Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July

29 July 2012

Moral and national education – No consensus to overturn, deletion endorsed by default. I recognize my discretion to list this at AfD, but under the circumstances it's probably best to work on the userfied article rather than list this immediately at AFD. – T. Canens (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Moral and national education (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Some user accused one sentence of the article is a recreation of deleted article Scholarism, but Moral and national education is related to the social issue from a broader perspective, and Scholarism is just one-sentence mention. Moral and national education controversy is a social issue, evidenced by many sources in the article before its speedy deletion. IF Moral and national education needs to be deleted, it should not be deleted as per CSG G4, but via AFD. The MNE controversy will make newspaper headline on almost every newspaper in Hong Kong tomorrow.--Jabo-er (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Please note the ANI discussion [1] where I explain that the new article and redirect were an attempt at an end-around a previous AFD, WP:Articles for deletion/Scholarism. I will leave it to the reviewing parties to determine. A ping afterwards is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse deletion. As I said at the ANI discussion, the original article was deleted per the outcome of this AfD discussion. The author then attempted to circumvent this by creating this article, which contained all the content from the original article in a section, and then re-created the original article as a redirect to the relevant section. It was a shameless attempt to bypass AfD after he didn't get his own way. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Comment - To provide some context, the lead of the deleted article read, "Moral and national education is a school curriculum proposed by the Education Bureau of Hong Kong, transformed from the current moral and civic education The "education of students as a [Chinese] national" introduced in MNE has stirred disputes in the city as it is seen as some as "brainwashing"." Moral and national education (Hong Kong) would seem to be a better title per this .pdf (caution, large download). Scholarism is a 2011 formed group that opposes the 2001 originated Moral and national education (Hong Kong) curriculum and whose 2011 implementation was announced in 2010. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Please note that Moral and national education was never tagged for deletion of any kind. Basalisk tagged Scholarism (a redirect) for speedy recreation , claiming it as a recreation of a deleted page. Basalisk also removed contents from the Moral and national education article, claiming the contents also as recreation of deleted article, but the contents (except the one-sentence mention of Scholarism) are not seen anywhere in the deleted Scholarism article. The Moral and national education page is sourced by adaquate references. If there is any wikipedia policy stipulating that "Any article shall not mention the name of any deleted articles", I am surprised. --Jabo-er (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC) We understand the situation from your original post above. Please give people a chance to look into the matter. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I see from another review that we can have a "temporary undeletion". If the Moral and national education page was undeleted temporarily even for shorter than one day, it allows any people, admins and non-admins, to see the "recreation" accusation could not stand at all.--Jabo-er (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Jabo-er, it's not hard to figure out what is going on. There is a desire to promote the group Scholarism (Hong Kong) within Wikipedia. While there's nothing wrong with secondary motives, the primary motive needs to be to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedic Wikipedia article. Per the AfD (and a quick search), it is clear that Scholarism (Hong Kong) does not meet WP:GNG. However, it appears that Moral and national education (Hong Kong) meets WP:GNG. I found some information on Scholarism (Hong Kong) that is relevant to Moral and national education (Hong Kong), so the Moral and national education (Hong Kong) can include info on Scholarism. That problem is that, in addition to meeting WP:G4, the deleted Moral and national education appeared to be a Wikipedia:Coatrack article. In a desire to promote the group Scholarism (Hong Kong) within Wikipedia, the Moral and national education article glossed over the main topic and quickly got to Controversy and Pressure groups and protests. A thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature would put the Wikipedia article text ratio at about 90% Moral and national education info and 10% (or less) opposition. The deleted article was about 40% Moral and national education text and 60% opposition text. Here's some steps you may want to take: 1. Start with the title Moral and national education (Hong Kong). Moral education and national education each are broad topics. Overlapping the two without a geographic limitation opens the article to moral education and national education from every country in the world. 2. Create a draft at User:Jabo-er/Moral and national education (Hong Kong) (I suggest an admin userify the deleted article to there). 3. In your draft, forget the Controversy and Pressure groups and protests sections and just use a "History" heading. Place the history in in chorological order. Once you are done developing the history section, then write the lead paragraph to summarize the rest of the article. 4. When it comes to adding information about Scholarism in the Moral and national education (Hong Kong) article, limit it to (i) South China Morning Post, No stopping 'national' classes Amid the row over subsidies for the production of a biased textbook for national education, minister dismisses calls for a rethink on the launch of the lessons, (July 15, 2012),[2] (ii) South China Morning Post, Self-important and judgmental teens need moral and national education, (July 20, 2012),[3] (iii) South China Morning Post (July 27, 2012)(page 10). 5. When you think you have a viable draft, present it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation or back here at WP:DRV and ask that the article be moved to article space. If you follow the above steps, you should be able to have a Moral and national education (Hong Kong) article in article space before the close of this DRV. Otherwise, you may end up spending your time going against resistance at DRV, WP:NPOVN, AfD, then DRV, etc. rather than adding content to Wikipedia articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I would like to hear more admins' comments before taking further actions. Of course it is good if some admin can move the contents to my userpage, so that I can expand it. I didn't save a copy of it because I didn't expect to be deleted for any reason, especially because I was not even notified before it was deleted. The strcuture you see was 60:40 because the article was killed before finished. There will be more coverage on preparation for its implmentation. Or I had better create Moral and national education controversy in Hong Kong instead. It is the controversy that makes MNE different from Physics, Mathematics, etc. Even under the "History" section, it must mention "some orgranisation raised objection/support" - perhaps you mean I should not mention the rationals for their objections/supports? Scholarism, Parents' Concern Group and the Civic Alliance against ME can be referred to a student group, a parent group, and a protest organising group if their names are too sensitive. In any cases, I hold my positions that the deleted article was not a recreation of any previously deleted article, and that the speedy deletion was incorrectly undertaken. --Jabo-er (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC) In my opinion, Uzma Gamal has given you good advice. The point is to get an appropriate article, not get involved in an ideological battle. Ideological battles at Wikipedia rarely give results that are satisfactory to anybody. I have userified the article to User:Jabo-er/Moral and national education (Hong Kong) It is usually best to avoid the term "controversy" as part of a title. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC) I have to insist that the article be should restored to the article space, not my userspace. Because it has never met speedy deletion criteria at the first place, and it was speedy deleted without notice. Though far from finished and far from perfect, the existence and preliminary contents of the article surely do not qualify as a CSD, and no sane wikipedians will (in fact, have) put that to a speedy deletion nomination. Admin decisions never satisfy every person, but if a clearly wrong admin privilege is not reverted, justify it and say so in wikipedia guidelines to avoid further ideological battles. Uzma Gamal's advice is good, but I will not edit the mirror article, so as to let contributors to see the article as is. If anyone thinks the article was a deliberate recreation of another article, part of which the contents are only mentioned with such little focus, justify it and say so. Consensus will shut me up.--Jabo-er (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Jabo-er, I'm afraid that there's no point being outraged. It's completely futile. The harsh reality is that on Wikipedia, once someone's passed their RfA then they can do exactly whatever they please forever afterwards; they have tenure and diplomatic immunity (except for the rare few who do something so extremely egregious that they come to the attention of Arbcom). Their deletion decisions can be overturned at DRV but it takes a clear consensus to overturn them, and you don't have a clear consensus. Nor, I think, are you likely to achieve one, in the circumstances. Please listen to Uzma Gamal. His suggested route will probably lead to the material being moved to the mainspace in due course.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC) S Marshall, you and I have different ideas about admins. Had you known that started WP:WER and proposed WP:RAS you might not be so cynical about the the deleting admin, namely me. And the article was brought to my attention by someone else, Basalisk, so it did have two pairs of eyes looking at it. But since I have diplomatic immunity, I will abuse my admin powers by deferring to DGG, and I would request he take the most appropriate action as I trust his judgement in these matters more than my own, and would grant him he power of proxy for this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Hi Dennis Brown and other admins, again please read this: you deleted the article without anyone tagging it for speedy deletion or any kind of deletion – see the history of the restored mirror article. Only a redirect page that redirected to Moral and national education was nominated for SD, which I am NOT challenging now. Was it a procedural error? "Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early)" It is best if admins can state 1) whether it was procedurally correct, 2) if not correct, whether the error is substantive or irrelevant. --Jabo-er (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Jabo, stop badgering. If you want to work on the article in userspace that's fine, but it's no good for article space as long as it's just a coathanger article for you to promote the Scholarism group. Wikipedia isn't the place for this kind of crusade. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 06:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Dennis Brown, it's a simple statement of fact that there is never any benefit at all in being outraged about Wikipedia admins. It's also a simple statement of fact that once appointed, admins have tenure and diplomatic immunity.There is no reasonable or effective way within the system to hold administrators to account for their actions. Am I cynical about Wikipedia admins? Possibly. I think almost all of you are genuinely well-meaning people, but after spending quite a few years as a regular here at deletion review, I've become increasingly aware that some administrators are children, others are self-confessed drug users, others still feel justified in (or even pressured into) making snap decisions, and still others are editing late at night after a few beers. Others still, of course, are highly rational, intelligent, civilised and thoughtful people who consistently show good judgment, but in my experience these are not in the majority. Please note carefully that I did not say that you were in the wrong. What I said was that there is no point being outraged.—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC) No offense taken, but I couldn't resist pointing out that many of us, I have discovered, do not fit that stereotype. ;) I actually understand and empathize with your opinions to a degree (and WP:RAS is designed to fix some of that), although I think most admins are good people indeed, even if they are mistaken about some things. I give all admins the ability to revert any action I take without permission, on my user page, since I don't think I'm always right. In this case, DGG and I have different ideas, but I'm always willing to bend in the direction of someone who I think is a better judge, whether or not they have the bit. And Jabo-er, there is no requirement that an admin tag or notify you, so I acted 100% within policy. If you don't like it, you need to go get the policy changed, but harping on the point is useless here. I don't have a dog in this hunt, I just did what I thought was best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Dennis asked me to comment. (1). Looking at the two articles, the key objection in the AfD (as in most AfDs) was that there were not sufficient sources to show that the movement was notable. The new articles included this material in the context of the policy against which it was protesting, and had sufficient sources to show notability of the overall question. It therefore was not a valid G4. (2). Presumably the motive in writing the larger article was to incorporate material from the smaller. I see that as a perfectly reasonable approach. There is no requirement that the individual parts of an article be notable, for the standard way we discuss such topics is to include them in larger articles on more comprehensive topics that can be shown to be notable. Whatever may have motivated the author, whether the final article is advocacy is to be judged by its overall fairness--I think it needs considerably more details, and the addition of an historical dimension, but it is not radically unfair. Any POV problems can be met in the usual ways, by adding material to achieve balance and taking care with the wording. As a more general matter, when dealing with controversial topics, it is better to write about the larger topic, not separately about each side of the issue. (3) I inform an author if I deleted their article, except when the author had been informed already, or the author was clearly not in good faith. The only reason it is not a requirement is that we do have a large number of promotional & trivial articles where the notification would serve no purpose. I don't notify for G4s where the article is truly identical--that's not good faith editing--I would notify when there was an attempt to correct the problem but one I judged insufficient, for I would regard the attempt as a sign of good faith and willingness to improve. (4) Sometimes we do assume that someone too strongly advocating for an issue is not acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Jabo-er's comments here can be seen to indicate the possibility of this, but not to the degree that we ought to reject their arguments. (5) The reason we have all been urging Jabo-er to rewrite further is to make a more defensible article. If the article is immediately restored to mainspace, the article will almost certainly again be nominated for deletion, and without prejudging my own opinion of whether or not it should be deleted, I think I can predict on the basis of experience that it probably will in fact be deleted. If that happens, it will be very difficult to ever get an article about the topic. The best way to get one is to first make the best possible article in user space. Anything else may be technically correct, but will not accomplish the purpose. (6) At Deletion Review there are two goals--The main goal is to help bring about the best solution--as here, this often takes the form of advice, rather than judgment. A secondary goal is to point out errors in deletion process so people will learn to avoid them. But it is only secondary; we are a process intended to deal with articles, not administrators. I think we have often declined to reverse decisions when there might be a valid reason for doing so, but no useful purpose. The exception is when the actions of the deleting admin were so wrong as to justify a need to point the moral in the most unmistakable way. I do not think any of us consider the deleting admin's decision to have been so drastically mistaken as to need that. I can't speak for others, but after thinking about this for two days, I at least do consider it clearly erroneous, and I do not hesitate to say so. (As Dennis is my friend, I hope he will not take it amiss if I suggest he is so deeply involved in so many major questions here that he may not have fully evaluated what seemed a purely routine situation.) DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC) I stand corrected and will take your advice to heart. And it is good to have friends like you who will politely point out and explain an error made in good faith, since the goal is to never make the same error twice. I also agree that pushing it into main space today is not in the best interest of the article itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC) I initiated this deletion review, not only to challenge the deletion itself (and restore the article on an ongoing social issue in my city), but also to bring attention to inappropriate speedy deletions in general. DGG's comment is reasonable, which I find no reasons to disagree with. It is good for Dennis Brown to have a rational friend. Having said that, I don't take DGG's comment as consensus and will still welcome more people to comment. Though Dennis Brown did it wrongly, I believe he did it in good faith. Without his erroneous action, this article could have expanded to defend Afd, if any, over the past 4 days. Speedy deletion is extraordinary because it gives an admin a certain degree of privilege to judge whether an article should be deleted without seeking consensus. I suggest he use this privilege only when he is 100% sure. On the other hand, we must bring attention to User:Basalisk who started this unnecessary event. This user uses speedy deletion overwhelmingly. Looking at the log that he takes pride in, we can see this user has nominated some articles for speedy deletions even if the articles are not eligible for CSD Example1Example2Example3. This time, this user used his ugly tricks on a redirect page I created by tagging it for G4, even though a redirect page and the page to which the redirect page points to are clearly not "sufficiently identical and unimproved cop[ies]" of any article. "Please do not rush to mark [a new page] for deletion". His incorrect speedy deletions may sometimes be approved by busy admins, but it is lucky for us to have some clear-minded admins on wikipedia. While the discussion here is about to end, I must say that we would have lost this chance to learn a lesson, if I had given in when User:Basalisk threatened me on my talk page. I suggest this user learn to communicate. In short, I agree that the article can be temporarily expanded on my user page before being restored to the article space. --Jabo-er (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC) Comment All involved acted in good faith. Although sometimes terse and contentious, discussion never reached incivility. Jabo-er, accept that Basalisk is a deletionist. Wikipedia needs deletionists to prevent Wikipedia from becoming filled with material that is not encyclopedic. I fully expect that he will continue to patrol articles and tag those that he believes should be deleted. That the example articles above survived proves that the system works; articles that deserve to remain in Wikipedia do so. He accepts consensus when it is reached. Uzma Gamal deserves some special thanks for showing the importance of the issue and providing a route to creation of a very good and encyclopedic article. I look forward to reading the article that you create. If you would like help writing in a neutral point of view, let me know and I will help review and edit your article either before or after it moves to mainspace. A hundred years in the future, students will read the article Moral and national education (Hong Kong) as an important part of history. I want to thank all of you for educating me in resolving a problem and reaching a consensus that will ultimately be in the best interest of Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 July 2012

Star Sonata – Overturn G4 speedy deletion and relist at AfD. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Star Sonata Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (2nd nomination) Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination) Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (4th nomination) Articles for deletion/Star Sonata Guide Star Sonata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The page was speedily deleted under G4, which only applies if a page is a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". From what I recall, at the time of the most recent AfD, the page lacked specific references to reliable independent sources. The page speedily deleted had been improved with additional references. The AfD stated that "all are free to recreate the article with sufficient sources" once better sources were unearthed. I tried to resolve the issue with the closing administrator, who indicated that my remedy was WP:DRV. Thanar (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Restore most recent version. I looked at the most recent edit and compared it to the version as it was during the last AfD in 2008. The most recent edit at least appeared to be significantly better sourced. If there are still problems with the article upon restoration, it can be sent to AfD and go through a full discussion again. But if the article is fine upon restoration, it doesn't need to be sent to AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Restore as recommended by Metropolitan90. Warden (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Restore and send to AFD speedy deleted as A7 on the 22 July then recreated on 25 July deleted under G4, which I think is stretch given the prior history a full discussion would have reasonable option, add to that 3 prior afd discussions over 5 years. My brief look at the last version of the article doesnt convince me its meets notability requirements but no harm in having another discussion and giving editors time to address notability beyond doubt. For the record I closed the original AFD in 2007. Gnangarra 08:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Could we have a temporary undeletion, please.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Done. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you, Eluchil404. Overturn the speedy deletion as outwith the criteria, but immediately list at AfD so that a proper discussion can take place and we can delete it again in the correct and orderly way.—S Marshall T/C 14:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Restore Surely the 22 July 2012 A7 speedy was declined and changed to a G4 speedy? So the G4 should relate back to the 26 May 2008 AfD[4] when the article was like this and so the G4 was claiming that the new version was "substantially identical". It is a good thing I am not an admin because I am completely unable to grasp that line of thought. And bearing in mind the AfD closer's advice to improve the article, the remark that "Cmon, it's been deleted twice at AfD",[5] hardly seems appropriate. Thincat (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn and list at AFD. This G4 is plainly wrong. T. Canens (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Comment  The first AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata, as per WP:NOQUORUM "received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator" so under our current guidelines would have been a WP:SOFTDELETE if deleted at all.  Six months later, the community reviewed and as per unanimous !vote to overturn at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4, we get a procedural nomination at WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (2nd nomination) resulting in a unanimous keep result from six editors.  Five weeks pass and an editor nominates at WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination), with the statement, "the article has not been improved (citation wise) since the last AFD", an argument from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Delete I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – My Way or the Highway, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Comment  The history of speedy deletes for this article deserves a separate comment.  To repeat, in AfD#2 there was no nominator !voting to delete and six editors !voted keep, a unanimous result.  Yet twice in the subsequent history of the deletion log, administrators have marked speedy delete with A7, which is "no indication of importance".  I understand that the Wikimedia Foundation requires administrators to unreasonably consume time in deleting worthless articles, but I don't see that this justifies unreasonably marked speedy deletes.  The history of G4 in this article is almost as incomprehensible.  The deletion of 2008-08-13 for G4 is a stretch at best, it appears to be a new article.  But the deletion of 2009-09-03 as G4 (with an "a7" thrown in as a comment) was clearly not for a "re-creation", this was a newly written article 14,500 bytes long.  The G4 currently being discussed is now the 3rd G4 for this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Comment  A contributing factor to this confusion seems to be that deletions are not recorded in the Revision History of articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I would claim that this wiki page qualifies for A7. There's just no point to have an article for something so obscure. It's not scientific or historical in nature, so I'd claim the article falls more under general advertisement, and its existence is an abuse of Wikipedia. If you want the video game to have a web presence, then start a wiki specific to it.80.186.49.244 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Comment The general criterion for whether or not to have an article is WP:Notability. Even if a topic is obscure, "obscure does not mean not notable" (WP:OBSCURE). So there is a point to having articles on obscure topics. Finally, the nature of a topic (scientific, historical or otherwise) does not determine whether an article constitutes an advertisement. The main safeguard against advertising is maintaining a neutral point of view in the article (WP:NPOV) which can be achieved regardless of the nature of the topic. Thanar (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC) While the topic is obscure, it is also not notable. It has not received enough attention to warrant the article existing. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The video game has not achieved this. Full stop. Furthermore, "the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent". The wiki article that has been deleted heavily relied on the subject's website for sourcing its content. Hence, I reach the conclusion that this article was created purely for advertising purposes and not to disseminate any information of note.80.186.49.244 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC) There are 7 references in the article version that was speedily deleted. Five of these (3 reviews and 2 developer interviews) are to 4 independent sources, namely G4TV.com, GameZone.com, tleaves.com, and onRPG.com. The 2 references to self-published sources were used only for player base statistics and appear to meet the requirements of WP:SELFSOURCE. Regardless of debate about the quality of the independent sources, I would not characterize the article as heavily relying on the subject's website for sourcing its content. Thanar (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Restore obviously, AfD it again if someone desires, but the more pertinent question is "What is User:Malik Shabazz, who is an administrator, doing nominating an article for G4 when it clearly doesn't apply and he has the tools to know that?" I expect it's probably not documented that admins have to check ahead of time before tagging something G4, but since it's also logical to assume that an admin tagging a G4 already has looked at it, a failure to do so can lead to assumptions of applicability. Thus, we need at least one of a nominating admin and a deleting admin to NOT take shortcuts in investigating the applicability, or else this will happen again. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse G4 deletion - The AfDs weighed references included: frappr.com, gametunnel.com, GameZone.com, lyceumarchives.com, mmorpg.com, pc.gamezone.com, pc.ign.com, rappr.com, starsonata.com, strategyinformer.com, tgr.com. Admin Sandstein was clear in his close of Star Sonata (3rd AfD nomination) that the topic lacked sufficient references to substantial reliable third-party coverage. WP:G4 excludes pages only if the reason for the deletion no longer applies. Admin Y correctly exercised admin's discretion as part of the 25 July 2012 G4 deletion to conclude that the additional referenced material of g4tv.com, onrpg.com, tleaves.com, web.archive.org, and youtube.com in the G4 deleted article failed to overcome the reason for the deletion. Nothing in this DRV discussion has established otherwise. The above arguments based on conclusory opinion rather than fact should be discounted per Admin guideline re rough consensus. Since the reason for the deletion still applies, the G4 deletion should be upheld. To the DRV closer, please note, prior a AfD for this topic have been concerned with suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users.[6] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC) WP:G4 does not exclude pages "only if the reason for deletion no longer applies" as you claim. Rather, it lists 3 categories of pages which are excluded: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." The page in question fits the first category, and thus is excluded from WP:G4. Thanar (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC) If someone recreates a page that is not substantially identical to the deleted version but the reason for the deletion still applies to the recreated page, enforcing the AfD consensus via speedy deleting under G4 makes sense. Otherwise, AfD consensus could easily be overcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Not so. G4 requires that a new article be identical and unimproved, not identical or unimproved. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Even when an article is deleted at AfD, the article often undergoes changes during the AfD and the deleted version often is not substantially identical to the originally nominted version. Since the originally nominted version would not be substantially identical to the deleted version, an editor would need only restore the originally AfD nominted version to get around G4 in such a case, if what you say is true. That doesn't make any sense. Sufficiently identical and unimproved relate to the article text on its face as well as whether the reason for the deletion no longer applies. For the recreated Star Sonata article, Admin Y correctly exercised admin's discretion as part of the 25 July 2012 G4 deletion to conclude that the additional referenced material of g4tv.com, onrpg.com, tleaves.com, web.archive.org, and youtube.com in the G4 deleted article failed to overcome the reason for the deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Restore and list Uzma's point is well taken, and I do think if the article had come back with exactly the same sources the G4 would likely be appropriate. But new sources should really be examined by the community. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Comment A search for more sources turned up another Gamezone article covering the original release. Also, Star Sonata was one of 3 role-playing games listed on Gamespy’s 101 Free PC Games of 2012. Gamezone and Gamespy have been established as reliable sources in the field of video gaming per past consensus. Thanar (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn and leave alone. It is just unimaginable that the above comments by Unscintillating would not boil an editor's blood. It seems that this article or subject has enemies and individuals who are adamant to have it deleted. Nothing new. However, it is the duty of DRV and senior editors to see this, to put their personal feelings of an article aside and to do all in their power to prevent any abuse of discretion. Thus, overturn and ban editing of this article only for those who keep re-nominating AfD.Turqoise127 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Restore As Metropolitan90 mentioned, the most recent version definitely doesn't qualify for a G4 deletion, it has been substantially changed and updated since it was originally deleted. As for noteability this game has been covered by G4TV, Gamezone, Gamespy, OnRPGas well as numerous smaller gaming blogs and employs 9 people based on a press release as shown on Gamasutra . -FracOMac (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 July 2012

Brocas Helm – Deletion closure endorsed. (NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Brocas Helm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I strongly believe that the page was deleted wrongfully. The article, nominated for deletion for the second time, was deleted with five votes, because the posters agreed that the band doesn't meet the WP:Band requirements and isn't notable. However, trying to appeal to the deletion's initiator first, I've proved that the band fulfills the needed requirements and is, in fact, notable metal group that has a strong cult following. Still, we didn't come to a conclusion. Hawk18727 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Apart from this being your personal opinion can you evidence this argument with detailed reliable sources discussing the subject of the article?. If you can't than I can't see how we can possibly overturn a unanimous discussion that appears to have considered the right things and been closed according to policy. Spartaz Humbug! 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC) I certainly can't fault Sandstein's closure of the AfD, which was unanimous. Hawk18727 argued here that the subject meets WP:BAND, but I have to agree with Sandstein's responses there - the claims either weren't backed up with reliable sources or don't qualify. Hut 8.5 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse I pretty much agree with Sandstein's rebuttal at User talk:Sandstein#Brocas Helm. No other issues with the original AfD, which was unanimous. ThemFromSpace 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - They've gotten some press mentions, Mirror (UK) 3/18/05, San Francisco Chronicle 4/20/06, New York Times 10/19/09. However, those mostly mention upcoming performances. The problem is not one of Brocas Helm being important. The problem comes in that, even if you took all the text about Brocas Helm and plunked it into a Wikipedia article, you still would not have enough WP:GNG content for a stand alone article. Do you know of any other write up of the band printed in paper publications? Have they been covered in alternative newspaper? Are there published interviews? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter – It is clear from the discussion here that there is no consensus whether the deletion should be overturned. By focusing on the policies related to process (as opposed to policies related to content), the scope of an impartial DRV closer is often more limited. Both sides in the DRV bring up valid points and arguments, and both sets of arguments are substantiated by certain facts of the AfD. Administrator instructions at DRV give two principal outcomes when the DRV itself is unable to reach consensus: maintaining the status quo and relisting. In deciding between the two options, I have further examined the facts of the AfD as discussed in the DRV to determine if either A. a fresh discussion might lead to a clearer determination, and B. if aspects of the deletion process were tainted in some way. Although it was not discussed in great detail in the DRV, the issue of multiple relisting of the AfD was mentioned by a number of editors, and this concern was not substantially addressed. WP:RELIST gives two reasons why a discussion should be relisted: A. insufficient discussion or B. insufficient participation based on policy. Based on my inspection of the AfD, neither of these two criteria were met. This was further exacerbated by the first two closers—relisting admins are described as closers by WP:RELIST—participating in the later discussion, casting a perceived lack of neutrality over their relisting actions. Evaluating these facts and the lack of consensus to overturn, it is my determination that the article should be relisted at AfD. I am well aware of the eyebrow-raising appearance of relisting where the substantial process violation was relisting itself. This relisting follows strictly from DRV process, however, and can be better thought of as a AfD reboot where participants are reminded to comment clearly on the reasons behind their policy and guideline based arguments (and/or why the arguments of other participants are not based upon policies and guidelines). – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) I think this debate is pretty closely related to User:Jimbo Wales' statements made in his 2012 "State of the Wiki" address which WP:POST to "cover all topics, even if they are pure pop culture, because if the Wikimedia movement does not cover it, the people will go somewhere else" as stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-16/Wikimania. Given that the Big Kahuna has spoken on the issue, I would like to consider the propriety of this close on two grounds. First, why was this relisted when it was 10 keep and 4 delete? Why was it again relisted when 14 more votes came in to make this 17 keep and 11 delete? Then a bunch of comments came in to make it about 33 delete and 23 keep. More importantly, since Scottywong (talk · contribs) closing rationale which states that WP:INDISCRIMINATE dominates WP:GNG flies in the face of Jimbo's "State of the Wiki" address, we should reconsider whether we want to discard the GNG-based notability of this pop culture topic. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn the enormous, blatant supervote. Correct outcome was no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn Good case made. You can see the article [7] and see it clearly has references to major news sources commenting on how popular the twitter account in itself was, and its accomplishments. Dream Focus 08:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to keep, (with the always available option to start merger discussions) -- Consensus, as the close states, was meets the GNG. Also, there were 11 sources -- including two textbooks -- cited in the discussion showing e.g.., marketing, advertising, and mass media significance of the topic, in addition to other cites in the article and which maybe found. The policy rationale stated in the close was unfortunately a supervote, not dictated by policy text, nor based in evidence and reason (as noted by the second extensive relisting comments during the discussion, which were in fact substantive comments on every purported delete vote under the cited policy, and which therefore cannot be credited). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse: this DRV is essentially giving Jimbo a supervote, and I, for one, don't believe we should trade quality for eyeballs pbp 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Eyeball being people using Wikipedia, if I understand correctly? Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC) People viewing it, yes pbp 15:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse the vast majority of the Keep comments argued that the article met the GNG. This is a good counter to arguments that the subject is not notable, but the fact that a topic is notable does not mean that we should have an article on it. We can and do delete pages on notable topics for other reasons. Many Delete comments however raised the issue of WP:NOT, and few people attempted to rebut this argument. It's not a case of a policy overruling a guideline, as the closing statement says, because meeting our notability guideline doesn't mean that a page should be included. Hut 8.5 13:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Yes it does; that is what "presumed" means. The GNG accords the keep presumption, and it is not rebutted for the closer by differing opinions about NOT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC) If we take the view that articles about notable topics should be kept, then it would become impossible, even in principle, to delete something for being a violation of WP:NOT, WP:POVFORK, WP:BLP, etc. Notability is only one reason for deleting something. Hut 8.5 09:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Looking at it from that direction, on what basis would you conclude that WP:NOT isn't a reason to delete something; since, by the same token, any article we have already could be deleted if it ran afoul of WP:NOT? Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC) This doesn't strike me as very relevant. Enforcement of all our policies depends, to some degree, on editorial judgement. The prospect of editors deciding that any article should be deleted under WP:NOT isn't any more realistic as the prospect of editors deciding that any article should be deleted under WP:N or any of our other reasons to delete something. Hut 8.5 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Er, sorry, maybe I wasn't clear; or I don't understand. Are you saying that, deciding when WP:NOT is a reason to delete is based on editorial judgement, e.g, when people say it's a reason to delete? Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) There is an element of editorial judgement, yes, just like every other policy. Hut 8.5 18:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC) What I was trying to ask you was, since you suggest that few attempts were made to rebut the WP:NOT arguements, and also that arguing its notability doesn't rebut WP:NOT arguements, What would be a rebuttal to them? To use a less troublesome example, you can suppose I accused 'Naval Battles of WW1' or 'Zeppelins' of being indiscriminate. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC) This is getting a bit off topic. The point about WP:NOT is that there are topics which are verifiable or notable which do not belong here because we are writing an encyclopedia and our sources usually aren't. In the case of celebrities this principle is especially important because the media frequently give extensive coverage to almost all aspects of a celebrity's life, no matter how trivial or unencyclopedic. For obvious reasons the mere existence of sources do not counter these concerns. To rebut a concern based on WP:NOT you have to provide some sort of argument that the topic of the article is the kind of thing that could be included in an encyclopedia. For the two examples you cite this is easy - if nothing else you could just cite the fact that actual encyclopedias cover these topics. Hut 8.5 19:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Rather, it may have finally gotten to the point; if the rebuttal is simply making the argument that it is suitable for inclusion, those arguments were made in spades; and certainly (before anyone accuses them of being bare assertions instead of arguments) to more depth than the 'this is unencyclopedic'/'WP:NOT' arguments they were addressed to. You weren't the closing admin, of course, so he may have a different idea of a rebuttal in mind, but if that's what you're basing your judgement of 'few attempted to rebut' on, it's worth taking another look. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC) It's more subtle than "suitable for inclusion". For an article to be suitable for inclusion, it must satisfy a number of policies. Amongst them, the topic must be notable and the topic music be encyclopedic. (WP:NOT relates specifically to the latter.) Notability and encyclopedicity are not the same thing: there are encyclopedic topics that are not notable, and notable topics that are not encyclopedic. A rebuttal to the NOT concerns would have to demonstrate the encyclopedicity of the topic, not the notability. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC) As I say, such arguements were made. For reference, encyclopedic. I can understand now though how they'd fall short if you expect them to prove something isn't a member of a list that's explicitly not exhaustive. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC) You're not listening to me. Encyclopedicity is not synonymous with being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, nor does it have anything to do with notability. Arguing that WP:NOT is inherently flawed or unenforceable isn't going to get you very far since the community doesn't agree with you. Hut 8.5 10:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Hut, We take the view that Notability accords the presumption because that is what it says and with good reason, it is based in evidence of reliable sources. As with any article, the article is also subject to content consensus, such as is detailed in policy, but content consensus by reference to policy was not reached, so the presumption holds and the delete closer acts on the presumption, with content addressed in due course and by other processes. It is not impossible, but it is subject to evidence, presumption, standards, and consensus arising from those things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC) A topic is presumed to merit an article if it passes the GNG. This means that an article about such a topic will be kept unless someone can demonstrate some other reason why it should be deleted (such as WP:NOT). That does not mean that the GNG says the topic should be kept, nor does it have any bearing on the question of whether WP:NOT says the page should be deleted. It only specifies what happens if WP:NOT doesn't say the page should be deleted. Hut 8.5 15:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC) The presumption is given and it is not rebutted by a lack of consensus over NOT, especially bad arguments that NOT applies to anything one doesn't like. As Darryl's questions make clear, your view of sources and NOT is unworkable and ultimately irrational. It amounts to putting fingers in our ears and saying 'no source can tell us this should be written about, we don't care about sources, and whether they have treated this as a business, marketing and mass communication, etc. topic.' (And by the by, NOT is a content rule -- it is only tangentially an organizational aid.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC) I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. It seems you're trying to argue that WP:NOT only affects the content of articles and isn't a valid basis for deleting them. If that's the case, then the community (and policy) doesn't agree with you. If you want to argue that the deletion should be overturned on the grounds that there was no consensus that WP:NOT means the page should be deleted, then that's a legitimate view, but it doesn't have anything to do with notability or the GNG. Hut 8.5 19:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC) My argument is rather the later, and not the former (I am not "trying to argue" that). (The NOT observation is an aside, although it goes to understanding RS and their relationship to NOT. NOT generally approaches things from content up (not topic down), by looking at content supported by RS and saying this content does not fit or does not fit in this manner; it does not say ignore the RS, it says look at them, and be guided by their content, article content, and by the categories explicated in NOT -- it does not list 'forbidden topics,' because there are none for an Enlightenment project, but some content is unsuitable and a whole article therefore may have unsuitable content, and some very specific types of articles listed at NOT are likely to have all unsuitable content. In a complementary way WP:N also says be guided by the sources - they are both based in evidence of RS.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC) The policy does not say anything like your description. Deletion is appropriate if an article violates policy and it is not possible to fix the problem through normal editing. Here the concerns relate to the topic of the article, rather than its content, and any potential rewrite would suffer from the same problems. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Yes. Your position is, it is a matter of evidence free assertion, without regard to RS, or text of the article, or specific policy; and that is why there would be no consensus, nor even a real discussion, because consensus cannot occur around evidence free assertion, so the presumption holds and the closer does not get to choose among evidence free assertions. I, however, disagree that it is a matter of evidence free assertion, and the keep side brought the better evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Re: Your position "Many Delete comments however raised the issue of WP:NOT". WP:NOT specifically requires that the article be a certain thing that Wikipedia is not. WP:NOT provides four categories 1. Style and format, 2. Content, 3. Community, and 4. And finally ... with 18 different certain things. The close, those participating in the AfD, and those endorsing the close in this DRV failed to establish the certain NOT thing around which rough consensus developed as the basis for deleting the article. Your DRV endorsement of the close avoids specifically addressing the close's centering on WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY) as the NOT basis to delete is because you know there was not rough consensus to delete under either of these certain NOT things. There were only two AfD participants who mentioned "INDISCRIMINATE" in their delete !vote and zero participants mentioned NOTDIARY in their delete !vote. Contrary to the AfD close, rough consensus did not developed around INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY as the basis for deleting the article avoiding addressing INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY in your AfD close endorsement merely highlights this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Counting the number of people who linked to INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY does not provide an accurate picture of the discussion. (FWIW I think you miscounted: four delete !voters mentioned INDISCRIMINATE at some point, and although NOTDIARY wasn't mentioned, NOTNEWS was - NOTDIARY is a subsection of NOTNEWS.) Plenty of other delete !voters either referred to WP:NOT in their comments or were clearly invoking WP:NOT or the principles behind it. Discounting their opinions because they didn't link to the right policy section is pure wikilawyering. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Break 1 Endorse If Jimbo wants to change the way we apply policy then he is welcome to raise an RFC and seek community consensus but the close is clearly a balancing of competing policies and guidelines and I strongly believe that an argument based on a guideline should have less weight than an argument based on a policy. That is precisely what the closing admin did so this looks well within their closing discretion. Arguments to overturn based on the GNG is really missing the point of DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse The close was a correct reading of WP:NOT, a valuable policy for maintaining an encyclopedia of our breadth. ThemFromSpace 16:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC) It was closed by citing WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE(both link to the same place) which only concerns Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, and Excessive listings of statistics. The closing administrator should actually read the policy they are referencing in their closing rational. Dream Focus 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC) WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not restricted to those three areas. These are specific examples of the application of the policy where particular guidance is needed. And WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE do not link to the same place. Hut 8.5 16:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC) The way it loads up it looked the same place, my mistake. Diary says "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person." Not relevant here, since the article featured coverage about it, and why the twitter account was notable. And WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "Wikipedia articles should not be:" and list three examples only, it not mentioning anything else. Dream Focus 16:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC) INDISCRIMINATE does not only say what you describe, it also says that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The policy does not set any limits on the application of this principle and it applies everywhere. Policies which are intended to be exhaustive lists, such as WP:CSD, explicitly say so. NOTDIARY does contain the word "notability", but it is used in its normal English sense of "worthy of notice", rather than as a reference to Wikipedia:Notability. (Note that the policy is talking about something being "notable" enough for inclusion in a wider article, which is explicitly not what WP:N is about.) Hut 8.5 16:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. INDISCRIMINATE is absolutely correct. AK's use of Twitter may, in a sense, pass GNG if considered in isolation from common sense but, quite probably, so would his toilet habits. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Parade of horribles fallacy is not sound reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply so WP:GNG must be followed. Obsene out of policy supervote. CallawayRox (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Please explain how WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. The policy states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and that fits perfectly here. The discussion shows that there was a consensus of 'x on Twitter' pages being inappropriate on Wikipedia. Till 13:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC) That statement applies to all possible information, whether suitable or not, certainly -that- applies. However, to argue that there was a consensus that this article actually was not suitable per the spirit of WP:IINFO that actually excludes thing is...a stretch. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Comment - As this debate progresses, I think it will be enlightening to compare how editors are voting here (whether or not to overturn an article deletion) vs. the "Obama on twitter" DRV (whether or not to overturn a kept article). It will call into question whether some are honestly examining the XfD and looking at the admin's actions, or if they are just casting a Round 2 vote. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. It wasn't an easy one to close, and I don't envy Scotty in doing it, but in the end, it was his read of consensus and I think his faith was good and none of his actions were improper, thus I can't find a reason to overturn. Hut 8.5 sums it up nicely as well, and I agree with his sentiments here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn IINFO does not apply to twitter feeds, closing rationale was based on the assumption that it does, and thus a fatally-flawed supervote. Topic meets GNG, does not run afoul of anything in WP:NOT, close should be vacated as not policy-based. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC) "IINFO does not apply to twitter feeds" How did you determine that? I reject the notion that IINFO only applies to summaries, lyrics databases, and statistics. The top of WP:NOT makes it clear that "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." -Scottywong| babble _ 02:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC) That much is true; it could apply, but did you really feel that the view that it did apply reflected some kind of consensus? Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I thought that the argument was made repeatedly by different people, and was never convincingly refuted by anyone, so yes. -Scottywong| gossip _ 15:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Well, far be it from me to say what should convince you, but if the arguments that there was value to the article or that is was suitable for inclusion don't count as refutations; I'm especially curious to know what -would- qualify. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn supervote to no consensus. One man's stupid article is another man's useful information, no consensus that WP:GNG is trumped by stupidity here.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Comment There's a step in Scottywong's reasoning I didn't get to see; he affirms the basic premise of WP:NOT "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia", which was stated, talks about other articles that aren't necessarily suitable, which were mentioned, then at some point concluded this article isn't suitable. He can't have reached that conclusion from what he said alone (All it states is that P does not imply Q), so I'd want to know what consideration lead him to conclude 'not Q' was representative of the discussion before voting here. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse- close appears to me to be a sensible reading of the discussion. The delete !votes were clearly better argued. Closing a long, contentious discussion with a detailed rationale should be encouraged rather than shouted down with "I disagree with the close therefore supervote". Reyk YO! 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn The practise of relisting until a desired result is obtained seems to be an abuse of the process, contrary to WP:GAME. The second relisting seems especially egregious. The admin at that point says "there seems scant regard for actually building a compelling case for deletion" and the !keep voters were ahead at that point. So why was the discussion relisted? This seems to be the process, lampooned by Brecht, of dissolving the people and electing another, when they fail to conform to the wishes of the nomenklatura. Warden (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - The "supervote" argument is generally the last gasp of the ARS-minded to try to get their article back at any cost. There's nothing wrong with how the admin judged the arguments and weighed consensus. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC) ARS-minded? ;-)—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC) On the bright side, I didn't say ARSE-minded at least. ;-) Tarc (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC) For the record, I am not ARS minded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. There is some irony in complaining about the closing admin exercising a supervote while trying to invoke Jimbo's name as if he himself is a trumping supervote. Jimbo's opinions are his opinions, and not policy. As such, that argument is irrelevent to DRV. Given the size of the discussion on these foo on Twitter articles at the village pump, I also think it was logical to ensure the discussion had sufficient participation ot guage a true community reaction to these articles, rather than simply hoping that the right people !vote at the right time. Something tells me that if the delete !voters held the numerical advantage on the relists, Tony would not have complained about the AfD being left open. Also, Tony should be reminded that vote counting is not how these discussions are weighed. Even at a 10K 4D breakdown, if each side has presented arguments of similar weight, then we have not yet reached a consensus. Relisting would be appropriate in such a circumstance, especially given the size of the community discussion I mentioned previously. Ultimately, we are left with the "but but but it meets GNG!" argument. I am in agreement with Scottywong that the WP:NOT policy trumps the WP:GNG guideline here. Certainly Ashton Kutcher's Twitter presence is worthy of inclusion, but at his main article. There is no need to cover such a trivial thing in such tedious detail. Resolute 15:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Effectively there is no question whether WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG, as WP:N spells: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." That is: per WP:N passing WP:GNG and WP:NOT is required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. Plainly within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Here's my question. When two sides evenly divide on if a given policy applies in a given situation and it isn't a black-and-white issue, does the admin get to make that call? Evaluating strength of argument is all well-and-good, but at some point isn't it "agrees with me"? Hobit (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC) AfD isn't a vote count, and a 50:50 divide of votes is irrelevant. Your argument amounts to "noone can objectively weigh up consensus", which is a non-argument since it happens all the time. Admins are expected to weigh up the arguments and assign weight to them based on how they reflect policies and guidelines (i.e common practice on wikipedia). The best example of how vote counting is irrelevant is with an AfD where all vote keep and one individual points out it's a copyvio: that one vote trumps all the rest. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC) I agree, in clear-cut cases a single !vote can be enough to override a hundred votes. The argument here is if this case is clear cut. I (and I think most of us arguing overturn) believe that the key issue is if this is indiscriminate information. I don't see a way, other than finding consensus on the issue, to determine that. And I don't see consensus in that discussion. I'm guessing Tim (whose views I greatly respect) does see consensus (or something close to it), and I'm asking him to explain why he sees that in a situation where I don't see it at all. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC) I probably should have commented in less absolute terms. Personally I'd probably have closed this one as NC as well, but I do have a view w/r/t these "on Twitter" articles so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. I'm usually pretty reluctant to overturn AfD closures; this is not because the closing admin is somehow in a better position to assess the debate, like the relationship between trial and appellate courts, where the trial court is the only one that actually hears live testimony and has significant personal interaction with the lawyers, and so is in a better position to find facts. Rather, it's because it's essential to have finality at some point. This is especially important for divisive and difficult AfDs. It's already a very difficult task to close the debate; I do not want admins be even more discouraged because they are going to be second-guessed by DRV. When the AfD is as divisive and difficult as this one, as long as the admin provides a facially reasonable rationale in light of the debate, I'm not inclined to overturn it. That said, there may be some cases where the close, despite being facially plausible, is nonetheless so obviously wrong that I'd want to overturn it; all I can say, to quote Justice Stewart, is that I know it when I see it, and the close in the case before us is not it. In the end, an article about some guy's Twitter account is surely on the lower end of the importance spectrum of our four million articles; the harm caused by the article being wrongly deleted - if it is indeed wrong to delete it - for a year or two is, in my judgment, substantially less than the waste of time and effort being spent to decide if it is indeed wrongly deleted right now. Let it settle for a while, and we can revisit this in the future when the consensus may have become clearer. T. Canens (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC) It appears you may mistake the harm of wrongful deletion. The harm of wrongful deletion falls heavily on content creators (and readers), and their discouragement in creating (and reading) well sourced articles is of worse harm to the pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse - Exactly as Reso said above. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse the closing administrator did a good job in closing the AfD, it was closed within his discretion and that is how he interpreted the debate. Till 13:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC) overturn Clear example of supervoting over consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn S Marshall said it best. Statυs (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn (no consensus). There was not a consensus, even rough. The closer's GNG vs NOT / INDISCRIMINATE is unimpressive and not supported by the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn - Only two AfD participants mentioned "INDISCRIMINATE" in their delete !vote and zero participants mentioned NOTDIARY in their delete !vote. Rough consensus did not developed around INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY as the basis for deleting the article. The AfD close centering on INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIARY as the basis for deleting was, as noted by S Marshall, an enormous, blatant supervote. Correct outcome was no consensus. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Might want to take another look then. I count about a half dozen who mention INDISCRIMINATE, two who discuss the diary aspect, and another large collection of voters who discuss WP:NOT (which, of course, contains WP:INDISCRIMINATE). This appears to be an enormous, blatant, misleading DRV vote. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 02:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse The original posters rationale amounts to wanting a supervote from Jimbo. Also policy does trump guidelines, not the other way around. As I mentioned below WP:NOTSTUPID discourages anticipating bad ideas and expecting a line specifically addressing articles of this type doesn't make a lot of sense either, we shouldn't reject decisions based on technicalities from a literal reading of policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse I have to say IRWolfie pretty much sums it up here. The original poster seems to want a supervote from Jimbo and I find that extremely ironic. Clearly this page does not belong as a separate topic. It should be mentioned briefly on his page and that is about it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Break 2 overturn to NC As this topic isn't specifically noted in WP:NOT as being unacceptable, we need some reasonable consensus that it does apply, and that consensus simply wasn't there. The RfC, once closed, might well provide that consensus. But we aren't there yet. In any case, at the least this should be a redirect (as the article as been around and there is an obvious place to redirect to...) Hobit (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC) This is an interesting argument. I take it then that I can create an article like Derek Jeter at Yankee Stadium, fill it with reams of trivial details over every play, hit, home run and out, Jeter has made at that stadium then claim it cannot be deleted because WP:NOT does not specifically mention that articles on baseball players' performances at specific stadia is bad? Man, I'm impressed! Which school did you get your wikilaw degree from? Resolute 15:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I'd like to think an editor as senior as yourself could manage to make a point without a personal attack, perhaps you'd care to refactor that? In any case, there are two relevant points here. #1 Such a thing is specifically covered under WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. #2 If 20 good-faith editors felt that some specific topic not covered under WP:NOT shouldn't be covered by WP:NOT while 20 did feel it should be covered, I'd hope you'd agree there was no consensus one way or the other. This is very much a matter of opinion, nothing else. And we clearly see opinion is evenly split. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Meh, adding flavour to a comment on how you are trying to wikilawyer the WP:NOT argument isn't a personal attack, sorry. Also, to my theoretical article NOTSTATSBOOK would not apply, as I would not be creating a list of statistics. Rather, I would be writing, in prose, a tediously detailed account of the player's history at that one stadium. Where both my theoretical article, and this formerly-real article does fall down is at WP:NOTDIARY. As it, using both sportspeople and celebrities as examples, notes both that not everything written about [them] is notable and that over-detailed articles full of trivia are a bad thing. And giant articles about a celebrity's Twitter presence is very much an example of this. Resolute 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC) So just to be clear, you didn't just wiki-lawyer out of NOT:STATSBOOK? I guess since you haven't actually written it it'd be silly to challenge that though. Anyways, things like 'tedious' 'giant' 'trivia' 'over-detailed', the bases of that argument, are exactly the things for which there was no convincing consensus. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC) I think that Hobit makes a quite reasonable and logical argument. Nothing at WP:NOT applies directly. WP:NOT exclusions are usually taken to be very specific, and that is consistent with the large number of specific exclusions. Participants in the debate did not go into depth as to how any part of WP:NOT applied (juts making vague references). WP:INDISCRIMINATED most certainly doesn't doesn't clealy apply. While some did specifically mention WP:NOT, or its elements, there was no clear (or not clear enough) debate contrasting WP:NOT with the evidence that others have written about the topic. The discussion was therefore not concluded, and with so may particiapnts speaking past each other, it should have been closed as "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Arguing that it's not specifically mentioned is arguing on the grounds of a technicality, WP:NOTSTUPID discourages anticipating bad ideas. WP:IAR also points out that it is not the specific wording that matters. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC) That it's not specifically mentioned is simply a fact. The argument right here is that, therefore, it can't be assumed to apply, there should be a clear consensus/justification. Darryl from Mars (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC) While it is true that WP:NOT doesn't specifically say "There should be no Wikipedia articles on the Twitter activities of celebrities" nor does WP:INDISCRIMINATE list Twitter activity as an example, you might want to take a look at the top of WP:NOT, where it says "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." The fact that the subject of celebrity Twitter use doesn't specifically appear in WP:NOT is most certainly not evidence that the policy doesn't apply to that subject. It would be quite ridiculous to expect or require a policy to exhaustively list every last example of specific subjects to which it applies. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, clearly it is possible that it applies. But I wouldn't assume it applies here the same way I wouldn't assume it applies to zeppelins. I would expect evidence or argument that it does apply to be the standard. You have to accept, as well, that there are things which WP:NOT doesn't mention, which are suitable for inclusion? Right? There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding when I mention this, there are three classes of things: listed in NOT and thus unsuitable, not listed in NOT but still unsuitable, not listed in NOT and suitable. This case was obviously not listed in NOT, the disagreement consisted primarily of whether or not it was suitable. What I ask you is, by what metric, or what arguements, did you surmise that the 'unsuitable' arguments were the stronger? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Let me echo Darryl here. Folks are saying "it's clearly indiscriminate", but there doesn't appear to be actual consensus that it is indiscriminate. Some cases are specifically listed out at WP:NOT, some aren't. Those that are clearly have consensus. But if it's not there then it needs to be shown that it has consensus. You can (and probably should) argue common sense. And that's what WP:IAR is for. But using IAR generally requires consensus. "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers 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. Endorse this was simply the right call, the topic is not notable independent of the subject which is Ashton Kutcher, the citations were all about Kucther not @aplusk and therefore since Notability is not inherited and every FART of his that is reported in the press does not merit an article since that essentially is giving it UNDUE WEIGHT this was the right call to delete, a section in the BIO of Mr. Kutcher would suffice but a DIARY was not necessary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC) The twitter account was notable for its achievements, and references did mention how popular it was, etc. That was mentioned in the AFD. Dream Focus 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC) References that mention how popular Kutcher is on Twitter can easily be summarized in a few sentences on Kutcher's article. Resolute 13:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse: there is no proof that Aston Kutcher on Twitter is not Ashton Kutcher, the topic lacks subject and thus is excluded per WP:NOT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC) It appears your argument is "contentfork," a rationale not mentioned as a reason for delete close consensus. And about which there would substantial disagreement, as the article is about a particular use of a written mass medium. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC) You may take it for snowy endorse. WP:UNDUE would also exclude this topic as a separate article of this size. That said, I agree that the topic is excluded per WP:NOT and particularly WP:NOTDIARY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Without a more direct reply, Overturn to No Consensus. Lots of people said '~Q'. Lots of people said 'Q'. Lots of people said 'P'. People said 'P does not imply Q'. None of the statements of '~Q' were argued well, or argued from any relevant or realistic premise at all for the most part. How then, those statements could be considered generally stronger than the contradictory statements (irrespective of their caliber of argument) without the use of preconceived and unargued premises continues to mystify me. Darryl from Mars (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Q = suitable for inclusion, P = notable; more or less. Endorse. Administrator discretion--and well-argued, too--and weak keep arguments means a deletion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC) Break 3 Weak endorse or weak overturn - Seriously, we're discussing the merits of arguments on some article about some celebrity's Twitter use that has very little impact whatsoever. I say "weak" because, well, I have compelled myself into condensing or deleting Twitter stuff used by high-profile people. Recently, we have turned "Barack Obama on Twitter" into Barack Obama on social media because... it must not be solely about Twitter use any longer. If anybody wants to create Ashton Kutcher on social media, that would be fine by me, as long as it is NOT solely about his Twitter use. --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC) I would note, that this isn't random AfD of random "X on Twitter" article: this deletion discussion (and DRV for that matter) will set the bar on the whole "Xon Twitter" thing, which is worth any amount of time spent, regarding the cumulative effect on Wikipedia future content development directions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC) It is rather doubtful there would be that many, that make it. And we already have twitter feed articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 July 2012

Jesse Liberty – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jesse Liberty (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I was the nom for the AfD of this BLP, which resulted in delete. The subject was unhappy (1, 2) that his page was deleted. Ferox Seneca also had some concerns about the outcome, prompting the closing admin, T. Canens, to restore it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Jesse Liberty. Ferox Seneca has diligently researched available sources, discussed at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Jesse Liberty. With the research complete, we agree that virtually all the sources are unquestionably WP:PRIMARY. The only sources on which we've disagreed are the short capsule bios accompanying the subject's interviews, which I believe are supplied by the subject himself and insufficient to establish notability. T. Canens has recommended a DRV as the best way to close the matter and I agree. I recommend endorsing the outcome at AfD and the decision to delete. Msnicki (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I have placed {{DRVNote}} notices on the talk pages of all the editors who participated in the AfD. Msnicki (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Leaning endorse. His notability is, at best, borderline. On the one side he has gotten numerous books published and by working with him we can assume there aren't any verifiablity issues. On the other hand there is little to no direct coverage on him as a person. If the "best selling author" bit was sourced to a site more reliable than an Amazon it would good to go. ThemFromSpace 16:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC) I think it would still have to say a lot more than just "best selling". Consider the arguments at WP:FACTORS that popularity and rank don't automatically render notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Hmm, I thought there was a provision that authoring a best-selling book was a qualifier for notability. Looks like WP:AUTHOR isn't that precise. ThemFromSpace 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Comment - Can this please be temporarily restored to view for those of us who don't have administrator view capabilities? Carrite (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Never mind, I found it in the article incubator... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse deletion - Already properly hashed out in the AfD discussion. We seem to be asked for this review due to the article's subject's own request, apparently out of a desire to see one's own name in Wikipedia, which is grossly inappropriate per WP:AUTOBIO, etc. I anticipate that a BOOMERANG may end up knocking it out of the incubator. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Comment - I advised Keep on an IAR basis in the AfD debate. I wish the closing administrator had been less terse with the explanation of the decision but see no doctrine-based reason for an overturn of that call. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC) IAR can't be invoked to just make up a new "writes lots of books" criteria, that's absurd. If this guy's "lots of books" have not garnered significant attention by the sorts of sources that review and discuss books, then we can't just create a hole for backdoor notability anyways. Sources need to discuss a topic before an encyclopedia can cover a topic, otherwise we're just a blog. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Even lots of reviews of his books would still not be sufficient. Notability is not WP:INHERITED: "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable". To establish the subject's notability, we would still need sources that talk about him, not his books. Msnicki (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse the correct finding, but please would T. Canens note that when he's closing against the apparent consensus, a clearer closing statement is normally expected.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - (FYI: Jesse Liberty (born 1955 in Brooklyn, New York is a best-selling author and has written about 20+ books on programming (e.g. Microsoft.NET).) He's got two things working against him for a Wikipedia article: 1. His name is common, so it is difficult to find articles about author Jesse Liberty. I found 2,000+ Jesse Liberty articles, but a lot of those are about the concept liberty and happen to mention a Jesse in then near the word liberty. 2. He is a writer. The things that pop up in a search are the thing's Jesse himself wrote (e.g. Software World, May 1, 2002 (which is not about Jesse himself) or reviews of his books (which might make his books meet WP:GNG, but won't make the Jesse Liberty topic meet WP:GNG). That essentially leaves it to Jesse Liberty himself (or one real dedicated Wikipedia editor) to identify press coverage about Jesse from which to develop a biographical Wikipedia article. That effort merely brought in the usual website coverage rather than the paper printed newspapers, magazines, book converge that usually makes or breaks a topic meeting WP:GNG. Article Incubator has made great efforts to try to work with Jesse to find reliable sources from which to develop an article. The subject might be unhappy, but if he can't help a collective effort to develop a Wikipedia article on the topic by identifying paper printed reliable source material, there's not much else to do other than endorse the deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Barack Obama on Twitter – Keep closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Barack Obama on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) In this and the previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter) the widespread consensus to merge to Barack Obama on Social Media or Communications of Barack Obama were ignored by the closing admins. In fact all other X on Twitter accounts have been deleted or merged and a Village Pump consensus that these articles are NOT appropriate was not considered. LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse That's because merges and renames should be discussed on the talk page and not at AfD. The consensus of the AfD is that the topic area as a whole is notable. Broadening of the topic can be discussed separately, but it shouldn't be deleted or redirected to Barack Obama's page, because that is not the consensus. That's all it means. So arguing for a merge or rename close is kind of pointless. SilverserenC 22:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The correct finding in both of those debates was "no consensus". WilyD's close as "keep" raises an eyebrow with me, but there's no point overturning to no consensus because it makes no practical difference. I don't see how a village pump discussion is capable of overruling an AfD when making a decision about whether or not to delete, and I definitely don't see a consensus to merge.—S Marshall T/C 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC) One has to put a substantial amount of weight in the !vote count to find no consensus, I think. An evaluation of the argument strength and applicability of policies has to conclude keep. Note that the first AfD, closed as "no consensus", includes pretty extensive comments by the closing admin about how the deletion arguments are all based on quoting policies that don't apply. The no consensus there appeared to come mostly from the !vote count being 60%/40% (which the closing admin opened with). How much weight to give the numbers is subject to substantial discretion, and yes, my closure did "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.", to quote WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. The burden on people arguing to go against policy is necessarily higher than those arguing to apply policy. WilyD 06:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Where I agree with you, is that the meme "AfD is not a vote" should apply to everyone equally and not just to the Article Rescue Squadron. Where I disagree with you, is where to strike the balance between what policy says and the will of the community. This is fundamental stuff, enshrined among other places in the fifth pillar, IAR and NOTBURO. I find your closes very much on the inclusionist end of the spectrum and your closure statements are often very dismissive towards one side of the argument.—S Marshall T/C 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Policies and guidelines are important reflections of the will of the community, too. One can't disregard them without a compelling reason - they represent a longstanding, well established consensus that reflects the thoughts, opinions, and feelings of the entire community. How to balance that against a local discussion isn't set in stone, and in a lot of cases one can reasonably disagree. I'm not sure that's the case here - I'm hard pressed to imagine any line of reasoning that isn't fundamentally a straight headcount that could result in a "no consensus" closure. I'll keep the point about my closure comments being blunt in mind, it's a fair one. WilyD 08:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC) For the record, I clearly outlined how I arrived at no consensus. There can be no mistake about my train of thought.--v/r - TP 13:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC) In my time participating at DRV, I've done a fair bit of thinking about administrator discretion: where the limits are, and why. My starting point is that admins are elected to give effect to the community's will ("consensus"). Sometimes, there's a tension between the local consensus, and the broad principles agreed-on by the community; and in this case the amount of administrator discretion varies according to the circumstances. Certainly, if there's evidence of bad faith, or if it's a small and ill-attended discussion that reaches an unusual conclusion, then it's only right for the administrator to have discretion to discount !votes. Still, in such a situation the administrator is often better advised to !vote rather than closing, so that the next admin to come along will have a less flawed debate before him and can close it better. But this kind of thing is very different. Here we have large numbers of experienced, established, good faith users participating in a long and well-attended discussion. Per policy, such a discussion has authority to suspend the rules. In this case, administrators are not given discretion to overrule the substantial number of experienced, established, good faith users and dismiss them with a simplistic summary. Totally not. That's never been within the purview of an administrator; their role is clerk to the discussion, not chairman.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Which is pretty much what I said - if you treat it as a straight vote count (for whatever reason), you can come to a conclusion of no consensus. The moment you start evaluating the strength of the arguments, you find that most of the delete votes either rely on factually incorrect premises (i.e., citing policies that don't apply, or asserting that sources don't exist when they do), or are mere personal dislike - the "delete argument" isn't an argument at all, it's just a position. The keep arguments are well supported by policy & precedent. The keep position has arguments (most important, probably, that it well satisfies WP:N). As a discussion, it's overwhelmingly keep. Only as a straight vote can it be read as no consensus. Any discussion can IAR, but it should have a compelling reason to do so - that doesn't exist here. WilyD 06:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) I think there's fundamentally no consensus, across the whole encyclopaedia, about whether Foo on Twitter type articles ought to be separate from the main person's article or within it. I think both sides are perfectly arguable. I find it concerning that so many people (and not just you) appear to be of the opinion that the debate has a simple and obvious conclusion: it's indicative of a failure of our processes. I think that until the community has given you a clear steer about the Foo on Twitter approach, the correct answer is to close contentious debates on the subject as "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC) The correct outcome of a close, contentious debate is "no consensus". The correct outcome of a massively lop-sided, contentious debate is either keep or delete. Merely being contentious is not a good criterion for no consensus, and every day we delete in contentious discussions where "not notable" is a much stronger argument than "I like it". "I dislike it" being a much weaker argument than "well established notability" is a much less common debate, but the process is the same. Beyond which, trying to treat all the Foo on Twitter articles as a class, that can have a class-wise conclusion, is a fool's errand. Barack Obama isn't a suitable target to merge all the daughter articles about him: Category:Barack Obama, Category:Ashton Kutcher may be. I don't think there's necessarily a clear consensus about whether there should be Foo on Twitter articles as a class. There is a clear consensus on whether there should be a Barack Obama on Twitter article. Those're two different questions. WilyD 08:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC) But that's exactly my point. What policy does is to treat things as a class and seeks to enforce class-wide conclusions. So when you prefer "policy-based arguments" over discussion, aren't you doing exactly what you've just denigrated? "Weight of the arguments" is a tricky case to make because in the whole history of DRV, there's hardly ever been a supervote that the closer didn't seek to justify on the basis of "weight of the argument", "not a vote", etc. From an observer's point of view, how do we distinguish these things from the closer's personal opinion?—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC) No, I don't think so. Policies and guidelines guide decision making for articles individually; individual articles are all members of the class "articles", but when we make a conclusion about what to do about an article, we make a conclusion for an article, not for the whole class. Even when we consider a narrower class - say books. Some books are clearly notable, and should have encyclopaedic articles - other ones (such as the book I wrote), are not, and thus should not. Making a class-wise conclusion about what to do about all articles on books is a fool's errand - some should be kept, some deleted, some merged, some redirected - many things. Depends on the individual article. You can judge the merits of weight of argument for yourself (obviously, that's why we're here at DRV). In marginal cases, there can be a bit of surruptious supervoting (even if not deliberate) but in most cases it's pretty obvious. WilyD 11:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Break 1 Endorse Within discretion, once the inapplicability of WP:TRIVIA is taken into account. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse It is about time someone closed one of these without saying reasons to delete should be given more weight just because. I have not been able to make any sense of the prior X on Twitter AFD closes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Finally, one of these was actually closed per policy, as opposed to trying to hallucinate that NOT#IINFO covered Twitter feeds. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC) When will you accept that not everyone on here shares your incredibly strict reading of IINFO? Saying that those you don't agree with are hallucinating is just uncalled for. ThemFromSpace 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC) "To hallucinate" is to see something that isn't there. I'm not accusing anyone of mental instability or "hallucinations" in general, but seeing something in the title of "IINFO" that was never community consensus to begin with. Rather than look at the actual discussion that led to IINFO being used for a group of sections in NOT, people have assumed that there was a widespread decision that IINFO was a good idea, and that multiple different instances were called out. In fact, the specific sections and their examples were lumped together under one heading that was an attempt to find some commonality between the diverget parts of NOT. You and others can want things to be different, but that's simply not how they evolved, and the belief you have in the rightness of expanding IINFO to anything that is perceived to be un-encyclopedic is a belief in an illusion. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC) You are stating a difference of interpretation in an "I'm right, you're wrong" way and you are telling others that their interpretations are wrong. You're not right here. You don't hold any sacred keys to truth, even though you oftentimes act like you do. This has bugged me for some time and I want you to stop. There is no single correct interpretation of IINFO. Say what you believe but don't bash others for believing differently. The correct reading is the consensus of different interpretations, not any one particular individual's hard-line stance, and the consensus was clear in this AfD. ThemFromSpace 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Actually, when I imply that you are wrong, I do so because I believe you are, in fact, wrong. To be specific, I mean that I believe your interpretation of what IINFO means is incompatible with how it actually evolved as a Wikipedia policy. So when you articulate what you want IINFO to mean, you are doing so absent the historical context under which that header was developed. Please see User:Uncle G/On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate for somewhat of a review of how that section evolved. Like WP:NOTNEWS, there are a large number of Wikipedia editors misusing WP:IINFO to mean something that may be congruent with the shortcut, but not the underlying meaning and evolution of Wikipedia policy. Like NOTNEWS, I fear the best solution may be to retire the shortcut based on the rampant misuse like we've seen here. I'm perfectly capable of articulating when my opinion differs from yours, or anyone's, but I do not see any reason to pretend that a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolution of IINFO is merely a difference of opinion. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Wow, I really thought better of you. Looks like we should move on, since there is a fundamental disconnect in our policy interpretations. Though my request to stop pretending you have the only valid interpretation stands. This is the last I have to say on the matter. ThemFromSpace 05:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Don't just assert that I'm wrong about it--demonstrate, historically, how IINFO evolved as an overarching premise, rather than a convenient shortcut for a bunch of differing topics. Do that, and I'll cede the point, but based on what I've seen, I don't think that's possible. That's not so say that the community might not adopt such a stance in the future, just that you've described IINFO in a way that is at odds with its actual development. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Should be "no consensus". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Comment - So just redirect/merge it anyways, such a decision is not dependent on an AfD outcome, as Silver Seren so aptly notes above. Cite the precedent of the other worthless "x on twitter" articles and begin a merge discussion on the talk page. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Closure was a correct reading of the consensus. Due to the overwhelming coverage of Obama in general, including his online presence, this article is a good exception to our general rules. It shows that articles can be written about almost anything, provided the subjects have the necessary coverage. ThemFromSpace 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse The only close of the lot based on actual policy. CallawayRox (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Comment the village pump has broad consensus that these articles are not worthwhile furthermore merge is a perfectly legitimate action for an AfD and the majority consensus was to merge this article so that is what should have been done.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC) You opening this DRV, there is no need to register a !vote.--v/r - TP 19:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC) This article is the one exception to the Village Pump discussion, considering the "Barack Obama on social media" topic has had numerous full books written about it. SilverserenC 21:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Weak endorse: while the delete and merge comments are numerous, they're not very compelling. I don't think the admin was unreasonable in concluding that "keep" was the policy-based consensus here. Most of the delete arguments don't mention policy, or vaguely point at policies (like WP:TRIVIA) that don't really address the issue. That's not to say a better discussion would go the same way (and if I had a chance to chime in, I'd argue that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK that verges on WP:NOTDIARY, among other things.) But in this discussion, the delete commenters were largely baseless, and didn't refer to any best practice that would give their comments any weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC) I search for the word "merge" and find most people just said keep, not merge. [8] Then apparently after it closed a few days later someone started a new AFD which fewer people noticed or bothered to participate in. Should've been closed as "Keep", not "keep for now and start another argument on the talk page about replacing it with a redirect later". Dream Focus 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse, obviously. Sadly, this was to be expected. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Speedy endorse and close: This DRV has no merit.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Is Snow Endorse a thing? Tarc hates these articles and he's not even attempting an overturn. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Hm, guess I've really hit the high life when I get name-dropped by random unknowns. I could count on one hand the # of times I've called to overturn an XfD, regardless of how I may have participated in the original discussion, as unlike much of the rabble that infests DRV, I don't treat this as Round Two of the original discussion. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC) What can I say, you strike an imposing figure of eagerness to cleanse the wiki of 'worthless' articles. Also, you're the only one that had bolded something that wasn't Endorse, and I wanted to justify the Snowy-ness of my position. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Comment The neat trick that proponents of keeping this article have pulled is to conflate the notability of things that Barack Obama has said with supposed notability about the medium he said it in. While there are lots of notable things Barack Obama has said on Twitter, none of this points to the notability of his Twitter account. I might as well create an article titled Things Barack Obama said into his favorite microphone or Things Barack Obama said on a Thursday. None of the notability in the article comes from the Twitter account itself, just from the fact that Barack Obama said stuff. When ThemFromSpace writes "It shows that articles can be written about almost anything, provided the subjects have the necessary coverage", the absurdity of this kind of article is inadvertently revealed, and it shows how many editors have a deep misunderstanding of what notability actually means. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC) The notability of his Twitter account is shown through sources like this. Though I do agree that the article should be broadened to his use of social media in general, because then sources like this and this can be utilized. SilverserenC 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC) You know nothing of my work. In all seriousness, though, this claim is repeated a lot, but is straightforwardly factually false. The sources provided do not focus on things said by Barack Obama, which happened to be in the Twitter medium. They (at least, a goodly number of them) focus on Barack Obama's (media campaign team's) use of Twitter. An argument based on a factually wrong premise cannot be given any significance weight. WilyD 08:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. I'd say that "no consensus" is better, but DRV doesn't exist to micromanage AFD closes. T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC) Comment - Twitter is significant enough in the life of Justin Bieber and Ashton Kutcher to support Wikipedia:Summary style articles. Twitter is merely a blip in the life of Barack Obama and the word "twitter" doesn't even appear in the Barack Obama article. Yet, the Bieber and Kutcher twitter articles were deleted and the Obama twitter article kept. The Bieber and Kutcher twitter articles should have been kept and the Obama twitter article should have been deleted. This isn't about consensus and I've come to realize that well thoughtout AfD arguments are not driving the close on these x-on-twitter articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Your argument seems to conclude that every person should have the same amount of coverage. While I don't doubt that you put a fair bit of thought into it; at least consider that the article in question here is much more connected to 'Campaign' and other Obama sub-articles, rather than the main biographical article of Barack Obama. A lot of people seem to be lead astray by the fact that most bio articles never have remotely the amount of relevant information Obama's does. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC) No, my argument is that a fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own and that the original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. Merely becuase Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 at the moment mentions the word "twitter" once does not justify the Obama twitter article. The main biographical article, in this case the Barack Obama article, is a good indicator of what is and is not a major subtopic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC) That last line is where I disagree with you. While it works for most articles; our prescripts on article size and the shear amount of information means that Barack Obama does not and I dare say could not be an -exhaustive- directory of all the possible encyclopedic topics related to Obama without failing to be an article at all. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC) I think they all need to be deleted, but as the disparate AfD results show, actually getting them deleted depends on how many fanboys/girls come riding to the rescue of a famous person that they like. If this is going to be addressed uniformly it will have to come via policy, i.e. putting some actual teeth into something like WP:NOTTWITTER. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC) You are not alone in this line of thinking as that seems to be the primary argument put forth by those proposing to delete all x-on-twitter articles. However, I think that is more of a reactionary bias against fanboys/girls present or potential contributions to these types articles and how that makes Wikipedia look rather than whether there should be an article on the topic. Wikipedia articles are improved over time and deleting an article when there should be an article on the topic prevents that natural improvement of the article over time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Break 2 Comment Just noting for the record that I have closed the RFC on the talk page. The consensus there seems to favor renaming the article and broadening its scope. The closing admin of this discussion can take that into account and attempt to reconcile the results of the two discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse I wasn't a part of the original AfD - was not aware it was happening - but had I been there I certainly would have commented that the article should not be deleted. Perhaps a rename and broadening to cover more social media, but not delete, and not merge to the main bio. There is no essential difference here between "no consensus" and "keep", so this DRV is a waste of time, in my view. Tvoz/talk 17:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Overturn to "no consensus" WITHOUT prejudice to restructuring the article - The close rationale was accurate, although I voted delete. Nevertheless, this vote should not affect the RFC consensus. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I realize that I was wrong. --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC) I endorse any action that prevents the Twitter article being merged with the summary style article Barack Obama, which simply hasn't the space for stuff like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Wikipedia is not paper, a paragraph on his public relations could have two or three sentences espousing his twitter usage.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn - The closer ignores the argument about WP:NOT and instead focuses on WP:TRIVIA (which was discussed less frequently and which clearly doesn't apply to this article). Also, about 60% of editors voted to delete or merge. To close an AfD in the minority opinion when there is 20% difference between majority and minority requires a thorough explanation for why the minority's argument is far stronger and policy-based than the majority's. -Scottywong| chatter _ 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC) To what, merge? Hobit (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to NC keep might be reasonable if you put the merge and keep !votes together, but I don't see consensus here. We have two sets of valid arguments with strong backers on both sides. I also don't feel the closing statement accurately reflected the discussion. Once the RfC is finished it will make sense to reevaluate this article and a NC close will make that easier to do, so changing from keep to NC actually has an impact. Hobit (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Cherylgillan-288x360.jpg – The file has been found to be freely licensed, and has been uploaded to Commons as File:Cheryl Gllian Official.jpg. This makes this request moot. –  Sandstein  07:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Cherylgillan-288x360.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This image is under the Open Government License, under the Controller of HMSO's offer, as it is Crown Copyright, and does not fall into a small number of exceptions listed at the linked page. This was true at the time of the deletion listing, though it was not mentioned on the license template as it is now. As a note, the other file in the old XfD is also fine, and I uploaded it later to Commons without knowing about its deletion on enwiki. —innotata 19:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC) That looks pretty clear-cut to me, but if it's on the OGL wouldn't it be better uploaded to Commons rather than here?—S Marshall T/C 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I suppose I could, though I would like to know this is the same image as that at [9] (it could be one no longer up). I thought it might be good to go through the process, especially to avoid deletion on Commons. —innotata 01:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC) If it is actually free, then why not just upload to Commons and withdraw this deletion review? You know, be bold and all that. If there is any question on Commons, a new discussion will be had there. Whatever happens on this deletion review won't affect anything on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC) Well, this user's raised a perfectly good point at DRV and is entitled to a finding. I think it's been shown that the conclusion the FfD reached was objectively wrong, so if the user insists, we ought to reverse the FfD and have the image restored. Overturn and restore, but imo the image does belong on Commons.—S Marshall T/C 07:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC) But why waste the time? As long as the image is verifiably free, (A) the user does not need our permission to upload it to Commons, and (B) what happens in this venue does not affect its status on Commons. So just do it and skip the middleman. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC) OK, I'll do that. —innotata 21:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC) It's already been uploaded, to File:Cheryl Gllian Official.jpg. —innotata 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 July 2012

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) – Overturn from keep to no consensus. Although it has no immediate functional impact for the article, this determination should be weighted when considering future merging/relisting discussions. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This debate was closed as keep by WilyD (talk · contribs) with 4 delete !votes, 1 merge !vote and 5 delete !votes. However, many of the delete votes were not policy-driven and most complied with WP:NOTAGAIN and other arguments to avoid. There was not consensus to keep this article, especially as the first AfD resulted in delete and the previous AfD drew no consensus. SplashScreen (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC) there have been three AfDs. the first in September 2010 attracted minimal comments, both negative, & the article was deleted; the second, in May 2012, attracted mixed comments and was reasonably closed as non-consensus; this third attracted the same comments as in May, I might have closed as non-consensus, but it would probably have led to a third AfD right now which would also probably have given inconclusive results. This is not my usual subject, but it seems from the discussion there are two incompatible positions: On the keep side, it charted, which is the basic criterion as WP:MUSIC; on the delete, it's just a repackaging of 3 albums in one retail box which might seem by common sense worth a note, not an article. By analogy, the BOOKS guideline, though broad, wants more significant best seller status than "charted"; such repackaging would not have been kept as a set of books. Nor can I see anything similar kept in any other medium. As an outsider, I see this as an indication we need to be a little more subtle about wording the MUSIC criteria. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I'd agree it might've been possible to close as no consensus rather than keep - the practical outcome is the same, so usually articles that're a bit gray in that respect don't merit quite a close a consideration as those on the no consensus/delete border. Perhaps I should've written weak keep? (I would have been willing to so qualify it if I'd been asked, rather than just informed a DRV was in progress.) WilyD 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC) A no consensus close allows an editor to immediately relist the article AfD whereas a keep close generally keeps the article out of AfD for another three months. The practical outcome is not the same. Since a DRV has been started, I don't think you can change your close. Yes, the DRV lister should have asked you first before coming to DRV. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse close, somewhat reluctantly per DGG above. I don't think that a consensus to delete is present in the discussion. However, I also don't think that a consensus not to merge is clear. That is a "No Consensus" or a "Keep, without prejudice to further merge discussions" might be better closes. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The article's sourcing to Amazon is an embarrassment and the relialbe sources used in the article do not mention Rihanna's 3 CD Collector's Set. The delete argument regarding the lack of coverage in reliable sources for this album was not overcome. Wikipedia is a text based communication medium and an article that says "it charted" does not convey enough reliable source information to justify a stand alone article. I don't see how keep was the correct consensus close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to delete. The "keep" closure was in error because it ignored that none of the "keep" opinions substantially addressed the argument that the album apparently did not attract any reliably sourced third-party coverage, which was highlighted in the nomination and is a policy-level inclusion requirement per WP:V#Notability. The fact that the album may have been included on charts is not, per WP:BAND and WP:NALBUMS, a criterium for inclusion for an album, but only for the respective musician or ensemble, and therefore the "keep" arguments amounting to "it charted" should have been discounted.  Sandstein  05:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus there was no consensus to keep the article, nor to delete it, the Afd outcome was essentially the same as the previous nomination. Till 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse There clearly wasn't any consensus to either keep or delete the article. I would say "Overturn to no consensus" but that would be unnecessary and just a waste of time. Statυs (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Run the World (song) – Closure endorsed. (NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 01:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Run the World (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This AfD was closed with the rationale "policy based argument, majority of editors" by WilyD (talk · contribs). This is despite the fact that the majority of keep arguments violated WP:ATA (including one WP:JUSTAVOTE and multiple examples of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED) and the rather blatant fact that not one keep !voter even suggested that the article passed WP:NSONGS. The closing administrator needs to be reminded of WP:NOTAVOTE. SplashScreen (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC) The point of DRV isn`t to try to re-argue the discussion. Policies & guidelines dictated keep, and therefor most editors argued keep. A very straightforward case. WilyD 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Which policies and guidelines would those be? Because multiple users noted that the article fails WP:NSONGS and not one keep !voter suggested that it passes it. Again, WP:NOTAVOTE. SplashScreen (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC) What we have here is a consensus vs a mass of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. The consensus rightly prevailed. The fact is, SplashScreen, that there's a good reason why WP:ATA is only an essay. The reason is that it's nothing more than a list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say. It doesn't have a coherent or intelligible thesis, and although parts of it are supported by a few attempts at reason, in fact the logic behind WP:ATA is in general very shaky. WP:NSONGS is a SNG, and Deletion Review has a long history of treating SNGs with the contempt that they deserve. If something passes the GNG then it merits an article and if it doesn't, it doesn't, irrespective of what any SNG might have to say. Of course, even if this title was non-notable, the answer wouldn't be to delete it. It would be to redirect it to Love?, and a redirect is of course a "keep" outcome. So even if the subject was non-notable, "keep" would still have been the way forward.—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse – The rough consensus was that the coverage provided met the general notability guideline. While we do have specific notability guidelines for songs, that does not mean that songs that have not charted cannot have their own articles – that is where the general guideline comes in. --MuZemike 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse consensus was that the coverage that existed was adequate. No reason for the closing admin to have gone any other way. Note that SNG's are generally not held to be exclusive (i.e., a song must pass NSONGS to have an article), but more often held to be complementary to the GNG (pass GNG or relevant SNG). Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - Wikipedia isn't here to convey a representative survey of what the Internet says about a topic. Articles need to reflect a thorough and representative survey of reliable sources. The trouble with this article is that it includes any information about the topic with little concern to limiting that information to reliable source information. However, that is a basis to improve the article, not to delete it. Those proposing to keep the article seemed to agree that there is enough information on the topic. The closer could have took that to mean the topic meets WP:GNG. A strong 'fails to meet WP:GNG argument' with a review of the existing references and a search for other references could have carried the day. Instead, the delete positions were weakly argued, giving little to the closer to work with. OPs listing was a good argument, but for some reason didn't gain much support from those maintaining a delete position. "I advise readers not to be fooled by" may have turn people off as did implying that there seems to be nothing remotely important about this song. (As an aside, closing with "policy based argument" is annoying to those having a view different from the close since it fails to state any specific policy and you're better off not posting any reason in the close. Also, I think more respect should have been given to the closing administrator by the DRV OP for his willingness to close the discussion and thus open his actions to review at DRV. You're not going to win anyone over at DRV by addressing the admin rather than limiting your comments to the close itself.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 July 2012

Bloke (word) – Keep closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bloke (word) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) In my close of the RfC merge discussion at Talk:Bloke#Bloke is broke., I wrote: The "oppose a full article" arguments are more strongly articulated, but listing Bloke (word) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (word) to allow for more detailed arguments from Green Cardamom. Scottywong (talk · contribs) closed the AfD as "keep", writing (bolding added for emphasis): The result was keep. WP:NOTDICT is the main argument being used for deletion/transwiki, but the argument is not convincing, mainly because (as many have pointed out) the article contains a lot of sourced content that would not be appropriate for a dictionary (like the "History" and "Examples of use in Australian culture" sections, for example). -Scottywong| speak _ 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I find the rationale in the closing statement to be a misreading of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which states in its lead (bolding added for emphasis): Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history. JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs), Rossami (talk · contribs), and Snow Rise (talk · contribs) persuasively argued that the content was no more than a lexical entry. Finally, Cnilep (talk · contribs), who did not explicitly declare a position for either side wrote, Comment: The content is for the most part dictionary content, though I appreciate the thoroughness of the coverage and do think that there is a place for some articles on words on Wikipedia. The section "Influences in Australian culture" seems strongest in this regard, but even it is a bit too much like original research from primary sources. That is, the sources use the word to describe Australian men rather than analyzing the word as an aspect of Australian culture. I don't regard this as an insuperable argument for deletion, but neither do I think I can really argue to keep the article. Cnilep (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Based on the strengths of the arguments, I find not a consensus to keep the article, but a consensus to transwiki to Wiktionary. Overturn to transwiki to Wiktionary. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: Scottywong (talk · contribs) wrote that he is traveling until 30 July, so I was unable to contact him before filing this review. However, Rossami did and their discussion is here. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC) I don't think you would transwiki to Wiktionary. They already have a perfectly satisfactory entry at wikt:bloke. I think the question is whether we should have an article about a word, or a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Is it possible to have an encyclopaedia article about a word? Certainly. We have thou, a former featured article (delisted after this discussion); at the FAR, editors were rightly unconcerned about its status as an article about a word, because thou goes well beyond dictionary content. Therefore there is—well, not quite a consensus—but at least a substantial precedent for Snotty's close there. Should we have this article about a word? No, I don't think so at all. The reason thou is a good subject for an article is because contemporary English lacks a second person singular, which is a very peculiar feature of our language. It's linguistically interesting. Bloke (word) is much less so. I've got a pretty good bookshelf for this sort of thing, and in researching my !vote on this DRV, I pulled down ISBN 0-415-28099-0. Sure enough, there's plenty of discussion of the linguistically interesting word "thou" (e.g. page 339). What does it have to say about "bloke"? Nothing. The article would have you believe that "bloke" is a distinctive part of contemporary Australian English. The best source I have disagrees. It mentions jackass, wombat, kangaroo, boomerang, larrikan and swagman (although curiously not billabong, which I would have expected) as distinctive and linguistically interesting Australian words. Nothing about "bloke". Do I think we should overturn? Well, I certainly think the conclusion we reached in that debate was objectively wrong. But DRV is not AfD round 2 so I think the closest we can come is to remand it back to AfD for further consideration.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus- The delete argued that, because the article contains only a definition, usage, etymology, and history, that it's just a lexical entry. The keep side argued that the article goes into greater detail than any dictionary would, so it's therefore more of an encyclopedia article than a dictionary entry. Both sides are more or less correct in what they say, so the outcome of the DRV hinges on how to interpret WP:NOTDICT. Do we interpret it broadly, noting that it requires articles to go above and beyond what you'd find in a dictionary? If so, the article should be kept- but I think that's an overly lenient reading. Or do we interpret it prescriptively, say that it strictly sets out mandatory requirements? If so, the article should not be here- but I think that's an excessively legalistic reading. I don't see that either side of the debate had a clear edge in argument or policy so I think "no consensus" reflects the debate. Reyk YO! 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse user opinions on policy are just that: user opinions on policy. Overturning is asking DRV to assume as fact what one side in the case argued, and I find no basis for that. WP:NOT arguments have been getting too much attention in borderline cases--if a majority of the participants don't believe NOT applies, then it probably doesn't, no matter what the minority thinks. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse per Jclemens. WP:NOTDICT asks a topic goes beyond a dictionary definition of a word, if the majority and the same closer considered it was the case, so be it. Cavarrone (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC) I would seriously question any decision made based on the content in "Examples of use in Australian culture" as being "not the sort of content that is found in dictionaries". While at the most basic level its true - it is NOT the type of stuff you would find in a dictionary -, if you look at the actual content of the section you getThese Australian actors have been called blokes. and this popular poetry book has "bloke" in the title. and here is a news paper story that calls the boyfriend of the countries leader "First bloke". - and that is most certainly NOT encyclopedic content either. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse separate article. It goes sufficiently beyond the definition and is expandable into a fuller article. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. Reasonable close. The sources and content demonstrate that it is not a mere word. Someone else might have called "no consensus", but "delete" with or without transwiki is not a reasonable rough consensus for that discussion. Expanding the entry at Wiktionary is a good idea regardless. Content that stocks at Wiktionary can be cut back here. Do not renominate within six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. Per above, also add that the article is not done, there is room for expansion given a chance. "Bloke" means more than just a man, it's a concept: In Australia it is usually used in the sense of an everyman or average joe, someone with a connection to the people ie. an ordinary person. This obviously needs more work but I am confident with time the article will continue to expand along this line, and possibly others. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. The closing admin decision was sound. The expression is a cultural term as opposed to a simple word. WWGB (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse While there wasn't a clear consensus either way, closing as 'keep' was within the discretion of the closing admin, and his judgement appears sound to me: the article clearly goes well beyond a dictionary definition in its current state. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse entirely sensible decision. Keep arguments are much stronger. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse a pretty straightforward case of applying policy and argument. Discussion showed that the article wasn't in violation of [Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], which explicitly says this kind of article is appropriate, as the discussion found. Closure was in thus in line with the discussion and the policy. WilyD 13:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 July 2012

Universe Today – No consensus closure endorsed. The larger question here seems to be one of immediate relisting. I do not see consensus for this solution in the DRV, nor is there evidence that the outcome would be different with immediate reconsideration (e.g., no new/overlooked information, AfD had sufficient participation, etc.). While this closure does not find reason to mandate immediate relisting, there is no evidence of bad-faith participation that would prejudice against relisting either. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Universe Today (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closer of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination) wrote (bolding added for emphasis): Hi, I've been asked to comment here. I agree with you that the "delete" side has the better arguments. However, while AfD is not a vote, it is also not only a contest to get the closing admin to agree with one's opinion. Numbers matter as well. That's why I tend to not base my closures only on the strength of argument when both sides have somewhat valid arguments that can be made by experienced editors in good faith, even if I happen to think (as here) that one argument is stronger. In this case, the "holistic" approach of the "keep" side, considering the sourcing to be sufficient in aggregate, is still within the range of defensible interpretation of our practices and guidelines related to notability. More generally, assessing whether the sourcing is adequate for notability is a matter of judgment that lends itself poorly to an admin decision by fiat; such closures tend to be derided as "supervotes". For these reason, I am not ready to find a "delete" consensus against a majority of "keep" opinions in this case. But do feel free to take it to DRV. I imagine commentators there might at least be inclined to consider a relisting, but I would not like to make a unilateral relist decision.  Sandstein  20:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC) This DRV is not a request to overturn the "no consensus" close; a reasonable argument could be made that "no consensus" was within Sandstein's discretion as closer (if the numbers of votes for each side was considered in addition to the quality of arguments). Instead, this is a request for the community to relist the discussion for more substantive discussion, a decision the closing admin finds reasonable but did not want to unilaterally enact. Endorse relisting the AfD as suggested by the closing admin. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse- The close of "no consensus" reflects the quality and number of opinions presented. The debate had, by my count, 17 different participants and 13 !votes, which makes it an unusually well-attended AfD and so I don't think it can be said that there was insufficient discussion. Reyk YO! 01:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - The close of "no consensus" reflected the state of consensus at the time of close. I believe that to come to a consensus we may need to seek a larger / broader audience, either by opening a new AfD with some pre-discussed canvassing aspects to increase participation or by going to RfC or similar mechanism. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse No consensus is a reasonable decision for a fourth nomination where 23 users commented (some peripherally, but they saw the discussion), and where the total length of discussion was 65K. There were no incidents of canvassing or SPA activity, and there is no indication of an incorrect statement having been made at the deletion discussion. Many of those recommending "keep" agreed that the sources were weak, but argued that on balance the sources were adequate for the case in question. There is no reason to think a wider discussion would reach a different conclusion, other than by the somewhat random nature of who would take the time to comment at a fifth discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Start an RfC. Do not relist. There was plenty of participation. While Cunard was persuasive in that it does not meet the GNG, and neither does it meet WP:WEB, it has always been said the wikipedia-notability is not absolute, that occasional exceptions may apply. The ultimate test is AfD, and at AfD the community has failed to be clearly persuaded. To me, the issue is that the website has been well noticed, but lacks direct commentary on it. The evidence for being noticed is the number of references to it. An easy measure is the fifty or so incoming mainspace links. These incoming links seem to be generated by the wikilinking of the site name in referencing of aother articles. The fact that we are prepared to consider so many references as significant and reliable says something. I think a relist will achieve nothing beyond the previous discussions. They are too focused and seven days is too short. An RfC is more appropriate. I think this unresolved question may be advanced by generalising the question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC) On further reading, I think a merge and redirect to List_of_astronomy_websites#Universe_Today is a good idea. That would be an ordinary editorial decision. Yes, we want Wikipedia to be comprehensive, especially on academic subjects, but per WP:N, not every topic is best presented as a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I see that there are some issues with the scope and notability of that list itself. I have commented at Talk:List of astronomy websites. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC) As the creator of List of astronomy websites (which was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites), I supported a merge and redirect to List of astronomy websites#Universe Today. I agree with your suggestion and the suggestions of Stuartyeates (talk · contribs), RL0919 (talk · contribs), and Eluchil404 (talk · contribs) that an RfC regarding a merge is an appropriate editorial decision. My request to the DRV closing admin is to explicitly state that "the close does not foreclose merger discussions on the Talk page", as aptly put by Eluchil404. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse the close. I was the nominator in a previous AfD and suggested a merge as a possible solution in this one, but I understand the closing admin's position. It was a reasonable close in the circumstances, and there is not any firm basis for DRV to overturn it. That doesn't mean the community can't continue to discuss other alternatives. As SmokeyJoe notes above, a "no consensus" close does not preclude alternative editorial actions, such as merging. --RL0919 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Comment. I am COI on this issue. I would suggest that others take a look at the site before any votes to delete. I have been a member of the Bad Astronomy board for close to ten years. Some of the finest minds on the planet are also members. As the article says it is used far more than wikipedia for 'true' facts on almost any subject. A quick view of any of the 'heated' threads will show that it is based on very strong peer review of any claim made or statement said. I have found it far more useful than reference desk for satiating my curiosity. The members provide links and verification that is far more in depth, some from the minds of the famous authors themselves. Btw, hi Fraser and Phil.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. With regard to "Btw, hi Fraser and Phil", would you explain what you mean by that statement? Are Universe Today founder Fraser Cain and BadAstronomy.com's Phil Plait participants in this discussion? Cunard (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC) No, but judging by what I know of the board there are many watching this progress. You would be amazed at how far and wide the board keeps an eye on things. We probably have have a few in the Whitehouse as well as other seats of power. Most remain anonymous and there are no COI declaration rules. I should pop over and see if there is a public thread on this procedure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Sandstein's thoughtful close. There is no consensus to delete present in the AfD and no reason to disregard the "Keep" opinions are clearly erroneous. Our notability standards (even the GNG) are guidelines to which exceptions can be made when there is no overriding policy concern (like BLP or NOR) that counsels in favor of deletion. That said, the close does not foreclose merger discussions on the Talk page or even an RfC to determine the scope of appropriate coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to Delete, no reason was provided to justify ignoring WP:WEB. This is the 4th AFD, it is barely a stub, the page clearly isn't going anywhere soon. No sign of it becoming notable in the future.--Otterathome (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse The closer could either have contributed his own opinion to the discussion or closed as he did. If anyone wants an AfD2, there is nothing to stop them having it in the proper place , where the actual merits of the article can be re-examined. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC) A very, very difficult one. I have some sympathy with Sandstein: this close wasn't obvious and I can see how reasonable people might disagree over what the outcome should have been. My personal view is that "delete" would have been correct. We often say that "AfD is not a vote", and should be the rule for everyone, not just for the Article Rescue Squadron. And I'm not thrilled that the article's still around after four AfDs when those are all the sources it can muster—I think this is indicative of a failure of our discussion processes. But on the other hand, I can't see what a relist would achieve. If four discussions haven't led to deletion, then I can't see how an immediate fifth one could produce a different outcome. The short version is, I think that if we applied our rules strictly then this material should probably be deleted but I don't see it as urgent enough to force the issue. I recommend allowing renomination in three months.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. Our rules are that the Notability guidelines are for guidance. They are intended to reflect precedent and give clues as to what kinds of articles make for a worthwhile encyclopedia. When applied strictly they sometimes give unsatisfactory results—for example, for populist matters contemporary topics are over-favoured and historical ones tend to get deleted. I welcome it when AFD discussions turn on the specific merits of an article rather than on the precise wording of our imperfect guidelines. And I also welcome it when the closer respects this rather than imposing his or her own strict reading of WP:GNG. Thincat (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse the well-reasoned and carefully thought out close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to delete - By looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy, consensus and the close was clear that that article should be deleted. However, the close additionally went on to asserted that since closers should not engage in assessing whether the sourcing is adequate for notability (also see this and as posted by OP above), their was no consensus to delete. A problem here is that one does not have anything to do with the other. A closer's duty to not contribute their own opinion to the discussion/provide a super !vote merely is part of deletion guidelines, not a way to determine consensus. In regards to this AfD, the closer didn't have to assess the sourcing to determine whether it was adequate for notability since the participants in the AfD did that. Those maintaining the delete position, including myself, had strong arguments due to their detailed assessment of sourcing to determine that the topic lacked enough source material to meet notability. Those maintaining the keep position argument in this area was weak and mostly non existent. The keeps merely post conclusory opinions on the collective of the sources. The close erred in not give weight or consideration to the delete position on the holistic approach of sourcing. In addition, had the close in fact regarded the "Keep" holistic approach instead of merely restating deletion guidelines that the "keep" side's position should be weighed by the closer and not be dismissed outright by the closer, the close would have been to delete. A no consensus close can be relisted at AfD anytime, so there's no need or basis for DRV to alter that. Of course, after a 4th AfD where consensus continues to be that the topic fails to meet WP:GNG, immediate relisting likely won't achieve much beyond the previous discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 July 2012

Fightback (Canada) – Review moot as the article was restored by the deleting admin. Secondarily, a history merge will be performed from the deleted edits at La Riposte (Québec), which are relevant to the Fightback (Canada) article history. – IronGargoyle (talk) 03:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Fightback (Canada) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The edit summary says CSD#G7 but that page states "provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author" which is not the case with this page. It has existed for years, has had many contributors, and has previously survived a vote for deletion. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Tentative endorse. The page that survived AFD was moved to Tendance Marxiste Internationale (Québec), and then to La Riposte (Québec), where it was deleted today at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Riposte (Québec). (Though that afd should really have linked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fightback (Canada) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fightback (Canada) (2nd nomination), the first was ancient (and a delete) and the second withdrawn, so don't provide a basis for overturning it.) Unless someone who can view deleted content says otherwise, I'm prepared to accept that the latest deleting admin did in fact check history first, and that the twelve-day-old article that was there before it was G7d was indeed single-author. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC) The content of the "single-author" article was copied from the original article that was moved to La Riposte (Québec), which in fact many wikipedians contributed to before the move (including myself). It was an attempt to split the article into 2, one on Fightback in English Canada and one on La Riposte in Quebec. I understand that La Riposte does not meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia, but Fightback does. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC) It looks like the article has now been restored, so the deletion review seems moot at this point. However, if the article was split from another article that has since been deleted, I think the history of that article from before the split should be restored and history merged to this article. Otherwise, the edits that produced the current content of this article will not be available. Calathan (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I find the history of this page confusing. Is the page in the history the one that was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fightback (Canada). Or was it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Riposte (Québec)? Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Riposte (Quebec)? Can I forget Tendance Marxiste Internationale (Québec)? It looks like the CSD tagger was the sole author if you ignore the pre-deletion versions. Does the log search reflect the article title regardless of page moves? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 July 2012

Skeptoid – Closure endorsed. (WP:SNOW & NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 11:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Skeptoid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The original close was a proper WP:NAC reverted by a WP:INVOLVED editor and then modified by an administrator without any explanation. No one voted for deletion so the correct close is Keep. CallawayRox (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC) There was plenty of reason given for merge, so no the correct close is not necessarily keep. Merge decisions can be reached at AfD. The NAC was invalid and was discussed here at ANI: Wikipedia:ANI#Invalid_closure, where the admin reasoning is also given. It doesn't make sense to contend that just because noone voted for deletion except the nom then we ignore merge arguments. Merge decisions are frequently arrived at, at AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Specific (stable) link to discussion that includes my reasoning is here. Specific diff where I explained my reasoning is here. Note that the article was not deleted, but merged. The actual merging occurred during the AFD, so all I had to provide was the redirect.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC) What was wrong with the non-administrator close? Wasn't there once a interaction ban Kww and Warden? I also think this counts as a supervote, as the keep votes claiming the mention was enough to indicate notability were just dismissed by Kww. The closing administrator should judge the consensus of those participating, not ignore them. Six people said the sources were enough to justify a keep, including Allecher who put a line through his original merge vote, and said keep based on improvements added to the article. Four said to merge it. And the nominator apparently wanted it deleted. Most said keep, not delete/redirect/merge, so it should of closed as either Keep or no consensus. Dream Focus 22:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Vote counts are completely irrelevant to the issue. Consensus is not a vote count. I find it very surprising that you are not aware of this considering your consistent AfD participation (3200 AfDs [10]). The closing admin is expected to weigh up the quality of arguments as "viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", see WP:CONSENSUS. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC) They judge consensus of what those participating said, they don't ignore it and do their own thing. See WP:SUPERVOTE. Dream Focus 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Discarding merge as an outcome on a factually incorrect basis does indeed look like a supervote but the reclose by an uninvolved admin too care of that. Spartaz Humbug! 02:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Your comment is factually incorrect. The first close stated "The result was Keep as there is no consensus to delete the article. Merger with another article such as Brian Dunning (skeptic) may be considered as a matter of ordinary editing." The option of merger was not discarded; it was just left to be resolved by further discussion. Warden (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC) The issue here isn't the actual close: both keep or merge are within consensus. But, I'm not happy with saying that an AfD like that falls within the realm of what WP:NAC is intended to allow. The overriding of the non-admin close by an admin close doesn't seem to be an issue. Endorse the close. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Leaning Support for the AfD's closure. Consensus isn't strikingly clear in this case, and this AfD could have easily closed as either "keep" or "merge." The Brian Dunning (author) article isn't long, and the merge didn't hinder the article or make it difficult to navigate. The merge also consolidates all of the information in one place, and those searching for information about the Skeptoid podcast will be redirected to the Skeptoid podcast section in the Dunning article. That said, the closing comment in the AfD discussion for Skeptoid is quite generic, and a more elaborate qualification of the closure would have served to better-explain the AfD's closure for Wikipedia's editors to peruse. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse The policy is very clear, NACs can be voided by any admin and a different close substituted. The basis of the NAC close, that the merge option was not available in AFD outcomes, was completely incorrect and rendered the NAC untenable. That the reclosing admin used their discretion to go merge isn't so clearly wrong that we should intervene and I would have closed it as merge myself. As NA1000 says, no content has been lost. Spartaz Humbug! 02:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse reasonable close by Kww given the discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse with slight unease, exactly as expressed by Northamerica1000. The merged article, plus the redirect, looks just fine. Thincat (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - A non-admin WP:ARS editor closing an AfD in which other members have commented in is quite a conflict-of-interest as far as I'm concerned, so that angle is shot and done with. As for the AfD itself, merge/redir seems like a reasonable reading, esp as some of the keeps were a little "meh". If further sources come along down the road, it can always be undone. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse the NAC close was not a good one, as non-admins are not meant to close AfD discussions where the result is not clear (WP:NAC) and the rationale of the close was wrong, as "merge" is a perfectly valid close for an AfD and the fact that the content isn't going to be deleted doesn't mean the debate should be closed as keep. Kww's close was reasonable, and I do think the discussion was leaning towards merging. Hut 8.5 15:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse both the summary vacatur of the NAC and the final close. The first is unreviewable, the second is plainly within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. A very reasonable rough consensus call by Kww. Colonel Warden's NAC close was reasonable (although he should tag the close with "WP:NAC"). The target article does not look nearly big enough to justify a spinout today. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Just to note that the NAC close was not reasonable as it was improper, as has already been noted. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC) I don't see why Warden's close was "improper". I can't find the discussion at WP:ANI. An NAC close doesn't need to be improper for it to be overturned by an admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Er, do people usually going around overturning proper non-admin closes? An overturn implies impropriety, IMO. Tarc (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC) In my opinion, "improper" is too strong a word. Nothing at WP:NAC or WP:NACD seems to define this one as "improper". I don't think Warden should feel criticised. Kww did very well to step in when it looked like a NAC-edit-war was simmering. In net effect, Warden's and Kww's closes are identical. Warden didn't mandate a merge. Kww's close doesn't per se enforce the merge. (NB. I see no likelihood of a re-spinout being a good idea any time soon). Responding to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Invalid_closure, I would not have considered the close to be "potentially contentious", but in hindsight it was. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Improper in several senses: NAC is reserved for trivial closes: the example at WP:NAC of an AFD too contentious for NAC is a 10:2 keep:delete ratio. In this case, there was numerically a near-tie between two competing alternatives. The keep appeared to be a continuation of Colonel Warden's campaign against AFD, which has taken varied tactics over the years. I can find examples of him attempting "speedy keep" on AFDs because the nominator mentioned "merge" as the probable outcome. The language of the close certainly makes it appear that he disregarded the very existence of the merge results because he doesn't feel that "merge" is an appropriate result for an AFD. Even if, unlike me, you are willing take Colonel Warden's close at face value, it appears to have been based on vote-counting, with no attempt to evaluate the arguments. We need to contemplate voiding admin's closes when they do it that way, and certainly should do it for NACs. —Kww(talk) 05:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Hi Kww. Your apparent view, that a rough consensus to merge evident at AfD is as valid an outcome as a Keep/Delete, is, I think, a widely but not uniformly held view. Is there evidence of the community's view to that question? I believe that it is not usually acceptable to go to AfD to get a merge decision unless you make a reasonable pretense of arguing for deletion? I sense some animosity between you and the Warden, but am unfamiliar with its history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC) There's certainly debate as to whether AFD is an appropriate venue if the actual desired target is "merge", but the sheer volume of AFDs closed as "merge" and "redirect" certainly indicates that "merge" and "redirect" are valid results of an AFD. The mere existence of controversy over the topic precludes an NAC over an AFD where that has been brought up as an issue.—Kww(talk) 07:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse both closures. "Merge" is and always has been a flavor of keep. Once the decision has been made to not delete the pagehistory, the rest of the decision is in ordinary-editor territory. (XfD debates get some small extra consideration because they are well-advertised and generally well-attended but are no more binding than an equivalently well-argued debate on the article's Talk page.) The non-admin closure was explicit in stating that the merger was an ordinary-editor second step. The admin re-closure consolidated the steps. Both are saying the same thing and both closures have exactly the same practical result for the encyclopedia. The arguments above that the non-admin closure was somehow "improper" are not substantiated by the record. Rossami (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC) See the ANI thread where it is substantiated. We don't ignore community decisions just because you think they can be decided somewhere else again. Merge is a possible outcome of AfD and has to be taken into account. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I did read the ANI thread (now buried in the archives) and no, I found nothing which substantiated the claim that the initial closure was improper. Except for the nomination, there was unanimous agreement that the pagehistory should not be deleted. That's as close to an ideal example of an allowable non-admin closure as exists. If you think there was something improper or if I reviewed the wrong ANI thread, then please point to it directly. To your second comment about ignoring community decisions, you are conflating the issues. Merge is a form of keep. The pagehistory is not deleted. Everything else is ordinary-editor decision and while AfDs may end with a recommendation to merge, that consensus is no more (or less) binding than an equally well-run consensus reached anywhere else on the wiki. Rossami (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse (I said merge at the AFD) If you can expand the main Brian Dunning (author) page up to GA standard and show it should be split, then we can always look at this again. With a decent article, it's much easier to demonstrate the need for it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC) This DRV is vexatious. The nominator should be advised not to waste the community's time in this way in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Let Bartlet Be Bartlet – AFD is still running – Spartaz Humbug! 02:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Let Bartlet Be Bartlet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Inappropriate non-admin closure with a redirect. My request to the editor concerned [11] was deleted without comment. I realise this is not a delete, and I could revert it myself but would like some clarification. Thanks Mcewan (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC) This is a mistaken review request and should be closed. The AfD has not yet been closed and so there is nothing to review. What has happened is that somebody redirected the article. This can be reverted editorially, and I have done so.  Sandstein  20:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Fair enough, and thank you for reverting. I'm happy to withdraw this. Just to clarfy, what confused me were the edits in the discussion which mimicked closure Mcewan (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

TOFOP – Userfy to User:Tiggyspawn93/TOFOP. The article title in question is not protected, and the DRV in question is not addressing a CSD G4 action. Consequently, an improved draft can be created and moved to mainspace at editorial discretion (with the possibility of future nomination at AfD if it is thought by a member of the community to still not meet inclusion standards). – IronGargoyle (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
TOFOP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The article about the podcast TOFOP was deleted due to questionable notability, as a result of insufficient sources being available. Since then, in addition to it's regular placings in the Top 10 iTunes comedy podcast charts in Australia, numerous sources have come to light which demonstrate its notability. Some of these are listed here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/arts-books/podcasts-freed-the-radio-star/story-fn7euh6j-1226407876100 http://sfluxe.com/2012/03/30/up-for-a-laugh-anywhere-any-time-omg/ http://www.au.timeout.com/perth/comedy/events/1380/wil-anderson-wilarious http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/channel-guide-five-podcasts-that-would-make-for-great-tv.php http://www.australianstage.com.au/201107254598/free-stuff/sydney/free-tix-man-vs.-wil.html http://xpressmag.com.au/index.php/eye4/arts-interviews/4635-wil-anderson-self-sufficient-success Tiggyspawn93 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)tiggyspawn93 Temporarily restored for discussion--see the page history for the deleted article - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC) I closed the original AFD as delete. There is some more coverage since then, but as I said on my talk page when Tiggyspawn93 asked I did not personally think this extra coverage was sufficient to establish notability, but suggested he could come here to see if other disagreed. I have also offered to userfy (but have been offline for a few days so was not able to do that before this deletion review started). Davewild (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 July 2012

Book:Editor_war – This discussion is now moot. The deleting admin made a mistake by giving a link to the discussion on which the deletion was based. This was corrected. (NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Book:Editor_war (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Completely out of process deletion by User:Salvio giuliano. The page was XfD'd in November 2011 with a result of no consensus. SG deleted the page at the end of May 2012, citing that XfD debate. This should be speedily overturned. If you want to delete something, go through the proper channel, don't just decide something should not exist and unilateraly impose your will just because you have access to admin tools. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Editor war (2nd nomination). I now realise I linked to the wrong deletion discussion, which is what I would have told you — and, then, corrected my error —, had you taken the time to actually ask me about my actions, as politeness would have dictated. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 July 2012

Close discussion, as it is outside of the scope of Deletion review. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:24, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Thine Antique Pen is adding hundreds of articles about loactions which really seem irrelevant. There must be a cultural, economical, historical or archaeological relevance - a location with i.e. 16 people is not relevant! I marked several articles for speedy deletion - that means to be deleted perhaps after 7 days. But the user obviously doesn't understand the reason. --House1630 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC) see Category:Populated places in Artvin Province and Category:Populated places in Amasya Province, in summary about 500 stubs! --House1630 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Close. This dispute is non in DRV's remit since no deletion or deletion discussion has occurred. You can nominate them for AfD if you want, but as the Talk page discussion has already implied, verifiable villages are almost never deleted and so these are likely appropriate stubs. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 July 2012

Love Systems – Nomination from blocked sockpuppet. Please can someone redelete the page and salt it? – Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Done. Hut 8.5 11:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Love Systems (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Undo speedy Deletion The original site was deleted due to lack of notability and having links broken. I have added 10 more notable sources and fixed every broken link. I feel that the site is notable enough to proceed. The first admin instructed me to combine Nick Savoy and Love systems together due to the fact that Nick is owner of the company and any actions done by him are through love systems. Any notable content that would be used for Nick should be used for Love systems. In comparison to many of the other articles in this field, I believe it is the most notable but having trouble remaining up. I would just like some constructive feedback if anything is wrong or needs to be replaced and that a tempundelete be performed so that it may be discussed. If i have followed any instruction wrong, please alert me and I will fix them as soon as possible. I will be asleep (work overnights) but will try and update as soon as I awake. Greggcas (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC) My Apologies if the format is incorrect But I struggle with code... XfD 2 - June 2012 --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Article has been temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Spotware Systems Ltd – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Spotware Systems Ltd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) <speedy delete> Forextrader2011 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC) My apologies if the format is incorrect above or above but I struggle with code... In summary I am trying to post the above content. Similar to Ctrader which was deleted for lack of sources, and similar to Spotware which was also deleted for lack of sources (see comments from Arbitrarily0). The latest attempt was speedy deleted for being the same but the content (see comments from Lenticel) is now supported by verifiable sources. In addition to that I make 3 comments to back up the content. 1. It is notable - forex trading is a huge market ($4 trillion a day!) and impacts on all aspects of the world's finances and therefore our lives. 2. like all good Wiki content this was not intended to be the complete, but develop over time through input from other posters, it has not been given a chance to do that. 3. there are many many examples of similar pages that have not been deleted that are in the forex industry see - alpari, metatrader, fxcm to name just a few. Any criticisms people have of the industry are entirely subjective, it is no better or worse than banks, fund management, etc etc. Sorry for the ramble but I just want my content to be given a chance to develop, if there is no activity on the page from other posters updating or disputing it after a few months then put it up for discussion then. Having said that the original case against it was lack of sources and those have now been provided. Many Thanks Forextrader2011 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I can't see the article to say, so can you tell me which third party reliable sources provide non-trivial coverage on this? To address your numbered points though (1) Your argument is that forex is notable, therefore this is. It doesn't work like that, forex is notable so we have articles around that subject. This doesn't inherit notability merely for being in that field. (2) It doesn't need to be complete, it does however need to meet the basic inclusion standards, the previous deletion discussion found it to be lacking, we don't list stuff hoping that at some point in the future it'll warrant inclusion. Hence why your sources are important. (3) See what about X the inclusion of other stuff doesn't indicate we have to include everything someone deems similar. Looking at Metatrader, the article as it stands looks poor to me with references to the supplier, references to a yahoo group, reference to the result of a google search and reference to how to install it on linux using Wine. I haven't looked further, but if these were the only reference material available, then that would suggest the Metatrader article should be deleted, not that anything else should be kept. I've no idea where your concern about criticisms of the industry come from, again we have articles about forex etc. it's not being critical of the industry to not include this. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Temporarily restored for discussion--see the page history for the deleted article DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Ok, can see the article now. The references as they stand don't seem too good. (1) Spotware itself (2) A press release (3) Can't see, paywall (4)Press release type content (5) Press release type content (6) A review of one of their software products, this isn't about Spotware Systems (7) Can't find what's being referred to here, it's not the easiest to navigate and search for cTrader or Spotware return no results (8) Nothing to do with spotware (9) A directory listing showing some membership. Personally I'm not convinced it's overcome the original reasons for deletion and I'm not convinced it would pass a new AfD. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: the review in ref 6 is a substantial review in a major trade magazine, and, except for one problem, would go very far towards notability---that it is about a product rather than the company is irrelevant, because if a company makes notable products, we normally consider them to be notable, to the extent that if a product is not quite notable, we usually redirect it to the company. The difficulty is , rather, that, the review is essentially an interview with the company, and thus represents what they want to say--their own PR. DGG ( talk ) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Good spot, don't know how I didn't notice it to be an interview. I'd disagree about a product being notable making it's manufacturer notable, we frequently state the notability isn't inherited (and indeed WP:CORP re-emphasises that, not quite to the product level), I'd also say we only redirect non-notable products to the company, if the company is in itself notable. In this case though, I guess that's a discussion for another day. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC) The correct use is that because a company is notable, it does not imply that every one of their products is automatically notable--and indeed such is rarely the case. But any company capable of producing multiple products is notable, . When a company produces only one product, then if there is notability, there should be only one article, but it is always a reasonable question whether that one article should be about the product or the company. Of course, here the question is whether either is notable, which I think is borderline at best. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to look at and for the detailed replies. I take your points about the definition of notability, use of other bad examples, view of the industry etc (and how all those are viewed on Wiki) - but stand by the sources as proof of notability. Spotware the company has created a number of products (cTrader, cAlgo, cBroker) that are reviewed in articles similar to the one discussed by DGG and UTC - but I did not want to bombard the sources with those. If it will help I can do so. I should point out in advance that the forex industry is very blog centric, but that is more because of the nature of industry rather than for stylistic reasons - the markets move so quickly that magazines and even daily newspapers are often outdated before they even go to print. Sites such as www.fxstreet.com; www.forexfactory.com, www.forexmagnates.com - might look a bit 'downmarket' but have are more respected by traders than so-called 'august' publications like the FT and NY Times - and the bloggers are known industry figures not anonymous posters In any event in response to your comments UTC about some of the sources I will come back with some more and hope that this will help to convince you? Forextrader2011 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - Consensus to delete was strong at the 14 February 2012 Spotware Systems Ltd AfD. Endorse deletion. As for your DRV request to recreate the article in the face of the 5 July 2012 speedy deletion,[12] that request needs to be based on significant new information has come to light since a deletion (meaning there now are additional reliable sources that were not covered by the AfD). In my own search on "Spotware Systems", I only found articles from PR Newswire, Canada Newswire, and MediaNet Press Releases. Since Spotware Systems releases them, press releases are not independent of the Spotware Systems subject as required by WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Your focus on importance notability is misplaced. The topic needs to be content-quantity notability for there to be a stand alone article. In other words, the amount of reliable source content needs to be voluminous enough so that when editors write the Wikipedia article on that topic, they have enough written reliable source material from which to draw and develop the Wikipedia article. Press releases do not count towards content-quantity notability. Also, you might want to look over Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC) I also took a look at cTrader and cAlgo. I found about 80 press releases for these, so they have the same not "independent of the subject" problem as Spotware Systems. For cBroker, I found press releases, but also found Microsoft Systems Journal. If you have contacts at Spotware Systems Ltd, you might want to suggest to them to contact news reporters to write stories on Spotware Systems and its products instead of merely sending out press releases in hopes a reliable source picks up the story. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC) That Microsoft Systems journal entry is nothing to do with this. It's merely describing a object which they just happen to have called cBroker. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks - I'm not claiming any press release content as notable. I've contacted the guys at Spotware and advised them to forward me independent news coverage. Forextrader2011 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC) If the topic is WP:GNG notable, that information may be in reliable source publications that are not so easy to access online. The guys at Spotware should know about these, however. The company has a news-updates page. Many companies also have an In the News page on their website that makes it easy to locate reliable source material for Wikipedia articles. If you locate other reliable source material or get some relevant photos uploaded to commons.wikimedia.org, let me know and I'll help you improve the Spotware Systems Ltd draft article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Country data Micronesia – Relisted. –  Sandstein  09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC) The relisted discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_20#Template:Country_data_Micronesia. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 07:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Country data Micronesia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Redirect should be undeleted as it is greatly inconvenient to use templates such as {{flag}} without this. While "Micronesia" is indeed a Geographic region, much like Ireland the association is clear even though geographic region of Ireland has two political entities on it: Republic of Ireland (this is what people typically refer to when they say "Ireland") and Northern Ireland (a part of the United Kingdom). Nobody will confuse Micronesia (Federated States of Micronesia) with a geographic region when used though the flag template or any other similar template. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 08:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Relist. White Cat makes a good point, but it is somewhat countered by the claim in the CfD that Micronesian is not an accepted Short Form name for the Federated States of Micronesia. Further discussion may be helpful. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Relist - What's being used is Template:Country data Federated States of Micronesia. Template:WikiProject Micronesia and other templates don't use Federated States of Micronesia. There's Category:FA-Class Micronesia articles and other categories that don't use Federated States of Micronesia. Shortening Federated States of Micronesia to Micronesia seems a reasonable approach to help work the back end of the encyclopedia. Might be helpful to have more discussion on that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 July 2012

Austin Goh – page restored by deleting admin after some sources provided, now at AfD. – JohnCD (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Austin Goh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) dispute of the deletion of this article when adequate references were provided to prove the significance of this living person Kittensfoot (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC) (partially copied from message on deleting admin's talk:) Some possible independent sources that could vouch for notability are this piece from Utusan Online (in Malay, but meets WP:RS and constitutes significant coverage), Peter Lewis' Way to the Martial Arts, Exeter Publications 1988 (no online version, I'm afraid, but uses Goh extensively as an example in the section on Wing Chun) and the episode of TV show "Just Amazing" on which he was featured in 1983 (which, sadly, I can't find online either). That said, although fairly well-known in MA circles in the UK, he's still pretty borderline in terms of Wiki-notability. I would support reinstating the article and putting it through AfD instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 July 2012

CADprofi – Overturn G4 speedy deletion. Re-listing at AfD is at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
CADprofi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) CADprofi page has been created on April 2011. This page has been quite poorly created with almost no reference links and in a discussion debate at the end of April 2011 it has been voted to be deleted. After some time (aprox 8 months) I have created an another page CADprofi but this time with a text that meets the notability guideline and with many reference links. There was another discussion about this page (even longer than the previous one) and in the discussion, this page has been voted to stay. After some time (aprox 4 months) on 28th of June 2012 Mr RHaworth has deleted the second version of this page (speedy deletion) upon the "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" rule. Personally I don't find this rule to apply to this page. For example I could create a page about about some famous artist which has been voted to be deleted. Does it mean that nobody can recreate this page again but this time with another text that follows the notability guideline? CADprofi page has been recreated, there was a new discussion and it was voted to stay in this discussion (which seems that was also deleted). Klimbert No opinion yet on whether the company meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria but the recent decision to preemptively protect the title after a single rewrite was patently in error. Wikipedia policy says that we are to limit protection to those areas necessary to protect the project. This appears to have been excessive. Rossami (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Regarding "there was a new discussion and it was voted to stay in this discussion (which seems that was also deleted)", where did this take place? Are you claiming that that discussion itself was deleted? Tarc (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I don't see any other AfD's relevant to this page. I thinkthought Klimbert means there was a discussion on the Talk page - but RHaworth didn't delete a talk page so I'm not sure. Without being able to see the content of the two deleted versions I can't really say about the G4. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Comment I see that Klimbert asked RHaworth about this before coming here, and was told 'Search this page for "decency". If you insist on trying to force an article in, go to deletion review.' [13] I do not see this as a very helpful reply -- though I can not figure out the meaning of the first sentence. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC) There are various sentences along the lines of "kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your service is notable and writes about it here" on the archive which that entry appears on. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored both the article and the talk page for discussion at Deletion Review I too can find no other deletion discussion butthe original one; I think Osburn is right, that the article talk p. was the intended meaning. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Keep- The article that was deleted was about a marginally notable company, but I think it would cut the mustard as a stub until someone expands it and adds citations.--Mblumber (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you for all your answers. The discusion that is there at the moment is a discussion of the old article version from April 2011. There was a new discussion although I'm unsure if it was on the talk page or rather it was on the speedy deletion/deletion discussion page. I will try to find it in the archives. Klimbert Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn speedy deletion. The speedied version[14] was clearly not a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" compared with the version deleted at AFD.[15] as is required for G4. It would be nice to see the later discussion but that would not validate the speedy. Thincat (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 July 2012

File:Graham at NRB 1977.jpg – Moot. The local file was speedy deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) under F2. (NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 20:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Graham at NRB 1977.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) File information page for a file on Commons consisting of a fair use rationale. Although local file information pages sometimes are allowed (e.g. for the {{badimage}} template), it seems totally inappropriate to have a local file information page on Wikipedia consisting of a fair use rationale. If the file is unfree, it should not be on Commons in the first place, and so Commons images shouldn't have fair use rationales. User:AnomieBOT closed the request by keeping the file information page on the grounds that the file is on Commons, but this seems irrelevant here. Since the bot doesn't allow the discussion to be held at the normal place, I'm taking it here instead. Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Comment. I have informed Anomie of the underlying problem and he is following up.[16] Thincat (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC) The image is up for deletion at commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Graham_at_NRB_1977.jpg as there is some question as to its licensing status. Maybe the appropriate thing is to wait for Commons to determine if it's free or not? OSborn arfcontribs. 19:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Justin Bieber on Twitter – No consensus to overturn the closure. Both sides here are about evenly split in terms of strength of argument as to the validity of the closer, and I would guess (though I haven't checked) in numbers as well. For me to close this as either "overturn to NC" or "closure endorsed" would be a supervote, I think, so I'm going to just close this discussion as not having reached a consensus either way. I think that as per DRV norms, that means we let the original closure stand? – NW (Talk) 10:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC) See here for an explanation as to why this was closed as "default to endorse" rather than "relist". NW (Talk) 08:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Justin Bieber on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) AFD The article was deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTDIARY and WP:IINFO, which suggests the topic of the article is problem and it obviously does not belong on Wikipedia. Hence, deletion. At the same time, the closing administrator said the WP:NOTDIARY and WP:IINFO could be included in the article. The closing administrator made content comments, citing the Charlie Sheen comments. Articles deletion are based on policies, not content. For example, an article with 1,000 reliable sources that establish notability will be kept even if only one of those appears in an article. Content is not a consideration. Admin does not appear to have given weight to sources that establish independent notability of the subject. given issues, WP:NOCONSENSUS seems obvious close. --LauraHale (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Closing admin comment; something which may be suitable for a paragraph in an article, may be unwanted as a stand-alone article topic. The personal life or the youth of many notable persons is the subject of a paragraph in their article, but wouldn't be suitable as a stand-alone article. I did not state that all the info in the deleted article could be included in the main Bieber article, only that "a short section" would be appropriate. That(s hardly claiming that the NOTDIARY content can be included in the article. As for the content comments; it was used as an example, together with the text of the note from the article, as to why it came close to being a WP:COATRACK; the article was enlarged and more sources added by discussing different topics and adding tangential stuff (even after the severe pruning halfway through the AfD), giving the appearance of having many sources when in reality there were less. This is similar to the lists of sources added in the AfD, which gave a false impression. However, even if the coatrack issues would have been adressed, the main reasons (NOTDIARY and IINFO), as indicated by most "delete" opinions, would remain, and hence my close. Fram (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Can you point out the WP:NOTDIARY part of your close? The article was NOT, despite the repeated claims at AfD, just tweet after tweet, after tweet. The sources provides in volume did not post content to meet WP:NOTDIARY as they were not 140 character article after 140 character article of his tweet. This deletion rationale doeesn't work. The sources didn't treat it that way? And WP:COATRACK was discussed a lot? It doesn't do that because there was not point of view pushing on the article. WP:IIST has no consensus that the article would meet here and the essay does not have consensus. There appeared to be no consensus around any of the rationale, and the rationale of not diary WAS made clear to be false based on sources AND article content. --LauraHale (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - as I mentioned (albeit obliquely) that whoever closed the AfD was going to be in for a tough time, since there were strong opinions on both sides, I think what Fram has done is a reasonable compromise that satisfies the majority of people. May I humbly suggest that sticks are now dropped. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Strong opinions on both sides with good arguements on both sides leans toward WP:NOCONSENSUS, not delete. --LauraHale (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC) It doesn't really matter. Can you still type "Justin Bieber on Twitter" into the search box? Yes, you can. Do you get presented with some information on how his presence on Twitter is notable? Yes, you do. So what's the issue. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. One of the least worthy articles on en.WP I've seen in quite a while. Lots of duplication with main article; elavates trivia. Tony (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Either endorse or relist - "Keep" arguments are insufficient because they cite policies and guidelines as part of reasons. Some "Delete" arguments were not that compelling due to possibility that a policy may not apply. Nevertheless, "delete" arguments triumphs "keep" over possibility of massive trivia in this article, putting notability aside in favor of writing a content that would suit general needs, and favoring encyclopedic standards over existing rules. But if an uninvolved administrator feels that arguments are insufficient, go for "relisting". --George Ho (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Actually, I must say that people believe that whatever that is in the essay is not a very good argument. Nevertheless, some of short arguments have some merit, especially when they cite one policy or guideline without explaining further. In this case, we are talking about a Twitter use by one person. If a Twitter account is not a "work", as it supposed to be per WP:IINFO, what is it? (By the way, neither of us make a mention of it in AFDs.) --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - keep arguments insufficient, most are a complete misinterpretation of WP:N: sure, if for something no reliable references can be found, it is likely not notable, but that does not extrapolate to a situation that when for something reliable references can be found, that that subject is then by definition notable - the Sun is hot (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), Grass is green (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), the Sky is blue (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and Justin Bieber on Twitter (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - for most of the first 4 way more news, scholar and book-results can be found than for the last one - yet none of the first has an article. And the last one is just fancruft. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Comment This was probably the least or second least worthy of the on Twitter articles, I'm not going to disagree with the admin decision. However, this evaluation of the arguments; this is essentially what arguements for deletion amounted to, a sort of Proof by assertion that the article is cruft, or trivia, or unencyclopedic; and then claiming that's proven right, only because WP:N doesn't prove them wrong. Accepting that the keep arguments are insufficient, and WP:N itself can't be an argument for notability/inclusion, what could be? What trumps someone calling something cruft? Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC) An academic article or book which is focused to the topic for one. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Common sense is another one - why not write Grass is green? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Realistically, no one has ever convinced anyone of anything by arguing that their position is 'common sense'. IRWolfie at least presents a potentially useful thing. I'm also not sure how the issue of a (usually) true statement not being an article relates. We use noun phrases, and technically, we do have an article on the color of the sky. Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I know, the common sense argument is not the strongest - "Grass is green" it is so socially accepted that we even have proverbs using it, and I am sure that you can find references to it in book, song and/or popular movie titles. Still we don't have an article about it. I think that though we know it is notable, we use common sense to know that it is not worthy of an article. I think that Diffuse sky radiation is more like Celebrities' use of social media, not exactly the same. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Most celebrities have accounts on lots of social networks, and they use all kinds of ways to communicate (phone, mail, twitter, youtube, ping, whatsapp, skype etc.). Arcandam (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC) I would have probably closed it as merge, but Endorse - it's certainly a valid close within admin discretion. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - Consensus was read that this is not the sort of thing we devote encyclopedia articles, it is high time to draw a firmer line against ephemeral pop culture trivia. If you want to tweet with Beiber, then go do so. We don't need to read about it here. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse the decision. While opinions were divided, there appeared to be a consensus, arguments and all (well beyond "IDONTLIKEIT"), that deletion is the proper way to go. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus The WP/N presumes notable topics may have thier own article. Thus setting the higher bar of actual consensus for WP:NOT to apply, (at least in cases where WP:NOT is ambiguous on the type of article at issue). For WP:IINFO to apply actual consensus must be reached, as nothing in the text of the section requires deletion of this article. As someone has said elsewhere, "this section is in no way a catch-all for anything that any editor may personally view as being indiscriminate" (See, The discrimination of. . .; See also WP:Burden). Indeed, the close admits the topic is notable for inclusion somewhere in the encyclopedia. Under the Editing Policy an article is not indiscrminate nor is it WP:NOTDIARY, even were it arguable that it contains some such. (It is also false that this article listed every tweet and so it cannot be a diary). The deletion rationale and the endorse rationale relies on the logical fallacy of a parade of horribles. Other imaginary articles are irrelevant. Notable people, like other people, when thier lives intersect with something else notable make for articles (see, eg. Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln; Letters of Charles Lamb; at least one notable Twitter feed has its own article, Shit My Dad Says; as do notable Blogs.) Because this close forces consensus, it should be overturned. It also replaces objective application of policy with standardless feelings about the topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Repeating the same arguments over and over again is a bit boring. Other imaginary articles are relevant. People already responded to this and explained you the difference between Twitterfeeds that are notable and "Celeb X using communication method Y"-articles, right? Arcandam (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Further demonstration of no consensus. The claim that a twitter feed becomes not notable because it involves a notable person lacks logical force or policy standards. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Who claims that? Nice attempt at a straw man. Arcandam (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC) I'm sorry, I thought that was the claim. If it's not that it involves a notable person, than is it about particular use of a mode of mass communication? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse deletion Typing Justin Bieber on Twitter redirects you to a few paragraphs on his Twitter presence on his article. I think this is more than enough. Canuck89 (have words with me) 15:47, July 9, 2012 (UTC) Overturn to keep I thought my argument summed it up rather well. I don't see why this should be treated differently than any other website. Its get ample coverage, not just for the activities of his on it, but for the twitter account itself. And getting "180 million page views per month" is fairly notable. Did those wishing to have it deleted just look at the title and make their decision, or did they actually read through the article? Dream Focus 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Break 1 Overturn to keep: 1) WP:IINFO does not cover twitter feeds. Contra the closing administrator's assertion, WP:IINFO is very specific about what is, in fact, indiscriminate. There has been a concerning tendency for deletionists to argue IINFO instead of IDONTLIKEIT, because the former is the actual name of a valid policy, while the latter is not. However, the extent of IINFO is limited to summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, and excessive listing of statistics, none of which covers a twitter feed. The sentence "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." applies to each of these three sections, as well as every other numbered section on the page. Administrators are not free to invent new sections, for things that they believe might fit appropriately under one of the headings, especially not for things as ephemeral as indiscriminancy. 2) The twitter of one person is not, by any rational definition of discriminancy, indiscriminate. It has a clearly delimiting category, the tweets of one person, and is therefore an encyclopedic intersection, as can be seen by RS'ed commentary ON Bieber's (and others') twitter feeds. While I think the topic is silly and inconsequential, it is neither my job, nor any administrator's, to sit in judgment on whether reliable sources are dealing with consequential topics. Unfortunately, by listening to the naysayers anddescribing content followed by RS publications in the categorization as "indiscriminate", the closing administrator has either inappropriately assigned weight to non-policy-based deletion rationales, or has himself supervoted to reach that conclusion. For all of those reasons, the above 'endorse' !voters miss the point, and the decision needs to be overturned. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC) How do "endorse" people miss the point? --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC) The point is that since IINFO doesn't apply, if (for example) 12 delete !voters say "delete per IINFO", then those are zero policy-based delete votes. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Well, the point that IINFO doesn't apply isn't a widely-shared, point, though. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC) If IINFO doesn't apply, and it does not, then people misquoting it shouldn't be figured into an estimation of consensus, no matter how numerous, since its not a vote. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC) You keep saying "it doesn't", but that is only your opinion; many who weighed in feels that it does. Editors can disagree on interpretation of policy and not be "wrong", e.g. see the recent Muhammad RfC which pivoted on interpretation of censorship vs. offense. Each "side" felt their arguments were solidly rooted in policy, but one side didn't win that day. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Jclemens: Doesn't your point apply to short "keep" arguments, as well? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Length of argument is unimportant; basis is. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Well in that case (and this is why I would have closed as a Merge) they're in excellent company with the large number of evidence-free Keep votes along the lines of "it's notable", "it's got lots of sources", "it passes GNG", and "you just don't like it" ... and there are far more than 12 of those. In fact, you could probably remove 75% of the comments - on both sides - on this AfD and lose nothing. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Aside from something that would trigger NOT, as IINFO was erroneously assumed to do by the closer, then arguments about sourcing and notability would be the appropriate and prevailing arguments, wouldn't they? Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC) That's my point - most of those arguments don't consider whether this topic has the notability to stand alone - they merely assert "it's notable" without explaining why, or assert that "having lots of sources" is a criteria for notability. Clearly, neither is true. Obviously, notability is helped by significant sourcing, but its existence is not evidence of notability; it's the same as these "Personal life of Celebrity X" articles we've been having recently, they're spectacularly sourced because they're tabloid fodder, but it doesn't mean the information belongs anywhere else but as a section of that celebrity's article. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC) What is evidence for notability, if, as you appear to say, it is not significant reliable sources? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I thought I made that clear. Something cannot be notable without significant reliable sources, but the existence of those sources does not mean something is notable. Otherwise we would have a new article (for example) every time a celebrity got married, had an affair, got arrested ... Black Kite (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) That does seem clear, sources don't prove something is notable, I think the question is; what is positive evidence for notability/keeping, i.e, what does mean that something is notable? Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC) You've said what it is not. What is evidence? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Actually, BK, I think you're wrong: If a particular event, like a wedding, has GNG-level support, then an article on that event does meet our notability criteria for a separate article. After all, the contrapositive has been being used against fictional elements for years ("Delete it, since no sources cover this element outside the context of the movie"). Stretching IIFNO is inappropriate; if we want to have a NOTTWITTER, then by all means let's create one, rather than saying IINFO means "whatever the closer doesn't think encyclopedic". Twitter articles are not per se indiscriminate: they cover what one celebrity has said on twitter--that's very discrete and specific. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I think you know what I meant, though. A very notable wedding may possibly have a chance of passing notability (but beware WP:NOT#NEWS), but the point I was making is that you could display shitloads of sources for pretty much any celebrity wedding, because that's the nature of our media. Doesn't mean they need an article, though. And 99% wouldn't; they'd be a note in the relevant celebrity's article. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC) And, regarding the 1% that could have an article, how would you, in particular, distinguish them? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I wouldn't, because I couldn't care less about trivia articles. I was merely pointing out that I would not rule out 100% of articles of that type; there are always exceptions to the rule. And that's why we have AfD. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse This was a correct reading of policy and consensus. Jclemens' ultra-narrow reading of WP:IINFO above is inappropriate. IINFO is not bound by the three examples listed on WP:NOT. ThemFromSpace 19:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Those are not examples, they are sections, grouped under the heading of IINFO. Within those sections, there are two examples in the third section: Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 and United States presidential election, 2008. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to no-consensus. The article was drastically improved by fluffernutter in the course of the discussion, and there was no consensus to delete the improved article. The close appears to relate only to the original article as originally submitted: the closer's rationale does not match the actual article. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC) In this case, I would also go for "relisting" because I still favor deletion in both here and there, regardless of condensation. Even after condensation, I don't see anything valuable in this article. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC) The close definitely took into account the changed article, and the !votes cast after the change (which weren't significantly different from the ones before). Please don't claim things which aren't true. Note that both the Charlie Sheen issue, and the note that "This article is about both Bieber as a topic on Twitter and Bieber's use of Twitter", were included in the article version "revision of Justin Bieber on Twitter (as of 4 July 2012, at 23:39) by DGG". Fram (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Merge would have probably been a better reading, but this has essentially accomplished the same thing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Good close, strength of delete arguments considerably stronger than keep arguments, some of which are being repeated again here. The keep arguments are just as weak here as they were at the AFD.--Otterathome (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse When one looks past the mere !votes (as Black Kite points out above) on both sides and judges the strength of the arguments, I think the closing admin did a fair job in determining consensus (although I read it as "merge", the result is the same).--William Thweatt TalkContribs 23:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse deletion per IINFO; the view that it should be read narrowly, is simply wrong. It is a statement of a concept that applies to a great many indiscriminate things that may not be specifically enumerated. Such strict constructionism interpretations are about seeking to neuter IINFO for indiscriminate inclusion purposes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're correct about IINFO: in what way was the article indiscriminate? Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse original close. I believe the original close accurately interpreted the comparative merits of the delete and keep !votes, and made a fair determination that the consensus of policy-based !votes was to delete or merge (which amount to the same thing here.) Not that it matters too much, but I didn't vote in the original AfD. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Resigned endorse, though "merge" might have been more technically correct. I spent a lot of time and energy cleaning/rewriting the article in the hopes that it could be saved, and I think I did improve it...but the more I look at it, especially in light of the AfD arguments, the more I think the kernel I thought was there just wasn't enough. The topic of Bieber's Twitter use has coverage - notable coverage. But the fact that it has coverage doesn't mean it has to stand on its own as an article, and if we continued to trim off the "fat" of overly-detailed stuff in the article, we'd have ended up with little more than the few important sentences that ended up in Justin Bieber anyway. The bulk that fleshed it out to article size is mostly unneeded WP:NOTDIARY stuff that in a years' time will be very clearly unimportant (and I think that in a year we'll have a much clearer idea of what the really notable stuff was/is), even to those of us who had hopes for the article. I do think there's some stuff that was in the article that didn't make it through the merge and should have (and that Fram probably should have done the merge himself rather than leaving it for someone who wanted to save the content), and I'll probably take a look at that in the upcoming days to fix, but overall I endorse with sadness Fram's close for now (though I will not be at all surprised if within a few years we find ourselves recreating social-media articles like this because the weight of notability has finally gotten too much). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn There was clearly no agreement for the article to be neither kept nor deleted. Statυs (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Arguments about content apply are compelling, and sometimes I don't follow WP:AADD. Notability matters less for fiction, just as notability matters less for a Twitter account of the high-profile celebrity. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. The close was within admin discretion. That some coverage of this topic is appropriate at Justin Beiber does not mandate that this be kept (even as a redirect) in the absence of a consensus that it should be used in this form. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to some form or a merge close. The GFDL requires us to keep the attribution of the page intact since content was merged into the main article, so what we really need here is a "redirect and full protect" close to keep that intact. Fram, however, correctly determined consensus against this being an article. (Whether intended by the close or not, what has happened here is a Wikipedia:Merge and delete, and that essay explains why this is not a good thing.) Courcelles 04:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I don't think anything was merged from this article, so what happened here was a "delete and redirect", not a "merge and delete". Feel free to correct me on this though, but there certainly hasn't been any merge of info since the start of the AfD. Fram (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC) While a "delete and redirect" was what technically happened, I think semantically from a casual observer (which is what really matters IMHO) it was more like a "merge and delete". I'm also concerned that there seem to be a lot of people here treating this review as "AfD II - this time it's personal" and rehashing the same arguments we saw last week, rather than what I believe the review is for. Did those that are requesting an overturn take it up privately with the closing admin in the first instance? --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC) There was discussion during the AfD of information being moved back and forth between the articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Fram, the partial merge occurred here, back in April. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 12:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks. It would have been easier to find that if the merger had properly attributed this in the edit summary of course (but that is not your fault of course). How best to proceed? Undeleting the article (but with the redirect as current version of course), or moving the deleted history to a talk subpage of Justin Bieber? Fram (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I note that the merge was indicated at the JB talk page (not by the merger though), I could have found that if I had actually looked there of course ;-) Fram (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I have now restored the page because of the merger (and the need to have the contributor history. This does not change my AfD close except on a technical level. Fram (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse, then, as I think that corrected the only flaw with your close, which was otherwise within your discretion. Courcelles 03:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse: Article not notable independently of Bieber himself. pbp 04:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse: even though that's not the way I "voted" in the AfD, I think the closer has weighed the discussion well and arrived at the right conclusion. pablo 10:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse one of the main arguments put forward for deleting the page was WP:NOT, and that reason was the one cited in the closing statement. Very few keep !voters tried to address this argument in the discussion. Instead they focused on demonstrating that the subject passes WP:GNG. Passing our notability guidelines does not mean that a topic should be included, or that we should presume that it should be included. It means that the topic cannot be deleted for being non-notable, which doesn't say anything about whether it should be deleted for any other reason, including WP:NOT. Hut 8.5 11:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC) It appears the problem lies in that the only standards suggested by WP:NOT are reasoning by analogy. There was substantive disagreement over the applicable analogies with reference to the sources given, and the text of the policy and article (whether it be mass commincation, or personal information, or publisher/publishing, or marketing or something else). Choosing among the differing substantive analogies is imposing consensus. Also doesn't passing GNG or the other notability guidelines lead to a presumption? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC) The AfD was close under WP:NOTDIARY. A main issue of WP:NOTDIARY is whether the Twitter event Justin Bieber is involved in was notable: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are". Of course the keeps are going to focus on demonstrating that the Justin Bieber on Twitter subject passes WP:GNG per the requirements of WP:NOTDIARY. A second main issue of WP:NOTDIARY is whether the Justin Bieber on Twitter article was an overdetailed article that look like a diary. The deletes failed to establish that the Justin Bieber on Twitter article look like a diary. So what was the basis to close the AfD discussion under WP:NOTDIARY? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC) The use of the word "notable" in WP:NOTDIARY is not meant to be interpreted as a reference to the standard of Wikipedia:Notability. Note that NOTDIARY goes on to say that "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person", which is exactly what the guideline WP:N is not applicable to. Rather the word is being used in its common English sense of "being worthy of notice". NOTDIARY is not an extension or application of the GNG, it's a completely separate standard. Hut 8.5 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I think Uzma's point is if it is not notable, according to NOTDIARY, it should not be noted in the Pedia but if it is agreed that it will be in an article, and further that it will have its own section of the article, it cannot be diary or indiscriminate because those are logically contradictory. If it's in the pedia, it is noted, and if it has its own section, it is discrete. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Break 2 Overturn to keep Laura's AfD contribution alone was sufficiently convincing to outweigh all the delete rationales. She provided a well presented table listing dozens of RSs that have both JB and social media as the primary topics. Her arguments on the applicability of policy were sound too. Taking into account the other keep rationales, and the obvious falsity of several of the delete comments, a delete decision should not have been an option. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to keep The nominator cited a lack of notability as the reason for AfD, which was the reason that most keep arguments addressed this issue, and it was amply demonstrated that the article was well-sourced and passed WP:GNG. Anyone who said that it was a list of tweets never even bothered to look at the article. No evidence was ever presented that WP:NOTDIARY applied. But most disturbing of all was a bizarre extension of WP:IINFO to simply mean "not encyclopaedic" ie WP:IDONTLIKEIT whenever convenient. I would not normally bother to comment on a DRV, but I this interpretation poses a grave threat to the integrity of the encyclopaedia as it permits any article to be deleted on a whim. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I don't see anyone who argued it was a list of tweets. Who argued it was a list of tweets? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn - WP:IINFO: Before I get to my main point, let me address WP:IINFO. First, IINFO presently is limited to fiction, songs, and statistics, which are far from biographical information. The deletes did not establish that WP:IINFO applies because the collection of information on the topic can be focused on twitter and the deletes never established that the article only could be developed at random or without careful judgment. Our own LauraHale (the DRV OP) is an academic writing in this area, so the delete claim that the topic will always be an indiscriminate collection of information is wholly baseless. WP:NOTDIARY: While WP:NOTDIARY is relevant, it only states that not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person. Even after the AfD, Twitter has its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article ((Justin Bieber#Twitter), and the keeps argument that Twitter is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person was strong and not rebutted. The AfD closer himself noted that a short section on Twitter in the Justin Bieber article is perfectly appropriate. Since Twitter is notable enough to be included in the Justin Bieber biography per WP:NOTDIARY, the only remaining issue was article spinout. NPOV and NOTPAPER: Both WP:NPOVFACT and WP:NOTPAPER are the policies that govern article spinout. Under WP:NPOVFACT, all facts on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout, and article splits must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. Under WP:NOTPAPER, splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. The AfD failed to adequately address these points and failed to do so objectively (which is a basis for relisting with directions to consider article spinout policy and guideline). CLOSE ERRORS: As a result, the AfD closer relied on the subjective beliefs and opinion of the deletes to justify the close, instead of basing the close on an objective standard. The AfD close erred in not addressing whether the Justin Bieber on Twitter topic was a valid article spinout. The AfD close erred in focusing on all verifiable events of Justin Bieber on Twitter rather than whether coverage in reliable sources on the Justin Bieber on Twitter topic could be limited to justify a stand-alone article. The deletes did not establish that clean up was not possible. The deletes did not establish that the topic was a COATRACK - Justin Bieber on Twitter is not a biased subject and the coverage in the Justin Bieber on Twitter article clearly was directly related to Justin Bieber on Twitter. The coatrack part of the AfD close was not justified by the discussion. In addition, the deletes did not establish that a brief summary of Justin Bieber on Twitter in the Justin Bieber main article would be sufficient as thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. As such, the AfD close avoided the issue if whether a short section on Twitter in the Justin Bieber article is adequate and instead merely concluded that a short section on Twitter in the Justin Bieber article is perfectly appropriate. In view of this, overturn. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC) "Since Twitter is notable enough to be included in the Justin Bieber biography"; Notability and due weight in an article are not the same thing, as such it is not a strong argument. Having a section in an article does not mean a topic is notable. You also inadvertently say the opposite of what you intend, You say that twitter is notable enough for content in the article, twitter wasn't at AfD. Further, WP:NOTPAPER does not mean that the individual splits do not need to be notable, "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) The AfD was closed based on WP:NOTDIARY, which reads "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person." Twitter has its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article, so consensus has concluded that the Justin Bieber twitter event is notable enough to be included in the biography of Justin Bieber per WP:NOTDIARY. The AfD closer indicated that Twitter should have its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article, so the AfD closer concluded that the Justin Bieber twitter event is notable enough to be included in the biography of Justin Bieber per WP:NOTDIARY. Even with that, WP:NOTDIARY was an insufficient basis to determine what should be done per WP:NOTPAPER as were the other reasons given in the close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC) No I don't see it. Notability just is not the right concept for determining whether something gets a section in an article, read WP:N: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.". Nothing in the closers statement indicates that he thought the topic was notable. Due Weight != Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC) WP:IINFO is not limited to fiction, songs, and statistics. Those are examples of areas where the policy applies. Hut 8.5 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Why are those examples in the policy? And are you saying the policy is unbounded? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC) The principle of WP:IINFO is that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That principle is generally applicable, and is certainly not limited to three areas. As an illustration of this, the lead of WP:N makes it clear that our notability guideline is intended as a (partial) implementation of this principle, and our notability guideline is certainly not limited in scope. The three examples are in the policy to clarify how the principle is to be applied to some commonly occurring cases. Hut 8.5 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC) My concern is for article creators. How do they know if the article they have sources for is indiscriminate or not, if the topic and article they want to write does not look like the examples? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Well obviously a decision like that would be down to editorial judgement. We have plenty of policies which don't spell out exactly how they are to be interpreted in all possible cases. Hut 8.5 20:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks for discussing. It would seem to be fairer and a better system to guide editorial judgement, or it seems no judgement at all, but fancy or whim. But I think I have led us far enough astray from why we are here. For which I apologize. Again thanks for discussing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse The strength of the delete arguments was greater than the keep arguments, as summed up by the closer: "Once someone or something gets sufficiently notable (like Justin Bieber), many subaspects, minutiae and trivia of his work or life get excessive attention". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn with a strong ordinary-editor opinion to redirect. The AfD debate (and apparently the closure) failed to consider the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The edit history of the page and of the latest redirect target strongly suggest that content was moved from this page to other pages. Not all of it, of course, but enough that we should have kept the pagehistory. This was clearly a difficult close and I applaud Fram for taking it on. I agree that the AfD reached a general consensus that the content does not belong on Wikipedia in the then-current level of detail. I do not, however, see consensus that the article's pagehistory had to be deleted. When considering the various "merge" opinions as flavors of keep (though not keep-as-is), the closest I can get to is a no-consensus decision. Rossami (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Note that the page history has been undeleted for that reason (I had missed this aspect, which indeed wasn't discussed at the AfD, but it was brought to my attention by other editors in this DRV). You may call the current result a soft-deletion; while the history is still visible for licensing / attribution reasons, the consensus (or my close) was that Wikipedia shouldn't have a separate article on this subject, which means that this redirect shouldn't be reverted to the article as it was without proper discussion (like we are having here). This is different from a regular WP:BOLD redirection, which may be overturned by anyone at any time in general. Fram (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Comment Guys, its time to drop your sticks. Fram made a good decision and explained it very clearly. Most people who voted delete at the AfD aren't interested in this article enough to know it is at DRV and/or they don't want to be a part of the drama that is inevitable when some people don't get their way. But still a majority endorsed the decision here. Arcandam (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse it was closed on the correct basis, wherein the discussion should be analysed in accordance with the strength of the arguments based on Wikipedia's policies rather than guidelines. Although there was a general consensus that the topic meets the WP:GNG, it is irrelevant when citing WP:NOT as reasons for deletion, because policy always outweighs guideline. However, like the admin pointed out, a section on the Justin Bieber article is perfectly fine. Till 16:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Although there was a general consensus that the topic meets the WP:GNG, it is irrelevant when citing WP:NOT as reasons for deletion, because policy always outweighs guideline. This is the reason the IINFO overreach must be eliminated--if any closer says "well, it's indiscriminate, so even though IINFO doesn't say anything about it, I find that it's IINFO and must be deleted per policy even though it's notable (which is just a guideline anyways)." This is not about Justin Bieber or Twitter, but about the fundamental rules for inclusion and exclusion on Wikipedia. Otherwise perfectly good editors are endorsing a horrible, horrible deletion rationale because they don't like this one topic (and neither do I, of course), but one that gives essentially any admin carte blanche to rewrite anything they don't like into NOT, and make it policy by default. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC) agreed. something is wrong when subjective criteria can overrule objective criteria, because the former is "policy" and the latter is "guideline". 169.231.121.57 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — 169.231.121.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Overturn to keep per devastating rebuttals by Jclemens, Uzma Gamal and Alanscottwalker. When the invalid delete !votes are thrown out, the sources and meeting the GNG win the day. CallawayRox (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Funny; I don't particularly feel devastated. A lot of editors have a different opinion when it comes to interpretation of policy and guidelines, it happens all the time. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Do you honestly believe we are going to throw our policy and the majority of the comments out of the window just because you disagree with them and call them invalid? Would you be so kind to link the rebuttals here? My devastating rebuttal to them is probably WP:IDHT and WP:DROP. Arcandam (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC) The point is that since IINFO doesn't apply, if (for example) 12 delete !voters say "delete per IINFO", then those are zero policy-based delete votes. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC) CallawayRox (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I and others disagree with Clemens' conclusion of the non-applicability of IINFO, though. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC) What part of WP:IINFO do you believe does apply to this? It has three parts. Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, and Excessive listings of statistics. Was the article one of those? If not, how would it possibly apply? Dream Focus 01:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Probably the part that isn't limited to those 3 examples, the one that speaks to the general concept of the indiscriminate inclusion of topics, as noted on the Wikipedia:Notability intro. I think that intro is worth a re-read, particularly the "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." From discussions at the Village Pump to the prevailing sentiment at the AfD, it seems that a significant number of editors have opined that this is not something that we want on the project. We (the royal we) are well within our remit to determine what is and what is not "worthy of notice". And you and Clemens cannot simply bludgeon those that feel that way into silence. Guidelines can and will be bent if a majority of editors feel it is to the betterment of the project. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC) You don't like it, and don't think it should be on Wikipedia, understood. But don't go claiming a guideline supports you here when it doesn't. Do you accept that nothing in WP:IINFO applies here then? That claim is thus an invalid reason to have deleted the article. As for the part in Notability, that doesn't apply here, since this isn't about merging anything, its about deleting something people don't like. Dream Focus 02:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Don't take what I said and lie about it, please. Collecting what a famous person said on the internet via one particular website (twitter.com) is an indiscriminate collection of information, a collection unworthy of notice. IINFO and WP:N apply; we should not collect random bits of news and slap them together into a "famous person said things via X" article. Simple as that. So far, you have merely offered your own interpretation of IINFO and such. being different isn't wrong. Being different is insufficient grounds to overturn an XfD. Therefore, you have no case to make here, per usual. Q.E.D. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Did you see the article? [17] It is coverage about it, not just covering things he said on it. After the fluff was trimmed, there is ample content left to justify an article. Dream Focus 02:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Calling the article "indiscriminate" again and again doesn't make it true and calling WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:IINFO doesn't make it policy-based. CallawayRox (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn too many of deletion rationales are about the general inappropriateness of the topic, rather than specific problems with this particular article. Although it is probably the case that few of them meet the threshold of independent notability, it doesn't make any sense to say "Twitter accounts are inherently unencyclopedic", any more than "blogs are inherently unencyclopedic" or "schools are inherently unencyclopedic". If policy allows such prima facie judgments about article topics (and I don't think it does, beyond some feeling that Twitter is "trivial") it needs to be changed. 169.231.121.57 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — 169.231.121.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Overturn with a strong recommendation to make the merge and redirect official even if the overturn fails. WP:NOTDIARY cannot be used as a deletion rationale for any article with valid sources. If there is a properly used source, it must have at least one statement that is not "excessive detail", per our official policy on experts (even celebrity experts) and published material. If a reliable source got something published, they must have printed something relevant/notable. Even if the article can be distilled down to just 2 or 3 sentences, that is not a reason to delete - we have lots of stubs. If not, then the article has a sourcing problem, not a problem with excessive detail. In that case, "no reliable sources", or "only trivial mentions" would be your correct deletion reason. This was not the case here, and not even one person suggested that all the sources for this article had a problem with excessive detail. Thus, any delete rationale based on NOTDIARY is incorrect. However, NOTDIARY/excessive detail is a good reason to merge, which is why I would accept an official re-jigger to merge and redirect (I know that it's technically one already).  The Steve  23:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC) A simple contrast between policy and guidelines is not sufficient to solve conflicts. The various parts of the many Wikipedia guidelines and policies have varying degrees of strength and consensus, and every one of them requires interpretation. It requires judgment. The judgement is made by the community, not the admin, though the admin is expected to interpret what the community thinks and if necessary evaluate the arguments in order to make that interpretation. If the community disagrees with the admin's interpretation with respect to a deletion, they can reverse it at Deletion review. Though we give considerable respect to the admin's discretion, how much respect we give it depends on the circumstances, and here is where we decide. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Break 3 Overturn (Redirect to Justin_Bieber#Twitter) (i.e. today's status quo). The discussion had inadequate attention to this compromise with too many taking extreme straight keep or delete opinions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Strong endorse The arguments for overturn read as a rehash of the original keep arguments in the AfD discussion,WP:IDHT and/or WP:LIKE and are thus not valid reasons to restore the article. The closing admin did an excellent job of summing up the weight of opinion and evaluating the arguments given and there has simply not been any compelling reason given to overturn. This is not the place to keep beating the WP:STICK. Unless those who want to restore the article can come up with some new arguments that are convincing, it is time to just drop it. - Nick Thorne talk 04:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC) This cannot be true, when the arguments for overturn are "no consensus," "supervote," and "faulty merge" because those are not at issue in the AfD. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC) This horse is dead This horse has officially been declared dead. Those who wish to attend the funeral should contact the family for details. Repetition is boring. Repetition is boring. Repetition is boring. Arcandam (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC) It's funny you mention repetition; I keep getting the strange feeling you've made strangely similar allusions to a particular turn of phrase a number of times before this...Repetition is no more enlightening or entertaining when it's done by you, Arcandam. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Sigh. Arcandam (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. Plainly within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Why do you say so? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC) He's done it again Oh now look what's happened. Jimbo has got so fed up with this argument about notability spilling over to the deletion review that he's gone and climbed the Reichstag building dressed as Spiderman to illustrate his point again. You lot should be ashamed of yourselves. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Ahhh, I even went to User Talk Jimbo Wales to see the acrobat but nothin. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Jclemens's position deserves close attention. Not one endorser has explained how WP:IINFO applied to the article - except by claiming it can be "generally applicable". This seems equivalent to denying Jclemens's statement that WP:IINFO is restricted to the delimitated sub classes like 'Lyrics databases' and 'Summary only' , saying instead that it can broadly apply to anything delete voters subjectively consider unencyclopaedic. If this is endorsed, it has two important consequences. 1) AfDs where WP:IINFO is invoked will devolve into vote counts. Keep voters will only be able to counter delete votes by offering the opposite opinion. If the applicability of WP:IINFO is purely a matter of subjective opinion, then how can closers distinguish strong arguments from weak, aside from counting votes? 2) It means that with sufficient numbers, deletionists can use WP:IINFO to destroy any article they dont like, even if it has abundant quality sources and GA status. Lets not be hasty, this could be a very consequential discussion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Here, here! CallawayRox (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC) That's a straw man argument. Almost all policies and guidelines require some element of editorial judgement to enforce. The notion of hordes of "deletionists" "destroying" articles they don't like citing WP:IINFO is no more realistic than a similar horde "destroying" an article by citing WP:N or any other inclusion rule we have. On the other hand insisting that the principle "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" doesn't apply outside summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases and statistics would mean that any verifiable information outside these topics, no matter how trivial or unencyclopedic, is suitable for inclusion. Furthermore, as I noted above, WP:N is in fact meant to be an application of WP:IINFO, so restricting IINFO to these topic areas would render our notability guidelines virtually meaningless. Hut 8.5 20:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Let's be clear here: I have zero problem with the community (vs one lone administrator) deciding to add WP:NOT#TWITTER, nor with filing it as a fourth section under WP:IINFO. I do not believe that the process to add IINFO criteria should simply be part of a deletion discussion, but should rather stem from the VPP discussion. I don't disagree with the outcome, but with the potential that this has derail the GNG by subjective decision of any closing administrator. Jclemens-public (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: The fact that WP:IINFO lists three common examples in the explanation of what is an "indiscriminate collection of information" does not and never has meant that it was an exhaustive list. With one exception, Wikipedia policies are descriptive, not prescriptive. (That exception is WP:CSD which is designed as an exhaustive and narrowly prescriptive list.) It would be impossible to identify ahead of time all possible examples of "indiscriminate information" and absurd to try. Nothing can be inferred from the fact that any particular example is absent from the page. Rossami (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Descriptive means it describes what the policy covers. Your comment is simply going overboard in another direction and means the words used in policy don't mean anything. Those points and words are there in policy because they have consensus, anything not specifically covered still has to be decided with reference to the words actually used in the policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC) It means that written policy describes the practice, it doesn't prescribe the practice. i.e. the practice comes first then we describe it. Policy is set by the community as a whole's understanding and what they actually do. If the policy page says one thing, but everyone does something else, it's the policy page which is wrong. If that's the case here I guess is a matter of perspective. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC) And what the community understands it has agreed to is in the policy. IAR is always an option but forcing a consensus, which is not established by the words of policy is not within administrative competence or power. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Nope, as policy develops before it is describe there is always the prospect that the policy is outdated. Similarly policy develops and then people spend inordinate amounts of time arguing about how to describe it, again the policy page isn't always reflective. There are many such examples. IAR as the fifth pillar you mention, Not a Bureaucracy is another statement of this, the precise written nature is less important than the intent. I'm sure there also used to be one about WP is not an exercise in rule making. Realistically I'd agree with Hut 8.5, notability is our implementation of WP:IINFO, and it's in guideline form. WP:N already covers the situation here - "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.", or from the WP:GNG section ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. " (my emphasis). --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC) As an example consider the state of CSD G4, due to a change in wording of CSD overall the literal reading of CSD meant that items couldn't be speedied if they'd ever been kept as part of a deletion discussion, so if kept once it could be then be deleted 1000 more times through AFD and the literal meaning meant that CSD G4 couldn't apply. Most people I know of knew (a) the original meaning and (b)the plain intent of G4, at some point someone decided that they'd argue against the plain meaning and so the bureaucratic process ensued which reworded it to mean what it had always meant. In reality the policy never changed, most admins worked within the plain meaning and eventually the mistake in the description got fixed. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC) WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#G4 and subsequent XfDs, if anyone is curious. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Consensus may do anything. But consensus is reflected in policy. The issue is here is whether consensus was reached, which it was not, not within policy mandate, given the presumption which must be given, as you quote above. And the words you quote discusses a merge of topic not a mandate for deletion and the words of IINFO don't mandate the delete either, whereas it does mandate delete for other topics. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I think we're getting a long way off track. The section I quote says nothing about merging, that's your construction. I'd argue per the descriptive not prescriptive thing, a normal interpretation would the material may be used elsewhere, though usually in less detail (if that involves merging or not is a different matter), but if you want to take things really literally as others apparently do, it doesn't prescribe anything beyond not being suitable for a stand alone article. At this point I'm not quite sure what you're arguing about, the outcome was that it didn't warrant a standalone article and was referred to a section in the main article, which it appears you are saying is a reasonable outcome per WP:GNG? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC) No, it's not reasonable nor allowed, here, because substantial reasoned opinions were divided and the closer does not get to choose among them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Well said. To be fair to Fram, the terrifying implications of an unbounded WP:IINFO had not been teased out at the time of their close. And they were following a recent precedent set by the excellent ScottyWong. In the light of this discussion though its hopefully clear that the close was effectively a supervote, and it needs to be overturned. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Exactly right.CallawayRox (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Ok, well I'll give up here then, since I'm still having a hard time divining what you are arguing about. If you don't believe consensus on the matter was reached, that's fine, I've no particular opinion on that. That however is fundamentally a different debate as to if policy as written is prescriptive or not. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I was trying to come back to our purpose - deletion review, but thanks for the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC) @Hut8.5 - for practical purposes the notability guidelines derive their meaning mainly from a clearly defined and objective test: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Editorial judgement comes into only for borderline cases, though granted a rather wide border due to differences in perception. Granted, it would be unrealistic to argue deletionists could use an unbounded WP:IINFO to destroy undeniably traditional encyclopaedic topics like Calculus or Paris. But hundreds of thousands of interesting and valuable popular culture articles would be at risk, simply because of deletionists subjectively decide they're not on topics which a "discriminating" person would consider encyclopaedic. As per the Bieber article, an unbounded WP:IINFO could mean dozens of quality sources and the loving care it takes to elevate an article to GA status would count for naught at AfD. Its enough to give a chap nightmares. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC) While IINFO as written indeed is not exhaustive, it also shouldn't be considered inexhaustible. The idea 'if people say it's indiscriminate, then it is' alone is enough to render notability guidelines meaningless, as Hut fears, because IINFO as written already supersedes notability and verifiability. It is both a trump card and entirely unbounded; one or the other of those is fine, but both is not. Mind you, I'm still not voting to overturn here because right now, the policy is what it is, and this isn't the place to change it, nor is it AfD II: The Reckoning; but perhaps we can all agree IINFO is worth discussing? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I think you may misperceive some of the arguments to overturn. IINFO cannot be unbounded otherwise there is virtually no point in writing almost all the words in it and just calling any topic you don't approve of "indiscriminate." The consensus was that the article did not fall within the actual categories of the policy. (And that the article was well sourced.) Thus, the only way to apply IINFO with reason is by analogy to what it categorizes. But in the AfD, there was substantial reasoned disagreement over the proper analogies to apply and thus no consensus. Choosing among the competing substantial reasoned analogies is not within the power of the closer because they do not get to put their thumb on the scale (force consensus/supervote). There is also the overturn rationale concerning merge -- if the closer enacted a merge than that is what the close should be. The topic cannot be both worthy of merge (and, indeed its own discrete article topic section in the pedia) and absolutely excluded as diary, let alone indiscriminate diary. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC) True, I should be more specific; Overturn to No consensus could be reasonable, but by what you say, Overturn to Keep would be equally an application of a particular person's judgement of which arguments are legitimate. Overturn to Merge and Redirect is, at this point, a bureaucratic distinction. As for No Consensus, that just implies relist, which will lead to the same thing we had before. While limiting IINFO to things which could reasonably be related to the given examples by some kind of analogy would be reasonable (in fact, I have a few ideas of just such an analogy myself...), that's not -in- the policy in any way, and an admin using that reasoning to close keep would be just as much in violation of their position, it seems. So unless an admin that swings the other way happens to close, I don't thing doing it again with the same policy and the same article could lead to a different AfD. Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC) No consensus means a no consensus keep nor delete; because the consensus and editing policies encourage article development, the article remains with a note to no consensus AfD on its talk page (it is usual to hold off on a new AfD for some months, by which time a consensus hopefully may be reached - views/policy/articles do evolve). Whereas, a merge overturn makes explicit what happened to transparently inform the community in their future consensus making. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC) (Darryl: See also, TParis close decision in the Obama on Twitter article, Here, for what can happen in cases of no consensus: "The result of this discussion is no consensus with the option to hold a discussion or RFC to merge." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)) Comment: Note, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter has closed as no consensus, it's worth reading the close.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Obama is the President, while Bieber is... Bieber. Let's treat both discussions differently, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Justin Bieber does rightfully get more press coverage than that Obama person, but the whole concept of "OMG X ON TWITTER THIS IS AN ABOMINATION" in some of the delete rationales does require more insightful discussion.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Well, how much press covers is irrelevant, as press can be more... crowd-pleasing. Obama's job is taking care of the United States and its relations with other nations. Bieber's job... pleasing the crowd worldwide with his hormone-changing vocals on lovey-dovey cliche. --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC) How much the press covers something is certainly relevant to consider. Do you live in opposite world, George? Or do you want JB all to yourself??![18]--Milowent • hasspoken 18:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC) How is quantity of press coverage relevant? Anyway, I'll rephrase: the fact that Bieber gets more coverage than Obama is nothing compared to coverage of Twitter use. --George Ho (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC) "So I'm inclined to throw out arguments of WP:INDISCRIMINATE." Q.E.D. CallawayRox (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Utterly irrelevant to this discussion, though. Comparing the most powerful man in the world to a random celebrity isn't the point, not to mention that the !vote weightings were vastly different. Apples and oranges. Black Kite (talk) 01:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC) I think these twitter articles are all stupid. But saying Obama is different is no solution. Would David Cameron on Twitter be acceptable because we deem him subjectively worthy? Will every POV warrior from southeastern Europe and the Middle East then get to clamor for their own leaders' twitters, and the Turks and Armenians can AfD war over eachother and all that fun stuff? The Obama close is well done because it admits the reality of the lack of consensus and that we would prefer a blanket rule to cover the X on Twitter situation.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Oh, I thought you were favoring Twitter articles when I read your posts. I guess I concur with you about them. --George Ho (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC) If I recall, that close actually noted the amount of opposition to such a blanket approach... Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Yes, it did, that's why it was closed no consensus instead of a delete with an unsatisfying rationale.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Well said, and this is where we correct such error in consensus making -- feelings about the topic don't make for consensus because closers have no competence or authority to endorse, reject, choose, or evaluate them, and neither do other users. And if we go with feelings to guide us it will damage not only the projects content with unfathomable anomaly, its ability, and the ability of editors to function together will be damaged. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse; I've read through the AFD (jesus!) as if closing it myself and agree with the view of the closing admin that the strongest arguments are those !voting delete. The keep !voters relied heavily on WP:NOTE (which is acceptable) but did not appear to be able to support that argument properly with an outright example of significant coverage (i.e. from a single source). With this line of reasoning undermined the delete !votes have stronger sway (although both "sides" suffered from I Like/Don't Like it style arguments). This AFD really comes down to where we draw the line on coverage of topics; in some ways it is a part of the ongoing "dispute" over articles which collate two topics. The community obviously feels very strongly about the topic in general - but the delete arguments here just about hold sway. I find the admins closure of the discussion proper. --Errant (chat!) 08:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Where do you find your definition of significant coverage (i.e. from a single source) and if you were closing what would you cite to for that? Don't the definitions in WP:GNG directly contradict your reasoning? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Umm, it's the critical underpinning of Notability; we require sources that cover the topic in significant detail. During the AFD no one highlighted particular sources that gave significant coverage to the topic as a whole. There was an effort to provide a lot of sources each covering portions of the article contents, but the level of coverage in each didn't seem sufficient. --Errant (chat!) 09:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC) So, you cannot find your singular definition in there. Did you look at the sources and whether they accurately reflected what was stated about them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC) I can't make sense of what you are saying there (maybe try again). But as I already noted I checked through the sources. Did you read the sources in detail? --Errant (chat!) 10:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC) You said "significant coverage (i.e. from a single source)." ie. means "that is" or "in other words." So you said significant coverage is defined by single source. But perhaps you meant eg.? Yes, I read the sources all the way through, and I could not find misrepresentation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC) ie. means; umm, you've quoted only a portion of what I said; did not appear to be able to support that argument properly with an outright example of significant coverage. It's a very basic concept, and as I explained the first time - notability requires at least one source which covers the topic in a significant way. The sources provided had a number of mentions of the topic, but nothing you could pick out as notability-level significance. I'm not sure what you meant by "misrepresentation"; a number of sources were provided, but none of the keep voters appear to have taken the crucial step in identifying (and explaining) at least one with significant coverage. All of this is notability 101. --Errant (chat!) 11:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC) I don't see how or where there was consensus in that AfD that the article authors did not bring forth "significant coverage" (as defined in the GNG) that mentioned the topic -- and provided detail on information of note about the topic -- but I guess we will have to disagree on that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Re-read the initial comment above because you have misunderstood it.The editor is stating that the lack of sources shown at the AfD that demonstrates significant coverage weakens the core keep argument, namely that it passes GNG. Consensus is not just a vote count, arguments are weighed up in reference to policies and guidelines. If someone makes a bad argument, it doesn't become more valid because lots of people have said it. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC) I didn't suggest a vote count. 1) Are there mentions in sources of the topic? Yes, according to the close. 2. Are there cohesive pedia worthy substantive details of note in those sources? There are, according to the close. Should this be its own article? Hard delete changed to a soft delete merge history (not mentioned in the close). If admins are (soft) deleting for failure to meet GNG, but not saying that or explaining why that is so (and instead citing WP:NOT) than it cannot be a valid reason for the close. Like others I am troubled by the process and what the rationale means concerning NOT, regardless of the fate of this article. I am now further troubled by the failure to cite GNG in the close instead -- if what ErrantX surmises is the real reason for the close. Authors, editors, and deletion reviewers should be clearly and fully informed by delete closes, based on which policy and guideline they explicitly rely upon. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC) Break 4 Overturn to no consensus, though I have no opposition to the status quo merge. Ignoring the blatantly invalid votes, quite a few of the stronger delete votes were actually "delete and merge" either explicitly or implicitly (arguments about it not having independent notability), which would default to merge in this case as there was no compelling reason to delete the page history. When merge is considered as one of the prominent positions, the argument more or less comes down to whether there was sufficient quality material for a spinoff where I believe there was less clear consensus.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC) overturn per Jclemens, Uzma Gamal and Devil's Advocate above. The sourcing is strong enough, there's no compelling reason to delete to override a lack of consensus. I suspect that the fact that the topic is widely considered inane or stupid should may be influencing some of the response, but stupidity and inanity are not reasons for deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC) But shouldn't they be? If we all agree the topic is inane (which I don't think is the case here, but bear with me) shouldn't we not have an article on it? The classic example is "Michelle Obama's Arms" where we we had strong consensus that it met the GNG and NOT but we deleted it anyways basically because it was an inane topic. I think that's a good thing. Sadly there doesn't appear to be consensus that this topic is inane and I recognize my bias with respect to celebrity coverage in the media (I seriously think it's harmful to society) so I'm arguing to overturn even though I'd invoke WP:IAR in a !vote to delete it (had I !voted). Hobit (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Weak endorse, with useful content merged elsewhere. After reading the AfD and the last revision of the article, I conclude with the close. Most of the article honestly seems to be trying to synthesize notability for the concept of "Justin Bieber on Twitter" out of a hodgepodge of trivia, big numbers, and isolated incidents which are really more properly related to other subjects. I think selective merges to Justin Bieber as well as other articles about celebrity influence would be more appropriate. This was expressed by a number of editors at the AfD and I don't feel that the keep !voters addressed this. I think this article may have been sunk by trying to be too many things to too many people- I had to read the footnote linked at the top twice to actually parse what it was trying to say. There might have been a legitimate subject here but large swathes of the article are just trivia (as I mentioned before,) and I feel what content is useful would be more appropriately homed elsewhere. My endorse is weak as I have not yet found the incredible hidden mountain of time necessary to read the entirety of this DRV. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC) It can be reasonably argued that the close reflected the consensus in the discussion, especially after discounting poor, invalid or dishonest comments. The evaluation of such is the sole purpose of DRV, so we're done here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC) Could you make that argument? I've read all of the above, and I'm not seeing it. It seems clear this meets the GNG (I don't see any significant arguments otherwise) and I'm not seeing how a narrow reading of WP:NOT would prevent the article's existence. As it would seem to require either a very broad reading of WP:NOT or of WP:IAR, I don't see how a delete result is possible here given the numbers and arguments. Hobit (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC) I think it's right that the closing admin seems to have treated this position as being an extreme one, which is probably correct considering that the editors making it were predominantly notoriously sanguine about what constitutes encyclopedic content. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry Chris, I'm still lost. Are you saying that the claim that this meets the GNG is an extreme one? Or the claim that this isn't an "Excessive listings of statistics" is extreme or something different? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC) I'm saying that it was within the discretion of the closing admin to treat those comments which were in opposition to the eventual close rationale as outliers. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC) Ick. Overturn to NC. However much I think we shouldn't have articles like this, there was no consensus in this debate. The delete arguments stretch "Excessive listings of statistics" to a breaking point. The right way forward is the RfC. Simply put, our policies (WP:NOT in particular) don't address this type of topic. As a rabid anti-celeb person I'd have hoped we'd end up without this type of article and that WP:IAR would be enough to delete it. But IAR requires a clean consensus and that we clearly lack. So let the RfC make the call on the general and keep this around for now. Sorry Fram, but however much I like the outcome, that wasn't a close that reflected the discussion. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Update - WP:articles for deletion/Lady Gaga on Twitter is closed as merged into Lady Gaga. --George Ho (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Oh, my memory, and screen, are not big enough. I thought that is what we were discussing. Thincat (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC) What happened in a totally different article isn't relevant here at all. The other article didn't have multiple news media commenting on the twitter account itself, and its popularity, etc. That's why I didn't bother participating in that discussion. Different situation here. Dream Focus 19:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus, while I respect the closing admin for being willing to stick their neck out like that, there clearly was no consensus to take any action in that discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 July 2012

The Ville – article restored as contested PROD, no need to come here. – JohnCD (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Ville (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) For the first time, an article on a Zynga game was deleted before anyone had time to expand it. Georgia guy Georgia guy (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Expired prods are almost always undeleted upon request (unless the article meets a speedy deletion criteria) so in the future it would be best to ask the person who deleted the article first since that is consider contesting it. To get back on track it should be restored due to the prod being contested unless there is serious problem with the article (ie a copyright violation). That said there is a good chance that if the article is restored that it will be brought up for deletion per WP:AFD so I suggest that you look for reliable sources to add to the article. Fortunately under normal circumstances AFD's last at least 7 days so there would be time to find and add sources to the article.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Thrive_(film) – Deletion endorsed, but if new substantial coverage exists, the article can be recreated as usual. –  Sandstein  05:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Thrive_(film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Subject is (sufficiently) noteworthy. I __definitely__ don't have any personal investment or interest in this film, but my sense is that it is noteworthy enough to merit an entry in Wikipedia. It has reviews in noteworthy popular media (Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgia-kelly/thrive-film_b_1168930.html), a legit IMDB page with 23 reviews, and so on. If it's difficult to maintain an unbiased, factual entry because of continuous sockpuppetry, that's a separate problem. Right? Joseph N Hall (talk) 08:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse listing adds nothing beyond the deletion debate. The huffington post article was considered in the debate, and imdb is not a reliable source. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC) The movie is still out there and people are still seeing it and mentioning it. I submitted this review request precisely because a friend of mine mentioned to me that she was watching it, and I went to Wikipedia, and (a) it was a film I had heard of repeatedly over a period of months (and its subject matter isn't something that interests me) and (b) it had no Wikipedia page. This was a novel experience (for me). I didn't find the closing editor's argument compelling. If the article quality wasn't an issue I suspect it would never have been deleted. When I read the deletion review, I felt that the deletion was a means to an end, the "end" being removing an outlet for troublesome sockpuppetry. It may well be that the film's promoter(s) have used Wikipedia as free publicity, but that I think should be a separate concern. Joseph N Hall (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Also, this is apparently a 2nd request for review (the first being made shortly after the original deletion). My reading of the original discussion is that recreating the page with a short article "with sources" would not have been opposed. So, perhaps the reason that there isn't an article is that no one (other than someone using Wikipedia as a sales medium) felt like (re)creating one. Joseph N Hall (talk) 09:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse The closure was in line with the consensus. I have looked for sources, and could only find sources which did not meet the guidelines here at Wikipedia. People may be mentioning it - but unfortunately, none of them are doing it at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Here is another print article: http://www.sfreporter.com/santafe/article-6675-new-age-of-paranoia.html. In addition, I remember a minor stir created when people featured in the film publicly distanced themselves from its content: http://www.santacruz.com/news/2012/04/10/author_john_robbins_other_progressives_denounce_thrive. Honestly, I think an article capturing this bit of perfunctory noteworthiness would be ... um, noteworthy. Joseph N Hall (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC) And another lengthy article (not one of the various blogs pro/con that has grown up around the film) covering the film's contents as well as various responses to it: http://www.metroactive.com/features/thrive-cult-film.html. Also, note that many of the people who have appeared in the film are notable (and appear on Wikipedia). And apparently there is a substantial web viewership (although there is no number I can verify). Anyway, enough already. Joseph N Hall (talk) 10:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Given the sources available at the time, the nearness of the discussion to the film's premiere, and the discussion itself, the closer made exactly the right call. I myself disputed the reliability of the Huffington Post as a source (and still hold the position). However, in view of the three new sources the lister has provided in this review, I see no reason why that lister couldn't, if he chose, write a new article on the subject. As opposed to restoration, a new article creation would avoid many of the problems (specifically sockpuppetry) which plagued the first version. If, as the newly presented sources claim, the film has been seen a million times online and has developed a cult following (something about which we had no sources to discuss in February), a new writing of the page seems inevitable. BusterD (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC) I'm willing to write a short article. What is the procedure for creating an article to replace a deleted page? Joseph N Hall (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC) No special procedure. If it hadn't been restored for DRV you could have just created it at the right title directly, as it is you're probably better off creating it in a subpage of your userspace and then moving it to mainspace once it's ready. e.g. User:Joe n bloe/Thrive. Only thing to be careful of when doing that is not to include mainspace categories until it's been moved to mainspace. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Okey doke, I will do that sometime soon when when I'm in the mood.Joseph N Hall (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Amy Bechtold – Both "delete" closures are endorsed. –  Sandstein  05:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Amy Bechtold (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) David Conn (judge) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closing administrator did not explain their closure of Amy Bechtold -- or David Conn (judge). I requested an explanation. Disappointingly, the closing administrator merely repeated what seemed like the same unsubstantiated misconceptions that had been advanced in the Afd even though they contradicted the specific wording of the relevant topic specific guideline -- WP:Notability (people)#Politicians. The closing administrator also asserted that these individuals did not meet the criteria in the WP:GNG. GNG is a shortcut to WP:Notability, which has a sidebar that lists a dozen topic specific guidelines. I always thought the topic specific notability guidelines supplemented, amended, and superceded the general notability guidelines. I checked the guidelines -- and their talk pages. I saw many contributors make the point that there would be no point in having topic specific guidelines at all, if the GNG had to apply to every article. I believe the topic specific guideline that applies to these two articles is WP:Notability (people)#Politicians. It has a clause that says national and state/provincial judges are notable. Some in the delete camp claimed the unofficial Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People essay applied instead of the topic specific guideline. I think the official guideline WP:Notability (academics) says it clearest. It asserts that individuals who met its notability criteria are notable without regard to whether the individuals do not meet the criteria of other notability guidelines. So, even if WP:SOLDIER was an official guideline -- not an essay -- it would not over-ride WP:POLITICIAN. The misconceptions I mentioned above were that in order to meet the "judge" clause of WP:POLITICIAN a judge had to sit on a "major appellate court" or a Supreme Court. This is not what the guideline says, and it is at odds with earlier closures. Finally, I dispute that the USCMCR is not a "major appellate court" -- as it is the only appellate court in the entire military commission system. Prior to the instantiation of the Military Commission system the USA had two judicial systems -- its civilian and its military judicial systems. Legal critics call it a third judicial system. Cases can't be appealed beyond the USCMCR, cannot be appealed to the SCOTUS. Geo Swan (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC) As the closing administrator, I should note here that I stand by my original closure. The board was a single purpose board consisting of otherwise non-notable people; these people received no coverage outside of their participation with the board, and now that it's disbanded they're no longer receiving any coverage. I thought it was clearly explained in my reply, but it appears that Geo Swan disagrees. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC) The wikipedia's policies include Ignore all rules. Although the closing administrator doesn't explicitly say so, I believe their closure here represents two instances where they have ruled contrary to the specific wording of a relevant guideline -- without explicitly saying “I think I am authorized to invoke Ignore all rules.”. I suggest that when an administrator is going to exercise IAR they have an obligation to (1) explicitly acknowledge they are exercising IAR; (2) offer a good reason as to why they are invoking IAR. In this particular case I am afraid it seems to me that the closing administrator did not bring independent neutral mind-set to the closure. The wording of the relevant guideline says nothing about "single purpose boards". I suggest that the closing administrator should have weighed in in the discussion themselves with the "single purpose board" argument, and left the closure to an administrator who could bring a neutral mind-set to the closure. Closing administrator asserts the board “consisted of otherwise non-notable people”. This is incorrect. The members of the United States Court of Military Commission Review were selected from among the very most senior members of the judiciary. Griffin Bell, for instance, was a former Attorney General of the United States -- a cabinet level position. William Thaddeus Coleman, Jr. was also a former cabinet member, a former Secretary of Transportation. Prior to becoming a civilian judge Edward G. Biester, Jr. served ten terms in the US Congress. All the members of the USCMCR were very senior jurists. While Bechtold was not as notable as the former cabinet members, she had served as Chief Judge of the Air Force's Court of Military Review, prior to serving on the USCMCR. Further, I suggest this portion of the closing administrator's comment suggests the closing administrator simply doesn't understand why we have topic specific guidelines, which supercede the GNG for narrow classes of topics. Closing administrator repeats a serious misconception I already addressed when they first voiced it on their talk page -- that the USCMCR had been "disbanded". The USCMCR convened earlier this year and can be expected to be active for some time to come -- years, possibly decades. Geo Swan (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC) As a general rule of thumb if someone is thinking about WP:IAR then generally it's actually an invalid application of it. Any editor or admins prime focus should be about improving the encyclopedia, that may result in ignoring some rule or another, but it isn't a conscious application of WP:IAR. Not least of course to mention the admin here I assume doesn't believe it's such a case, that's your construction. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse the closing by the admin. He was completely justified in judging the consensus of the community regarding this WP:BLP article. This DRV does not follow Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.93_challenging_deletion_decisions as it is created simply because creator Geo Swan disagreed with a deletion debate's outcome. The issue was well discussed at the AfDs above. --DBigXray 02:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Both articles are BLPs and very few sources could be found on the individuals covered hence the closes are correct. Geo Swan's argument that members of this court are automatically notable is contradicted by the near total absence of sources on them either as individuals or which provide commentary on their role as judges, as well as the introductory text to the relevant section of WP:BIO (WP:BIO#Additional criteria) which notes that positions alone do not in fact automatically grant notability ("meeting one or more [of the criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included"). It's also worth noting that the David Conn article - as created by Geo Swan - was basically a WP:COATRACK article until it was nominated for deletion (complete with potentially libelous material on another individual). Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse the SNG needs to be read, rather than reading the snippet you'd want to apply. The nutshell summary of the policy indicates it to be pretty similar to the GNG, the basic criteria likewise. The additional criteria of which the section linked is one, states "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (Emphasis changed). The SNG when written were always meant as a guide to the kind of people who would likely be notable and sources would likely be out there, they weren't written as a subsitute, if challenged for the sources they are still required. That all side as per others, simply disagreeing with the outcome isn't a DRV issue. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you to all you AfD participants for reiterating your positions there. Overturn both to no consensus, since there was no consensus to delete in either of those cases. The BLP arguments hold no water at all. "BLP" means "remove unsourced negative information about living people". It does not mean "delete articles about living people". And DGG's argument that appellate-level judges are inherently notable is quite convincing.—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC) overturn The decision that this is a simple administrative board is in blatant disregard of the actual situation. Judges are notable as judges, not for their personal life, and the presence or absence of information about their personal life is irrelevant in either direction. I can recall no other decision here of judges at a comparable level where anything was demanded except verification of their position. The very reason we have such a guideline is because for some types of political office there will be little other material available.The relationship of the GNG and the special guidelines varies--not just for judges, but for politicians in general we always accept their position as a definitive argument--the arguments are always cases where we technically meet the GNG, but the position requirement is not really met, in which case we usually delete, though I have often argued for keep in such situations. As S Marshall says, there are no actual issues relevant to WP:BLP. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC) As I was very much involved in the discussion, and remain so, perhaps some other admin will restore the articles for the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)  Done. Note that David Conn (judge) was moved during the AfD to David L. Conn. JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse both- The consensus in the David Conn AfD was clear and no other closure was possible. The Amy Bechtold one was closer, but I think still within the bounds of administrator discretion. Reyk YO! 03:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC) With regard to administrator discretion -- administrators are supposed to discount arguments that are counter-policy. Participants in the delete camp kept repeating the counter-policy argument that the ESSAY WP:SOLDIER should take precedence over the GUIDELINE WP:POLITICIAN. Other participants claimed Conn and Bechtold hadn`t served on a major appellate court or a supreme court. These arguments should also have been ignored by the closing administrator, as these requirements were not in the guideline, and, when asked, the contributors who first advanced these claims were unwilling or unable to offer an explain why further restrictions, not in the guideline, should be required. In his or her first explanation on their talk page the closing administrator specifically said they based their closure on counter-policy arguments. I'll be frank, in this further comment on their talk page the closing administrator told the nominator that I needed to read WP:WALLOFTEXT. I am afraid this further confirmed a nagging concern I had -- that the reason the closing administrator didn't address my counter-arguments was that they didn't feel closing administrators had an obligation to read the positions of contributors they didn't already agree with. I accept that administrators get to exercise a measure of discretion. But does that discretion authorize them to prefer the advice of a narrowly accepted essay rather than the applicable broadly accepted guideline -- without providing any explanation? This is what the closing administrator did -- they merely echoed those contributors who cited the narrowly accepted essay, and ignored the broadly accepted guideline. Geo Swan (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - Elected judges at the state level are automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, but I do not see military judges falling under the same guideline. This is more of Geo Swan's overzealous coverage of all things Guantanamo Bay, we're finally going through what is I hope the last batch of Gitmo detainee articles now. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) all US federal appellate judges are appointed, including those on the supreme court, and the logic above would mean none of them were notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC) That's kindof a given; I presumed we were discussing less-than-federal judges here. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Sure. And these are US federal judges also. Which is the other government that appointed them? DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Military judge =/= federal judge. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I think you mean they, analogous to other administrative judges, are not in the judicial branch of the government, but in the administrative branch. But their authority is derived directly from the federal government and in that sense they are federal judges. the highest level of a judge in any part of the US government is notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse, within admin discretion. As to DGG's argument, the highest military court in the U.S. is the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and the decision of the Court of Military Commission Review are appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That is, this court is one layer below the federal circuit courts whose judges we regard as generally notable. T. Canens (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I have several questions please. First, you write: “That is, this court is one layer below the federal circuit courts whose judges we regard as generally notable.” I think the wording of WP:POLITICIAN says all judges who hold a national office. Can you point to judges who hold a national officer we didn't consider notable -- even though the wording of WP:POLITICIAN says they are? Second, you wrote: “the decision of the Court of Military Commission Review are appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.” The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 tried to remove access to habeas corpus from the Guantanamo captives. It made CSR Tribunals subject to limited appeals before the DC Circuit of Appeals. I am not a lawyer, but my research into the Military Commissions Act of 2006, I think you are mistaken, and that the United States Court of Military Commission Review were not appealable -- at all. I haven't spent as much time looking at the Military Commission Act of 2009. Is it the one you thought made decisions of the USCMCR appealable to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals? No offense, but I am going to assume you confused the Military Commissions, with the (administrative) CSR Tribunals. I checked. My recollection was wrong, appeal to the DC Court was authorized in 2006. Geo Swan (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Since the DC Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals from US District Courts in DC, which you acknowledged, are judges we consider notable, could you explain why you assert the USCMCR is more junior than the US District Court judges? Geo Swan (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I'll assume for the moment that federal district judges are automatically notable (I said D.C. Circuit judges are notable, not district judges). First, CMCR judges have no life tenure, are appointed without Senate confirmation and can be removed without impeachment. Unlike federal district judges, they can't sit by designation on the courts of appeals, or any other federal court for that matter. Their jurisdiction is limited to a very narrow category of cases, and they must sit in panels to hear cases. The best normal federal-court analogue of CMCR that I can think of are Bankruptcy Appellate Panels in circuits that have them (both are composed of article I judges with limited job security and powers and both have a narrow jurisdiction), and I don't think anyone is arguing that federal bankruptcy judges are automatically notable. T. Canens (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse - They super glued[19] Bechtold's brain and a few news outlets mentioned it. That didn't lead to biography articles on her and that one issue isn't even enough info for a stand alone article. The keeps argument basically is that Wikipedia is here to honor important people with an article merely because they are important. How are national-level appellate judges WP:GNG notable ex officio if no reliable source is writing about them? If there's not enought reliable source material from which to develop the article, there's nothing to put in it. That's wiki 101 right there. The deletes had a strong argument that was not overcome by the keeps. David Conn article stands or falls with the Bechtold article since they were nominated together. Endorse deletion of both. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC) <ec>weak endorse of both though Amy Bechtold's was certainly best closed as NC given the debate, taking into account the other AfD outcome delete is (just) within discretion. That said, it's sad to see simple stubs of clearly notable people (in the English sense, not the Wikipedia sense) deleted. It gains us nothing and only harms our coverage. Hobit (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 July 2012

Dave Days – Unsalted and moved from AFC. No prejudice against a new AFD. – v/r - TP 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Days (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Subject now notable, AFC for him at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dave_Days ready to move to mainspace Zad68 18:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Keep Salted for Now There's lots of primary sources in there, many stat pages/youtube.com ones. What we have left is: Forbes, non trivial ok for RS/notability here, which is why this article is being looked at again 2nd forbes[20] is so-so mention. Billboard articles are somewhat trivial and only a mere sentence or two Popcrush[21] - non trivial, what makes this reliable and contribute towards notability? and is it reliable? DisneyDreaming[22] one off mention, reliable/notable source? Prlog, PR's not useable in this case. Digitour, in a list of people that are at an event. Below trivial. In conclusion, it doesn't quite meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG just yet. Which is a shame, as this guy produces good content, by YouTube standards. I recommend further review of this in future, as more applicable sources are found. Of course, I can quickly change my view if I misinterpreted one of the sources above.--Otterathome (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Comment I agree that this bio is an edge case for notability. Our notability guidelines definitely have room for interpretation, and whether Dave Days passes is a subjective matter at this point. I feel like he's a "low pass," but still a pass... I can certainly see the argument for him being a "high fail," but still a fail. Interested to see what others might think. Zad68 18:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Struck out comment, new comment below Zad68 08:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Allow creation but without prejudice to a subsequent AfD. While I realise that there's a discussion to be had about notability, notability-related discussions belong at AfD or RS/N, not here. Since a good faith user wants to create an article and there appear to be sources, it's not for DRV to stand in the way.—S Marshall T/C 20:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Allow creation per S Marshall. Clearly meets the letter of the GNG. New sources since the 2008 AfD mean it overcomes objections from that AfD. I really don't think it would be deleted at AfD, but no objection to someone taking it there if they feel it doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Comment I found some more sources. Wired.com states that in 2010 he was the musician with the most subscribers on YouTube. It doesn't say much beyond that. Daily Mail mentioned that he does parodies, the article is rather tabloidish; however, the same story is mentioned here. Headliner at DigiTour. Radio appearance. Philadelphia enquirer talks about DaveDays. Last.fm bio. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Allow creation, a non-trivial interview in this book from Penguin is a non-trivial source, and while interviews are problematic as *sources*, certainly his inclusion goes to non-trivial coverage; that + Forbes + Popcrush strike me as "probable to pass an AfD". --j⚛e deckertalk 02:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Comment Thanks for the sources, I've updated the article using them. I feel like it's squarely in Notable territory now and there shouldn't be any hesitation in unsalting the target. Zad68 08:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Unsalt, clearly enough sources now to allow recreation. Cavarrone (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC) As the reviewer, I'm confused. If the new contributor is looking at this, I'm sure he's very confused. Have we reached any conclusion re the Dave Days article yet, or is this still under discussion? And if I've butted in to an admins-only forum, my apologies, please let me know. David_FLXD (Talk) 06:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC) No conclusion reached, though it is definitely leaning towards allowing recreation (as I read the above arguments). These discussions generally run around a week, at which point someone will officially "close" the discussion and pronounce a verdict based on the strength of the arguments presented and, to a much lesser degree, the numbers of "votes" on each side. In general on Wikipedia a 2/3 majority can be considered a consensus, assuming the arguments on both sides are equally based in policy. OTOH, a single argument fully grounded in policy can outweigh a much larger number of arguments that have no basis in policy. End result, give this a few more days. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Unsalt Meets GNG per the sources I cited and those mentioned by others. Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Western_Derby – I am closing this about 20 or so hours early, but I think a clear consensus has developed and this is not going to change. Having read this, it's clear that the consensus is that these appear to be disruptive AFD nominations due to the short time in between nominations not allowing each articles to be properly investigated on it's own merits despite the nominator's claims to the contrary. As suggested by one person, User:Macktheknifeau can renominate the articles at a rate of one article at a time with solid rationale if they feel there are inappropriate articles. As some tried to explain to Macktheknifeau, and as I will reinterate: the topic of the article, which is seperate of the article itself, can be notable even if the article is not. For example, if the article on Microsoft said "Some software company in Redmond" then the topic would be notable but the article would not. So the point of WP:BEFORE is to make sure that there is nothing missing in the article that would show the notability of the topic that is currently lacking. That is the point some were making. Further, there was one comment to an IP editor that "You are not 'we.'" I want to make clear that IP editors are very much part of the 'we' and their opinion is valid. – v/r - TP 14:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Western_Derby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Admin Jenks24, who is a member of a wiki-project involved with the subject (which is against WP:AFD guidelines) in question speedily kept the subject without a deletion debate on a faulty premise to avoid discussion about how/if the subject is non-notable, has no significant coverage and fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NRIVALRY. As per WP:DRV an article must stand or fall on it's own merits, and those merits in this case are WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NRIVALRY. I request the reopening of the deletion debate and for a neutral, non-involved Admin to determine a decision after the full 7 days. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Queen's_Birthday_clash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Admin Jenks24, who is a member of a wiki-project involved with the subject (which is against WP:AFD guidelines) in question speedily kept the subject without a deletion debate on a faulty premise of 'disruption' because I became better aware of WP:AFD guidelines after participating in a similar deletion debate on another article. WP:DRV says an article must stand on it's own merits. The article has had no reliable independent sources for over 3 years. It fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and is a marketing gimmick that fails WP:NRIVALRY. I request the reopening of the deletion debate and for a neutral, non-involved Admin to determine the debate after the full 7 days. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Dreamtime_at_the_'G (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Admin Jenks24, who is a member of a wiki-project involved with the subject (which is against WP:AFD guidelines) in question speedily kept the subject without a deletion debate on a faulty premise of 'disruption' because I became better aware of WP:AFD guidelines after participating in a similar deletion debate on another article. WP:DRV says an article must stand on it's own merits. The article has had no significant, reliable independent sources for over 3 years. It fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and is a marketing gimmick that fails WP:NRIVALRY. I request the reopening of the deletion debate and for a neutral, non-involved Admin to determine a decision after the full 7 days. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Sydney_Derby_(AFL) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Admin Jenks24, who is a member of a wiki-project involved with the subject (which is against WP:AFD guidelines) in question speedily kept the subject without a deletion debate on a faulty premise of 'disruption' because I became better aware of WP:AFD guidelines after participating in a similar deletion debate on another article. WP:DRV says an article must stand on it's own merits. The article has had no significant, reliable independent sources, is non-notable and fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and is a marketing gimmick that fails WP:NRIVALRY. I request the reopening of the deletion debate and for a neutral, non-involved Admin to determine the keep after the full 7 days. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Showdown_(AFL) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Admin Jenks24, who is a member of a wiki-project involved with the subject (which is against WP:AFD guidelines) in question speedily kept the subject without a deletion debate on a faulty premise of 'disruption' because I became better aware of WP:AFD guidelines after participating in a similar deletion debate on another article. WP:DRV says an article must stand on it's own merits. The article has no sources at all and has had none for over a year. It fails WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NRIVALRY. I request the reopening of the deletion debate and for a neutral, non-involved Admin to determine a decision after the full 7 days. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC) see my comments in the previous AFDs and the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_rules_football#Derby.2Frivalry_articles. Retaliation AFDs shouldn't be encouraged. The-Pope (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Comment by closing admin. I stand by my close. I would have just AGF'd if it had been one or two articles, but to nominate six in such a short period of time, and so soon after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Derby (A-League) closed as delete, made it pretty clear that these were disruptive retaliation AfDs. As such, they meet WP:SK#2. I also do not consider myself involved: I cannot recall ever having interacted with the nominator before this (I was not involved in the A-League AfD that started all this) and just being a member of a WikiProject does not mean I am involved. Lastly, could someone please consolidate this into one single DRV? I don't think having everyone copy/paste their comments six times will be particularly productive. Jenks24 (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: I'm pretty disappointed that an admin would be assuming bad faith from myself, a user who has been editing on Wikipedia for over 6 years. I participated in another AFD and gained a much better insight into the processes about WP:NRIVALRY that I was not previously aware of, found I was misinterpreting it and found it completely applied to other articles that I came across as result of two sharing a disambiguation page. I don't see how someone making legitimate AFD requests could be considered 'disruptive' except as an excuse to close an article early by someone too close to the subject. The reason you are involved is because you are a member of a project that is about the subject in question. You are too close to the subject to be unbiased, and this showed with your speedy keep decision. I'm not asking for them to be deleted right now, I'm asking for an independent, non-anglosphere administrator to take a look at the articles and confirm they see what I see, which is an extreme, long term lack of notable sources that cause the articles to fail WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and WP:NRIVALRY. I oppose the articles being combined into a single AFD as other commentators have made not that some of the articles are extremely light on sources (one has none at all), while others would be contestable about the reliability of it's sources. Wikipedia is about reliable, significant references from reliable sources. None of the articles has that. Anything else is cruft and has no bearing on the deletion debate. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Wrong. The nominator's conduct absolutely does have a bearing on the deletion debate. And admins absolutely do have the authority to speedy-close a debate if they have reason to suspect the nomination is frivolous, vexatious, or mistaken.—S Marshall T/C 14:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Comment. This isn't frivolous, vexatious or mistaken. That's why I've created this review. I went through the processes listed at WP:BEFORE and have done everything 'by the book'. I didn't expect that an admin who is involved with a project about the subject would perform an action the guidelines specifically say an admin should not do in what appears to be an attempt to protect their project from having articles go through the correct process to determine if they are notable and if they should be deleted. Are you saying that articles that are completely non-notable with zero sources can ignore the wikipedia process even if non-notable simply because I happened to be part of a simlar AFD in the past? Would this debate be happening if I was another user? If that is indeed what you are trying to point out, I would say that makes no sense at all and completely violates what I believe the idea of Wikipedia to be, which is well referenced articles and guidelines to ensure non-notable articles are deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry, just to be clear, could you please confirm that it's your position that these nominations weren't retaliatory or vexatious in nature?—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC) They were not and I apologise if it appeared that way to the original admin. The afd that Jenks24 is referencing as the reason for ignoring the deletion nomination was directly tied to a disambiguation page that contained another article (which itself lead to those examples I nominated via an infobox), and after taking into consideration what I'd learned during the original AFD I realised that only one of this set actually had any notable sources, reliable or significant coverage (or at least enough to make it clearly notably). That's it. I saw a series of articles which had very few or non-existent sources that had been that way for up to 3 years and nominated them based on the various guidelines about notability, sources and article deletions. If I ever appeared to be vexatious it would be because of the speedy keeps without due process. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Okay. A number of editors felt that these nominations were vexatious, and I can understand how they got that impression. But you're right to say that our policies enjoin us to assume good faith on your part. I'll go with: Allow renomination but at an absolute maximum rate of one article at a time.—S Marshall T/C 18:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC) What "reasonable steps to search for reliable sources" from WP:BEFORE did you take to determine that the Showdown and Western Derby weren't covered in significant detail in reliable sources? AFD isn't to be used for cleanup. There is no WP:DEADLINE. The-Pope (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC) The appropriate google searches as shown by the guidelines. Those came up with nothing but simple match previews, subsequent match reports or unreliable AFL marketing spam. Those searches did nothing to convince me that any significant amount of reliable sources existed for either the rivalries (as some are rivalries), or the events (as some are marketing gimmicks). WP:DEADLINE is an essay and as such falls under WP:NOTESSAY. It has no bearing on this discussion.Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: I'd like to point out that admin Jenks24 himself has said here, in the wikiproject he is a part of that covers these articles, I quote, "As they stand, the articles do not meet WP:NRIVALRY as they do not show the rivalrys' importance in multiple non-trivial, reliable sources". Yet there is telling fellow members of the group that he closed them quickly (using a bad faith assumption of 'disruptiveness') to protect them despite several being extremely non-notable and despite it being against wikipedia guidelines about admins being involved with the subject of a deletion debate. Maybe in the future these articles can be recreated once they gain notability, but Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball and WP:DRV states an article must stand on it's own. I think this clears beyond all doubt that these articles are non-notable and should be immediately put up for a deletion debate or deleted as non-notable. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC) He said that the articles don't meet NRIVALRY, not that the topic doesn't meet it. There is a big difference. That is what BEFORE is meant to mean - don't just do a google search and count the numbers, but try to understand if it is a notable topic that hasn't been appropriately written and referenced on here, or is it not a notable topic and what you have here is what you get. Given that there is heaps written on football everyday that google doesn't know about, or has forgotton/lost the links to, the reliance on google alone to determine notability is flawed. If you had solely nominated the QClash and the Sydney derby, we would have searched for more refs, expanded the articles to show why they are notable and made an effort. By nominating the Queen's BDay, Derby and Showdown, it indicated that you were using a shotgun approach, which we thought was disruptive and WP:POINTy. There is no crystal balling on them, they are well established event, but just like most Wikipedia articles - the articles need more work done on them. The-Pope (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC) You should re-read WP:N. A topic merits an article if it meets the general notability guidelines. To meet WP:GNG the topic requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If the topic of an article doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject then it is non-notable and not suitable for Wikipedia. Jenks24 specifically wrote that the articles fail these guidelines and as such they should be deleted. This is not a 'shotgun' approach. All the articles all lack notability and even the admin who incorrectly speedily closed these debates agrees. You yourself are part of the same project that Jenks24 is, perhaps you should read the section on the project homepage that reminds project participants that our project is required to abide by the notability guideline that apply to all articles. Three of your fellow project members (Hack, Moondye and HiLo48) agree that these articles aren't notable. The topics are nothing more than AFL marketing spam and non-notable rivalries. They don't meet WP:N and should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Quoting WP:N about the notability of topics, and then complaining that the articles don't meet WP:N, after an editor has gone to the trouble to explain at length that there is a difference between a topic and the article, suggests that WP:CIR.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC) What exactly should I quote then? Are there alternate guidelines where it's okay to keep articles that aren't notable? I 'quote guidelines' because they are the guidelines the site is built around. A topic only merits an article if it passes the GNG. To pass GNG the topic requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. These articles have all been up for years or a number of years and have failed to gain 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject', and as such they don't pass GNG, are non-notable and should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC) So, all articles require passing WP:GNG, they've had a chance while being on Wikipedia to gain significant coverage, and having failed to do so, they should be deleted.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC) In a word, yes. We don't keep articles around indefinitely on the off chance that significant coverage might exist someday. I have no opinion on these articles in particular, but your argument is unsupportable. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC) (1) You are not "we".  (2) I haven't made an argument except to imply that editors should support the guidelines and policies.  If you want to help get rid of uncited material in articles, I suggest that WP:V is the place to look, not WP:N.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC) WP:V is about checking sources. That's not the issue for these articles, the sources given are easily checked. But that doesn't make those sources valid for the topic to be notable. The issue is that the topics have no significant coverage and the sources for the topics aren't independent, reliable sources, and that means the topics don't meet WP:N. Reading WP:V, it says specifically that if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it (these topics also have to follow WP:EVENT or WP:NRIVALRY which they all fail). Given that all the policies and guidelines this site is built around all confirm that these topics are non-notable, adding WP:V to the debate is more proof that these articles should be deleted immediately. I would suggest they are all worthy of a G11 Unambiguous Advertising or Promotion Speedy Delete as these articles are nothing more than marketing spam. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC) You are again mixing up what has been found and added to the article and what exists elsewhere, maybe even outside the omniscient view of google. Putting it simply, the western derby, showdown & Queens birthday games all have plenty of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. And thinking more clearly about the whole issue, I think WP:EVENT applies more than rivalry, as the articles are about the games, not just the rivalry. And given that the results if the games are tracked closer than most other matches, they are named and trophies and medals are often awarded to the winner,I think Event is easily met. The-Pope (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC) If they had significant, notable coverage then I wouldn't have put them up for a deletion debate. You can claim that the topics have significant, independent and reliable coverage. That doesn't change the facts that none of this apparent mountain of coverage is actually included in the articles (which is what matters as per WP:N), and that several members of a wiki project about the topics agree with me that they have no notability. As the IP address contributor said above, we do not allow articles that fail notability guidelines. We can't keep articles just because there might be coverage that no-one has found in the 1, 2 or 3 years these articles have existed for or because it might exist in the future. If you want to allow an article to exist without no sources, no significant coverage and no notability, I would suggest you create an AFL-only wiki project where you don't have to follow Wikipedia guidelines and can give any article you want a page even if no-one but the AFL marketing team have published anything about it. Without any actual sources that qualify the topic for WP:N, your argument boils down to you saying "these article are notable because I say they are notable". We can't keep articles just because you say they are notable. We need proof for a topic to pass WP:N. These topics fail WP:N. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC) You have quoted WP:N three times above, but not once in WP:N does it say that the required reliable sources must be in the article, it says that they must exist. Read down a bit further WP:NRVE "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Some of these articles were written before wikipedia even used inline citations. Tag them appropriately and we'll fix 'em. Tag them indiscriminatly or incorrectly and we won't be happy.The-Pope (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse  Speedy keep closures are normally WP:NPASR, so there was in theory no need for a DRV.  The correct approach for User:Macktheknifeau is to review future AfD nominations with admin Jenks24, so as not to risk disrupting Wikipedia again, and then be prepared to accept some feedback regarding WP:Deletion policy.  I agree with User:S Marshall that a limit of one article nomination at a time is appropriate.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Comment This wasn't a normal close. It was closed prematurely by an admin not following correct wikipedia guidelines. Hence the review requests (which have been accepted as a correct review earlier in the debate by SMarshall). While I accept that in the future I will limit nominations made by myself to 1 at a time (I welcome you or any other user to discuss this topic at my talk page) it has no bearing on the issue at hand, ie that these articles all fail notability guidelines and should be deleted. Macktheknifeau (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC) In response to several of the comments above: (1) At 11:59 (UTC) Macktheknifeau attributes a quote to me. I did not make that comment, it was made by Hack (talk · contribs). (2) You, Mack, keep saying I have violated the AfD closing guidelines by being part of a WikiProject. Could you please point to which policy or guideline says this is not allowed? It may also interest you to know that many members of the Australian rules WikiProject, including myself, regularly vote to delete Australian rules-related articles at AfD. As to your comment that the closer should not be from the Anglosphere, frankly, that is absurd. (3) We have almost 4 million articles now and I'm sure a good faith AfD case could be made for a surprisingly significant percentage of those. However, that does not give editors the right to make retaliatory and disruptive AfDs, and then complain about it when said AfDs are closed because one or two of the articles that they happened to mass nominate might not meet WP:N. To be clear: these AfDs were not closed as speedy keep because it is remarkably apparent that they are all notable (though that is true for several of the articles in question), they were closed because your nominations were retaliatory and disruptive. (4) Your recent run of tag bombing a hundred or so Australian rules-related articles, often at a rate of more than one a minute, has only confirmed my opinion that you are doing this to be vindictive and disruptive, and not with any intention to actually improve the encylopedia. (5) You will probably claim that your tag spamming was an attempt to improve notability or verifiability. I have several questions in advance: it is generally considered good practice to at least have a Google search before tagging articles. You clearly have not done this. Why not? Why are you focusing on a topic (Australian rules football) that you clearly have no interest in or knowledge of? Why not focus on a a topic that you do care about and where you are knowledgeable (Australian association football)? That way would avoid making embarrassing mistakes like tagging Brownlow Medal and History of the Australian Football League for notability, and AFL Grand Final (an article with 28 refs) as lacking references? (I realise point 5 is slightly off topic, but I think it is germane as to whether the AfD noms were disruptive) Jenks24 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: (1) Sorry, my mistake. I attributed it to the wrong person by accident. I withdraw that particular part, but it still stands that the other members of that project agree the articles aren't notable. 2) We've already been through the issue of you incorrect closing the AFD's further up the page. 3) Your past actions have no bearing on the current situation. 4) From this so called "bombing" only 3 or so articles could be considered incorrectly tagged, and the reason I did so for them was explained in the thread that you've linked to. The rest of the tags are perfectly valid. Your argument here seems to be "these taggings are completely legitimate, but I don't like anyone saying bad things about my project so it's bad faith and disruptive". It's not disruptive to bring to attention major issues within a project. The alternative is simply letting your project continue with dozens of unreferenced, non-notable tags. Perhaps now your project can move forward and either work on these projects or delete them as per guidelines. I would have thought that you would have welcomed help in identifying articles which have no sources so you could improve them, especially since your project seems to pride itself on how few of it's articles aren't tagged for cleanup (which just seems to me to be because no-one actually bothers tagging articles for cleanup). (5) Your so called "embarrassing errors" are tagging an article with 1 reference Brownlow Medal, or 3 references History of the Australian Football League as needing more sources (which they do need), and then saying that an article whose references are almost exclusively non-independent could use better sources AFL Grand Final in the project talk, not by tagging it. It seems like you believe any topic about AFL deserves an article even if it's got no sources. Which just goes to prove the bias you showed in closing the AFD's. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Well, you didn't answer any of my questions and instead you've tried to put words in my mouth and made some blatantly untrue statements (of the 28 references at AFL Grand Final, two are non-independent). I don't feel anything productive will come from further conversation with you. I trust the closing admin will see that plenty of users have tried to discuss things reasonably with Macktheknifeau and each person has been met with "I didn't hear that"-type responses. Jenks24 (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: I have not a clear opinion about the notability of the speedy-closed-afds, but I found it difficult to consider the Macktheknifeau's behavior as not retaliatory (bad faith edits such these ones, made with a rate of two/three a minute and without leaving any edit summary, talk for themselves). What further evidence do we need? I would suggest him to stay away from Australian Football related articles for a while and to relax a bit. His conduct is becoming disruptive. Cavarrone (talk) 08:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Comment:I've already explained that. The History article has three sources, one of which is simply an Australian Company number. It clearly needs more sources and references. The Grand Final is about 80% non-independent sources, and non-reliable fan site references. I had said I didn't tag it, so I may have made a simple error and used the wrong tag or not realised I had put a tag there at all. And again as I explained earlier, those few incorrect tags are dwarfed by articles which are completely legitimate articles needing improvement. I brought all of the articles to the attention of the project as well, with an explanation of reasons for tags, and a confirmation that I would not go around re-tagging these articles if they thought I was incorrect so as to assuage their concerns about 'bad faith'. Wikipedia is 'the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit'. Not just people from an admin's pet project and it's project clique. I would suggest that if anyone feels they can't work with having public scrutiny that doesn't come from project insiders, that they should transition their work to an "AFL Wiki" project and then they can do what they want and can ignore whatever Wikipedia guidelines they want. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Reply: sorry, three days ago in one hour you have tagged for notability about 80 articles related to Australian Football League.80 articles tagged as reasonably likely to be non-notable in less than 60 minutes. Without any edit summary. Without any explaination in talk pages. Without doing any search to check if the topic was really of dubious notability or just poorly sourced. And some of these, such as History of the Australian Football League, are patently notable, even without doing any search. Cavarrone (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Comment I've only looked at the Western Derby, but clearly the 10 reference points listed there provide notability, and are third parties as well. I fail to understand this review and upon reading this section it would seem to me that there is indeed a revenge issue from Mack. He fails to understand that soccer is not anywhere near as notable as football in Australia so providing notability for the former is far harder to achieve. This is a question of practical interest, and the Sydney soccer derby fails on plenty of levels. Each of the AFL derbies do not have this problem. Footy Freak7 (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Withdraw Nomination on Western Derby only: After re-reading the article once more I withdraw the nomination on the Western Derby article specifically on that article only. I maintain the nomination on the other articles. Those other topics, having between 0 and 3 independent sources, do not have significant coverage from reliable, independent sources and as such they all fail WP:N and also fail to satisfy WP:NRIVALRY guidelines that require sources that show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Ask the closer to specify which WP:SK criteria applies. Closing a discussion early is a chilling thing to do, and so the criteria should be followed conservatively. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC) I agree I should have linked it in my close (I will do so in future), but I have already specified which criterion applies, both further up in this discussion and at my talk page when queried: it is WP:SK#2. I would be happy to go into further detail if you'd like, but I believe I have already made it pretty clear why I considered these AfD nominations to be disruptive. Jenks24 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC) What I mean is please add the link to the close statements now. It needs to always be clear that SK is not just an arbitrary decision, but a defined written-policy criteria applied. I Endorse your application of WP:SK/2a. Note that WP:NPASR applies, if the renominator is currently uninvolved. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Oh, OK. Now done. Completely agree about your NPASR comment. Jenks24 (talk) 10:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 July 2012

Aleksandrs Čekulajevs – No consensus to unsalt or restore. – v/r - TP 13:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aleksandrs Čekulajevs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I am submitting this deletion review on behalf of User:70mDavies. The article, which was about an Latvian footballer, was deleted at AfD and then salted against re-creation. At this time, I am just asking for the article to be unsalted; I have notified the salting admin, User:Reaper Eternal, but they have been away from Wikipedia for almost two weeks so I am going ahead and submitting this DRV. The explanation provided by User:70mDavies as to why this page should be re-created is as follows: The guy scored 46 league goals last season, thats joint second in all of europe, level with Ronaldo and just behind Messi. He has a reasonably good consistent scoring record and big things have been touted for his future. I can link you to a couple of articles if you like: http://football.indesit.com/eu/2012/01/11/the-story-of-aleksandrs-cekulajevs/ http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/2292/editorials/2012/01/23/2862006/real-madrids-cristiano-ronaldo-moves-level-with-trans-narva-star- http://footydressingroom.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/obscure-player-watch-aleksandrs-cekulajevs/ Hopefully 70mDavies will provide further details if requested. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) If you look at the article as it was towards the end of January it seems quite factual and comprehensive. Albeit with too few sources. As previously mentioned this guy is caused quite a buzz in the footy world among those who know. 70mDavies (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse deletion Unsalt – If he caused so much "buzz" in the football world, he would have received significant coverage on reliable independent sources. The sources provided are not reliable, thus the article fails WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 05:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Due to recent developments however, I'm willing to let the article be recreated and relist it at AfD if it's still not notable. 07:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Support unsalting, because I found wikipedia articles in German, Spanish, Italian, Latvian, Polish, and Russian, some with sources. I cannot evaluate most of the sources unfortunately (except the Times of Malta one), but I am willing to give our non-English editors the benefit of the doubt.  The Steve  07:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Allow recreation. It seems likely that there are plenty of reliable sources in Latvian and Estonian. At six interwikis, several other Wikipedias seem happy enough about having an article about him. There are various sources in English about him as well (and more are likely in the future, as he plays for a club in an English-speaking country now). [23] [24] I would say that the 46 goals are a definite claim of notability, and that salting is uncalled for. —Kusma (t·c) 07:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Notability criteria on other Wikipedias can be different from the English one. Also, most of the times, there is significantly lower traffic than the one on English Wikipedia, which means that some non-notable articles may fall below the radar. In any case, I'm willing to support unsalting of the article and recreation, and relisting it if the article still fails GNG. Regards. – Kosm1fent 07:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Comment I've no objection to restoration so long as the subject does meet the criteria. No matter how many goals he's scored, is he in a league that meets our standard? As has been stated above, the presence of an article on another Wikipedia is no big deal. I find that articles on other Wikipedias often fall short of the standards here, particularly in terms of referencing. Of course, things have tightened up a lot here as the number of articles has increased. Peridon (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Cekulajevs definitely fails WP:NFOOTY, as he hasn't played (nor is he expected to play in the near future – having moved to Malta) in a fully professional league, which only leaves WP:GNG in action. Cheers. – Kosm1fent 09:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Actually, Čekulajevs will move to Lombard-Pápa TFC (Hungary) - source (it is the biggest sports news website in Latvia). And Nemzeti Bajnokság I is one of fully professional leagues. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Oops, I thought he moved to Malta this summer. – Kosm1fent 14:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC) He moved there in this year's February :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Then just undelete and update the article to show that the player now meets WP:NFOOTY. Probably also meets WP:GNG, but we'd have to dig for sources in Estonian and Hungarian. —Kusma (t·c) 19:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC) He hasn't played in a fully professional league yet, how on earth does he currently pass NFOOTY? – Kosm1fent 21:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Somehow I was under the mistaken assumption that the Maltese league is fully professional. Anyway, he clearly is more notable than most players in the 3. Fußball-Liga. While fully professional, it is the third league, and less important than non-professional highest leagues in other countries if you ask me. —Kusma (t·c) 06:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose, at this time. If and when he plays in the Nemzeti Bajnokság I then the title can be unsalted and the article recreated, but we're not there yet. What's the hurry? Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC). He could meet WP:GNG (I think he does) without meeting WP:NFOOTY. —Kusma (t·c) 10:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose - As already stated above, he has not played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and unless further sources can be presented he fails WP:GNG as well. Of the three sources listed above, the first and third are unreliable self-published sources, and the second makes only a passing mention of him and qualifies as routine sports journalism, making all of them insufficient to count as significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose - yes he fails WP:NFOOTBALL but more importantly he fails WP:GNG as well. GiantSnowman 07:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Isn't that for a possible further AFD to decide, based on the sources used for the recreation? —Kusma (t·c) 13:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Blood on the Dance Floor (band) – Unsalted – v/r - TP 13:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Blood on the Dance Floor (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Blood On The Dance Floor (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Blood on the Dance Floor (group) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Blood on the dance floor (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I am petitioning for the following titles to be unsalted: Blood on the Dance Floor (band), Blood On The Dance Floor (band), Blood on the dance floor (band) and Blood on the Dance Floor (group). The latter titles will be redirected to the first. (I realized just after starting this that the same admin salted all four titles (User:The Bushranger). I've notified him and invited him to comment here.) These titles were deleted a huge number of times in a series of pseudo-wars over this musical group's notability. (They are very popular with teenagers and are disdained by critics, so much so that the articles suffered quite a bit of abuse from both camps.) Whatever the merits of prior discussions, they are now immaterial, as the group's latest album, released a week ago, reached #42 on the Billboard 200, the US's national album chart. (source) This definitively establishes them as notable per WP:MUSIC and thereby deserving of an article. Please Unsalt these titles. Thank you. Chubbles (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Support unsalting and new article creation, as The WizardAdmin Who Did It, as the band is now notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Support unsalting since the notability situation has changed; I see some reviews etc. are appearing as well. [25] [26] [27] [28] The reasons for deletion in the past are not applicable currently. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Support unsalting and new article creation - I don't seeing it surviving AfD. The few references I found -- Arizona Daily Star August 27, 2009, The Observer July 25, 2010, San Antonio Express-News May 3, 2012 -- don't add up to that much content. However, if Chubbles want's to take a shot at it, seems reasonable to allow him. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Create - Sigh. There is much derision one can heap on a band that plays in a mall's Hot Topic for tweens, but WP:MUSIC #2 is satisfied. Tarc (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Unsalt / create this is exactly how it's supposed to work: they weren't notable, they didn't have an article. Now they are, so they get one. Everybody's happy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Support the proposal, as notability is now clearly established. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 July 2012

Mundane astrology – No consensus. The "merge" closure, as a matter of procedure, is mostly uncontested. This discussion does not result in a consensus to overturn the AfD's outcome and re-develop the topic as a separate article, as is apparently the point of the lengthy review request. The gist of the discussion is that recreating a separate article would require consensus in a separate well-advertised discussion of comparably broad participation, perhaps a talk page WP:RfC. –  Sandstein  17:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mundane astrology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This situation is a little unusual but I have discussed this with the admin involved and he advised me to seek your approval here. The page was proposed for deletion some months ago when I was not active on WP. The result of the discussion was to merge it into another page. Only a couple of lines of the original article was retained, but even this was not very useful content and it was merged into the wrong page, which had no relevance to its theme. (It was put into the History of astrology page, although the content concerns one of the technical branches of astrology rather than an historical development). It was whilst developing the history article that I removed this content as innapropriate and poor quality - only later realising that there was a redirect for references to this article going to the page I had worked over. Since it didn't fit that page, I made the decision to re-activate it as an individual page that could be referred to for the definition it gave. This was necessary as a quick-fix measure because so many of the pages in the astrology project link to it, and links to it are built into the project template. As an article it is one of 14 (out of 633) of the pages of that project rated as "top importance". Because of this, and wanting to put things right for the encyclopedia, I subsequently developed the page by adding to the retained content some new content with good quality sources. The first edit here, gave the content exactly as it was when I removed the text from the history of astrology page (note my comment at the top explaining what I was doing and why, following some advice here). This is how it looked after I did some development work. I am now hoping to continue with more. However, after this initialy development work was done, another editor reverted everything, saying that the page could not be developed as an article again because of the consensus to merge it in the past and the existing redirect. (I will leave a note of this discussion on his talk page) So we're left with a mess. The redirect is now going to a page that does not discuss the subject, and I've been told by the reverting editor to introduce the text onto the main astrology page instead, which is where the redirect should have gone in the first place. The problem now though, is one of future development and wanting to retain the information I have spent good time on. Mundane astrology is only one of many branches of astrology and the main astrology page doesn't detail any techniques - they are all given their own pages, as you can see here. This topic should be appearing in that list, as it is the oldest and most important of all those branches. I'm not sure if I need to make a case here for why the topic deserves a page of its own. I can do that very easily if necessary, but to keep this breif, you can see from this Google books link how many books have been written specifically about this particular subject. To clarify, the notice here says in regard to deleted articles - "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so." This article was not deleted but is currently non-existent because there's no where obvious to point the redirect, so is there any reason why I can't redevelop the article again as a stand alone page using new text that doesn't have any of the issues attached to its former state? -- Zac Δ talk! 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC) There was a consensus to merge the topic to Astrology or History of Astrology. Instead you deleted it from History of astrology [29] and re-instated the article with changes without telling anyone and despite the consensus on the issue already: [30]. You (or I if you wish) can easily place the content into the astrology article and change the redirect to point there per consensus. I fail to see any issues. I also notice you restored the content but removed the mainstream perspective which is required per WP:FRINGE, this wouldn't need any further elaboration in the main astrology article though as the mainstream perspective is already present. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC) As I have explained, I followed the policy implied here "If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so" and that is what I want clarification on. You (the reverting editor) seem to suggest that I had disingenious motives; and now, for the first time, suggest some kind of 'mainstream perspective' is missing. How? Previously, you said that the new content didn't seem relevant (it is); then you said "discussions about the reliability of sources etc reach a much larger audience on the astrology page" and I replied that the RSN is better, and explained I had academic sources for the legacy content. Now you are implying that a mainstream representation is missing. (This is a lot for someone who fails to see any issues). If anything is missing, then I'll be a willing collaborator in fixing the probem. We have an article in waiting here with a talk page for such discussions. All I want to know is whether there is any legitimate reason why I cannot recreate a page that is then subject to the usual editorial policies. -- Zac Δ talk! 23:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Re IRWolfie's comment that I "re-instated the article with changes without telling anyone". I left a clear and detailed account in a new section on the talk page of History of astrology - Removal of redirect from Mundane astrology; I also started a new section on the talk page of Mundane atrology which specifically and clearly explained the situaion; and I created a text code in the initial file. I did everything possible to keep anyone who might be interested informed and no one but IRWolfie has suggested that my actions were wrong. They were not ideal, beacsue I didn't plan to cause a problem in the first place. Now all I want to do is fix and develop -- Zac Δ talk! 23:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC) My understanding is that earlier, the mundane astrology article was reduced to a short stub (because of content issues) and then deleted because there wasn't anything worth saving. This was apparently done by editors with little knowledge of the subject. However, now there has been an effort to re-create the article, which relates to one of the fundamental branches of astrology. I think the current article is different from the stub that got deleted, so the previous consensus on the subject is out of date, and the new article is worth keeping if the following issue is addressed: I think the first footnote -- for an uncontroversial point -- is not reliably sourced according to wikipedia standards for pseudoscience. It should be easy to find a mainstream source (perhaps Tester or Whitfield, which are academically-reviewed histories of astrology) that also makes this basic point. Presumably these sources could also be used to further flesh out the article.--Other Choices (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC) ON OC's reference point - I have already mentioned on the talk page that I intend to replace that old-content ref to one going to the work of academic scholar Francesca Rochberg. A pristine source. -- Zac Δ talk! 03:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC) The page you need to look at is ND3 which addresses precisely this issue. Spartaz Humbug! 02:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC) I consider that essay incorrect. The result from a DRV close whatever it might be can be appealed here. If a close as merge or redirect was wrong, it is just as appropriate to consider it here as it is to discuss a keep or delete close. Otherwise, as the essay itself says " Unfortunately ... there is no central venue to hold such a discussion". According to IAR , if there is no applicable process, we can and should do whatever is reasonable. The relevant policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. It is not productive to send users from one place to another when not necessary, or give them elaborate procedures for matters that can be discussed where they ask them. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC) ND3 was developed with the assistance of DRV regulars and was discussed on WT:DRV to make sure it reflected practise here. The idea is that it is a less procedural system than DRV as it allows further discussion around a merge to develop and superceed a AFD close. I'd be happy with DRV reviewing merge and redirect closes but there has been a strong feeling that as merge and redirect are editorial decisions that do not require admin tools to enact. As there is no deletion to review and merged is considered the same as keep many regulars have declined to intervene in these closes. This has made DRV a poor reviewing tool for this kind of case. I have always been a bit uncomfortable with that myself but it has been such a long standing strand of opinion here and I haven't been in the majority. I created ND3 as a mechanism for moving forward with AFD merge/redirect outcomes. If you do feel that DRV is now ready to accept the additional areas than we need to agree the expanded scope and decide whether we have a consensus for this. I'd be happy to support such a move but, as you know, opinion at DRV ebbs and flows. Spartaz Humbug! 11:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)} Thank you. That appears to say that I take this back to the closing admin (who recommended I come here). I've already put the details on the talk page and the feedback there was only from Other Choices, who thought it best to keep it as an article, for reasons he expressed here. I'll look at those details of how to promote the discussion tomorrow. -- Zac Δ talk! 03:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse AfD close - "This is the remaining content after a recent merge."[31] Uh, no. The redirect[32] was all that should have remained per the AfD outcome. OP does not appear to dispute the close (there no assertion that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly), so endorse the merge AfD close. To receive DRV consensus to recreate the article, you need to show (1) significant new information has come to light since the deletion and/or (2) that the recreated article will overcome the reasons for the AfD merge. For (1), was there something that was not considered in the AfD? For (2), a good way to establish that the recreated article will overcome the reasons for the AfD merge is to have a draft article in your user space (e.g., at User:Zachariel/Mundane astrology), and make a request at DRV that the draft be moved to article space. What DRV then would look for is whether the draft article generally addressed the concerns noted in each of the delete/merge comments (e.g., 1) no sources to support this as an independent subject, 2) written as if astrology had actual predictive qualities, and 3) POV fork). An alternate route would be to gain consensus on article talk page for a mundane astrology subsection in either the astrology and/or history of astrology article and grow that subsection until there is need for a WP:SPINOUT article. Comment - The article only was merged and not also deleted per the attribution reasons noted in Wikipedia:Merge and delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Please don’t make assumptions based on what I haven’t said, or misrepresent the meaning of what I have said. I would explain further but the policy is clearly given on ND3 and I will follow that policy by applying the steps it recommends -- Zac Δ talk! 11:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC) On refelection, now that I have opened this case, maybe I need to wait for its close and official confirmation that I follow the steps given in ND3?. I will do that to avoid creating unecessary complications. To Uzma Gamal, I was not active myself on WP when the deletion discussion took place, but looking back on it now I would suggest that the problems with it are 1) there was no clearly defined consensus and the result to merge appears to have offered a compromise to those who wanted to delete and those who wanted to keep 2) a failure to involve informed and interested parties (it would have been good, for example, for someone to have make the Wiki:Project astrology members aware of the discussion, since this was a page of 'top priority' to their project) and 3) a resulting redirect that went to an innapropriate page. If you look at the talk page you'll see it is saying that the decision was to redirect to Astrology (the discussion itself says astrology/history of astrology, like someone doesn't quite know what to suggest - but who sees the details of old discussion pages in the general editing process?). How was I, as an editor of the history page, which does not have a natural association with the subject, to know what problems would result by removing innapropriate content? Here is the reason given in the old deletion proposal: "A fork of Astrology, with no sources to support this as an independent subject. Further, it has been written as if astrology had actual predictive qualities, with no citations for the predictions. In fact, the only citation in the "Historical predictions" section is one pointing out that Nostradamus may not have used astrology." The main concern was a very long page without quality control or references. None of the concerns affect the content I have developed, which are already available to view from the page history: here. If concerns do exist then problems can be addressed through development. The point of this case is not to re-evaluate the old or the new content, but to get confirmation on a principle: that old decisions related to old content do not prohibit the redevelopment of their pages. -- Zac Δ talk! 12:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Comment As the editor claims that he is elaborating the article as new one, then in this case, may be this page isn’t the right place to discuss it. Nevertheless WP incentives usually re-creations, and therefore I fail to see how can be bad any efforts to reconstruct an article in a way more substantial, which details some particularity of a wider subject. In fact there was previous consensus for merging the article, however if an editor can now bring a new and better content to that topic, then this is great to Wikipedia. Thus, we should wait for that endeavor finishing as well as it should be encouraged because ultimately we are here to improve Wikipedia not to restrain it. Nevertheless, if the article ends after these efforts as was before, I admit we will have to discuss it again; but this is part of the process, of course. Excalibursword (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC) It's not completely new, it is built off the original. see the diff. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC) I do not see how that changes the situation. Let's see the proposed new article in talk space. To let procedural issues interfere with building content is to forget what the purpose is of Wikipedia. We are not supposed to be primarily an amateur effort at a system of administrative law. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the statements that remind us that the policies exist to facilitate improved editorial content, not prohibit it. And as IRWolfie knows, the new content is not built off the original. Of the 2740 word article (discounting refs) proposed for deletion, only 83 words were retained after the decision to merge - I restarted the page with this skeleton content to make all my edits transparent; but even this was poor quality information and I have stated my intention to replace what remains of this with new content referenced to the work of Francesca Rochberg - an non-disputable reliable source. So in effect it is a completely new approach, where there will practically traces of the old content that was so poorly written and devoid of reliable verification. -- Zac Δ talk! 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Comment. I dare say the AfD was closed correctly but following that anyone could properly create another article on this topic and anyone could properly oppose. Since the closing admin said to refer matters to DRV we should accept the referral. This seems to me a perfectly good basis for an article. Since User:Zachariel intends to improve the references and develop the article he should be allowed to do so. Since some people see the article's existence as contentious it would be best done out of main space for the time being and with the history preserved. Thincat (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Why not just build it as a section in Astrology where the consensus suggested? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I certainly think it could be and that would be a perfectly reasonable approach. However, the AfD discussion was over very different content and so should not be taken as any sort of rule. Whether a separate article exists is largely an editorial matter, constrained by policies and guidelines. The draft article as it stands might seem over-detailed in the more general article and personally (as an ignoramus and non-believer) I do not see any details I would wish to remove. In other words, I see the draft article as "notable". Thincat (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC) There are a number of reasons why it would be an impractical approach: A few days ago, when Other Choices suggested that the Modern scientific appraisal section of the astrology article is "approaching critical mass" (diff), the response was: “Not really. A great deal of the discussion about astrology in reliable independent sources is about its pseudoscientific nature, so there is no problem with WP:WEIGHT. If length becomes a problem, we can always spin off or delete some of the non-science related stuff, some of which is poorly sourced and doesn't belong here anyway.” (diff). The editors contributing to the astrology page are almost exclusively sceptical of the subject and pre-disposed against the inclusion of content which explains the principles and techniques of its practice. There is already a series of similar spin-off articles dedicated to exploring the different types of astrological technique, as shown in this category list: Category:Astrology_by_type The consensus has already established that detailed information on content such as this does not belong on the main astrology page but in dedicated spin-off articles. Given the number of modern books dedicated to this topic (let alone the historical texts not featured on Google books) there is no doubt that the topic is notable enough to merit its own page. Of all the types of astrology, it is this one that is considered the most important, and it is the one that has made most impact on the history of world affairs by being used as a propaganda tool. There needs to be space to develop encyclopedic material on points such as this. Even though it has not existed a a page since 3 April, stats show that the article has been sought 2513 times in the last 90 days. Also consider that over 100 other articles link to this article for spin-off information (not including user pages or Wikipedia pages). Editors building content on other pages need to be able to create wiki-links to pages where the meaning and explanation of certain terms that appear on their pages can be given more fully. For example, the term might appear in quotes, in author bios, or in many situations where there is a need to be able to link-off for specifically targetted further information. It would not be effective to redirect them to the main astrology page, which can give no more than brief summary information on what is a very complex and multi-faceted subject. -- Zac Δ talk! 11:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Idea It would really help the draft to be seen as history rather than pseudoscience to change "is" in the first sentence to "was" and "are" in the first sentence of Techniques to "were". Thoth, Phlogiston. Thincat (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Allow further development of the topic. The AFD was split quite evenly between Keep/Delete/Merge and so there was no strong consensus for any particular outcome. As we have no deletion to review and the details of the topic are substantial, the matter should be taken forward on the article's talk page. Warden (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Thincat, thanks for the helpful suggestion. It wouldn't be correct though, to imply that mundane astrology is no longer a recognised and employed part of astrological practice. Many books are still being written about the subject. Concerns over weight can easily be addressed in other ways; for example, a change in the first sentence to read: "Mundane astrology is the most ancient branch of astrology, a pseudoscientific subject which has no scientific verification. The term 'mundane astrology' specifically relates to ..." It's not a problem that the article presents the details of a pseudoscience, so long as it is a notable topic and the policies of WP:Fringe are applied. One change I would make is in reference to the notebooks of the first historically known English practitioner, so that instead of saying that these demonstrate how he recorded "the logic for his conclusions" it reads "the astrological reasoning". Such minor tweaks would have been applied by now if the development work had been allowed to continue. -- Zac Δ talk! 14:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Close this debate as "wrong forum". The closure of the AfD debate translates to "keep pagehistory with a recommendation to merge". The page has never been deleted and all edits remain visible in the pagehistory. The decision to merge represents a consensus decision that deserves deferrence because the debate was well-attended and well-advertised. But it gets no more deferrence than an equivalently thorough decision to merge that was made via discussion on the article's Talk page. If consensus to unmerge can be shown, that is an ordinary editor action that can be carried out without any admin powers and without all the XfD/DRV bureaucracy. Make your pitch on the Talk page. Add a Request for Comment if you like. The debate is unnecessary here, though. Rossami (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC) Comment: I misspoke earlier when I used the word "delete" instead of "merge." The backdrop of this whole discussion is the edit warring that has plagued the astrology article in recent weeks. This recently spilled over onto the History of Astrology article, where things actually got more civil and productive. So maybe the editors concerned are ready for a "stress test" of that new mood on the astrology page itself. Suggestion: Add the re-created Mundane Astrology article to the end of the astrology article with an "under construction" sign and immediately seek a consensus of editors on that page to re-establish it as an independent article.--Other Choices (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 July 2012

"Old Fooian" and similar category redirects – No consensus to overturn the CfD closure in its entirety. There are some concerns as to whether the outcome is appropriate for some particular groups of redirects, but this can be the subject of a follow-up discussion in whatever may be the appropriate forum for such matters.  Sandstein  05:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
(XfD) List of category redirects that were deleted Category:Alleyn's Old Boys Category:Alumni of Cardiff High School Category:Alumni of Collyer's School, Horsham Category:Alumni of Diss Grammar School Category:Alumni of Dynevor School, Swansea Category:Alumni of Hereford Cathedral School Category:Alumni of Hull Grammar School Category:Alumni of King Edward VI Aston Category:Alumni of King Edward VI Grammar School, Chelmsford Category:Alumni of Kingswood School, Bath Category:Alumni of Llanelli Boys' Grammar School Category:Alumni of Monmouth School Category:Alumni of Oban High School Category:Alumni of Oswestry School Category:Alumni of Queen Elizabeth Grammar School, Wakefield Category:Alumni of Rutlish School Category:Alumni of St Bedes College, Manchester Category:Alumni of St. Michael's College, Llandaff Category:Alumni of Stockport Grammar School Category:Alumni of the City of Oxford High School for Boys Category:Alumni of The King's School, Chester Category:Alumni of Toowoomba Grammar School Category:Alumni of Trinity Grammar School (Victoria) Category:Alumni of Westcliff High School for Boys Category:Benenden Seniors Category:Bon's Boys Category:Brecon Grammar School alumni Category:Brisbane Boys' College Old Boys Category:Carey Baptist Grammar School alumni Category:Caulfield Grammarians Category:Dollar Academy alumni Category:Downe House Seniors Category:Fictional old Etonians Category:Former students of Aquinas College, Perth Category:Former students of Chatswood High School Category:Former students of Christ Church Grammar School Category:Former students of Epping Boys High School Category:Former students of Guildford Grammar School Category:Former students of Hale School Category:Former students of Melbourne Grammar School Category:Former students of Pembroke School, Adelaide Category:Former students of PLC Melbourne Category:Former students of PLC Sydney Category:Former students of Scotch College, Perth Category:Former students of St Michael's Grammar School Category:Former students of St. Bernard's College, Melbourne Category:Former students of the National Institute of Dramatic Art Category:Former students of Trinity College, Perth Category:Former students of Wesley College, Perth Category:Haileybury, Melbourne alumni Category:Icenians Category:Kendrick Old Girls Category:Melbourne High School (Victoria) alumni Category:Old Academicians Category:Old Achimotans Category:Old Adcotians Category:Old Aeneans Category:Old Albanians Category:Old Aldronians Category:Old Alfredians Category:Old Aloysians Category:Old Altrinchamians Category:Old Aluredians Category:Old Amplefordians Category:Old Anandians Category:Old Anselmians Category:Old Aquilians Category:Old Aquinians Category:Old Ardwynians Category:Old Ballyclarians Category:Old Barnardians Category:Old Bedford Modernians Category:Old Bembridgians Category:Old Benendonians Category:Old Bethanians Category:Old Bexleians Category:Old Biltonians Category:Old Birkdalians Category:Old Birkfieldians Category:Old Bordenians Category:Old Bostonians Category:Old Bournemouthians Category:Old Boys of St Joseph's College, Hunters Hill Category:Old boys of St Patrick's College, Strathfield Category:Old Brighton Grammarians Category:Old Brucastrians Category:Old Brunnians Category:Old Buxtonians Category:Old Caistorians Category:Old Camberwell Grammarians Category:Old Cambrians Category:Old Cantabrians Category:Old Canterburians Category:Old Carrensians Category:Old Cathedralians Category:Old Centralians Category:Old Cholmeleians Category:Old Christ Churchians Category:Old Churstonians Category:Old Citizens (City of London School) Category:Old Clavians Category:Old Claviennes Category:Old Clayesmorians Category:Old Clitheronians Category:Old Collegians (Auckland) Category:Old Collyerians Category:Old Colstonians Category:Old Columbans (St Alban's) Category:Old Combermerians Category:Old Crohamians Category:Old Croydonians Category:Old Caistorians Category:Old Cryptians Category:Old Danes Category:Old Dartfordians Category:Old Davideans Category:Old Deaconians Category:Old Decanians Category:Old DHSians Category:Old Dovorians Category:Old Dunelmians Category:Old Dunstablians Category:Old Dunumians Category:Old Dy'vorians Category:Old Edmundians Category:Old Edwardians (Birmingham) Category:Old Edwardians (Sheffield) Category:Old Edwardians (Southampton) Category:Old Eleans Category:Old Elthamians Category:Old Emanuels Category:Old Felicians Category:Old Fettesians Category:Old Fishes Category:Old Foleyans Category:Old Freemen Category:Old Freemen's Category:Old Fullerians Category:Old Fylinghallers Category:Old Ganians Category:Old Gaytonians Category:Old Geelong Collegians Category:Old Geelong Grammarians Category:Old Gowers Category:Old Gowertonians Category:Old Graemians Category:Old Haleians Category:Old Hararians Category:Old Harrisonians Category:Old Harveians Category:Old Hawtreysians Category:Old Honitonians Category:Old Ilkestonians Category:Old Instonians Category:Old Johannians Category:Old King's Category:Old Kingstonians Category:Old Knox Grammarians Category:Old Laboratorians Category:Old Lancing Category:Old Langtonians Category:Old Lerpoolians Category:Old Libertians Category:Old Ludensians Category:Old Ludovicans Category:Old Lyonians Category:Old Mallians Category:Old Manwoodians Category:Old Maroons Category:Old Melburnians Category:Old Mentonians Category:Old Mid-Whitgiftians Category:Old Millfieldians Category:Old Monmothians Category:Old Moretonians Category:Old Newburians Category:Old Newingtonians Category:Old Newburians Category:Old Newingtonians Category:Old Norvicensians Category:Old Novaportans Category:Old Novocastrians Category:Old Paludians Category:Old Parkonians Category:Old Patricians Category:Old Pharosians Category:Old Phologians Category:Old Plymothians and Mannameadians Category:Old Portregians Category:Old Presentonians Category:Old Raineians Category:Old Reds Category:Old Rendcombians Category:Old Retfordians Category:Old Rhodians Category:Old Rockmen Category:Old Roedeanians, Johannesburg Category:Old Roffensians Category:Old Roseans Category:Old Russellians Category:Old Ruymians Category:Old Saintonians Category:Old Salesians Category:Old Sandbachians Category:Old Savilians Category:Old Scotch Collegians Category:Old Shebbearians Category:Old Silcoatians Category:Old Sionians Category:Old Sladians Category:Old Southportians Category:Old St Andrews Category:Old St Edwards Category:Old St. Beghians Category:Old Sternians Category:Old Strathallians Category:Old Strodians Category:Old Sulians Category:Old SV Category:Old Sydneians Category:Old Tamensians Category:Old Thetfordians Category:Old Tiffinians Category:Old Trinitarians Category:Old Trinity Collegians Category:Old Verlucians Category:Old Veseyans Category:Old Vigornians Category:Old Vikings Category:Old Virgilians Category:Old Warminsters Category:Old Waynfletes Category:Old Wesley Collegians Category:Old Wesleyians Category:Old West Bucklands Category:Old West Downs Category:Old Westbournians Category:Old Wheatleyans Category:Old Winburnians Category:Old Wittonians Category:Old Woodbridgians Category:Old Wulfrunians Category:Old Wymondhamians Category:Old Xaverians Category:Old Yarumians Category:Old Yorkists and Maroons Category:Old Yorkists Category:Oldham Hulmeians Category:Queen Victoria School Old Boys Category:Shore Old Boys Category:Sinjuns Old Boys Category:St Leonards School Seniors Category:St. Kevin's College, Melbourne alumni Category:Sydney Technical High School alumni Category:Wycombe Abbey Seniors Bit of an odd one. I'm not disputing that the consensus of the discussion was to delete, I'm disputing that the correct process was followed and, as such, I think the CfD should be overturned and the deletions undone. The main reason why the I think it should be overturned is that none of the pages up for deletion were tagged, so no one who had these pages on their watchlists were aware of the discussion until the pages were actually deleted. In addition, very few of the pages up for deletion were even listed at the CfD and the discussion only talked about "Old Fooian" redirects, yet many "former students" and "alumni" redirects were deleted as well. Jenks24 (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Comment from closer: Thanks for the notice. I have no idea why categories that were not listed at the nom are being deleted, pursuant to that discussion, if that is the case. I don't see that close supporting that. The redirects should have been undone, first, or the renaming mandated by the close. For the categories that were nominated, I just wonder how wide the problem is? The close allowed for separate consideration for two categories that were exempted at the time; if there are an additional one or two than those could be discussed individually or if there is a need, to recreate them? Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC) I have taken the liberty of soliciting background from Mike Selinker and Brownhaired Girl, who were most involved in the discussion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Neutral. I was the nominator of nearly all of a long series of CfDs which eventually renamed all such categories in the UK to "People educated at Foo". The creation of redirects from the old category names was a little ad hoc, and included some which were agreed to be clearly inappropriate; the consensus was that nearly all of the rest were just clutter. I was not the nominator at this CfD, and had not spotted that the redirects had not been tagged. Ordinarily, that would lead me to say "overturn", but in this case I will stay neutral because I wonder what purpose would be served by overturning the CfD. I note that although the editors who supported "Old Fooian" categories were watching CfD v closely at the time, none of them objected to the removal of the redirects, so I don't see them as having been deprived of a chance to air their views. Categories are watchlisted by very few people, and category redirects by even fewer, so tagging the redirects would have alerted v few people. I personally took great care to fix all incoming links to the category redirects after the relevant CfDs closed, so it is most unlikely that any editor would have stumbled on the redirects accidentally. I do agree that the redirects not listed at CFD should be treated as speedy deletions (i.e. subject to speedy restoration), and I agree that the CfD itself was deficient. However, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY ... and I do wonder what would be the purpose of another CfD. Tagging and nominating that many redirects is a big job, as is undeleting them before CfD and then deleting them again if that is consensus. So, does the DRV nominator really really want to have the substantive discussion CfD discussion all over again? If he really does, then I won't stand in his way. But is the nominator really sure that a new CfD, or a relisting of the old one, will serve any useful purpose? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Well, I would prefer to just restore the Australian ones that were on my watchlist. But when I brought this up at WT:CFD I was (quite rightly) told that that was not the correct location to discuss restoring pages. So I brought it here, the correct place. I regularly use the Australian ones and they are helpful to the work I do here (unable to prove this, though, because HotCat is so nifty). To be honest, I know little of the English ones and never use them, so if people want them deleted I wouldn't object, but I thought it only fair to list all of them here. Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Nominator's comment. When I proposed the original discussion, I believed the categories didn't need to be tagged because the creation of the redirects was a consequence of the close to rename those selfsame categories, which had all been properly tagged once. This was a discussion over the proper method of cleaning up the indisputable rename discussions, not a new discussion. As I note in my original nomination, "This isn't a normal CfD nomination, but rather more of a followup to several closed nominations. I'm not sure why we have these redirects. As we've deprecated the 'Old Fooian' concept throughout hundreds of categories, we have neither been consistently making redirects nor consistently not making redirects." The result of the CfD discussion was simply to change the process of the close from "make a redirect, sometimes" to "don't ever make a redirect, and remove the ones we did make after a couple months." Like BHG, I think it is bureaucratic to insist on a renomination. It is so much effort for what will almost certainly be, after much gnashing of teeth, the same result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC) I don't mean to be bureaucratic, but what other option did I have if I wanted the deletions overturned? If I just undeleted them, surely they could be speedy deleted as G4? Jenks24 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC) The discussion could just have easily been a talk page discussion, since it was more a question of housekeeping than anything. So tagging shouldn't be an issue here. If anything, MS did more process than was likely necessary. (For which I think he deserves kudos.) Anyway, as for the close itself, Endorse, except the disambigation ones. I think there was probably enough commentary regarding the dabs that they could be kept. But clear consensus that the standard redirects should be deleted. - jc37 17:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Agreed that the disambiguation ones might be worth another discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC) No objection, but unless I am missing something the Disambigs in the nom have not been deleted or renamed, so isn't that part kind of a dead letter or still falls under the future consensus part of the close? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC) The close doesn't make any distinction between the types, but I think the discussion led to some ambiguity about what we should do with those. If this gets ratified, I'll nominate the disambiguation categories again, and tag them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Process is important. It helps level the playing field for those who have a minor voice against those who have been here for years and developed working relationships to where there is some effort to support one another's common vision of how things should be. Another reason process is important is it keeps a check on those who regularly work a notice board, deletion area, etc. to help ensure that their quality doesn't diminish to where they routinely start cutting corners. Overturning the complex CfD and undoing the deletions would be a tool to help right any wrongs and send a message that improvement is needed, even if it resulted in the same outcome. However, it doesn't seem like CfD's general quality is diminishing. Plus, we're not talking about categories. Instead, we're addressing redirects in Category space to other categories, where some may have been removed via uncontroversial maintenance. Those who had these pages on their watchlists haven't stepped forward to say they've been wronged. I think this DRV request was fine because it allowed Mike a central place to explain his efforts and others outside of CfD to review it. I don't think there's any reason to go beyond that. Endorse -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I am someone who has these pages on my watchlist and I am saying I have been wronged. If I had been aware that these category redirects were at CfD (say through my watchlist), I would definitely have voted keep, at least for the Australian ones that were on my watchlist. Jenks24 (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I understand and empathize with where you're coming from, Jenks. But your request still comes across as bureaucratic to me. You want a minor thing (a few "Former students at" category redirects, I presume), but your approach is to call into question a major thing (the deletion of hundreds of redirects) on a technicality which I think I've at least suggested a rationale for. Come at it from another direction (say, "I would like to recreate the 'Former students at' redirects for Australia only, which weren't even in Mike's original nomination"), and I think you'd get a different result. At the very least, you wouldn't have your request caught up in the vast well of dislike for the "Old (X)" categories, which I will definitely oppose the redirects for. That's just my take, though. I certainly respect your right to bring this up here, and I hope you feel you get a reasonable hearing.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I think he has now clearly expressed his interest in the Australian "Former" categories, so I support that overturn, or recreation of those or even performimg an addendum on my close if we can get agreement here on the proper wording of an addendum. If it's the form used on his articles in that area of the world, at least that's a discussion that should be allowed to occur, elsewhere. (and perhaps someway should also be discussed to navigate among these different ways of referring to a similar thing in different countries). The question is if there are others reasonably probably like him. If I am not mistaken all the others are British or Irish and seem to not be used? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC) No, Mike, I want all the Australian redirects undeleted, which includes quite a few of the "Old Fooian" variety. I still think that undeleting them all would be the right thing to do (to give them a "fair hearing"), but because of we aren't a bureaucracy and I would probably not be interested in voting keep at a CfD for the British and Indian ones, I am happy for this DRV to focus only on the Australian ones. Also, to clarify, I would prefer they be undeleted rather than recreated to preserve the history. I realise that, even if we only focus on the Australian ones, there are still a large number of pages and I would be willing to do the undeletions myself should the consensus arrive at that, rather than making the DRV closer do them. Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Ah, my mistake. Well okay, then I guess I endorse the close of my own nomination, if that's something people at DRV can do. There was clear consensus on the nomination against all "Old (X)" redirects, and the fact that some of them weren't in the nomination does not render the consensus against the format moot. But I appreciate Jenks's willingness to discuss it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC) I think it obvious that this needed a much wider discussion. Personally I would restore the redirects in all cases where it is not confusing, but it is impossible to watch everything and CfD has small body of regulars only. Until we find some way of attracting attention to the miscellaneous XfDs, something like this needed a RfC. I consider it incorrect to call it a mere technical followup of the decision to rename the categories. Removing an access point is even more of a change than the renaming. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ethereal being – "Delete" closure endorsed. –  Sandstein  05:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ethereal being (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The debate plainly suggests that there was no consensus. Thus, I don't really feel that the administrator interpreted the discussion properly. Analyzing his notes and bringing here a brief of my clarifications (made in his talk page): The article is plenty of reliable sources supporting strictly each of its parts and as well the whole article; indeed there is no room in that article to OR or synth. Another of his notes was that claiming the article as pre-covered and biased; reply: As many editors clarified in the Afd, actually, in essence the article is a collection presented in the way of different historical views from reliable sources of supposed entities, which display similar qualities (i.e. ethereal: as this common adjective is grammatically defined in ordinary dictionaries; e.g. Webster, 2-Education.yahoo, Thesaurus, etc. - per WP:BLUE). In this perfect sense, there is not another article on this topic; the article is unique and valuable (remembering that its brother article "Non-physical being" is an empty stub). Besides, keeping in mind that: 1-the reasons for deletion (listed in WP:DEL-REASON) are not applicable to the deletion of the article (thus for this controversy happened the Afd); 2-Experienced editors, in fair number, defended the "keep vote" addressing the article as very good or else could it have some improvement; 3-Debate was recurrently marked by improper subjects brought up to it; non-academic reasoning; several shallow claims of policies (such as OR or synth without presenting factual evidence to support them): thus not a case was made as matter of fact. Indeed the debate remained usually at far distance of a high level discussion, in which, I speculate that may have prevented many editors from joining the discussion. But, in spite of this, it was settled anyway a clear non-consensus and therefore the expected would be the status quo applied, aka Keep. Excalibursword (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Good close Deletion review isn't here to rehash the AfD. Your arguments were rejected, and Jimbo himself used the same deletion rationale to suggest what he would vote [[33]]. Consensus isn't a vote, it doesn't matter how many agree if there reasons just aren't strong enough WP:CONSENSUS. The arguments for Synth (or more correctly, making an article out of a disparate collection of other topics) were presented in the AfD, I suggest you read it more closely. There seems to be nothing wrong with the close except you don't like it. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Golly, that whole debate was a complicated mess. I've plunged in, read the whole thing, and resurfaced to say that at first glance, I'm thinking that Fram probably closed it correctly. I do agree with those who say that there's an article to be written about incorporeal entities, but I see a consensus to WP:TNT this one and start afresh. I also recognise that some rather experienced editors were overruled in this, and I'd like to point out that this isn't unusual. I think that Fram's close was towards the bolder end of the permissible spectrum. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, and in this case we got a decision rather than a compromise. But I'm not going to add a word in bold quite yet because I think I need to re-read it all before I feel confident in what I'm saying.—S Marshall T/C 11:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC) After thinking about it some more, I'm happy with endorse: this was within Fram's discretion.—S Marshall T/C 19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse per my comments at User_talk:Fram#Review. - jc37 17:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse Reading (most) of the AfD, the debate seems to come down to two arguments: keep because it's notable, and delete because it's an unsalvageable mess. The editors arguing for keep did not seem to present any response to the argument that the article was a WP:SYNTH, other than that the article could be improved to remove essay-like qualities (I have not read the article)- but I understand that there's a major question about source misrepresentation and that is unacceptable. While AfD is not cleanup, AfD can be used to delete content deemed "unfixable." OSborn arfcontribs. 05:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Comment - For background, there's a draft at User:Aleister Wilson/ethereal being, which says ethereal beings are mystic entities that usually are not made of ordinary matter. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Comment The reason why "Keep editors" aren’t usually arguing against editor’s claims of synth or OR, is because those claims are shallow, so inconsistent. Meaning that the latter ones just claim it; therefore there isn’t any solid case and no challenges in the article. This makes sense because the article is very well founded in good sources, whichever can be easily verified just inspecting the regular article’s release on which was built the debate. Excalibursword (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Endorse. I also agree with the original assessment of the article by Friday (talk) back in January 2011 when he pulled it out of article space. A taxonomy derived from original research is always going to present problems. The least of which arise when subsequent editors disagree with the original author's idea of what constitutes an ethereal being. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC) comment For the record, user LuckyLouie also took part of the Afd debate. Excalibursword (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Zeta Delta Xi – Self-overturned -- I missed the 7-year-old speedy decline. – SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zeta Delta Xi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Speedy deletion (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) was performed outside of the criteria established for such deletions. Article plainly contains statements intended to establish significance. There is no indication of falsified content or intent to mislead (credibility not in question). Admin may be conflating credibility with creditability, which is explicitly proscribed as a consideration vis-à-vis the cited tag. The criteria established for the application of A7 are further elaborated in a direct appeal to the deleting admin. Patronanejo (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Cached version not showing up. Going to need a temp. restore... Hobit (talk) 03:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Done. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC) I have informed User:Evilphoenix, as the admin who declined the initial speedy deletion request in 2005 of this review. My involvement started at Wikipedia:Help desk#Zeta Delta Xi, followed by Wikipedia:Help desk#Restoration of Article Zeta Delta Xi and User talk:Dru of Id#Restoration of Article Zeta Delta Xi. While I consider User:SarekOfVulcan fair, and our interactions all positive, I do not see where he has disclosed his possible COI. Dru of Id (talk) 06:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC) No COI involved -- I was never a member of any fraternity at Brown, and while I don't remember the details of this from my time at Brown, I'm quite pleased that they bucked the national organization in this way. I'm just not convinced that it show the kind of importance that would earn them an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Is there any reason why we shouldn't send this to AfD for a full discussion? I feel that part of DRV's role is to provide FairProcess to good faith users on request, and this is a good example of when that's appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 11:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC) I think the A7 is probably acceptable (I'm not seeing a whole lot of assertion of notability) but per S Marshall would prefer to see an AfD given a good faith contesting of an A7 that's not 100% clear-cut. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn. I do not see A7 as acceptable at all. The article very clearly indicates the importance of the topic (the events of 1982 to 1987 particularly). References are deficient and notability may be in question but these are not relevant to speedy deletion. Thincat (talk) 12:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC) That's the problem with A7: assertion of notability is in the eye of the beholder. I'd have sent to AfD instead of tagging for speedy, but I'm really conservative on speedies. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC) While I see no intentional breach, I see "took a stand in gender non-discrimination against a national (albeit, parent) organization" as a credible claim of importance, although not backed by independent sourcing online. I see no sources online that could be used to establish notability, and believe userfication to be the likely outcome, but visibility at AfD may get offline sources included by others who might not otherwise know of the need. Dru of Id (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Thing is, I don't see "took a stand against parent organization" as being a credible claim of importance, unless it's followed by "leading to changes in the organization's policy."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn to List There does seem to be something about the allegedly notable events in the online Brown Encyclopedia, which appears to be used elsewhere on the project as an RS (but the dates are off?). At any rate, a place to discuss should be granted. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC) List at AfD - I'm neutral (read that as don't care) whether A7 was appropriate or not. The point of CSD and speedy deletions (and PROD, for that matter) is only to spare the unnecessary listings at AfD. So, >shrugs< - Another 7 days of discussion in this case shouldn't be a problem. - jc37 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn. CSDs are restricted by design to those narrow situations where consensus exists that every reasonable editor will look at the page (and its history) and conclude that the page must be deleted. By definition, if a prior editor considered and rejected speedy-deletion, then there is not the required unanimity to apply CSD. (There are some exceptions such as for undiscovered copyright violations but those do not apply to this case.) Rossami (talk) 23:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks, Rossami -- I had missed that speedy decline in the ancient history. Overturning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Overturn and list arguably the article does make some claim of notability, if not in clear terms. It remains to be seen if it meets WP:GNG OSborn arfcontribs. 02:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 July 2012

Diary of a Bad Man – Restore article. Anyone is free no nominate at AfD, if they have concerns with notability. (NAC) – Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Diary of a Bad Man (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Was deleted a year ago due to being not notable. However, it has been mentioned a lot more in the news: http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/shortcuts/2012/jun/10/diary-of-a-badman http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/27/humza-arshad-the-badman-of-youtube_n_1597536.html Amongst others. So it is attracting media attention. And also taking into account 35 million views on the channel. Surely this must warrant notability. 94.173.99.52 (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC) --> endorse and restore Deletion was proper at the time, but baring BLP issues in the article (which I can't see and given the topic may exist therein) this now has a solid claim to meeting WP:N, thus overcoming the deletion reason in the AfD. No objection to a relisting. To the IP, a better choice than DRV might have been to ask for userfication by the deleting admin, adding in the sources you list, and putting the article into mainspace. Eh. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC) There are a few other sources out there. [34] appears to be a reliable blog out of Pakistan. There is also evidence of a BBC Asia interview [35] but I can't find a reliable copy on-line. Sounds like the BBC thing was known during the AfD. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Userfication isn't an option; current moral panic discussion at WP:VPR#Allow unregistered users to create pages in userspace is solidly against. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Fair enough. Weird outcome in that discussion, but I just work here. So DRV is the correct venue once the deleting admin has been asked... Hobit (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Thanks. Article has no BLP problems that I'm seeing, but it is effectively unsourced and needs significant improvement. I'll help tackle that (sourcing and trimming) if restored. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Restore and relist There's enough evidence to at least warrant a second AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Undelete and allow anyone to list at AfD. There are new sources contibuting evidence of notability and suitable attributable commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Restore and allow relisting at AfD. Those two articles are substantial enough to suggest that this has a fair chance of surviving another listing. --j⚛e deckertalk 00:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Restore - and add info from the above two sources to the article. No reason to also relist at AfD. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.