Live Evil (film) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Was deleted under speedy delete G12 (Copyright Infringement) because someone alleged that the plot description was copy-pasted from twitchfilm.com. But the plot wasn't copy-pasted from twitchfilm.com, the plot description is from the official movie's promotional materials and that is where twitchfilm.com copied their plot from as well which they clearly state on their webpage. Furthermore, a movie's promotional materials are provided by the copyright holder to be used by third parties to promote a movie and reprinting them is considered fair use. But regardless of anyone's perceived copyright issues with the plot description that was used on the Live Evil page, a horror film that stars Tim Thomerson, Ken Foree, Tiffany Shepis, et al, defintely has enough merit to be listed in Wikipedia so the whole listing shouldn't have been deleted. JohnnieYoung ( talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• So it violates a different copyright instead. And if not, then it violates WP:NPOV (quoting promotional material directly). Endorse either way. Guy ( Help!) 22:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse deletion We cannot have copyrighted text. If the text is properly released then we can consider using it as a basis for an actually neutral article. But even then it is far from clear that this movie would escape A7 anyways. One is of course welcome to work in userspace on writing a draft of a non-copyvio article. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, copyright violation. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Ditto the above. Plus, if the material was from a movie's promotional materials, it is not independent of the topic as specifiec at WP:N. Topic's can't supply material for their Wikipedia article. They have to do something that motivates independent publishers to write about them. Then, Wikipedia will summarize those secondary sources. -- Suntag ☼ 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Church of God, an International Community (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Was at first speedy deleted under CSD G11 (Blatant Advertising), but there was no advertising (the non-profit organization had a listing exactly like all the other organizations in this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_God). I contacted the deleting admin, who restored it very briefly (during overnight hours) simply to delete it again. This time he said it was for G12 copyright infringement but the material within quotation marks is public domain and is also posted with permission of the original writer. I have tried to resolve with the deleting admin, but he cites policy that articles removed for copyright infringement are not allowed to be restored to a workspace for editing. I have since had it restored to my workspace for editing by an admin who was willing to help me work through the problem, but I would still like a review of the original material for the reasons stated above. I'm happy to make necessary changes to conform to Wikipedia rules but am beginning to suspect a personal vendetta from the deleting admin since it seems that this entry is being singled out from the other listings under its general heading. Richard Abrahams ( talk) 19:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The church of god website says "Copyright ©2007 COG All Rights Reserved." Where is their content released to the public domain and if the notice isn't there, where has it been released to CC or the GFDL elsewhere? Protonk ( talk) 19:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• We don't restore copyright violations, unless it can conclusively be shown that it was not originally a violation of copyright. I suggest following the steps listed here to rewriting the article so that it doesn't violate copyright. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, copyright violation. Kristen Eriksen ( talk) 00:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Well... some people do not believe in what is told to them unless two more people yell the same thing... sigh. endorse (self-)deletion. Pegasus  «C¦ T» 02:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Hannah Job (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Tony Bignell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) - originally a separate DRV -- Suntag ☼ 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Has been speedy deleted under A7, but provides a reasonable indication of why the subject might be notable (having appeared on a TV show on a major TV channel). TigerShark ( talk) 14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undeleted for DRV. I'm neutral on the merits but if this offers a claim of significance I'm less clear that it will survive an AfD. Protonk ( talk) 19:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Not what I'd call A7 material, but unless someone's willing to work on them it's unlikely to pass an AfD in their latest form. So, while I'd be happy to overturn, I would rather wait until someone comes forward to work on them first, to avoid unnecessary AfDs. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 20:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and redirect to Coming of Age (2008 TV series) as per this AfD for another actor in the same programme. Black Kite 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to AfD, or just be bold and redirect unless/until someone fancies expanding them. Not very good articles it's true, but not what CSD#A7 is supposed to be used for. Iain99 ^{Balderdash and piffle} 00:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, but unless more material is added about their career they will very likely be deleted at afd. Is Coming of Age (2008 TV series) the only show they have been on? DGG ( talk) 04:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per DGG as being on a TV series is an assertion of notability. However, also as DGG says, they're unlikely to survive at AFD. A redirect to the series is probably a decent compromise. Stifle ( talk) 10:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. No sense in jumping through an extra set of hoops so someone can prove some sort of point: these won't survive AFD. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 10:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Redirect Hannah Job to show article, she's done nothing else. Tony Bignell should be redirected the parts he had according to IMDB were nothing major (read:work as extra) until this came along - Mgm| ^(talk) 13:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Per the requirements of WP:CSD#A7, there was an assertion of significance in both articles, making them inappropriate targets for speedy deletion. I agree that the likely result is a redirect, but there is no reason that Wikipedia editors should not be allowed to come to that conclusion for themselves. The ends do not justify the means, even with the best of intentions. Alansohn ( talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - The speedy deletion history seems to show some disagreement, which in itself would seem to take the articles out of speedy deletion. It may be best to let AfD decide this one, particularly since Hannah Job included A7 importance/significance "best known for her role as 'Jas' in the BBC Three Sitcom, Coming of Age (2008 TV series)" and Tony Bignell included A7 importance/significance "best known for his role as 'Matt' in the BBC Three Sitcom, Coming of Age." Also, both articles had A3 prose content relevant to the topic and no other speedy deletion criteria seems to apply. Also, if either article is to be redirected, that is something AfD should decide, not DRV, particluarly since G4 would not be available to a DRV redirect outcome. -- Suntag ☼ 19:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment When article was tagged and deleted A7 on 1 November, its whole text was as follows (copy-pasted here from the history, wlink and all): Hannah Job is a British Actress, bet known for her Role as 'Jas' in the BBC Three Sitcom, Coming of Age. Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• ... which I read as "British Actress virtually unknown despite her role in a low budget graveyard slot sitcom on a low viewing digital-only channel". Where are the non-trivial independent sources? In fact, non-trivial content would be good. There are fewer than 10,000 Google hits for the show and only 91 unique Googles for the actress, of which all seem to relate to the series, so a redirect seems absolutely fine at this point. No need to waste any further time as that is an editorial decision. Guy ( Help!) 20:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The absence of reliable sources would be a lovely argument at AfD, once the close is overturned. The question is here is if the original speedy deletions of these articles were justified under CSD A7. Alansohn ( talk) 20:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• It's also a valid rationale per WP:BLP, but see above. Redirect works just fine, nothing further needed. Since the article on the show is also in dire shape, particularly for sources, and since 100% of the show's entire fanbase already appears to be active there, perhaps they could start by fixing that article up before starting non-articles on the individual actpersons. Might be a while before they make it big, "Coming of Age was called by one critic 'the worst TV programme in broadcast history'" according to our article, and it's got some pretty stiff competition there. Meanwhile, nothing to see here, move along please. Guy ( Help!) 20:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Appearing in 'the worst TV programme in broadcast history' might well be a strong claim of notability. Can you point to the portion of BLP that would justify speedy deletion of this article? Alansohn ( talk) 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Better still, can you point to any sources independent of the series? No? If you can't, then a redirect (whihc is what we have right now) is just fine, and this debate is a complete waste of time. Guy ( Help!) 00:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and redirect. Clear assertion of notability makes these invalid A7's. Better to leave the history intact in case a future writer wants to use it in the event that they become notable. No need for AfD since Redirect is a species of Keep if the history is intact and there seems no reason that it shouldn't be. Nor have any BLP issues requiring deletion of the history been raised. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Tony Bignell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Has been speedy deleted under A7, but provides a reasonable indication of why the subject might be notable (having appeared on a TV show on a major TV channel). TigerShark ( talk) 14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Same as above. Protonk ( talk) 19:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Aaron Michael Lacey (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) ( AfD 2) Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• Undelete. I was looking for information on Aaron Michael Lacey and I noticed it got deleted it for lack of notability simply because he did not win an Emmy. Since when does notability require someone to win an Emmy? I looked at a the deletion review page and I can provide proof of half of those claims that were said were false. I have DVD's of the show "In Our Lives" and I can prove it if you would like. Those news articles in Google News not appearing? why yes, since most if not all of the news articles were published in the early - mid 1980's and therefore would not have been published online. I can try get scanned copies of those articles if you would like. I can't do an IP check on him, but if it does not match the area of Sterling, VA, then you can safely say that it wasn't the actor writing the page, and therefore does not violate WP:COI. From my personal talks with him almost daily, I can almost safely say that he is not at all like User:AMLFILMS. Also, i read a comment on the page that he "hasn't done anything but extra roles for the last 15 years or so." 15 years back only goes into the early 90's. That ignores all of his work in the 1980's from which "In Our Lives" was aired. Rootbear75 ( talk) 11:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Additionally, you can not claim WP:COI on myself as I did not write the article. I only met him recently, and am intrigued by him. I want to know his history. Rootbear75 ( talk) 11:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - no procedural error in the AFD. The article was not deleted simply because this person didn't win an Emmy. It was deleted because of a lack of reliable sources that demonstrate notability and no indication that he meets WP:BIO. If you have reliable sources that are substantively about this person, then I suggest writing a new draft of the article on a subpage of your user page, e.g. User:Rootbear75/Aaron Michael Lacey that includes the reliable sourcing. Once the article draft meets the appropriate guidelines for inclusion, it can be moved from your userspace to articlespace. Otto4711 ( talk) 11:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  I will attempt to get the newspaper articles stating him as soon as I can. If i manage to scan those and upload them will it matter where they are uploaded as long as the date, paper, and other verifying information is displayed? Rootbear75 ( talk) 10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. The closing admin called the consensus right, so I see no reason to overturn. A lot of effort went into providing reliable sources during the AfD and none were turned up. As an example I looked up a "notable" extra, Pat Gorman [1] and he has no WP article despite 30 years of literally hundreds of appearances, so I see no inconsistency either. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• This deletion was seven months ago. Why such a long delay in listing here? Stifle ( talk) 10:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  Stifle, why does that make a difference? Suppose someone argued: This article was written 7 months ago and nobody protested. Therefore it should not be deleted. DGG ( talk) 21:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)] reply

  I'm not raising it as a process objection; I am just curious because it is unusual. Your argument is a straw man; deletions are usually contested here very soon afterwards, whereas articles are regularly AFDed having existed for months or years. Stifle ( talk) 10:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  Comment:I brought the deletion up because I had not previously known about the actor before this time. Rootbear75 ( talk) 10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for that. I'm going to have to go with endorsing this deletion; I'd recommend a userpace draft. Stifle ( talk) 12:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - From Google books, looks like his big role was in Twelve Monkeys (1995) as WWI Sergeant. From IMBD, he also was in Forrest Gump, Transformers, Live Free or Die Hard, Red Dragon, The Good Shepherd, The Kingdom, The Recruit, Evan Almighty, Clear and Present Danger, Dave, Road House. etc. A google search for him brings up an impressive list of websites. Seems to be working overtime to get exposure. -- Suntag ☼ 00:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

  Comment: I actually have talked with the actor personally and he has admitted and shown to not have the computer literacy to create all of those sites. In fact, he has come to me for some computer technical help. Rootbear75 ( talk) 10:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. In the second AfD, there was a clear consensus in support of deletion. As Otto suggests above, the article can be re-created at a later date if sources that clearly establish notability are found. The subject may become notable in the future even though he doesn't seem to have achieved that yet. Consensus can change. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion The original close of the first AfD was predicated on the premise that he had won two Emmy awards, which I would agree is a pretty strong claim of notability. That this claim was found to be incorrect meant that there had to be some other claim of notability. While he may well have appeared in many films, the individuals participating in the most recent AfD overwhelmingly found that there was no evidence to support notability, nor did those supporting retention supply reliable and verifiable sources to support such a claim. There appears to be nothing out of process here or any reason to overturn the result. As noted elsewhere, despite a request that the article be salted, there is no reason that bigger parts (or even appearing a little further from the edge of the screen for a few more microseconds), increased media coverage or actually winning an award could establish notability. I will also question the edit history of the editor User:Rootbear75 whose entire edit history (with an exception or two) seems to revolve around this one article as an apparent SPA, if not a possible sockpuppet. Alansohn ( talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Sandor (fictional character) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Closer seems to have ignored the policy- and guideline-based arguments for deletion as a violation of WP:OR, WP:WAF and WP:GNG in favor of a handful of trivial mentions of the character in a couple of books. Everything offered by the keepers including the one- and two-sentence "sources" was refuted by an analysis of the proffered sources and the closing admin erred in giving any weight to the refuted arguments. Otto4711 ( talk) 07:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close as no consensus. The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability, which is the appropriate rebuttal to claims of WP:OR. There appears to be no out-of-process issues with this close. Alansohn ( talk) 07:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Try actually reading the sources and then read WP:GNG which specifically and explicitly disqualifies the sources listed as establishing notability. The Kane merely establishes the existence of the character and recounts the plot. The Klute does the same. The Benshoff is another plot summary. The Humphries is three sentences out of a 216 page book. The Willis is three sentences in a 474 page book. The Leeper is one sentence on a website with no apparent reputation for reliability. The procedural errors made by the closing admin are: closing admin did not appropriately apply WP:WAF, which states "There are notability prerequisites to be met by all subjects to warrant articles specifically about them"; closing admin did not correctly apply WP:GNG, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive....Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial." This failure to properly apply our guidelines is grounds for overturning the close and deleting the article. I put to you the same challenge that I put during the AFD and explain how these two- and three-sentence mentions in multi-hundred page documents, which do little or nothing beyond establishing the existence of the character, the actor who played him and a recounting of the plot, satisfy the aforementioned guidelines as anything other than plainly trivial mentions and how the failure to give appropriate weight to our guidelines in favor of exalting trivia is not reversible error. The closing admin clearly did not evaluate the relative strengths of the keep vs delete arguments and apparently just closed it on the basis of 3-2 being close to a tie, despite the keep !voters being unable to persuade anyone to agree with them following the relist as opposed to the delete arguments which gained additional support. Otto4711 ( talk) 08:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The source support a claim of notability, which is established by multiple reliable and verifiable sources. Remember, this is a matter of notability here, where sources cannot be simply ignored. I appreciate your efforts to refight the AfD all over again, but the closing administrator was within his authority given the sources provided. Nor does putting multiple words in italics help your argument. Alansohn ( talk) 17:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Clearly, I did not ignore the proffered sources since I not only reviewed all of them in expanding Dracula's Daughter but I offered an analysis of them during the course of the AFD to explain why they do not support the independent notability of this character per he plain text of WP:N. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Eh, weak overturn. Aside from DGG, the only "keep" point made was by our friend 63.3.X.X--which just amounted to ILIKEIT anyways. Then we have to weigh the nominator's argument and the two arguments supporting deletion. However, it doesn't seem outside the realm of the admin's discretion to declare that there was no consensus. Protonk ( talk) 19:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• endorse close Not sure that's how I would have closed it given the opportunity but it is a reasonable close and there are academic sources talking about the character which goes a long way in my view. JoshuaZ ( talk) 22:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• They don't "talk about" the character. They mention the character in passing. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close - the closer interpreted the discussion correctly. Even simple logic says that there is a likelihood of reliable source material for the topic. The film the character was in was a popular film that has been around 72 years! Somebody is going to write something about the character. Simple string searches of Google books, scholar, and news reveal enought reliable source material from which to mine a Wikipedia article. There also is a likelihood of offline source material. -- Suntag ☼ 04:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• <sigh> I guess it's easier to count Google hits and make assumptions than it is to, you know, read. Did you know that other Dracula movies completely unrelated to this movie have a character called "Father Sandor" in them? Did you take that into account as you were counting raw Google hits? No? Oh. And I'm sorry, what part of our policy and guidelines say that the assumption that there are probably offline sources, in the absence of any actual sources, is sufficient to sustain an article? Otto4711 ( talk) 06:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse own closure. There was no consensus to delete, and deletion review is not for use just because you disagree with the outcome of the debate. Stifle ( talk) 10:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This is not about disagreeing with the outcome. This is about your failure to correctly apply black-and-white guidelines. Otto4711 ( talk) 16:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • It looks like you're in a minority of one in having that opinion. Stifle ( talk) 10:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
