Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May References

< April 2010	Deletion review archives	June 2010 >

31 May 2010

Bullshido.net – closure endorsed by consensus here – Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This AfD was a particularly contentious one, and the issues were numerous and complicated, especially since the page itself was undergoing improvements as the discussion progressed. The closing admin's relative inexperience may have led him to make a hasty and incorrect decision by reason of failing to grasp the issues fully. I have asked him to reconsider and he has declined, accusing various Keep proponents of "argument by exhaustion". This suggests that the volume of the discussion may have exceeded his ability to grasp it.

For example, the closing admin's summary of my argument is factually false. My argument was that the addition of four more reliable sources should carry weight. The statement that the Real Fighter article was not neutral based upon some colorful language suggests that he is inexperienced with publications about mixed martial arts. Also, he gave us no time whatever to contact Sean Treanor and learn more from him; in any case, an article hosted on Stanford's Graduate Program in Journalism webpage, and not on a student's personal website within stanford.edu, could hardly have failed to undergo peer review or professorial supervision.

Furthermore, regarding the Real Fighter article, Stephen Koepfer, the President of the American Sambo Association, took time out of his day to inform the discussion about how the article got produced:

My name is Stephen Koepfer and I wrote the original Bullshido article/investigation on Geraci. I wanted to share my account regarding how the RF acticle came into being, since my name has come up here. Sacha Feinman, a noted journalist http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sacha-feinman/17/400/976 contacted me about writing an article about Geraci. He was, as any good journalist would be, concerned with not simply regurgitating our investigation. However, reading my article, he felt it was well written, ivestigated, etc. He felt it would be a good springboard for further investigation. So, I provided all my sources to Feinman. He vetted the entire Bullshido piece, found it to be verifiable, and continued to investigate the case in further directions which Bullshido had not covered. As Feinman noted himself it was the Bullshido article which formed the basis for his own further investigation. Feinman and I did not collaborate on his article, other than my making introductions to sources and the subject, Geraci. Feinman was not paid by Bullshido, nor is he even a member of the site. He came to us because of our notability. I fail to see how the RF article, regardless of how much or little it sepcifically mentions Bullshido in print, could not be considered a notable reference for Bullshido. Our ivnestigation served as the springboard for his, he came to us because of our notability, he personally stated this as such, and the subject of the investigation itself (Geraci) is quoted in the RF article as saying the Bullshido investigation was accurate.

This addresses both the neutrality and the reliability issues, and the closing admin didn't mention it in his summary. Nor did he mention Carol Kaur's well-reasoned argument, which contained novel points to which no one had a reasonable answer.

The only policies on which he seemed to be amenable to a flexible reading were those involving the definition of consensus. If Bullshido's similarity to an epithet is no grounds for considering its lack of coverage in a different light, neither are the repeated calls for deletion a basis on which to go with an impossibly loose definition of consensus.

I respectfully submit that his summary of consensus was factually wrong on several points, and ask you to reconsider. Cy Q. Faunce ( talk) 21:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse A thoughful close well within discretion. Only raw !vote-counting could justify a "no consensus" close. There weren't many keep !votes that made cogent arguments at all, and those that were left aren't sufficient to stand in the way of the consensus to delete.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Exposing martial arts fraud is a noble enterprise, and I'm glad Bullshido.net exists. But the fact that it's a noble cause doesn't, in itself, justify an article. Like all notability disputes on Wikipedia, it can be boiled down from a subjective argument to an objective assessment by careful analysis of the sources Cy Q. Faunce lists. There are four to consider.
1.) The youtube video I can't evaluate. Youtube isn't normally a reliable source on Wikipedia, but, a Slovakian national news channel might well be. I don't speak the language and I hope an uninvolved editor who does will be able to tell us whether this news report was actually about Bullshido.net.
2.) The Kungfu Magazine source seems reliable to me, but the coverage of Bullshido.net was a passing mention.
2.) The .pdf source contains significant coverage of Bullshido.net, but who's Sean Treanor? Is he really a journalism student at Stanford University, and if so, what makes that a reliable source? I certainly don't see any evidence of the editorial oversight and fact-checking that we expect in material we call "reliably-sourced".
4.) I wasn't able to find the coverage in realfighter magazine, and I'd be grateful for a more explicit link.
I believe it's not yet shown that the deleting admin made an error, but I reserve my !vote for the time being, in the hope that it'll be possible to produce a decent evaluation of sources 1 and 4.— S Marshall T/ C 21:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Before it was deleted, the article said "The Bullshido investigation of Khristian Geraci was featured in an article in Issue 28 of Real Fighter Magazine", implying this reference isn't actually about bullshido.net at all. Hut 8.5 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Did you read Stephen Koepfer's comment above? Try again. The article was largely based upon our investigation. Cy Q. Faunce ( talk) 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't want this discussion to become another 30,000 word trainwreck, so I'm only going to explain this once. The Real Fighter article will only prove that bullshido.net satisfies WP:N if bullshido.net is the subject of the article - i.e. it addresses bullshido.net directly and in detail. What you've provided here indicates that it is an article about Khristian Geraci, and the only connection to bullshido.net is that it cites bullshido.net and is based on the work of someone at the forum. This isn't sufficient. We're not interested in whether the author of the article considers bullshido.net to be reliable, or whether bullshido.net was mentioned in print, or even whether it was mentioned approvingly. What we're interested in is how much information the article gives us about bullshido.net, and all indications are that it's very little. I apologise for explaining this in so much detail, but my previous interactions with you indicate you aren't going to get the point otherwise. Hut 8.5 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

First: Moderate your tone. This is a deletion review, not your user talk page.

The article summarizes Bullshido's investigative findings in detail; everything it says about Geraci's claims is something Bullshido mentioned to Real Fighter. This isn't a question of how Real Fighter regards Bullshido, but of how extensive the coverage of Bullshido was in the article. They summarized our work at length.

The type of article you demand is not what is specified in WP:NOTE, and is what people in the press call a "puff piece". I have already shown that several of our sources were not "trivial coverage" as defined in WP:WEB.

Once again, moderate your tone at once. Your anger is inappropriate to this process. Cy Q. Faunce ( talk) 23:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

If you want a translation of the video, I can provide one, but I'd like to know if that would actually matter. The KFM article was written by the author of the Bullshido Bannon investigation and was a summary of that investigation; it did not mention the name a hundred times for the same reason that fish don't take much note of water. Sean Treanor is a reporter for Die Zeit, and was a graduate student at the Stanford Program in Journalism, not just "a college student"; the article was produced under the supervision of a professor and was held to journalistic standards. Cy Q. Faunce ( talk) 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

It would matter to me. If you show me significant coverage in reliable sources, then I'll consider that you've explicitly refuted the central argument for deleting this material, and I rather think that in that case, there are others who could be persuaded to that view as well.— S Marshall T/ C 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. Here it is. Cy Q. Faunce ( talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse closure. The closing admin provided a thorough and well thought-out closing rationale which has been praised by several editors. If we decided what to include on grounds of "worthiness", I would have no problem with the inclusion if this subject, but alas, on the grounds of notability, it doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion at the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse this AfD became extremely long because of the involvement of editors associated with the subject of the article (they advertised it on their facebook page, for instance). Just about every conceivable argument for keeping it was brought up, and discussed in extensive detail, and yet it hasn't been demonstrated that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a fact that the well-thought out close reflected. Hut 8.5 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
That's probably one of the best closing rationales I've seen on any AFD, let alone a contentious one like this one. I don't see how the closing admin was in error with the decision; it was well within the discretionary limits, and thus I endorse it. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. The closing admin committed no error, let alone clear error. Moreover, the fact that lots of keep !voters are SPAs as well as the canvassing Hut 8.5 pointed out provides an independent ground upon which to endorse. Tim Song ( talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse as within admin discretion. A NC close would also have been reasonable. I'm not overly fond of a closer making their own calls about the sources value (that's what the discussion is for) but in this case the question was mostly black-and-white though S Marshal's concerns are certainly valid and the first source he mentions would seem to be reliable). I will note that a single RS on the topic (say in a martial arts magazine) would be more than enough to recreate this in my opinion. Hobit ( talk) 00:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Hold the endorse train a moment, please. I've just read the transcript Cy Q. Faunce provides and if it's accurate then to me, it really does look like significant coverage in a reliable source. Which leaves me with egg on my face, because it means I've been wrong for the last six months and goodness knows how many deletion debates; I've been consistently saying "delete" and I shouldn't have been. My position now is that we need input from a Slovakian editor who can tell us more about that TV programme.
Whether or not this is endorsed, I also think we need to consider that now "Bullshido" is a redlink, searching for it takes you to all sorts of places on Wikipedia where Bullshido.net is used as a source. A lot of these are BLP articles, and, well, read them. Bullshido's a site that's about exposing fraudsters, remember?
Also, whatever we decide about Bullshido.net, I was surprised to see just now that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any coverage of martial arts fraud at all. (We used to have a page but it was a redirect to Bullshido.) That needs more thought, I suspect. And finally, if we decide not to have an article there, then after all the Bullshido-related drama I really don't think it's a good idea to have a redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to write in that space. In such a case I'd like to redirect it and I'd welcome input on what would be an appropriate target.— S Marshall T/ C 00:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Would it be sufficient to get an English-language statement from Roland Kubina, news director of channel JOJ, to the effect that the translation is valid? I am not sure I can, but I can try. Failing that, yes, getting a Slovakian editor to comment would be an idea. Cy Q. Faunce ( talk) 03:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The name of the programme is "Črepiny", which Google thinks is something like "splinters" or "fragments". Their website (automated translation) describes it as "Shocking stories for adults only". They also have something called "Črepiny PLUS", [1] descibed as "World unbelievable facts", which seems to be discussing things like angels and the zodiac. I don't think this is a news programme as claimed. Hut 8.5 09:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Surely thats original research? Without a proper translation, or even a good one (see the one provided above) your thoughts on this are just that, your thoughts. Does this source count depends on whether you want it to, and discarding it as a shock news style programme sounds like an easy way to ignore it just beacuse its not in English... Onesti ( talk) 17:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

From the reporter in the program: "the programme is called Crepiny which means broken or scrap glass. It is now hybernated, officially, which means it could be revived but it doesn't seem real in the near future. It was the only serious news magazine of our TV, where we had the time and space to work on serious topics, often following them all over the country for days or even weeks and making a 7, 10 or even more minutes long report... Topics were of a broad range, including personal stories of people in peril (like a guy I befriended during shooting, who got attacked by 2 guys he called upon to stop harrassing a girl and he ended up on a wheelchair), reflections on historic events (voting for a new pope, remembering the 1968 invasion o the Warsaw pact into Czechoslovakia). Basically anything, that is interesting and has peoples story behind them, that allows to go in deeper. Definitely not a tabloid, like most of our programmes right now..." So there you have it folks: Crepiny is the leading news magazine television program in Slovakia. I suppose the US equivalent is what? 20/20? You asked for the reference , and we complied; you asked for a translation, and we complied; you questioned the programme format, and you have that information before you. So the only question that remains is ARE WE DONE HERE? --08:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

--08:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mthai66 ( talk • contribs)

There's nothing wrong with editors checking to see if sources are reliable. WP:OR only applies to the article namespace. I admit that I don't speak Slovak and could be wrong, but these links are better than nothing. I don't think I would be very enthusiastic about this TV programme even if it was in English. Hut 8.5 18:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok that makes sense about OR, I usually dont get involved in this side of wiki editing. I have to say I'm not the greatest of fans of these types of news pieces, but don't it seem reasonable to await a wikipedia editor who can speak the language to give a rounded view on the programme, rather than a judgement based on incomplete facts? Saying that, the translation given above seems to meet the requirements for verfication doesn't it? The arguement is whether the source is notable, and I would suggest it is we cannot look at this from a US or UK POV solely Onesti ( talk) 18:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse Deletion review is about reviewing the way in which the discussion was closed. The sources highlighted in this deletion review have already been considered in the AfD. There has been plenty of time to try to convince the community that the sources are adequate. The discussion shows that wasn't unsuccessful and so closing as delete was correct. I don't think this AfD was ever particularly complicated, the main issues were simply whether the notability guidelines were satisfied and sources would allow for appropriate verification of the content. I don't believe the length of the discussion necessarily reflects the complexity of those issues but rather the desperation of some of those who are connected with the subject in some way to see the article kept. Adambro ( talk) 08:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse, entirely correct and courageous closure. There is a number of articles like this which have been kept by numbers and argumentum ad nauseam over ages, which we are finally getting around to deleting for lack of decent sourcing. More, please. Stifle ( talk) 08:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse closure. Close handled beautifully, with meatpuppetry taken into account. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 15:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Strongly endorse. Sock and meat puppetry aside, the close was good and very well explained. Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: Nominating party, [[ User:Cy Q. Faunce is now under a community ban, so maybe this can be procedurally closed? Niteshift36 ( talk) 16:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)Under the circumstances, I withdraw all objections to closing this DRV.— S Marshall T/ C 17:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I believe this is about bullshido.net, not C Q Faunce. Whether or not that user has been banned does not reflect on the arguments put forward about bullshido.net. Please do not close down this discussion because one user has been banned, rather judge the request based on the merits of the arguments. It is my understanding that this has been requested because some of the arguments put forward in the deletion discussion have been overlooked, or misconstrued. Onesti ( talk) 17:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Nominations for deletion are procedurally closed when the nominator is banned. Niteshift36 ( talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Certainly we need to allow a good faith effort to be made in locating a Slovakian editor. Or does that make too much sense? Considering that you have a demonstrable interest in Frank Dux, whose animosity towards Bullshido.net is legendary, I think you should consider recusing yourself. -- Mthai66 ( talk) 18:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Are you trying to be funny? A) Dux has nothing to do with this article. B) I have no interest in Dux. I have an interest in keeping unsourced bullshit of a self-promotional nature off Wikipedia. You, of all people, should appreciate my keeping his self-aggrandizing crapola off here since he is a demonstrated fraud. Instead, you try some lame, backwards, nonsensical attempt at saying I have a COI? You know what sport? If you have a COI complaint, here the link to where to file it WP:COIN. Take your ridiculous accusation there. Tell you what, just for fun, I won't even respond to the allegation if you take it there. Then you can come back here and apologize in front of everyone when they tell you there is no COI. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm not up to speed on the procedure here. Can you point me in the right direction so I can make myself conversant with them? Onesti ( talk) 18:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse, as "I didn't like the way it went" is not a valid reason to go to DRV. Tarc ( talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse and applaud The spectacular climax to a coordinated set of simultaneuous deletion requests (McDojo, Bullshido and Bullshido.net). Shall we let the emergence of hard evidence satisfying [WP:N] dissuade us from putting the final nail in the coffin? When we have the nail all picked out already? No way! Nom openly chomped at the bit to get started, nominated two word/term articles connected only by subject for simultaneous deletion, and openly canvassed for editors voting "Delete" in previous nominations. Shall we let all that go to waste simply because the basis for this deletion has evaporated? Not on my watch -- Mthai66 ( talk) 18:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
- Do you have any evidence of improper WP:CANVASS behavior by Cunard ( talk · contribs) (the nominator of this AfD) or anyone else? Diffs would be useful. — Scien tizzle 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  - Mthai66 is almost certainly referring to messages Cunard left for people who had participated in a previous DRV of this article: [2] for example. However these notices were neutrally worded and didn't only go to people who wanted the article to be deleted this doesn't violate WP:CANVASS. Hut 8.5 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
    - I see. Those edits are well within WP:CANVASS: neutrally worded and inclusive of everyone who participated at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_2#Bullshido.net (it looks like he just went down the list). This is the sort of voluntary contact that is to be commended, as far as I'm concerned. — Scien tizzle 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Do Not Endorse, I have a points I would like to make. First, regarding the RF article. Any assertion that Bullshido was only mentioned trivially or had little to do with the published article is completely false. I don't know how much more clear a link to bullshido there could be. I realize that the article is not about Bullshido.net. However, I feel that the article clearly establishes notability both generally and in large part accoring to WP guidelines. The article is "reliable" and while the topic covers Geraci (not Bullshido.net), it notes bullshido.net significantly as the stimulus and source for the topic being written about. The article notes the accuracy of the Bullshido.net investigation/article which spawned the RF article. A request for a web link is a red herring as many published works will never have any kind of web presence in full. The article fulfills the definition of "source" as it is an objective seondary source...and additionally Feinman (the RF writer) fully vetted our investion. This is plainly an objective secondary source. This also demonstrates that the RF article in "Independent of the subject". To request a source that had been solely dedicated to writing about bullshido.net IMO is a near impossibility as Bullshido.net is the primary source for martial arts fraud discussion/web publication. Does someone need to write an article about the NY Times to demonstrate that it is notable? Bullshido.net may not existon the same scale as the NYT, however the point is that The NYT may likely fail under the standards you hold bullshido.net to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americansambo ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC) — Americansambo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
- falty editorial decision Regarding the fact that it seems no editor here has actually read the RF article in full, nor read the Slovakian transcripts prior to the decision to shut down the article, I suggest that the desicion to delete was premature. According to the Notability Guidelines "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N It seems there has not been enough "active effort" on the part of WP editors prior to deletion. S. Marshall's reconsideration is evidence of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americansambo ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
send back to afd with a few caveats- After cleaning off the sarcasm that dripped onto my computer from Mthai66's post, I put some thought into this. The problem with an article that has been brought to afd as many times as this, where each and every AFD has been fraught with wiki-drama of the highest magnitude, is that nothing ever gets decided. Everyones already said what they want, and very few are going to be convinced of the other side. Its essentially a week long internet shouting match. In the end, we're left with one closer's interpretation of the discussion, which leaves some unhappy and others with a feeling of exultation. None of this is a good way to write an encyclopedia. And with new evidence of possible notability having been unearthed at this DRV (which DRV is not properly designed to handle, thats for AFD, if I'm not mistaken), a new discussion, imho, SHOULD happen. But how to remove the rancor? I'm thinking it might make sense- open up an entirely NEW afd. However, the caveat with this new afd is that NOBODY who participated in any of the previous discussions should be allowed to contribute. Nobody. The re-open would be a procedural afd opened by a neutral admin, which can lay out all the facts, and ground rules. I realize this is not the normal way we do AFD's, but then again, this is not a normal afd, and I think a bit of thinking outside the usual box is going to be needed to resolve this issue once and for all. It goes without saying that sockpuppeting for either side should be dealt with harshly. I don't expect this idea to actually be in place, but I wanted it to be mentioned anyway. Umbralcorax ( talk) 19:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I apologize for the sarcasm. I have been arguing these points for *days* and am getting edgy. I would be very surprised if a mechanism existed for implementing your discussion. Also, bear in mind that relatively people knowledgable about Bullshido.net have an understanding of Wikipedia standards, and most (if not all) of those have already contributed. Excluding all of them would leave it an asymetrical debate to be sure. -- Mthai66 ( talk) 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

No need for apologies, at least as far as I'm concerned. I understand your frustration, having gone through it myself in a few places. Its why i specifically tried to avoid participating in this AFD, because I know me, and I know how easily I can be sucked into it and how immature I can act when getting sucked into something like that (I still have some shame about how I acted when it came to Boxxy, for whatever thats worth). Umbralcorax ( talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

you cant be serious "Nominations for deletion are procedurally closed when the nominator is banned. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)" So regardless of the validity of a discussion, banning the person who raised the issue will end the discussion? That seems an easy way to repress any dissenting opinions. Ban the guy so you don't need to talk about it any longer. Americansambo ( talk) 19:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am serious. It is routinely done. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Serious?. So it is routine to silence dissenters via banning? Or is it routine to close discussions begun by someone who has later been banned? Sarcasm aside, whether it is routine does not matter to me. A request has been made by Onesti to see the policy which states this is how WP handles such cases. The folks here have stayed within the letter of the law when it came to seleting the bullshido.net article. So, I suggest that it does not matter if you routinely shut down discussions started by banned users. I would like to know the WP policy on this matter. Americansambo ( talk) 02:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

And I've answered him. Apparently, you suffer from the same affliction that he does. You see things that aren't there. I never said it was a policy. It IS, however, a routine practice. I know they both begin with the same letter, but they don't mean the same thing. Further, be careful with your "you"'s I don't routinely shut down anything. The administrators do. Take it up with them and ask them if there is a policy for it. Don't forget, policy and practice aren't the same thing. Clear? Niteshift36 ( talk) 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

My appologies for the "you". I did not think you persoanlly end discussions of banned users. I realize that it is admin, and they are free to comment if they like. But, you did comment and they did not. They can clarify your statements if they wish, since you are speaking about what is routinely done here by admins. Secondly, I know you did not say "policy", however, you used the word "procedurally" in your reply. To me, "procedurally" indicates something a bit more formal than something admins routinely decide to do, which implies to me a case by case basis. Yes, I understand that there is a difference between policy and practice, however, following policy has been central to these debates...particularly when regarding the deletion of the article. Procedure has been dictated by policy to the letter with no wiggle room with respect to the "spirit" of the policy. However, it is noted that you do not make these decisions and I formally ask an admin, any admin, what is the policy regarding this topic. Americansambo ( talk) 05:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

So can you provide me with a link to the policy so I can see it for myself. I've tried looking and cant find that stated. Thanks. Onesti ( talk) 21:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Jeez, you are a broken record. Did I ever say anywhere that it was a policy? Did I? No, I didn't. So why are you repeatedly asking for a link to a policy that I never said existed. It is a common PRACTICE (notice that word isn't policy, even though it begins with the same letter.) in AfD's to administratively close nominations made by banned users. I don't close them, the admins do. If you have a problem with that, take it up with them. I simply suggested that practice (again, not policy, practice) would apply here too. Got it? Niteshift36 ( talk) 23:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Maybe because you didn't bother to answer the first 2 times I asked. I'm just trying to learn my way around here. Theres no need to get huffy, and if thats the way you deal with everyone who asks a questions, you need to examine how you deal with people. Lets look at what you said originally though - "Nominations for deletion are procedurally closed when the nominator is banned" procedurally implies it follows a procedure. I.e. there is a procedure/policy in place for this, not just that its whats done as everyone knows thats how it works. Now correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that the procedures where what governed wikipedia, not what people decided to do themselves. Onesti ( talk) 07:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Reading the deletion policy and process, I see no basis for Niteshift36's comment. I would really like it if someone could point me to the correct place where this is stated. Thanks. Onesti ( talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Why C Q Faunce was banned? I see no evidence in this discussion as to why C Q Faunce was deleted. His participation here has seemed above board in defending his points? Americansambo ( talk) 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Ban discussion and reason can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=365444942#User:Cy_Q._Faunce - I personally think that editors who claim specific academic or military credentials for example should be able to be verified, but there you go... Onesti ( talk) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

You're not going to get very far suggesting that that ban is unwarranted because he was somehow doing Wikipedia a public service by tracking down the DOB and SSN of a good faith Wikipedia editor and then contacting his alma mater to request information about him. I'm sorry, but it's barely exaggeration for me to typify that behavior as completely insane. That is among the most egregious examples of cyberstalking/harassment I have ever seen on here. Not to mention that whether or not the offended editor at issue is a JMU grad is utterly beside the point. It is completely irrelevant. His expertise, or lack thereof, or whatever, has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of his AfD arguments.

Back to the topic at hand: obviously, I endorse the decision to delete, but insofar as I voted delete in the conversation I do not consider my opinion to be of any particular merit here. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 20:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

And Im not suggesting that. Please dont put words in my mouth. What I am saying as a general point is that if an editor lists for example a doctorate that infers in the mind of the people reading their work a certain level of authority. It is my belief that there should be some way to verify whether this is true or not. Now that in my mind should probably be an internal mechanism to wikipedia and not the way C Q Faunce took it! Anyway, this is besides the point to the discssion here. Onesti ( talk) 20:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

It might be beside the point, yet you brought it up anyway. Funny how that works. His ban was totally justified. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

What are you trying to imply? I never said the ban was not justified. I stated a personal view that is all. Onesti ( talk) 21:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

(EC) Ah, okay. Sorry if I put words in your mouth. I misread your lack of a ringing endorsement of the ban decision to mean opposition to it, which is clearly not the case. That's my bad. The stalking situation unnerved me when I read about it, given my own participation in the AfD, so I think it's a touchy issue with me right now :). Anyway. Moving on! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

"tracking down the DOB and SSN of a good faith Wikipedia editor and then contacting his alma mater to request information about him. I'm sorry, but it's barely exaggeration for me to typify that behavior as completely insane." You have your way of fact checking, and we have ours. Remember that verification of credentials is what Bullshido.net is famou... umm I mean trivially notable for. Insane? Get real. He's making a claim to certain credentials. In public. Attempting to verify those claims is the *opposite* of insanity. Don't make me cite references to this website's staff harboring known frauds. -- Mthai66 ( talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This isn't the place to discuss the merits (or otherwise) of bans. The proper place for that is WP:ANI. Hut 8.5 20:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This suggests that the volume of the discussion may have exceeded his ability to grasp it. There was absolutely no call to get personal, in response to a reasoned and well-considered closure of an extremely complex AfD. Endorse of course. ╟─ Treasury Tag► stannary parliament─╢ 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn If you can't delete something in three tries, a fourth is just silly. At some point, an admin should weigh the past "no consensus" as a global consensus, regardless of whatever local comments pop up in yet-another-AfD. The problem with the system is that deletions are more binding (G4) than keep or no consensus closures. Jclemens ( talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn an erroneous close, based on the wrong principle. it is correct that, as the closer said, " The fundamental issue is does Bullshido have enough reliable, independent sources to meet the notability and verifiability standards " But the people to judge that is the community, not the closer. The closer has the responsibility to decide if the relevant policy issue is being addressed, rather than such arguments as "I know its important". But anyone in the community who discusses the policy issue has equal authority and responsibility for interpreting the specific issue in terms of WP policy, and the closer is not to second-guess them, or cast a super-vote,or ignore or downrate the opinions of those he does not agree with. What he should do if he has a view on the matter that he would like taken into account, but is not clearly the consensus is to join the argument, and let someone else close. He has no right whatsoever to examine the individual sources on his own account, make a judgement on them, and use that judgement to decide as an administrator. In judging whether or not a particular source is adequate, he's no better than any other editor. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse Very well thought out close. None of the reasons given above to overturn are convincing, since there is a consensus with respect to our guidelines that this should be deleted. Most of the "keep" rationals were exceedingly weak and not based within our policy. There is also no problem with the admin reviewing the quality of the sources presented during the AfD. Them From Space 00:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

So, it is a weak argument to suggest that editors and/or advocates for deletion argued for deletion citing the poor nature of sources which they had not read in full? The RF article, to my knowledge has still not been read in its entirety by any editors or proponents of deletion here. Please correct me if I am wrong. Secondly, the value of the Slovakian TV show was judged when no editor/deletion advocate had even read an English transcript? These issues show, IMO, the inability of the editors to properly asses the sources and research the references in question. Americansambo ( talk) 05:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Would you care to list your objections to the TV spot on Bullshido.net? We're listening. -- Mthai66 ( talk) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

One of the great problems here is that the "we" you are referring to isn't simply the group of people who oppose the deletion, rather it is the elements of the Bullshido.net community that have emerged here. That makes these discussions very difficult and in some senses pointless because some are not interested in anything which might actually mean "their" article is deleted. For example, we have Americansambo and others effectively admitting the article doesn't meet our widely accepted guidelines and policies by suggesting there should have been some "wiggle room" in keeping with the spirit of the policies rather keeping to the letter. However, when the notability guidelines are clear that notability on Wikipedia doesn't mean fame, all the arguments about how important Bullshido.net is and how many Google hits they are suddenly become completely irrelevant. Keeping in the spirit of our guidelines/policies doesn't mean ignoring them when convenient. None of the sources here are particularly good and then when you add in the degree to which the Bullshido.net is prepared to involve themselves with these matters, it makes me wonder whether we can have confidence that the article can ever be properly written from a neutral point of view as is required. Adambro ( talk) 07:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I think you're bundling together of opposing contributors here is a bit disingenuous. Sure some people are from Bullshido, but some are not. You make it sound like people only have one aim in life but really motivations are more complex than that. My reading of what Americansambo said is that he did not accept what you have ascribed to him, but that the article could be better. None of the sources may be particularly good in your view, but as I see it the peer reviewed published graduate work is. The TV show is. Thats 2 at least. How many do you need before it tips the balance? Onesti ( talk) 07:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Adambro, don't flatter yourself. We aren't fighting this tooth and nail because we believe you are capable of changing your collective mind, we are fighting this because we all refelxively recoil at bullshit, and attack it where ever we find it. On principle. At this point we are simply interested in seeing how far you will go your mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that you were wrong, and how many times you will move the goal posts. It is worth remembering that there is only one source so famously unreliable that every school child learns it is unacceptable, and it is not Bullshido.net -- Mthai66 ( talk) 08:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
In response to Onesti, I am well aware that not all those who oppose the deletion are connected to Bullshido.net in some way. I suspect many of those though would be able to recognise that some of those opposing the deletion aren't necessarily doing so because they want to improve Wikipedia but rather due to some connection the subject in question. Mthai66's most recent comments above seem to reinforce my view that some don't have improving Wikipedia as their priority. Instead Mthai66 is interested "in seeing how far you will go your mental gymnastics to avoid admitting that you were wrong, and how many times you will move the goal posts". That Mthai66 also says "we all refelxively recoil at bullshit" seems to confirm that when he talks about "we" he means the Bullshido.net community. If Mthai66 is referring to Wikipedia in the latter part of his comment, he will therefore be able to appreciate why Wikipedia:Verifiability "is one of Wikipedia's core content policies" and hence why there is such a concern about the sources available for Bullshido.net. Adambro ( talk) 09:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment What are you going to do about all of this? -- Mthai66 ( talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
In most cases the links should probably be removed. Like most forums, the Bullshido.net forum probably can't be considered to be a reliable source and the same goes for the Bullshido.net wiki. The existence of an article about Bullshido.net or not as the case may be, does not directly relate to whether the site can be considered to be a reliable source. As an example of the problems, one of the articles cites the Bullshido.net wiki and when you go to the page there it says the content was copied from Wikipedia. That isn't an appropriate source. Adambro ( talk) 07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse- Well within administrator discretion, and the closing rationale leaves me in no doubt that this was a well thought-out close. Reyk _YO! 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn I do not believe this source - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26QNTcueerQ - was given a credible review before the article was deleted. The deletion did not even look at an English translation of the programme before the article was deleted. More over the video was ignored and dismissed as not being notable. People made the assumption from poor research that this was some form of shock style, Riplys believe it or Not style programme. This is not the case.
This quote is from reporter in the program: "the programme is called Crepiny which means broken or scrap glass. It is now hybernated, officially, which means it could be revived but it doesn't seem real in the near future. It was the only serious news magazine of our TV, where we had the time and space to work on serious topics, often following them all over the country for days or even weeks and making a 7, 10 or even more minutes long report... Topics were of a broad range, including personal stories of people in peril (like a guy I befriended during shooting, who got attacked by 2 guys he called upon to stop harrassing a girl and he ended up on a wheelchair), reflections on historic events (voting for a new pope, remembering the 1968 invasion o the Warsaw pact into Czechoslovakia). Basically anything, that is interesting and has peoples story behind them, that allows to go in deeper. Definitely not a tabloid, like most of our programmes right now..." This clearly shows that within the country the programme comes from this is a notable source.
Further the transcript, available here: http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1562876&postcount=79 - shows that it deals with Bullshido.net and is verifiable.
I would also like someone to explain to me why the disertation written and published by Stanford here http://journalism.stanford.edu/studentworks/2009/treanor-mobjustice.pdf does not meet verfiable/notable guidelines? To me it does both. Onesti ( talk) 09:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I would note that deletion review is about reviewing how the AfD was closed, not AfD round 2. It is for the closing admin to weigh up what has been said and judge, with reference to our policies and guidelines rather than simply counting votes, what the outcome of the discussion should be. The AfD is the time to make assessments about sources. That the community wasn't generally convinced that appropriate sources were present doesn't mean the the way the AfD was closed was wrong and it should be overturned, rather it means that the arguments that such sources were present wasn't strong enough. Adambro ( talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Ok, maybe I'm crossing over a bit here, my bad. I would like to say though against the summation of the AfD and the way it was closed that these presented sources were not even reviewed in the closing statement even though they were presented beforehand. I believe that the closing statement did not take them into account, and we need to send this back to review the sources fully. Hope that makes more sense. Onesti ( talk) 09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The closer already addresses this argument on his talk page. The AfD was exceptionally long at 30,000 words, if the closing statement had mentioned every argument put forward in the AfD it would have been enormous. Hut 8.5 10:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I dont think he did though. What he said was that the AfD was long and he didn't want to comment on every source. If thats the case, why did he address some sources, specifically those raised in the opener for the AfD and not those bought up in the process. Secondly he dismisses C Q Faunces and Mthai66 because, in his words "Both of [them] tried to wear down the other side by sheer length of discussion- argument by exhaustion, if you will." I do not see this as the case but as these two contributors trying to get further sources recognised and review correctly. They did not succeed, moreover they seem to have been ignored. Further, again in Bradjamesbrown's words "The consensus among editors... ...was pretty clear that the sources do not exist to justify the Bullshido article." Again I would disagree as the concensus seems to be built on the sources first provided, not the newer ones. I am personally just trying to get an article on Wikipedia about bullshido.net that is accepted. If the requirement is for this one to go away and a contributor to build a new one, fair enough, but I want to understand why these new sources were not concidered to meet the requirements. Onesti ( talk) 10:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion as per closer's detailed rationale. As has been pointed out numerous times before, AFD is a discussion, not a vote. Most of the "keep" proposals were by SPAs with weak arguments. Incidentally, one of the Bullshido members has claimed in this very DRV that Bullshido.net is devoted to outing and harassing Wikipedia editors. If this is true, we should consider banning everyone associated with the site. *** Crotalus *** 16:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment Mthai66 and Cy Q have already been indefinitely blocked for their behavior, and good riddance to both in my personal opinion. That said, I don't see anything to suggest that this pattern extends past the two of them. There are other Bullshido folks in this DRV who, while I disagree with them, have behaved admirably, and ought not to be punished because of the actions of Mthai and Cy Q. Although given what's gone on thus far I'll personally be very quick to change my mind if more of what those two charmingly referred to as "fact-checking" occurs. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse closure. It seems a lot is riding here on the Slovak TV programme. I do find something bizarre about the fact that notability of an English wikipedia article on a website would depend on the details of its discussion on a Slovak TV show in 2007, but whatever. I understand Slovak enough to follow the youtube video and listened to the first 3 minutes or so. The programme does indeed deal in detail with the issues surrounding bullshido.net and does at times deal specifically with bullshido.net itself. It appears to match the transcript provided. However, I have significant doubts as to whether this consitutes an independent source. The woman announcer at the beginning (prior to what is in the transcript) starts of by saying "Everyone has their hobbies" and then refers to this spot being about the hobby of "our colleague, Daniel". I assume but am not sure that it is then Daniel whose voice we hear, and whoever it is says that it all started (the discussion is about an event where he invited some fighters to Slovakia) when he received all sorts of commentary at a website (bullshido scrolls across the screen) that "his friends and family are very familiar with". It is not stated explicitly that he (the speaker) would be affiliated with the website, but I have the suspicion that this is indeed an informative, 8 minute TV spot about bullshido which has been created by someone affiliated both with bullshido and the TV station, and therefore does not count as an independent source. I am happy to change my mind if someone credibly assures that this is not the case. The fact that on the English transcript mentioned above, the bottom tagline is "I got BULLSHIDO ON TV!!!" does not inspire confidence. Martinp ( talk) 21:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

...and the tagline and transcript come from a Bullshido member with over 3,000 posts who lists his location as Slovakia and his occupation as Journalist. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 21:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I think you're right this isn't an independent source. Some more posts from the person who posted the translation discussing the report:

[3]: "My boss allowed me to do it, because I told him I might get my ass kicked badly"

[4]: "the report on Bullshido went on air yesterday night. I'm not perfectly satisfied with my product, had little time to really play with it, but still... My boss wasn't satisfied either, because he'd prefer to have me beaten to pulp, for camera's sake..."

[5]: "Dammit, it's MY report." Hut 8.5 22:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Very interesting, I would thank the above users for this useful research. This TV report has been repeatedly mentioned by some of our Bullshido.net friends here as unequivocally establishing notability inline with our guidelines yet all along some of them must have been aware that there would be significant concerns about its independence if details of how it came about emerged. Here we have yet more evidence that this subject fails to meet the notability guidelines and perhaps another indication that some of our Bullshido.net friends haven't been completely straight with the Wikipedia community here. It is ironic that is has been suggested that the closing admin or the discussion in general didn't properly assess the sources whilst probably the same people weren't being completely open about what they knew about one of those sources. Adambro ( talk) 09:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am a bullshido member, and I have written for the site. I believe everyone here knows that. I can say though, that my participation at bullshido is restricted to specific MABS investigations and stuff which intrests me. Like here on WP, my edit history mainly pertains to sambo. I can say I really was not aware of the depth of connection to bullshido the tv reporter had. However, I simply would like to note that since bullshido is where pretty much everyone interested in martial arts fraud will be, it may be difficult to find stories, sources, etc, which never connect back to bullshido in some fashion. I also want to note that regardless of the reporter's personal connection to bullshido, I am sure as with all TV shows, his piece needed to be reviewed and approved by a producer. So, in the end, there was non-bullshido connected oversight. Reporters just can't go around putting whatever they want on the air. And reporters also generally write about what they are interested in, do they not? If a producer think a piece is BS, they won't run the spot. So, I would argue that the piece was still independently reviewed by someone not connected to bullshido. Americansambo ( talk) 20:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Let me ask you this: Regardless of your assumptions about if a producer did this or that, wouldn't it have been far better for that connection to be disclosed by those who were using it as "proof" of notability, particularly when they kept bringing it up over and over? Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I can't disagree that it would have been better to disclose that info. Likewise, it would have been better for the admins here to actually read the RF article and proprely research the TV translation before judging them as possible sources. However, I don't think my "assumption" regarding independent review of the TV spot by producers is easily written off. In fact, I would be willing to bet it is very accurate to state that the TV spot was reviewed by a producer before airing. No reporter is allowed to air spots without such review. So, regardless of the reporter's connection to bullshido or personal intrest in martial arts fraud, I would argue it is still an independently verified TV spot, thus fulfilling the WP requirements. I don't see how anyone who looks beyond the bickering here could not make the same conclusion. Americansambo ( talk) 21:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I call it your assumption because we don't really even know that the producer (if there was one) isn't a bullshido member himself. Also, simply allowing something to air isn't a true test. Any number of deals/concessions/trades could have been made to allow it to get put on the air, we're simply making assumptions that some producer thought it was news-worthy. Of course, on a slow day, my local TV station will fill time with a piece about a food fight at a high school cafeteria or a piece about professionals (such as realtors) who've turned to topless dancing to supplement their income in the current economy. I'm not sure what the Slovak answer to a slow news day is, but I could make guesses. Niteshift36 ( talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

So, you are moving goal posts even further back now. Maybe the producer is a bullshido member? Maybe the network owner is as well. Heck, maybe the president of Slovakia is too. And even if the producer was a bullshido member, do you think he would sacrifice his journalistic integrity to run a story that was not credible? So, your local news does a story on a food fight or realtors stripping because of hard econominc times (that is actually a sad story if true). Not big news granted, but, still news that was covered nonetheless. So, now you will judge the notability of a news story based on your estimation of whether the topic is worthy or not? Not that a legit news station covered the story? What if I could establish that the producer is not a member of bullshido? You would probably say there would be no way to prove it either way...in which case your whole argument is flawed and we would have to assume that a TV producer would act in accordance to the network's standards, and not his intrest in a website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americansambo ( talk • contribs) 22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

You missed the point. I'm not saying the producer is a member. I'm saying that while you claim your assumptions aren't really assumptions, it's easy to point out that they truly are nothing but guesses on your part. If I ask a simple question like "Is that producer a member", you can't answer it because you're flying blind. And yes, there is a judgement part of the whole sourcing argument. Is the local piece about the food fight trivial or significant? That's debateable and the debate is perfectly valid. BTW, don't get too sad about the realtor turned stripper story....they only found one. The rest of the so-called professionals were blackjack dealers etc. Locally, we have a glut of realtors who got a license to try to jump on the market and found out it wasn't limitless. Now they go back to what they did before. Niteshift36 ( talk) 22:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

(ec) " I don't see how anyone...could not make the same conclusion." That is pretty much the gist of the problem here. Everybody who is a passionate, inherently biased participant in Bullshido is very clearly totally unable to see how anyone "could not make the same conclusion"[s] that they make. This has marked almost every contribution by every Bullshido member throughout this debate -- a total inability to even consider that their conclusions, which are being disputed by a very large number of experienced Wikipedians who are by and large totally unfamiliar with and as such unbiased regarding Bullshido, might be incorrect. The latest being that the revelation that this obscure TV source upon which so much debate rested was actually created by a Bullshido member/Slovakian journalist and hence is in completely, inarguably blatant violation of any number of guidelines and policies here concerning reliable sourcing, is irrelevant. If you cannot see how so many of us cannot reach the same conclusion, the proper question is not to wonder why we can't reach the same conclusion, it is to wonder why you are reaching it. As an aside, whether the producer was a Bullshido member or not is completely irrelevant. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 22:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse closure the closing rationale was measured and well within reasonable discretion. The two most recent AfDs (both September 2009) were no consensus closes (#2 was "very close" to deletion & #3 was an immediate re-nom that quickly became intractable), indicating that this was an article in the gray areas of notability to say the least. I see nothing amiss in the process of that AfD that should overturn the result. If anything, there's ample evidence of off-wiki canvassing from Bullshido.net-related fora, which explains the rash of SPAs that arrived to argue to keep the article. Since this is clearly a borderline WP:N case, I think any administrator should be free to restore the article at his/her discretion should any further reliable sources become available that deal with the subject directly. — Scien tizzle 13:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Reaffirm my endorsement above. I've now looked at more broadly. The argument of the person bringing this to DRV seemed to hinge on i) four reliable references demonstrating notability were not considered, and ii) one keep argument in particular (Carol Kaur) was not considered/commented on. As far as ii), in a lengthy AFD, the closer is not obligated to comment on each argument. Carol Kaur's argument, while understandable, is not policy based and can be discounted. As to the four sources, as I wrote above, one (Slovak TV) is not independent, though it is extensive. The Kung Fu magazine article is a mention in passing and the author of it says he is a "staff member at bullshido.com". The Sean Treanor article is a student endproduct, that may well be good and may well have been overseen by faculty, but would carry a lot more weight if were published in a journal or magazine somewhere rather than an assignment (even if extensive one) posted on a university website. Finally, there is the Real Fighter article, which I have not read, but which the meta-discussion above indicates seems to be an article on a specific situation, mentioning bullshido only in passing (though it may well extensively discuss the situation at hand using information/insight bullshido was instrumental in developing).
All in all, first I see no evidence of a faulty close. Second, since this has become "AFD round 5" for better or worse, none of the putative additional information would indicate that there is extensive, independent discussion of bullshido itself (not merely of specific situations where bullshido has played a role) in reliable sources of the sort that could be used to write a good wikipedia article about it. Finally, pragmatically speaking, many (not all!) of the proponents of this article on wikipedia seems to be very passionate, but used to engaging in discussion in a way which is more confrontational than we are used to here. Together with what is clearly a concerted effort by members of the bullshido forum to enhance their public visibility, whether on TV or on wikipedia, this does not inspire confidence that an impartial article could be written and maintaned. So, in summary, no evidence of a faulty close, and no reason to believe the decision would have been wrong even if the close not faulty. Martinp ( talk) 21:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse There are low popularity articles with entire books written on them being deleted and people are getting passionate about a website? Cmon. This isnt AfD part 2 and it was thoroughly discussed. Drowning people in text repeating the same argument is the not same as actually coming up with better sources.-- Savonneux ( talk) 00:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
- Exactly. This is not AFD round two, as this process mirrors that of an appeals court. It focuses on process, and whether the proper decision was reached based on the discussion in the AFD. We're not concerned about sources so much here as whether the process was executed directly. It's not a place to complain when one simply does not like the result, but rather, it's a place to go if it is believes there was a breakdown in the process. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 14:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse, and can we salt it this time?. We're not an advertising site for trivia. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I've got Bullshido.net, Bullshido, and McDojo watchlisted, and so far, no one has recreated them. If it does become a problem, we can speedy and salt. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and merge. New sources were added relatively late in the AFD, and most of the "Delete" !votes happened before that point. By then, the article may have satisifed the GNG guidelines. While I'm also on the fence about notability, the proper outcome would be to trim and merge, not to delete sourced content, especially if this has gone to the fourth AFD. This article, along with McDojo, could have been merged into Bullshido, and ultimately worked into something like "Controversy in martial arts instruction". Squidfryerchef ( talk) 15:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
- Merging was only mentioned once during the AfD, by the nominator (who thought it was a bad idea). An AfD can't be closed as endorsing a merge if merging wasn't even discussed during the AfD. Hut 8.5 15:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  - I believe it came up in previous AFDs. While perhaps it wasn't possible to resolve AFD #4 as a merge, it may be an appropriate resolution to this DRV. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
    - That would require overturning two other AFDs with similar problems to the Bullshido.net article where there was a clear consensus to delete. No. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Cypress-Norway relations – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

When did we stop people from working on articles in userspace to bring them up to par to Wikipedia standards. The deleter said I was violating copyright by hosting it, but Wikipedia only requires mirror sites to attribute to Wikipedia not the individual editors. The deleter wrote: "Copyvio. Copy-paste of (now deleted) article without attributing authors. Violates CC-BY-SA." Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 20:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: Cyprus–Norway relations had been restored to Talk:Foreign relations of Norway/MergedRelations prior to this DRV. Adding this note because the restore history and userfy recommendations seem to miss this point. Flatscan ( talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Userfied pages need to have their contribution history intact. I would not be thrilled if one of the articles I'd helped write were to reappear without my name on it. My position is that pages written by other editors should not be copy/pasted into userspace in such a way as to obliterate the identity of the original contributors. Userfy to RAN, since he wishes to work on it, but with the history intact. I specifically endorse, not to say applaud, Stifle's deletion of any material that's been copy/pasted in such a way as to obliterate the contribution history.
Also I'm a bit worried by the ramifications of this. How much other such copy/pasted material exists in userspace, exactly?— S Marshall T/ C 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
My guess is a lot of it – adherence to proper attribution has been growing recently. I'd like to help with an effort to clean this up, but I expect it to be a considerable task. Flatscan ( talk) 04:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Will G12 suffice, or is a new CSD needed?— S Marshall T/ C 08:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure, as G12 has the stigma of do not restore, which is appropriate for external copyvio that is rarely permissioned. The biggest problem is finding and identifying problematic pages, with the secondary issues of dealing with users and fixing problems correctly. Flatscan ( talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes, I agree that G12 carries an implication of "do not restore" and so is not the ideal CSD. If this proves to be an extensive issue I might take it to the CSD talk page.— S Marshall T/ C 11:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't think that G12 should be applicable to internal copyvios where the deleting administrator could add the revision history data to the talk page, for example. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse and applaud Stifle's deletion of an obvious copyright violation from a serial copyright violator. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Captain-Regent─╢ 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion but if he wants it userfied porperly with history intact, I have no objection to that and would be happy to oblige. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion it was indeed a copyright violation, so G12 did apply. If a mirror site only links to Wikipedia rather than providing the names of editors, the reader can still go to Wikipedia and see the names of the editors, which they can't do if Wikipedia itself hides the names. No objection to a proper userfy with history. Hut 8.5 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Obvious copyvio is obvious. Tim Song ( talk) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion. I can't say that I would have thought to tag this as copyright violation on my own accord, but when presented with the facts, it was indeed copyright violation, so speedy deletion was appropriate. Did Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) approach the deleting admin about this prior to bringing this to DRV? It seems like the DRV could have easily been avoided had he done so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedy endorse I'm a bit frustrated that this is here. RAN, you asked for userfication and were told it had already been restored. Honestly if you had just done the cut-and-paste with a link in the edit summary to the currently userfied version you'd have been fine. Secondly, once deleted you could have asked for back with a promise to link to that userfied version. Admittedly the deleting admin could have simply pointed this out to you and let you fix it, but he's not obligated to do so. In all cases a fish to RAN and a minnow to Stifle (who did right thing, rules-as-written, but could easily have made a different and more friendly call). If RAN had made any changes to the version in his space I'd recommend that version be restored to him as long as he promises to make the appropriate link in the edit summary to show attribution. RAN, please do the right thing next time... Hobit ( talk) 00:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Userfy with full history intact. What silly game is this really about. The building of content is to be encouraged. If RAN thinks he can do this, then let him. If there is a WP:COPYRIGHTS issue, then fix it. Copyvio does not mean "delete" if it can be so easily fixed. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Lacked proper attribution to past contributors. See also the current Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)/Donkey_show. On a side note, the author misspelled "Cyprus," so how much work could he have put into this article? Gattosby ( talk) 02:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Note that the original article has been restored to Talk:Foreign relations of Norway/MergedRelations, as two other editors wish to work on it. These user space copies are concerning. There is also User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Iceland–Mexico relations, created during WP:Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination) (closed no consensus) while RAN worked on Iceland–Mexico relations in article space. Flatscan ( talk) 04:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I discovered that RAN copied the content to 3 different locations. Diffs at WT:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 31#User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Cypress-Norway relations. Flatscan ( talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I have had to delete that subpage also and have advised Mr. Norton that I will restore it for a grace period if he undertakes to attribute it properly. Stifle ( talk) 08:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse own deletion. If Richard Arthur Norton had discussed the matter with me, as he is supposed to do and is well aware that he is supposed to do, I would have gladly come to some mutually agreeable resolution. However, I could not leave copyright-violating content present onwiki pending such a discussion, and Mr. Norton does not appear to be in the habit of abiding by copyright laws very closely. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Since when did we call copy-paste moves copyright violations? Technically that is correct (as attribution is vital), but this looks like a mistake by Richard Arthur Norton, and it looks like others are using this as an excuse to lecture him and question his competence on copyright issues (and, yes, I'm aware of the history here). If you want to raise issues like that, the correct venue is an RfC (where you would explain more fully the problems and what is needed to fix them), not to constantly audit his contributions and slap him down every time. "Show not tell" - restore the page history and use that to show what should have been done. And Richard Arthur Norton needs to listen to others and if what they are saying is technically correct, to bite his tongue and agree with them and learn from his mistakes. Everyone is at fault here for on the one hand not following the correct process (RAN) and for being a stickler for process (Stifle and others), and for allowing bureaucracy to run riot and a battleground to keep running. I'm tempted to speedy close this and fix the page history, but instead I think those involved should be given the chance to do the right thing here and everyone should then apologise to everyone else and get on with more productive things. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion - RAN, are you going to fight each of these like this? Shadowjams ( talk) 09:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse as proper procedure, and while outside the reach of DRV, some may wish to consider the fact that unrepentant copyright violators usually earn lengthy blocks. Tarc ( talk) 12:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
- Certain editors can get away with breaking the rules if they have enough editors to defend them. Joe Chill ( talk) 14:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  - Has anyone really been blocked for copy-pasting a deleted article to their userspace instead of moving it or asking for it to be userfied with the page history intact? That is what is at issue here. As I said before, it can be trivially fixed, and I don't think the fact that the page history was earlier moved to a talk page subpage should prevent userfication on request. What is done if two users ask for the same deleted article to be userfied? The same problem would arise there (which is that you would end up with diverging forks of the same article). What is needed here is for people to talk to each other in good faith about how to resolve this, and not throw accusations of copyright violation around when this is nothing more than a storm in a teacup. If there are genuine cases of copyright violation that can be proven (and no, please don't anyone get on their high horse and insist that copy-pasting a deleted article instead of asking an admin to userfy it is the most awful type of copyright violation ever done), then as I said before, start an RfC on the issues. If the issue here is that some people think that the content should be merged to Foreign relations of Norway and RAN wants to work on a standalone article in his userspace, then for goodness sake work out a way to allow this instead of squabbling over this. Oh, and shouldn't it be spelt Cyprus, not Cypress? Carcharoth ( talk) 20:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
    - RAN already merged them to each Foreign relations article ( Norway, Cyprus). Flatscan ( talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
    - Correct. The proper spelling is "Cyprus". If the article is restored, let's fix that spelling error. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 16:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Copy the history - If I am understanding this correctly, this is overkill - you can either copy/paste the contribution history to the bottom of the userspace article or merge the deleted article into the userfied version. -- B ( talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm growing a little concerned about the number of comments here that focus on an editor's conduct rather than the appropriateness of the content, and I'm moved to say that I deplore that tendency.— S Marshall T/ C 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse, kinda. Yes, it's kind of copyvio-ish, and so I can see the validity of the deletion with the paper trail missing. However, since it came from Wikipedia, it wouldn't be too hard to revive the deleted article, and history-merge it on the userspace title to bring it into full compliance, and so we probably ought to do that. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I'll happily agree that the deletion was technically correct and perfectly within policy, but could someone clarify why this couldn't be solved by just restoring it with history intact? Is there a fundamental problem with the article itself, or with RAN's conduct relating to it, outside of the simple copyvio issue? Is there some reason I'm missing why this would be a poor candidate for normal, routine userfication of a deleted article? ~ mazca ^talk 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
- The article has been moved to Talk:Foreign relations of Norway/MergedRelations so it's not actually possible to "restore it with history intact" as such. Stifle ( talk) 18:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  - A restore with an edit history pointing to that talk subpage would meet the sourcing requirements though, correct? Hobit ( talk) 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
    - This was originally a response to something Richard Arthur Norton wrote, but he removed it, so I'm putting it here instead. Several people have offered to restore the page history, but it seems the page history is somewhere else at the moment. What should be done here? It isn't possible to have two copies of the same page being worked on, though looking at the subpage at Talk:Foreign relations of Norway/MergedRelations, I suspect the article history should be in RAN's userspace, and attribution for any merge should be to the page history of the page where the merged material is copied from (as is normal when doing small amounts of copying between Wikipedia articles - see WP:MERGE and Help:Merging#Performing the merger). Carcharoth ( talk) 21:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
      - I can't see why it's not possible to have two copies being worked on, especially as they are going in different directions (merger vs. stand alone). We have forks of articles all the time and this would just be another one as far as I can see. Is there some policy I'm missing? Hobit ( talk) 01:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        Since content has already been copied to articles, I recommend that the full history stay at Talk:Foreign relations of Norway/MergedRelations, where it's less likely to be lost. Users can work on it there, but if RAN or anyone else really wants a copy, he can make one with the appropriate wikilink in the edit summary. Flatscan ( talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Someone asked above if there were lots of examples of this type of copy-pasting to userspace. Look at the comment I made nearly four years ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gracia Fay Ellwood. I copy-pasted that into my userspace and also made a note on the talk page here. This was actually before I became an administrator. Now all this kerfuffle here has reminded me of that, I'm going to restore the page history and merge it to the userspace page (which I blanked long ago). I'm not sure if I've ever done a history merge before, so I hope I manage to do it properly. I think it is delete destination, restore import, move to destination, restore previously deleted edits. Actually, that is too complicated and confuses things (especially as the delete took place after the copy-past edit, which should itself be deleted in fact). Easier would be for me to delete the userspace version and userfy it properly. Four years late, but hey, it got done eventually. Carcharoth ( talk) 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Update: and now done. There are two other examples of userfied pages in my userspace, but I think both of those are OK. If anyone wants to check those other two userfied pages, they are welcome to look through my messy userspace and see if they can spot them! :-) 21:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Thanks for fixing it. The one I found looks fine – the title was an obvious hint. Flatscan ( talk) 04:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Userfy BUT with full history intact, so as to properly protect attribution. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Userfy and fix the history. If there's a contribution problem that can be fixed with the tools, the right thing to do is a histmerge, not a straight-up deletion. The other alternatives pointlessly encourage drama. Jclemens ( talk) 22:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Userify I'm a little puzzled that RAN did not simply ask for userification in the customary way. Carcaroth has the right procedure for this one, and it should have been done instead of deletion. To do this as a deletion was unnecessarily bitey, and should not have been either asked for of done as a conclusion, when another process met the requirements. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Userfy Userfying the deleted page would allow it to remain in userspace without any infractions of policy. If anyone feels the userfied page would still go against policy MFD is a valid option. Them From Space 00:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. Some of the comments above allege a habit of content forking without good reason. This should be discouraged as it confuses copyright adherence. RAN should feel assured that anything deleted, such as he defends, can be userfied and that he shouldn't feel a need to fork content out of fear of an AfD delete verdict. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Userfy and while we're at it RAN should correct the title to refer to the country, not the tree. Alansohn ( talk) 16:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse I haven't read the details of where the original article was moved or when it was copied to know whether the history can be restored to userfy it and preserve attribution, but copying within Wikipedia without attribution is a copyright violation. Obviously it would have been nicer to just fix the history (if it could have been done), but removal is perfectly within the bounds of Wikipedia:Copyright violations. If the history can't be fixed then the page can always be restored with a {{ copied}} tag on it's talk page and the talk page of wherever the original article is, as is suggested for attribution during article splits. VernoWhitney ( talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse the action as correct. What the heck, when are we going to stop creating these cross sectional articles anyhow??? JBsupreme ( talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 05:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of Radioactive Elements – Request withdrawn. – Stifle ( talk) 08:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The List of elements by stability of isotopes is hard to understand and use for casual readers especialy for figuring out which elements are radioactive. HighFlyingFish ( talk) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

All elements have radioactive isotopes. That why the list was redirected in the first place. We only need one list covering the radioactivity of isotopes. If the List of elements by stability of isotopes is hard to understand, then we should make it more accessible, not fork it.— S Marshall T/ C 20:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, but this is a list of elements radioactive in their natural state, not isotopes.-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

What do you mean by "radioactive in their natural state"? Does carbon count because of C-14, for instance? Or must every isotope of the element be radioactive? Tim Song ( talk) 23:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

In fairness, HFF does have a bit of a point. The List of elements by stability of isotopes has obviously been written by editors with an interest in chemistry and a pretty good understanding of the subject, but it's also been written for readers with an interest and an understanding. While I don't think we should undo the redirect, I do think there's a case for presenting a shorter, simplified table somewhere early in the stability of isotopes list. But that discussion belongs on the list's talk page rather than here.— S Marshall T/ C 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

You have a point, but hear is what will happen, the debate will be closed, the discussion templates removed and nothing done on the list, the complex template will stay there for years and the problem will be forgotten. As for Carbon 14 maybe it can be included with a note about the isotope or maybe it should be so that only elements all isotopes of which are radioactive. The problem is that there needs to be an esier to understand list such as.

Element	Radioactive isotopes
Carbon	Carbon 14
Uranium	All
Example	Example

-- HighFlyingFish ( talk) 01:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse. The AfD seemed fair. The article was confused, and with push coming to shove, the article was NOT based on any secondary source. The list looked more like "List of elements for which all isotopes are radioactive". The article was prone to mislead (what, potassium is not radioactive? Showing that everyday potassium (in bananas) is radioactive is a classroom demonstration). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Nominator withdraw I will add simplifying List of elements by stability of isotopes to the WikiProject Elements tasklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HighFlyingFish ( talk • contribs) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 May 2010

Fictional history of Spider-Man – Decision endorsed. – – MuZemike 07:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Having discussed this matter with the closing administrator at his talk page, I wish to nominate this deletion discussion for review, with the opinion that it should be overturned and the underlying article deleted. The reason for this is that the principal argument at the AFD was "keep, someone will clean it up/add references to reliable sources/it's definitely notable", with a number of suggestions to merge. The problem is that content on Wikipedia requires independent and reliable sources, which this article doesn't have, didn't have nearly two years ago when the first AFD nomination was made, and won't have in another two years. Looking at the citations, as of now 82 of 84 are primary sources to comic books. "Keep and cleanup" was the refrain two years ago; the article hasn't been cleaned up in that time, so the usual presumption that it's for lack of time and effort really wears thin, and we must assume that cleanup is not possible because the third-party, substantial sources required for a Wikipedia article on a subject do not exist for this subject.

My nomination is therefore grounded on the assertion that the learned closing administrator failed to give proper weight to arguments based on the article lacking reliable sources, and gave too much weight to promises and suggestions that the article should be cleaned up. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm going to need to take some time to carefully read this, but in the meantime, for information, one of the keep !voters User:Andy14and16 is a sock. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse Closure as no consensus There was no consensus to delete. If you sincerely doubt any of the information listed, then put a citations needed tag on it. There are 84 citations now showing where the information is revealed in the comics, and for things like this, the primary work is the most reliable source of information there is. Every major event listed has a link to the main article about it. And please no one nominate this for a 4th time. Dream Focus 08:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No word in bold from me; you'll just have to read the whole thing and assess the arguments, I'm afraid.
If you source an entire article to primary sources, then what you have is one huge heap of original research. There have to be secondary sources or the article's in breach of WP:NOR. How we parse this closure depends on whether we believe that a local consensus has the authority to suspend a rule in the case of one particular article. And I think it depends on the rule. My position is that no local consensus could suspend one of the five pillars, so you couldn't (for example) have a local consensus to include unsourced negative information about a living person in an article; but a local consensus could have the authority to suspend a guideline, so it could (for example) decide to allow content written by a COI editor to stand, if felt sufficiently neutral.
So far, so obvious, but as a policy, WP:NOR is above a guideline and below a pillar. Can a policy overrule a consensus, or is it that consensus can overrule policy? This is covered in the fifth pillar, which is quite clear that consensus can overrule policy in this matter.
With that established, the next question is, should it have done in this case? That's something on which individual editors might reasonably disagree, but I consider that Arbitrarily0 was within his discretion to close as "no consensus".
And now that I've said all that, I feel free to say that when AfD has ignored the rules, DRV can also do so, and I think we should. I think the debate came to the wrong conclusion in this case. Despite the common meme that DRV is not AfD round 2, I feel free to say that this material is original research, that Wikipedia's coverage of fictional and pop culture topics is way beyond excessive, and I see no justification whatsoever for having a separate article on this topic. It should not persist for years just because it has a lot of sources and superficially looks like a GA; and it should not persist for years just because there are established editors who're spiderman fans. It should long ago have been merged.— S Marshall T/ C 10:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Closer was not wrong to accept promises of cleanup, per Wikipedia:Assume good faith. We should assume that Stifle's pessimism is pessimistic. About two months should be enough time to tell, renominate it then if it is unimproved. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Moot point: Please see the sandbox revamp at User:Spidey104/Fictional history of Spider-Man sandbox. It's not complete, and in this shortened form it might even be merged into Spider-Man, as in the Superman and Batman articles, but it now contains a wealth of secondary sourcing from books by Les Daniels, Peter Sanderson, and Steve Saffel, and print publications including The Village Voice. The end portion still needs work. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 13:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse - per Tenebrae, it is actually being worked on, as opposed to the empty promises of the past. BOZ ( talk) 14:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse- There wasn't anything close to a consensus with that afd. Umbralcorax ( talk) 15:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse There was no consensus to delete, though I wish there had been a clearer consensus to keep. The argument for overturning is essentially that we should delete articles that do not get improved. , but we have no deadline here. That it is actually being worked on now shows the wisdom of that policy. As for OR, the interpretation and applicability of all policy is thin the hands of the community. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
(Disclaimer -- I have !voted to delete on the AfD, but have since retired my account, partly as a result of this very AfD.) One of the worst closures possibly ever, as it did not address the main policy-based concerns of those !voting to delete, namely that the article is in its entirety a glaring example of original research (especially novel synthesis) without anything being sourced to reliable secondary sources. The "keep" !votes, when not ILIKEIT, were along the lines of "somebody should fix it somehow" or "somebody should merge it to something". As to the ~~disingenuous~~ claim made above that apparently "it is actually being worked on now", I see no credible evidence of that. (Yes, I have seen the so-called "revamp". It is no good.) In any case there's nothing in the current version that's worth keeping, or worth merging to anything; the current article is simply not a starting point for any kind of improvement. Thus, as should be already clear by now, my opinion is that the closer made a very bad decision, not supported by policy, and the closure should be overturned. 80.135.32.253 ( talk) 02:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse with extreme regret. Contrary to S Marshall above, I'd suggest WP:NOR is essential to the first of wikipedia's five pillars: that WP "is an encyclopaedia". Encyclopaedia's don't undertake original research. Full stop. Having said that, our policy on original research doesn't require deletion of articles that contravene the policy. Contraventions can be dealt with by editing. I fully understand Stifle's frustration with the failure to deal with this problem by editing thus far. It might never be satisfactorily dealt with. But the community's consensus here - for worse, in my opinion - is split between deletion and further editing. In that case, "no consensus" is a fair close and within discretion, even if "delete" would also have been within discretion and would have been preferable. If the article isn't properly fixed up, no-one can justifiably complain when the next AfD comes around. And I'll be there to !vote delete as I wish I had been this time. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Off topic a bit, there are encyclopaedias that publish original research. In fact, Marvel Universe: The Complete Encyclopedia of Marvel's Greatest Characters is an excellent example of one. As far as I can tell, the idea that encyclopaedias don't publish original research—while widely-believed by Wikipedia editors—fails in the face of the encyclopaedias that do. I believe NOR originates from this email by Jimbo to the en-l, and it arose because of editors writing articles that were of unknown accuracy but too technical for other editors to refute.— S Marshall T/ C 20:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

S Marshall is right. WP:NOR was introduced because allowing anyone to create content invited the dedicated kooks to write up their kookery. WP:NOR provided a test to rule out such stuff. As per the linked post, and much at WT:NOR, the phrase itself is a problem. We would do better to talk about attribution instead of original research. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
The best print encyclopedias contain a bit of original research, since they can afford to hire experts to write their articles. Wikipedia, being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, discourages original research since its permission would let anybody write anything they want without any process for overseeing how valid this research is. I see our OR policy as a necessary evil created to ensure verifiability. Them From Space 00:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse, accurate reflection of deletion discussion. Why can't some of the attention and heat generated on this issue be focused on the semi-fictional bios of professional wrestlers, where performers and their characters are treated as interchangeable, and staged/scripted events, fictional in nature, are presented as real-world information? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 02:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse with regret per Mkativerata. Hopefully consensus regarding our original research policy will change here in the future. Them From Space 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse a wealth of information with more sourcing on the way. I certainly see no reason to just chop the whole thing, especially since there was nothing -like- a consensus to delete or merge. 87.194.171.224 ( talk) 13:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: The article hasn't been touched (bar vandalism) since I nominated this DRV. Where are the sources? Saying they exist is not going to cut it. Stifle ( talk) 08:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Reply to previous comment: Sources are currently being added, along with other fixes to the article in this sandbox. Spidey 104^contribs 17:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 May 2010

File:RUeyegouge.jpg – No clear consensus to overturn the FFD result. Defaulting to an endorsement of the decision. – – MuZemike 07:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Was not closed with respect to the strength and validity arguments which were made. None of those supporting keep provided any reason why lack of this particular image would be detrimental to understanding Eye contact in rugby union, and therefore would meet NFCC.8 and 1. At best, it serves as an illustration of the damage an eye gouge can do, but a free image could be found or created for that purpose, thus failing NFFCC1. ÷ seresin 18:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

EndorseRational closing, and correct reading of consensus. As this is the most prominent recent example--it very much clarifies what is actually being talked about. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No word in bold from me, just a clarification of the file history: Originally deleted F7; deletion review here led to deletion being overturned and listed at FFD here, which close is itself now being challenged at this DRV.— S Marshall T/ C 19:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The question of whether a particular image passes or fails the NFCC is to be decided by consensus in each case. The consensus that was arrived at in the deletion discussion was that this image passes the NFCC, and therefore the image was kept. The deletion process has therefore been properly followed, and I must endorse the closure. Stifle ( talk) 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I'd almost !voted to delete there, but decided I didn't know enough about the subject to understand the significance. In any case, endorse exactly as Stifle. Hobit ( talk) 21:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn This is not how FfDs should be closed. It was plausibly asserted that the image failed NFCC#1. The only attempts to refute this were based on a clearly incomplete understanding of that criterion (particularly the "or could be created" part). Therefore the correct close was "Delete". CIreland ( talk) 03:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- This is part that caused me to not !vote in the original discussion. Those pushing for keep made an argument about how hard it would be to recreate this (quite dangerous etc.). Could you address those concerns? Hobit ( talk) 10:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and delete - news media photos are almost never acceptable to use here. This photo would only be acceptable to use if it were an iconic photo where the photo itself was the subject of interest. -- B ( talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse, because the close does not strike me as wrong with the force of a 5-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish. In other words, the close was within admin discretion; whether I would have closed it differently is another matter and irrelevant. Tim Song ( talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Thomas Lutz – There seems a clear consensus here that this can be restored. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject Thomas Lutz has achieved a lot in holocaust remembrance and is still working in the field. Check the German Wiki for more: Thomas Lutz

Franklin.harding ( talk) 10:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Yup, I recognise this situation. In fact, I'm so familiar with it that I've had a special template made in order to deal with it, which is {{ beingtranslated}}.
The reason why it happens is that articles on de.wiki don't have to begin with an immediate assertion of notability. Only en.wiki has that rule. So when you're translating an article from one wikipedia to another, if you save it partway through the translation, then new pages patrol will A7 it while the translation is still in progress. This can happen even if the new pages patroller's quite diligent when searching for references, because for users based in English-speaking countries, German language sources come up very low on the google rankings.
For future reference, the way to overcome it is to add {{beingtranslated|de|Thomas Lutz}} to the top of the page while your translation is in progress. Remember to add {{translated|de|Thomas Lutz}} to the article's talk page when the translation's done.
Permit creation of a translation from de.wiki. No negative reflection on the new pages patrollers or deleting admin, because their mistake is very understandable.— S Marshall T/ C 11:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

How do I get my translated texts back to the English Thomas Lutz article? And is it enough to use code like that {{translated page|de|ICE 1|version=45565777|insertversion=210289191}}? How do I permit creation of a translation from de.wiki?

Franklin.harding ( talk) 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm confident that an admin will restore the text, either directly to the article or into your userspace, after this DRV is concluded. You'll be able to proceed after that, and on behalf of en.wiki I'm sorry that this happened. It's a relatively rare situation.— S Marshall T/ C 13:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I've restored the history pending discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn deletion As a preliminary , the requirement for passing AfD is not to have an assertion of notability in the first sentence, but for the article as it stands to have some indication of importance. the wording is used to make it clear that this is a much lesser conception than actual WP notability. The article should never have been tagged in the first place for A7:. the very first version [6], contained "Today he is the head of the Memorial Museums Department of the Topography of Terror Foundation in Berlin." To me , saying one is the director of such a department is a clear indication of at least some possible importance. But the version actually deleted by the admin contained much more, and can not conceivably have been seen as a valid speedy--it will almost certainly pass AfD if there are references. That this was actually deleted despite a hangon tag seems to have been careless--but the admin is a long-term admin who makes many deletions, and the best of us have a certain proportion of errors. But his refusal to overturn it when asked on the talk page appears to be based on his view that it needed to pass WP:BIO to avoid speedy, which is just plain wrong; nobody who said that at a RfA would be confirmed at the present. I've notified him of this discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, I have a rather high level of notability threshold when I'm patrolling CSDs. Especially when dealing with the rarer types of individuals like Lutz. It's hard for me to see the notability, and perhaps I should have elevated the A7 to an AFD in this case, as I often do. I also prefer not to self-restore deletes; I'd rather multiple eyes come onto a situation like this, turning it into a reverse AFD. I think it's better to get more eyes on a problem than to do otherwise. Sorry for the inconvenience; I think we've all learned something in this process. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think you mean "CSD A7" rather than "AfD" in the first sentence of your remark? In any case, in practice, whether translating or writing on your own account from non-English sources, you need to have an assertion of notability somewhere in your article before you save it, or an A7 is guaranteed, because new pages patrol won't find your non-English sources on the first page or so of their google searches.— S Marshall T/ C 17:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

PS: Oh, I've just seen the version that was actually deleted, as opposed to the cached version. I see DGG's point now. Upgrading my recommendation from permit recreation to overturn, with optional gentle piscine caress.— S Marshall T/ C 18:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Wet trout received. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and restore. Nothing to add to DGG. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 18:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

yoomoot – Already on DRV, here, please add new comments to the existing listing. Stifle ( talk) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC) – Stifle ( talk) 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was initially deleted due to the references allegedly not demonstrating notability. This was partly due to one of the references linking to the wrong website! I re-created the article, corrected the mistaken URL and added an additional reference, but the article was again deleted, without explanation as far as I can see. I would like to know why it has been deleted as the most recent version meets all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the references are equivalent to the references enjoyed by similar web-app articles on Wikipedia. Lumpthing ( talk) 10:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This is already being discussed, see May 27 below.— S Marshall T/ C 11:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 May 2010

Robinson Gichuhi – closure endorsed, but page may be userfied or incubated on request – Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 17:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

First I find the deletion of this article presented to quite unfair. I understand and agree that some editing needed to be redone, but deletion simply did not present me with an opportunity to improve the article. On notability, the degree of scrutiny with which I prepared the material was like any other I have done in the past for other organizations. The article contains coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and these were not of trivial nature. The article brings in a factual read for readers everywhere who would like to get the facts. I don’t that the articles got a reasonable and fair second look from all editors [aside from one]. I had already started a re-writing process to condense the article but was not given the opportunity.

Second, I used and applied as reasonable standard of notability, per your reliable source guideline and looked at various independent sources to provide an objective view. Robinson may not be the Bill Gates of today or organizations associated with him the Microsoft of organizations, but his community involvement is evident. I find that despite this, the editors deleted the article. This is quite unfair and discriminatory.

Lastly, one of the editors requested a condensed version and revision and I was working on that but was you still deleted before I could repost. Request relist. - Jack. Kenyaverification ( talk) 00:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Re-located & re-formatted this malformed DRV. — Scien tizzle 13:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: this article bears relation to the recently-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaspora Movement of Kenya as well as the article Isaac Newton Kinity, currently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Newton Kinity. — Scien tizzle 13:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
When a nominator says, "I understand and agree that some editing needed to be redone, but deletion simply did not present me with an opportunity to improve the article," he should be given the opportunity he seeks. Userfy to Kenyaverification with permission to improve the article. Kenyaverification, when you've improved it—and take your time, there's no deadline—bring it back to this page where we'll examine it again in the light of your improvements.
In the meantime, I'll endorse Scientizzle's closure as a fair reflection of the debate that took place.— S Marshall T/ C 14:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I think the consensus was remarkably clear for my close (read: I endorse my own closure), but I think userfication or incubation is reasonable. I've been in contact with the author/nominator in the hopes that these issues can be addressed. — Scien tizzle 17:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse but userfy. Consensus was absolutely clear; also an opportunity must be given to the author. -- Cyclopia ^talk 23:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse closure The consensus was clearly to delete the article on notability grounds. This DRV is not really necessary if the closing admin is willing to userfy or incubate. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent – Overturn all. Further changes may be implemented following CfD listing at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle ( talk) 02:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

.

1. Category:Austrian Jewish people of Hungarian descent: Category:Austrian Jewish people of Hungarian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Hungarian-Austrian Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Hungarian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Hungarian descent and Hungary is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Hungarian Jews from Austria-Hungary+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Irrespective of this decision, this category should be renamed Category:Austrian Jews of Hungarian descent, based on the discussion here, and I intend nominating it for a Speedy rename. However, whilst, having the same concerns as IZAK (see my comments below regarding "American Jews of Fooian descent), I considered that the previous name, Category:Hungarian-Austrian Jews, to be more confusing (it could be viewed as referring to "Austrian Jews of Hungarian (Jewish) descent or origin" or "Hungarian Jews of Austrian (Jewish) descent or origin" or "Jews from Hungary and Austria" or even "Austro-Hungarian Jews"). Along similar lines to those discussed by me below, I approve the "Overturn", but suggest renaming to Category:Austrian Jews of Hungarian origin. Davshul ( talk) 11:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi Davshul: I disagree with you. They are either Austrian-Hungarian Jews or Hungarian-Austrian Jews depending on if they were dominated by either Austrian (Germanic) influences and traditions or Hungarian (Magyar) influences and traditions. A German-speaking Austrian Jew would be offended and very surprised to be called a "Hungarian" and likewise a Hungarian-speaking Jew would be shocked and insulted to be called an "Austrian", regardless of the past Austro-Hungarian Empire. But the lineage here cannot be attributed to "Hungary" alone. This category is somewhat different to the American ones, but it was an attempt by the same re-namers and deletionists to extend the changes into European Jewish categories, so I placed it here with the rest because it reveals the same lack of insight into the specifics of Jews' origins and how they cannot be (re)named as "descending" from Hungarians or Austrians or whatnot because Jews have always been Jews for millenia, regardless of which cultures, empires and nationalities they landed up in over the ages. IZAK ( talk) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Izak. Whilst I understand your reasoning, I believe that the subtleties are not conveyed by the name Category:Hungarian-Austrian Jews and many users will be confused to the extent that articles will be incorrectly allocated to this category. There already appears to be a number of articles incorrectly allocated. The words “Hungarian descent” is clearly incorrect and this is why I suggested “Hungarian origin” (which I believe covers the concerns expressed by you), but I am open to any other suggestions that are unlikely to be viewed as confusing or ambiguous. Cheers Davshul ( talk) 09:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree that " of Hungarian descent" is misleading, and should not have been introduced without discussion. I have some sympathy for the formulation "Austrian Jews of Hungarian Origin". Maybe someone will come up with an even better formulation. However the whole name is fraught with ambiguity. If a person is described as a "Hungarian Jew", does that mean

A Jew who lives in Hungary
A Jew who speaks Hungarian
A Jew of Hungarian origin

BTW, I consider it meaningless to talk about an Austro-Hungarian Jew. Austro-Hungary was a political entity with distinct Austrian and Hungarian components, and Jews within the empire identified as either Hungarian or Austrian.

-- Redaktor ( talk) 10:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

2. Category:American Jews of Mexican descent: Category:American Jews of Mexican descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Mexican American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Mexican descent" can mean of non-Jewish Mexican descent and Mexico is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Mexican American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

3. Category:American Jews of Spanish descent: Category:American Jews of Spanish descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Spanish American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Spanish descent" can mean of non-Jewish Spanish descent and Spain is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Spanish American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

4. Category:American Jews of Portuguese descent: Category:American Jews of Portuguese descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Portuguese American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Portuguese descent" can mean of non-Jewish Portuguese descent and Portugal is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Portuguese American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

5. Category:American Jews of Italian descent: Category:American Jews of Italian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Italian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Italian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Italian descent and Italy is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Italian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

6. Category:American Jews of French descent: Category:American Jews of French descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:French-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of French descent" can mean of non-Jewish French descent and France is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While French American+ Jews is clear and correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

7. Category:American Jews of Ukrainian descent: Category:American Jews of Ukrainian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) Overturn to Category:Ukrainian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Ukrainian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Ukrainian descent and Ukraine is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Ukrainian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

8. Category:American Jews of Russian descent: Category:American Jews of Russian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) Overturn to Category:Russian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Russian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Russian descent and Russia is mostly Russian Orthodox Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Russian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

9. Category:American Jews of Polish descent: Category:American Jews of Polish descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) Overturn to Category:Polish-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Polish descent" can mean of non-Jewish Polish descent and Poland is mostly Catholic. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Polish American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

10. Category:American Jews of Czech descent: Category:American Jews of Czech descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) Overturn to Category:Czech-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Czech descent" can mean of non-Jewish Czech descent and the Czechs are mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Czech American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

11. Category:American Jews of Belarusian descent: Category:American Jews of Belarusian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) Overturn to Category:Belarusian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Belarusia descent" can mean of non-Jewish Belarusia descent and Belarusia is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Belarusian American+ Jews is clear and correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

12. Category:American Jews of Slavic descent: Category:American Jews of Slavic descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Slavic American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Slavic descent" can mean of non-Jewish Slavic descent and Slavia is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Slavic American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

13. Category:American Jews of Romanian descent: Category:American Jews of Romanian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) Overturn to Category:Romanian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Romanian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Romanian descent and Romania is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Romanian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

14. Category:American Jews of Hungarian descent: Category:American Jews of Hungarian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) Overturn to Category:Hungarian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Hungarian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Hungarian descent and Hungary is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Hungarian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

15. Category:American Jews of Swiss descent: Category:American Jews of Swiss descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Swiss-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Swiss descent" can mean of non-Jewish Swiss descent and Switzerland is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Swiss American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

16. Category:American Jews of German descent: Category:American Jews of German descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) Overturn to Category:German-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of German descent" can mean of non-Jewish German descent and Germany is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While German American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

17. Category:American Jews of Lithuanian descent: Category:American Jews of Lithuanian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Lithuanian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Lithuanian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Lithuanian descent and Lithuania is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Lithuanian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

18. Category:American Jews of Latvian descent: Category:American Jews of Latvian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Latvian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Latvian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Latvian descent and Latvia is mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Latvian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

(repost from category talk page) American Jews of Latvian descent makes absolutely no sense. Most of the persons categorized in this category were born in the time of the Russian Empire, and at the time Jews and Latvians were two different ethnicities, not nationalities. Latvian only became a nationality in 1918 when the Republic of Latvia was proclaimed. The correct terminology for people descending from Jews born in the Russian Empire would be American Jews of Russian descent. ^Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ ^Work 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Your definition of ethnicity and nationality is somewhat muddled, but in any case, this probably isn't the venue for that discussion. Tomer ^talk 19:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with Tomer. This is from the Jewish perspective where ethnicity and nationality firmly overlap over centuries and millenia regardless of non-Jewish time-lines. There is no question that there exists and has been a distinct type of Jew who can be called a "Latvian Jew" regardless of the secular politics of the day. They then came over to America like other Latvian Americans but still remained Jews and then even if they assimilated they are known by this name of ethnic/religious/cultural origin, just as fourth generation Italian and Irish immigrants are known as Italian Americans and Irish Americans, etc. Jews settled in all parts of Europe and adapted to cultures primarily by learning to speak local languages while retaining a singularly powerful attachment to their Judaism as a religion/culture/way of life, and then subsequently brought this over to the New World. IZAK ( talk) 21:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, I was not familiar with the Jewish perspective, so I can now add something to my bag of wisdom. I must also admit that I was not right in saying that American Jews of Latvian descent makes absolutely no sense. Especially, since I found an article that pierces my point - Morris Halle. ^Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ ^Work 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

19. Category:American Jews of Canadian descent: Category:American Jews of Canadian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Canadian-American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Canadian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Canadian descent and Canada's citizens are mostly Christian. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Canadian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

20. Category:American Jews of Iraqi descent: Category:American Jews of Iraqi descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Iraqi American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Iraqi descent" can mean of non-Jewish Iraqi descent and Iraq is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Iraqi American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

21. Category:American Jews of Syrian descent: Category:American Jews of Syrian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Syrian American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Syrian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Syrian descent and Syria is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Syrian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

22. Category:American Jews of Tunisian descent: Category:American Jews of Tunisian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Tunisian American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Tunisian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Tunisian descent and Tunisia is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While "Tunisian American" matches Egyptian American+ Jews and Moroccan American+ Jews (as cited above and below) as used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 04:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

23. Category:American Jews of Moroccan descent: Category:American Jews of Moroccan descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Moroccan American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Moroccan descent" can mean of non-Jewish Moroccan descent and Morocco is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Moroccan American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 05:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

24. Category:American Jews of Egyptian descent: Category:American Jews of Egyptian descent ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) Overturn to Category:Egyptian American Jews. The change creates confusion because "of Egyptian descent" can mean of non-Jewish Egyptian descent and Egypt is mostly Muslim. Violation of WP:NEO and WP:NOR thru carelessness. While Egyptian American+ Jews is clear and WP:NPOV correctly used in Wikipedia itself. IZAK ( talk) 05:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn All for above reasons, IZAK ( talk) 05:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK ( talk) 06:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Can we get a link to all the CFDs in question please? Stifle ( talk) 08:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Good idea. They were speedied all over the place mostly by User Mayumashu ( talk · contribs) with the help of User Cyde ( talk · contribs). They have been notified of the DRV [7] [8], and Users Good Olfactory ( talk · contribs) also knows where some of the skeletons are all hidden and has been notified [9], and Explicit ( talk · contribs) [10] and hopefully they will show what they did. They hold the keys to this realm, and in spite of no consensus for such an important set of changes, they went ahead with this massive overhaul that has created more problems than it purports to "solve". IZAK ( talk) 09:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - Thanks. I'd like to hear the deleters' reasons for the actions before I jump to any conclusions. Stifle ( talk) 09:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - Hi, I've been asked for my input on my talk page. As far as who nominated the categories, Mayumashu nominated most of these categories [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. As far as WP:CFDS goes, categories nominated there can be processed as early as 48 hours after the initial nomination if there are no objections. If no objections are made, it is assumed that there are no disagreement with the nominations. These are then taken to WP:CFDW so be renamed and (usually) deleted by Cydebot ( talk · contribs). When admins delete categories that are listed at CFDW, it's usually due to the fact that Cydebot had failed to delete these categories itself. Essentually, we cleanup after Cydebot's cleanup. Why these nominations were made was the result of some CFD to change the naming convention, I believe. It would take me quite a while to attempt to find it, but I would think Good Olfactory may have a better insight regarding this. — ξ ^xplicit 03:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
      - I also was asked to comment on this. I don't have anything further to add, really. I was the nominator for this full CFD nomination, which I assume may have been the precedent the nominators had in mind in adding these to the speedy rename queue. Regarding this issue, it would be nice if users could assume good faith and hold back their attacks both here and on my userpage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        Whoa! Now this is both truly fascinating as it is utterly shocking! According to User Good Olfactory ( talk · contribs) he set in motion the vast changes for these Jews' categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 17#American people by ethnic or national origin with absolutely NO mention of Jews' categories there and even the 3 Judaic editors who commented were skeptical and were overwhelmed by the sweeping changes. At no time was there a notification placed at either Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism informing of how the sweeping changes would effect them and the work they have put in over many years. Then continuing in this path, User Mayumashu ( talk · contribs) went ahead and just posted the Jews' categories as "speedy deletes" without notifying anyone either (yes, Judaic editors do care about, and do regularly monitor, both Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism), and then with the help of User Cyde ( talk · contribs)'s killer HAL-like "User Cydebot ( talk · contribs)" -- something straight out of 2001: A Space Odyssey -- dozens of perfectly fine Jews' categories are terminated (i.e. killed off) by being hastily and mistakenly deleted and wrongfully re-named in ways that distorts truth, reality, history, fact, religion, and much more. This is a serious travesty and a good example of why mass nominations and the subsequent mass deletions, especially mass speedy deletions like this should be BANNED from Wikipedia. In the case of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 17#American people by ethnic or national origin EACH AND EVERY ONE of those national/ethnic/religious groups mentioned should have been informed on Wikipedia:WikiProject pages if they have them or any relevant talk pages of articles and categories (that's why talk pages are there, for talking about such serious things), and sought out and requested expert opinions rather than relying on the theories and philosophies of one over-confident user's POV interpretations and ideas (in this case it being User Good Olfactory ( talk · contribs)) who has started a massive controversial re-definition of nations, ethnicities, peoples, religious groups, races, etc without there being a massive concomitant discussion SOMEWHERE, ANYWHERE for such a massive one-man arbitrary over-haul of Wikipedia initiated by one person, aided by his reliable partner in speedy deletions User Mayumashu ( talk · contribs) who then deploy the INSATIABLE and UNSTOPPABLE monster killer bot created and run by Cyde ( talk · contribs). If this is not an example of hubris then what is? This is certainly worth lodging a complaint at WP:ANI about, but for now let us concentrate on correcting and rectifying and overturning the travesty they have perpetrated here with these 24 Jews' categories and then use that as the foundation and basis to overturn not just other "corrections/deletions/renamings" of Jews' categories they have taken on solely on themselves to perform but to stop and overturn and monitor, and certainly open up to a wider discussion on Wikipedia the entire set of changes they have stealthily deployed in violation of all the rules of WP:CONSENSUS. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 05:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        Lol—a little bit over the top, no? As I mentioned above, it would be nice if users could assume good faith and not overreact. If you want to be taken seriously, this may be a step in the wrong direction. ... You'll need to check with the nominator as to what his rationale was—I was guessing/speculating so before you lay an egg perhaps you should seek for confirmation from those who would actually know what the rationale in fact was or was not. All I can do is guess, which I've tried to tell you a number of times now, despite the fact that you apparently perceive me to be intimately involved in some nefarious plot (e.g., "Good Olfactory also knows where some of the skeletons are all hidden" ... I liked that one especially). ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        I figure it has to be a joke. It's not contributing very helpfully to this discussion, of course, but it's funny at least. -- Cyde Weys 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        One would think—or at least hope ... But coupled with the tenor of the comments the user has recently left on my talk page, suggesting that I'm party to an unintelligent hasty destruction of the category system and possibly also western civilisation, it makes me start to wonder ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        It's easy to make light of things, but it took me a relatively long time and some tough love to get you guys to cough up exactly on what basis and how it came to be that these categories were speedied and changed. Too much power concentrated in the hands of very few users, in this case a couple of admins wielding not just sysop powers but the savvy usage of bots that with one or two minor decisions and the decision to deploy the monster Cydebot can change the face of vast numbers of categories built up over many years without those who built them and maintained them even knowing. 48 hours is NOT much time for a slow-moving behemoth like Wikipedia that is now over 3 million articles and it is impossible for users to straddle all the items on their watchlists (like most experienced users I have more than 5 thousand on mine, and that is after I trimmed away a few thousand). Bottom line, as you can tell from those who are taking note now, your decisions in this case were not welcomed by many Judaic editors. IZAK ( talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        Yes, it's quite easy to make light of things when you seem to repeatedly fail to get the message of what we have tried to communicate to you. How many times and in how many different ways can this be said so that you will understand?: these changes were not Cyde's idea, they were not my idea, and we have as much information as you do on what the nominator's rationale was. This was a speedy rename change. There was no formal discussion. There's nothing for us to "cough up" except guesses and speculations, which have been offered. You can discover who the nominator was by searching the page history of WP:CFDS. Why don't you actually do the work to find out who the nominator was and then pester them instead of continually assuming that the wrong people are somehow keeping information from you? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        
        Your hyperbolic speech isn't helping matters. If you would just calmly address things as they are instead of hysterically misrepresenting things you might get better results. Instead, all you're getting is us laughing at you and leaving us unsure of whether we should take you seriously, because the things you say are so preposterous. Here's a hint: The source code for Cydebot is publicly available. Show me where it's programmed to be a "monster". Go on, point to the exact line of code that causes its rampant monsterism. -- Cyde Weys 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        Cyde: I am not a techie and I am not about to explore the innards of a horrid faceless monster bot against whom a human Wikipedia editor is almost "naked" (at least bots cannot claim that they are being attacked "personally" since they are just non-human (or even in-human) mechanical drones that do their programmers' bidding) but I have recently visited, reviewed and edited dozens of Jews' category pages and when it comes to tracking down the EDITORIAL histories of categories changed by your Cydebot, they are just not there beyond the sometimes list of names, but no actual traditional Wikipedia html history with dates (as remains when regular pages are "moved" the edit history is preserved intact with dates, links to editors' names etc) that can serve as ways to communicate with editors who created and worked on those categories. This is a problem you should fix ASAP. IZAK ( talk) 04:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        I don't think this is anything Cyde or any other programmer can fix. It has to do with the fact that with the software WP uses, categories cannot be "moved" in the same way article pages are moved. Rather, the normal practice is to delete the old category are create a new category under the new name. If you have misunderstood this underlying fact, I suggest that it perhaps could explain a lot about this nomination and your reactions to the actions and comments of others. From my point of view, Cydebot works well in doing exactly what it is meant to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        You are not telling me anything that I don't already know at this time. I am pointing out the problems with the way things are. And just like bots with their faulty programs are created, likewise they can be reprogrammed and made to work in ways that enhance Wikipedia by keeping all the old records and edits in a category's history in spite of it being moved, and not just serve as a master tool to meet the needs and imperatives of a handful of deletionist oriented masters who then create problems. Rather than fighting me, you should join in trying to figure out how to solve the problems so that these kind of mass mysterious deletions don't snowball out of control. IZAK ( talk) 10:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        There were no "mass deletions". They were renames. If you actually understand this, you sure don't write in a way that suggests that you do. Must just be the hypebole problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        
        Good Ol: It seems pretty clear now, that it was Mayumashu who nominated most of them for speedies, but your mass nominations are also part of the over-arching rationale as you admit above. IZAK ( talk) 04:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        I have zero control over how other users choose to cite a successful CFD nomination that I started. I wish you had figured out the facts before attacking others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        Good Ol, while you may have "zero control" you must take responsibility for what it causes and instigates especially if there is close cooperation between you, Mayumashu and the inhumanly over-efficient devastating Cyde-bot, and yours was the foundational nomination that eventually resulted in the deletion and renaming of these key Jews' categories without any consensus about the final results, just reliance on technicalities, which is a very poor defense. Had you come over to this discussion when requested and explained what you eventually explained in any case above, there would have been no need for me to go over to your and Mayumashu's and Cyde's talk pages multiple times (even as you mocked me and made fun of my requests which was totally uncalled for and degrading and demeaning itself a violation of WP:CIVIL) to ask you multiple times to please come over here and shed light on how so many Jews' categories got deleted and renamed speedily without it attracting major attention when it was in effect a major move. At least my insistence paid off, and it's no use calling it "attacks" when I was trying to get your help and cooperation, and then subsequently based on your arrival here with the key leads, to solve what now turns out to be a rather circuitous route that serves as the basis for these and other mass deletions and changes that you have taken upon yourself, with Mayumashu and utilizing the HAL-Cyde-cyber bot and keeping in touch with its owner Cyde himself to help you fine-tune and plunge forth with the thousands of speedy changes you are performing without much oversight and answering to no one. I see that on User:Good Olfactory#Wikiprojects and categories on your user page you openly and proudly link User:Kbdank71/Wikiproject notification to a view that supports not informing WikiProjects when their most vital articles and categories are on the line (and please don't call pointing a policy of yours on your user page an "attack" which it is not), and Mayumashu has the line down pat that he can do as he wants with speedies within 48 hours, even if it's some pretty difficult changes, the world be damned. That is no way to make fellow Wikipedians happy and it flies in the face of all the tenets of WP:CONSENSUS by relying on arcane and little known loopholes that allow for radical action when more thoughtful methods should have been utilized. IZAK ( talk) 10:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
        "you must take responsibility for what it causes and instigates...". Sorry, but no—I need not, because I don't control the actions of other users. If they want to take the past nomination and use it for their own purposes, I can't stop them. Your continued suggestions that there was "close cooperation" between me and the nominator in this matter continues to demonstrate that you are (1) not assuming good faith, and (2) don't have clue about what you are talking about with respect to this issue. You really should take other users at their word. And if you honestly believe that this is a socially acceptable way to "seek help and cooperation", you have more serious problems to worry about. (Silly me, I interpreted your suggestion that I submit to the decisions of users who will give "INTELLIGENT feedback" [caps in original] as some type of incivility—how unusual of me.) The rest of your comment is quite unnecessarily hyperbolic, and I don't feel it needs a direct response, apart from just my saying that I do stand by my previous nominations (meaning that ones that I have started, not the ones that you think I am somehow implicated in), and I am able to say that simply because I disagree with you on the underlying issue. It's possible that your view is not the only "correct" one, and it would be nice to see an acknowledgment of at least that possibility. Oh yeah, and if you care about a category, it's a good idea to add it to your watchlist rather than hectoring others to notify the appropriate x number of Wikiprojects where the INTELLIGENT editors reside. That's always good advice. I'll let you have the last word in this conversation, because I think the horse is dead and I won't be posting here again. I don't think you've done your cause much good in the tenor of your responses, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

To aid User:Stifle in understanding why the speedy renames of these occurred: I listed most if not all the categories in question as speedy renames based on C2.C criteria, that these pages did not follow the naming pattern of the parent category. e.g. 'Category:Egyptian American Jews' has two parent categories - Category:American people of Egyptian descent and Category:American Jews by national origin. Looking at the next layer, there is Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and there isn t Category:Jews by national origin. Given this category parentage, it seemed to me that the pages did qualify for C2.C. Forty-eight hours are there for editors watching pages to 'object' - perhaps this time needs to be expanded? To voice my view on the matter of how to name these pages, I object to overturning these renames because precedent was set for not using double or hyphenated adjectives in naming these categories because of their inherent semantic ambiguity. 'Fooian(-)Booian Jews' could be dual citizens of Fooia and Booia who are Jews, Fooian citizens of Booian ethnic or national origin/descent who are Jews, or 'Booian citizens of Fooian ethnic or national origin/descent who are Jews. Mayumashu ( talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Finally, we are getting some reasoning here. But it it very faulty because the whole premise here is faulty since "nation origin" and the notion of a nation are latter-day concepts stemming from the time of the French Revolution and the creation of Nation states while the Jewish people has a history that spans millenia and goes back to monarchies, empires, geographic areas, continents, religious groupings and much more. Those who create the original categories were NOT acting like modern-day " passport control" officers checking people's passports and naturalization papers. That is why the Jews' categories should not have been tampered with and messed up. IZAK ( talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

NOTE: This is important and is probably the key to what happened here: Mayumashu states that "I listed most if not all the categories in question as speedy renames based on C2.C criteria, that these pages did not follow the naming pattern of the parent category. e.g. 'Category:Egyptian American Jews' has two parent categories - Category:American people of Egyptian descent and Category:American Jews by national origin. Looking at the next layer, there is Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and there isn t Category:Jews by national origin. Given this category parentage, it seemed to me that the pages did qualify for C2.C." -- And here is the " gordian knot" of this entire situation unraveled finally: That MAYAUMASHU WAS WORKING BACKWARDS! He assumed that by looking at parent categories who could extrapolate backwards in time and impose later parent category names on earlier categories that were not working within the framework of his thinking. Thus when "Category: XYZ American Jews" was created it was NOT working with assumptions to meet requirements of a much later imposed "Category:American Jews by national origin" that in turn was tied in to another category of "People by national origin" when the basic question that "Category: XYZ American Jews" was providing was a category for those American Jews who were similar in background to the cultural and historic, not just the "national" backgrounds of, say Italian Americans, Irish Americans, Arab Americans, African Americans, then ADDED to which was their parallel and equal identity as Jews with Jews being both an ethnic/national and cultural/religious sub-group. See the Jews and Judaism articles in depth to understand this clearly. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 04:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn, per IZAK. As IZAK points out, these different category labels convey quite different meanings, and some discussion is required before such a change. Frankly, I'm not sure which is better, because a label like "Mexican American" implies to me a first-generation immigrant, whereas "American of Mexican Descent" seems more inclusive of subsequent generations. In any event, someone needs to make a convincing argument as to which system provides the better taxonomy for member articles. — Dfass ( talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn All — though it can be argued that Jewish identity is akin to the national identity associated with the identities of sovereign nations and their associated citizenries, there are differences as well between these different forms of identity, and we should endeavor to preserve rather than eliminate distinctions relating to identities in these realms. We have to be careful that terminology used is appropriately accurate. Bus stop ( talk) 10:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn, but to discuss rename to an alternative name. As regards the first category listed, see also my comments above. As regards the others ("America Jews of Fooian descent"), I have the same concerns as IZAK regarding the present name (which concerns also apply to all of the categories of "Israelis of Fooian descent", being the 50 subcategories in Category:Israeli people by ethnic or national origin). However, I believe that the names suggested by IZAK (the original names) are also likely to create a measure of confusison. For example, "Mexican-American Jews" could, to many users, refer either to "Mexican Jews of American (Jewish) descent or origin" or "American Jews of Mexican (Jewish) descent or origin". A preferable name would, I believe, be "American Jews of Fooian origin". This would appear to address IZAK's concerns, without reverting to the somewhat ambiguous original name. Davshul ( talk) 11:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: I think that is a good suggestion Davshul makes, immediately above.

On a related but separate note, I think we have to tease apart and be mindful of the difference between someone "being Jewish" and someone being "of Jewish descent." "Jewish" is a present identity of an individual. "Of Jewish descent" is terminology which sheds light on the identity of the parents of an individual. Bus stop ( talk) 12:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn I agree with IZAK. Such small pieces of linguistic fudging can result in dangerous misconceptions. -- yonkeltron ( talk) 12:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Rename all to Category:American Jews of Fooian origin per User:Davshul. The intention in using 'descent' was to mean either ethnic or national descent (the parent category is Category:People by ethnic or national descent). But I do concede that 'national descent' is rather a contrived phrase. However hyphenated names can easily be wrongly interpreted - dual citizenship? Fooian of Booian descent or origin or vice versa? People by Fooian descent or origin need to spelled out in some form for clarity, and if 'origin' is a more straightforward term semantically, than lets go with it here. Mayumashu ( talk) 12:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Were you the one to start the suggestions fore mass speedy deletes? If not who was it? Could you point us to the main discussion please. Thank you. IZAK ( talk) 22:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn as per IZAK and Yonkeltron. Kuratowski's Ghost ( talk) 12:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Could someone please explain why these categories are necessary at all? They seem overly granular to me. What's wrong with placing someone in both Category:American Jews and Category:People of Hungarian descent?— S Marshall T/ C 14:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Good question. -- Kbdank71 18:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Yep that is a valid question. Why is someone who is 1% something need a category for that fact? I can see some sense if they are the first generation removed from the country but beyond that then need is not established. What exactly is gained here? So these combined categories are in my opinion not of much value. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

S. Marshal's question is a good one. Your suggestion of "What's wrong with placing someone in both Category:American Jews and Category:People of Hungarian descent" is good too. Indeed I have long-advocated for the deletion of all lists and categories of Jews on Wikipedia (see User:IZAK/Deleting lists and categories of Jews). HOWEVER, as long as the lists and categories of Jews DO exist (based on a consensus and desire for them) they MUST be as accurate as possible, and that is why I am taking the time here to ensure that "Jews" do not segue and blend into the mists of history with their former host-countries of national origin. Otherwise this becomes an exercise in reckless mish-mashing. IZAK ( talk) 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I don't know very much about Jews or Jewishness, IZAK, but it seems to me that if we're to have a Category:Irish Roman Catholics and a Category:Japanese Buddhists then it doesn't seem so unreasonable to have a Category:American Jews. But, if I tried to start a Category:Pakistani Sikhs of Punjabi descent, it would be deleted at CfD on grounds of WP:OC#NARROW, which says: "In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories." (This is one of the very few things about CfD that I actually understand!)

What makes these categories different? And if nothing, then should we not send this back to CfD with a request that they reconsider with a view to deleting the categories completely?— S Marshall T/ C 00:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Hi S Marshal: Let's stick with the present situation and DRV here and let's not reach back for even more radical suggestions that no one wants right now and that would create a huge controversy, since as you point out there are other lists and categories by religion and ethnicity for major religions so Jews are no different and no less notable than any others. As I said, there has been a consensus (regardless of my or your ideas) to have lists and categories of Jews and that will remain so for the foreseeable future, that is not even the question here. And given that now that these lists and categories do exists, then they need to be as accurate as possible and not open themselves up to misinterpretations as would happen with the speedy changes for which no consensus was attained. IZAK ( talk) 02:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. American Jews of Russian descent is actually feasible. The Russian Empire and its successors registered their citizens/subjects according to ethnicity, so being Russian of Jewish ethnicity (descent) is a reality. This is possible since Russia has been a sovereign state without interruptions since prior to Jews settled in Russia. ^Talk/ ♥фĩłдωəß♥\ ^Work 15:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Hi Philaweb: You miss the point. The problem with leaving this as a kind of superficial "passport control" or "past borders" issue is not what this discussion is about. The point is that, as in this case, the Russian Empire was a land of many ethnicities and was mostly Christian so the word "Russian" alone could also imply of both Russian and Christian origins in Russia which the Jews there were obviously not. IZAK ( talk) 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. Philaweb has a good point. However it seems a bit much when we have these categories for Mexicans, Hungarians, Romanians, Lithuanians and so on. I think it is partly because it was felt that "American Jews" was getting too big. However, we have the option of "Ashkenazi Jews", "sephardic Jews" and so on. We can even do "American Sephardic Jews" or something along those lines. When some of these people are in categories "American Jews", "Hungarian Jews" and "American Jews of Hungarian descent", we definately have gone to far with categories. The German Jews v. Russian Jews formation had some validity, but when we now have Cuban Jews, Greek Jews, Uzbek Jews, Israeli Jews, Israeli immigrants whose parents were born in Morocco, Lithuanian Jews, Polish Jews and on and on, it becomes very hard to figure which group anyone belongs to. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

We do not have categories like "American Mormons of Mexican descent", "American Catholics of Slovak descent", "American Catholics of German descent", not even "American Catholics of Irish descent". Some would say "well, Jewishness is ethnic, not just religious". So why do we not have "American Armenians of Lebanese descent" and related categories? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

~~I would guess because people (editors) are not clamoring for the creation of that category.~~ Bus stop ( talk) 20:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That doesn't really answer the question tho, does it? Tomer ^talk 23:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I guess not. I retract my answer/response. Bus stop ( talk) 23:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and list at CfD. That's where any discussion of renaming/deletion belongs. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

A bit offtopic, but...: Some time ago I raised this question Category talk:American people by ethnic or national origin#Emigrants who landed in America after long travel and linked it from several projects, but it seems nobody cares. May be people engaged in this talk have an opinion to express. Ralph Saroyan ( talk) 21:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn -- Yoavd ( talk) 06:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and Rename per Davshul as American Jews of Fooian origin. I have often written about American rabbis who were born in Eastern Europe, and appreciate IZAK's sensitivity to the implications of "descent". Actually, all Jews really "descend" from Israel at the time of the Beit Hamikdash, so suggesting that they have familial ties to non-Jewish Hungarians, Austrians, Mexicans, Latvians, etc., is incorrect. If there must be a category, "of Fooian origin" is more correct. Yoninah ( talk) 09:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
List at CFD for full discussion. After a category has been speedy renamed and there is a dispute as to whether the speedy criteria are met, the most logical solution is to nominate the categories for renaming. I haven't seen any real discussion here as to whether the speedy criteria were satisfied in this case, and this is turning out more like a CFD discussion would be. So these may as well be moved to CFD where renames can be proposed. (FWIW, I think the speedy criteria were fulfilled in this case. There just happens to be some disagreement as to whether the standard name format should apply in this case, which is a good reason to have a full CFD about it. At the end of the day, I would basically agree with Davshul's proposed solution, to name these "American Jews of FOOian origin", but I also sympathise with the view expressed by S Marshall that these are probably overcategorizaiton. In a full discussion, rename options and the possibility of deletion could all be pursued.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- This is odd. First you are party to speeding them then you want to follow normal slower procedures when things don't go your way. There is no difference between "origin" and "descent" both terms are ambiguous and need to be avoided. IZAK ( talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
  - To repeat what I said above and several times on my talk page, since you are apparently not getting it: These changes were not my idea. I was not the nominator. I did not "speedy them". There is no "my way" that isn't being adhered to. You are (apparently) conflating my participation in another discussion and my participation in cleaning up Cydebot's unfinished tasks of deletion after a category name change and thereby are assuming that I am somehow "behind" these changes to this category. I was not. (Incidentally, I agree with User:Davshul's explanation of how the terms are different. Either is fine with me, but since there is a sensitivity to the word "descent" in this case and a preference for "origin" among other users, I'm fine with that. I find their original form to be far more ambiguous. Just a difference of opinion I guess—but voting on the proper form is not something that should happen at DRV. It's something that happens at CFD, which is why I think ultimately it should be listed there, rather than attempting to make the decision here. This is to review deletion decisions, not to choose the best name. I'd also be quite happy if nothing further were done, but that approach would seem to give short shrift to your concerns that have been expressed in the face of a speedy rename change, which is why I didn't endorse that approach. The normal thing to do if someone opposes a speedy rename after the fact is to nominate them for renaming. A relisting will have this result, just in a roundabout way.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn all to use the more prevalent and appropriate term. Alansohn ( talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedy overturn for the sake of DRV and list if required at CFD. The number of bytes taken up by this discussion alone indicates these renamings - and broader issues - need discussion. That discussion shouldn't happen here. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I have no opinion as to whether or not the speedies were correct. In the case of a contested speedy, a full CFD is started. Ignoring the conspiracy theories, that's what this is: a contested speedy. So, list at CFD. -- Kbdank71 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn all-- ChosidFrumBirth ( talk) 11:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn all per IZAK. -- nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 11:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn All per IZAK. -- Nahum ( talk) 12:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn all as perIzak, he said it better than I could have, but it seems like we should be using the more prevalent term. Yossiea ^(talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn all. Davshul's renaming suggestion is good too, but let's overturn first. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn as per IZAK and Yonkeltron. Reckless bad faith changes to WP by editors who still seem to not think they need consensus. -- 85.250.179.171 ( talk) 02:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn all. Per IZAK and Yonkeltron.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 May 2010

yoomoot – There seems consensus that the deleted version was an acceptable deletion but less so the recreated version with improved sourcing. Therefore the original deletion is endorsed and the recreated article is restored and sent to AFD – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

One of the admin's main reasons for deleting the page was an incorrect URL. After this was raised the admin in question suggested the matter should be debated here. Lumpthing ( talk) 14:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse-After reviewing the cached version of the page, I'm not seeing any assertion of notability. CSD A7 would seem to apply.-- Fyre2387 ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse I do not see a claim of significance or importance in the deleted article, either explicitly or implicitly. That is what is required of A7. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Isn't the assertion of notability implicit in the web-app's status as the only website or app focusing on creating a more organized form of online discussion? Lumpthing ( talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The cached copy I'm seeing has two sources that appear to meet WP:N. Doesn't meeting WP:N mean that A7 doesn't apply as it's a defacto assertion of notability? Hobit ( talk) 03:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- I did consider the "sources" but they looked quite unreliable to me given the tone of the articles and the links to the yoomoot webpage. But if I'm wrong or even if I might be wrong I would agree to erring on the side of caution and sending it to AfD. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse per Mkativerata. The sources don't appear to rise to the level of substantial coverage in reliable sources that is required for WP:GNG. There's hundreds of new sites start up every day; come back when you're notable please. Stifle ( talk) 08:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Please note that the re-created 28 May article contained different, more reliable references Lumpthing ( talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn speedy and list at AfD The sources don't need to be enough clearly meet WP:N to be an assertion of notability. In any case, the coverage is clearly substantial (articles are solely on the topic) and the sources appear to be reliable on first blush. Not a good case for a speedy. Hobit ( talk) 14:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
~~I don't see an assertion of notability either, and I'll endorse the speedy accordingly. However,~~ wikipedia's collaborative and we want to encourage good faith new users, so when we're dealing with a new user, there ought to be more to DRV than rigid enforcement of the rules; we should seek to explain, to engage with the nominator and to provide FairProcess on demand. So I'll go with Recreate and list at AfD if the nominator insists.— S Marshall T/ C 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I am the nominator and I would appreciate that. I would also appreciate clarity on what version of the article is being reviewed. The re-created article (28 May) included two additional references. It would also be straightforward to add an explicit assertion of notability. Lumpthing ( talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment I've started a discussion on speedy criteria for sourced articles here. Hobit ( talk) 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

On reading Hobit's link, I see that his case is that so many sources for an article is a de facto assertion of notability. That's a fair point: one can show that something's notable by linking to the reliable sources that have noted it, and in fact that's the only way one can show notability. I've struck my "endorse" accordingly, because I find Hobit's argument persuasive.— S Marshall T/ C 20:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment I see the article has been re-created during this discussion. We do not normally do that. What I have therefore done is change it to restore the history so it's visible, which is what we usually do. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
List at AfD the only part of the article that even approximates an assertion of significance is the references. Now I'm not personally convinced that the references show the subject meets WP:WEB, but that kind of question is more appropriate to AfD than to speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 12:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- What is the appropriate next step for submitting a different version of the article which contains better references and an explicit assertion of notability? I tried creating a new version of the article on 28 May but it was simply deleted, and it appears the changes made in that version are not being taken into account in this review discussion. Lumpthing ( talk) 15:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - Normally if you created a new version of the article which didn't meet the original reason for deletion (or any of the other criteria for speedy deletion) then the article would not have been speedily deleted. However you had already started the deletion review process, and as DGG notes above we don't typically recreate articles while a deletion review discussion is ongoing. (Your version of 28 May wasn't actually deleted, it was replaced with a template. The text is still visible.) Hut 8.5 15:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

It's visible because I restored it with the template, btw. This should be done as a matter of course during a good faith Deletion Review discussion, except for issues of copyright and libel. DGG ( talk ) 16:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse speedy, no assertion of notability, likely COI, likely promotion, and "It moved out of private beta in May 2010" says it all really. Guy ( Help!) 19:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Where in Wikipedia's guidelines is there a mention of the age of the site or date at which it changed from invite-only to public being relevant? In what way does the article show any bias? Lumpthing ( talk) 20:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Rekonq – There doesn't seem to be a consensus here to restore this at this point but I think its fair that the original AFD close can be set aside and this can be restored/recreated as soon as there is some improvement to the available sourcing – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

A few month ago Rekonq was deleted. The reason was that it was not considered notable enough at the time ( Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rekonq). Since then a major linux distribution, kubuntu has announced that rekonq is going to be the default browser in the next release (kubuntu 10.10 Maverick), in replacement of konqueror (See: [17] [18]). My opinion is that Rekonq is now worth an article in wikipedia. Bzhb ( talk) 11:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That would seem to be worth a restore. Stifle ( talk) 19:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Could you indicate what sources, other than the two you mention, would be used here? I see a primary one and a blog one (though a good one). Is there anything else at this point? I don't know enough about Linux distributions to know if this one is so large that its browser should automatically be notable... Hobit ( talk) 03:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
kubuntu is the bigger official derivative of ubuntu (first linux distribution). The difference with Ubuntu is that it has a different desktop ( KDE). It is widely used, but as it is free software it is very difficult to know how much. There is not much traditional sources of information on rekonq, since free software is mainly develloped through mailing list, IRC, blogs, forum, wiki... It is not like there is a company that will do a press release for it... I can point to one more blog : [19]. Also it is written on the french wikipedia page about rekonq ( [20]). Finally I didn't mentioned it since it won't be consider a notable source of information, but ther have been discusion on the kde developers mailing list on whether rekonq should be made KDE default browser. So the situation is that rekonq is a young unmature browser with a big momentum behind it in the KDE free software developers community. It has for sure a future into KDE-based linux distro (about half of linux distro). So it is in the process of becoming notable... 4 month ago it was deleted. Today it is maybe. If it is still not yet okay, I will come back in a few month when the early kubuntu 10.10 review will be published in the tech press :-) ... Bzhb ( talk) 12:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Regarding "It is not like there is a company that will do a press release for it..." - doesn't matter we don't list products on wikipedia on the back of press releases, nor should we developers announcements regardless of the medium. It's all about non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, even if it's open source if the world at large is interested in it, then others will write about it, -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - What I meant with press release is that journalist often makes an article about a product because they receive a press folder... anyway it is a bit out of the subject Bzhb ( talk) 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd suggest we wait for reliable sources to show up, but I'll defer to others with more knowledge of the area. Hobit ( talk) 14:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Reliable sourcing for free, open-source software products is a perennial problem, but one thing's for sure: after that announcement, Rekonq should no longer be a redlink. I'd suggest the easy way round this is to redirect Rekonq to ~~Konqueror#Web browser~~, and update ~~Konqueror#Web browser~~ with the new information. That way, we don't fall foul of any notability rules, and at least someone searching for Rekonq on Wikipedia will actually find something helpful about it.— S Marshall T/ C 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- I'm afraid that konqueror and rekonq doesn't fit that well together because they don't use the same technologies. There is moral filiation between to two, but not really a technology filiation. It is just that rekonq project is to "fix the problems" that konqueror has as a modern webbrowser, hence the name. In case it is choosen to do something like that, it could perhaps better fit with webkit, the underlaying engine. Bzhb ( talk) 10:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - Fair point. For "Konqueror" in the post above, read "Webkit".— S Marshall T/ C 12:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Igbo players of American football – No consensus (with minimal participation) regarding a no consensus (with minimal participation) CfD outcome. Can be re-listed without prejudice on CfD at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle ( talk) 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I've never started a deletion review before, and I'm not at all interested in having a fresh deletion debate on the merits of these categories. But I am interested to know if this close is a legitimate interpretation of the discussion that took place. From my point of view, I do not understand how the closer arrived at the conclusion he did based on the discussion that took place. Thanks Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Notes: The rationale in question is in the first CFD listed. The same rationale was applied by reference to three other CFDs listed above, in which the discussions to be interpreted were more or less the same (the same participants and opinions in each one), so I think whatever the result here it should apply to all four of the categories that were discussed. (This has been discussed with the closer, and he has said he is not persuaded to change his decision but has given an OK for the DRV.) Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment from closer. I would also like to know if this was correct, and if not by all means it should be overturned. Besides my closing comment, more discussion is here. In a nutshell: nominator's rationale was 1) " Category:Players of American football by nationality should only include nationalities, not ethnicities", and 2) "We shouldn't be categorizing by ethnicity and sport". Regarding first point, it does only include nationalities ( Category:Igbo players of American football has entirely different parenage). Regarding second point: not proven, and if accepted we must, to be consistent, eliminate scores of similar categories, and this has not been fully discussed. Herostratus ( talk) 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Relist-My first instinct was to overturn, as the close didn't reflect consensus in the debate, but upon further examination, I can understand the closer's reasoning. The nomination was made under a false understanding, namely that the category in question was a subcat of Category:Players of American football by nationality, which is not the case and never was. This was, no doubt, a good faith mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. From my point of view, that essentially invalidates the arguments from both User:Namiba (the nominator) and User:Mayumashu (the only reasoning given being "per nom"). That then leaves us with one keep and one merge, so the close was easily within admin discretion, although it could be argued that a no consensus might have been a better choice. However, we do have at least one editor raising a valid concern that the category is too specific and should be simply merged into Category:Igbo sportspeople. Thus, I'd suggest relisting the debate with that as the rationale. That way, the communtiy can evaluate that claim, without the process being tainted by concerns over a non-existent relationship to Category:Players of American football by nationality.-- Fyre2387 ^{(
talk •
contribs)} 20:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I appreciate the intent of suggesting a relist; I'm just not sure it would result in anything productive in this instance. The discussions were open for about 3 weeks and only resulted in a small amount of participation. If we re-open it and get nothing, I'm not sure we're any further ahead. What we really need is an assessment of whether a close like this is permissible at CFD when participation levels are low and unlikely to increase with relisting or remaining open any longer. If a close like this is OK, that's fine with me—I just would like to know one way or the other because I happen to close CFDs from time to time and would like some community guidance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse While the "merge denied" may be unusual wording, it reflects the lack of consensus at the CfD in question. There was simply no consensus one way or the other and the closer made the correct call here. Alansohn ( talk) 16:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggestion (from original closer). May I suggest that the close be upheld as a close of a malformed CfD, but with no prejudice against a new, separate CfD being made and with no implied precedent being established (sort of like Bush vs. Gore). A person making a new CfD could then make the CfD based on a different argument(s), such as that we should not categorize to this level of detail or whatever. Herostratus ( talk) 15:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

P90X – Speedy deletion Overturned. This can be listed at AfD if anyone wants to pursue deletion. Though clean-up looks possible. – Eluchil404 ( talk) 04:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Why was the P90X article deleted? It contained factual information about the exercise program and was a good source of reference, especially on the length of the individual exercise DVDs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.12.158 ( talk) 01:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Fixed malformed listing. Stifle ( talk) 08:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
It was deleted as an advertisment. Stifle ( talk) 08:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I deleted the article because, as presented, it was an article which in my opinion did not claim or demonstrate significance or notability. On re-reading the deleted version I would still make this judgement. A much longer version was deleted an an advertisement by Fastily, who will doubtless if asked be happy to comment on his action. -- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 19:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I originally tagged it for speedy deletion after trying my best to rework the article. No matter what I did, it sounded like an advertisement, and I couldn't find any sources that weren't either written by fanatical users of the product or trying to sell it. Most of the sources that were already there were either written by the company that sold it, or taken from internet forums, so their accuracy was disputable. rzrscm ( talk) 23:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn speedy There was a previous AfD (which was withdrawn with 3 keep !votes and no delete !votes) so not eligible for a speedy. Hobit ( talk) 03:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn. Anthony.bradbury's deletion was pretty much on point. However, Fastily's deletion of this version (admins only) leaves me scratching my head. Granted, it had some fluff that needed to be toned down, but by no means did that version of the article meet G11. — ξ ^xplicit 07:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Procedural overturn, with liberty to relist on AFD. An article that has survived a previous AFD is not eligible for speedy, excepting newly-discovered copyvios. Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
There's no point overturning the deletion of the cached version; it doesn't stand a prayer at AfD. I presume the version subject to the AfD that BlanchardB closed as "keep" was substantially different. Can we see the best version of the article, please?— S Marshall T/ C 20:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I undeleted the history to permit informed discussion. The fullest version is a few edits back, at [21] DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn- for one thing, it wasn't eligible for any sort of speedy, as Stifle pointed out above. For another, if taken to afd, there's plenty of reason that people would make good faith votes to keep, meaning its not a done deal that it would be deleted. Article could use work, yes, but doesn't look unsalvageable. Umbralcorax ( talk) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I should point out that I'm stating this in reference to the version DGG has posted above me. Umbralcorax ( talk) 01:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. This is the version that survived the AFD. This is the version that was G11ed by Fastily on May 21st, This is the recreated version by User:Dietcoke111 with a cheap shot at "administrators who are morons with too much time on their hands" that was deleted by Anthony.bradbury. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
On seeing the complete version DGG links, I'm happy with overturn.— S Marshall T/ C 12:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn the 21 May deletion since that version survived an AfD. Admittedly the AfD nom was withdrawn, but the discussion was clearly heading for a Keep consensus. The 23 May deletion by Anthony.bradbury was entirely proper. Hut 8.5 13:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn per Umbralcorax -- Rajah ( talk) 19:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn Felt that the article was useful. Not perfect, but clearly not FUBAR'd. Dbk1441 ( talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 May 2010

KidStart – No consensus to overturn. There is no consensus here that either the closing administrator exceeded his discretion, or that the debate was defective on the merits. Given the repeated AFD-DRV-AFD-DRV cycle that has taken place already, I'm not relisting this. Rather, if new coverage in reliable sources surfaces, the subject can be brought back to DRV for review. Contact me on my talk page if you want the article userfied. – Tim Song ( talk) 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The closing administrator PhantomSteve said the reason he deleted the article was due to a consensus to delete. I would like to appeal stating that the 2 nominations given for deletion where given on the day the article was re-listed (11th May) from the first deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart, even though it was suggested for re-listing the article that it should be edited, which i did (considerably) on the 13-14th May. Since then (13 days ago) no comment or nomination was made for the 2nd deletion. This was endorsed by Tim Song who re-listed the article to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached on 19th May. Since then only myself made any additional comments and no nominations where made.

So this system has a slight flaw, in that the article was deleted a 2nd time taking in the nominations of administrators who commented on the day the article was re-listed from the first deletion and as such the article hadn't been revised as suggested. In effect basing the consensus on nominations based on the FIRST Deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart NOT the amended article for the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidStart (2nd nomination). Therefore i would state the case, that these 2 nominations are outdated and as such bare little relevance. Meaning and i quote from Wikipedia "If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed."

Additionally initial comments suggested the reason for deletion was insufficient coverage of a significant nature to justify the article's existence, even though the article had since been updated with various links to reputable printed press articles The Times, The Guardian and Daily Express including a Youtube clip from the BBC News, lovemoney.com, as well as illustrating to the administrators web coverage at Google.co.uk News Archives for kidstart and Google.co.uk General Search on Kidstart, as there was slight confusion with regional google variations.

An additional reason i feel strongly to reinstate this article is that I fail to see how this article is any different to similar Wikipedia articles: Quidco, Internet Cashback, Top CashBack (note: all with similar press citations) (plus see other articles listed under Wikipedia category: Reward Websites), except that KidStart is unique as it only benefits children and charities, so is it for this reason Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny and remained on Wikipedia?

I would gladly appreciate any guidance and comments, also the chance to reinstate the article. Thank you Emmamme ( talk) 11:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The nominator has a real case here.
I think what we have here is a defective debate rather than a defective close. I'm afraid that the remarks that informed the close were simply wrong. I like DustFormsWords and he usually has good judgment, but in this case he implied that this source (which was cited in the article) is a press release or based on a press release, and I don't think that's right; The Times is a very reputable source, it differentiates very clearly between advertisements and journalism, and the article's entry there constituted significant coverage. This source is also reliable and not a press release, though in this case the coverage wasn't significant. The youtube video is an interesting case. Wikipedia doesn't normally judge youtube as a reliable source, but in this case the "real" source is the BBC—which argues that it too is strong evidence of notability.
It's highly unusual, on Wikipedia, to overturn three deletions that took place in quick succession, but I'm persuaded that there's a genuine argument in favour of doing so and I would encourage DRV contributors to examine the sources with close attention.— S Marshall T/ C 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. You've had so many bites that there's no cherry left. Stifle ( talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn, refrain from insulting the author, and add inline citation format for those external links which were used as references. – Athaenara ✉ 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggestion. Should we start by userfying the article into Emmamme's userspace, then Emmamme can add the additional source(s) there and we can evaluate? The XFD closer did say there was no obstacle to recreating if new sources could be found, and this would be the standard process in that situation (even if generally it would not take place so soon after the AFD discussion). I have looked at the Googlecached version and at the BBC/Youtube video and remain personally unconvinced that the sources are independent enough (seem like marketingspeak to me...), but I am only one voice (a cynical one at that) and I'm not sure if the cached version is the most recent one anyway. Through no-one's fault, the endgame of the AFD debate was essentially only Dustformwords reacting to Emmamme, and not even to her latest version, which is not much of a consensus. Suggestion to Emmamme if this suggestion is followed - I would be clear that the video source you are adding is a BBC program (show, time, date), which happens to currently be available on Youtube, as opposed to saying the source is a Youtube video. For the obvious reasons, we generally do not use Youtube videos to establish notability. Martinp ( talk) 20:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Martinp, an excellent suggestion - however, I have listed all the references and external links below (I got an edit conflict when I clicked on "save"!)
Comment from closing admin I did spend about 10 minutes looking at the references, as this was the main issue in the arguments for deletion. Here are the references and links in the deleted article, and my comments on them:
References:
1. The Times, "Use a Child Trust Fund to give your kids a head start", retrieved 3 April 2009 Cash in with KidStart Fancy turning your weekly grocery shop into a way of making money for your child? Then make sure that you sign up to KidStart. Backed by the Financial Services Authority, KidStart is a savings club that boosts your child's savings every time you shop online. When you make a purchase from one of the 200 retailers in the scheme, up to 20 per cent of the value of your transaction will be deposited in your child's desiginated savings account or Child Trust Fund. For example, Marks & Spencer donates 4 per cent of the cost of your purchases, so £100 spent online will add £4 to your child's savings. John Lewis, meanwhile, donates 5 per cent each time you shop on its website. Other scheme members include Mothercare, Boots, Thomas Cook and Ocado. For more information and to register free, go to kidstart.co.uk.
  This looked to me like it came from a press release or press pack, rather than the totally independent work of the Times journalist
2. The Observer, "Shop and save with KidStart purchases", retrieved 3 May 2009 Shop and save with KidStart purchases: Two of the biggest Child Trust Fund providers lauched earn-as-you-shop savings schemes last week. Family Investments and F&C are offering parents the opportunity to sign up to the KidStart programme as a means of topping up their CTF accounts, so that each time they buy something online through one of 320 retailers, a percentage of the purchase value will be paid into the account. The scheme includes several big-brand family retailers such as Mothercare, Early Learning Centre, Boden, Tesco and Argos, offering an average of 5% cashback on purchases. "KidStart gives CTF owners an easy way to save - every time you shop you can be putting a bit aside for the future of your kids, at no extra cost to you," says Julian Robson of KidStart. The scheme is open to existing and new CTF customers. Visit kidstart.co.uk to register your details
  Again, this appeared to me to be a press release-based paragraph
3. "KidStart Blog - LivingwithKids". http://www.kidstart.co.uk/livingwithkids/
  The website's own blog - used as a reference for the sentence KidStart launched a popular parenting blog LivingwithKids[3] in 2009
4. The Sun, "Stop the lonely mummy trap", retrieved 23 Feb 2010
  Not about the site, used to confirm the sentence It is written and edited by family and lifestyle journalist Liz Jarvis
External Links
1. KidStart - Official Website
  The website itself
2. Saving tips for your child future - BBC Breakfast News
  A 26-second item: This is one of the best sources, being on a national news station - but is a 26 second mention enough? My feeling at the end of looking at all of the references and external links was that it was not.
3. Save for your Kids For Free - Lovemoney.com 05.12.08
  An article about the scheme, but is Lovemoney.com counted as a reliable source? I was unable to ascertain this, and the website does not have a Wikipedia article to help me ascertain it
4. Use a Child Trust Fund to give your kids a headstart - The Times 03.04.09
  This is the same as reference 1
5. Twenty Ways to Save Cash on the Internet - Daily Express 03.05.09 "Website Kidstart.co.uk allows you to direct your cashback savings into a child trust fund for your child or grandchild."
  This is not "significant coverage", as required by the notability guidelines
6. The Good Web Guide - KidStart "KidStart www.kidstart.co.uk: KidStart is a free shopping club that allows its members to collect cash savings for their children, grandchildren, friend's children, school or children's charity when shopping at a wide range of retailers, service providers and other similar companies. EARN SAVINGS AS YOU SPEND The aim of KidStart is to help parents and grandparents do that little bit extra for their families in as easy a way as possible while maintaining the necessary standards of trust and security. With an ever expanding network of retailers and partners, members can continue to save more over time. HOW DOES IT WORK? Say you spend £100 at M&S. You earn £4 in KidStart Savings, which goes to your kids. KidStart is not your typical loyalty programme. There are no points, no membership cards, no hassle, no catches, no hidden charges. Just cash, for kids, for free - its simple. Joining is easy, it doesn't require a lot of information, and KidStart automatically take care of everything else: tracking your transactions, collecting savings and paying it into your child's nominated account. RETAILERS Shop at over 300 well known retailers, from Argos to Waitrose. With 91 fashion retailers, 70 home retailers and many more outlets, it's never been easier to do that little bit extra for your kids."
  I note that they have a subscription model: "From 1st September 2009, we have introduced a new subscription model, which is an annual fee of £150 exc VAT. This entitles a company to a full page on our site with editorial and a link through to the site concerned, as well as two images and two text links that deeplink into product pages. Images and text links can be changed up to four times a year." - does this make The Good Web Guide independent or reliable? As the Guide does not have an article on Wikipedia, I have no way of checking this.
7. F&C Investments - Official Website - I found the relevant page (the link just went to F&C's homepage) at http://www.fandc.com//new/press/?id=81919&PageId=18533590&source=fnetsearch&locale=UK "02 Apr 2008 - 14:38 Pay into child trust funds while shopping: Parents will be able to save for their children's future as they shop, thanks to a new scheme. Free savings club, KidStart, will pay money into a child's trust fund or saving account whenever parents use certain online retailers, reports the Press Association. The scheme is not just limited to parents, with grandparents, family and friends able to register to add to a child's savings, while pregnant women can also save before the child is born. Chris Hodgson, co-founder of the savings club, told the agency: "KidStart is a simple option for parents and others who want to do a little bit extra for their child or a child they know." Over 200 online retailers are attached to KidStart, including Asda, Mothercare, Next and Toys R Us, with plans to expand the scheme onto the high street, and offer returns of between one per cent and 20 per cent of the amount spent, with some offering lump sum incentives. KidStart is free to us and regulated by the Financial Services Authority. Details of how to register can be found online."
  This appears to be from a Press Release that F&C investments were quoting (note "...reports the Press Association"), and so not an independent source of information, as a press release would be issued by the company themselves.
8. Liz Jarvis - Mad Awards "Liz Jarvis is one of the UK's most respected and prolific family and lifestyle journalists. She has worked for magazines and websites including Real, Shape, Closer, love it!, Top Santé, Practical Parenting and madeformums, as well as running her own highly successful Mummy blog, Living With Kids, on behalf of Kidstart."
  Not about the website or the company - it confirms who Liz Jarvis is
After looking through these, my feeling was that the coverage was not significant, hence the conclusion I drew that the consensus was that the article should be deleted.

Incidently, I would like to remind Emmamme what I said on my talk page: When I was closing the AfD , the existence or otherwise of other, similar articles is not relevant. Those articles may be well-sourced from reliable sources with significant coverage, or they may perhaps be worthy of discussing at AfD themselves - in either case, they have no bearing on the closure of this AfD. I would also like to point out that this is not a case of 'picking on' a charitable/noble cause - I would have closed the same way if the scheme existed purely to make someone richer in other ways! Personally, I feel that the website is a good idea (and may well look into it further for my kids!) - but that does not mean that it is suitable for an article.

Finally, I would just like to agree with Athaenara: there is no need to insult the author (and the originator of this DRV) - I suggested that they come here if they feel that my closure was incorrect, and have no problem with them doing so. If I made a mistake, I am quite happy for it to be overturned (obviously, given my reasoning above, I do not think that I did make a mistake!) - I am not perfect, and will make mistakes from time to time (and if the conclusion is that this was one, I will happily restore the article myself!). -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 20:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
There are three interesting questions here: the simplest one is whether the coverage on the trust in one paragraph of a long article in the Times as an illustration of one among many ways to save on behalf of one's children is substantial coverage. [22]. We have normally reconciled the WP:GNG with common-sense ideas of notability by making distinctions with this and some of the other parts of the wording. Within our usual range of interpretations , it would be possible to say either that this is or is not significant mention. The more complex one is whether this is truly third party, or whether it is based on a press release without editorial control. It seems obvious that this is based on a press release, for the exact same wording appears in a variety of sources. Is it editorially independent? That;s not so easy to answer. It looks like wanting an example, they chose this one and copied the text on hand. One might charitably say that deciding to choose this one was editorial independence, even if the writing was plagiarism, or less charitably that they chose whatever was handy. The difficult question is whether one can regard any UK newspaper, even the Times, as a truly reliable source for notability without considering the report in detail. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Well, I would argue that we need to. The general notability guideline is very simplistic, and following it slavishly does sometimes lead to anomalies and peculiar decisions. But it also has the enormous benefit that the GNG is such a simple test that any editor can check for themselves whether it's met. The editor can then go ahead and write an article, safe in the knowledge that their work won't be deleted out of hand.
  If we start questioning whether even The Times is a reliable source, then we remove that element of editorial freedom. An editor who wants to write content that won't be deleted will need to go through a committee process before they can start writing. In short, I think Wikipedia works best when it's decentralised, the rules are clear and simple, and content is kept if it follows them.— S Marshall T/ C 01:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - Sorry, S Marshall, I don't agree. First of all, I don't think the GNG is simplistic. In particular, it includes the key clauses of sigificant coverage, and presumption - not guarantee - of notability. These are clauses where reasonable editors can disagree. I think those are exactly the issues relevant in this instance. Second, Wikipedia has a philosophy of eventualism, in particular that we eventually converge to the right answer, but as a corollary unfortunately often end up with a lot of individual editor energy wasted. While I would agree with your point on "out of hand", I think no editor can - nor should - ever be sure that their contributions will not be deleted after thoughtful discussion any more than they can be sure their prose and article structuring will not be altered over time beyond recognition. Martinp ( talk) 01:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - Well, the exact content of WP:N changes from time to time depending on whether a deletionist or an inclusionist last edited the page. And that's a self-selecting group; articles are written by those who want to write, and policies are written by those who want to control what other people are allowed to write. They're a group I find it's best to leave to their own wranglings. In practice at AfD, a user can prove something's notable by showing the reliable sources that have noted it, which has the benefit of being an objective test that can be proved or disproved rather than a matter of opinion.
      If we, at DRV, decide that a user can't prove something's notable by linking to the reliable sources that have noted it, then we remove the objective test and replace it with a subjective one, with the result that the AfD process becomes a lottery that depends on whether more deletionists or inclusionists show up. I would see that as a retrograde step into the dark days of 2006-7.— S Marshall T/ C 09:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to NC I think the closer tried their best here given the difficulties of the discussion, and I applaud the care given to the close and the discussion above. But I must say that having an article on the Times (even if largely a reprint) and coverage on the BBC (even if only for 26 seconds) shows that people have "taken note" of this topic. But, even then, the close to delete would perhaps be within discretion given the nature of the debate. But to close as delete because there were sources that the closer couldn't figure out if they were reliable or not isn't acceptable. If they were clearly not RSes, that would be one thing. If there were only one of them, maybe. But with two solid sources from very significant outlets plus a handful of others of unclear reliability, I'd say you'd need a much more lopsided debate to get the result in question. There were basically 2 arguing for deletion (fairly well actually) and 2 for keeping (also fairly well). I don't see how anything other than NC can be the outcome. Hobit ( talk) 02:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- I looked more carefully at the sources. I think that anyone who claims that they are regurgitated press releases really needs to either provide evidence of that or strike those claims. It's darn insulting to the authors of those articles and in any case it's irrelevant to the discussion unless those folks were paid to provide such coverage: they found it notable enough to report on. Honestly this is as clear a keep as you could ask for. Still a NC outcome in my mind due to the discussion, but I'd be temped to call this an IAR overturn to keep... Hobit ( talk) 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and relist. I agree with the closer's analysis of the sources. I agree that the article doesn't appear to meet our notability guidelines and should be deleted. But I do not agree that there was a consensus to delete. There were only two people arguing for deletion. Both arguments were superseded to a large extent by developments to the article and further information coming to light about the sources. A relist is the best outcome so that we can have the kind of detailed discussion of sources above in an AfD rather than here. Send it back for another round. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- And what happens then? We've already had a speedy, two AFDs, and this second DRV. Wikipedia is not the 28th amendment; we don't generally go asking people to vote and vote again until they give the right answer. Stifle ( talk) 08:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - Nor do we uphold problematic deletions merely for the sake of finality. This doesn't exactly happen often. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Further comment from closing admin When I looked for the consensus, I noted the following:
- DustFormsWords: Clear 'delete'
- JBsupreme: Clear 'delete'
- Athaenara: Although shown as a 'comment', I interpreted this as 'Weak Keep', due to the phrase "mentions in... do suggest notability" (emphasis mine)
- Emmamme: Although shown as a comment, I interpret this as a strong 'keep'
It has been mentioned that no comments were made from DustFormsWords or JBsupreme since the article had had further references added - I should note that Athaenara made no comment following DustFormsWords' analysis of the sources provided.

Should the decision be made that this should be re-listed, I will add my analysis of the sources (as above) as a comment, but will not take any further part in the discussion. I also feel that I have now fully explained the logic behind my closure, and so although I will follow this discussion, I have nothing further to contribute. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 10:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment whether or not The Times proves notability, we are likely to have less of a problem with it in the future, as it will no longer be visible on Google. [23]. This will at least prevent people citing it without going to the trouble to examine the article--not that this is the case here, but it does happen. DGG ( talk ) 17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC). reply
Endorse deletion, after further consideration (note I commented above). This is assuming that the list of sources provided by the closer above, plus the BBC video, are indeed the complete list. I do think the AFD debate was sparse and suboptimal (this is not a criticism of the closer or the debaters). While DRV is not AFD round 2 (or 3+), the solid discussion here now has provided the eyeballs that the AFD did not. In particular, discussion has established the mentions of KidStart in reliable sources appear to be mentions in passing, and with limited editorial independence. Ergo, at least by my interpretation of the spirit behind our notability guideline, this does not pass the bar. Now, we could pedantically argue that DRV is not the right venue for the discussion. But the discussion has happened at DRV, it has been a good discussion, and it seems unlikely new points of view would be brought to the table by relisting again at AFD. The closer's close was policy based and within discretion. Martinp ( talk) 19:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment I disagree that the independent sources given appear to be mentions in passing and with limited editorial independence. Editorial independence is to publish or to not, and in the words of the WP:ORG are published non-trivial works that focus upon the organisation, as per the sources given. It seems to me that some are suggesting that WP:ORG stands for the subject having a TV documentary on it, a whole book published about it, or a whole page in newspaper dedicated to it. Which isn't what i understand when i read WP:ORG.
While i do appreciate the efforts of contributors to the debate contesting suitable notability, I do feel a point which i raised earlier has been forgotten about and seems to be blindly rejected by all the nominators who endorse deletion on the grounds of notability. If the Kidstart article was at fault for suitable coverage, why is it any different to similar Wikipedia articles: Quidco, Internet Cashback, Top CashBack (note: all with similar (suggested passing) press citations) (plus see other articles listed under Wikipedia category: Reward Websites), except that KidStart is unique as it only benefits children and charities, so is it for this reason Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny and remain on Wikipedia? It does seem awfully unfair and illustrates double standards.
With this in mind, i would appeal that as this is not a clear cut case (as shown in this lengthy debate so far, with 2 sets of camps interpreting suitable coverage in various degrees), surely in such cases and in the spirit of Wikipedia, it would make sense to re-list the article. Without a CLEAR consensus and with similar articles already existing on Wikipedia within the same category, it would seem fair and correct for the existence of the Kidstart article. Emmamme ( talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
With regard to "why do other articles exist", as a rule this is not counted as relevant either at AfD or review. Without looking at any of those articles, I can say that they either meet the "significant coverage at reliable, independent sources" criteria - or they would merit consideration for deletion themselves. However, either way, those articles existing (or not) have no influence over whether this article should exist. I meant to say this earlier, but I must have forgotten to do so, sorry! -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 06:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Further, in response to your repeated claim that "so is it for this reason [that it only benefits children and charities] Kidstart should be penalised and deleted whilst these other articles have escaped this kind of scrutiny and remain on Wikipedia? It does seem awfully unfair and illustrates double standards.": In none of the discussions (either at the AfDs or the DRVs) is there any mention that KidStart is being penalised. As I said earlier, no one is "picking on" KidStart - and although you are obviously closely connected to them, this is not a personal thing. There are no double standards here - if people feel that the other articles in that category are similarly lacking in suitable sources and/or coverage, they can be proposed for deletion in the same way that this article was. Again, let me emphasise that Kidstart is not being penalised and deleted for being a noble, worthy and charitable cause - it was being considered for deletion for not meeting the criteria for inclusion. And let me also reiterate that other articles existing (or not) has no bearing on this discussion. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 06:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - Incidently, the other articles appear to be inadequately referenced - I have proposed some for deletion, and taken some to AfD - I will check the others when I get a chance. Thank you for drawing my attention to them! -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 07:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Sorry, i didn't mean it to seem i was getting personal as i do appreciate this discussion and opportunity to draw a consensus, and I don't want it to seem that i'm sitting here pointing fingers, but i was illustrating my frustration as i'm a new contributor, and when i researched into writing this article, i used the benchmark set by existing articles on similar subjects to assist me. Although it should be noted that since the first AfD, the Kidstart article had progressed considerably especially with the inclusion of suitable coverage and their sources. Emmamme ( talk) 08:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn - The Times and the BBC took note of this organization and chose to publish about it, meeting the WP:GNG twice over. That the coverage was very favorable should be held in the organization's favor, rather than being held against it. — Jeff G. ツ 05:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion - noting that I'm one of the two delete votes in the most recent AfD. Only arguments for deletion are the article creator and Athanaera; I rebutted them both. 13 days of silence between my rebuttal of Athaeneara and the deletion can be taken as acceptance of my rebuttal. Emmamme goes on adding sources but does nothing to add sources which meet the relevant Wikipedia polices on reliability and independence. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 22:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Regarding my arguments that the sources were regurgitated press releases (which none of the above commentors took objection to during the two weeks that the AfD was running, which would have been a more helpful time to discuss it) - the articles are published in columns and newspaper sections that are not reliable measures of interest. Space in those sections can be bought, and charitable enterprises are often given the space for free as a kind of community-service-free-advertising. The fact that there's no analysis of KidStart is how we can tell they're not suitable as reliable sources. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 22:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Erb? You're claiming a journalist at the Times regurgitated a press release and put their byline on it? Just because the coverage was highly positive isn't great evidence of what is effectively an accusation of plagiarism. Hobit ( talk) 12:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

as I said above, what they did looks very much like exactly that. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I didn't know you could pay someone on the BBC News to include them in a national broadcast for you? Emmamme ( talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn, DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 May 2010

St. Mary's Catholic High School (Woodstock) – Unsalted by User:JamieS93. However, there is nothing in the history that can be undeleted- all prior versions of this article were attack pages or vandalism. Any editor is now free to write an article on this school that complies with policy. – Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 22:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This page should be undeleted so that people can contribute and help make it an informative and successful wikipedia page. As a former alumni and current supporter, I would love to be able to include information regarding the school. Many other high schools have credible and informative wikipedia pages. I feel it is unfair that this page should be locked because of some minor deviance. This page should be re-opened so that people such as myself can contribute and make it better. Stmaryswarriors ( talk) 21:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This page was deleted three times because it attacked a person or some other entity. We won't undelete that kind of page. But that doesn't mean you can't re-write a new page that doesn't attack anyone. Write a draft of the page in your userspace (let me know if you need help with how to do this) - with reliable sources - and then bring it here. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: I've unsalted the article, which is obviously what the user wanted – so this entry can be closed for housekeeping. Jamie S93^❤ 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

circle hand game – Protected redirect created. – Tim Song ( talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Redirect to List of school pranks#Circle_game Hm2k ( talk) 13:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree with you, but DRV examined that option and rejected it in this discussion.— S Marshall T/ C 13:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I understand that. However I have now addressed the concerns there and added an entry to the List of school pranks which did not exist before. Therefore, this is a new request. Thanks. -- Hm2k ( talk) 16:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Create semi-protected redirect. "Necessary" (word used at AfD) is not a criterion for having a redirect. Maintenance issues of abuse of an obscure redirect can be solved by protection with no greater harm than salting. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Create redirect, and recommend protection. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Udaya Dharmawardhana – Article has been recreated in a non-speediable format. – Stifle ( talk) 08:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

(Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSD G11)) This page was deleted by [[user:Pascal.Tesson]. I've requested un-deletion at his talk page few days back, but he didn't responded. So, i'm taking it here. Anyway i agree with [[user:Pascal.Tesson]'s claim of advertising or promotion regarding the writing style and lack of references. But I think that should have to be corrected without deleting the page. Anyway, i've created a new page for Udaya Dharmawardana in Special My Pages Section.. I think this new version is written in more neutral language and have more cites. Thank You. Nidahasa ( talk) 08:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

As the page is not protected from recreation, you can just recreate it if you overcome the reasons why it was deleted. Stifle ( talk) 15:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
First, a thank you to Nidihasa for responding to a speedy deletion in exactly the right way. I note you have followed Stifle's advice and the page is now back in Wikipedia space. I agree that as rewritten it is clearly not speediable and has cites. I remain a bit concerned that the documentation for notability seems rather weak. The cites I clicked through seem to be passing mentions of this director's activity rather than sources covering the director independently and more than in passing. I recognize that such sources may be in other languages than English or may be harder to find, especially online, but I suspect that if someone nominated the article for deletion (our longer deletion discussion process, not speedy deletion as happened with the original version which we all seem to agree made sense there) it might still have a rough ride in its current state. Martinp ( talk) 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Courageous (film) – In so far as we can, this case is formally resolved. – Stifle ( talk) 08:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I'm not actually asking for undeletion, as the article has been recreated anew and meets all the concerns expressed in the 5-months past AFD. However, a user suggested that I create this review to confirm my recreation and have the situation "formally resolved". Is there any reason why the article should not remain? American Eagle ( talk) 04:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Do nothing. The article has been recreated. It hasn't been undeleted. If an admin considers the article is substantially the same as the deleted version - which seems unlikely - it can be speedily deleted. If anyone considers the article otherwise fails our inclusion standards, it can be sent to AfD. I don't think a DRV "confirmation" is at all necessary for an editor to create an article if the editor considers in good faith that the reasons it was deleted have been addressed. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
ParisianBlade's mistake was understandable in the circumstances, but Mkativerata is quite right. I think this can be speedily closed. Nice article, by the way.— S Marshall T/ C 13:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not a good use of DRV. If you fear that it might be mis-deleted by an over active deletionist, post a note on the talk page as to why it overcomes the past AfD, and keep it on your watch list. Put a link on your userpage so that you can check that it stays blue. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 May 2010

23 May 2010

Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame – Relist at CfD. The consensus of the discussion below is that the deletions are valid, but there is no consensus whether relisting is necessary. Given the low participation at the original CfD, however, as the DRV closer I find that relisting may be beneficial. – Tim Song ( talk) 16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Several hours of my good faith work was speedily deleted without discussion because the category had been previously deleted with virtually no discussion. The guideline suggested by the nominator seems to contradict a great deal of accepted practice in categorization. Dystopos ( talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. No doubt your efforts to create and populate this category were in good faith, as was the effort to depopulate it and delete it. The relevant guideline is at WP:OCAT#AWARD; the general idea is that awards categories tend to overproliferate on articles, and so should just be limited to the highest honors in particular fields. I have no judgment on where this particular honor falls. There are two other state sports hall of fame categories: Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame and Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame. It's possible that some state halls of fame may be more worthy of categories than others, which would justify having categories for some but not all; or all may be equally important such that either all should have categories or none. postdlf ( talk) 21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Allow me to register my opinion that it is helpful to Wikipedia's users to have the choice of using or ignoring the category rather than to have that choice made for them. "Proliferation" of verifiable information is, in my opinion, the whole point of building an online encyclopedia. The aesthetic judgments of those who disdain "over proliferation" are counterproductive. -- Dystopos ( talk) 03:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The problem is not an aesthetic one, but rather a practical one we have learned from years of experience with categories. If categories are not limited to the most important ones, then the swarm of category tags on a page becomes overwhelming, and the resulting signal to noise ratio makes it extremely difficult for a user to find the category he's likely to be looking for. So not every verifiable fact should be categorized (which would in effect recapitulate the entire article), nor should categories duplicate every article's connection to every other article (which is what "what links here" is for). Maybe you think we should also rely upon a WP user to just "ignore" any information in an article's introductory section rather than editing it to the most defining facts? But that doesn't seem very helpful. Filtering and focusing is an important part of editing. postdlf ( talk) 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Relist at CfD for more discussion. Wikipedia:OCAT#Award_recipients doesn't trump having a discussion, and Dystopos wants one. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse the speedy as a pretty standard usage of G4. The identical category was deleted back in February through CfD, and the new version had no substantive differences. That said, I've no serious objection to raising this matter at CfD again- the discussion wasn't one of CfD's most through ones, even though the result is pretty much standard. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 07:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse the speedy. I don't see how circumstances have changed since the original CFD to make it invalid. -- Kbdank71 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

It's not that circumstances have changed, it's that there wasn't enough discussion about the circumstances at the time. -- Dystopos ( talk) 23:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

How much is "enough"? Consider CFD has always had trouble getting people to participate, the CFD was open for a full week and nobody wanted to keep it. How much more of a unanimous discussion was needed? (BTW, since I can't tell if this DRV is for the speedy or the original CFD, for these reasons I'll endorse my close of the CFD). -- Kbdank71 02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I guess my biggest question is, what would be said in a new CFD that wasn't said before? Would someone be able to counter the characterization of this as just a "minor sporting award"? Could someone shed some light here on the significance of state sports halls of fame overall, and the significance to an athlete of being inducted into one? And should we be considering a new CFD for the Oregon and Texas categories I noted above, regardless of whether this Alabama one gets another chance? postdlf ( talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Inviting more review of the original CFD, in which only the nominator and one other person participated, might provide more perspective on those questions. As induction is granted for long-term achievements rather than some specific performance supports the notion that it's not really a minor award (unlike, say " Category:Albanian beauty pageant winners" or " Category:Apple Design Award winners". I think it could be argued that induction into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame is a clear indicator of notability. 3/4ths of its inductees already have articles and the others certainly seem to merit new ones. -- Dystopos ( talk) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The current state of the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame article doesn't give me much confidence in it. It has no neutral third-party references (i.e., ones that aren't motivated to promote the Hall of Fame). The article states that one of the inductees was Jesse Owens; his article mentions no connection with Alabama beyond birthplace, and so nothing for which he is notable was done there...which doesn't give me much confidence in the relevance of this honor to the inductees beyond any "Sportspeople from Foo" category. So my recommendation is instead to focus on improving the article to the point that it can clearly justify a category; I don't think it does at present. postdlf ( talk) 23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I wasn't aware that the quality of an article was justification for creating a category. I had intended my hours of work building up this category as a prelude to working on improving the article, but instead it has been a prelude to arguing against deleting verifiable information on the premise that some articles have too many category links. -- Dystopos ( talk) 03:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Relist: I don't think it's correct to characterize a hall of fame as the same as an "award." A hall of fame indicates a lifetime achievement, and hence, more notability, than winning a single award. And not to pull WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but we have lots of categories for other halls of fame inductees, such as Category:Country Music Hall of Fame inductees, Category:Oklahoma Music Hall of Fame inductees, Category:Motorcycle Hall of Fame inductees, Category:Science Fiction Hall of Fame; in fact, I just found a whole bunch more here: Category:Halls of fame inductees. I don't think there is a problem with overcategorization as it relates to halls of fame, because if the hall of fame is populated with notable people, then by definition, the category is itself probably worthwhile. For example, if someone created a category for "City of Topeka Sushi Chef Hall of Fame inductees"--most of the members are not likely to be notable, and therefore the category itself is not notable. I would propose exempting Halls of Fame from the Awards overcategorization guideline. -- Esprqii ( talk) 17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist at CFD. Both the recent CSD and earlier CFD deletions were perfectly valid. And this probably won't survive another CFD. But here we have a good faith contributor who has put a lot of work into a category and now sees the work deleted because of the outcome of a debate he new nothing about and that had two participants. We should at least allow the contributor to have input into a discussion on the deletion of the category. I recognise this is largely IAR but here I don't think the purpose served by striclty applying the rule (G4) in this case outweighs the benefit of giving this discussion another run. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Long experience of what happens at CfD tells me there's no point in overturning or relisting a CfD discussion. DRV has overturned CfD before, and it's never ended well.
The key to understanding CfD is that participation is restricted to the relatively few users who care, which means most discussions are closed with little participation; and also that every CfD is a judgment call, because CfD doesn't have objectively-assessable criteria in the same way that, say, AfD does. This means that if you send this back to CfD, essentially the same users will have the same discussion and they'll reach the same conclusion. A different admin will close it in exactly the same way, and the user who raised the DRV will still be none the wiser about why. It's a very, very longstanding problem, and I don't know how to deal with it.— S Marshall T/ C 13:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think one might consider that a person willing to have put in hours of work to create and populate a category is effectively making an argument about whether he or she believes that work to be of value to Wikipedia. Perhaps that effort should count for at least as much as the quick jottings of those who lurk at CfD. We've now had at least two people who have labored to create this category and two people who have participated in the discussion to delete it. -- Dystopos ( talk) 14:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That view's very understandable. But equally, if we're to have categories, then someone needs to decide how they should be named and organised, and which should be deleted. So there must be a CfD process, and it will never be well-attended because so few users care.
Personally I advise against ever creating a category. Just write a list. I find the criteria for what's permissible in a list a great deal more intelligible, and if someone decides your list needs to be deleted then at least you can keep it in your userspace.— S Marshall T/ C 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: Perhaps instead of relisting this specific category, why not relist it more generically, eg, Category:Foo hall of fame inductees. You would get more interest and discussion on that. If the rule is that halls of fame are by definition awards and lead to overcategorization, then let's get rid of all of them. If there is some guideline, like a national hall of fame is OK, but state halls of fame are not, or if music halls of fame are OK, but sports halls are not, let's work that out. -- Esprqii ( talk) 16:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse speedy deletion; this is precisely why the G4 procedure exists—to avoid having to revisit every discussion every time a new user decides it would be a good idea to create the same thing that was previously deleted and the content and facts behind the content are unchanged. Categories for state- and city-level sports halls of fame in the U.S. have been deleted often: VA, Philly, NC, Buffalo, etc. —it's nothing personal against Alabama, obviously. (Just wait until we can review the deletion of the no-doubt-impending Alabama–Greenland relations article—that will be fun.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Would it be nice if these G4 category deletions included a link in the log comment to WP:What? My hard work has just been G4'ed!? Even if it just redirected to WT:CFD? For whatever human illogical reason, many people don't want to ask the admin questions on an admin User_talk page. I would still prefer category creation to involve an extra step (click) confirming that the creator knows what they are doing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. What I fail to get is this. When one tries to create a previously deleted category, there's this big honking pink box that tells you that the category has been previously deleted and a pointer to the CFD discussion. Now when re-creating an article that was previously deleted at AFD, it's theoretically possible to address the issues that led to the deletion of the first article in the content of the new article. This is not possible when creating a category. Wouldn't it be better to challenge the CFD close, first with the closing admin and then here at DRV, before putting in "hours of hard work" just to watch it all go *POOF*? -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

If there was a big honking pink box shown at the time, I must have missed it. Since 99% of the work populating a category takes place in the article pages, not the category page. --16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Click on the redlink for the category: Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. It shows up right above the editing window, with the header "A page with this title has previously been deleted." All previously deleted content automatically shows this notice whenever someone tries to recreate it. You created the category first and then populated it, so you would have seen the category page before populating it with articles. postdlf ( talk) 17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

As I said, I must have missed it. I really didn't have any doubt the category was justified and I used the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame category as the basis for where to categorize it. I probably just pasted it in and moved on without noticing the big honking pink box. It came as a surprise to find that consensus hasn't developed around the value of this type of category. -- Dystopos ( talk) 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I've often wondered if the big honking pink box needs to be made even bigger and more honking. Because when users want to create something, they seem to turn their honking detectors off—I always hear after the fact that they "must have missed it". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think that's right. When you think you know what it is that you want to do, you focus (think tunnel vision). I don't think there is any more to do with the advice at Editing Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame. The edit box is already well below the scroll line for me. Perhaps if this text "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact title. To avoid redundancy, please browse the existing categories before creating this page. " additional said "please ask at WP:CFD if you have any questions." I note that I am unlikely to ask a "robot", "Clydebot", questions, given that I already have a reluctance to talk on admin talk pages. The original deleter may be from long ago and might not be expected to be immediately responsive. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This may all be productive discussion if we assume that there is indeed no place for such a category in this free encyclopedia. I opened this conversation, however, hoping that our editorial community be given a chance to re-examine that assumption. -- Dystopos ( talk) 01:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The challenging of the poorly explained category conventions is something to be encouraged. However, I do not see a serious challenge being made here. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The problem with asking for a re-evaluation as I see it is that the assumption has been re-examined a number of times at CFD, and always with the same result. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

How many times? I only saw one "discussion" with a total of two editorial voices represented, both of whom seem to be right at home in the deletion department. -- Dystopos ( talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I was including this category and other state-level halls of fame (sporting and otherwise) in my use of "many", since a category for the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame is quite similar to a category for the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame. I don't know the exact number, but if I were to guess I'd say around ten or a dozen times. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Chinthana Dharmadasa – Moot. Article already recreated in the mainspace. I also restored the other deleted edits as there is no reason to keep them hidden from view (unless I missed something obvious, then go ahead and correct). – – MuZemike 03:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) This article has been deleted without any discussion. And how i've provided with more references to prove the validity of subject in deletion admin's Talk Page. But the deletion admin refused to restored and instructed to list it here.

permit recreation if.... I am not sure about notability, but it is sufficient informative that it passes G11. However, it has no external references at all , except to his facebook page and an advertisement for his film. There will need to be some better from sources unrelated to him, such as reviews of his films, if it is going to be able to stay in Wikipedia. If you have such references, I think you can just rewrite the article--omitting some sentences that sound like advertising because of the adjectives. If you don;t have the references, there's no point in trying. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn G11. Userfy, Incubate, or restore and send to AFD. I'm looking at the cached version and IMHO it's not spam. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and restore. Well outside the scope of "exclusively promotional" and does not fall into any other CSD category. But I agree this article shoud need some work with reliable sources to survive an AfD. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Note: A userspace draft has now been provided and in my view it is acceptable enough for us to wave it onto the mainspace. I have no views on notability: that really should be judged at AfD not here.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Undelete due to good faith appeal from an editor in good standing over a speedied article not involving offensive material. This should be automatic. List at AfD if there is disagreement over whether it is unacceptable promotion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Same as DGG, permit recreation if properly sourced. I'm aware this isn't strictly in accordance with speedy deletion process, but it is pure process wonkery to overturn a deletion of an article that, in its deleted state, hasn't a snowball's chance of passing AFD. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Regardless of the eventual fate of the article, it still would be helpful for a close here that says "it wasn't spam". -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Ok i agree.. There were only few references mentioned at the page at the time.. But now i've created an "Special My Page" here. It has more references and i've re-wrote some part to remove the "advertisement-like" parts. Can you please review it and allow me to take that page to public? -- Nidahasa ( talk) 10:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

delete

Those references are published by the owner of article. I can see, those are same self promotion descriptions where it was appear in personal website. Creating a one film how do we can say as notable and impotence for encyclopedia. (wipe 17:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wipeouting ( talk • contribs)

All the references (except the link to official page of his film) in this page are from newspapers and other reliable sources. And how many films one should create to be notable for you. There are plenty of famous directors who had directed only one film in their lifetime. -- Nidahasa ( talk) 17:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn. Not unsalvageably promotional, tone issues easily resolvable through routine editing processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hallowicked – Unsalted. – – MuZemike 03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Article deleted in January 2007 and has since been salted by Akradecki, who is currently inactive. Today, I believe he is notable enough to pass WP:ATHLETE as he has made appearances for notable independent promotions such as Chikara, Ring of Honor, Combat Zone Wrestling and Full Impact Pro and currently wrestles on pay-per-view for Dragon Gate USA. Has also held championships in various companies. I've re-written an article for him that can be seen at User:TheFBH/sandbox. TheFBH ( talk) 02:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Unsalt with so much time that has passed, article should be rewritten if someone wishes. Then, if someone feels it should be deleted, it could be sent to AfD. Dew Kane ( talk) 14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree. A good faith user wants to create an article, and this is a wiki. Unsalt without prejudice to subsequent AfD.— S Marshall T/ C 20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Unsalt and move draft to mainspace. The userspace article clearly overcomes the debate on the old article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Azmyth – Speedy deletion overturned. No clear consensus to send to AFD; I won't list at AFD myself, but if someone feels AFD is necessary, they are free to list it. – – MuZemike 03:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The band Azmyth is indeed notable WP:BAND. They meet at least three of the requirements.

The Band has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. OCALA, Orange Springs, Florida The band has won or placed in a major music competition.Pat Traver's Battle Of The Bands / Shredder Shootout (2009)(Notable Resources were on page.)(Was judged by several high caliber judges including Mark Smith, who wrote the score for "The Last Of The Mohicans)(There are additional references to back this up)The band has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. " The Regular Guys Show" (Atlanta) in 2003 for over a half an hour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positiveoutlook5 ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and restore. Actually WP:BAND is irrelevant for speedy deletion. All that is required is that the article made a credible claim to the band's significance or importance. That claim was credibly made here, eg performances and competitions. Whether the band meets WP:BAND can be discussed at AFD if anyone is inclined to nominate it, but this wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Undelete and send to AFD. Most likely doesn't meet WP:BAND but my reading of the cached version shows a weak assertion of IoS. Let the community make the call. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 12:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Unaware of how to nominate article on AFD I am unaware of how to post on this page. The article should have indeed been put up for deletetion initially, instead of speedy deletion. The claim was indeed credibly made. I also don't know how to undelete the page and nominate it for review-- Nascarman456 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nascarman456 ( talk • contribs) 14:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
You don't need to worry about how to nominate it; once this discussion is closed after seven days by an administrator, if the consensus is to undelete it was send it to AFD, the administrator will do so. Stifle ( talk) 15:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Undelete. The article did at least assert notability for this band. I take no position on whether it needs to be sent to AfD upon restoration; whoever thinks it should be sent to AfD can do that if they want. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn as inappropriate speedy, as noted above. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn speedy without prejudice to a subsequent AfD per Ron Ritzman. Not a valid A7. However, I think it's fair to set Positiveoutlook5's expectations correctly in this. The article is sourced mainly to myspace, facebook, blogs and youtube, and AfD won't tolerate that; they'll insist on independent, reliable sources and quite likely, delete if no such sources are found.— S Marshall T/ C 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
That is true, but the solid foundation of the article was based on newspapers, news sites, and magazines. I have found a lot of other reliable resources to add, but can't at the moment due to the page being deleted. How exactly do we go about getting the reliable resources, such as the people the band recorded with? They did record, and write with notable people, but i'm not sure where to find the resources for it. Most of the facebook links were to personal things i think, so do those just need to be removed if the page is reinstated?-- Positiveoutlook5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Positiveoutlook5 ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Ultimately it is the responsibility of the people who want to write the article to do the research. If you want to compile the reliable sources now before the article is restored, you can create a page in your userspace (at User:Positiveoutlook5/Azmyth) and compile there information you have found in newspapers, magazines, and news sites along with the source each piece of information came from. Then when the article is restored, you will have that information available along with the source for each fact. In regard to who the band recorded with, you will have to figure out what sources there are that confirm that Azmyth recorded with them. Once we know what those sources are, we can judge how reliable they are. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 May 2010

Rafael La Porta – Overturn and restore. No need to keep this open. – Tim Song ( talk) 04:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was nominated for speedy deletion. I followed the procedure for posting why it should not be deleted in the discussion page, but without any discussion at all on the merits of the article it was deleted. Granted, it wasn't a brilliant article in its present form, but the addition one simple clarifying sentence would have made the article meet the appropriate standards. Basically, La Porta deserves a page because he coauthored "Law and Finance," one of the most influential and widely read articles in political economy, in edition to numerous other widely cited articles. The original article was deleted because it failed to specify the extreme significance of "Law and Finance." Adamc714 ( talk) 22:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and restore. The article says he is a Professor who has written influential material. There are both explicit and implicit claims to significance. This shouldn't be deleted without an AfD. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn with no fault to the closer as the article as it stood could use some help. It looks like, as an endowed chair, he meets WP:PROF. But that wasn't in the article. Hobit ( talk) 02:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn, article included a credible claim of significance, a lower standard than notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The article said he's a full professor at Dartmouth University. How was this an A7?— S Marshall T/ C 20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- I guess I don't consider that a claim to notability, but as minor academic at a big school perhaps I'm jaded. Hobit ( talk) 03:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Pet naming – No consensus. Since the possibility of recreation or merging was suggested, I am undeleting the history of the article but preserving the redirect (which effectively preserves the admin's decision [as no consensus DRV closes do by default] but allows content to be used). – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Most of the delete votes were pure "I don't like it". Even if the minority of "fork" votes are allowed to carry the day it should have resulted in a merge closure rather than a delete and redirect. Polarpanda ( talk) 12:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse The rationale of the closing admin seems reasonable to me, and I disagree that the delete !votes were WP:IDONTLIKEIT, whereas many of the keep !votes were. Also, although it was never explicitly mentioned, many of the delete !votes gave rationales based on WP:NOT, specifically WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Unfortunate conclusion, but it can and should be reconstructed with more sources, used in more detail and quoted. Regardless of what the opponents of the Rescue tag think, it only works if there are enough people to actually rescue an article, and there was not enough work done here in time. It is so very easy to try to delete articles, and the relatively few of us prepared to work on them cannot keep up. The ratio in necessary effort is 1 minute versus 50 or 100. Myself, I cannot do more than 1 a day, but there are 50 articles I see each day that could be rescued, among the several hundred that must be deleted. It's a weird situation when someone who is called , however wrongly, an extreme inclusionist personally deletes 10 times as many articles as he rescues. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- We all know there are sources available but finding them was a waste of time and adding them would have been even more so. This topic is officially Just Not Notable, that's the only way to explain the close and it precludes any evidence-based reconstruction. Polarpanda ( talk) 12:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn valid topic for encyclopedia. As it was discussed in afd, there are books and articles on this subject, which passes GNG. Dew Kane ( talk) 14:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn per Dew Kane. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't like closes as "delete, then redirect" and I think they're best avoided unless there's some pressing reason to hide the history. Was there really such a reason here?— S Marshall T/ C 20:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and either keep or merge. Definitely not a fork; "non human personal names" is of more general scope than the specialized "pet naming". If sources weren't enough for notability, but exist, a merge is the preferred outcome per WP:PRESERVE. I suppose that a standalone article on Nonhuman personal names could be better, but the closing rationale doesn't stand up. So, overturn and let editing do its course. -- Cyclopia ^talk 11:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
A topic with entire books written on it probably should have an article. But that's not the point here, the question is if the closer erred. And he clearly did. The !vote consensus was plain and the topic indeed is notable by guideline (see [24] for example). Plus different than the proposed target in a meaningful way. overturn to keep Hobit ( talk) 01:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse Admin correctly discounted the WP:IDONTLIKEIT votes and the WP:ILIKEIT votes. It was redirected to a logical place where there is room to add any applicable content.-- Savonneux ( talk) 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 May 2010

List of most popular cat names – Endorse. It appears that consensus is firmly in the camp that having a really poor article about popular cat names is improving an online encyclopedia. – Black Kite (t) (c) 20:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I feel the closer did not really attempt to evaluate the comments for consensus in an unbiased manner. Despite the fact that Deletes outnumbered Keeps 2 to 1 (I fully understand it's not a vote, but I'm just making it known), the closer initially closed the AfD as Keep with a nonsensical closing statement, which indicated to me that the closer was going to close this as a Keep regardless of what the Delete !voters' rationales were. After 3 editors commented on the closer's user talk page, the closer struck his original closing comments and replaced them with comments which, while more reasonable, still do not reflect the consensus of the editors in my opinion. At the very least, this AfD should have been closed as No Consensus. The result would have been the same (i.e. the article would have been unchanged), but future AfD's for this article would not have the benefit of looking back in time and noting that there have already been two AfD's that ended in a Keep. I, for one, cannot find a rationale in the !votes that overwhelmingly supports a Keep decision over a Delete decision, to the point that we can say that a consensus has been reached among editors. I respectfully request that this AfD be changed to either No Consensus or Delete. SnottyWong talk 20:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse My first reaction when reading the closing statement (both of them) is to spit chips. As for the first: participants in the AfD debate come up with reasoned arguments and ought to be given a reasoned closing statement. As for the second, using the first AfD as a ground to close the second as keep has no basis in deletion policy: consensus can change. And the statement betrayed the closer's obvious personal preference for one side of the argument. Arguments on both sides of the debate were policy-based - neither side was overwhelmingly weak or strong by objective measure, so that should have been recognised with a no consensus close. But there wasn't a consensus to delete and the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is one of semantics. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- By the way what is with the 5th dot point of this essay? -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - I would guess it is referring to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting template, {{ delsort}}. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - Delsorting isn't "wikiproject pages". Dropping a note on a wikiproject page for input is fine - I do it often when I see debates that are on quite technical areas as expert input is helpful; however doing that as a mechanism to "solicit support" for inclusion is not ok.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
      - It is for "worthy" articles, which is what the essay says. E.g., if you alert WP:WINE to an AfD on an unworthy winery article, it will likely get a raft of delete votes.-- Milowent ( talk) 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        Mkativerata, by your comments you appear to disagree with the closing admin's actions (that is, if I'm fully understanding the meaning of "spitting chips"), however your !vote is still to endorse the original closing decision? I don't follow. SnottyWong talk 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        I think the reasoning behind the close was poor however the outcome of the close - "keep", by virtue of the fact that no consenus defaults to keep - was correct. DRV only overturns outcomes, not reasoning. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        I think the poor closing admin had no idea that on an article like List of most popular cat names, Snottywong would mount an effort last seen by the defenders of The Alamo. Obviously, the lesson here is that one must never let one's guard down on Wikipedia. All matters must be approached with life-and-death seriousness. Civilization is always at stake. One is always messin' with Texas. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        This isn't constructive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        Is Talk:List of most popular cat names any more constructive? -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        I agree and disagree. It appears that this DRV is not likely to change anything. However, at the very least, it lets overly inclusionist admins know that people are going to call them out when they abuse their power. And JohnWBarber, the only reason our discussions haven't been constructive is because all of your comments were either wikilawyering or purposely irrelevant so as to obscure the nature of the argument. SnottyWong talk 02:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        Well, that settles it then. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 05:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        "Abuse their power"? Over this? There have been some real instances of "admin abuse" on Wikipedia where admins engaged in genuinely worrying, or even harmful, behaviour. This, on the other hand, is about the AfD closure on a list of cat names. And you're on DRV, not AN/I. This is a drama-free zone. Keep the drama on the drama boards.— S Marshall T/ C 09:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. The article was vastly overhauled, hence many of the early !votes were less pertinent by the time of the close. -- Quiddity ( talk) 21:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to delete—there were delete !votes right up until the end, so the argument presented above by Quiddity ( talk · contribs) doesn't hold water. As far as I can tell, all the references which were added over the course of the discussion were unsubstantive, and included at least one self-published source. I agree that "the closer did not really attempt to evaluate the comments for consensus" (my italics). ╟─ Treasury Tag► cabinet─╢ 21:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse keep or possibly no consensus on the basis of the arguments and state of the retained article. The majority of the sources are from mainstream media, and there's obviously been substantial coverage of the topic of the popularity of cat's names. The deletion arguments based on WP:OR and WP:POV, "not encyclopedic" and "not useful" are extremely weak; many of the arguments seem to be more about disliking the topic and finding it trivial than having any basis in policy. Also note the number of !voters switching from delete to merge or keep, which suggests that the changes made after nomination were substantial and that if other delete !voters had revisited the debate they may have changed their minds. Fences& Windows 22:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse keep How completely silly. Towards the end of the AfD discussion period, I came upon the article and radically restructured it, adding a good amount of new sources. My additions countered some of the "delete" statements earlier in the discussion by meeting their objections. In those situations, closing admins are supposed to discount !votes because they become outdated due to new sourcing. WP:DGFA#Rough consensus: If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant. Since the AfD, I added even more sources -- various newspaper articles. The article is armor-plated. Get over it. In a few months time, I'm sure Snotty will come up with an argument not already used, and see if it will fly at AfD. Good luck with that. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 22:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm approximately with F&W, except that I think it really ought to be a "no consensus" rather than a "keep". There's not much practical difference. I'm amazed that someone apparently thought this list was the most urgent thing to write on Wikipedia, and I'm equally amazed that someone apparently thought this list was the most urgent thing to start an AfD on.— S Marshall T/ C 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- I thought I made it very clear in the AfD just how important this matter is to humanity. -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - JohnWBarber, your repeated sarcastic comments are neither helpful nor funny. SnottyWong talk 02:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - But they're neither snotty nor wrong. Not actually sarcastic, either. A little lighthearted maybe, but it's such a serious subject, so ... -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 05:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse in spite of the wording of the closure. I interpret the phrase "based on previous AfD keep" to mean "based on the arguments in the previous AfD keep". It is still not really an appropriate thing to have said, for if the closer thought those arguments necessary and non-duplicative, he should have instead contributed them to the AfD. (among them was my comment that "148 books on cat names in worldCat ", which I think greatly clarifies notability, but which I neglected to add this time). But otherwise I think there's enough to close as keep. Considering the many books, I'm not really amazed that people chose to write on this in WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: As the closing Admin I stand by my decision to close as a Keep. Whether or not that was the wisest decision in this case remains for this DRV to decide. I again apologize ( I think this is the third time) for the initial frivolous closing comment. However, in the interest of WP:RS, I must say that the nom in this case has been somewhat liberal with his interpretation of time. While I respect nom’s vigor in which he is pursuing this, especially his claim that it took three other editors to force me to strike my original closing comments: After 3 editors commented on the closer's user talk page, the closer struck his original closing comments and replaced them with comments which..., one wonders what motivates that claim? Would my initial comments have been any less damning if only one editor had called me on it? Which in fact was the case. At 09:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC) User:Thumperward respectfully made note of my frivolous close on my talk page [25]. When I read this, I respectfully did two things. 1) I struck my comments and 2) rewrote the close [26]. Note the time was: 12:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC). The actual time of my striking my initial comments was: 06:37, 18 May 2010 (MST). Now, both ThemesfromSpace (15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC) and SnottyWong (01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)) did indeed second Thumperward’s position, but only 3 and 16 hours after I had already changed my comments. I even responded to Snottyward’s comments [27] in what now appears to have been a feeble attempt to explain myself. This DRV will decide the fate of this article and the judiciousness of my close. That said, it really only took one editor to point out my initial frivolous comments, not three.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 01:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Under the authority granted to me by the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation (under circumstances I have sworn never to reveal, so you'll just have to take it on faith, and I will continue to deny that story about the long game of Never have I ever in that bar in the Tenderloin), I hereby grant you complete and utter wiki-absolution, my son. Go forth and wiki-sin no more. Now that we're done with that, can we get to policy-related reasons why the AfD result was so wrong that this perfectly fine article needs to be deleted from the encyclopedia? Or brought up at AfD so that we can discuss it for another week? -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 05:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist I really don't think Mike Cline should be closing list-related AfDs, and I have told him this in the past. He has shown an interest promoting these article and as such I don't feel that he is biased with these closures. This is especially the case when he goes out of his was to close only list-related AfDs. I think if a noninvolved admin would have closed this it most definitely would not have been "keep". Not only this, but the closing rationale reads more like a personal opinion than a statement on consensus. Mike should vote himself in these debates if he feels a certain way, but he most definitely should not close them if he has an agenda in mind. I think the best solution would be to relist the debate to have an uninvolved admin close it. Them From Space 03:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse The close took proper account of the significant improvement of the article by JohnWBarber. Colonel Warden ( talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and relist per Themfromspace. A perception of bias is no different from bias itself. Stifle ( talk) 16:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Weak endorse on balance. It's not a great article and the closing rationale is awful, but since there clearly wasn't a consensus to delete it actually reached the right outcome. Perhaps it could be relabelled as No Consensus, but I really can't see why a relist is necessary considering the large amount of participation. Alzarian16 ( talk) 16:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse closure as keep The closing administrator explained his reasoning. DGG made a compelling case, this something with notable references confirming the information. Those who said delete seemed to have ignored that, and just been trying to destroy something they didn't like. Dream Focus 23:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. This exactly what closers are supposed to do. By simple vote counting this is delete or possibly no consensus, but if weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the !votes and discounting those not based on policy then case for deletion has not been made. Closing as keep might be pushing it, but is within discretion. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. I'm a firm deletionist, as I was after ten minutes of new page patrolling, but I think this is an example of an article that belongs in Wikipedia. In its present state, at least, it's well-researched and informative. The administrator who decided to keep this article exercised sound judgment. ScottyBerg ( talk) 22:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Cyprus–Norway relations – No consensus to overturn. Although there was a 19-11 majority for "overturn," both opinions appeared throughout the debate without coming to any conclusive result. Those advocating "overturn" claimed that Shimeru imposed a "supervote," while those advocating "endorse" claimed that AfD was not a vote and that the "delete" !votes were stronger. Nearly all the arguments revolved around this; another disagreement worthy of mention was over whether the sources actually pertained to the notability of the topic itself or consisted of merely coincidencial encounters between the two countries. The back-and-forth debates among Chris Cunningham, Hobit, Alzarian, MickMacNee, and Colonel Warden contained several valid points, but included many irrelevant philosophical arguments about the nature of bilateral articles and, if anything, shows that this discussion can hardly come to a conclusion. Overall, with people taking predictable positions for the most part, and nobody willing to budge, there is simply no consensus in the DRV. Please, everyone, do not treat deletion processes as a battleground. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The closer used a supervote to express their opinion against consensus on the theory that the article was synthesis. No new conclusion was reached which is the definition of synthesis. This person should not be closing bilateral articles, they should just be another !vote Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse deletion—I don't know where votes come into this, but the closing admin used an exceptionally specific statement to explain which votes they discounted for specific reasons (such as blatant ILIKEIT issues), and soundly evaluated the arguments, which is precisely what anybody judging non-numerical consensus is supposed to do. I see absolutely no problem with the decision; indeed, it was one of the most measured AfD closes I've seen in a long time. ╟─ Treasury Tag► quaestor─╢ 18:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Ah, sneakily editing your statement after I've questioned it... good one. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Tellers' wands─╢ 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Really? You didn't seem to mind when I closed previous bilateral-relations AfDs as no consensus. How strange. Anyway... you've misrepresented my closing comments, but editors will be able to judge those for themselves by reading the AfD. I stand by them. Shimeru ( talk) 18:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not strange at all, you tallied the !votes at the previous one and didn't use a supervote. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Are you saying that you endorse closing admins tallying votes? Because that brings your judgement over this matter into serious question. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Lord Speaker─╢ 21:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Wrong. I never tally votes. Because AfD isn't one. Shimeru ( talk) 19:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I, like most people admire a Kafkaesque bureaucracy and the use of doublespeak. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Do you have any input to this discussion, or are you just drivelling? ╟─ Treasury Tag► duumvirate─╢ 07:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Strong endorse Absolutely spot-on close, discarding the comments that needed to be discarded and leaving no room for the spurious arguments of the disruptive editors that have tainted this AfD. Best close I've seen for a long time. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Strong Overturn-With all due respect, I believe this close sucked balls. It did not reflect consensus, no matter how idiotic the consensus of wikipedians may be in the eyes of a closing admin at any one time. I understand that the admin's role is to "assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion". Its clear there is no consensus regarding this particular article, indeed the same applies to many of these bilateral relations AfDs (which I have been learning the history of this week). The !vote count was 13-7 to keep, and while that of course is not dispositive, I didn't even bother to !vote on this one because I found it to be an obvious no consensus close--most editors simply don't have time to opine on every AfD. On this article, this is a legitimate debate as to whether the sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG, and since its not even a BLP, a default no consensus to keep would be the only fair result. I started this comment to post on the closing admin's talk page, but couldn't even finish it without the DRV being started. The DRV is going to waste a huge additional amount of editor time with no benefit to the project. What needs to happen (among those who want to participate) is more collaboration on how these bilateral AfDs should be treated. Cheers.---- Milowent ( talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
You appear to be under the misapprehension that AfD is a vote. And to be honest, it doesn't even matter, because a No Consensus close will inevitably lead to another AfD on such a topic that doesn't actually exist in the real world. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
"I believe this close sucked balls," – well, at least you're taking a constructive stance on this. +what BlackKite said, it's not a vote and the consensus was clearly explained by the closing admin. ╟─ Treasury Tag► belonger─╢ 19:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The admin explains why he rejected the lack of consensus. But there was no consensus to delete, as I tried to emphasize in the rhetorical style of master debater Vinny Gambini.-- Milowent ( talk) 19:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You appear to be under a misapprehension as to my apprehension. I do not claim AfD is a vote; its a determination of whether consensus exists. The closing admin shepherds along the messy democracy of wikipedia and is not a benevolent dictator, even if having benevolent dictators would be preferred. As to whether this topic "exists in the real world," I do not purport to be an expert in foreign relations, I simply am responding to the sourcing, content, and opinions I saw in this AfD.-- Milowent ( talk) 19:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn as Keep Wikipedia is based on the consensus of participants, not on the supervote of admins as occurred here. Alansohn ( talk) 19:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Would you care to justify your claim that there was a consensus (not numerical majority) to keep the article? ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 21:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Most !keeps were not based on policy, and were rightly disregarded by the closing admin. Claiming the nomination was in bad faith--even if true--is not a valid !keep argument. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus. This would have been an honest reading of the debate, but instead the closer appears to be partisan. Two of the 'deletion' arguments also mention the possibility of retaining the information in other articles (which is not a deletion argument) and the closer neglected to consider this when closing. If editors who are not SPAs believe that the sources do support notability of a topic and others disagree in equal measure, it is incorrect to take sides when closing. The information was all verified, so there was no reason under policy to delete the article as there was no rough consensus on whether the topic was notable. Fences& Windows 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus I really really want to endorse this close because I strongly agree with the outcome. But the consensus just wasn't there. Shimeru correctly disregarded a number of !votes but there remained enough reasonable policy-based arguments on the keep side to stand in the way of a consensus to delete. I find the delete arguments persuasive too, but the community-at-large, as expressed in this AfD, didn't. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus Per Fences and windows and Mkativerata. Dr.K. ^{λogos
πraxis} 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse Nothing wrong with the closure, clearly explained, and describes the actual weight of arguments presented. 'No consensus' is not a get out of jail free card when you've failed to give any persuasive, policy backed, reasons to keep. My vote was 100% delete, anyone worried about lost info can seek userfication. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
You know what? When it comes to X-Y Relations articles, for all X and all Y, I can already predict (a) who will participate in the debate, (b) how they will !vote, (c) which user will bring it to DRV if it's deleted, (d) which user will bring it to DRV if it's kept, (e) which members of the ARS will show up at the DRV to "overturn" (if deleted) or "endorse" (if kept), (f) which members of the rather more loosely-organised but still distinctly recognisable Article Extermination Squad will show up to take the exact opposite position to the people at (e), and (g) that the "note a vote" argument will be repeated ad nauseam by the side that won the AfD in this particular skirmish. I see we're getting a slightly more sarcastic flavour of snide remark this time round.
It's been, what, a year since these articles were created? And we're still going through this process of discussing them one at a time, because we can't agree on sensible guidelines about which should be kept and which deleted.
Like all X-Y Relations articles, that debate was thoroughly defective and gave almost no help to the closer in deciding what to do. A less defective debate would have found that Cyprus-Norway relations are not notable, so this topic does not deserve its own article, but that there were reliable sources in it that should be retained. This less defective debate would then have considered the possible merge targets and decided where the reliable sources ought to be preserved.
All in all I think it best if this debate is relisted so that can be achieved, and I also think it best if the participants in the last AfD and this DRV, including me, should recuse ourselves on grounds of lack of objectivity about X-Y Relations articles. However, if the closer of this DRV finds that a relist on those terms would not be productive, then my !vote is "overturn to merge, with no reflection on the closer, per WP:IAR."— S Marshall T/ C 23:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse- the closing admin explained their reasons pretty clearly and the grounds for disregarding certain votes, and I found them reasonable. Reyk _YO! 23:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse Deletion AfD is not a vote (indeed, it became AfD because VfD used the word 'votes'). Not all arguments are created equal, and the closing admin laid out his rationale very clearly. Textbook close, he read consensus instead of vote-counting. Hear hear. -- M ^ask? 23:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to keep. The arguments made in the closing would have been more appropriately made in the discussion--that's where the detailed analysis of a source should go, and then someone else will judge . FWIW, I did not participate in the AfD because I thought from the first few !votes and the strength of the article it would be an obvious keep. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This idea that "any sufficiently noisy AfD has to be a No Consensus" seems to have gained traction amongst certain elements recently. The first task of any closing administrator should be to draw a big red line through any bogus comments in the discussion, which was precisely what Shimeru did in his closing comment. This is in fact a textbook good close of a messy AfD, and it compares very favourably indeed to some other recent examples which didn't get such an honest close. For those making the argument that they didn't contribute because the outcome seemed certain to them, this could be seen as a personal failure to have properly evaluated the existing comments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- The problem for a closing administrator is seeing if one can tell apart the pure irrelevancies from the arguments they disagree with. The ones in the first class are to be disregarded in the close. The ones in the second class are not--the only way the closing admin can express his disagreement is by joining in the discussion. If his argument is good enough, it will convince people. If not, he shouldn't be using his position as admin to establish it. Except for what is and is not policy, the opinion of an admin has no more weight than any other established editor; for example, Chris, in an AfD discussion or any other content question, my opinion has no more intrinsic weight than yours. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - So let's get more specific here. Of the comments that Shimeru discarded, which ones do you believe were discarded because he disagreed with them rather than because they were weak? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - My guess would be all those which claimed this met WP:N explicitly or otherwise. That is a very strong argument, if true, and no one in the discussion really explained why the apparently reliable sources found in the article were somehow deficient. The closer felt they were not, but no one had an opportunity to counter than argument in the AfD. That is why closers shouldn't close on the basis of their reading of the material unless it's really really obvious. Hobit ( talk) 15:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
      - If the argument hinges on a claim of WP:SYNTHESIS, it is incumbent on the closer to look at the article. AFD is not a vote. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        1 I've no clue at all what that has to do with what I wrote. Certainly they can, and sometimes should, read the material. But if the issue is one of notability (which is what I'm saying the keep !votes were claiming was met and that the closer discarded because he disagreed with them) his view of notability shouldn't trump others. Chris asked which !votes appeared to be discarded because the closer disagreed with them. I answered. As an aside, I find "synthesis" arguments in this case to be really really weak and well addressed in the AfD. It was never made plain where the synth supposedly was. Is the claim that they have relations synthesis? Something else? I can't tell from the discussion. Hobit ( talk) 00:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to keep quite obviously. It was a strong article, with good sourcing, and the close is a complete disgrace, disregarding both consensus (which was in favour of keeping) and keep arguments (which were well grounded in policy and guidelines). It looks like a reasoned close, but it isn't. The closing admin simply disregarded what he/she didn't like and got the result preferred. -- Cyclopia ^talk 00:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Do you honestly consider a keep comment which consists of "passes GNG with flying colours" to be a strong argument? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - It is kinda obvious that it passes GNG, and what else we need to keep than passing GNG? The problem is that in this case strong arguments shouldn't have been needed -the article spoke for itself. And in fact consensus was for keeping it. The delete close is a disgraceful surprise. -- Cyclopia ^talk 00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - See, this is just gainsaying. You haven't further explained yourself so that your comment would be given more weight; instead, you've simply repeatedly yourself more forcefully. While it may be obvious to you that it passes the GNG, without any further clarification your comment shouldn't be given much weight, especially given that you evidently have a lower-than-average notability threshold. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
      - Chris, sources existed in the article. So saying it meets GNG is, in fact, a darn strong argument. Do you feel "doesn't meet GNG" to be a stronger argument some how? If there are apparently reliable sources, those arguing they are insufficient need to explain why. If there aren't sources in the article, those arguing to keep need to either provide them or make darn strong arguments that they probably exist. In my experience that's how AfDs generally go. The nub if figuring out if it meets WP:N given those sources (in addition to other guidelines and policies etc.) If the arguments are largely "yes it does", "no it doesn't" then unless the !vote is really heavily leaning one way, no consensus is the only reasonable outcome. Hobit ( talk) 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        I expect that if someone is challenged on an argument that sources do or do not count as reliable, secondary, and non-trivial, that the editor in question provides some evidence based on those sources. I do not expect them simply to repeat themselves more forcefully. The editors arguing that the sources are not sufficient have done so by explaining what the sources cover and how they're related to one another (the answers being "mundane news", and "not at all"). Therefore, a counterargument would seek to refute that. In fact, Cyclopeia's argument in reply to MickMacNee above was essentially that he disagreed with WP:SYN. Therefore, the closing admin rightly discarded assertions of notability without proof, while considering arguments of WP:SYN in the subject matter because they did have proof. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        No argument for deletion did anything other than state that the sources weren't enough. As they are secondary sources which cover the topic in a non-trivial depth, I'd expect that those arguming for deletion would explain why the various sources weren't enough. I think we are basically arguming "whose job is it to walk the sources in an AfD?" In my opinion when sources are provided that on their face meet WP:N those arguming for deletion should do so. Or, perhaps, those who are on the losing side of the !votes. But here neither side did. At the very least we then need to close as either NC or (perhaps) on the side of the !votes if one side has a massive majority. As neither side adressed any of the sources directly, I don't see how the discussion can be said to have reached a conclusion for deletion. Hobit ( talk) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
        I don't think that's an accurate characterisation of the delete comments. The point is that it is not the references which have to meet the GNG, but the subject of the article they are referencing. Several of the delete comments pointed out that the sources don't do that, and that while they may be reliable for the purpose of the "independent factoids" that they cover, they do not give any significant coverage to the subject of diplomatic relations between the countries. Furthermore, the exact number of comments on either side is completely irrelevant, as is their ratio. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

overturn to no consensus As it is obvious there isn't any consensus about what to do with such articles. Can people _please_ get a set of guidelines together for these articles? Pretty please? Like others, I'm sick of seeing these here and the !votes pretty much break down the same way each time. The sources seem acceptable to me, though certainly on the weak side. If the !vote were split down the middle, I could maybe see a delete. But not with the !vote looking like that. The key questions are: Does this meet GNG? The consensus appears to be yes and that's not an outrageous reading of the sources. Is there a strong enough IAR !vote to delete? And here the answer is clearly no. I don't believe any reasonable reading of the discussion could therefore result in deletion. Hobit ( talk) 05:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Strong endorse of deletion. a bold close but a correct one. the best way to argue for keep in any AfD is to prove significant coverage in reliable sources exist. most of the keep voters simply play the "disruptive nomination" card which of course is a masquerade for keep. Most of the keep voters made zero attempt to find sources nor addressed now coverage was more than routine or trivial. LibStar ( talk) 07:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn. There was certainly not a consensus to delete, even roughly. Slap the closer for supervoting. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- I really don't understand why the closing admin is being accused of using a supervote. He clearly rationalised his close. If he'd just closed it as Delete with no explanation you might've had a point, but he didn't. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - I think that the issue comes down to exactly what the keep/delete ratio means. Many of us believe that that ratio should play a major role in determining the result of the AfD. Certainly after ignoring or discounting (to an appropriate degree) !votes not based in policy, weakly based in policy, based purely WP:IAR, or factually wrong. But when the issue (as it is in this case) is subjective, the !votes count should play a significant role. You'll notice DGG and I both !voted to overturn a keep (me just to NC) when an admin again ignored the !vote count in favor of their own reading of the material.
    
    I'd think we'd all agree that 9 JNN/unencyclopedic !votes should trump 1 based on WP:N. WP:N is a guideline and WP:IAR is a policy. We've certainly had closures like that before (I think there was one on Larry King's hair or something like that which clearly met WP:N but would be ludicrous to have an article on in the opinion of most). We figure those cases out, that is where common sense trumps guidelines, by the !vote count. In any case, in this instance if WP:N is met or not was the issue and a majority felt it was. This wasn't _factually_ incorrect though reasonable people could disagree. But the place to disagree was in the discussion, not the close. Hobit ( talk) 12:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

There were appropriate disregards. Disregarding Meco’s !vote is not OK; that sort of opinion is the purpose of having debates. If his opinion is to be disagreed with, it should be disagreed with in the debate (it wasn’t), but not disagreed with administratively. It was not a WP:ILIKEIT !vote, but a reasonable, broad, philosophical position.

“After reviewing the sources, I find these arguments persuasive…”. This is not the role for a closer. The closer is supposed to close based on the content of the recorded debate. If he has to do further research, then the debate is not finished, and his interpretation of that research amounts to his !vote.

What I don’t understand is why “merge” options are seriously considered where there are obvious merge target articles. WP:N arguments don’t automatically make for deletion arguments where merging the limited content can be done. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Meco's vote is a perfect example of one that can simply be discounted in the first round of eliminating all opinions which have zero grounding in policy. And as for the idea that a closer should not be looking at the article? Seriously, wtf? His statement is a record of how he wieghed the debate, simple as that, and anyone who is doing that has to look at the article and the debate. He hasn't come up with any new angle or interpretation of the article that was not already raised in the debate, this was not novel research in any sense of the term. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

"a closer should not be looking at the article? Seriously, wtf?". No, of course the closer should look at the article. I read from the comments that he needed to freshly load and read the sources for form an opinion that he used to close; that it was not a simple weighing process. If that opinion was already in the debate, then I'll give MickMacNee his point. The discounting of Meco's vote is something I disagree with. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Using WP:Synthesis and recruiting people to "rescue" articles at AfD can't succeed all the time. Abductive ( reasoning) 13:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to No Consensus. Using either vote count or policy/guidelines to view this discussion, there were very strong arguments on both sides of the divide made by multiple users. Even disregarding the less convincing Keep comments, there's no way there was a consensus to delete. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
It's not a vote count, period, and simply stating 'passes GNG' or 'reliably sourced' are not strong arguments, especially when they are not expanded into anything that remotely resembles community consensus or detailed policy wording. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Can you please explain how this, this, this and this are not strong arguments? Alzarian16 ( talk) 15:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
[28]
"apparently there are reliable sources discussing Cyprus–Norway relations in detail" - please show me where a single source discusses their actual relations? Not an aspect of them, not a detail of them, the actual relation as a topic. And let's not even get onto the use of the word 'apparently'.

[29]
"Well sourced and useful article" - pure assertion, WP:USEFUL.

"There is nothing novel about suggesting these two nations have a relationship" - of course there is if you cannot present a single source that discusses the relationship as a topic, let alone in significant depth. You can probably find a google result or two for every single bi-lateral relation possible, but precedent at past Afds has already rejected the idea that they are inherently notable if you can just prove they exist.

"for bilateral relationships, serious non trivial discussions invariably refer to concrete diplomatic events such as agreements and treaties" - a suggestion that you simply only need evidence of treaties or agreements to declare the relationship notable - again, this is not something that has ever found much support while attempting to draw up a bi-lateral relationship notability guideline. Maybe if there was some detailed reference made to the actual agreements detailed in this actual article, but there isn't.

[30] (your own rationale)
"Meets WP:GNG." - basic assertion, the weakest argument possible. When all you do is throw up the acronyms, it is not persuasive that you really understand the content of the actual guideline - this is why explaining yourself in full is explained as the right way to go about giving Afd rationales.

"The fact that the coverage is spread over a number of only loosely connected events has no impact on whether the topic is notable" - totally wrong, and flies in the face of other principles like WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT#INFO. The GNG exists precisely to distinguish the difference between collation of random Google hits, and evidence of an actual, notable, and noted, topic, by demanding significant coverage of that topic. The deleted article was effectively a collection of examples of the relation, with zero content about the actual relation. Some people would go so far as calling that listcruft, but simply 'not worthy of inclusion for being not-notable' pretty much covers it too.

[31]
"Well referenced" - totally insufficient as a strong argument, we can and do delete 'well referenced' articles all day every day, because the quality of referencing is not the be all and end all, not by a long chalk. Maybe if he had expanded his argument, but he hasn't.

"enough information for a standalone article" - totally vague, doesn't even attempt to addresss the reason for deletion, and suggests that size alone is our bar to inclusion - patently this is just a non-starter as a keep rationale, especially when there are severall detailed and policy backed reasons given to delete.

MickMacNee ( talk) 16:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
How about this one? A reliable source covering the relations as the topic in detail. Your objection to the first two votes was based on this sort of source not existing; do you have another one? Alzarian16 ( talk) 17:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
That was already in the article. It's a primary source, which very briefly says 'relations are excellent', says that Sweden acts as Norway's representative (without even explaining why), and simply lists two agreements. That is not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, by any stretch of the imagination. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Quote: "you cannot present a single source that discusses the relationship as a topic". And another: "show me where a single source discusses their actual relations". The source does both of those. If you wanted a secondary source you should have asked for one. Of course it isn't enough to meet WP:GNG, but it is enough to prove that WP:SYNTH is not an issue. Alzarian16 ( talk) 18:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I was quite obviously talking about sources that meet the GNG, I should not have to clarify that every time, the notability of the 'topic' is the entire theme of this debate. If you already know this source doesn't meet the GNG, then what exactly was the basis of your "Meets WP:GNG." vote? MickMacNee ( talk) 18:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The close was not based on WP:GNG but on WP:SYNTH. This isn't an issue for the reasons eloquently set out by FeydHuxtable, so the close was wrong. Then there's the fact that several reliable sources cover what in effect are aspects of the relationship (such as this one and this one). So we have secondary sources covering aspects of the relationship in detail and primary sources covering the relationship itself, so neither WP:GNG or WP:SYNTH is violated. Therefore the article should have been kept. Alzarian16 ( talk) 10:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The closure cites SYN and the GNG, they are both relevant, but not in the odd way you are interpreting them. The novel conclusion under SYN being produced is that this 'well sourced' collection of factoids means that there is a notable topic here, meeting the GNG. The deleters rightly said this was not correct, a borderline nonsense interpretation of both guidelines, and the closer outlined pretty clearly that this is the position that carried most weight, once all invalid votes were binned, and so he closed it accordingly. It doesn't matter in the slightest to SYN whether the factoids are secondary or not, and it still matters to the GNG that there is no secondary sources for the topic, whether you have found reliably sourced factoids or not. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Looking at WP:SYN, the first line reads "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Where in the article did that occur? As yet I have yet to see anyone give a specific example. Alzarian16 ( talk) 18:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The existence of the article is the novel conclusion. This is what the GNG is all about - do not create articles on non-notable topics. Period, This is not rocket science, it's not even Wikipedia 101 frankly. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
So to clarify: if a source shows that the topic exists (which one does), and other sources talk about aspects of the topic in detail (which more than one do), that violates WP:SYNTH? I thought mine was supposed to be the novel interpretation! Alzarian16 ( talk) 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Of course it does, when the assertion being made is that you have found notable topic as defined by the GNG. I've said this now, what, about four times already? What's not to understand here? Instead of cherry picking which bits of posts you do and don't want to reply to, let's try a different tack. How about you give me a plausible example of something else where this combination of a primary source on the general topic, with secondary sourcing of disparate aspects of it, comes up with something that passed the GNG. Preferably something a bit more convincing than Colonel Warden's effort of ' recycling', and even better, an article with some prior evidence that it has ever survived an Afd on notability grounds, and is not just some out of the way unnoticed cruft. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I had tried to avoid using this argument because of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since you ask: try First Student UK. 29 sources: seven primary talking about the topic as a whole, five more discussing aspects of it, and seventeen secondary sources also talking about aspects of the topic (usually local area operations). There was a proposal to merge this and two other related articles, but the discussion ended with a consensus to retain separate articles. Alzarian16 ( talk) 09:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
(de-indent) First Student UK (or rather 'yellow First buses in the UK') has been covered as a topic as a whole, I have personally read at least one whole article in the UK trade press on it before, and plenty of other significant coverage of it as an entity in its own right too. But I can also see there is a very real case for that article not needing to exist, and for the referencing to be shared between a generic UK school bus article, and the actual First subsidiary companies or independent contractors operating these buses. It can even be seen as a rather blatant NPOV violation, or even borderline spam. Where can info about the other groups running yellow buses here, such as Arriva and Go-Ahead, be found? That is where a generic article would be better. The coverage of a single operation, Pegasus, is a clear distortion of the notability of the topic as a whole - something which only happens when people take this attidue that articles are mere dumping grounds for related material. If you are arguing that it is a notable topic based on its current referencing and those discussions, then I'm sorry, but that article, in terms of its current referencing, makes a bloody poor job of including sources to that effect. I only know of its notability through my own knowledge, anybody not knowing the subject has every right, in Wikipedia policy, to call that article severely dodgy. And I really don't think those discussions, between what? six people? has actually given a policy backed answer to the question, 'is this brand notable in of itself'? And based on the article, your guess is as good as mine as to whether First have actually incorporated a UK Student subsidiary, so large parts of that discussion, somehow based on it being a separate company, is on very shaky ground. The closest it comes to featuring a defence, is NOT PAPER, which has got zero mileage for these relations articles in the past. So, in summary, yes, you found a crappy article that meets your dodgy definition of 'existence by factoid', but if it came down to it, and somebody Afd'd it on notability grounds, I would, if I really wanted to save the article, go and find the evidence of its notability which would support a defence that it shows it would satisfy the GNG (and I still have my doubts it would not end up being merged/split). The same cannot be said of Cyprus-Norway relations, because we have just had the Afd, and nobody brought anything to the table. I half think that nobody has put that First UK Student article up for deletion yet because, even though it isn't backed by an on-point reference, the actual text makes a stab at asserting it is notable as an overall topic - on the very real wiki-principle that if people write such assertions that are blatant bollocks, they usually get removed. The idea that 'First operates a nationwide fleet of yellow buses which people have taken notice of', is not a whacky fringe idea. The same cannot be said of Norway Cyprus relations, which is why the article is pretty unconvincing in that regard. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Cyprus-Norway relations are not a "wachky fringe idea" because the countries themselves openly talk about them (see the primary source you argued so strongly against). First definitely have a UK Student subsidiary becasue they say so (see here),so that objection is invalid. Pegasus makes up only ten of the sources; that still leaves seven talking about other aspects of First Student UK. Arriva and Go-Ahead run no dedicated school bus operations except for a small Go-Ahead joint venture in the US (see Google results) so wouldn't be mentioned in a generic article anyway. At the discussion six users opposed the merge, mostly based on policy, and two supported it; you claim this is not a consensus, but also claim that the AfD for Cyprus-Norway relations reached a consensus to delete when this was the minority view. For a minority view to be a consensus the argument has to be very strong. The argument you have given takes two policies ( WP:SYNTH and WP:GNG), joins them together and uses them to endorse a viewpoint that neither states. If it were an artice it would be deleted for violating WP:SYNTH! Alzarian16 ( talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
As ever, you just ignore half of what is being said and come to your own conclusions of what was being said and try and answer that, it seems. The whacky idea is not their existence (whether you measure that by "they say so" method, or a rather more encyclopoedic approach), it is their notability. I frankly don't know what you are talking about in terms of policy and consensus anymore, you seem to be making it up now, that discussion does not show that brand/operator/comany, or whatever the hell it is, is notable in any way in terms of an actual notability guideline, and you just seem to be really really confused on what notability is, and what policies those notability guidelines stem from, and you keep trying to wrongly pretend that the only issue here is whether relations exist, or by analogy, whether First Student UK exists. And on a tangent, if you don't think Arriva and Go-Ahead would be mentioned in UK school bus article, I don't think you are know what you are talking about. They both operate yellow liveried school services on the exact same legal basis as First, the only difference being whether First does it as a properly separate O-license, and whether they are still using specially specced buses. That is a distinction which wouldn't matter in the slightest for a generic article on the topic. Anyway, I'm done here, I am wasting my life with this crap, if you don't get it by now, you never will. This relations article violates SYNTH by asserting that coverage of it meets the GNG through the article's (not the relations) simple existence on wikipedia. It's as simple as that, and so far, that's not a position which has been countered in any understandable way from where I'm sitting. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
To be honest, when you've been reduced to throwing accusations that don't stack up (my favourite is the "making up consensus" bit), it's probably time you stopped - if only for the sake of the people who agree with your view, whose case you are doing no favours. Your argument has changed so many times that it's bgecoming difficult to know what I'm meant to be responding to. Let's just wait and see what the closing admin says. Alzarian16 ( talk) 09:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
My argument has changed? What absolute and total bollocks. You are the one who started out with 'meets GNG', then went on to admit the refs don't actually meet the GNG, but that doesn't matter because it was deleted under SYN, and now, I really have no clue what your argument is. And not once have you even really listened or even understood what I've said. If you think the First Student discussion is a consensus, more fool you I say. I think most editors not editting in that area know full well that a consensus of people who are not referring to policy, is not a consensus at all. Those articles don't usually find this out, because nobody cares about them enough to even bother with them. I've been through that First content at great detail with you, you on the other hand, well, I still have no clue what your argument is that that article proves its notability based on the factoid collection of refs it includes. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
My argument has been the same throughout: the article meets GNG, and SYN is not an issue. I think your position is the opposite, but looking through your posts it's become increasingly hard to tell. More to the point, though, this is DRV not AfD so what my argument or your argument is shouldn't be the focus of the discussion. What matters is whether or not the closing admin judged consensus correctly. I think he didn't, you think he did, and neither of us is going to change our minds. So in effect this entire discussion was a waste of time. Alzarian16 ( talk) 02:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to No Consensus. Closing admin discounted most of the Keep votes, but then the same could have been done for most of the Delete votes. That has not happened, despite most of the delete votes simply asserting that there is no coverage in reliable sources, without demonstrating these claims. Pantherskin ( talk) 16:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
How exactly do you demonstrate that then? Bearing in mind all you said in the Afd was that "apparently there are reliable sources discussing Cyprus–Norway relations in detail". MickMacNee ( talk) 17:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn There was no consensus to delete. The closer did not seem to follow the guidance of WP:DGFA: respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That sounds rather outdated. The Wikipedia of 2010 is not the place where everybody's feelings are respected. We have clear set of policies and guidelines now, and a terrabytes of Afd precedent. People whose Afd rationales do not even come close to resembling policy, or who cannot defend their positions beyond vague handwaves to the GNG, really should not be molly coddled. Common sense is common sense, and consensus is about weight of arguments, not feelings. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The guideline is clear - the closing admin should respect what the participating editors say. This is also common sense - there is no point in a discussion which then results in a biased judgement based upon the preference of the closer. The closer must not insert their own opinion of the facts of the matter but must respect the judgement of the participants. This is the essence of consensus-building. To do otherwise would be petty tyranny. Colonel Warden ( talk) 20:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

He did not insert his own opinion, he did not say anything that was not already in the debate. Wiki is not a free for all, not everybody's opinion is equal - respect, and therefore weight, is only due to those who can demonstrate that they do infact have a proper grasp of policy and common sense. Wikipedia already is a tyranny in some places, or have you missed the last few developments in the field of BLP / Flagged revs etc? Everywhere else, it relies on one simple thing - clue. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The closer most definitely did insert his own opinion. He stated clearly that he reviewed the sources himself and so formed his own opinion of them which he then used to determine his close. Such behaviour lacks clue as the community will tend to strike down those who assert their superiority using force majeure. Colonel Warden ( talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

When the main disagreement centers on the question of whether the sources are sufficient, then it seems to me that it's precisely the responsibility of the closing admin to review those sources. Closing any discussion whose result is not crystal clear pretty much demands a review of the article -- and checking the clear ones isn't a bad idea, either. More than one article with an overwhelming 'keep' majority has ended up being speedied under g12/copyvio. Shimeru ( talk) 21:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
He reviewed the sources in order to confirm the already stated deleted opinions were infact more cogent and valid than the weaker keep votes, which when you discount the invalid votes, were not as numerous as people are making out to try and claim a 'no consensus' was even desirable (leading to an Afd again in a year). This is what any cluefull closer should do, as plenty of people have said is clearly what happened. Do not confuse 'showing your workings' with 'exercising your own opinion' as a 'super vote', that analysis simply does not stand up, much like the handwaves to the GNG in the Afd. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

He cited a weak source, not a strong one. This indicates either selective bias or inadequate sampling. And he failed to allow for the possibility of further improvement. Articles are not expected to be perfect at AFD. For example, nothing had yet been added to the article about Norwegian sponsorship of the UN resolution regarding UNFICYP peacekeeping in Cyprus - a matter for which there are numerous good sources. In looking only at the current state of the article rather than considering its potential, he did not properly allow for the reasonable doubt which WP:DGFA requires to be considered. Furthermore, his reliance on the collection of factoids argument was not policy-based. When we have a general article, it is quite normal and necessary to bring together disparate facts about various aspects of the topic. So, the close seems a tendentious justification of an improper disregard for true consensus-building and so should be over-turned. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

People have 7 days to prove an article has potential at Afd, that's a non-argument for not closing as delete. The collection of factoids angle is perfectly policy based. Unlike the catch all much misunderstood guideline that is the GNG, we have actual principles and policies, concrete ones, against merely collecting any old facts into articles, just because we can. If you can give me any example of a similar article on a notional topic, where the references were so obviously unconnected with each other, and unreprepresentative of a discussion of the actual notional topic, I'd frankly be amazed. Infact, I'd put it up for deletion, so let's see it. The UN resolution example is, like everything else in the article, a poor example of notability for, or notice of, this actual topic. It's beyond weak infact. Our own UNFICYP article doesn't even mention Norway, so arguing that the pedia is missing something by not having this bucket for it to be dumped in, shows how this obsession with these articles is such a blatant mixing up of priorities. These are not general articles, and they make useless 'I wonder if' indexes. These are by definition extremely narrow intersections, where the relationship is unarguably trivial, and frankly non-existent, in most cases. In the cases where notability is asserted, then it absolutely needs to be obvious it exists as a topic, over and above a few factoids. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That the factoid argument is not policy-based may be seen from the fact that no policy exists to describe this. I clicked random article a few times to pull up a general topic which, by its nature, tends to ramble all over the place - see Recycling. Such articles tend to be composites of numerous sources and it's a matter of editorial judgement how we should balance and scope them. Colonel Warden ( talk) 19:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

What are you smoking if you honestly believe recycling is not covered as a general topic in sources? This is not an argument, and neither is 'no policy exists'. We have NOT#INFO for a starting point principle. And as long as people aren't making assertions like you just did, which I cannot quite believe you just did, that recycling is just like Cyprus-Norway relations as an example of an 'unsourceable topic' as a whole, then the GNG actually already covers this whole indiscriminate collection of refs issue quite well, as to whether that is notability or not. You of course won't see a policy if you don't understand the ones we already have. Man alive, there are entire books, huge great volumes, written solely about the topic of Recycling. Norway-Cyprus relations? Notsomuch tbh. You probably could not have picked a worse, or more astounding, example if your tried. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

NOT#INFO says nothing about factoids or anything like it - that's just your imagination, not policy. And while recycling is obviously a more notable topic, the point is that that article is a ragbag - a collection of factoids about different sorts of recycling supported by different sources. It does not represent the settled view of an external authority - it is a composite which has been composed and selected by ourselves. It is normal and necessary for us to write in this way because if we were just to parrot some particular source then we would add no value and risk breach of copyright. Colonel Warden ( talk) 21:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I did not say it covered it, I said it is the starting principle, from which people are supposed to exercise common sense and clue. Or have we really got to the stage where editors are incapable of doing this? NOT#INFO states: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, "..merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Now, you can stand there and try and argue that because they are the result of a Google search for the keywords Cyprus and Norway, that the collection of subsequent refs is not indiscriminate, but please don't pretend that "NOT#INFO says nothing about factoids or anything like it", you might aswell align yourself with the camp that asserts all relations will automatically meet the GNG, for all the credibility that has. Your recycling example is bad, period. It has no resemblence to the deleted article, and your idea that we would have to violate copyright to use general sources is ridiculous. Infact, you seem to have just missed the point entirely, which is not that a collections of varied sources are not used in other notable articles, it is that we do not consider notable, subjects where it is evidently impossible to find a source about the topic as a whole. And one that is sufficient to meet the GNG, before I end up getting taken down that circular road again. I will withdraw my endorsement of this deletion as soon as someone turns up here with a single, credible, GNG compliant source covering the topic Denmark-Cyprus relations. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

CWhat matters is the WP:SYN assembly of off-topic mentions and random news items into a topic. WP:NOT#INFO says, in point 4, "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting...". Since there are no sources that address the non-topic of Cyprus Norway relations, the Article Rescue Squadron is violating that guideline by stringing together news articles and inventing stuff out of whole cloth. This behavior is disruptive. Abductive ( reasoning) 21:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:SYN is not applicable because there is no novel thesis presented by such articles. I've not followed their development closely but my impression is that they have arisen as a natural form of completism. We have articles such as Australia – New Zealand relations and as they grow in number, it occurs to some editor(s) to fill in the gaps in a systematic way, so that our coverage of international relations is complete. Naturally some of these skeleton articles are stubby but this should not be a problem as they are quite harmless and provide a sensible framework for additions. But some contrary-minded editors decide to take these articles to AFD and then the matter turns into a silly inclusionist-deletionist pissing contest. The blame for this sorry state of affairs hardly rests with the ARS as they didn't invent these articles and their involvement is at least tertiary because the articles first had to be written and then proposed for deletion. Now when a particular case of this sort is settled that should be an end of it as we all have more important and useful work to do. What seems particularly disruptive is to renominate a vexatious case of this sort so that the cycle may be repeated. This is my interest in this case - it seems important to stamp on the practise of vexatious renomination as it is such an unnecessary nuisance. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

My recollection is that a single editor took a look at some of the few valid articles we had, decided every single combination was automatically notable, and set off on a cookie cutter stub creation spree. Then when people rightly tried to get rid of them, the ARS got involved, and we ended up with factoid articles like this. Nobody in their right mind can tell me that deciding to create this rag-tag collection of refs would have been the result of someone correctly identifying Wikipedia was remiss in ignoring the notbale relationship between Cyprus and Norway, and deciding to create the article. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

So it seems we agree on how we got here - that the article's basis is a structural one, not a particular one. The thing is: notability is not a policy and so it is legitimate for editors to ignore it if there seem to be good structural reasons for creating a general class of articles. We see this in the case of places and athletes, for example. It does not seem unreasonable that the relations between sovereign countries might be considered sufficiently weighty that we should have a framework for them too. Norway and Cyprus have a direct financial relationship of some 5 million euros and this seems comparable in objective importance with a professional footballer or a small village. If editors feel it is worthwhile for us to record such stuff then there is no policy which forbids it and so we're good. Colonel Warden ( talk) 06:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Yup, and if that were remotely true, List of examples of Cyprus and Norway having relations, would be speedy closed as keep at Afd. But it isn't, because you know full well that this pie in the sky view ignores huge great swathes of other core policies, namely WP:NOT, if you really want to pretend that most people here are not arguing that it did 'meet GNG'. And for the record, I really don't give a toss about footballers or villagers - WP:OSE is seemingly now just the latest in the long line of weak excuses being made to overturn this decision to no consensus (and FYI, 5 million Euros doesn't even buy you a Premier League, or even a half decent Championship level, footballer these days). MickMacNee ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn - In the absence of overriding issues such as BLP, for a sourced page to be deleted requires a clear consensus. That didn't exist, here. I would add, as a general principle, it is for the commentators to assess the sources. Whilst it is appropriate for the closer to review that evaluation, it would not be correct to substitute the closer's judgement for that of the participants. TerriersFan ( talk) 21:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Which is exactly why the closer's statement matches the argument made by deleters. I could understand if the closer has clearly invented another angle on the debate, but he clearly hasn't. And as for 'clear consensus', when you strip out the clearly invalid votes, and weigh the remainder, it exists, it's not rocket science. These Afd's are going to re-occur year after year, unless people realise that this is what cluefully divined consensus actully looks like for articles where a rag tag of urls can actually be found, but need to be looked at beyond their mere existence, because existence is not notability or worth, not by a million miles. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus. Though I can't see the article, many of the keep votes indicate that it was adequately sourced in independent, reliable sources, meeting the GNG. The closing admin did reject many of the arguments make for keeping (personal attack, etc.) which, even if true, do not allow disregarding the proper keep votes that claimed it met our General Notability Guidelines. The closing admin also addressed this, saying that the article appeared to be a wp:synthesis of multiple sources. Again, I can't see the article, but different aspects of the relationship can be discussed from different sources in the same article without running afoul of sp:SYNTH. Buddy431 ( talk) 00:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Addendum: forgot my conclusion: there exists reasonable disagreement about whether or not this meets the GNG. Reasonable, legitimate disagreement = "No Consensus". Buddy431 ( talk) 01:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You could always request temp undeletion and be sure. The only disagreement I saw was whether you have to actually explain how something 'just meets the GNG' by virtue of being 'reliably sourced', or whether enough people saying it enough times is enough to be able to ignore all the people who say the exact opposite, while in some case even going further and explaining why. And p.s., as per Warden, examples would be nice, I for one am having a real hard time envisaging this strategy working for anything other than these relations articles, which seem to be the only topic where there doesn't have to be any evidence of a topic. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn. I remember being neutral on the first AFD here; when the article was eventually kept I added some material to make the article a bit more comprehensive. Norway's relations with Cyprus are not a high priority in my opinion, because most relations are fairly light. There is some economic activity and rivalry when it comes to shipping, but not anything which makes the article a "must keep" as "Norway-Sweden" is. But to evaluate the closure, I think the rationale given is a poor one. The main problem with the closure is that it falls into the trap of evaluating each argument individually, discounting everything which appears to fall into one of the WP:ATA categories, and then closing based on the numbers of what is left behind. The result is ignoring the voices of many users who actually support valid arguments even though they do not explicitly write them out. A much better way to close the AFD is to see if there are valid arguments on both sides of the discussion, and then see what level of support they have. If one side is absolutely being unreasonable on arguments, then closing against the numbers is valid, but otherwise you should stick with the consensus, and declare "no consensus" if no such consensus exists. I also feel that the closing rationale cherry-picks some of the poor "keep" arguments in order to dismiss their entire case. Several arguments were dismissed based on not reading the entire rationale (For example: Dream Focus is ignored simply because he thinks that repeated AfDs are disruptive; the fact that he referred to the financial connections is utterly ignored). Since I see reasonable arguments on the "keep" side which enjoy significant support, the article should not have been deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Seems like a good close to me. As a side note, will it ever be possible to dispense with the fiction that adding "strong" to one's bolded !vote will actually add to it any extra weight? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus. There was clearly no consensus to delete. Dream Focus 14:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Nominator is well aware that he is supposed to discuss issues with the closing admin before bringing them here, and has persistently failed or refused to do so. Closure was entirely within admin discretion. Stifle ( talk) 16:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Given that said admin had stated in his close that "I can already see the DRV coming" I'm not sure there was much to discuss. Alzarian16 ( talk) 16:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment - I know that this isn't AfD part 2, but I'd like people to consider this issue anyway. I'd like to ask: What is the benefit that excluding this article does the encyclopedia? It is not an hoax. It is not made of unverifiable information. It is reasonably NPOV. It collects several segments of verifiable information, but it doesn't arrive at conclusions that can be deemed WP:SYNTHESIS. That's exactly what an encyclopedia article is for: collecting and structuring information on a topic from reliable sources. Nobody here denies that the bilateral relationship, no matter how weak, exists and nobody denies, more importantly, that sources have covered individual facets of it, even if they perhaps didn't cover the relationship as a whole. I think it passes WP:GNG very well, but even if it is borderline on this, then it is just a technicality that prevents us to have a completely reasonable article, for the reasons above. Before deleting (or including) one should ask: What is the benefit of this action for the encyclopedia and its public? I would love answers on this subject, from both camps. -- Cyclopia ^talk 20:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I wonder why you even bother to pose the question, I know you know the answer, Jimbo summed it up pretty well for you on his talk page in your recent conversations. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for the entire world's collection of verifiable information, just because it exists. What is the benefit of deleting articles like this? It tells the world that our standards of notability actually mean something, that we are a credible encyclopoedia, and that articles they will find here in a 100 years time, will, or rather should, reflect topics the rest of the world gave enough of a shit about to take notice of as a topic, and that Wikipedia did not, through its own weird ways, decided to cobble unconnected sources together and define something as being notable. If readers come away with the same impression I did when I read this excuse of an article, then you can bet your life Wikipedia's credibility goes down every single time an article like this is kept, on the flimsy basis that it 'meets the GNG' (no further explanation or expansion deemed necessary, inspite of abundant evidence of clear and present opposition to that view). If you keep making these various pronouncements, sooner or later, someone really is going to get their teeth into the GNG and make sure this kind of stunt can never be pulled again. Becuase it is pretty clear it is wishfull thinking that a bi-lateral guideline is going to get approved. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for the entire world's collection of verifiable information, just because it exists.. Agree completely; in fact I am talking of sourced verifiable information.

If readers come away with the same impression I did when I read this excuse of an article, then you can bet your life Wikipedia's credibility goes down every single time an article like this is kept - To me, credibility of WP goes down the drain every time an article like this is deleted. I use to think of a credible encyclopedia as a resource that is as thorough as possible, that structures and summarizes every facet of human knowledge. An encyclopedia which relies on subjective standards is not a credible one. I bet that in 100 years time, people would thank us of having "cobbled unconnected sources", instead of letting them do the same work from scratch. Imagine if the Romans did the same, how many things we would know that now are lost forever. Your approach reminds me of this quote from the New York Review of Books: Still, a lot of good work—verifiable, informative, brain-leapingly strange—is being cast out of this paperless, infinitely expandable accordion folder by people who have a narrow, almost grade-schoolish notion of what sort of curiosity an online encyclopedia will be able to satisfy in the years to come [32] -- Cyclopia ^talk 11:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Guys, this isn't supposed to be another drama board. Please take philosophical arguments to the talk page or another venue rather than crowding the DRV itself or you'll both probably be ignored. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn - Admittedly I don't know if it should be "No consensus" or "keep", but "delete was not appropriate. The reasoning and the interpretation of WP:NOTE of the "keep" arguments, which were very strong, were simply disagreed with by the closer. We don't have to agree with consensus, but we should follow it.-- Oakshade ( talk) 05:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse more caterwauling over not liking the result rather than a legitimate admin action concern, especially over this topic. Tarc ( talk) 15:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This DRV is not here because of the result, but the closing admin's decision not to adhere to it.-- Oakshade ( talk) 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The DRV was initiated precisely because the initiator did not like the result. The "supervote" angle is a tenuous crock of shit. Tarc ( talk) 12:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

There is plenty of proof above that the closer incorrectly disregarded some votes focusing on their weak aspects and ignoring the stronger ones. It seems also clear by the closure that the closer decided on the basis of its own opinion on the sources, not on the basis of consensus. -- Cyclopia ^talk 13:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Excuse me? "Its"? Shimeru ( talk) 20:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The supervote angle is the opposite of a "tenuous crock of shit". If you prefer "disregarding community consensus like an evil dictator who hates humanity" instead, so be it. Is this DRV over yet?-- Milowent ( talk) 13:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

"Plenty of proof" perhaps to those who arrive here seeing what they wish to see, per usual. And yes, I hope this is over soon as well. Tarc ( talk) 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You seem to be laboring under the mistaken belief that majority == consensus, which i'll freely accept your apology for once you go read WP:CONSENSUS, particularly the part that reads The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority. To paraphrase a wikipedian of yore, it's ridiculous that people think they can get around policy and core values if only they yell loud enough. -- M ^ask? 01:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Strong overturn. The closer did not evaluate the express consensus; the closer invalidated the expressed consensus as incorrect. That was inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 14:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus. Clearly there was no consensus to delete. Shimeru saw this Deletion Review coming and for good reason. -- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 02:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Strong endorse deletion — if this is overturned, we had better change all the policies that say xFDs are discussions and not votes. The only way this could be legitimately overturned is if we demand strict vote-counting without any weighting of arguments. We might as well just change policy to say that "consensus" is a 60% supermajority. *** Crotalus *** 17:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Frederick Glaysher – Deletion endorsed. However, the page has been userfied to User:Radon Detection/Frederick Glaysher to permit recreation. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I am appealing the decision of Wikipedia to delete the article on me, “Frederick Glaysher,” in April of 2008. Because of the dominance of Baha’is of the largest Baha’i denomination on Wikipedia, I believe my appeal can not and will not receive a fair hearing through the normal procedure. Because of the increasing importance of Wikipedia during the last decade, and the Haifan Baha’i determination to keep any article about me off Wikipedia, I believe they have severely damaged the recognition and growth of my career, as a poet and writer.

At the time the “Frederick Glaysher” article was under debate in 2008, Wjhonson observed, "The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson 4 April 2008" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frederick_Glaysher

Wjhonson had also stated,"Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely...." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_4#Frederick_Glaysher

In addition to Wjhonson, other Wikipedia participants also had misgivings about how the discussion and deletion were conducted. Please refer to the Wikipedia database for details. The record of my being a “vocal critic of certain Baha’i institutions” can be found on my website The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship

Wjhonson created a Wiki page for me on his County Historian Wiki at http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb/index.php/Frederick_Glaysher The “Frederick Glaysher” article there has had over 6,500 hits on it during the last two years, which I believe demonstrate there’s significant interest in who I am and my career, both as a poet and literary critic and as a reformer within the Bahai religious tradition. During the last two years, significant new material has also made its way onto the Internet about my work as both a poet and Bahai reformer.

In order to help Wikipedia understand the ferocity and deception involved in the treatment I have received from Baha’is who dominate discussion of articles that they perceive to be related to their interests, I believe it is necessary to describe in a few paragraphs the Bahai religious conflict that is taking place behind the scenes on Wikipedia, and which led to the deletion of the “Frederick Glaysher” article.

I have been publicly attacked by Baha’is and slandered in many venues, on and off-line, and as an “apostate” by Moojan Momen in a leading British academic journal: ‘Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community’" in Religion 37 [2007] 187–209. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%237135%232007%23999629996%23674070%23FLA%23&_cdi=7135&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5b99f6924a55e2c8a71092082ec219a3

My published “Response to Takfir” (denunciation of infidels) appeared in Religion 38 No 4 2008: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/A_Response%20_to_Takfir.pdf Original journal source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%237135%232008%23999619995%23701138%23FLA%23&_cdi=7135&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b476fc231c4982240a933b11582a5375

Since the Reform Bahai Faith has often been attacked and slandered in the past by the larger denomination of the Baha'i Faith located in Haifa, Israel and Wilmette, Illinois, as have several other Baha'i denominations, I must point out that I believe the Reform Bahai Faith has also been misrepresented and suppressed on Wikipedia, by the Haifan Baha'is. As documentary evidence of the harassment that several Bahai denominations regularly experienced from Haifan and Wilmette Bahais, please visit the website of the Orthodox Bahais who are currently being sued by the dominant Baha’i denomination in the US Court of Appeals, along with two other small Bahai denominations. Contempt Motion by Wilmette NSA against Orthodox Bahá'í Faith: http://trueseeker.typepad.com/true_seeker/court_case.html

On February 20, 2009, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals of Northern Illinois vigorously questioned the Haifan Baha'is on their harassment of other denominations, including Reform Bahai. Judge Diane S. Sykes stated that their conduct "Clearly raises some Constitutional concerns." A brief 3-minute official court recording of the proceedings may be listened to at http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/archives/US_Court_of_Appeals_2-20-09.mp3 A link is provided on the following page to the original 30-minute US Court recording from which the 3-minute excerpt above is taken, should you wish to verify its authenticity: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/USCourt_Appeals09.htm

The Reform Bahai Faith is a peaceful, open, universal interpretation of the spiritual teachings of the founder Baha'u'llah. Knowing that the Reform Bahai Faith has been misrepresented on Wikipedia, when not completely suppressed, I ask you to consider our own understanding of who we are and what we believe, if necessary. About the Reform Bahai Faith http://www.reformbahai.org/about.html

All matters Baha’i aside, my career as a poet and writer is being adversely affected, and I appeal to Wikipedia on that basis for an impartial evaluation and decision. I wish to note that my two books of poems received over twenty-five reviews, several of which are available on the Internet. Many poets on Wikipedia have had nowhere near that number of reviews, including my other citations, for instance, in an interview with the Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow.

If Wikipedia consensus does choose to permit an article on me, I request that consideration be given to “locking” or handling it in some way that will prevent future abuse of it by continuing Baha’i fanaticism directed against me out of religious hatred.

Thank you for your careful consideration of my appeal.

Frederick Glaysher Books, poems, essays, reviews, interviews, blogs http://www.fglaysher.com

Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship

Reform Bahai Faith http://www.ReformBahai.org

Endorse deletion—there was absolutely no procedural malpractice in the closure, it seems perfectly sensible to me. ╟─ Treasury Tag► stannator─╢ 18:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion-while the article was deleted over 2 years ago and is long gone from google cache to verify, the closing admin seems to have properly judged the consensus of the discussion, and closed the matter as delete. Since its been so long, if a new editor wanted to create an article on this subject in their userspace and solicit opinions as to its chances, I would be willing to opine. However, as the appealer here is the subject of the article, I am not comfortable with the subject creating his own article.-- Milowent ( talk) 19:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Permit recreation. Not overturn, because the article at the time of deletion did not really show notability. I've restored the article for this discussion. I not the original article did not even mention Baha'i, except for the list of external links in the this version--which had been removed just before the AfD nomination. I don;t think doing this and then nominating is a good idea, for if the links are inappropriate, it can greatly help clarify the reason for removing the article by showing just that in the AfD. Given that a good part of the notability currently claimed is religious, I suggest an article emphasising that be written, and then it can be sent to afd again if it is still thought inadequate. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse while noting I participated in that discussion. Nothing presented amounts to either a genuine change in the notability of this person, or a flawed process. That the subject himself is appealing and using this process to launch ad hominem at those opposed specifically, and at a religion in general, bespeaks of an intent to WP:RGW and fail to WP:AGF. Deleting the article in the first place was the community's application of some WP:SOAP. MARussellPESE ( talk) 03:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Untertitel.jpg – Invalid request - nonexistent image – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Admin Pascal.Tesson deleted this image. The Admin wrote, "This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is patent nonsense ( CSD G1)." I could not find a discussion to delete it, so I'm guessing the Admin speedily deleted it. I do not know why the Admin called it patent nonsense. The text in the image was in Swiss German. From the userbox on the Admin's userpage, I see this Admin is able to contribute with a basic level of German. Perhaps the Admin did not understand the German in the image?

I could not find who uploaded the file, however, I found that GreyCat split the article in which we use it, Subtitle (captioning), from Subtitles, and I found that Andreas -horn- Hornig, added the image. From the userbox on the user's userpage, I see this user is a native speaker of German. I did not see that the Admin notified Andreas -horn- Hornig of the image's deletion. This either means Andreas -horn- Hornig is not the uploader or (gasp) the Admin notified no one of the image's deletion! I hope the latter is not the case.

In either case, would someone please undelete this image, as it is still currently, and always has been, in use in the article, since the day GreyCat created/split it? Taric25 ( talk) 12:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment I'm not sure where you see the deletion reason, the image itself never appears to have been uploaded here. I can however see something on Commons [33] where the image seems to have been deleted as a copyvio. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
OK, I see now. You've seen the images talk page which was deleted by Pascal Tesson as patent nonsense back in October 2007, they didn't delete the image itself. The image was on commons and not deleted until August 2009 as being a copyright violation. Not sure why you didn't try discussing this with Pascal Tesson first (as indeed the instructions here direct) you'd probably have found this out a lot quicker and without the need to jump to conclusions. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment Looking at the file history, it looks like there was never a file here under that title. The only deleted edit is the nominator posting a link to this DRV on 21 May. However, a file by the same name was deleted on Commons as a copyright violation: [34] Jafeluv ( talk) 11:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

CozyCot – Deletion endorsed. No prejudice against recreation with proper sourcing. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I don't know the previous content and the entire history of all creation attempts of this article (five of them, since November 2007), the first four ones having as reasons "blatant advertising", "very short article providing little or no context", "doesn't seem to be notable. Most of the references are primary sources, and the two news are not specifically about CozyCot.com". The last one got an Afd. However, I find notable the subject of the proposed article, with significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject, being one of the most popular websites from Singapore. I posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CozyCot a sourced content that I want to propose for review.

