Malmö Devilants (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Clear consensus to KEEP the article, 6 vote keep, one delet and 2 redirect. And the Adm was saying "of lack of reliable sources", thats wrong it was third-party articles etc-}} 81.236.190.174 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Closer appears to have missed this and this, which were described in the AFD as independent reliable sources. They are in Swedish not English, so I can't be sure that they are independent and reliable - but I see no reason to challenge the description of them given in the AFD, and no other participant challenged them either. Since there were independent and reliable sources, the closer misread the discussion. GRBerry 21:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• I reread the AfD and do not see what you see. "Described in the AFD as" and "no reason to challenge the description of them given in the AfD"? Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide diffs for these assertions. -- Jreferee t/ c 15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Based on GRBerry bringing those media links to light. I had to use an online translator to make some sense of those reports but better than nothing. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 05:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Rocky Horror songs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Overturn - closing admin was displeased by the form of the nomination and it appears that this displeasure led to a misreading of the debate. Admin asserts that no collective decision can be made about a series of songs from the same film. The discussion would appear to contradict this assertion, as the people involved were able to clearly express and articulate opinions. In this instance, the opinions articulated were in favor of deletion and while there were assertions made by the keepers that the songs were notable, this was not backed up by providing sources that demonstrate the notability of any of the songs. The links provided by the last keeper are merely Ghits results for one of the song titles with no proof that anything that comes up actually demonstrates notability; simply being mentioned in a newspaper article or book or a track listing from a play program or record does not satisfy WP:N as it is not substantial coverage specifically about the song. Closing admin states that there do not have to be reliable sources in the articles to pass AFD. This is true, but there have to be sources somewhere and it seems to me that those who are claiming that the songs are notable should have some burden of proof, otherwise AFDs hanging on notability become nothing more than counting up how many say "yes it is" and how many say "no it isn't." The only argument in favor of keeping that was beyond a simple "keep it's notable" hinged on the notability of the stage show and film. The notability of the source material doesn't impart separate notability onto every aspect of the source material, as was shown by the deletion of another song from the same source. The admin's personal opinion about the quality of the mass nom should not have a bearing on the quality and numerical superiority of the delete opinions and the poor quality of the keep arguments. Otto4711 16:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Why would you even delete these? If nothing else they're needed as redirects to The Rocky Horror Show or an article on the sound track... they're very likely search terms. Turning them into redlinks just seems like a disservice to our readers. At any rate, there seems to be plenty of sources for someone who wants to expand these articles... need for cleanup is not a reason to delete. -- W.marsh 18:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I may have closed it differently, but it's sufficiently within closer's discretion to not find a consensus apparent here. Summing up the debate: These songs almost surely fail WP:MUSIC, although the album might actually pass, and a redirect could boldly be made per W.marsh's comment. Given that state of affairs, closing as no consensus was within discretion. Carlossuarez46 18:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as closer - Thank you for the notification. These songs have existed for more than thirty years as part of one of the longest running stage musicals and most widely popular movie of all-time, both of which have inspired countless publications. The four listed song are so widely known and have been treated differently by reliable sources over the many years since their creation in 1973 that a single discussion could not reasonably say the songs stand or fall together. It was clear to me that just about all of the discussion participants failed to adequately address each song individually in the context of whether enough reliable source material exists to maintain separate articles on each song. Because of the compilation of the AfD nomination, the participants largely ended up listing voting opinions as opposed to reasoned analysis. Without reasoned analysis, there was no justification to delete the articles and the lack of sufficient keep discussion was a reason not to close as keep. -- Jreferee t/ c 18:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• How can you say that people didn't offer reasoned analysis? The analysis was stated in the nomination and agreed to in abbreviated form by multiple !voters. It is unreasonable to expect every person who expresses an opinion to reiterate a complete analysis that's already covered in the nomination. Isn't that why shortcuts to policy and guidelines exist, so that someone can type "per WP:POLICYSECTION" instead of typing out a regurgitation of the section? Do admins really want to read six or seven largely identical paragraphs per AFD when a sentence sums it up? Otto4711 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse no consensus closure or overturn and close as keep. Someone actually finding sources for things asserted to not have sources is one of the arguments that always wins - and that they couldn't be sourced from independent coverage is exactly what the nom did. W.marsh found the sources, and he obviously didn't have to look very hard, which means that the nomination and all "per nom" arguments were shown to be false and have no weight. With them removed, the clear consensus was for keeping. GRBerry 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• My thoughts on closing the discussion were that W.marsh found sources for one of the songs (Rose Tint My World) and he obviously didn't have to look very hard. He may have been able to find sources for the other songs, but didn't. Rose Tint My World probably could have been close as Keep, but with so little discussion specifically directed to Rose Tint My World, no consensus seemed the appropriate close for that song. -- Jreferee t/ c 16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Reasonable. Probably no consensus is the best closure for the AFD as a whole, but keep is clearly better than delete. GRBerry 16:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• overturn per GRBErry and nominator. JoshuaZ 23:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • GRBerry argued to overturn it only to close it as a keep, the nominator wants it overturned as a delete. -- W.marsh 00:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Er yes, I knew that. Brain fart there. No idea why I wrote that. JoshuaZ 00:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no consensus close defaulting to Keep all. All of these songs are highly notable. (I think some of the confusion in the discussion above may be occurring before the collective title "Rocky Horror songs" is showing as a redlink.) Newyorkbrad 01:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no-consensus close of mass nomination. Very little discussion (mostly the final comment before the closer) touched on facts for reliable sources of individual songs. Some have been much more noted in non-fanzine, non-fanblog sources than others, for reasons such as the Rose Tint My World book that W.marsh cited. (In fact I would support a merge of those not well-sourced to a list article or "Songs of ..." article as was suggested in the AfD. Each of these songs separately has passing minor mentions in WP:RS sources, and featured coverage in fan sources, but does each have enough to pass the guidelines as being worth an article instead of a mention within a broader-topic article?) For now, a no-consensus keep allows interested people to work on the articles for the next couple of weeks, then Otto4711 and any others interested can review the updated versions and get consensus to merge or keep each. (All these are noted enough for a merge so users will find the redirects.) Is there a WikiProject for Cult Films or Drag or Off-Broadway Musicals that might help us get these articles sourced and edited? Barno 00:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Making the bed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Abuse of patent nonsense section, since it doesn't apply at all- the page was a stub describing (in intelligible english) basically what making your bed is. Also it's a perfectly good idea for a wikipedia article seeing as how it's an important facet of personal hygeine for most of the western world, the admin was completely unjustified in marking it speedy froth ^t 05:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion (and, optionally, list at Afd) I am inclined to think that I'd !vote delete at AfD, and I am not nearly as confident as Froth that a legitimate encyclopedia article about making the bed—in its historical and cultural contexts, perhaps—might exist, but the text, although almost certainly as written unencyclopedic, was not patent nonsense, and as such was emphatically not G1able (or, for that matter, A1able or A3able). The deleting admin has now recreated the article as a redirect to bed sheets, which may ultimately prove an appropriate target for this page; even as, though, redirection is an editorial decision, a discussion about the propriety of redirection or merging cannot be had when the underlying article is deleted. Undeletion, then, is appropriate, and deletion, merging and redirection, or deletion and redirection might each be considered. Joe 06:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and troutslap the nominator for arguing over stupid one-liners. If you think there is a feasible article to be written about the topic, write one. ~ trialsanderrors 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per trialsanderrors: for non-admins, the entire contents deleted were: "Making the bed is tidying one's bed after waking. This is practiced in most civilized cultures." Clear A1, and credible A3 or G1 as well. If this is overturned, we should certainly add this one to the next CD of Wikipedia. Carlossuarez46 18:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I'd probably have cited A3 instead, but this one liner wasn't worth the time to get the deletion summary right, much less this DRV's time. GRBerry 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. A 17-word article is within speedy deletion criteria. If you want to flesh it out more, feel free to recreate it with sources and more substantial content.- Wafulz 22:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• This is almost (but not entirely) pointless. No one seems to be contesting the current redirect. Is there some reason not to restore the history behind it to serve as a seed for a fuller future article? — Cryptic 06:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Sure. Once there is a fuller article we can restore the history. As of now, I see no need to. ~ trialsanderrors 15:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment As the deleting admin, I've restored the original history of the article for the duration of the DRV. I stand by my original deletion of the article, although in retrospect I would have used A3. It was a borderline nonsense article and was extremely short. It may be possible to have an article on that, but I'd argue that it makes better sense as a part of bed sheets, which is where I redirected the page. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse with provision Is it possible to make an article on this topic not OR? JuJube 02:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Sure are plenty of Google Scholar hits. — Cryptic 02:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion Wikipedia isn't a dictionary nor is it an instructional manual. SashaCall ^{( Sign!)}/_{( Talk!)} 20:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Tower Defense (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore| cache| AfD)

Per the current talk page, there's a current discussion on bringing the article back. It was originally deleted for no reliable sources, however a related page Desktop Tower Defense was recreated with a large quantity of sources (whether they are reliable or not could be another issue. )

While I'm okay with the article remaining deleted, restoring would allow describing the genre without putting undue weight on a specific implementation. In addition, it can help record how this genre got started as well as how it changed to the current forms. Sigma 7 02:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I'm not sure what material could be useful- the only material that isn't already in the Desktop Tower Defense article is this original research: The origins of the genre are uncertain. During the Warcraft III beta in alpha development, there were two early developers who take credit for laying the foundation of TD: With the game handles of Mr.123 and Evilseed. The genre may have existed within Starcraft previous to that, where they are typically called turret defense as opposed to tower defense games. It then follows with a blurb on map naming conventions.-- Wafulz 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion There is nothing reliably-sourced that could be useful in the editing of a new article, and no evidence offered here to change the conclusion of the prior AfD. Xoloz 14:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply