Colorado balloon incident ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Out of process close - an (extremely) active discussion was ongoing about the page, and the AfD was closed after being opened only 2 days. Claims that the close was "procedural" are incorrect, in that this closure was completely outside the procedure of AfD. Regardless it can be predicted that no consensus will develop, an active discussion about a page may lead to other improvements to the article, and since this was not a obvious delete or keep, it should not have been closed prematurely. Prodego ^talk 16:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per the closing admin's rationale. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to comment here, as I contributed to that AFD (arguing for deletion, incidentally); but I think Bigtimepeace's close was excellent. After only two days, there was such a high level of participation in this AFD, on both sides, that it was obvious there was no consensus and there was not going to be. By closing the AFD early, Bigtimepeace simply saved us a few more days of drama-filled argument by bringing forward the inevitable result, allowing the participants to contribute more productively elsewhere. Robofish ( talk) 17:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. If anything, this was a snowball no consensus. There is no way the debate would have tilted far enough in one direction to call it a keep or delete, so closer did the right thing. In addition, now that the incident is treated as a criminal act, Notability guideline for criminal acts applies, which it clearly passes. When charges were announced, everything changed and there was no longer a possibility of deletion, either. The Wordsmith ^Communicate 17:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Apart from the fact that the information remains dynamic at this time, this article is not different from -- and, in some months, won't be different from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_McClure . Maybe it makes sense to repost the article after a hiatus period. Maybe that cuts in favor of keeping it because, inevitably, it will merit its own page. I don't know, but as sure as there's a page for Jessica McClure...on the basis that it garnered widespread attention, not because it was a particularly notable event...there is going to be a page for the Colorado Balloon Incident. If not now, then later. Sorry that I don't know all the HTML tags used by the experts here. 83.205.86.116 ( talk) 17:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Wiki User in France. 18:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure: Seemed to be something of a kneejerk nom; WP:NOTNEWS does not mean that news can never be encyclopedic, but rather that it isn't always so. Article should be monitored carefully for WP:BLP, though. Closing admin's rationale was superb. And, "an active discussion about a page", which "may lead to other improvements to the article", can be held on the article's talk page. AfD is not about improving articles; it is about keeping or disposing of them. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 17:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Bigtimepeace's closure was one of the most thoughtful, evenhanded and well-reasoned that I've seen. The debate was speeding out of control toward an inevitable "no consensus" outcome, with far more noise than constructive dialogue.
  Significant real-life developments called into question the applicability of earlier arguments (with some editors changing their opinions, while others were no longer involved in the discussion), and several users with varying viewpoints recommended that the debate be suspended (and revisited in the near future if appropriate). In short, the discussion had broken down into an irredeemable mess, so it closing it absolutely was the right call. — David Levy 17:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close- Closer pretty much closed it the way I suggested it- close it to give us all some time to get some perspective on the incident. There was no way that discussion was ever going to reach any kind of consensus if it ran the full 7 days, and it wasn't doing any good for it to remain open like that. Umbralcorax ( talk) 17:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. I initially favored deletion on the grounds that this was a hokey news event, a "big nothing," but now it's very clear that this is a "big something." The sheriff just said the incident was a hoax and that felony charges would be filed. It was correct to close the deletion discussion, as now we can see in a week or two if this incident becomes the big nothing many of us initially viewed it to be.-- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 18:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close This subject keeps growing and is becoming more dynamic. Besides which there is a category for "hoaxes in science", which now clearly applies to this incident and one I added today. I Endorse close and reiterate my position to Keep Michaelh2001 ( talk) 18:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per the closer's rationale. I find no clear error. Tim Song ( talk) 18:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. The early delete votes have been superseded by events and are now quite ludicrous. Could have been closed as a keep, but the rationale offered was also a good solution and reasonably articulated. On another note, we clearly need a better process for dealing with NOT#NEWS related deletions. -- JayHenry ( talk) 18:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. I was on the "keep" side, but it's clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and given the number of people who had already commented, it wasn't likely that leaving it open would have brought in a lot of new arguments. Binarybits ( talk) 18:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. Story continues to evolve and expand, as would the "keeps". No justification for deletion at this time. → Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 18:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. The whole business had been developing so rapidly that there was really no way we were going to get a proper consensus one way or the other. I think Bigtimepeace did the only feasible thing, under the circumstances. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao ^{Che dicono a Signa?