      • That's OK, I'm used to being lonely in my correctness. Just out of curiosity, which of the 1-3 line sentence mentions in multi-hundred page texts do think qualify as substantive coverage? Otto4711 ( talk) 07:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Just like any other consensus/voting process, you're only as correct as a majority thinks you are. Stifle ( talk) 14:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Thank you for acknowledging that you engaged in simple vote-counting majority rule. That's not how closing admins are supposed to decide AFDs and is reversible error. But with that being your criterion for closing the AFD, note that the majority was in favor of deletion and that the majority position picked up strength after the AFD was relisted. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close Look like a perfectly logical conclusion with 3 deletes and 2 keeps, with both sides presenting reasonable arguments that differed mainly in how they interpreted "significant" sources. Considering the small number of people participating, there didn't appear to be strong feelings one way or another. Nothing looks abnormal here. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 00:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• In the face of a guideline that specifically excludes the proffered sources as "significant", the closer erred in giving those arguments weight. Otto4711 ( talk) 07:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• As you have been generous in your time to reply to every single comment in this discussion, I had already discerned that this was your opinion before I entered my observations. But thank you anyway. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 01:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Shirley the Loon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

I have several reasons for listing this. First, 4 voted for "keep" while only 3 had "delete" (1 had "merge"). Second, the keep reasons were pretty valid (I read through it), and the last is she was a pretty notable character. I concede that this article either comes back (as well as Sweetie Pie, which had a lack of comments on the AFD discussion), or no WB cartoon character gets their own page (not even Bugs Bunny, as much as I like him). And if the deletions are overturned, I propose that TTN be banned from ever nominating a WB Animation-related article for deletion. FMAFan1990 ( talk) 06:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Discuss the nomination, not the nominator. This could have been a no-consensus close, but it could have been a delete close. Spartaz is right that sources have to be available on the subject--it isn't sufficient to say that "the show won an emmy, therefore the characters are notable". For most of these disney shows, it is entirely possible that significant coverage of the characters would never be created (No one would spend pages and pages in a RS on these shows, for the most part). Therefore it doesn't work for us to assume that significant coverage exists, editors need to show where it exists. I endorse this close, though weakly. Protonk ( talk) 19:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• I'd thought that merging was the accepted compromise in these situations, so I don't see why we can't do that here, if there's a good target (such as a "list of ______ characters" article). I believe that closing as merge would have been perfectly valid in this case, and is preferable to full deletion. I agree with Protonk that this could equally have been a "no consensus" closure (and would have closed it that way myself), but that delete is possible as a close as well. And, given what I've seen at ANI about TTN before, a ban discussion about him isn't likely to get anywhere fast, so I'll just ignore that. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Huh? Doesn't anyone bother discussing these days before raising a DRV? With regard to the close had there been any kind of sourcing a merge would have been the result but since unsourced unverifiable material is plain original research we don't merge that. Endorse own close Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. The closer's decision was reasonable given the case stated during the AfD. Personally, I think if the OR is stripped away there would be little more than a stub left. Anyone could have done (and still can do) a "merge" of any verifiable content. The Google cache is still available so can I suggest that whoever wants the content retained goes ahead and does it? Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Looks a reasonable close to me. A merge into some sort of List of... article would also have been unexceptionable. Black Kite 23:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Are you all forgetting there were only 3 delete votes against 4 keep votes? That should qualify for a no consensus. FMAFan1990 00:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

No it doesn't. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. Deletion debates are closed using a rough consensus that is measured again comparing the arguments raised against policy. We don't count heads at all - or shouldn't anyway. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. When the number of editors on each side of an AFD is close, the administrator who closes the discussion is entitled to look at the strength of the arguments and at Wikipedia policies, before coming to a decision. Spartaz acted within policy. Stifle ( talk) 10:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• MergeThere never was any reason not to. Spartaz is absolutely wrong that content to be merged into another article needs to be sourced from secondary sources--for this sort of material primary sourcing from the work itself is quite acceptable, and probably in most cases preferable. . If it's challenged in a particular case, that;s what we have article talk pages for. The task of an admin is to close deletion debates, not ruling whether one policy is right or wrong or preempts another, but on the basis of the reasonable policy based views from established editors--he's a moderator, not a judge. If, as the closer did, he thinks that one policy is more important, he should join in the debate. He should not close the article to favor his own view. it is just as wrong for him to do so as it would be have been for me to close it as keep. People who have decided opinion about fiction articles should probably not close contested fiction debates at al, unless they close them against their own view--that sort of known neutral position is the basis by which administrative actions are accepted by the community. Even if the closing is right, it is better is someone else does it. If anyone thinks this principle is wrong, I suppose they wouldn't mind if I close the next evenly divided fiction debate in favor of my own view. DGG ( talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I don't agree with this. Let's put aside the merger issues and focus on the claim that Spartaz should not be closing afd's on fictional characters because he has some opinion about them. I don't think that the admonition should be worded that strongly. Closing AfD's where the admin has some opinion on the subject is on the spectrum of subjectivity, but it is much closer to impartial than, say, if Spartaz were to have an actual "conflict of interest". If spartaz worked for Marvel and closed DC character AfDs, I would protest. Having an opinion about whether or not we apply a community guideline or widely accepted policy is not the same thing. I understand that you abstain from using the tools (very broadly defined) where any impression of impartiality can be implied, but that standard of behavior is neither universal nor expected. Furthermore, the prevailing assumption about deletionists is that we use the rules as "cover" for a dislike of fan/trivial/etc content. It is only by operating under this assumption that we can make the claim that bias over content can influence a debate. In other words, if we assume that spartaz doesn't care about a particular style of content, it is a bigger hurdle to jump in showing that he has some "bias". We would have to show that he holds some view about WP:N that is outside consensus and that he is using his role as an admin to force that view on the content. If, for example, he thought that all articles must have 7 sources, each from a peer reviewed journal, that would count as a heterodox view on WP:N. Instead, if he held the opinion that WP:N should be roughly applied as it is currently written, that would be in line with community consensus. So, in response to your last offer, if you think your view about inclusion of articles matches the community consensus, close away. Protonk ( talk) 02:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I saw this last night and spent some time checking policy but decided to sleep on the reply. Both V and MERGE are silent on the subject of required sourcing for merged data but In would very much like to see the guideline that states that unsourced material can be merged to an article. I'm pretty sure that the custom and practise is that merge material requires sourcing and I'm positive I'm not the only admin who closes on that basis. To draw the conclusion that because you don't like my position on this I shouldn't close fiction AFDs is perverse. You need to back up a statement like that with reference to something that supports the position that merge material can be sourced to itself. I do not have a record of my closes being reversed for poor judgement. I do have a good record of listening to concerns raised and re-reviewing my closes if there are valid issues to look at. I don't accept that this is an environment for you to reasonably argue that I'm some kind of rogue admin with an agenda on fiction to push. I find this rather an offensive claim but not surprising given your recent slide into routinely attacking the motives of closing admins at DRV discussions. Frankly this is something that doesn't reflect well on you. If you want to discuss this further I suggest you raise it at my talk page but I'd also expect you to provide some evidence to back up your claim. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I concur with Spartaz on this. Stifle ( talk) 10:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I think this should have been closed as a "no consensus", but what's been done's been done, so I suggest it be at the least merged. Both sides had valid points hence a compromise is appropriate. The Dominator ^Talk _Edits 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, let someone independent close it I hate overturning, but don't have much of a choice here. The closing argument actually sounds like a !vote within the discussion, making it not independent as a close should be. By claiming "it is inadequately sourced", you are ignoring that wp:v says it must be verifiable not already verfied and putting yourself into the debate. This is not the objective role that closing requires. I don't see any bad faith, but it does look like you made a judgement call outside of the discussion/consensus. By the way, someone has already recreated it at Shirley McLoon in spite of the existing redirect. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 13:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Why do people who have never interacted with me think they know what my biases and intentions were when I closed the discussion?´If you check my talk you will already see a note from DGG to alert me that my closing statement was obscure and a note from me confirming that I hadn't expressed myself well. The o´nly reason why I haven't changed it is because I don't believe its right to change it while the discussion is on. My thoughts and conclusions are in my response here and they reflect the discussion against policy so if your only basis for overturning is 4 obscure words in a closing I would respectfully rwwuest you review the close in the context of my statement here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • I do not think I know your biases, and I made i clear I trusted your faith in the closing. Whether it was not being objective, or just making it LOOK like you were not objective, it was bad judgement to close that way regardless of your biases, motives or thoughts on the subject matter. My concern is that the process is, and LOOKS objective to everyone else. In this case, it doesn't. Not a crime, but a judgement error either in thought or in wording. Again, I don't see bad faith and I HATE voting to overturn because I know I can't be inside your head, but I do see something that might be better closed by someone else, even if they came to the same result. It isn't about punishing you as there is no need to. At this time, it looks like I am the only one who thinks this is the best solution, so I wouldn't let it trouble you too much. It isn't personal. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Why on earth do you think the close was bad judgement? I had two choices per policy from the discussion - Merge or Delete. I ruled merge out because the material to be merged was not sourced. This is not a perverse position. Other admins also take the same view and its a line consistent with our core policies NOR and V. DGG states above he disagrees with this but hasn't cited any policy or guidelines to support that view and now you say that I'm biased and that my judgement is poor - no doubt because of the comments that DGG made earlier. I think there has been more then enough support for my close from other users to show that while there may be a valid discussion to be had about the sourcing of merge material the decision I made was a rational outcome from the choices available - given that policy is silent on the question. I don't think it is valid for you to simply state that I appear biased (why?) and that my judgement was poor (why?) without providing evidence to detail to support the statements. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC) reply
        • My original statement still reflects my perspective. I am not going to do a line by line argument with you on this as I do not feel that it will be productive. We simply disagree and no amount of discussion will change that. You, the closing admin, and anyone else is free to completely discount my observations if they so choose. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 01:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion, then redirect and merge. "Inadequately sourced for an independent article" does not mean that deletion is the only option on the table. Merging seemed to have stronger support than deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Step Zero (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

Undelete. The band has been cited with sources such as Bobby Reeves of Adema/Level along side of fullthrottleradio.com and is listed on a Portuguese radio station, the person who performed the deletion stated no reason for her deletion other than the sources guidelines, after I pointed out the sources she redirected me here. I do not see why this has become an issue months after the creation of the article. The article was backed by plenty of credible sources and had enough information to state relevance to the music articles of wikipedia. -- Jarrex 18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note, the only independent source cited in the deleted article is " http://www.fullthrottleradio.com/," which does not mention the band at all. See User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Step_Zero. Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

In response to this, it is not under the name of Step Zero, it is under the singer's name Martin Harp because he is the one who submitted it.-- Jarrex ( talk) 19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note, I have evidence of Bobby Reeve's endorsement if truly necessary.-- Jarrex ( talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Unless it's published by an independent and reliable source, it can't be cited on Wikipedia. Gwen Gale ( talk) 19:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

It is a direct message from Bobby Reeves himself.-- Jarrex ( talk) 19:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

It must be published by an independent and reliable source. Gwen Gale ( talk) 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I would say this goes beyond what A7 is capable of, but given everything I've seen so far the band is definitely not notable yet. So, while I would have to !vote to overturn the deletion on these grounds, I can tell you all that will happen afterward is that it will be deleted again at AfD, which would just be a huge waste of your time. I suggest withdrawing this nomination and waiting for sufficient reliable, third party sources to write about the band before recreating the article. I won't stop you if you want to do otherwise, but I know you probably won't like the outcome. Cheers. lifebaka ++ 21:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Not strictly valid for speedy deletion, but there's no point in undeleting this only to redelete it again at AFD, as it doesn't really stand much of a chance there. Keep deleted. Stifle ( talk) 10:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. There was no real claim to notability in the deleted article, other than members of the band saying how unique it is on the band's own MySpace. Technically, including a quote from the band saying they are "truly unique" is a claim to notability. It is, however, worthless in context. Guy ( Help!) 20:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse Would have been better if it had gone to AFD, where everyone would have said "speedy delete" because it is a well formatted and nonreliably sourced article on a non-notable band. The claim of notability was a theoretically sourced 'soon to be released' album, which is weak enough that I can see why someone would say it isn't even a claim of notability at all. This was a judgment call that pushes A7 to its limit, but I don't see any abuse and can see why he chose this method of delete, even if I wouldn't have. DENNIS BROWN ( T) ( C) 00:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply