "User:Colonel Warden/RIP" ‎ (48 revisions restored: restore useless trolling page, which will cause further disruption, because process matters more). Thereby overturning himself, as he noted at [31]. Later, Colonel Warden moved the page to User:Colonel Warden/Inactive accounts. Since the closer has reverted himself, overturning the DRV, and the user has renamed the page and therefore removed any cause of action from the page, this DRV is now moot and should be closed. The horse is dead, lets all drop the stick and move on. — Becksguy (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin's comments I undeleted this because I was taken aback at the heat here, and the insistence of the letter of process over the result. In retrospect that wasn't good, because I again short-circuited this process in an annoyance at process - I could redelete it, but that's just likely to cause more problems. Sorry. I'm really past caring about this, and saying no more. The person closing this should do as they see fit, it can either overturn the deletion and allow the page to remain, or endorse deletion and re-delete the page. Either will be a not unreasonable close of a contention DRV. I suspect if it remains more drama will occur, but I'm bowing out.--Scott Mac 08:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, the heat was largely from ARS Wiki-buddies. You can view it all as one meta-vote rather than a true measure of many people opposed. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, will we get an explanation as to why you felt you felt the need to close the MfD early? I could have missed it in this large DrV, but I don't think you've done that yet. Hobit (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit has posed an important question, directly above. The answer to Hobit's question is one that is of interest to me as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, and re-deletion. It's toxic-wiki bullshite. The project is best rid of such things and would be a better place wo/Colonel Warden and about half the 'editors' seeking to retain this bit of trolling. This is what project failure looks like. Have fun riding teh bomb. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect example of why I stepped in as an uninvolved editor originally to stand up for the page. I see plenty of accusations against colonel warden, but the only people I see actually *acting* incivilly, making personal attacks and being rude are the people arguing for out-of-process deletion. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That IP address has recently been used by User:Barong aka User:Jack Merridew, who is subject to Arbcom sanctions requiring him to edit only with one account, but has withdrawn his agreement to this condition and now appears to be editing in despite of the Arbcom sanctions. He created the original MfD in the first place, an action he was not entitled to take with that account. It's essential that we don't reward him pulling this stunt by giving him what he wants.—S Marshall T/C 22:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair though, ArbCom have majorly dropped the ball here; they gave JM certain advice and then held it against him when he acted on that advice. I do not blame anyone for refusing to play along with such a shitty situation. I would do the same. They cannot agree among themselves whether the old restrictions are still in force and, if so, whether or not to lift them. Unless and until ArbCom can put together a coherent position without contradicting themselves JM should be granted the same rights and freedoms as any other editor; if ArbCom can only dither, blather, procrastinate, vaccilate and equivocate then we are better off pressing on without them. Reyk _YO! 23:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we could "press on without" Arbcom, and disregard their restrictions, and let Arbcom-sanctioned editors go about removing material in a good faith editor's userspace, and close MFDs three days early to make sure those sanctioned editors get what they want regardless of what the good faith editors want, so as "to be fair". Or we could decide it's better to obey Arbcom and follow the normal process, and look to give the good faith editor what he wants even if that might be a bit disappointing for the Arbcom-sanctioned editor.
Look, Reyk, any dispute involving Colonel Warden's userspace that was started by Jack Merridew was always going to divide along party lines. There's a significant group of deletionists who were always going to vote and argue in favour of Jack Merridew (or who don't care about Jack Merridew but enjoy the idea of discomforting Colonel Warden). And there's a significant group of inclusionists who were always going to leap to the Colonel's defence (or don't care about the Colonel but definitely do care about Jack Merridew's return). We haven't got a consensus, so the risk is that the close of this debate will be a compromise rather than a decision. I'm trying to reduce this risk by emphasizing that on the one hand we have a good faith editor who's also a prolific content contributor, and on the other hand we have an Arbcom-sanctioned editor who's using multiple accounts and IP addresses to get what he wants.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gross distortion of what actually happened. You make it sound as though JM was trolling around in CW's user space looking for stuff to vandalize. Bollocks. JM saw his name on a list that he, and plenty of other good faith editors, see as a "hit list". JM has the right to object, sanctions or no sanctions. Part of the nastiness surrounding this whole JM situation is that every time he wants to do anything, right or wrong, editors like you jump up squawking "Sanctions! Sanctions! OMG Sanctions!!!1! Don't listen to anything he says because OMG OMG OMG OMFG SANCTIONZ!!!!!!!" What an unhelpful attitude to take. I could go further and say that JM's technical prowess, which for the past two years he has shared with anyone on request, and excellent article work, speak to his good faith now. Nothing like the mustache-twirling pantomime villain you seem to want to portray him as. And that things like Colonel Warden's RFCU show him to be evasive and contemptuous, nothing like your picture of him. But I know it's not that black and white; I do know that barring editors from commenting on issues that concern them by name is not acceptable. Sanctions or no sanctions. Reyk _YO! 00:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Jack Merridew isn't trolling, he certainly is doing a bang-up job of impersonating a troll. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(who's channeling I/Okip et al's bad-faith. 125.162.150.88 (talk) 06:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Doubtful. With all your reincarnation experience, a séance would be far more up your alley. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. This subpage is a scorecard of some kind; whether they are friends or foes is immaterial. It's a list of people Colonel Warden wants to note that he has outlasted; it's gamesmanship, and is not condusive to building an enycyclopedia. Whether the original deletion discussion was cut short or not is immaterial, imho. The subpage should be deleted. Reyk, that was an insightful summary.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 01:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "scorecard" hypothesis is not supported by the actual names on that subpage. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the thing they all have in common is that they are gone, and Colonel Warden is not. The list, if it were just a memory aid, would be just as useful off-wiki, stored as an e-mail or even a word document with hyperlinks. Why store it on-wiki? Because it sends a message. What's the message? It's a scorecard. That is my opinion, and if you do not agree with it, fine. I think it is a valid opinion. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - While this isn't XfD round 2, unless you are going to argue for the deletion of Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, you can't argue for the deletion of Colonel Warden's userspace list. If we go with your logic, all of these are "scorecards" of some sort. In terms of intent, there is no difference between WP:MIA and Colonel Warden's userspace list. WP:MIA cannot take the place of Colonel Warden's userspace list either, as it is and will always be "incomplete" and happens to contain only a few of the editors Colonel Warden finds memorable. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, I see your point, but I still don't think I have expressed my point very well, so I am gonna add a little more. Colonel Warden, when asked why he had created the page, said it was for a memory aid. If that is the case, why not move the material off-wiki as suggested? Colonel Warden was asked to remove the list to his hard drive, and several people offered to e-mail it to him. Once he learned the list was causing disruption and drama he could have moved the list elsewhere in order to resolve the matter peacefully and quickly. But he chose not to do so. So this is why I question whether that was the true purpose of the page. It has now been around two weeks since the original MFD nomination and teh drama continues. Some people are not making posts about the original deletion decision or about the value of the page under discussion, but are making attacks on other editors, particularly 125.162.150.88, so this thread has become a toxic mess; all this drama could have been avoided if Col. Warden had simply tagged it for deletion early on. The other two pages that you mention are not in user-space, they are in wiki-space, so the comparison is tenuous; I look at the LTA pages often while doing recent changes and vandalism patrols. --Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 16:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Similarly, had Jack Merridew disengaged at any point and never MFD'd the page in the first place, we wouldn't have had any of this drama either. As Jclemens said above, Trouts all around!
        Colonel Warden shouldn't have to move this list off-wiki nor re-justify his reason for creating it. In the first MFD he said: "These are all editors that seem to have retired and so I created this page as a way of remembering them, as their contributions will fade in time and it can be difficult to remember account names exactly. There is no particular slant to this list other than the fact of retirement. For example, my relations with User:Firefly322 and User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles were reasonably pleasant. There's possibly a few more editors I should add to the list but I've just been adding names as they come back to me." [32] I can relate to some of this too, I mass-db-u1'd everything in my userspace when this happened, however things never should have gotten to that point in the first place.
        While we are getting a little off-topic, I too make use of WP:LTA, however like WP:MIA, WP:LTA is also very much incomplete. If you spend much time around WP:SPI you'll begin to see why. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, LTA is incomplete. I am leery to add "tells" I have discovered about Grawp, for example, as he will just make use of the information himself, negating the usefulness of posting the info on-wiki. As far as the RIP page goes, I think we will have to agree to disagree, as I have not changed my opinion. --Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Regarding the nominator's intentions, I am pretty sure that after repeated attempts to get his name off the list he decided to nominate it for deletion as a way to bring the matter to the attention of the wider community as he plainly feels pretty strongly about this kind of stuff and this page in particular. Whether it was his intent to stir up drama or not I don't know, but drama would be a foreseeable outcome, as it seems to be the usual way of interacting for some segments of the community. Are the nominator's motivations usually part of the delete discussion? or just the merits of the page? I haven't participated much in this field so I don't know what's usual. I will post some more later if I can think of a better way to word this. --Ninja Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The perceived intent of the nominator is often called into question in deletion debates, can be relevant in the case of mass nominations but is generally a crap argument. pablo 20:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        ... but the status of the nominator as someone who, per clearly-stated Arbcom decision, shouldn't be editing with that account, is a bit more substantive.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You are mistaken. Arbcom's stance on this is not clear at all. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        And even if it were, people cannot be prohibited from commenting on pages that mention them by name. Reyk _YO! 22:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Arbcom's stance in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jack_Merridew_ban_review_motion#Final_decision is final, near-unanimous, and crystal clear. I think that you and Reyk have a point when you say that subsequent remarks by individual arbs have been lamentably unclear and contradictory, but I rather think that the reason they have not retreated from their "final decision" is because there is no consensus in Arbcom to change it. The final decision Arbcom has written down is the one we must take seriously, unless and until the Arbs or one of their clerks unequivocally indicates that there is a consensus in Arbcom to change it.
        Jack Merridew's comments seem quite welcome, to me, but welcoming his comments doesn't extend to allowing him to use MFD as dispute resolution, or therapy, or whatever that nomination was, when he's disobeying Arbcom sanctions. The way I'd understand it is that he's got a voice but doesn't have the standing and entitlements of a good faith editor.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see at the bottom of that page that he withdrew from that agreement on April 25, 2011. And Arbcom did nothing about it. Please review this page, if you have not already done so. Surely you have been following this case? Arbcom has not withdrawn editing privileges; in fact they have been sitting on their hands since the middle of May. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't try to defend Arbcom over the delays, which I agree have been extensive. Equally, it's not my place to censure them, and I won't try to anticipate or second-guess their decision in that ongoing discussion. My position is that Arbcom's most recent decision continues to apply until they change it. My position is also that Jack Merridew is not entitled to create on-wiki drama with any of his accounts, and that using MFD as dispute resolution is one of the things that he specifically isn't entitled to do.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you reading that? His right to create drama has been withdrawn? He is specifically not entitled to use MFD as dispute resolution? Sorry, I don't see that written down anywhere. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is only allowed to edit from one account. And the account he nominated this with isn't that one. I don't think it's overly relevant to this DrV (I would argue that his !vote could be ignored though in both this DrV and the MfD, but frankly that doesn't matter much given the attendance at both). His history of harassing others (which got him banned for quite a while) might allow us to read something into his actions here (much as you have chosen to read things into CW's actions), but I think that's a bit of a stretch too. Guessing others motivations is rarely productive and even less commonly helpful. To quote a very wise man "by their deeds you shall know them". Let's focus on what people do, rather than ascribing motives. Hobit (talk) 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion- The close is carefully considered and well justified. Given the number of editors speaking for deletion, the closer was correct to ignore arguments based on the nominator. NYB has given adequate justification for the early closure above. Kanguole 09:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You feel that wasting people's time by keeping it open is a reason to close early? People get to pick what exactly they spend time on and no one is forced to participate. I'm really not seeing that as a justification... Ah well. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. People are going to participate in discussions as they choose to do so (if they are aware of them). Leaving a discussion open the normal (or even longer) length of time isn't going to waste anyone's time. Now, if one wants to discuss a real waste of time, retaliatory XfD nominations are a very good place to start. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As opposed to the amount of time you wasted telling others to stop wasting time telling others that we shouldn't waste time? Tarc (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 May 2011[edit]

Tiago Morgado – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

<First of all I must apologise. my id in wikipedia is t.m.morgado, I am tiago morgado, and I've written an article about myself in wikipedia, which is not a reccomended procedure in the wikipedia. the only reason why I did this was because I've been identified in the page of the band where I was playing last year, here in wikipedia, listed me in their page, so I thought that It would be good to have a wikipedia page about myself (sorry if it sounds too narcisist).. I've then started to write the article, spent the whole night on it, once I had no absolutely wikipedia experiencie, and I only stated my cv, with only factual happenings, that are on my bio, and have all took its place in time. And then I listed some of the most significant releases I had in my path, I posted links to some of the pages Where I am in the social networks, and listed the references, where my bio is listed. I know that it is not a common procedure in wikipedia. But all that was there was truth, there was no hyperbolic language or speech, and it was all truth, it took a whole night to write, and I would Like to ask for undeletion, even considering that I've written something about myself. I took care and tried to do it properly, so I think that It should be considered. thanks in advance. sorry for the unconvenience.. and for unproper procedure dued to being noob on wikipedia> —Preceding unsigned comment added by T.m.morgado (talk • contribs) 06:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First the deletion of the page does not mean that it will now always be deleted and we can't have a page about you, it means there were problems now. The page was deleted for two reasons (1) it copied a lot from elsewhere so appeared to be a copyright violation, you might hold the copyright on that other material but we'd need a formal release for that (2) As promotional. You say it's based on your CV, well you use your CV to promote yourself - wikipedia is not a place to promote yourself.
You say you thought the page was OK because your band mentions your name, that's not the way it works - for inclusion wikipedia looks to see if the world is interested in you, have they written significant articles about you in reliable media - newspapers, magazines etc. but not fans on the internet writing on their blogs etc. It is quite possible that the world is interested in your band, but not that interested in you. The normal thing to ask is that if the world is interested in you, then someone other than you will eventually write the article - if the only person who is interested in writing the article is you then it suggests we shouldn't have an article about you now. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion – User is free to recreate provided material is not copypasted directly from other sources, which was what the problem here was. –MuZemike 16:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 May 2011[edit]

13 May 2011[edit]

Shaikh Amin bin Abdul Rehman – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Provided one favourable independent reference http://www.aulia-e-pakistan.com/LivingAulia.php, one unfavourable independent reference http://www.thepersecution.org/dl/2010/annual_report2010.pdf and one favourable reference by followers http://www.realandrare.info/. Ariusmuhammadi (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you clarify on the first you give there. I can't see a favourable reference their, I can see a basic directory listing which tells me next to nothing, is there something more there that I'm missing? (It also appears to be based on user contributions so likely isn't a reliable source) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't find much in your second reference some more guidance on which part of the 150 page doc is about the subject, I can't see anything significant, a passing mention at best. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first refers to Auliya, spelled Aulia there, which means friends of God; it includes a reference to Sheikh Amin Sahib in the third row of the pics of Aulia. Because followers of the Shaikh deem it against their concept of Fana-fi-Shaikh (i.e. extinction of self in love of one's Shaikh (for theophanic sharing of spiritual blessings) to mention other Aulia alongside Shaikh Amin, it is obvious that this reference is from an independent source not among his followers.

The second includes an adverse, albeit untruthful, reference to the Shaikh on page 10 of the report, in the sixth paragraph.Ariusmuhammadi (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok they are what I though they are. They aren't significant references, they are trivial mentions. Both give us next to nothing (if not nothing) which we could include in a biographical article. The independance is also not obvious to me, the first site takes user submissions, I've no idea if the subject appears because of a user submission and if it does who submitted --82.7.44.178 (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Please read the general notability guideline. It demands significant coverage in reliable sources; neither standard seems to be met by the sources provided above. Chick Bowen 01:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hamdu Lillah--its no use trying to publicise him when he does not want so himself--when someone tried to do so against his wish his efforts were nullified because of the propagandists--may God keep alive this access to the sea of theophanies in the prophethood of the prophet of Islam long enough for the world to see for itself what a great gift of peace of heart we have in his person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariusmuhammadi (talk • contribs) 05:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what that's supposed to mean. Is that a withdrawal of the request? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – The previous comment seems to be the underlying purpose behind the article, which was promotion. Otherwise, it was a proper AFD close. –MuZemike 16:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 May 2011[edit]

Olympic class starship – AfD has been reopened, nothing to do here. – JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relist let the process run out; it was speedy closed, there was a previous PROD objection which was used to close the AfD, but the AfD was opened because the PROD was disputed. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 10:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

really nothing to do here, the people who want to delete this can just nominate it for AFD properly and let the discussion run its course. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amir of Bimlipatnam – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am filing this request on behalf of new user Altaf shaik (talk · contribs), who requested it on my talk page after I declined a request at WP:REFUND. Altaf shaik's detailed comments on the AfD can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Amir of Bimlipatnam. I have temp-undeleted the article. Note that if restored its title should be changed to "Amirs of Bimlipatnam", because it is about the family rather than just the present Amir. My own view is that there do not seem to be independent sources to establish notability for the Amirs, but that a section about them could perhaps be added to the article about the town, which we have under the name of Bheemunipatnam. JohnCD (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I contested the prod earlier, the AFD was a pretty clear case of delete. So I cannot see a case to overturn. However if there are new references to add to show notability that would be a reason to give a second chance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. AfD was correctly closed based on valid, policy-focused delete arguments and no keep arguments at all. Thparkth (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll be watching this page closely, if it does not enhance its notability factor and stays the same as it used to be (filled with fancruft, or, biased and pov information) I'll CsD it right away, or even propose a second deletion. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Don't know what else to say; there was a unanimous agreement on deletion. –MuZemike 16:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 May 2011[edit]

10 May 2011[edit]

B1A4 – Relisted by closing admin – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article about a band was put up for deletion based on notability AKA WP:BAND. Several arguments were given why they were notable but the most important was probably when I listed how they specifically met that criteria. With sources, I showed in the AfD page that they have been on a number of music programs (at least 4) and that they have charted (peaking at #6 on a weekly national albums chart), both of which are criteria for notability (Criteria 11 and 2). While other arguments had been contested, no one debated my sources or that they now met notability criteria, nevertheless the page was deleted anyway.

The closing administrator made no comments when he closed the page. I have tried to contact him and get him to explain his thoughts on the matter, yet it has been several days and he has not yet responded. At this point, I doubt he will so I've brought the discussion here because as far as I see it, this article was deleted for no reason and so it should be restored to mainspace. Snowclrops (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist the last comments in the AFD concern improvements to the article that are not addressed by anyone. At the bare minimum the AFD should have been relisted to see if the improvements would have changed the outcome. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, with a caution to the author about trying too hard for his (article's) own good. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Relisted, by closing admin. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story – Move to mainspace permitted, with expectation of subsequent AfD nomination. I will not make that AfD nomination at this time, but any other editor can do so as soon as they wish. – Chick Bowen 17:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD 1|AfD 2|AfD 3|DRV|AfD 4|MfD 1|MfD 2)

This article was userfied by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story in August 2009. After its restoration to mainspace, it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (2nd nomination) in November 2009. In March 2010, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (3rd nomination) was closed as speedy delete per {{db-repost}}. The speedy deletion was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 9#Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story and relisted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (4th nomination) where the result was again "delete".

After my MfD nomination at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Imagi-King/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (2nd nomination) in April 2011, the creator added several sources to the article.

I have reviewed each of the sources in the userspace draft to assess whether they enable the film to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Analysis of the sources in the userspace draft:

While many of the sources here are trivial mentions, directory listings, and primary sources, there are three quality sources. The article from The Kerryman (#12), the feature from TG4 (#15), and the article in Hot Press (#16) are nontrivial secondary coverage about the film. Because these sources provide historical background about the origins of the film and analyses about the film's cultural relevance, they are of sufficient depth to fulfill the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Restore the userspace draft to mainspace. Cunard (talk) 05:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to mainspace. I can't add much to what Cunard said above, but I agree that the three independent reliable sources (none of which was visible when the article was last discussed) are enough to demonstrate that the film does meet WP:GNG by a small margin. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore to mainspace. Cunard has perfectly summarised all that can be said in favour of this article's restoration. With three significant reliable sources and several more which add to the case for notability whilst not being exactly significant in themselves, the article meets the guidelines of WP:N. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 10:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold deletion. Good grief, how many times does this article have to be acted upon? While there have been more sources added in user space, the fact remains: This is a small video of only local importance at best, with extremely limited distribution and no awards of any notability. Furthermore, the resurrection of this article is being incessantly pushed by Imagi-King/Baron Ronan Doyle/whatever-name-he's-using-now, who has admitted he is a part of the production. In other words, it is self-promotion. In all my years at Wikipedia, I have never seen an article about such a non-notable subject whose supporters have gone on such an unending campaign to save it! We have brought this up for AfD four times -- count 'em, four times -- with the same result each time: delete. The additional sources are local in nature, as is the subject itself, but more importantly the author is engaged in self-promotion, pure and simple. He is simply trying to keep this production in the public eye in any way possible. Sorry, it's not worth it. Go back to selling the DVDs out of the back of the car or whatever. Keep this article out of mainspace, salt it and bury it for good. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just want it noted that I voted to delete in the last MfD, not exactly what I'd call incessantly pushing a resurrection. Furthermore, considering the userspace draft had remained unedited for almost a year, I contest my being on "an unending campaign to save it". This user seems more concerned with personal bias based on previous contentious discussions (is there a reason for commenting upon my username?) than with the fact that the article now meets WP:GNG. Again he argues that it is "of local importance at best", failing to acknowledge the two significant national sources cited. Given his comment "[t]he additional sources are local in nature", I have to question his objectivity in the matter, as he appears to have passed judgement without closely reading the additions. I happen to agree that it wasn't notable before, now that I've become a more knowledgeable editor, but the additional sources, as per Cunard, now make it notable. That it has a storied past is irrelevant to an evaluation of its current claim to notability. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 18:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm just tired of the multiple attempts to revive an article about a non-notable subject. I went through all the additional sources, most of which do not qualify as coverage of a non-trivial nature from reliable sources, in my opinion. I will admit that I did miss your vote to delete on the MfD — as you get older, sometimes this stuff all runs together. But nothing has changed my mind that this is a film/video that is not notable enough to have its own article, despite multiple attempts by anyone to resurrect it. I simply disagree with Cunard's assessment, and I do not feel that this article passes the more-stringent requirements of the DRV process. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV doesn't have more-stringent requirements. The standard for articles is the same in each venue, though DRV is generally not concerned too closely with notability more about the deletion process. In cases like this there is a question as to if things have changed enough since last deleted to now be viable (often not a required step at all, and arguably not so in this case), in this matter DRV isn't issuing a ruling on notability, even if restored it can still be taken to AFD and still be deleted on notability grounds (as that is the primary venue for such questions). --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that if this passes DRV, it has nothing to do with notability, and we have to go through a fifth AfD? Well, that's certainly useful. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No as I said - "In cases like this there is a question as to if things have changed enough since last deleted to now be viable" - which has it change enough or is the question of notability different enough from when AFD deleted it. It's useful in that it's DRV purpose, you don't complain that spoon's aren't useful for cutting steaks, because that's not what spoons are for. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, I think. But my position stands. The additional material presented is insufficient to show that this is notable, and that it is anything more than a small indie film with very limited, local recognition, and that those involved in its production are actively seeking to promote it through Wikipedia despite numerous moves to delete. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 10:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion- I think the previous AfD was closed correctly, and I do not see that enough has changed since to justify overturning it. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted per the observations about notability raised by Realkyhick. Eusebeus (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Few of Realkyhick's sentences are directly related to whether the film passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I will analyze those that address the sources.
Realkyhick wrote: "The additional sources are local in nature, as is the subject itself, but more importantly the author is engaged in self-promotion, pure and simple." – this assessment is inaccurate, in that although The Kerryman is a local newspaper, TG4 is a national public broadcasting service that has 800,000 daily viewers. The third publication, Hot Press, is based in Dublin, which is not close in distance to Cork (city).
Realkyhick wrote: "I went through all the additional sources, most of which do not qualify as coverage of a non-trivial nature from reliable sources, in my opinion." – I agree with the assessment that "most" of the sources are not nontrivial reliable references, in that 16 of the 19 sources I reviewed were insufficient to establish notability. However, the three sources that are third-party reliable sources enable the film to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Realkyhick wrote: "The additional material presented is insufficient to show that this is notable, and that it is anything more than a small indie film with very limited, local recognition, and that those involved in its production are actively seeking to promote it through Wikipedia despite numerous moves to delete." – that two national sources have discussed the film indicates that the film has received more than merely "local recognition". Cunard (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has undergone sufficient change through the addition of three third-party reliable sources (two of which are national sources) that enable the film to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The purpose of this DRV is not to contest the AfD but to determine whether there has been sufficient change to void {{db-repost}}. Those who have supported keeping the article deleted have failed to explain why the three sources I have provided are insufficient. Cunard (talk) 22:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore draft to mainspace. Cunard's analysis of the sources seems accurate. I think the new visible sources, two national sources with non-trivial coverage and other local reliable source, satisfy the notability requirements. Revelian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to mainspace - this is far off the level envisaged by WP:Notability (films) but Cunard's excellent work convinces me that the GNG lets it in, just. What a saga - four AfDs, two MfDs, two DRVs - this should be a case study for New User School on the theme "find your sources before you post your article, it will save time in the end!" JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if it is restored to mainspace, I absolutely, positively guarantee it will immediately be nominated for a fifth AfD. This film is not notable by any rational measure. Period. The additional references are from reliable sources, but they still do not prove the notability of this film to my satisfaction. The cat remains that it is a small, indie film that has had scant distribution and is being sold on DVD on a very limited basis. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than repeatedly restating your opinion and asserting that the article "is not notable by any rational measure", perhaps you could specify what exactly it is in Cunard's assessment (of sources 12, 13, 15, and 16 in particular) that you disagree with. What is the "rational measure" by which you conclude these sources to be trivial? Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have sid before, these particular references do nothing to change my mind about the notability of the film. The article in The Kerryman is a short article in a local weekly newspaper, not enough to show notability. As for the Evening Echo blurb, it is so brief that a blurb is about all you could call it, and it certainly does not qualify as significant coverage. The Hot Press mention is just that, three paragraphs in a larger article — it would scarcely have even merited notice if Baron hadn't posted a scan of it, and I still assert it is not significant coverage. The Youtube clip barely qualifies as a reliable source (especially since it was posted by Baron), and again lasts just a minute or so. This is not a situation where several small mentions equals one large one, and the fact remains that everything points back to an effort by Baron to promote a small indie video in which he has direct involvement. The article does not merit a return to mainspace, and should be deleted from user space as well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The account on which the YouTube video is hosted does not belong to me. I can't see how it barely qualifies as a reliable source, it's a recording from Ireland's national Irish language channel TG4. Baron Ronan Doyle (Sprechen mit mir) 18:54, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is posted by by a user with a name very similar to that of the film. It may not be you, Baron, but it's obviously someone connected with the film. YouTube videos are not considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia, generally speaking. Even if it is what you claim, a one-minute bit as part of a larger story is not enough to prove notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with these arguments but will respond to them when this proposed article is restored to mainspace and sent to AfD. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ideal wealth distribution – Request appears uncontroversial. Talk:Ideal wealth distribution hist-merged with Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution. – lifebaka++ 10:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your reason why the discussion should be overturned here. Imersion (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Actuall I don't want to overturn the decision. I onlywant to make a copy of the discussion page, so a temporary undelete would be fine. I was not informed of the AfD and did not havetimeto participate in the discussion there although I did have a brief and informative discussion on the Iwd Talk page, which I want to retrieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the admin in question. Comments:

The discussion here may provide some context, as may the discussion with the other editor noted at the top of that discussion.
Imersion is (as near as I could tell) correct to say that he or she was never notified of the original AfD.

I'm hesitant to add more, Imersion has expressed concerns about my good faith here, and I'm happy for y'all to do whatever you want to do with this request. I just wasn't comfortable with the restoration myself. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 02:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, I commend you for the patience you have shown to this abusive, belligerent user. Your calm explanations were repeatedly met by abrasive rants. Few have such patience in the face of unreasonable people. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

e-mail a copy of the discussion page to the user. As joe indicates on his talk page, it is really unclear what Imersion wants to do with it, but at the same time I don't see any reason not a accede to the request as I see no possible harm that could come from it. Hobit (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He apparently refuses to give out his email. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Talk:Ideal wealth distribution to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution to preserve the talk page discussion which is related to the AfD. Imersion (talk · contribs) wrote: "... My complaint with openfuture is that he and I were having a discussion adn yet he saw that our discussion was on an irrlevant page that was going to get deleted and woudl not affect any one else's decision ... Anyway, I do want to get and keep his commentary but I hav e no interest in pursuing the ideal wealth distribution article in the face of such uninformed hostility. So If you can, please delete it but please help me get the commentary back for the record ..."
I believe that moving Talk:Ideal wealth distribution to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Ideal wealth distribution will resolve Imersion's concerns. To prevent further discussion, I recommend hatting the page with {{subst:archive top}} and {{subst:archive bottom}} and applying full protection if necessary. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The discussion he claims he wants was me explaining why the report he based his article on wasn't very good. It's as such irrelevant to the deletion, which is because the article was WP:POV and draw conclusions from the report that you could not draw, so it was WP:OR as well. He has claimed various incorrect things about the discussion, mostly in conjunction to me (apparently I have somehow insulted all psychologists, I guess that was when I pointed out that the peer-review was about the psychology of the people in the study, not the economy) and I don't see what use restoring it can be to anyone, but then again I can't see the harm either. Perhaps restoring it will end this nonsense, but somehow I suspect it won't. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You all have an advantage over me. I don't rmember what I said or what anyon eelse said.Imersion (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please stop bugging me about signing my articles. SineBot does a perfectly good job, so what is your probelm?Imersion (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a basic problem with deletion on Wikipedia. Our processes have become rather intricate and complicated, and we present standard arguments in such an abbreviated form that they've turned into local jargon. It was hard enough making sense of Wiki-culture five years ago; nowadays it's virtually impossible, and what we're seeing is the reaction of someone who's frustrated and angry because he finds us unintelligible. I'm not surprised that this user says he feels "humiliated". This, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what Sue Gardner has been on about on meta when she talks about transparency.
I don't think anyone's done anything wrong. But I do think the aggregate effect of all the grinding bureaucracy is a very bruising experience for a new user who's contributed material in what they think is good faith but had it deleted for reasons nobody's taken the trouble to explain in plain English.—S Marshall T/C 09:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons *have* been explained. But the complexity of the process (which is much more a problem for the person creating the AfD than the creator of the article) meant I didn't notify him (which you also don't have to do and the article itself get a big notification which he hardly can have missed). He now has grasped on to this to imply that I somehow intentionally tricked him into thinking that the AfD was discussed on the talk page, which I obviously didn't do. So sure, the complexity of the process helped us get into this situation. Perhaps if he had been able to vote he would have felt less ignored or something. I do understand that it has been a humiliating experience, but I don't actually think the process is at fault there. I don't have any idea of how to start a process to merge the several separate deletion processes into one, which should be done. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To try to be clear once agian about what happened: I did see the huge notice on my talk page that someone wanted to delete my contribution, and I thought that the place to hold the discussion was on the article's talk page, where I wnet, adn sure enough an explanation of osrts was there, which I countered. Then another ediotr (PAR I bleieve) made some very telling arguments about value judgments in my favor; and I thought the case was cinched. Openfuture countered with belligerent and uninformed comments abut Psychologist's inability to understand how to conduct surveys (He knew I was a psychologist) to which I bowed out from further discusion because I could see3 this was going nowehere except abuse. I had no idea how to go from there ntil the article was deleted. I had some conversations with firends and realized I needd the exact words that had been used against the article. I went back to reinstate it to see the discussion and was bombarde with threats that I would be blocked if I continued. So I backed off and tried to dsicuss it with Joe Decker. He seemde to understand, but when I refused to give hm my email address he became decidedly unhelpful. He directed me to DRV which looked like another hell hole to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 12:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a huge notice on the article itself, with a link to the discussion page. I still don't know how you missed that, sorry. It never crossed my mind that you didn't see it. As per your claims about what I said on the discussion they are still falsehoods, and I would appreciate it if you stopped repeating them. Nobody has threatened you or uttered a single word of abuse towards you or psychologists in general. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the supportive comments. I just want the contents of the discussion page, and hopefully openfutre will never hear from me again. By the way, someone needs to reorganize teh deletion reveiw page. It is a mess. All the caveats and warnings look extremely threatening to a new user. I am amazed that anyone begins a dletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imersion (talk • contribs) 11:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to restore the article talk p. to the AfD talk p, as suggested by Cunard. (I admit I would not have thought of that solution, but it seems to suit the purpose.) Personally, I think it quite possible that an article can be written on the subject,m though the deleted article was certainly not satisfactory:it was indeed written as an opinion piece, but if a broad range of sources were to be used, it might be acceptable--it overlap[s somewhat with other articles, but all social science topics tend to overlap with one another, and this might be sufficiently distinct. I'd be prepared to userify the article, if it's needed. ` DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 May 2011[edit]

Alison Rosen – Since this is a straightforward request and the relevance of the redirect has been verified, I have created it. – Chick Bowen 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted in 2009 and then salted after recreation. Although I'm not sure this person is notable enough for an independent page, I believe it should be created as a redirect to The Adam Carolla Show (podcast). She is currently (from early 2011) the full time news person/sidekick for this notable program. I believe this should be non-controversial, but being salted I was unable to boldly recreate. Also the deleting admin is not currently active, no offense is intended for skipping that step. Cube lurker (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the normal process is here, but I agree this page should at least be a redirect to The Adam Carolla Show (podcast) with some content added there. Argument for an independent page could stem from part 3 of WP:CREATIVE for her work on the Carolla podcast and parts 1 and 2 of WP:ENT for her numerous contributions on news programs, magazines, websites, etc. and a large following on ustream, youtube, twitter, etc.

Bottom line is that there are enough people who may want to know more about her after seeing her, hearing her, or reading her articles that some information should be included at an accessible point in Wikipedia. Also, If Rosen isn't given an independent page, perhaps Bryan Bishop should be compiled into the Adam Carolla Show page and converted into a redirect as well. Udeezy (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the only mention of her in the target article is unsourced. If someone will expand that a bit and add a source or two, I will happily create the redirect; I don't see it as a big deal or necessarily needing a full DRV. Chick Bowen 21:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1 source added. Further verifiability is also available aty the primary source www.adamcarolla.com already listed as an external link.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shady Bard – Recreation permitted. Since the nominator is new I will inform him of this result and its implications on his talk page. – Chick Bowen 21:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Having looked at WP:BAND, the band Shady Bard meet criteria:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.[note 1]

They have been reviewed by The Sunday Times, Q, Uncut, Word, Music Week, Artrocker, Metro.

and

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E for further clarifications)

Their music has appeared repeatedly on episodes of ABC's Emmy-award winning Grey's Anatomy, on Without A Trace and has soundtracked the MTV Switch global climate change awareness campaign.

Having discussed this with the deleting administrator User:PhilKnight 86.5.215.208 he told me to request this here (talk) 10:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)DougManagement DougManagement (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)DougManagement[reply]

I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if the band has gained notability some time in the past three years, since the deletion. If you want to write an article about the band, feel free. You don't need to request here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with lifebaka; no special permission should be required if a band has gained notability in the several-year interval since an uncontested A7 speedy deletion. However, if, as your username suggests, you might be involved in the band's professional affairs, anything beyond a brief, carefully phrased, strictly factual text is likely to be poorly received here, and your involvement, if any, should be disclosed on the article's talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 May 2011[edit]

Hamilton C shell – G11 overturned. Any user is free to nominate this for AfD. – Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was speedy deleted last November as WP:CSD#G11, "blatant advertising, used only to promote someone or something." The admin's actual concern, stated here and confirmed in private email was WP:COI, based on having learned my identity as the result of an outing. COI is a valid concern but it took me a while to figure out how to disclose the COI without completely giving up my anonymity.

The page has been restored to User:Chaser/Hamilton_C_shell and I have posted a declaration of my conflict of interest on the talk page and hatted the article itself. The text of the page is otherwise as it was at the time of the deletion. Six traditional independent secondary print sources in Middlesex News, PC Week, Dr. Dobb's Journal, MIPS Magazine, BYTE and Windows IT Pro are offered in support of notability and any major claims. My intent has been to use primary sources only for explanation. The full texts of the cited articles are posted on the vendor's website and are represented as true copies of the original articles or authorized reprints.

As suggested at WP:DRV#Instructions, I attempted to discuss first with the deleting admin but it's been a couple weeks and, as he warns can happen, he appears to be away on military duties. In requesting a review of the deletion, it seems to me that, at minimum, there are several questions that you may wish to consider: (1) Are there WP:NPOV, WP:CSD#G11 or other content concerns? (2) Is the COI declaration and hatting sufficient? (3) Are the sources offered sufficient to establish notability as required by WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH and other parts of the guidelines?

Beyond this act of requesting the DRV, I prefer not to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Msnicki (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection to the Hamilton C shell or the above editor (other than running into him on Wikipedia), and I am willing to defend its notability. It is a very well known product and should not have been speedy deleted because of notability concerns. Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not appropriate to use G11 to delete that content, so I think the material should be restored for the moment, but without prejudice to a thorough interrogation of the sourcing at AfD if anyone's minded to list it there.—S Marshall T/C 12:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not a valid G11, probably not even close. The COI thing is certainly not a reason for a speedy deletion. As S Marshall says, no prejudice to sending it to AfD (though it looks acceptable to me...). Hobit (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not blatant advertising, and therefore shouldn't have been speedily deleted per CSD G11. An assessment of an article as obviously promotional for CSD purposes only considers its content, not any potential conflict of interest by the author. Chester Markel (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not a valid G11 candidate, not promotional. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn because this was not a valid G11 deletion. Thparkth (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nudity in The Simpsons – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous discussions:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in The Simpsons – closed as "delete" on 12 July 2005.
Deletion review – closed as "undelete" and "unlist" on 18 July 2005.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in The Simpsons2 – closed as "keep, no consensus" on 27 July 2005.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nudity in The Simpsons Nomination 2 – closed as "delete" on 20 December 2006.
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 37#Nudity in The Simpsons – the requester was referred to DRV on 30 April 2011.
Cunard (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not crude or offensive. Would be well suited for an essay on the public's thoughts on nudity. An administrator, however, disagrees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Slender Man (talk • contribs)

Given that the article was deleted twice by 2005 and 2006 standards, I think it's fairly safe to assume that it wouldn't even make it a week without snowballing in the modern AfD climate. If you have a draft article prepared, we could take a look at it, but this information sounds fairly trivial and should only be mentioned at The Simpsons in passing, if at all. But "an essay on the public's thoughts" isn't something it'll ever be. Cheers. lifebaka++ 07:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I agree with Lifebaka; Wikipedia's attitudes towards pop culture trivia have, thankfully, become more stringent, particularly if the article is going to be written as an "essay". Reyk _YO! 11:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. With no mention of nudity in The Simpsons, or of the Simpsons in Nudity, I don't see any chance for expanding into a decent article. No objection to emailing the deleted content on request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but - Bart's peen pressed against the window in the movie went above and beyond anything in the series, got media attention, and occurred after the AfD's in 2005/2006. You could probably gather some minimal RS based on that event. That doesn't mean we need an article, just that the minimal level of sourcing may be possible and the current climate at AfD would keep it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Userfy Why are we making a user come to DRV to get a copy of a long-since deleted article for use in improvement? It's not clear to me that this step is required, although I agree a direct return to mainspace is not optimal, either. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Although it's true that a prodded article will always be restored to main space as a matter of routine if not copyvio or libel or BLP violation, any deleted article not copyvio or libel or BLP violation can be restored to userspace on a bona fide request without any need to come here, even after an AfD. That one admin declined to do so is a matter of their judgment, but it does not prevent any other admin from doing it; i do not consider it wheel-warring--see WP:Wheel 7.1--it is not redoing an admin action that has been reverted. I do not even consider it undoing an admin action at all--the admin action was deleting it from main space. Nor is consent needed to move it back into mainspace unless it is protected against re-creation. It will of course be deleted by speedy unless if it is improved to meet the objection, and so it is reasonable to come here if there is doubt of it to avoid that, and, in practice, necessary to come here if it has been so deleted. I will always userfy afd'd articles if requested, if I think there is any hope for them to meet our standards. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Userfication will allow more of an ample opportunity for quality improvement and research to find potential WP:RS secondary source discussion, whilst allowing such referencing to take place initially out of the main article space arena. -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? Has anyone actually asked for userfication? I looks to me like the editor was asking for undeletion in main space, not userfication, at RfU. Thus, I'd say endorse and leave deleted unless someone makes a more specific request. Chick Bowen 05:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The nominator's request and contribution history do not suggest that this person is likely to understand the difficulty of bringing this deleted content up to an acceptable standard. There is no reasonable request for userfication here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of people who have been pied – The agreement here is that while the wording wasn't ideal, there was no consensus to delete. I will make a note to this effect at the AfD. Anyone should feel welcome to start a new nomination if they see fit. – Chick Bowen 05:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Spoke with the administrator before bringing it to DRV but we see different sides. This discussion was closed as keep with the rationale that the administrator "agrees that the article supports pieing and should therefore be kept". This is an argument for keep, not a sufficient closing rationale. It is based on the administrator's opinions over whether or not something should be kept, instead of the community's view of such matters. When I look at the discussion, I see five primary arguments:

That the article should be deleted because it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE or is just trivia, not suitable for an encyclopedia
That the article should be deleted because it does not satisfy WP:NLIST
That the article is well sourced
That the article has had 3 AFDs with non-delete results already
That the concept of pieing is a notable concept worthy of inclusion.

The fourth of those is not an argument based in policy. The fifth is a keep argument for the article, not the list. The third is based in policy, but does not address the concerns of the first two. In fact, no keep argument addressed those concerns. For that reason, I believe the administrator's judgement took into account his/her own opinions instead of weighing the arguments in the deletion debate against policy, and call for an overturn. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist to say the least. I don't say "supervote" very often, but this is one of those times in which I need to. The close was very opinionated and judged the content and not the consensus. –MuZemike 00:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus at that debate, so the proper close would surely have been "no consensus". I don't believe it's necessary to relist, but I do agree with Shirik and MuZemike that the language of closing statement is very unfortunate.—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the previous closing admin, I would just like to apologise for my inappropriate language in the closing statement, and will abide to the decision of this DRV. I will recuse from the rest of this discussion. --Der yck C. 00:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Nominator's rationale smacked way too much of IDONTLIKEIT, and nobody else came up with a valid reason for deletion that wasn't countered in this or previous debates. No Consensus might have been reasonable, but deletion was not in the cards. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No-Consensus I don't think the closing admin dealt with this very well, but I don't see a further relist at this time likely to change things either, so per WP:BURO we shouldn't. That said since even in this deletion there were those who believe wikipedia owes them to keep it for the effort they've put in and that because it's been listed before and not delete that it'll be here forever, I think the close needs to reflect the reality that there simply isn't a consensus either way. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome While it is a good idea for administrators to avoid endorsing one side of the argument in a case like this, I think the discussion clearly had "No Consensus" so I don't see the need to relist. Qrsdogg (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome despite inappropriate closing statement. If this was the first AFD, a relist would have been the right call, but to keep a fourth round going without any indication of a shift in community sentiment would have been pointless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC which is basically the same as the "endorse outcomes" above, but gives leave to relist if desired (which I don't really recommend for at least a few months). I think the closer now understands the problem with their close so all is well. Hobit (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus which I think was a fairer representation of the discussion, . (The practical effect is that it facilitates renomination after a reasonable time of at least 6 months--a keep close here would I think almost preclude it, because the only non-keep close had been the second 2008 afd's non-admin no-consensus.) I have no personal opinion on the article. DGG ( talk ) 00:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome, essentially agree with the comment by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), in the endorse statement, above. -- Cirt (talk) 04:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome It has references. Every time a notable person is pied, it gets coverage. Dream Focus 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 May 2011[edit]

Archibald Roberts – Moot, has been recreated – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

speedy deletion abuse by administrator Trojancowboy (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed nomination fixed, deleting administrator advised.—S Marshall T/C 00:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The material being considered had a source, which was this. Personally I'm of the view that A7 is not a suitable speedy deletion criterion when a source is cited. A source is a credible claim of notability, in that it indicates that a person or subject is notable by pointing out a source that has noted it.
I can't agree that this was "speedy deletion abuse", and I deplore the accusations of bad faith made against JohnCD on his talkpage, but DRV is traditionally quite strict with speedy deletions and I think there's room for doubt about the wisdom of this one.—S Marshall T/C 00:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For those wanting to know what was deleted: the extent of the article was one sentence: "LTC Archibald E Roberts was the information officer of General Edwin Walker, (ref)." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The reference cited is a secondary source covering, at length, the subject of the article. The article has a decent claim to notability, much less surviving A7. Ray^Talk 03:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by deleting admin: I read the reference, a local paper interview, and though it was perhaps marginal for A7, I still did not see any real importance: Roberts is a far-right propagandist, he acted as an information officer for a right-wing retired general, and (added on the talk page) he sued the army about his pension. Since the author contested the deletion, I offered to userfy the page for him to work on, but he preferred to attack me on my talk page and bring it here. I have now userfied it to User:Trojancowboy/Archibald Roberts where he can develop it. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The major issue for me here is creation of a marginal one-sentence article referenced to a (non-major) newspaper. I would understand a note "hold on, I'll expand it ASAP", but not "keep it as is, its notable". Thus I believe John's userfying the article has resolved this DRV. Materialscientist (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close as a waste of time, for the one sentence it's not worth spending 7 days here, if there is a reasonable article to be written, write it, it'll be a lot quicker than waiting for 7 days to restore that one sentence. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and let the article have a chance to be expanded before sending it to AfD. The subject might or might not be actually notable, but as far a speedy is concerned, any indication of plausible notability is sufficient. I agree it would be just as easy to simply rewrite a better article, but we should not endorse speedys that do not follow the criteria. to the extent we do, we send the contributor-unfriendlyy message that "I I still did not see any real importance:" , is a permissible speedy criterion. I suggest John show he understands by fully restoring it, and proceed from there to AfD if it isn't improved quickly . DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "I still did not see any real importance" is a permissible speedy criterion: it's a paraphrase of WP:CSD#A7 "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant," at least that's how I intended it. The article does not need restoration as Trojancowboy moved the userfied version straight back to the main space. He is now expanding it: I will leave others to decide about AfD. JohnCD (talk) 20:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No=, John, you are confusing "I do not see any real importance" with "I do not see any good faith claim to importance". There are a great many articles I am quite sure are unimportant, but where the article makes in good faith some degree of a possible claim. think that to speedy them would be a gross extension of the criteria, which are in all cases to be interpreted narrowly. It's not as if there were no other good ways of removing inappropriate articles. DGG ( talk ) 15:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I don't want to start a long argument, but I take speedy deletion seriously and I think you are stretching the limits here: A7 says nothing about a good-faith claim of importance, it says "indication" and "credible claim." Good faith, which any article author but a vandal presumably has, is not enough.

I am prepared to agree that I got this one wrong, but I was not making up my own speedy criterion. I assessed it as presented, including the reference provided, against the letter and spirit of A7, and did not see a credible claim of importance. The reference was a mildly mocking local-newspaper interview with him and some others, whose tone is indicated by its headline: "Still Crazy After All These Years." I admit, after re-reading, that I should have given more weight to the words "he was quite notorious thirty years ago", which are enough to get this over the A7 threshold, barely.

Say an article had ten sources, all local and all covering a relatively trivial topic (in your opinion). Should it be fair game for an A7 even though it meets WP:N?' In general A7 is to be a bar much easier to get over than WP:N. And yes, RSes are an indication of importance... Hobit (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! a good RFA test question. I don't like the word "opinion" in there - I have opinions about what's important but don't (I hope) let them influence this kind of decision. Say "in your judgement". The answer is that if there is enough coverage for notability then A7 is certainly passed. Remember, though, that WP:N#Events says "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." There might be several RSs but still no notability or even "indication of importance". That said, I can't imagine a situation where ten RSs did not provide an indication of importance, but I don't think one RS necessarily does: it depends what it says. I could provide an RS or two about myself but they certainly don't indicate importance and I wouldn't expect an article citing them to pass A7. Anticipating your next question - if 10 is certainly enough, how about 9? 8? 7?... that's the paradox of the heap and I'm not going there. JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close as moot it was an improper speedy because A) a reasonable RS is enough to be an assertion of notability and B) a quick search would have turned up sources if there was any doubt. In any case, a better article has been created in its place. Hobit (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article, as its text stood at the time of the initial deletion, did not actually assert significance. Nor did the existence of a single example of local news coverage demonstrate that A7 was inapplicable; many local newspaper stories do not do so. The contents of the news coverage indicated significance, but in a way that painted the subject in a rather negative light. This appears ro be a more difficult question than the discussion here indicates. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Humm, I think a single news story solely on the topic is more than enough to overcome A7. That is exactly an assertion of notability as defined by WP:N. A second one would get us all the way to meeting WP:N. Speedy deletion is for things that are clear cut. This wasn't one of them. I suppose we can start an RfC on if a single independent RS is enough to ward off an A7 if you are really serious in making this claim so we can see if there is a wider consensus one way or the other. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 May 2011[edit]

Otto (Middleton family dog) – Close endored in a rare (in some parts of the world) May snowstorm. – lifebaka++ 07:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This AFD was improperly closed as delete less than 48 hours opening without any basis in doggone policy. The closer seems to have applied his own "OMG it's a dog" to absolutely unnecessarily speedy close an ongoing debate. It may well have been the case that the consensus after 7 days would have been delete the pouch (although a steady number of merge and keep !votes means a delete consensus was not absolutely certain - merging it to a new home would have been a possible outcome). However, the closer was barking up the wrong tree in terminating this. There was no WP:SNOW snowstorm of unanimity. (There may be, it has to be said, many !votes here of questionable validity on all sides - but that again was something to be weighed by the closing admin at the end of the proscribed period). I'm sure the admin closing though he was saving us the need for more debate, but patience for 7 days is cheap, and the overturn and relist this now merits means the closure is misguided. Scott Mac 19:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Why did you WP:CANVASS User_talk:GiacomoReturned, under Heading:For your amusement?? Kittybrewster ☎ 19:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article was amusing. Whether it should be deleted is a matter for afd. There is no applicable speedy deletion criterion. What is nonsense?--Scott Mac 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been subjected to a validly closed afd. The review is nonsensical. Canvassing is against the rules. Kittybrewster ☎ 2--Cactus.man ✍ 23:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)0:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument by assertion. If the close had been valid, there would be no DRV.--Scott Mac 20:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're begging the question. The existence of a DRV does not mean the close is invalid. Reso lute 23:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is to Kittybrewster, who is endorsing the AfD because it was "validly closed". But as we're here to ask the question of the validity of the close that's not an argument at all. That's begging the question.--Scott Mac 23:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. The original article was making a point (about the number of articles about people and things associated with Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge). We got the joke and we tolerated the breach of WP:POINT. In the AfD I recommended speedy delete, cautioning that "to labour it any more would verge on the side of disruption". Regrettably, with this DRV, that is what is now happening - and from an admin who should know better. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you called for "speedy delete", but virtually no one supported you. As I explained in the debate, the article was originaly begun as joke in userspace, but was moved into article space when I discovered there were sources and commentary around how the media had handled the story.) But all that was a debate for AFD - where you put your case and others put theirs. And not everyone agrees with your analysis. At the end of that, a neutral admin makes a decision (which may agree with you). You don't get to terminate a genuine debate with "But I'm right".--Scott Mac 19:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come on, it was a funny joke to start with, but know when it's peaked. A discussion was already started at AN/I; it's time to stop. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's exactly what we were discussing on the AFD until it was unnecessarily closed. If you think it should be deleted, you make your case (others disagree) and we reach consensus. That's be shortcircuted by "OMG Dog - this is ridiculous" knee-jerks. I've explained why I think the article should be kept or deleted. I may be thought wrong, but the purpose of AFD is to determine that.--Scott Mac 20:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I voted keep. It was funny for a while. But dragging it here isn't funny, just dull William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask why you voted keep if you felt it should be speedy deleted?--Scott Mac 21:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I suppose you can ask, though the question makes no sense. I voted keep, because I wanted it not to be deleted. What made you think I wanted it speedy deleted? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per WP:N, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:POINT and WP:Whatthefuckisthisshit?. The article was created to make a point, and the AfD was turning into a complete joke. Valid snow close/delete. Resolute 22:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. A snow close is where pretty much everyone is voting one way. Whether the article ought to be deleted under WP:N, or WP:NOTNEWS was exactly what the AFD was there to debate. None is a speedy criterion, and that for a reason. As for POINT, the article was disrupting nothing, and sitting being debated on AFD was disrupting nothing.--Scott Mac 22:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - An large number of keep !votes were jokes, so yes, pretty much everyone was voting one way. That being said, WP:SNOW refers to the odds of an article being kept, not the number of !votes. This was a POINT/joke article about a non-notable animal (notability is not inherited) and the AFD was turning into a joke. Clearly a snow candidate, and clearly applied properly. Reso lute 23:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure and Deletion Scott/Doc/Rob/whoever you are today, you've made your point and had your fun, but this is just ridiculous and is rapidly becoming disruptive policy wonking and wikilawyering just to continue your rather juvenile little protest. Stop wasting everybody's fucking time and get back to doing some serious work which you're quite good at sometimes. Just to add to your terrible collection of doggy puns, surely even you can see that it's best to let sleeping dogs lie. Maybe it's time for another one of your "retirements", come back when you're recharged. --Cactus.man ✍ 23:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is Rob?--Scott Mac 23:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this material just doesn't deserve a new leash of life. The original was a howler, but now it's getting people hot under the collar and it doesn't setter good example to new editors. And the joke's gone on too long without paws. I feel like a heel for endorsing, but, endorse.—S Marshall T/C 23:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm, I mean, endorse own close. T. Canens (talk) 23:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and I am sincerely sorry for dragging you into this. As James Thurber once famously opined in his short story The Dog Who Bit People, — "Cave Canens". →Stani Stani 10:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and trouting of the person behind this DRV Sorry to pile on; but this was clearly a valid AFD close. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just close this and move on please? NW (Talk) 23:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What, remedy a complaint of an early and out of process speedy close, by an early and out of process speedy close? Great.--Scott Mac 23:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. Hopefully the unanimity of this DRV is enough for you Scott. Take another look at WP:SNOW and then say that closing this early would be out of process. Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 23:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This bit you mean "If an issue is "snowballed", and somebody later raises a reasonable objection, then it probably was not a good candidate for the snowball clause". But, perhaps we should just add "OMG Dog" to the CSD and be done with it!--Scott Mac 23:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "reasonable objection" is that you like it and that the closing admin was wrong. There were some keep/merge !votes, but the presence does not mean that SNOW is invalid. Some of the keep !votes read like sarcasm to me, and others were ILIKEIT !votes similar to yours. Remember that AFD is not a straight !vote count, since the closing admin takes into account the reasoning supporting each !vote. The above notwithstanding, this DRV is snowballing and it would not be out of process for it to be closed as such. Regards, MacMed^talk _stalk 00:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, my "reasonable objection" is that process wasn't followed, and debate terminated needlessly because the closer DIDN'TLIKEIT - the closer gave no reason in policy. Yes, as I said, many of the keep votes may have been judged as invalid, as might many of the "OMG dog delete" stuff. The votes needs looked at, and deletion OR MERGE, might well have been the outcome. Instead of that one admin terminated the debate with his own !vote. I think it is too soon to call a 10 day DRV in 6 hours or so, so far most of the opinions are poor.--Scott Mac 00:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bawwww - If I get insipid news-of-the-day shit like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Williams (announcer) closed on me after less than 6 hours, then that's just the way the cookie crumbles for the mutt, too. There was no way this one was going to wind up a keep, though. Move on. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, joke over, IAR, etc. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this another joke? I mean even if we relist this, the result will be delete again. So, what is the point of this DRV?—Chris!_c/t 17:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if this nomination is a joke then the whole thing's got rather old by now. If it isn't then there's no chance the page would have been kept and relisting will accomplish nothing except wasting time. Hut 8.5 17:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I for one am doggone upset that my perfectly valid keep rationale was completely ignored by the closer. I argued my case perfectly. In all serious, well done Scott for illustrating what's so wrong with Afd these days, saddling us with half assed non-biographies like Pippa Middleton, even with all the relevant policies and destructions we have in place today. Not a vote? Not a clue more like. I cannot believe even now some people still don't get what your point was. Although, that kinda is the point. MickMacNee (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 May 2011[edit]

Jason Dormon – DragonflySixtySeven restored the article. – SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jason Dormon (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) Dribblingscribe 15:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC) I think what Dribblingscribe is trying to say is that the article was A7ed for not asserting notability, but he feels that sufficient reviews were included to establish notability. He asked the deleting admin before coming here. Since I can't see the article, I have no opinion on the subject myself.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

T R – Done per request – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

While I was filling in red links at Wikipedia:List_of_two-letter_combinations I found the T R article has been set so it cannot be recreated. It is the only remaining red link in the series. Please lift the block so it may be redirected to TR. Thanks. Jokestress (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 May 2011[edit]

CvWiki – Close endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

CvWiki is notable in that it was the first Open Source wiki engine. It was the first wiki used as an Agile Project Wiki (at HP in 1997). It pioneered features that are now common to all wiki engines including transclusion, versioning and edit collision prevention. It was the GPL'ed basis for AtisWiki and UseModWiki, and thereby contributed directly to the MediaWiki engine and the open content ethic. It also pioneered "WaybackMode", which is used today in MediaWiki to maintain the context of historical discussions. CvWiki's history is documented on C2 at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CvWiki. PeterMerel (talk) 23:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Peter is arguing that CvWiki should have its own article because of its historical significance. The participants in the AfD appear to have reached a consensus on two things. First, they agreed that significant coverage of CvWiki in reliable sources, which generally establishes notability under our guidelines, was not evident. Second, they agreed that the historical significance of CvWiki was covered sufficiently in the article on UseModWiki. However, that information is no longer in the article, because an anonymous user removed the "history" section without comment a couple of years ago, possibly because it was unreferenced. I think the best course of action here would be to write about CvWiki's historical significance, using reliable sources as references, in the UseModWiki article. See also WP:AVOIDSPLIT. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the notability guidelines don't say anything about being the first open source wiki engine etc. What they do say is about significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources do we have those? (a user edited wiki isn't a reliable source) If we don't have those then the article doesn't meet current standard, if it does then the article could be userfied to be reworked. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - It might not have hurt to relist it for another week and get more opinion. However, both participants said merge. I endorse. CycloneGU (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - PeterMerel, if you think that CvWiki can meet the notability requirements, you might write a version of the article which demonstrates that, possibly in your sandbox. Without sources that show CvWiki meets the requirements, it's unlikely you'll convince the community to overturn consensus. HTH --Fabrictramp(public) (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - UseModWiki credits it at http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UseModWiki/Credits - there's also an entry for it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_wikis. Happy to agree with A Stop At Willoughby's suggestion if that's not notable enough. --PeterMerel (talk)
You do need to familiarise yourself with the requirements, you need non-trival coverage in reliable sources. A credit somewhere certainly is trivial. Coverage in a wikipedia article (in this case also trivial) isn't help as wikipedia isn't a reliable source, if that wikipedia had references then perhaps those would be useful, unfortunately it doesn't have references --82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The requirements don't seem to help much with the provenance of code - but I see a list of 61 code modules crediting CvWiki at http://www.koders.com/default.aspx?s=%22CvWiki%22 and a credit in the UseModWiki codebase at for example http://www.sindominio.net/ayuda/glosario/index.pl. There's also a tree of the wikis deriving from CvWiki at http://wikiindex.org/WikiEngineTree and a non-publically-editable article that references CvWiki in the context of Wikipedia at http://what-when-how.com/wikipedia/wiki-introduced-wikipedia/ .
And that is all still trivial coverage. The general idea is that it's not up to us as wikipedia editors to decide what's notable, it's up to the world at large, they show that by being interested enough to write about it in a non-trivial manner. Aside the notability issue we also need material in reliable sources in order to meet the requirements of WP:V, if no one has written about it beyond mentioning it then the article isn't going to contain anything useful i.e. it would show existence and little else, wikipedia can't be the only source of the information --82.7.44.178 (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the dozens of references, only one is a Wikipedia page. As for the interests of the world at large, there are some pieces of code that get editorialised but for the most part code is only important for introducing features. So CvWiki has some kind of significance in that it originated features now common to most wikis. But I think the best thing to do is to follow A Stop At Willoughby's suggestion and add it to the history section on UseModWik rather than undeleting the page. I'll have a go at that. Thanks everyone for the review. --PeterMerel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

3 May 2011[edit]

Boubaker polynomials – Speedy endorse; enough of this, if a non-sock wants to come along and request this then we can look at it anew. – Stifle (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

As per the XFD, this page was criticised for Notability purposes and lack of sourcing. the proposed version [33]is now containing more than 25 third-party, verifiable and independent source (Encyclopedies, Books, Acadimic and peer reviewed Journals)i.e., in ref 8 [34], The authors, Eminent Professor Paul Barry et al. Website presents as Chapter 6: (p 23): The Boubaker Polynomials... In i.e. Reference 15 [35] , Professor A. Yildirim Homepage presents (page 40) the boubaker polynomials as a tool for solving nonlinear science problems... and so on ...

The Matter is hence mainly to verify sourcing patterns, not discussing the scientific level, exactness or so, and if done, restore the page. Rirunmot (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse . As it is, the new version seems to be enough sourced. The references 1-6, 8,9, 11-18 can be easily monitored. The reference to OEIS should be reformatted. --Dariocuccio (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This user has made no contributions to the project, besides trying to get this article restored. There is a long history of sockpuppetry connected to the article. See Ozob's post below Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPA also falsely claims to have reviewer rights. The userpage was probably copied from other user. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as the closure was correct. However, I am not qualified to judge whether the draft article at User:Rirunmot/User:Rirunmot/sandbox is sufficient to warrant re-creation using that draft - it might be an idea to discuss this at WikiProjecy Mathematic's Talk Page and get a consensus on that issue. If the consensus is in agreement with you about the sourcing being adequate, reliable and independent, I'd have no objection to the draft version being moved to article space PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to [36], once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline..., so the closure was indeed correct, a long time ago. Now one has just to verify sourcing. --Rirunmot (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse deletion and block Rirunmot as sock. This article was deleted three times, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boubaker_polynomials, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials (3rd nomination), every time for lack of notability. Furthermore, Rirunmot has been indefinitely blocked on fr.wiki and it.wiki for being a sockpuppet of User:Mmbmmmbm; see fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme de longue durée/Mmbmmmbm. I will shortly open an SPI investigation on him. Ozob (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes!! The problem is here the lack of notability as stated by Ozob, so ask for deletion or keeping on this basis! Now the page is sourced or not!!, then you can suggest what you want. --Rirunmot (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened an SPI: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmbmmmbm. Ozob (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the comments of Dariocuccio and Frerejak, now confirmed in the SPI as socks of Rirunmot. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Keep. No idea about the deleted version, but it could not be the version here [37]. The sources are verifiable and the first one is a printed Encyclopedia. A reference is found [here], can anyone verify the link??--Frerejak (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a link to an electronic journal. Probably not relevant --Rirunmot (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This user has made few contributions to the project, besides trying to get this article restored. To address the substance of the post, the "printed Encylopedia" (published by Nova Publishers) does not really stand up to any kind of scrutiny. As with many publications in mathematics, one needs to check the quality of the sources. There are many academic publishers that are little more than self-publishing papermills. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I verfied that Nova Publishers is a peer reviewed encyclopedic and academic press. Nevertheless let's drop it! what about the remaining 20 references ?? --Frerejak (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nova's pretty clearly bogus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two parts to this. The trivial part (which I suspect is a WP:SNOW) is to analyse the original closure. Since it was closed according to the consensus without procedural anomaly, I duly endorse it. The substantive part is the question of whether the userspace version is ready for the mainspace. There's an attempt (above) to import drama from fr.wiki and it.wiki onto en.wiki, which I deplore and disregard. I'm satisfied that this is a good faith attempt to create an article about Boubaker polynomials and that the sources pass a casual inspection, so I think it's appropriate move to mainspace, but this should be without prejudice to a subsequent, thorough interrogation of the sources at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oops! the link to verify is : [[38]] --Frerejak (talk) 11:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree with S Marshall ,move to mainspace and maintain verification will give a fair outcome. --Frerejak (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am forced to agree with S Marshall, rather against my own personal preference. Rirunmot's revision stands up to a casual inspection. Some of the references in the article are actually in decent journals, although most are not—see my remark above about Nova Publishers. I have done a Google scholar test, and there seem to be enough citations in decent places to justify an article—somewhat to my surprise and chagrin. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why forced and chagrin ?! ... If notable then Ok. If not notable then also Ok. Is there another problem?? --Rirunmot (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'll vote my conscience at the DRV. But you can't force me to like the outcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is honesty and fair. But seeing the extent of your investment in this subject <AFD and its related pages>, it was just a simple question : Is there a hidden problem with that (other than Referencing) ?? Perhaps your answer will help. Thanks.--Rirunmot (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been discussions about the mathematical suitability of this content (on the now-deleted Talk:Boubaker polynomials. But these arguments are somehow less firmly-rooted in policy. They're probably something that will be argued in more detail at the next AfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. But this problem now is bybassed: These polynomials (according to references) are used in several applied physics fields as Cryogenics, Biology,System Dynamics ,NonLinear Processes,Approximation Theory ,Thermodynamics, Mechanics,Hydrology , Molecular Dynamics ,Thermo-Physics , Manifolds , Functional Analysis and more, by scientists from tens of countries,so no worry about mathematical suitability. You seem to be an expert, so your vote will be determinent. --Rirunmot (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the above Google scholar test, I get 11 English language hits on MathSciNet for Boubaker polynomials. (This is up from 1 at the last AfD.) All but one of these have "Boubaker polynomials" in the title. The journals aren't really the best, but most of these are MR reviewed, so they clearly aren't junk. This should clearly be "good enough" to put your copy into mainspace. It's probably good enough to override any future AfD. But given the behavioral problems of the article's past editors, I foresee that it's going to be very difficult to achieve and maintain an article that meets our usual standards (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). But that's really a separate issue from the question of existence. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, the question of existence and notability is clearly solved. Besides that none of the opposed voters or contributors to the M_Project addressed that question or proved/claimed non-notabilty, just some notes about some other odd contributors. One can just refine the text, remove doubtful or non-verifiable references and the case will be closed.--Rirunmot (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: It may not be clear to non-mathematicians, but the so-called "Boubaker polynomials" are nothing more than a linear combination of Chebyshev polynomials. They've been promoted quite heavily by their creator, but they're devoid of content beside that already present in the Chebyshev polynomials. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the problem here is just the level of the sourcing (see DRW start),nothing else, the problem of link with Chebyshev has been already addressed in 4 references in the page. In fact Dickson Polynomials D(x)are related to Chebyshev T(x) through a formula: D(2x)=0.5T(x) (trivial??), meanwhile Dickson polynomials exist, are notable and used.. Existence of a polynomial lies on some properties, 5 or 6, all verified in a reference (ref 6 or 7)-this can be shifted to another discussion page-. Please check.Frerejak (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is invalid even in an AfD, let alone a DR. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Endorse (Keep): If it is a problem of sources or referencing, the page should be kept and developed. If it is a problem of civilisational conflict or vandalism : No opinion.Darkomeko (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Attempt at faking my account ? steward cat is not amused. It's sad how each and every attept of Boubaker at self-promoting ends up with lots of socks taking his side...DarkoNeko x 16:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. At this point it is not a problem of sourcing, it is a problem of WP:COI, sockpuppetry, and self-promotion. Basically I think Rirunmot should be blocked as yet another sockpuppet and that this DRV be closed as a bad-faith nomination. Additionally, given the widespread past sockpuppetry on Wikipedia, it's entirely plausible that there is also sockpuppetry going on in the academic publishing side of things: that is, I would need more than the usual amount of evidence to become convinced that the papers on this subject that are purportedly by different people than Boubaker really are. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close due to the outcome of this --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

List_of_wedding_guests_of_Prince_William_of_Wales_and_Kate_Middleton – Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm calling for this to be reviewed, since as quite a few people clearly stated, the wedding itself was notable, the list of people going, not necessarily. Going to a Royal Wedding doesn't mean you become notable by attending or being invited, and I doubt many people will know half the names on the list of attendees. This afd was descended on by people purely interested in the celebrity of the people they knew, I'd imagine. I would ask for the keep result to be reviewed, since, just to be clear, notability is not inherited. Fish ^Barking? 19:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was hard to wade through and, given the quality of many of the arguments raised on both sides, not really worth it. Plenty of emphatically-worded opinion statements including the word "cruft", particularly towards the end. In policy terms both the "keep" side and the "delete" side are well-explained early on. On the "delete" side, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NOTDIR, and WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm unpersuaded by WP:NOTINHERITED because of citations like this one (ref #71 in the article) which is one of several examples of fairly major headlines about who wasn't invited. (Former Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair were also not invited, and there was news coverage of that fact too.) I'm also unpersuaded by WP:NOTDIR—I don't see how the policy actually prohibits such a list, if reliably-sourced. Nobody was planning to add the guests' phone numbers or shoe sizes. But WP:NOT#NEWS seems like a strong and substantive argument for deletion.
On the "keep" side, the arguments were that the material is well-sourced, indicating notability and a general interest in the topic (such that people might look it up in an encyclopaedia!), and that it is too lengthy to include in the main article.
I'm not thrilled that it was closed early. Such a well-attended and disputed AfD should have continued to the end. I also believe the correct close was "no consensus". Overall, I can't endorse this. But there's no way to see a "delete" consensus in that AfD and I don't believe the extra few hours would have made a critical difference to the outcome, so I can't recommend overturning it. A relist will not be productive, I think, but I see it as the best of a bad set of options, so relist.—S Marshall T/C 21:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Continuing the AFD would simply have been a waste of time and effort which wouldn't plausibly be expected to yield any result with a different effective outsome, since "no consensus" would of course default to keep. We ought to have a WP:QUAGMIRE standard to rapidly shut off overpopulated, overheated discussions without any hope of reaching resolution, when the likelihood of improving the encyclopedia is so low and the waste involved so high. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. For the same reason as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, no consensus would surely default to keep. --Dariocuccio (talk) 02:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - the close was correct following the discussion presented. Personally, I would say that any non-notable individuals (i.e. those without a Wikipedia article) should be removed, but that is for another discussion and venue! The close was correct for the AfD as it stood at the time of closure. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. these lists often appear in secondary sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I don't like this particularly and suspect had it been listed in 6 months time (say) the outcome would differ (which suggest then it does indeed fail WP:NOTNEWS), however the argument about inherited notability is a red herring, appearing in a list article says nothing about notability and we certainly wouldn't entertain that as an argument for a standalone article on the person in the list. It's about the notability of the list as whole, we can't then edit that to only contain those we deem notable. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - My opinion? Merge into the other wedding articles. However, this is about the AfD, not an AfD itself, so I must endorse. CycloneGU (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer comment Just to clarify that when I say 'the result was Keep', I mean by that the effective result; I didn't mean that there were a consensus to keep, as noted in my closing statement. Cenarium (talk) 09:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those extremely rare situations when I might say an overturn to no consensus would make sense. The reason is that it is clear that the AfD was affected by running so soon after the event the article describes. This should stay for now, but it should probably be nominated again in a month or two when the honeymoon is over (both literally and figuratively), and I'd encourage the closer to say something along those lines in the close. Chick Bowen 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I said just above, and in my closing statement ? I didn't say that there were a consensus to keep, when I say the result was: keep, I'm talking about the effective result. The reason for my close is that "if allowed to follow its course [the AFD] would be highly unlikely to reach consensus for a decision other than keeping". People can renominate as they wish now that the marriage is over. Also, I've not been contacted before this was put to DRV. Cenarium (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and exactly the same thing has happened to me--I bolded the word "keep" in an AfD close while observing there was no consensus, and this was interpreted at DRV as a straight "keep" close (and like you, I was annoyed by that). So your point is well taken, and I generally agree with you, but I think there is a history of ambiguity in the way these kinds of closes are understood by the community. Chick Bowen 16:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: Close was well within closing admins' discretion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The grounds for review seems incoherent. The early close is perhaps suspect but I doubt that more time would have made a difference. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 May 2011[edit]

User talk:David Tombe – Decision endorsed – Peripitus (Talk) 10:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deletion of user tlk page contra-policy, so there was no XfD page to link to. User talk pages should be deleted via MfD. I have discussed this with the deleting admin, who indicated that he disagrees with the policy. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page was deleted by me. My general position on current policy is of no relevance to this particular deletion, as this deletion was made pursuant to policy, and in particular was made in consultation with ArbCom. This was not a speedy deletion contra to policy. Separately, I think that the policy is flawed in significant respects, but that's a question for a different day and a different venue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - Per ~~the reason given~~ the reason given(fixed to correct diff), it appears that the process defined at Wikipedia:Vanish#Deletion of user talk pages was followed in the deletion of this talk page. --- Barek (talk) - 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion - per confirmation (below) by Coren (talk · contribs) who is a member of ArbCom, that ArbCom had been consulted in the initial deletion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for ArbCom input; if there are overriding privacy concerns, we ought to hear of them before deciding on the action. In the absence of those concerns, restore as user talkpages, particularly those of editors who have been involved in significant matters, are important project history, and thus require serious mitigating circumstances to delete absent community consensus. Skomorokh 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is contrary to the usual privacy issues, since they are normally, er, private, particularly where ArbCom and Jimbo are concerned. WP:RTV is normally invoked in such circumstances, and is respected. Without any reason to divert from the norm, that policy, in my view, should prevail, if only for the personal effects upon, if not the personal wishes, of the editor involved. I cannot see the deleted page, obviously, but I don't believe that it was deleted capriciously. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have emailed ArbCom, as it seemed quicker than putting the DRV notice on all their talkpages. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy requires that user talk pages are deleted by deletion discussion or per WP:CSD, and no speedy deletion criterium was invoked in this case. The guideline Barek cites stipulates that "While user pages and subpages may be deleted, the deletion of user talk pages is invariably controversial, and should be the rare exception, not the rule. ... User talk pages should not be speedy deleted by admins. Whenever there is a request to delete a user talk page, a bureaucrat should be consulted." This procedure was not followed as far as I can tell; in particular, Jimbo Wales is not a bureaucrat. Consequently, ~~restore but wait for ArbCom input first~~ per Skomorokh. (Disclaimer: I have no knowledge about the background of or reason for, if any, of this deletion.) Sandstein 23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC) – Update: keep deleted per arbitrators' input below, though if arbitrators decide to make a habit of this, the policy issue should be submitted to the community, as currently or rules say we don't normally delete vanishing user talk pages. Sandstein 05:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are issues of privacy, ArbCom should not, and will not, respond except in suitable neutral and uninformative mode. And that, perhaps, is what they should be doing. Either way, I don't see this going much further forward. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. If there are good reasons why this page should (exceptionally) be deleted, but these reasons cannot be made public for reasons of privacy, ArbCom can tell us so and we should abide by that. If not, standard deletion procedure should be followed. Sandstein 00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, await input from ArbCom - for now, my post remains a "comment" until clarification is received (neither an endorse nor a restore for now). I've also corrected the diff in my post above, where Jimbo Wales stated the deletion was done "after consultation with ArbCom", which would resolve the requisite bureaucrat consultation, if confirmed. --- Barek (talk) - 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having no reason to assume otherwise, the declaration made by Mr. Wales is sufficient for me to suggest, with confidence, that policy was not disregarded, or circumvented in this action. Those with less ability are welcome to wait for ~~a bureaucrat~~ an ArbCom member to validate statements made. For my part, I will now continue having fun. My76Strat (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The policy linked says the right to vanish is typically accorded to users in good standing, which I would understand as not including those subject to blocks or arbcom actions, relevant as the talk page is one of the main records of those blocks. I would note also that the user rename seems to have split the account, as there are now two contribution records, [39] and [40].--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRV needs a certain minimum level of transparency before we can review a deletion. There's no transparency in this; everything was done and decided behind closed doors. So either we take Jimbo's word for it, as policy and common courtesy require, or we wait for an ArbCom member to pop their head in and tell us that this deletion was ArbApproved.
But the Arb's approval won't constitute a deletion review either. It will constitute an assertion that ArbCom are satisfied, and that's all. So there's no way the nominator can possibly receive anything that could meaningfully be called a "review" of this deletion, is there?
Sending him here was a wild goose chase and I propose that this DRV should be closed at once, without result, accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As regards your second paragraph, there is clearly an issue of trust here, whether it be in ArbCom or Jimbo. As I see it, opinions are currently divided on both, and there is clearly some scope for clarification; however, issues that are personal to an individual editor, which cannot be explored on-wiki, such as, for a recent example, User:Rodhullandemu, should be treated sensitively and without community input. There are other routes by which some issues should be resolved, and community input is not necessarily one of them. I agree that this is likely to be a fruitless discussion. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of those pages was agreed to by the committee as the best thing to do for the concerned editor and, indirectly, the project. Honestly? This DRV can serve no useful purpose and would probably be best closed. — Coren ^(talk) 04:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I candidly don't understand the purpose of a nomination like this one. Broad principles, such as "don't delete user talk pages," can be overridden when there are specific reasons for doing so. It is obvious from the circumstances that such reasons existed in this instance, and this fact should be accepted in a drama-minimizing manner. As I have written more than once recently, one of Wikipedia's most precious resources is the community's time, particularly the time of our most dedicated and knowledgeable users who might come across a discussion like this one. That time ought to be marshalled for highly productive pursuits, whether content creation related (our most important output), quality related, or policy related. A DRV like this one, by contrast, is a digression: a weeklong discussion of whether to restore a page that was deleted at the request of a controversially departed editor, whose contents are of nil or at best minimal current relevance. In the absence of any practical, rather than entirely theoretical, explanation of how overruling Jimbo and the arbitrators he consulted with on this issue would serve any useful purpose at all, I do not understand why this discussion is necessary and I certainly don't see any argument for undeleting the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unable to give practical reasons as the page and its history are concealed from me. Restore it for the duration of the review and you might get a more detailed argument. DuncanHill (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brad, I'd also point out that as you are very well aware, more often than not deletions like this go straight to ANI, not DRV. I came here because I didn't want the usual shitstorm that happens there. I'm truly sorry that you don't understand why it is necessary for editors to be able to ask for review of admin actions. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course I understand why editors must be able to ask for review of admin actions (if you don't think I understand that, you really have very little understanding of my history on the project). However, there are lots of admin actions taken all across the project every day, and we can't review all of them. Therefore, it seems to me that before asking that an action be reviewed, an editor would want to make sure that the disputed action was (1) incorrect, and (2) harmful. I haven't seen a case made that this deletion was either of these. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As other arbs have said, this is an instance of the "right to vanish" (meta:RTV). Requiring that a bureaucrat be consulted is a good ~~policy~~ guideline; in this case, we have a few bureaucrat on ArbCom, and Jimbo did consult ArbCom about this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the Arbs saying that the editor was in good standing as RTV is expected to require? DuncanHill (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was looking for the description of this good standing but didn't find it at WP:RTV. Is it specifically described somewhere or is it open to consideration and interpretation? Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not specifically defined, but it does say "Vanishing in this way is not a right. It is a courtesy extended by the Wikipedia community to make it easy for users to exercise their right to leave. Sometimes the community will not extend the courtesy: for example, if the user is not actually leaving, or if the user is not in good standing. The right to vanish might not be extended to users who have been abusive or disruptive, who left when they lost the trust of the community, or who have been banned. Note also that the Wikimedia Foundation does not guarantee that an account's username will be changed on request. Decisions to rename an account or allow a Right To Vanish, if contested or in dispute, are determined by community consensus."
      - Thanks for the detail. I might as well add my position then that I endorse the deletion and trust all parties that came to this decision that it is a correct within guidelines of not something that occurs often and with careful consideration - for the user and the project. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see this has been reopened. Spartaz was right to close it and I urge that it be closed again. There really is no point continuing, folks. It doesn't matter whether we endorse or overturn. DRV doesn't have the authority to overturn ArbCom or the power to inspect ArbCom's decisions. This was decided behind closed doors and we can't review, inspect, or affect that decision in any way at all.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing particularly closed doors about it. This is a departed user who had a very difficult time in Wikipedia and who was concerned that these pages were turning up high in google searches for his real name. He'd already been gone from Wikipedia for a pretty long period of time and showed no signs of returning, though he was not banned and had every right to edit Wikipedia. It was explained to him clearly that the deletion was based on his staying gone from Wikipedia. I do agree that, as a constitutional matter, DRV is generally not the right venue for this, but I did invite DuncanHill to take it up here if he wanted, as I am generally open to review, inspection, etc. This should not be viewed as a top-down imposition on the community. The deletion was 100% consistent with policy, for one thing. And it was just good judgment for another thing. There is nothing wrong with questioning it, either, although as someone else noted, the time of experienced editors is a precious commodity and not too much time should be wasted on dramatics. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any deletion, including deletion by bureaucrats, can be challenged and overturned at deletion review. is the constitutional point. I cannot find the ArbCom decision to which S Marshall refers - it's not an Arbcom decision, it was a decision by one admin after consulting ArbCom, which is not the same. Courtesy blanking, together with oversight of problematic edits, and the rename, would in my opinion be sufficient to protect the user. DuncanHill (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. As you can see, consensus is not with you. I hope that doesn't make you unhappy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - He was banned, from physics, immediately before he stopped editing in February. The discussion is archived here.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, he was topic-banned from physics. He was not banned from Wikipedia. And so he decided to leave. I think he will be happier now. And I think a lot of other people will be happier too. Certainly, we wouldn't want the ongoing existence of pages in google to keep him emotionally invested in the project and continuing to try to argue in favor of being allowed to edit physics, etc. Sometimes people's interaction with Wikipedia just doesn't work out. If it helps them, and us, to allow them to walk away with dignity, we should all support that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is there content on that talk page that's valuable to you for some reason, DuncanHill? Or is this simply a matter of principle?—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a little hard to tell when it's invisible, ja? So, did Tombe leave "in good standing", or not? And I don't understand the google reference. Talk pages can be excluded from google's indexing, right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        They can, and they can also be anonymised by removing the offending name and replacing it with a neutral substitute. And even if these technical measures are deemed insufficient, the content can be emailed to users who have some reason to need it. The purpose of my question was to find out whether the effort involved would be worthwhile.—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Note: user talk pages on the English Wikipedia are not indexed by search engines. Graham87 07:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If so, then Jimbo's google argument is bogus. So they must be wanting desparately (and perhaps justifiably) to hide something that's in either the talk page itself or its history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Valid application of WP:RTV, also within the remit of Jimbo and ArbCom to handle private issues privately. If details were made public so we all could see it, it would, of course, ruin the private nature of the issue. --Jayron32 20:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Same rationale as Jayron 32. Sometimes it is impossible to review Arbcom's actions without revealing the material that has been deleted and thus defeating the whole purpose of removing the content.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Was jwales acting on behalf of arbcom? I'm not clear on "within the remit of Jimbo and ArbCom" - which? Chzz ► 21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got the impression the user contacted Jimbo, and then Jimbo discussed his proposed action with Arbcom before proceeding. Correct me if I'm wrong --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If, indeed, it is on behalf of Arbcom - that's fine; no problem. I just think we need to be clear who is acting here. Chzz ► 21:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it matters at all but as it seems to have been explained by Jimmy and confirmed by others - Jimmy got a personal request from the user and Jimmy supported it and asked arbcom for support to do it and he got it, as arbcom members have confirmed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Coren, I (now) agree that This DRV can serve no useful purpose and would probably be best closed - thus, Endorse deletion. The arguments on procedure belong elsewhere. Chzz ► 22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I can see a reasonable argument that the deletion was out of process, but I'm not seeing any compelling reason that the page should be restored. "I don't know what's in it, but if I did, I might have a compelling reason" isn't, to me, sufficient grounds for overturning the deletion. 28bytes (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, a valid application of WP:RTV. Can't see what all the fuss is over, really. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm guessing (I don't claim to speak for others, so correct me if I'm mistaken)that most of the fuss is over the lack of transparency. One possible outcome of this could be for the community to request a posting at WP:AC/N with the outcome of any future consults with them over a WP:RTV issue (or any other decision that leads to a page deletion). No details need to be given, just a mention that ArbCom was consulted and that they recommended or supported the deletion. That way, if there's ever a question in the future, it can be referred to that noticeboard posting rather than starting a DRV. --- Barek (talk) - 22:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. With ArbCom's input here, it is clear that the deletion was appropriate. Peacock (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I'm a little surprised that this is here. Jimmy acted in a situation that deserved intervention. I don't know what it is, but I ~do~ know that if I needed to know - or if the community did - Jimmy would tell us. Since he has been purposely vague, I conclude that there's enough here that required intervention, but that neither I, nor the community, has need to know. Jimmy consulted with the community's elected representatives, and they supported this action. That's enough for me. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The input from ArbCom clears up the fact that the deletion was appropriate. Although it has been mentioned that the user is no longer editing here, I assume that should he start editing again in an area in which he was topic-banned, he would be recognised and action taken as appropriate PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only deletions we cannot review are those specified as being due to WP:OFFICE, Neither Jimmy nor arb Com has any power over content. However, there seems to be consensus here by those who understand the matter in hand that the material should be deleted, and that consensus is sufficient. But it's our communal decision. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

WU LYF – A7 overturned, any editor is free to nominate the restored article at AfD – Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (band/musician)

This acticle was speedily deleted minutes after its creation. The article is on British band and there were many references in the article from very reliable sources (eg, NME, the Guardian, the Observer, etc) to establish notability. I think this should have, at the very least, gone through an AfD process if the deleting admin really thought that it should be deleted. It's my understanding that CSD should be reserved for articles with no references. I have tried contacting the deleting admin, as required in the DRV instructions, but he is not interested in discussing the matter, which is why I'm here. Robman94 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy, list at AFD if desired. Coverage in multiple reliable sources is normally sufficient to defeat a db-band speedy, and the deleting admin's reliance on prior A7's was inappropriate, particularly since the article cites coverage in The Guardian published after the initial speedy noms. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, per HW Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The new version was a complete re-write and was heavily referenced. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This had been tagged as a PROD, I removed that tag expecting the issue to then go to WP:AfD. I'm disappointed that this wasn't the course taken -- especially due to notability issues concerning the subject, which need to be discussed not dismissed with handwaving. -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn clearly not an A7 candidate. Contrary to what the deleting admin said there is no requirement that recreations of speedily deleted articles go through DRV, provided the recreation addresses the original reason for speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 separate images by Edward Hopper – Deletion endorsed. The consensus below is that these images do not, and cannot, meet the strict NFC criteria and that no further discussion is needed to determine that. As such as the speedy deletions are endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

F7: Violates non-free use policy: article does not need five non free images

wrongful speedy, DI process not followed; no notice. the images were in strict accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, each illustrating a point of critical commentary for the Hotel Lobby article. if the assertion is that one and only one image is to be used, then the policy should be changed. Slowking4 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I don't see a case being made that the multiple images are used in a way which significantly improves the reader's understanding of the critical commentary involved. The claim that a discrete image is needed to increase the reader's understanding that one female figure is blonde jumps out at me as invalid. The proposed uses strike me as more illustrative than explanatory/amplifying; the latter functions are required for NFCC uses like these, when going beyond identification. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation "article does not need five non free images" fails in and of itself, because the absolute count is irrelevant; some articles don't even need one non free image, while others might have ten that are integral to an article and comply with NFCC. The images are also actually all part of the same work: they exist in multiple files, but each shows a higher resolution detail of the same copyrighted painting that the article is about. So the effect is just to use more of one non-free work, not more non-free works.
That said, I don't see commentary in the article that particularly justifies the use of these details. All of the figures are visible in the single low resolution image of the whole painting, and Hopper also isn't really known for having intricate detail or brushwork. The files probably shouldn't have been speedy deleted, but undeleting them would just be a pointless exercise of process. So endorse deletion'. If you want to use them in the article, then write more sourced content specifically about what those details show that might justify it. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Being unable to see the images, can someone explain what they were and why a free image couldn't do the same thing? Heck, what made them non-free? I very much doubt the 5 images in one article is or should be a speedy criteria as I'm sure we have 5 non-free images in other articles. But without understanding the context it's really hard to say. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are details of a copyrighted painting, Hotel Lobby, by Edward Hopper that were used in an article about that painting. Really, that's fairly clear from the file names and the article that they were used in. postdlf (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it is. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
restore, list at FfD Not a speedy case as it doesn't clearly break our NFCC criteria. It's clear that the rational used for deletion here (too many free images) isn't one that can trivially be applied to any given article. Further, I question if blow-ups of small sections of an image already shown in the article should really count as a new free image. Maybe it should, but I'd like to hear a discussion on the topic. So basicly "per PostDlf," but I honestly think a FfD discussion would have a fair chance of resulting in a keep. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have looked at the rationale of the nominator (User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) and am posting it here as it give a little more information than my shorthand version that I entered when I deleted the files: "Concern=Non-free image overuse. Used merely in a gallery, not the object of specific commentary. FUR is inapplicable, as this detail crop is not being used as "primary means of identification". --Diannaa ^(Talk) 12:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment speedy deletion procludes discussion; images no longer in gallery [41]; not all images deleted were nominated by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; they certainly add to my understanding of the critical commentary. Slowking4 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes, all four images were nominated by FPAS. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that I tagged these images at a time when all four detail images were being used in a mere gallery at the bottom of the article [42]; the uploader was duly notified and indeed then removed the images herself [43]. Somebody else then re-inserted them further up in the text [44], where admittedly they made somewhat more sense, but you could still argue they are redundant with the main image (which is not in dispute, and I believe the analytical discussion can be understood without the enlarged details). My original tag was "{di-disputed-rationale|Non-free image overuse. Used merely in a gallery, not the object of specific commentary. FUR is inapplicable, as this detail crop is not being used as 'primary means of identification'}" Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not lobbying either way but I would like to give a little more detail of my thought process when I deleted the pics so people can have more information. The detail pictures are indeed mentioned in the text, but they were not enlarged much more than the copy in the info box. I did not feel they added to my understanding of the text any more than if I looked at the copy of the image in the info box. Now that the pics are not there any more it is not so obvious, but having them all there in the same section made the text get squished in between; thus I felt these images were overwhelming the article and actually detracting from its clarity. They are non-free images and need to be used judiciously; I thought this was overkill. I will be interested to see how this debate turns out. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. This should have gone to WP:NFCR for discussion. Potential image overuse doesn't render the fair use rationale on any individual image invalid. F7 did not apply here. Thparkth (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would F7 not cover a problem of over-use? F7 covers any situation where any one of the NFCC is not met, including the one about minimality. FURs don't exist in a vacuum; their validity or non-validity is always assessed against the whole context in which they are used, including what other images are present. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - F7 covers any situation where any one of the NFCC is not met - I don't see that in WP:CSD#F7 at all. Please tell me which of the criteria under F7 you feel applies to overuse. Thparkth (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC) ... I see where this comes from but I believe that guideline mis-interprets the actual F7 wording. I stand by my opinion that overuse of non-free images does not render the FUR for any one image obviously invalid. A problem like that needs to be resolved by a higher-level discussion that considers the best option for the multiple files and for the article, not by arbitrary speedy deletion. Thparkth (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I felt it violated Criterion #3a: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - A subjective judgement like that is contrary to the basic principles of speedy deletion policy. I have started a discussion here about the apparent contradiction between WP:CSD and WP:FUG that this discussion reveals. Thparkth (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Restore As pointed out, that 5 illustrations are used when one might arguably suffice is, even if perfectly obvious, not reason to remove all 5, but to discuss which one to keep. But in any case, "feeling" it violated the rules is not sufficient for speedy by any criteria. It has to be obvious, or it needs a discussion. This applies to copyright policy as everything else--even the basic rule, G12, copyvio is for undoubted copyvio. I speedy thousands of items a year, but only if I can say I'm reasonably certain. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken: all five weren't removed. There was one obvious privileged candidate to be kept, namely the one that showed the whole painting. That one was never contested. There was never a reason to debate whether to pick that one or any other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Correct application of WP:NFCC#Enforcement+WP:CSD#F7, whose language unambiguously does call for these kinds of judgment calls on the part of administrators. Even if some editors have been saying here they don't like it to be done this way, that's what the policy says, and it's been done like that in thousands of cases, for years. Long-standing policy. Also, none of the voters above have so far brought forward any policy-based argument on the merits of the case itself, i.e. explaining why they think the images actually do meet the criteria. Restoring them on purely procedural grounds if there is no indication at all why they wouldn't be a SNOW case for re-deletion in an ensuing FFD is not productive, even if the argument about procedure were valid (which it is not). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The objection, in policy terms, is that speedy deletion policy requires that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." In the case of alleged image overuse, it is not "obvious" what constitutes overuse, and it is not obvious which of the non-free files should be deleted. Speedy deletion for overuse therefore breaches the wording as well as the spirit of speedy deletion policy. Thparkth (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clearly showing subsections of an image is not increasing understanding, since you've got the original image and can see those same sections. If the sections are at a higher resolution then the original image it also fails the minimal usage i.e. I cannot see any argument that both parts of NFCC#3 don't fail. Arguing about if the precise process was followed seems to fail WP:BURO I can't imagine any situation these would survive a deletion discussion where it seems fairly evident this fails multiple NFCC where failing just 1 is more than sufficient. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If (as I believe) these images were deleted out of process, then the community was robbed of the opportunity to have a discussion and form a consensus on the appropriate number of images to use, and which ones should be retained. This is contrary to the intention of speedy deletion policy, constitutes a real harm, and diminishes the encyclopedia. You might like to read WP:BURO again with that in mind. Thparkth (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quite happy with my understanding of WP:BURO and I've seen enough debates and understand the NFCC well enough that it's just a complete waste of time arguing the toss on images like these. What's really harmful to the Free encyclopedia is including loads of non-free stuff. What's really harmful to the encyclopedia is encouraging pointless debates and people stomping around trying to be indignant. Sure people can try and argue stuff at the debate but that doesn't mean such arguments will be sane or worth entertaining. NFCC#3A - Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. I can see no reasonable argument a piece of a picture gives more significant information than when presented as part of the whole picture without it failing NFCC#3B - Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I came here to close this, but the debate thus far is on the fence, and I am not comfortable undeleting these images. The NFCC is not just a list of things one shouldn't do, it sets out the limits for our use of non-free content, and this kind of "detail" image is clearly and, yes, obviously and indisputably outside of those limits. I am influenced by my knowledge that authors or publishers of art history textbooks generally have to pay extra for permission to print details, beyond what they pay for the low-res image of a whole work. Under these circumstances, I cannot imagine the community allowing this usage, so we should properly endorse this deletion as correct and necessary. Chick Bowen 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, that would have been an excellent and powerful argument at the FFD discussion which should have taken place. It doesn't seem to directly address whether or not process was followed correctly. Thparkth (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Like Chick I came to close but found that I'd prefer a stronger consensus then the one here so decided to consider the issue instead. I would also be unhappy undeleting these images as it would simply be an exercise in process that would result in us infringing the rights of these images while we inevitably agree to delete them. There can be no justification for these images under the NFCC so we should not host them. As an absolute mission directive there is no room to shade that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shinese – This was a very unsatisfactory AFD discussion and the close is understandable but the consensus is that the policy based delete arguments were not well refuted and that further discussion is encouraged. Since both the close and the request to relist this are both reasonable I am closing this without endorsing or overturning but specifically encouraging the nominator to relist this in the hope that the next AFD has a clearer policy based outcome. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new AfD was initiated by the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinese (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Both the closing admin and another editor have advised me against opening a DRV on this AfD, but I'm being "bold" because I am somewhat frustrated with the flimsy keep rationales and complete lack of response to my policy- and guideline-based concerns. I don't know where else to go to contest this, but I feel it would have benefited from more participants and would like it to be relisted.

First of all, I know this is not a place to rehash arguments, but I want to clearly explain why it is not notable since I suppose my last statement was unclear. The sources in the article are as follows; I was unable to find any others that did not have boilerplate mixed-breed text:

Four designer dog registries or lists. Please note that two say that other crosses will be added on breeder request, and one says "All new combinations are welcome to be submitted for review to be included." None of them give any information about the Shinese whatsoever aside from it being a Shih Tzu x Pekingese cross
Two articles that literally mention its name and nothing else
A page on dogster, the sole content being "Shineses are hybrids of Shih Tzu and Pekingese dog breeds." along with random dogs with "Shinese" listed as breed
Dog Breed Info page. This is not a reliable source, but even if that is ignored, the only content is their boilerplate text for mixed-breeds and some user-submitted pictures. Take a look at another, like the Afollie, for evidence
A broken link, archived in the Wayback Machine here. Fails the policy on self-published sources http://www.mixedbreedpups.com/about/
Finally, we have a slew of books + one website related to Shih Tzu and Pekingese individually. This is the crux of the issue -- although a significant outcross to a Pekingese within the Shih Tzu breed may have occurred, it does not mean it has any relevance whatsoever to the current designer dog known as a "Shinese". In the 1940s, a significant outcross to a Newfoundland was made within the Bernese Mountain Dog breed, and I've seen crosses of the two. Does that mean that it's notable in any way, any more than a Dalmatian-English Pointer cross is notable because of a health-related outcross? It's significant to the breed in question, undoubtedly, but that does not mean that the modern-day designer dog has anything to do with it. In fact, I have seen no evidence of a relationship whatsoever. I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary, but nobody has given any so far nor have I been able to find any myself.
Other generalized books relating to dogs or mixed breeds. Indeed, I have read through most of these myself in the past, and know that they do not cover the Shinese; the citations can be looked through on their own. None of these are used to support specific information about the Shinese itself, which is supposedly the article's topic. There is some information about how the two breeds (Shih Tzu and Pekingese) are similar, but this does not cover the Shinese as a (prospective breed)/cross.

Three editors participated in the AfD. One, the article creator, explained that there was evidence of a Pekingese outcross within the Shih Tzu breed, but did not explain how that was relevant to the modern-day Shinese designer dog, as opposed to the Shih Tzu breed specifically. I commented on this and got no response. The second only commented that it was "well-written" and sourced and deletion seemed "extreme", and did not reply when I asked them to look at the validity of the sources instead of the quantity alone. The third was not particularly constructive: "What's wrong with that? Keep", no further input.

None of these concerns were addressed at all despite being substantiated, so I feel relisting would be appropriate. Thanks in advance to anyone who comments. – anna 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist I think the best possible action here would have been relisting the debate for a second time rather than closing it as "keep." Anna offered arguments for deletion which seem fairly strong. A reasonable case for keeping the article was made by Theornamentalist, but Anna poked major holes in it with this comment, which drew no rebuttal. Wikipedian2 then commented that the article should be kept because it is well-written and sourced; his failure to address the notability question makes his a flimsy argument. At this point, there was clearly no consensus either way; the AfD was relisted. One more participant showed up; he simply wrote, "What's wrong with that? Keep." That vote, obviously, is not at all grounded in policy and should be discarded by any closing admin. Therefore, nothing really changed between the relist and the closure of the AfD; I think it's evident that this should have been relisted a second time in hopes of eliciting a consensus (or at least a more substantive debate) on the notability question. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you were advised that DRV won't carry on the debate but look at the deletion and see if the process was OK. What I can see in the debate is that you challenged the article on the basis that the sources were weak/not reliable etc. Of the keep responses one acknowledges that some sources are weak, but claims there are other sources which are substantial and provides a gbooks search. (This is far from ideal in my mind, pointing people and saying it's over there often isn't helpful, pointing out specific examples is far better, but I digress), your follow up on this weren't addressed. The next argument is merely an assertion that it's sourced and cited, without addressing any of your points about the quality of sourcing, this should have been given little weight. The final keep after a relist is "What's wrong with that?" which is a complete non-argument and should be disgarded. I'd agree with User:A Stop at Willoughby, a further Relist would have seen the best course of action, at worst a "No Consensus" result rather than "Keep" (Technically there is no difference between the two the article stays, however "No Consensus" tends to imply that a further relisting in the no too distant future will be ok to try and gain a consensus one way or other.) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments so far. It may be worth noting that the Google Books link used the search term Elfreda Evans, who is related to the old Shih Tzu-Peke outcrosses; her association with the Shinese designer cross hasn't been established. I did look through the results and couldn't find a connection. – anna 08:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse outcome, don't relist at this time. While the argument made by ASaW is valid, I don't see any reason to expect that further relisting would result in a "delete" outcome; at best (from the nom's perspective), this might shift to "no consensus." Theornamentalist's point in support is well taken; there does seem to be enough coverage of the general subject to merit retaining the content, with the more valid question being whether to keep the article under the current title, or convert "Shinese" to a redirect to a more generic title like "Pekingese - Shit Tsu crossbreeding." There's no suitable single merge target; neither parent breed is preferable to the other. In cases like there, where we're not dealing with BLP content or any other sensitive subject; where we're not dealing with a policy transgression, and where the underlying deletion rationale is essentially "not notable enough," the case for expressed disregarding community sentiment is the weakest.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Having read the AfD, I concur with anna that the deletion arguments were more solid than the keep arguments. At the same time, the problem was that only the nominator supported the deletion, which made it impossible for the closing administrator to close the debate with a deletion result. Even a no consensus might have not applied since a majority of editors supported keeping the article. It is an inherent weakness of the deletion process. It can't be helped that, sometimes, even the best arguments will be overruled by a majority of opinions when no other editor expresses support for the nomination arguments. In this case, I think that a relist is the most reasonable option at this point. Jfgslo (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was no consensus to delete and so the close was quite correct. There is no issue here which requires any further procedural pot-boiling. Please see WP:HORSEMEAT. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I'm not sure how I'm beating a dead horse when there was no real debate to begin with; however, I will, as that page says, back away from the carcass if the close is endorsed. – anna 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist though this debate couldn't have been closed as delete keep wasn't appropriate either as the keep opinions didn't address the concerns of the nominator. "It cites sources" is a weak argument for countering notability concerns because notability requires more than the mere existence of sources. If the debate had to be closed at that point it would have to be as no consensus, but as participation was limited further discussion has a good chance of producing a result one way or the other and relisting is therefore appropriate. Hut 8.5 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - wow, as the primary author, I apologize for this! When I started writing it, it felt unfinished and I was hoping to find more sources but as usual I got sidetracked; in fact, not even at en.wp; I've nested into wikisource for the last half year. I am going to try and head to look for more sources this week. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's possible the closing admin was also taking into account the result of the previous AfD which closed with 2 keep votes. Robman94 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist- I agree with Hut 8.5. There is no way that a one nomination statement and two keep votes that latch onto entirely different issues can be considered to have reached a consensus. Reyk _YO! 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the closing admin, I didn't relist the discussion because it had already been relisted once and the chance of another relist attracting enough "delete" opinions to obtain a "delete" consensus appeared slim. If people here think otherwise, feel free to relist it. Sandstein 21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm not quite sure why we are at DRV. The obvious thing was for the nominator to relist (with you indicating no objection).--Scott Mac 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Er, I don't think that the nominator can or should relist the discussion, as such, that's an admin decision. But they could have started a new AfD and argued that it was justified because of the poor arguments made in the previous one. Sandstein 21:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we're agreeing on all but semantics. The nominator can relist the article on afd. Relist tends to mean start a new debate (as opposed to "reoppening", which is to reverse the close.) But as I say, this is semantics.--Scott Mac 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can stand on process here. However, the nominator has made a very solid policy-based argument for deletion which has not been properly examined. If there are no proper sources (as opposed to their being multiple improper ones) then policy mandates deletion. Nothing should stand in the way of relisting this, and continuing to relist it, until either the article is deleted or until the deletion argument is properly examined and rejected.--Scott Mac 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article ought to be a disambiguation page. Someone typing "Shinese" into the search box has probably made a typo for "Chinese" or "Shinies" or something, but it's plausible that they might want the dog crossbreed, in which case the disam should point them to the List of dog hybrids. This could be done without an AfD, so I don't see why relisting is a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus or relist. The keeps were weak and rebutted. As one of the users who advised against listing here, I am pleasantly surprised by the responses. I expected a WP:SNOW of responses like "Since no one agreed with the nominator, this is a no consensus at worst, and no consensus is the same as keep (the delete button isn't pushed), so endorse." Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist- Obviously, there was no consolidated consensus. --Rirunmot (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and demand significant RS. This is a clear failure of the deletion process where strength of argument loses to WP:ILIKEIT by numbers. Shame. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

1 May 2011[edit]

Silence (Doctor Who) – Closure endorsed. Merge discussion can take place on the article talk page as appropriate. Might I suggest that anyone wishing to open a merge discussion wait another month or two until the show reaches the mid-season point at least? – NW (Talk) 05:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

From the outset, let me say that I think the discussion should have closed with a consensus to merge+redirect to List of Doctor Who monsters and aliens. I've done a brief tally of opinions offered in the discussion (it was very brief, so my figures may be out by one or two). Here are the results:

!Votes for 'keep'	Straight-out !votes for 'merge'	!Voters who !voted 'keep' or 'delete' but are content with a merge
32 (including 5 'content with merge')	15	6 (5 'keep', 1 'delete')

So if we're taking a broad, consensus-based view of things, there are 27 editors who would only be content if the article were kept, and 21 who would be content if it were merged and redirected: this latter group includes myself as article nominator. Since this isn't a purely numerical exercise, we need to examine the responses' arguments and evaluate their quality.

I think it's fairly hard to dispute that at least some of the 'keep' comments were extremely poor. I've gone through the discussion once again, and count a lucky 13 'keep' !votes which I feel should be discounted/struck on the basis of irrelevance; many of them are actually textbook cases of WP:ATA. Here's my analysis:

Comments that should potentially be struck
Text of comment	Notes
Keep - They're the Big Bad of the 6th Season and are named as the Silence in the ending credits [...] They're central to this seasons MythArc.	Rather desperate WP:ILIKEIT.
...it is now notable as part of the franchise and the new major villain for the series.	Borderline case of WP:NOTINHERITED.
Keep slightly premature creation, but seeing as it's there it can be improved and expanded as the series goes on.	NOREASON given as regards the article and the notability policy.
Keep: The Silence will eventually become a full article as the revived Series 6 goes forth.	This comment is almost identical to the first example at WP:ATA#CRYSTAL.
...we can presume that like all major story arcs and aliens of the series there will be substantial reliable sourcing about them.	WP:ATA#CRYSTAL again.
Keep as IAR on CRYSTAL/GNG.	I don't think that WP:IAR applies to either of these important content policies...
Keep Whilst they may have only appeared in one episode so far, the entire fifth season was manipulated by this alien [...] SO by your rationale, should the similar article on the Weeping Angels be removed too?	WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
Keep I might have !voted Merge except for the tone of the deletion request [...] Sometimes I, too, succumb to temptation, what else can I say? Sorry.	ADHOM !vote designed to spite the nominator.
Keep, A new race of aliens of Doctor Who, while it may be a bit of crystal balling, I'm pretty sure with every other race it will soon have toys in the shop and people dressing as them for Halloween.	Sci-fi monsters which will 'probably' have toys on sale in shops soon are entitled to articles now? WP:ATA#CRYSTAL and WP:NOTINHERITED.
Strong keep This is very accurate.	WP:ITSUSEFUL.
Keep As per all keep arguments above.	Textbook WP:MAJORITY [45]
Keep - since the story arc is "Silece will fall", the rest of the season may very well deal with these creatures.	WP:ATA#CRYSTAL.
Keep, in my opinion notability has been established.	Borderline WP:ITSNOTABLE.

If you've got this far, well done, and thanks for wading through all that. Just a quick word of reminder to some of the newer editors who I suspect will come here to offer an opinion: this deletion review is about the way in which the deletion discussion was closed; it is not about whether or not the article should be kept or merged or deleted or whatever. So comments like, "Endorse closure because the article is notable," aren't appropriate; better would be, "Endorse closure because the 'merge' arguments weren't very good for such-and-such a reason," (not my own view!) Thanks. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 11:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as merging is an editorial decisions which can be done and undone at any point by a consensus on the appropriate articles talk page, this seems a rather futile exercise. Why no just discuss and gain consensus for a merge on the articles talk page? If you can't gain it there then almost certainly someone will gain a consensus to unmerge if this review concludes in a merge. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The object of this 'exercise' is to have the AfD closure overturned to merge. I do not feel that there was a consensus to keep. I do feel there was a consensus to merge. AfDs frequently close as merge, and I think this should have been one of them. ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 12:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your desired outcome, that wasn't my point. If you gain consensus on the articles talk page, you get the merge, you get your desired outcome and from my viewpoint in a sturdier form than DRV changing the outcome to merge. DRV has on many occassions declined such requests anyway as the difference between a merge outcome and keep outcome are from the point of view of administrative action indistinguishable --82.7.44.178 (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then we'll just have to wait and see what happens :) ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 13:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I can see merit in all three viewpoints, but even if those 'Keeps' outlined above are discounted, which I don't believe they should all be, some of the 'Merges' are no more convincing, and the balance of the discussion is still for keeping the article. The closure was therefore correct. If anyone wishes to pursue a merge it would seem sensible to leave it a few weeks to see if more coverage emerges before starting a discussion on the article's talk page, although it seems highly likely that as the series progresses more coverage will emerge, so a merge may only be a temporary state of affairs before it reverts to a standalone article, so it would likely not be a productive use of people's time to repeatedly discuss this. --Michig (talk) 13:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask out of genuine interest which of the comments I listed above should not be discounted? ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 13:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He never said he wasn't discounting the Keeps you listed. He said, and I quote, "but even if those 'Keeps' outlined above are discounted, which I don't believe they should all be, some of the 'Merges' are no more convincing". He thinks some of the Keeps shouldn't be discounted, but he's allowing for all of them to be discounted when saying the Merges are no more convincing.

HOWEVER...since you asked...

...it is now notable as part of the franchise and the new major villain for the series. - Valid.

...slightly premature creation, but seeing as it's there it can be improved and expanded as the series goes on. - Borderline. Correct that it doesn't quote a policy, but it still gives a valid opinion.

So I'd keep those two !votes, but I consent your point on the rest. As for the merges...

Until and unless it becomes more notable. - WP:NOTNOTABLE

there's enough there for a stand-alone article even now, and there will only be more as the series progresses - Ambiguous !vote and comment. WP:CRYSTAL under a Keep !vote - did this person delete an old !vote?

So while I am only discounting two merges compared with, uh, 11 remaining discounted keeps, at worst we have a no consensus. Still more in favour of a keep. So this is best suited for the article's talk page. CycloneGU (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I view, "It is now notable as part of the franchise and the new major villain for the series," as a textbook instance of WP:NOTINHERITED. Under which guideline is 'anything which is a major new villain' notable? Under which guideline is 'anything which is part of the Doctor Who franchise' notable? ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the new major villain of the series? The major villain is a protagonist, which is inherited notability in the storyline, and thus the series. CycloneGU (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote. It doesn't matter whether or not they're a major new villain. Being a major new villain ≠ notability. There is no inherited notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 16:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"major new villain" - The word you are ignoring is "major". It's a MAJOR villain; in other words, without this villain, the story would not be anywhere close to what it currently is. However, I refuse to get into an argument over the validity of a single keep comment when the consensus is clearly against you and the majority of this debate clearly says endorse; but for your comments interspersed throughout here, I'd suggest a snow close. CycloneGU (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If you can find a policy or guideline supporting your view that 'major' villains (defined how, by the way?) are automatically notable, then I will gladly retract my WP:NOTINHERITED claim. And I don't think WP:SNOW applies when the first four or five editors in the first four or five hours of a week-long process happen to all have the same view. ╟─Treasury Tag►international waters─╢ 17:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't think WP:SNOW applies when the first four or five editors in the first four or five hours of a week-long process happen to all have the same view. Funny you should say that.

User voting to endorse	Participated in AfD? (Yes/No)	Time of endorsement	Time since DRV
Michig	Yes	13:07	1:36
Umbralcorax	Yes	14:02	2:31
Yours truly	No	14:50	3:19
IP user 86.185.86.83	Yes	16:37	5:06
U-Mos	Yes	16:50	5:19
Metropolitan90	No	17:25	5:54

Participated in AfD is noted merely to show that the majority of users commenting here also commented in the AfD. Diffs are the first edit I found in the AfD by them. Other than myself and Metropolitan90, the consensus that faced you in the AfD is here as well.

Endorse snow close per chart above ~~and nominator's preceding comment~~. CycloneGU (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC) (Strike made of portion, I misread the comment I was quoting but my opinion for an early close remains given additional votes below. CycloneGU (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

What exactly does your chart prove? And are you seriously trying to use my comment to indicate that there should be a SNOW close? Ridiculous behaviour. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I'm not going to have a petty argument with you, but when the first six editors in a six hour timeframe all vote to endorse - including two who didn't have anything to do with the discussion - you have to agree that this is a snow close situation, yes? There is nothing ridiculous about that or the fact that I am pointing it out in reply to you despite your continued objection that something that should take place on the article talk page should take place here instead. This is a futile and useless nomination; a discussion for keep or redirect belongs on the article talk page. CycloneGU (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to agree that this is a snow close situation, yes? Well, I've repeatedly stated that I do not consider this a SNOW-close situation, so I'll have to assume that you've simply not seen those particular comments of mine. Why not re-read this entire DRV page to update yourself? ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already read it. And this DRV is a protest of the keep result from the AfD. My snow close comment is in relation to this DRV and has nothing to do with the AfD. CycloneGU (talk) 18:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you read me stating, more than once, that I thought a SNOW-close was inappropriate, and then asked, "You have to agree that this is a snow close situation, yes?" That seems a bit POINTy to me. ╟─Treasury Tag►collectorate─╢ 18:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue having a pointless argument with someone trying to be pointy in using the DRV channel to protest, at worst, a no consensus keep per Metropolitan90 below, and try to overturn to a merge. This is a laughable waste of the DRV process. I suggest you read each and every endorse comment and think about what they actually mean. They say exactly what I just said in this very comment. This DRV is not for a keep or redirect discussion; at this point, the only other results from endorsing a keep are to relist or delete. I think we can rule out delete without discussion. Therefore, let's examine relist. Sure, it could be relisted; however, I see no point to doing so as the page will still either be kept (possibly with no consensus) or redirected. There is no consensus to delete. And since keep or redirect are the only possible ways the AfD could be closed, you would be wise to bring it up some time from now at the article talk page. Otherwise you are wasting my time and that of anyone else who participates in this discussion. That is all. CycloneGU (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, moments after I accuse you of being POINTy, you accuse me of being POINTy. Rather smacks of tit-for-tat to me, but since you've said you're not engaging further, I suppose I'll let it pass. ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 18:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- Close could have been no-consensus, but there was nothing close to a consensus to delete, and a close of keep does not preclude a merge discussion happening on the talk page. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and close per above. Keep or redirect is a talk page discussion. CycloneGU (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Regardless of the fact that I disagreed with you during the AfD, the balance of that discussion seemed to me to be weighted towards keeping the article. In truth, it seemed that the vast majority of the debate that endorsed merging came from yourself, and a tally of the sheer number of comments you made during that discussion supports that claim. If I weren't so sure that you had wikipedia's best interest at heart, I would say that the above looks like an attempt to massage the numbers to make a consensus behind your opinion where no such result actually existed. To be clear, though, I of course do not believe that that is the case, and wish you the best of luck with your future editing.--86.185.86.83 (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. Could you perhaps explain what is misleading/massaged about the tally above, and how "the vast majority of the debate that endorsed merging" came from me, despite 15 editors explicitly !voting 'merge'? Thanks in advance. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 16:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I just did a quick count (that might be 1 or 2 out) that suggests you made about 48 comments on that AfD. That is far, far more than anyone else. In places every other comment was yours. Alongside the seemingly aggressive tone of a lot of your comments (I know you have been taken to task for this by others in relation to that debate, so let's not get into a discussion about it here), that suggests to me that the debate itself was going against you. I'm not arguing that other contributors didn't vote to merge for very respectable reasons, of course they did, but the debate itself seemed to me to at times be one voice (yours) against a range of voices from the other side, thereby suggesting why you had to comment so frequently. I'm sure you see this differently, and I mean no offense by it at all, but that is, in my opinion, what was happening, and hence my vote to endorse here. I hope that satisfies. --86.185.86.83 (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I think you misunderstand me. Just above, you said, "The vast majority of the debate that endorsed merging came from yourself." Please could you count how many times I used the word 'merge' on the AfD, versus how many times other people argued for it. (Hint—I did it once and once only, while 15 other people also suggested merging explicitly, and a further 5 said they'd be fine with it.) In the light of the result, perhaps you could revise that comment? ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I mistook your aggressive resistance to those who voted keep as an endorsement of the merge position rather than the delete position. If that is the case then consider my assessment of your stance duly corrected. However, I still stand by the arguments I have raised, in that it seemed to me that you dominated the debate and that without that the balance of the discussion seemed to me to be going for keeping, so I stand by my vote to endorse. I hope you respect my right to my opinion about the shape of the debate and we can wait and see how others vote here.--86.185.86.83 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was certainly no consensus to delete, no clear consensus to merge and the talk was going nowhere fast. Merge proposals can be conducted through the relevant procedures. U-Mos (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. Even if there was an insufficient consensus to keep, there was even less of a consensus in favor of a merge. Hence, at worst this should be considered a "no consensus keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure decision. Merger discussion should be held at the article talk page, not here. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. As the closer says there was a clear consensus not to delete. As between "Keep" and "Merge" the case is less clear. I would view "Keep" and "No Consensus between merge and keep" as both viable readings of the discussion but no clear consensus to merge is to be found at the AfD. Further discussion can be held on the article talk page as some of the above "votes" suggest, but that is not likely to be fruitful unless he turns out to be less important going forward than most of the commenters at the AfD assume. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know people assumed I was important, but I'm very flattered to hear it! ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 21:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know that was sarcasm, right? CycloneGU (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually assumed it to be a mis-word for 'impatient' but I always enjoy the chance to showcase my sparkling wit. ╟─Treasury Tag►Regent─╢ 21:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By "he" I actually meant to refer to the the subject of the article, a Dr Who character from the currently ongoing series. No personal insult (or accolade) was intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eluchil404 (talk • contribs)
The Silence are actually a group, with each individual being a Silent -- they are a "they", not a "he". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Fundamentally, it is well accepted that if possible the compromise solution is to have combination articles on groups of characters. in which individual characters can be merged. This would seem to be such a case. Roles of a character or group of characters in a work are not necessarily clearly important or non-important, but of various degrees of importance. But since we must either have a separate article, a merged part of an article, or nothing, there is a sharp distinction we must in the end make, and it is necessarily arbitrary, a question of where we want to draw the line, As a second-order decision, we can decide on how extensive an article should be if we have an article, or a merged section if we have a section--and in practice these second-order distinctions are really more important to he reader than how they are arranged. Discussions here tend to be a mix of the two. It is in the end just a question of style how we should divide up content. I wonder what the encyclopedia would be like if we had very few article boundaries: in this context, a very long article about everything concerning Dr. Who. It would then be a question of how many bytes to use in discussing these characters, & I suppose we could average all opinions. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, clear consensus against deletion, no consensus between keep and merge. I would have preferred a more detailed closing rationale. I agree that many recommendations should be given less weight (mostly the keeps pointed out by TreasuryTag), but I don't see a consensus for merging. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that DRV is the proper venue for TreasuryTag to request reevaluation of the AfD, and I would consider overturning if the consensus were clearly in favor of merging. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and close I place the count at 12 to endorse, none to overturn or relist. Furthermore, DRV is not a necessary step in a merge: talk page consensus can be achieved for mergers, such that an appeal to DRV is unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - There was certainly no consensus to delete. Merge vs. keep was closer, but even if all the "keeps" above were struck, there was still a consensus to keep (and I am not sure they all should be struck - given the large amount of discussion in the AfD, a comment like "I believe notability has been established" should be appropriate without the !voter needing to repeat the arguments that had been made previously). In any case, a keep close still provides an opportunity to discuss merging in the future, if such an action becomes warranted. Rlendog (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It is our policy that Wikipedia is neither a battleground nor a bureaucracy. Per the emphatic guidance of WP:AFD, the topic should never have been brought to AFD and, given that there was nowhere near a consensus to delete, it should not have been brought to DRV either. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you quote the part of WP:AFD which says what you think it says...? ╟─Treasury Tag►Woolsack─╢ 17:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to back up the DRV comment myself. "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." Guideline 2 from the deletion review main page. CycloneGU (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus has become extremely clear as to the proper outcome of this DRV, which I think should be closed at this point. I recommend that TreasuryTag disengage permanently from deletion discussions on Dr. Who related articles; the quantity and stridency of his comments in this DRV and the related discussions suggest that he is obsessing and perseverating on this subject to a perfectly alarming extent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. No. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 08:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Newyorkbrad's suggestion - You have to admit there is absolutely no way at this point that there is going to be a consensus for anything other than an endorsement of the AfD result. TreasuryTag, I agree with him; step back, don't feel the need to comment to every little thing (I feel like I have to sometimes as well, but not to the obsessive nature you've displayed herein), and take a break for a while. The article is being kept no matter what your personal feelings dictate. Either withdraw the nomination or wait for a speedy close. CycloneGU (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Extended discussion on the correctness of a keep AFD close when there were 30-odd keep !votes, nearly 20 merge !votes, and only 1 delete !vote is simply an exercise in restating the utterly obvious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: It is clear that a consensus has been reached.--Rirunmot (talk) 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- reviewing the AfD, I can't see how the closer could have read the consensus any other way. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- correct consensus result in the AfD, and endorsements follow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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