} _{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close Best application of IAR I've seen at Wikipedia. As someone said in the AfD, it was "SNOW no consensus". After two days, there were nearly 200 !votes and a couple hundred more comments discussing them. The keeps and deletes were pretty evenly divided. Is there any way five more days could transform that into a consensus either way?-- Chris Johnson ( talk) 18:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, per WP:TLDR - it was getting pointless, obvious no consensus result. With all the media attention on that article and its afd page the discussion probably would've grew to a ridiculous size if it ran the full 7 days, with everyone and their grandma adding their viewpoints to it. -- œ ^™ 18:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Appropriate and well considered invocation of WP:IAR. Ray ^Talk 18:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, simply to see how long the page will be at the end of the seven days. No, I'm joking. Endorse closure, no consensus, and no hope of a consensus forming until the media stops covering this story. mynameinc ( t| c| p) 19:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure and award barnstar to closer. Stifle ( talk) 19:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure. For the record, I did not vote in the AfD. Engaging in a heated debate about whether to delete an article about a rapidly changing current event seems rather pointless. -- Crunch ( talk) 19:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, completely proper and reasonable. Probably the most thoughtfully-worded explanation of an AFD close I have ever seen. Postdlf ( talk) 19:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clearly no hope of a consensus. It would be good to see one (or a few) experienced admins trawl through the discussion, summarise the various arguments made [good and poor] (I don't think there were that many really), and critique each one in an essay which might later inform guidelines around new articles pertaining to news spikes that are sufficiently out-of-the-ordinary to suggest they may lead to an article with lasting notability potental.-- Jaymax ( talk) 19:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, per WP:SNOW. This wasn't going to reach consensus, and AfD's like this have the potential to simply waste a lot of time and energy. Tarinth ( talk) 19:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, per my comments at the AFD. I suggested closure, as the signal-to-noise ratio was such that consensus would be impossible to divine. – xeno ^talk 19:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure Clearly no hope of consensus. Should be renominated 2-6 months from now.-- TParis00ap ( talk) 20:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure but consider reopening the case, delete the article and allow redoing the aritlce with the new title "Balloon Boy Incident" as it has very little to do with Colorado but everything to do with Balloon Boy. Hi Balloon Boy ( talk) 20:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn closure and delete. Out of process closure. Crafty ( talk) 20:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure as it helps set an excellent precedent for big-ticket media events that may not be there after the dust settles. The very well-worded closure covers a lot of bases, including some (worthwhile) limits on AfD expectations. Moreover, I see no point in extending what everyone agrees is a useless debate so it can reach essentially the same conclusion with a worse rationale. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 21:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure and thorough review - arguments made definitely set precedent for more efficient handling of such events in the future.- K10wnsta ( talk) 21:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure & reiterate position to Delete. Happy Trails! Dr. Entropy ( talk) 21:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Tahar Douis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I'm trying to write this article on a great circus performer, one of the greatest alligator wrestlers of all time. Some users primarily User:Mufka "speedy deleted" it, claiming that holding a world record and more "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." They started deleting it like 5 seconds after I started writing it! They then put back like one quarter of its history, but deleted at least "21 revisions" in what they called "non-controversial cleanup". I don't agree with this at all so I don't see it as "non-controversial." I'd like the complete deleted history of the Tahar Douis article as part of the visible history of that article, as well as all the deleted versions of Tahar (gator wrestler) and I'd like the version they deleted from my user space at User:Starblueheather/Tahar Douis. I've lost a lot of work here and would like it back. Thanks, Starblueheather. Starblueheather ( talk) 06:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• Can someone just restore the deleted revisions at Tahar Douis and the userspace draft? What is now at Tahar Douis is the complete history of what used to be Tahar (gator wrestler). I fail to see anything controversial here. Tim Song ( talk) 06:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
• I made a mistake in deleting the article and I admitted this to Starblueheather. When I tried to fix the problem, the editor, who was understandably frustrated, continued to edit the newly created version and was not receptive to my good faith suggestions. If I had tried to begin a proper restore it was very likely that he/she would have created another article during the delete/restore process. When I suggested that he/she let me fix the problem, he/she told me to go away and leave him/her alone. With that, I decided to wait until the editor was offline to fix the problem. I have now restored the page and merged the histories. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 11:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

FortuneCity ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

temporary undeletion for review, please 173.170.157.188 ( talk) 04:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Latest revision restored to the original location. Copy will self-destruct in 3 days, hit me up on my talkpage if there's anything further. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply