From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 November 24
2009 November 26 >

25 November 2009

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kiss All the Boys ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Since the article was deleted, more reliable reviews of the book have been found, making the book meet WP:BK#1. The closing administrator when approached about undeleting the page advised me that he felt it would be safer to seek a more binding decision via DRV. Malkinann ( talk) 21:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the deleted version has almost no salvagable content anyway. Why not just make a new version in your user space, then move it to article space once its ready, so its not tainted with Aurura's meat puppetry stuff in its history. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 21:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't know what was in the article originally, but if it was anything like Future Lovers (manga), which seems to have been created in the same way, it may have contained an infobox (which I am weak on) and information about the Japanese publisher (which is difficult to search for). -- Malkinann ( talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Allow recreation but do not restore. The original article was advertspam created by the publisher to promote the book and the publisher. There is absolutely no point in restoring that "taint" when the article can be recreated from scratch with a clean edit history. — Farix ( t |  c) 21:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Tonal problems with the article can be fixed, as the editing process guides articles to higher levels of quality through time. -- Malkinann ( talk) 21:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Why do you want the original advertspam restored instead of simply recreating the article from scratch? There is nothing to be gained from it nor are there any requirements under GFDL requiring the article history to be restored if its going to be completely recreated. — Farix ( t |  c) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't know what was in the article originally - I did not have Internet access when the matter came up in January. I am guessing that it resembles the deleted version of Future Lovers (manga) in that it will probably have an infobox and information about the Japanese publisher. This makes it easier to work with than a blank article, as I can append a Reception section and rework the tone. If it's sufficiently notable to have a recreated article, why shouldn't the old information be restored so that I can work from it? -- Malkinann ( talk) 22:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Because I don't think we should give credit to the publisher's sockpuppets/meetpuppets, especially when there is no need to. There are other resources you can use to look up the Japanese publisher. In fact, I was very easily able to find it within a few seconds just by checking ANN's encyclopedia entry. Now all you have to do is double check the Japanese publisher's website or obtain an ISBN code from a retail site to verify the information. — Farix ( t |  c) 22:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I would much rather use the old version of the article, as I hope to be able to glean information and formatting from it, and it is easier to tweak an existing article than to create an entirely new one. If the subject matter is notable, why does it matter that the original version was made by Aurora? Notability problems have been resolved. Tonal problems related to the article being partially from publishers' copy are easily resolvable. -- Malkinann ( talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore I have checked the version that was deleted and I find nothing promotional--not even problems of tone. It was deleted, in my opinion correctly, at AfD, with the arguments being insufficient references to show notability, it was not speedy deleted as promotional-- it did not meet the speedy criteria. The earliest versions, submitted by the COI editor, were also informative not promotional, though they made even less of a showing of notability. I see no reason whatsoever in policy to not restore the article, since we do not delete articles merely because of COI--attempts to do so have not been accepted by the community. Valid reasons not to restore the history if the article can be improved would be copyvio, defamation, BLP violations, or vandalism (I may have missed something, but COI is not one of them). If there is no consensus for that, I will certainly email it. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore or at the very least userfy. Editor in good standing wishing to write an article. No good reason to deny them resources that help with that (unless folks would like to write the template and restart the article rather than demanding that someone else do it). Hobit ( talk) 04:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore, as the one who did the pre-check for animanga requested articles, there are enough evidences of for at least recreation. Moral wise, yes what the publisher of that series did was Bad but that doesn't mean all the article content was not good. So restore the article, remove whatever copyvio stuff in it & expand a reception section with the now found third party RS coverage. -- KrebMarkt 14:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Restore to user space, so Malkinann can access the infobox and other basic details, while cleaning up the promo and any copyvio stuff (as I recall, all their plot summaries were copyvio) and do the appropriate expansion. When its ready, then no objections to move it to the article space. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 16:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If the article contains copyvio, it is preferable to delete the affected revisions so that the copyvio is not accessible from the page history, perhaps using a histpurge after a rewrite. If the old article will be used as a reference and redeleted, please be mindful of WP:Copying within Wikipedia and that content cannot be simply copied from a page that will be deleted. I volunteer to help. Flatscan ( talk) 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't think the article is likely to be an unambiguous copyvio - it wasn't brought up at the AFD as such and the article was not speedy deleted as a copyvio. I'm more after the infobox and publisher information than the plot summary - I assume they can be separated if need be? Thank you for the offer of help, I really appreciate it. -- Malkinann ( talk) 04:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I think the non-infringing content can be kept, but I'll need to ask for confirmation or assistance. I've watchlisted the page, so I'll see if/when it is undeleted. Flatscan ( talk) 03:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Black Veil Brides ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

More information present Hello, this would be my first time doing this so I really don't know much, but I would like to have a review on the deletion of the page, Black Veil Brides. I believe when the article was deleted, around September 2009, it was more appropriate as the band wasn't really known then, but I believe now this band is more known, especially after signing with Standby Records, with the news from the website's news section here: Standby Records signs Black Veil Brides, and their numerous YouTube videos, one of which can be seen here: Black Veil Brides "Knives and Pens" music video with over 2 million views at the time this appeal was made. I think this is subject enough to appeal the deletion of this page. cypherninja ( talk) 19:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Administrator closed after only one day, based on the weight of older AFD for article years ago. I did discuss it on his talk page. [1] he suggesting a deletion review. Three AFD done in 2006, and one in 2007, should have no "weight" in deciding to ignore the proper process, and speedy close an AFD in November of 2009. Dream Focus 17:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

To be accurate the last Yu-Gi-Oh! The Abridged Series related Afd was in June 2009 with Abridged_series -- KrebMarkt 07:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Which no one knew at the time of the speedy delete, and was not used in deciding the sudden close. Nor is it really relevant. The AFD rules must be followed. Dream Focus 00:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist OR Userfy OR incubate (see below). It would seem that the number of times the article has been recreated shows that at least somebody out there is interested in the subject... even if it was deleted several times several years ago in multiple AFDs. Best option is to let editors have their 7 days to improve and source the article. If they fail, the article can go yet one more time. If they succeed, the project is improved. The good faith speedy close and delete did not allow the guideline sugested time for such possible and hoped for improvements. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, and thank you... but I have seen no evidence offered that it is only 1 person recreating this article since 2006. And how could reliable sources show that it was one editor or dozens interested in creating this article? That would be in the Wikipedia histories... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, but you offer no no evidence -- other than a convenient incredulity -- that more that one person has recreated this article. And your missing the point of about reliable sources, and the rather tortuous logic it takes to assume it has anything at all to do with whether its one or several fanboys recreating this seems also convenient, if not well thought out. -- Calton | Talk 17:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. Salting circumvention should not be encouraged, and there is not even a hint that the concerns raised in the previous AfDs have been addressed in any manner. If, following userfication, the editor has a new draft that addresses the concerns, they are free to bring that draft to DRV for its review. Tim Song ( talk) 17:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Yes Tim... but that was then and this was now. Deletion after one day kinda means that it was wished that no one even try during the AFD. Sure, editors might not succeed, but is it per guideline now to not even allow their efforts during the course of an AFD? As for issues, I never even heard of the article before the DRV... but then, the AFD was up and out before I knew it existed. I like rescuing articles... and have had a few successes during AFDs... but for this one... it seems that efforts to improve during the AFD were not even wanted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Salting circumvention is salting circumvention. Even admins, who have the technical ability to bypass salting, routinely come before DRV when they want to write an article on a title that is salted. Why should we grant a special exemption in this case? You are of course free to improve it after the AfD with userfication or incubation, but we ought not to encourage people to bypass salting and normal processes with impunity. Tim Song ( talk) 03:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn and relist Lets give the community time to weigh in on this. I have seen countless other cases similar to this one, in which the case is allowed to run the full 7 days. Ikip ( talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse article has been deleted and recreated numerous times. The community has already weighed in enough, and the article was fully qualified for a speedy deletion and salting. The AfD was not even necessary. Someone being "interested" in a subject is of course a ridiculous reason to overturn or relist. It is not a notable topic by any standard, just some fan video that has been regularly and repeatedly spammed here by its creator and his friends. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 21:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Please, do not call me or my comments ridiculous, as such attacks are never helpful to a polite dicsussion, and I have never resorted to such in discussions of your own comments. There is no debate that the article has been to AFD in the past and that it was discussed on those occasions... However, and with the greatest of respects, the article had not been at AfD nor dicussed in detail for over 2 years. The hasty close of this one did not allow new considerations or new discussion. Yes, it may ultimately be deleted... but it is reasonable to allow the disussion to continue for the guideline suggested time. And please, if editors were not "interested" in writing or improving Wikipedia, there would be no Wikipedia. It is that "interest" that created the project and that "interest" that keeps it alive through the contributions of its thousands of volunteers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I did not call either you nor your comments ridiculous, only the reason. It is a fanmade YouTube video that violates copyrights that does not have notability, never has and likely never will. There are no new considerations to make. The project itself and discussions in the main article talk in the two years since have shown that there still are no other sources and that is it still the same no-name thing it was two years ago. It was not a hasty close, but a proper application of G4 for an article that has been deleted over a dozen times since the video creators and his friends first tried to spam it here. -- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Whether an article is about a Youtube hit or is about highly touted blockbuster with a multimillion promotions department... an AFD closure 12 hours and 14 minutes after the AFD was opened does indeed seem a bit "hasty"... and that's why I endorse an overturn and relisting. Fact is that I personally think the article is indeed a waste of paper, and I am not here to re-argue or debate other's points from an AFD I was unaware even existed, as that is not what DRV is about. That sources might exit that could serve to improve the article ( [2], [3]) is not germaine to whether or not 12 hours was a tad too soon... as THAT is the question. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Collectonian, do you honestly believe each time someone made an article for this, it was just spam by the creator and his friends? I find that unlikely given the fact its been years since someone tried to make an article on this, and how spread out the creations were. When millions of people watch each episode, some of them are surely Wikipedia editors, and will try to make an article for it. It certainly has not "been regularly and repeatedly spammed here by its creator and his friends," but instead by people who believe it notable enough to have an article for, and should've been given time to state their case. Dream Focus 01:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply


  • Endorse I would have to say that this was a combination of WP:CSD#G4 and WP:SNOW. The subject has came to AfD at least 5 times previous this nomination, all resulting in deletion outcomes, and speedy deleted at least 8 other times. Out of all of the discussion at Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh! during and since the AfD, only one source has ever been found. However that isn't enough to recreate the article with. I think that more evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources must precede any recreation of the article. In short, a DRV with sources is needed to recreate an article on the subject. — Farix ( t |  c) 22:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    No... a DRV is not a reargued AFD. It is simply a discussion as to whether or not 12 hours and 14 minutes was a bit hasty to close and delete... no matter the possible outcome. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse I would normally say relist, but it might well have been a straight G4. Though consensus can change in 3 years, I can not imagine it will in this case. Closing the debate after 1 day, though, was perhaps rushing things unnecessarily. I don't think very highly of the two keep arguments during that day, but , as often is the case when editors are involved who know our procedures, cutting off the debate very early does not cut off the debate, but merely moves it here. Better to have snowed it a day or two later. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse the encyclopedia has nothing to gain by continually rehashing the same debates again and again, particularly in cases such as this where consensus has been firmly established. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    With respects, "firmly established" or not, guideline allows that consensus might have changed and so allows such discussions to take place. But even if eventually found that consensus did not change, a 12 hours and 14 minutes AFD discussion held 29 15 months after the last full discussion in August 2008 is not a long enough time to know for sure. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • overturn and relist It has been three years about a year since the previous debate. It seems advisable to have a new discussion to see if consensus has changed and whether relevant sources have shown up in the last few years. I haven't had time to look for sources in detail but there seems to be enough popularity that the creator has been invited to conventions [4]. That suggests notability. Further discussion should thus occur in a full AfD debate. JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't see how a youtube video maker being invited to a video game convention is an indication of them being notable for this work in wikipedia terms. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse my deletion and closure of the AfD. From this list I make it eight previous AfD discussions all of which have closed with "delete". It is much less than three three years since the previous debate. The most recent was closed in 2008 August. The article that I deleted made no attempt to show notability. To DGG (see above), I see this as a review not just of my deletion but of the dozen or more deletions of this topic. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 00:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • So, if you personally don't like an article, is it alright to just declare it garbage and ignore the AFD process? I've seen many articles start off with a lot of deletes at the start, but others come in, make improvements, find sources, and the article is saved. People should be given a chance to participate in the AFD. Dream Focus 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • To User:RHaworth: With my having not participated in any earlier discussions, much less this one, I can only opine about the most recent closure... Yours... 12 hours and 14 minutes after the article was listed. I find no flaw in any earlier closures... closures that did allow input over a reasonable length of time. I am concerned though, over the hurried deletion of this one without awaiting or allowing input from more editors. After 5 days perhaps... perhaps even 3... but 12 hours...? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse This is a joke right, we have a clear consensus on how we feel about this article and one of the keep votes was screw the rules and the other acknowledged that they hadn't found multiple sources. This would be a justifiable g4 so closing early with the weight of argument is not only appropriate but a reasonable application of WP:BURO. Spartaz Humbug! 05:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Yes... a version was deleted in June with only 1 editor offering an opinion even after 2 relistings in the hopes of additional comments. Sme or different? I do not know... but a very fair consideration of WP:DEL. But I am not re-arguing the AFD here, as I had thought that DRV was to discuss the close, not the article. I had imagined this discussion was to be about a 12 hour discussion and delete in contradiction to the instructions of WP:DEL, and not about AfDs months or years in the past. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This is about the 12 hour closure and delete of THIS version, not about any from the past, as I have no idea what they looked like and can not and will not presume they were the same or different. A precedent being set here that AFDs with keep opinions need only be open 12 hours before a deletion, and decided based upon past AfDs will be echoing for months... which will make the next few months on Wikipedia quite interesting. (that last set of typo corrections was mine) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse The problem isn't just the multiple speedy's and afd's that have previously occurred. It's that the article completely failed to address the concerns raised previously - namely reliability and verifiability through reliable sources. If the article had attempted to fix the issues, then I think there would be a case for reversing the decision and taking it back to AFD. However it didn't make any attempt to fix the issues with the previous articles, so I doubt consensus would have changed - as much as some people to think it would. I'm yet to see a reason why speedy deletion was inappropriate, in an afd or not. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn to keep per strength of arguments and as Wikipedia:Editors matter. When an established editor who has demonstrated expertise on the subject (Dream Focus) would like more time to continue working on article, we must be considerate enough to let him do so. Wikipedia loses nothing by allowing that, but by contrast by just deleting, we gain nothing. Best, -- A Nobody My talk 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Don't confuse an opinion with expertise. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 17:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
In these types of discussions concerning these particularly subject, I find Dream Focus the more knowledgeable than those with whom he argues due to how he argues and the sources he discusses as well as his willingness to improve the articles. He does not just express an opinion. Rather he expresses an informed opinion and generally follows up on it with edits to the articles in question. Happy Thanksgiving! -- A Nobody My talk 00:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
We'll have to agree to differ there. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 20:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It's part of DRV's role to see that a full debate takes place when a good faith user requests it, and to provide FairProcess on demand. But I can't imagine for a moment that this would survive AfD.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 19:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse immediate snow closing of this DRV. Its been one day. The precedent as now set herein is that any discussion may ignore the suggestions of guideline and be closed after 12 hours. The consensus as created herein is that there is no need to wait the 7 days that guideline suggests an AFD remain open, that there is no need to await input that might address concerns, that editors may use discussions months and years old in reaching decisions to delete, that if early weight-of-numbers favors one side of a discussion over another any discussion may be immediately closed, and that it is time for me to walk away from the horse. I further suggest that the filing editor request userfication of the article in question and that such userfication be granted. Maybe he'll be able to improve the deleted article... maybe not. But at least allowing him that opportunity seems reasonable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps an understanding of the rationale for the speedy-deletion criteria regarding reposts is in order. Hint: it's to avoid time-wasters like redundant AFD discussions. A read of WP:DISRUPT might also be helpful for avoiding ridiculous !votes. -- Calton | Talk 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Relist for a total of seven days. Contested debates should never be speedied (most criteria) or SNOWed. To do so is disrespectful to the participants and the community. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn, Relist or at least Merge/protect - At the end of the day ... there is a point here. If there is little sourcing - and there seems to be only so many - then rebuilding the sourced content in the main article until a sub-article is needed and seems obvious to all may make sense. I do think this was, yet another, case of "cruft-crushing" where a subject area is biased for speedy deletion/salting when neither is needed. Fans may keep creating the page but simply creating the redirect and protecting it would achieve a desired result of compelling those interested to keep improving the main article rather than having a group of stubs that separately just aren't as good as one main article. Likewise this media is inherently on the frontier of having to identify reliable sources, some are bound to be acceptable blogs - but which ones. We are doing everyone a disservice to pretend that entertainment news hasn't quickly adapted to being Internet-only, even mainstream print publications are opting to become e-mags and e-newspapers rather than fold completely. If we develop some tools that will help editors interested in these subject search and identify sources we would have less of this ongoing drama where our readers obviously want this information yet we need to uphold our standards. There is room for change here and we need creative solutions not hardline hammers that ignore the writing on the wall. -- Banjeboi 20:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't have any idea what "main article" you are suggesting this be merged or redirected to. If you mean the main Yu-Gi-Oh! artilce, then I don't think it is appropriate to merge a fan-parody that is basically mocking the actual Yu-Gi-Oh! to that article. Calathan ( talk) 00:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
A good article would certainly discuss notable parodies, being a form of flattery and all. If I could actually see what was deleted there may be a better target article. -- Banjeboi 01:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Your first problem is the adjective "notable": some actual evidence of that would be nice. -- Calton | Talk 13:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Nomination of DRV: Dream Focus. Support for his position: Michael Q. Schmidt, Ikip, JoshuaZ, A Nobody, Benjiboi. Apart from JoshuaZ, I suppose we can treat this as one opinion instead of five? If the ARS core group feels that a decent article can be made for this, why don't they use the incubator instead of discussing this closure on technical grounds? Show us that an article can be made on this subject which is acceptable for Wikipedia, instead of wasting everybodys time with a DRV and possible reopened AfD. Fram ( talk) 15:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
We've all seen articles start off in worse shape than this, and then turn out to be quite well done after some work. The issue here is whether you can ignore the entire AFD process, and just close and delete things as you see fit. The policy is seven days, not 12 hours. Dream Focus 15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
...if you ingore all the previous AfD's, yes. There comes a time that enough is enough, and that the burden shifts to those wanting to add or keep the article. Fram ( talk) 15:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I personally think that this topic probably doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. But to argue that it should be closed quickly and that they should be improving it seems contradictory. The claim, as I understand it, is that this article was started without that previous material. I don't see a reason to not give people a chance to write the article. I'm not !voting (doesn't !!vote=vote?) on this as I'm really conflicted (SNOW was, IMO, pointy here, but not entirely out-of-process). Move to the incubator perhaps? Hobit ( talk) 17:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Wow, speaking of assuming bad faith. I don't even know if our opinions on this are the same but this kind of battleground mentality is why AfD, and sadly now DrV is bypassed by folks who don't need excess drama. -- Banjeboi 07:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - perfectly reasonable decision based on prior history. Eusebeus ( talk) 18:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse outcome but not speediness — correct outcome, as there is a substantial consensus that the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia; however, it would have caused far less trouble had the discussion remained open for the full time. Stifle ( talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse on balance; AfDs do sometimes close with a speedy deletion. Michael Q Schmidt is right to say that deletion review is a review of the close rather than the article itself but with an article that has been persistently recreated, the previous versions are relevant. Userfication or incubation can be used to find if there is indeed a viable article here, but it's not promising.    pablo hablo. 21:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I absolutely agree that userfication or incubation would be a decent result. I have no idea what this latest deleted version looked like and am unable to comapare it to earler articles by the same name to assess whether it was G4 in content or just in name. And I hate to jump to conclusions that it was without any supportive evidence of that echoing assertion. My only reason for opining the overturn above was the speedy 12 hour deletion. THAT did not serve due process... while this DRV actually has. So put it someplace where it might be worked on, let it be recreated without prejudice if it can meet guidelines, and let's get back to building an an encyclopedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • And to User:Fram: I might have just as likely !voted delete on this article as any other editor. Yes, I am a member of ARS, but I do not do kneejerk !keeps... and only opine a !keep if I have myself been able to appraise an article for its potential... and indeed, I involve myself heavily in actually improving articles that face deletion. But in this instance, I was never afforded the opportunity due to the 12 hour close and delete. As I have reinterated numerous times above, that was my only concern. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
      • IIRC there was an open request for sources, and has been for several weeks. I don't think many people will have strong objections to working on it on userspace, but it seems to me that if/when a sensible level of verifiability, and more importantly, notability can be established it should be discussed before moving to mainspace so that there is a agreement that it suits the requests of the majority. Dandy Sephy ( talk) 23:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Hundreds of thousands of articles don't have any references. You don't get to mass delete them based on that, without a proper AFD first. There is a proper method that administrators are suppose to follow in AFDs, and that was not done here. Two people said Keep, I finding one news source mentioning the series, and indicating it was notable. More time would've possibly produced more results, as has been seen in many other articles rescued. Dream Focus 00:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I could go for incubation or userfication, but on the understanding that a further DRV will be required before the article can be moved into the mainspace. Stifle ( talk) 10:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • What the policy says. [5]
"Deletion discussion
Pages that do not fall in the above three categories may be deleted after community discussion at one of the deletion discussions. This includes contested speedy or proposed deletions.
These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy. The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so.
  • The way I read it, if its contested, then it can not be a speedy deletion, nor are you allowed to end an AFD without there being seven days. This is policy, and all policies must be followed. Dream Focus 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • procedural overturn I think Dream Focus is right. Not speedyable so close is on its face wrong. Also I'd like to echo Stifle's thoughts. It would have taken a lot less work overall to wait the full length of time. Please don't speedy AfDs that have any kind of serious opposition (keep or delete). Just makes more work. Hobit ( talk) 14:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion and recommend userfication or incubation per Stifle. Current consensus is that the page is currently not suitable for inclusion. Instead of relisting the AFD and going through more back-and-forth drama, have someone actually and build the article with reliable sources and being it back here. MuZemike 21:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse — I never saw this article, but procedurally all looks appropriate, as many have said above. Speedying it was fine given the history and wrapping up this disruption in short order would be appropriate, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC) (ARS member in good standing) reply
    • You may indeed by an ARS member, I don't know, but your standing as a good member - seems disputed by your personal attacks against other ARS members and the group as a whole. Seems you added that zinger to make a WP:Point which seems wholly battlefield-minded. -- Banjeboi 04:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse Process for the sake of process is pointless. This would never have been kept at AfD. To certain groups of editors a speedy delete is never going to be acceptable, while a speedy keep will be. AniMate 01:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse this was the inevitable outcome. If the ARS believes a notable article on this topic can be written, though should write it in user space and bring the well sourced, clearly notable article here for review. Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse If and when reliable sources can be found that cover the subject in some detail, then a new article can be made. Protonk ( talk) 22:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - One day declarations of a lack of notability are much more damaging to wikipedia than letting the debate run for a week. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 06:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:CSRT-Yes ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This template was made to handle BLP concerns after discussions in May 2008 about how to handle the 900 Guantanamo detainees, many of whom had POV tags on their biographies because wayward editors would either write about the "terrorists faced a fair trial" or "poor innocents were raped by George Bush" (okay, not quite). So talking with Wikiproject:Templates, Wikiproject:Terrorism and a couple others, it was decided this made a compelling argument for WP:IAR, the official policy of If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

It was proposed for deletion and closed as Keep in June ( Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_2#Template:CSRT-Yes), then renominated for deletion again in September and closed as "Substitute and Delete". However, the gargantuan task of deciding on proper wording, substituting it into all articles' prose, and somehow keeping it watchlisted to avoid partisan vandalism in the future was never tackled, never even started. So two months later, I spoke to the closing admin and he said "...If you would like to have the decision changed to "keep" since no consensus can be reached, then please feel free to start a thread at WP:DRV. I can see both sides of the argument (for and against deletion), and it won't bother me if my decision is overturned. Thank you for contacting me first, and let me know if this sounds like an acceptable resolution."

I left similar messages for the other admins involved in the template's status, ( User_talk:Nihonjoe#Template:CSRT-Yes and User_talk:JPG-GR/Archive_11#Template:CSRT-Yes), but neither of them responded in any fashion, or showed any continued interest.

So on the advice of the closing administrator, I am moving this to DRV and requesting that the decision be changed to "keep" (to which he has no objection) to reflect the fact he (and we) now realise two months later that it is not possible to properly enact his original suggestion of Substitute and Delete, and in keeping with the earlier Keep decisions. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 15:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

For a template with a long history, which has had multiple TfDs, one more is likely to just be a coin-toss on what side it comes down on. I'd rather have this overturned as the original closing admin suggested may be appropriate. I do not know what you consider to be a "mess", but would welcome you to leave your opinions with Wikiproject:Terrorism, or update it yourself if you feel there is a problem with the template. Sherurcij ( speaker for the dead) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
I was referring to the lengthy history of the template and its TfDs :) Tim Song ( talk) 05:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse - perfectly reasonable decision based on the arguments given in the TfD and the past TfD's. The closer did not misinterpreted the arguments given in these debates and there is no procedural error.
The arguments that the nominator now provides are not new and have been extensively discussed in the TfD's. There has been no doubt that this template is problematic, violates rules and policies and as other editors put it " a mess". The only argument presented to tolerate this is: "It would prevent POV disputes and tags". The discussion and the past has shown that this is not the case. There are more tags and disputes than ever. It makes it even worst. Discussed already in the TfD.
The nominator also mention that there had been a broad consensus for these templates in the first place. I can not remember such discussions and doubt this statement. This is also a repetition of the TfD where i have ask him multiply times for diffs and he failed to provide me with diffs that would back up his version. That also has been discussed in the TfD.
There are no new arguments and i thing re listing at TfD would be a waste of time. IQinn ( talk) 07:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Michellehazelton ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I first enquired with Admin RHaworth if the article 1E could be unprotected so that a new article could be created containing informative / non commercial information about the company 1E. I was not aware that as an employee of the company I was not allowed to create an information page, RHaworth informs me this is a CIO. I was attempting to create a company information page similar to Microsoft and BigFix for example. Please can my user page be undeleted and the 1E article be unprotected so that someone external to the company can create the article? Thank you Michellehazelton ( talk) 08:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you for tidying things up and pointing out where the article was moved to. As i'm sure you have gathered I am new to editing in wikipedia. You say you were nearly inclined to unprotect 1E. Apologies I am a little lost, are you going to unprotect 1E? Thanks from the humble newbie. 82.110.120.98 ( talk) 13:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Incubate. I don't think the article in its current form is ready for the main namespace yet, but a quick google suggests that the company is potentially notable (although searching is not easy - there are lots of modules, sections, etc labelled "1E" or "1e2"). Some time at the Wikipedia:Article Incubator would be a higher profile location than a new contributor's userspace so as to draw more editors to the subject and thus overcome (or at least diffuse) any COI issues. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I will look into your suggestions. 82.110.120.98 ( talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC) reply

If the article draft creator doesn't object, I'll go ahead and incubate this. My research indicates the company is definitely notable. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_November_25&oldid=1140201943"