Restore I'm not overly familiar with the sources used, but they appear to be reliable and some of the articles are solely about CozyCot. Hobit ( talk) 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Oh, for the record, I agree that the previous close was perfectly solid. But the new draft appears to be above-and-beyond what's requested by WP:N. I certainly see no fault on the part of the closer. Hobit ( talk) 06:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse For the same reason given in the AFD - nothing about CozyCot on Google News (beside company PR). Three of the sources on the article are press releases by the company, another one is apparently an ad which appeared in The Strait Times. I couldn't check the two other ones but all in all, the website doesn't appear to have received significant coverage. The sources in the article proposed above are not better - the editor just stacked up dozens of unreliable sources to give an appearance of notability. Most of the sources I checked don't address the website directly in details as required by WP:N and those that do are company press releases. Laurent ( talk) 16:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- [35] looks like a real article and not a press release. I can't tell exactly what this site is, but it seems reliable. [36] covers a number of websites, but has a few paragraphs on this one. Is there something wrong with those sites I'm missing? Hobit ( talk) 16:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- The user Laurent has been asked at the Afd to mention which are exactly the press releases, if they really exist. At this moment, the proposed draft includes 5 reliable sources specifically about CozyCot ( [37] [38] [39] [40] [41]), one with significant coverage [42] and other 4 ( [43] [44] [45] [46]) to give an idea about the way CozyCot is cited in Singaporean media when it's about netizens' popular opinions. This if by reliable sources it is understood media with current Wikipedia article. But I think that also media like Media Asia should be considered reliable, they are not yet properly covered on Wikipedia. Most of these sources are from the last month (I just added few moments ago another source (the interview on 938LIVE). Probably they give an idea about the usual coverage of CozyCot in East Asian media. Sources exist, but they are not easy to find, I see that Google News does not show most of them, being already archived in order to remain available only for paid subscriptions, and they can be found on webcaches, article hosting on Asiaone etc. It looks like the previous content of the article did not respect some Wikipedia rules, but the subject being notable, the content should have been just bettered, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.95.14 ( talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse per WikiLaurent ( talk · contribs) and the fact that the verdict was very clear indeed. ╟─ Treasury Tag► UK EYES ONLY─╢ 18:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Can someone explain why is this subject not considered notable, although it fulfills the notability guideline, requiring significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.226.35 ( talk) 19:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse 17th May deletion as a true and accurate reflection of the consensus at the time. As an entirely separate issue, permit creation of an article based on the AFC page. The salting was necessary in the past because of repeated creation of inappropriate material, but now we're dealing with what seems to be good-faith material written by a good-faith user.— S Marshall T/ C 23:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Strongly endorse deletion and strongly support keeping the page create-protected. Per my comments at the AfD, this is likely a paid-editing job. This page has also been deleted five times in the past. Notability is borderline at best and Wikipedia is not a place to promote your website. I note that the above IP 79.112.226.35 comes from Bucharest Romania, the location of the IPs of the editor User:Desiphral, who originally created this article and has since been banned by using an army of sockpuppets to create paid-editing adverts. Them From Space 18:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- I detect some structural problems here. I'm sure you checked my IP and you found I'm from UK. I initiated the AFC and this debate, but you did not mention me at all, because this would have invalidated your claim. I'm not sure about the Romanian IP, however, the Wikipedia article about Romania says this country has about 22 million people... It's a matter of good faith supported by bad faith arguments. Anyway, I'd like to repeat the reason for which I started this discussion. I consider notable the subject of this proposed article, CozyCot is one of the most notable Singaporean websites, it receives frequent coverage in Singaporean and East Asian media. I already gathered enough sources only from media articles of the last few weeks. The last one covers CozyCot as one of the websites "putting Singapore on the global map" ( Net Winners jpg, May 26, 2010, The Straits Times). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.95.13 ( talk) 22:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

As you're on the subject of good and bad faith, it might be an idea to use your normal Wikipedia account; that way you can't be in violation of WP:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts, Avoiding scrutiny. Brumski ( talk) 18:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

- Serious question: what is the official policy on paid editing? My understanding is that it's generally acceptable but I may be out of date. I am unaware of it as a reason to delete, but I don't tend to pay attention to such things. At the moment the topic appears to meet WP:N (plenty of sources though I guess they could be reprinted press releases, I don't see any evidence of that) so I think an article is a reasonable thing, but again I'm pretty open minded here... Hobit ( talk) 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Commment No one seems to be arguing that there aren't reliable sources that meet WP:N at this point. The draft, as far as I can tell, addresses the issues raised at the last AfD and no one seems to be disputing that. Nor, as far as I can tell, is there any reason to deny the creation of a fairly neutral article because of problems in the past or claims of COI. Therefore I'd say that the right thing to do is to endorse the closure and move the draft into mainspace without prejudice to another AfD. This isn't speedyable as a recreation. Does anyone object to that plan? If so, could you explain why? Hobit ( talk) 13:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Agreed that the AFC looks to have enough sound sources establishing notability, which is all we really need here, but I'd rather that it underwent some review (especially to remove the Rescue Squadron-style non-references which make only the most trivial of mentions to the subject) before it went live. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Great! If you have specific references you have issues with, could you either just remove them or enumerate them? Hobit ( talk) 22:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wet paint sign – Deletion endorsed. No prejudice against recreation with proper sourcing. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Reasons given for deletion are mostly classic examples of arguments without arguments and do not make use of policy, guidelines, or essays. They are as follows: 1.) The nom's reason is nothing more than the words "not notable" (see WP:JNN) 2.) WP:UNENCYC (unencyclopedic). While this is considered to be an argument to avoid in general, one participant gave it as the reason to delete. This person said the article sounded "silly" and cited another unrelated AFD in progress at the time, but gave no actual policy stating why this does not belong. 3.) One participant said it should be deleted because a previous AFD had a non-administrative closure. Once again, this is not a policy favoring deletion. 4.) Another said "does not really explain why it is notable" (just another way of saying "just not notable") 5.) Another participant gave some barely coherent explanation saying why articles on other signs exist or not. Once again, this was not policy based. 6.) Others supporting deleting just said so per others in the discussion.

Reasons favoring keeping were as follows: 1.) Plenty of non-trivial sources do exist, therefore this meets the general notability guideline. References can be found in many places, including books. 2.) Many arguments given in favor of deletion are classic examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 3.) The nomination offers no new evidence from the past one this should be deleted 4.) In all, these arguments are policy- or essay-based, not just personal opinions.

Additionally, the "keeps" outnumber the "deletes" 9:6. Shaliya waya ( talk) 03:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse- a quick read of the AfD page confirms that the delete arguments were not just "votes without arguments"; they were mostly well argued and grounded in policy. And I can do no better than to echo the closer's rationale that if, after two years, two AfDs and a rescue drive there's still no proper sourcing then that's good evidence that there's just no way of getting an encyclopedia article out of this mess. My opinion is that this was well within the closing admin's discretion and that they made the correct decision. Reyk _YO! 05:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Closer's comment: Shaliya waya, you dismiss all the "not notable" arguments, and claim that there are "plenty of sources out there". Could you indicate which of these sources provide "significant coverage in reliable sources"? None of the sources in the article at the time of the nomination or at the time of the closure of the AfD met this requirement, making all "not notable" arguments rather strong, despite an essay claiming that they should be ignored. All references were just passing mentions, using "wet paint signs" as a short example of something else (e.g. the first source, [47], and this one [48]). Fram ( talk) 06:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. A poorly sourced article about a non-notable topic got deleted because even though there were fewer delete !votes, the keep !votes were weak and not as policy based. Niteshift36 ( talk) 07:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse A bold close but, given the strength of the delete arguments, it was within the closing admin's discretion. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. I liked the article, but policy overrules that. Stifle ( talk) 10:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Stitching together many passing mentions and claiming that these constitute analysis of the topic in secondary sources is what the Article Rescue Squadron does wrong. It muddles the meaning of secondary sources, debases debate and wastes everybody's time. I hope against hope that the ARS gets the message and quits it with the WP:OR. Abductive ( reasoning) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse, obviously, per all the above. ╟─ Treasury Tag► duumvirate─╢ 18:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: Are we just deleting all the cool articles now? I would have closed as no consensus, because there was not consensus to delete. Oh well, perhaps someday a better version will be created by someone that will withstand scrutiny and rejoin Wet floor sign. The worst !vote, perhaps, is the final delete, by Abductive, which says "I had high hopes that the Article Rescue Squadron could find real sources on this one. As it turns out, they failed." Looking for sources is every editors' responsibility, if only the pariahs in the ARS are doing it, the project is going down the tubes!-- Milowent ( talk) 20:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I looked for sources myself. My comment was meant to demonstrate that in spite of many neurons in many heads doing many searches, good, on-topic sources were not found. I wanted the article to be kept if sources could be found, but they weren't and so it was rightly deleted. I argued to merge Wet floor sign since I felt there was an appropriate merge target. Abductive ( reasoning) 12:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

- Everyone would welcome a recreation of this article with reliable sources which indicate notability properly. That multiple users tried and failed to find them is a very good argument against having kept it, and "no consensus" does not mean "there are good arguments for deleting, but these five or six guys all showed up saying 'strong keep' so it would be awkward". Strike the non-arguments and there's a pretty good line of unopposed reasoning for a delete here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

An excellent reason why we need WP:BEFORE to be required. Let the deletionists look for sources, and the inclusionists look for poor quality hopeless articles of which there are many--as I well know, for, though an inclusionist, I have deleted many thousands of articles at speedy or as expired prods, many more than I've rescued. In my opinion, only someone who recognizes that there is actual junk can judge what is not junk, and only someone who recognizes that articles can be sourced and improved can tell what is hopeless. Many of those who are generally deletionist do work honestly and hard on sourcing articles, and i consider it adds greatly to their credibility. There are many approaches to doing things right here, but they all involve work. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You're perfectly within your rights to insist that we raise the bar such that editors are prohibited from questioning the existence of an article without proving that they spent a given amount of time looking for sources, but this is presently a fringe notion and certainly isn't to be paid any attention to in an AfD. And yes, everyone knows that you've deleted scores of articles which don't meet your personal notability threshold (and WP is certainly better off for your having done so), but it's entirely irrelevant when it comes to articles which meet your criteria but not that of the community as a whole (which is demonstrably rather higher and has been for years). As for the appeal to the authority of the "rescuer", how good a grasp of article potential one has is orthogonal to how many little life-ring icons one has on one's user page, and this argument strongly implies that "deletionists" do nothing but look for articles to AfD all day while never considering articles to be worthy of improvement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Which is more or less what happens, Chris. Last example: On my last PROD patrolling I deprodded an article because I found several RS about its subject, and linked sources in the oldprodfull. The PROD nominator asked on my talk page to add these sources to the article, otherwise it will get deleted anyway. I said "Yes, I'll do that, but why don't you begin too?". The nom answered basically that while PRODding was his job, putting sources in it's not his job. Yes, because adding a PROD tag with Twinkle is so easy, and doing a bit of WP:BEFORE isn't. So yes, there are people that look for article to delete but do zero to attempt to improve them. I am perhaps guilty of the opposite (looking for articles to keep but not helping as much as I could to improve them), but the point is that at least by keeping stuff we give the community the opportunity to improve, while by slashing notable stuff, we remove this possibility. WP:BEFORE should be mandatory before any AfD or PROD, because otherwise you don't show a will to help the encyclopedia, you only show will of slashing stuff. -- Cyclopia ^talk 12:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The straw man deletionist isn't a very effective argument, and anyone who uses the word "slashing" when referring to the process of nominating an article for deletion should probably get some fresh air. Anyway, this is irrelevant here; multiple users have evidently attempted to find sources and all failed, so WP:BEFORE has been satisfied. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I've deleted thousands, not scores, because they clearly don't meet wikipedia's notability standards; I use my own judgement whether they might meet them, and I tend to be optimistic, but I accept the current consensus about the standards. (At the moment I seem to be one of the few admins actually checking and deleting expired BLP prods; much as I dislike the entire procedure, I consider myself obliged to follow it.) I do not confuse my own views with my admin responsibilities.

But the articles that actually can pass the standards even though poorly written or researched should be identified as soon as possible, improved or marked for improvement, and removed from the deletion workflows. I wouldn't characterize requiring WP:BEFORE as fringe: it almost passed for BLP PROD, and came fairly near the last time it was proposed for AFD. It will be proposed again, at reasonable intervals, and it will pass in both cases. What I decline to delete are articles which don't qualify for the deletion criterion used, and for which I cannot find another. For example, I've been seeing BLP prods for people on national level football teams, which are utterly trivial to source from the team page--and where a source that they are on the actual squad is definitive evidence of meeting WP:N, not just temporarily escaping deletion. I also see such claims, for people who turn out to be on the youth squad, or the like, and they get deleted. I don't deliberately do work that I know will be rejected. Careless work of any sort makes more work in the end, for oneself as well as other people. I don't work to fix an article once I see it will not conceivably be kept, any more than I would nominate one for deletion that I know will not be rejected. The first step in responsible decision-making is not judging by appearances. DGG ( talk ) 16:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn I cannot see how just 6 people supporting delete out of a total of millions of Wikipedia editors can be called a "consensus" when outnumbered in this original discussion alone. Only 40% of those who originally commented supported the deletion. I'm sure there are sources out there for something so commonplace, and even if they are not in the article today, someone can simply find them and add them. There is no deadline to do so. Dew Kane ( talk) 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The consensus is developed over time and codified in the policies and guidelines cited in the argument. WP:V, WP:SYN and WP:N have consensus on Wikipedia, and the ideas behind them are also the consensus of most of educated humankind. The very idea that you are arguing to keep an article entitled "wet paint sign" would be laughed at by most people. Abductive ( reasoning) 11:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That seems a little strong, as it could well be a viably encyclopedic topic and I can't really see where WP:SYN comes in to play. However I'm inclined to agree that Dew Kane's comment was misguided as it seems to violate WP:VOTE. Alzarian16 ( talk) 11:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

People should tell half their real life friends that they are arguing on Wikipedia to restore an article on wet paint signs and half that they are arguing for an article on popular cat names and see which gets the most laughs. Abductive ( reasoning) 12:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I generally find that describing almost any Wikipedia activity gets a laugh from non-editors. My real life friends laughed while I was writing London Country North East, and it's a GA now. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Not creating an article, arguing with people. Abductive ( reasoning) 14:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I helped preserve 2008 Passover margarine shortage and my family is very proud of me.-- Milowent ( talk) 15:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse as the deletion case seems to be stronger, but create an article on Wet Paint Syndrome. The sources are reliable but the coverage isn't about the signs themselves so this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. However, the sources do give significant coverage to the concept of Wet Paint Syndrome so this can justify an article. Alzarian16 ( talk) 11:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment I am frustrated with the DRV process. It is supposed to be here to give deleted articles a second chance, and it does anything but that. Every time I have taken something to DRV, it appears there is a gang of people who try to keep deleted articles by going "ENDORSE, ENDORSE, ENDORSE." They try to outnumber all those who want to overturn. This is an article that I feel in good faith belongs, otherwise I would never have brought it here. If a minority (just 40%) is good enough to get an article deleted, a minority should be good enough to get this deletion overturned. The DRV process is broken, and articles cannot even be edited and improved during the process. Shaliya waya ( talk) 23:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
In my experience there's a much stronger herd mentality regarding who shows up to overturn articles. But it's irrelevant, as this isn't a vote and it doesn't matter who "outnumbers" who so much as what arguments are presented regarding the close.

It's also worth noting that DRV is not intended to be a "second chance". It's a check on administrator power which allows for a the close of a deletion debate to be re-examined purely for the purposes of checking if the close was an accurate indication of consensus; Assuming that we have competent administrators, most DRVs should result in an endorsment of the close. It's not a second AfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply
As someone often on the other side of debates from Chris, I want to say I largely agree with him here. DrV isn't a second chance, its primary purpose is to see if the close was correct. We sometimes also endorse a closure but allow a recreation or restoration of the article if sources or a draft appears which negates the issues of the AfD. I think you (Shaliya waya) are having issues with the guidelines and polices rather than with the actual closure. DrV isn't here to change the rules, it's here to enforce them, so this is the wrong venue to challenge the rules. I'd suggest you look over the rules at WP:N and WP:DEL (among others) carefully and see if there are changes you'd like to propose on those talk pages... Hobit ( talk) 14:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The way things are going here, I think the best option that I can do is to request the article be userfied (with edit history). I believe in good faith that this is notable, and with the addition of just a few references, it'll pass notability. It may take several weeks before I can reintroduce it due to my busy work schedule. Shaliya waya ( talk) 01:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse The admin didn't do anything controversial, making gerunds into articles does not confer the existence of a notable topic. AFD is not a vote, and DelRev is not AFD part 2.-- Savonneux ( talk) 03:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 May 2010

Death of Gerry Ryan – Decision endorsed. While there was debate as to whether the AfD should have been closed as no consensus instead of keep, both options would result in no deletion occurring. This debate closed a little early due to clear consensus not to overturn the decision and to allow for a repeatedly delayed DYK nomination to finally be processed. – Allen3 ^talk 03:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The AfD was closed as keep while there was a clear consensus for delete, based on the WP:NOT#NEWS rationale. We do not have "death of" articles except for clearly exceptional cases, such as Death of Princess Diana. The Gerry Ryan case was nothing of the sort. The article's creator expanded a great deal of effort on collecting references about the coverage of the funeral and various tributes. But, of course, such coverage is not unusual and is available for deaths of a great many celebrities and politicians ( Corey Haim and Heath Ledger certainly come to mind as recent examples). Yet the convention is to cover deaths of such figures in the main articles about them rather than in separate articles. The funeral and tributes coverage is typically transitory, of the moment, exactly what WP:NOT#NEWS has in mind. Note that WP:NOT#NEWS is policy, while Wikipedia:Notability (events) (cited as the main keep argument) is a subguideline. There were 8 delete !votes plus the nominator and one keep !vote. The article's creator did not cast a formal !vote but presented arguments in favor of keep. The delete votes were mostly based on the WP:NOT#NEWS argument, which I think was pretty straightforward and that is why it was not particularly belabored. If the closing admin did not agree with the clear consensus of the AfD !voters, he should have case a !vote himself, instead of closing the AfD (especially since the close was done 8 hours early); even relisting would have been better. I request that the close be overturned to delete. Nsk92 ( talk) 04:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The closing admin has to assess the arguments presented, so a review must re-examine those same arguments.

Most deaths and funerals of celebrity figures can lay claim to a lot of this - list of celebrities who attended the funeral, various wakes or memorial pages, expressions of shock or condolence, widespread tributes, etc. But as the "delete" views and DRV nominator say, these don't usually lead to a "Death of" article. For that, it needs something more. Evidence of that "something more" is what I'm looking for in the article, the AFD, or the AFD close.

"For" - the claim in the article "His death provoked tributes from politicians, colleagues and ordinary people alike and led to a mass outpouring of public and private sympathy as thousands of people queued over several days to sign books of condolence at RTÉ's radio centre and the Mansion House. The media and psychotherapists compared this to public reaction following the deaths of Michael Jackson and Diana, Princess of Wales." ... "more than 4,000 people had signed books of condolence at the RTÉ radio centre... More books of condolence was then opened by Lord Mayor of Dublin Emer Costello at the Mansion House from noon on 3 May for a three-day period". Taken together, this suggests it was quite an exceptional event.

"Against" - his life was the notable thing. His death was fairly routine ( WP:NOT#NEWS) in the context of "funerals of widely loved celebrities who died unexpectedly" and can be better handled by coverage in the main article.

This one's much more a judgment call than a policy or evidence issue. As such my view is also a subjective one. I think there could be quite a good argument that this was an exceptional death of such scope as to meet WP:EVENT and be notable in itself. Evidence that it was the kind of case that happens once in (say) 5 - 15 years in a country would support that. The flip side is if it can be adequately covered in the main article without unbalancing it (it surely doesnt need a list of everyone who attended and every detail!) then it probably should be. The closer can decide the minority view is stronger, given a good evidence and policy basis. On the whole leaning to endorse closure as keep but it's very subjective and I'm not expert in the field of "celebrity deaths"; the above factors are crucial and need careful evaluation by more knowledgeable and uninvolved users before any final view is formed. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 05:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse closure Whereas the "delete" votes lacked substance, Candlewicke ( talk · contribs)'s arguments were well-grounded in policy. Candlewicke noted that the article passes at least two elements of the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (events), WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE. ("Comparisons to Princess Diana (over the top in my opinion but considering the reaction there are those who differ and there is at least one reliable source making that comparison). It is also not an average death that leads to a funeral being broadcast live on radio (a station which has never broadcast funerals) and online nor does the average funeral feature a specially rerecorded version of a reasonably well-known song by an internationally-recognised rock band [49] [50] [51] [52] nor is it an average death that leads to hundreds of people having a minute's silence in Ibiza.")
The ample sources spanning weeks after Gerry Ryan's death demonstrates that the topic is clearly notable; WP:NOTNEWS was clearly refuted ("The death is quite heavily discussed in the sources present in the article, is still being discussed by the media today (some recent examples [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]) and being discussed in terms such as "a seismic effect on Irish society" while it also apparently "practically brought Ireland to a standstill" in the words of one source.")
I endorse this close because Candlewicke's rationale for retaining the article was much stronger than the "delete" votes, none of which explained why WP:NOTNEWS applies, none of which refuted Candlewick's arguments. The "delete" votes lacked substance in that they were all just pointing at a policy or guideline; none of them sought to justify their position. Cunard ( talk) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment The evidence here suggests more strongly that the death (and not just his life) may have been notable. Based on the cites provided, it seems to have had a long term lasting effect on the country ( "seismic"). There was subsequent and substantial reanalysis of the event in reliable sources over a lengthy period ("still being discussed today"). An entire country was impacted to an exceptional degree (evidenced in a range of ways, from Lord Mayor involvement to "standstill"). If these are accurate (and the above view appears to source them from a wide range of reliable sources) then these would be core criteria going to the heart of event notability ( WP:EVENT). FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 05:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse, precisely per Cunard.— S Marshall T/ C 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse per above, but strongly recommend considering a merger. Stifle ( talk) 08:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse There are rare cases where consensus will significantly defy the !vote count. This was one of them. "No consensus to delete" was perhaps more accurate than "consensus to keep", but that's semantics. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse close without prejudice to merger or future renomination under Wikipedia is not a memorial, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and so on. Guy ( Help!) 09:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
overturn to no consensus I can see closing this as no consensus, I can't see it as a clear keep. I agree that A) we should keep (or at least merge) this and B) the keep !votes were grounded in policy much more firmly. But the !vote count shows a pretty strong leaning toward an IAR deletion. I have a problem with closing so far against the !vote consensus: enough people arguing JNN implies something pretty strong in my opinion. Hobit ( talk) 13:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to delete The closing admin substituted his own opinion, and also ignored the fact that an afd debate can close as merge. The people voting to delete were in accord with standard practice that this is an unnecessary fork of an article. If there's consensus to make an exception to the GNG in either direction, we follow consensus. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
That is quite a rare occurrence: DGG supporting deleting an article which I would keep :) Stifle ( talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse Okay, maybe "no consensus to delete" would have been better, but the end result is the same. Fact of the matter is the delete arguments were ATA and the keep arguments were well-based in policy. Nobody ever made a solid response to Candlewicke's concerns, and that's not really something that can be ignored. -- Shirik ( Questions or Comments?) 16:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Weak endorse per WP:JNN. ╟─ Treasury Tag► presiding officer─╢ 21:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse- in that the arguments, while fewer, were certainly stronger on the keep side. I agree with Stifle however, that a merge should strongly be considered. And let this AFD be an object lesson on why saying things like "per nom" in a deletion discussion is a bad idea. Umbralcorax ( talk) 01:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No consensus or endorse close. While there were more editors arguing to delete than to keep, participation was low and, as noted by the closer, many if the delete !votes were very weak. Delete and merge is not possible because it would be a violation of WP's licensing terms and most of the rest of the arguments provided no rationale for deletion. Personally, I would have put in a delete !vote, but based on the arguments presented in the AfD, "no consensus" would have been the best call which defaults to keep, so I endorse the closure. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse keep per WP:ARTICLESIZE. When a section of an article outgrows the parent topic, there is a need to split it into separate article to improve readability. Dew Kane ( talk) 14:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2010

Donkey show – No consensus to overturn. Under my discretion as DRV closer, I find it appropriate to relist the article on AfD because more discussion would be beneficial, considering that there were only four !votes besides the nominator. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Should have been no consensus, or should have been relisted for more votes. "Original research" was used as a delete vote, but no new conclusion not in the original was reached by the article, which is the definition of original research in Wikipedia. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 05:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse. 3-2 headcount. Delete !votes based on policy (succinctness does not mean badly reasoned). Keep !votes asserted notability on mere mentions: it is open to make those assertions but they aren't overwhelming arguments. Unless there's something highly unusual, a delete close in these circumstances is within discretion. It was also open to the admin to close rather than relist for a second time. 5 contributors is enough. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Note: this was a bit premature. As the DRV nominator suggests the concerns of the delete !voters were not well-founded, us humble non-sysops will need to see what was actually deleted. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 06:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
As the closing admin, I have restored the article temporarily for the course of this DRV. I closed essentially per the nomination: after looking through the sources, I saw nothing reliably sourced that could lead to an article of any substantial length. In addition to seeing no sources of substance, I also noted that the vast majority of edits to the article fell into two categories: listings of trivia ('in popular culture') or vandalism. I'll also point out that another editor had asked me about userfying it four days ago; I declined pending the discovery of reliable secondary sources, which the editor is looking into but has not yet found as of this note. Shimeru ( talk) 08:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment I'm troubled by the fact the nomination was more or less "this doesn't exist, so notability doesn't exist either," which most of the !delete votes tended to fall towards. Non-existence does not automatically mean non-notability. I would like to point out the ability for this article to be sourced -- google book searches reveal quite a bit of information to those willing to do research. For example: http://books.google.com/books?q=%22donkey+show%22+mexico&btnG=Search+Books http://books.google.com/books?q=%22donkey+show%22+tijuana&btnG=Search+Books http://books.google.com/books?q=%22donkey+show%22+sex&btnG=Search+Books riffic ( talk) 08:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

From these particular searches: Nor-tec rifa!: electronic dance music from Tijuana to the world, Cassell's dictionary of slang, Border transits: literature and culture across the line. riffic ( talk) 09:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse, reasonable conclusion based on the strength of arguments. Stifle ( talk) 10:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Yup, that was probably a reasonable close. As a small learning point for the closer, when closing against the apparent consensus as you did in this case, a more detailed closing statement explaining your reasons is helpful, particularly to newer editors.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 10:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus. As Richard Arthur Norton points out, the deletion rationale of OR is not supported. Sourcing is borderline (which makes it more defensive as an argument), but considering the subject and the sources, adequate. The Cassell's Dictionary of Slang is a RS, and the entry shows the practice exists. Los Angeles Magazine is also a RS. Headcounts, especially with an extremely low sample !voting population of only five, are not a viable reason to endorse (or to delete), since we should be discussing thoughtful reasons to support a particular position that constructively adds to the discussion. — Becksguy ( talk) 11:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- I do not consider anecdotal evidence "reliable." I note Cassell's Dictionary of Slang was not a source in the article when it was deleted -- and I question whether it provides enough information to generate an article, even if it is a reliable source, as WP:NOT a dictionary. Shimeru ( talk) 19:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - any comment on the other two books? limited preview available via google books riffic ( talk) 19:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - I'm not sure what this is [58] , the snippets aren't very helpful. riffic ( talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
      - That's a poem from a literary journal. Not a RS. The other two books may or may not be, but they're sufficient for me to userfy the article. Except that I won't be doing so while this DRV is open, of course. Shimeru ( talk) 20:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse either numerically or by strength of arguments, the outcome was clear either way, and it had already been relisted once. As an aside, I did have to chuckle at the fellow who wanted to keep based on mentions in those acclaimed journalistic documentaries, Bachelor Party and Clerks II. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Weak overturn to no consensus but no trout for the closer. I was the first to question this close and I was satisfied with Shimeru's answer and think the close was within admin's discretion as it could have gone either way. However, as long as we're here, I'll !vote to overturn for the reasons I gave on Shimeru's talk page linked above. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 12:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to NC as I don't see consensus in that discussion for anything. At the least the sources found by riffic are enough to justify a new discussion. Hobit ( talk) 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Note also that asking for a userspace draft, which I might normally be inclined to do in a situation like this, is difficult as the closer has refused to provide one to riffic. Hobit ( talk) 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to NC, possibly relist. Discussion didn't show consensus and delete !votes didn't really say the truth: There are RS in the article and the OR arguments are unfounded in the revisions I can see. The first keep is weak but the second is right. Should have been relisted. -- Cyclopia ^talk 15:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse proper judgment of policy-based consensus. WP:ITSREAL is not policy and neither is WP:THEYSAIDITONSOMESHOW. Guy ( Help!) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist or possibly no-consensus (which pretty much amount to the same thing in practice). The delete arguments were either: 1/ that it might not actually exist--but it does not in the least matter, since WP covers fictional subjects also; or 2/ that the sources were inadequate, but those arguments either ignored the fact that the re actually were sources--in which case the arguments were contrary to the plain facts of the matter, or the arguments saying so meant inadequate to prove real existence, which again is not a policy based argument. What the admin has discretion to do in an unsatisfactory argument is either to add their good arguments to the discussion and let someone else close, or, if they close, to decide between NC or relist. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse Delete votes are pure policy, and seem accurate given a review of the article and it sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 18:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Undelete/overturn to no consensus per DGG. The main thrust of the discussion seemed to focus on an irrelevant point, whether the topic actually exists. There was no meaningful argument made by either side related to policy. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment Neither of the two non-nominator delete votes say anything about the topic existing or not, and whether the topic actually exists was only one facet (and certainly not a main thrust, more of a "and furthermore" type statement) of the nominator's statement. The deletion votes were based on notability and original research concerns, not existence concerns. Only one keep vote even addresses existence as an issue (and does so very ineptly). I do not know how one can read this AfD discussion and conclude that the main thrust was an argument over whether the topic exists or not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 21:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Although some other issues were mentioned, they did not become a focus of the discussion because nobody provided arguments for or against anything. "Keep notable Delete not notable" isn't a discussion of any kind. While some of the votes named policies, none offered a reason to believe that those policies were relevant to the discussion: at no point did a keep voter provide a reason to believe the topic is notable, nor does anyone offer a reason to believe that it is original research (especially given that every statement in the article had an identified source) or non-notable. There's no arguments either way, just unsubstantiated statements of opinion. Given the lack of a compelling argument, there would need to be a substantial preponderance of opinion to warrant deletion, and 3-2 is not that. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I was really just taking issue with your apparent assertion that the discussion was mainly, primarily, whatever-ly, about whether or not "it exists," which seems to me demonstrably false. Beyond that, my own opinion is that claiming that an article utterly devoid of sourcing reflective of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources is "non-notable" is all the argument one needs to argue that it's non-notable. I, for one, find that to be very compelling. Does someone need to literally type out the referenced policy in order for it to become an argument? I think you are drawing an unnecessarily fine line. But, all that said, I can certainly respectfully "agree to disagree" on this! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 00:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn per DGG. Debate was not sufficient to establish consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. 2 keep !votes, one of which was based on WP:IHEARDOFIT. The 2 deletes were more policy based. Niteshift36 ( talk) 00:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse as per Niteshift36; none of the arguments advanced in favor of keeping the article led to any reliable sourcing to indicate notability of the subject. Kansan ( talk) 07:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse, reasonable conclusion based on the strength of arguments. -- 80.192.21.253 ( talk) 19:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse—numerically and in terms of quality, the those arguing to delete clearly came out on top. ╟─ Treasury Tag► hemicycle─╢ 21:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse only one keep vote actually referenced policy/guidelines vs 3 deletes grounded in policy. So closing as either "delete" or "no consensus" is well within discretion. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn: sources appear to exist to meet the GNG (or in any case, there can be reasonable disagreement about whether they're sufficient, which means "No Consensus"), and "doesn't exist" != "not notable". Buddy431 ( talk) 01:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comments: (1) There are only two delete votes in the AfD, since the nominator did not explicitly vote "Delete as nom". Is there a policy that specifies that a nomination is included as a literal explicit countable delete vote? I think not. (2) More importantly, on the other hand, there is clear policy that specifically says that deletion discussions (including DRV) do not count votes. Quoting WP:DEL policy in pertinent part: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." Yet, several endorsements in this DRV refer to head counts, a practice which is against policy, and therefore those "votes" should be ignored. I think that the AfD vote was an even split. However, even if it was a 3-2 count, that's so close to an even split as to effectively be one since the sample population was so excessively small. Statistics 101. (3) I can not find a confirmed SPI report that proves User:Emily Jensen is a sock of User:John254 and therefore should not be counted in the AfD (although head counting is supposed to be evil). If there is one, I'll recant on this point. (4) The participation in the AfD was abysmal. Five participants does not constitute a deletion discussion that has any reasonable relationship to due process. This is especially important in borderline cases that occupy the gray area between what is clearly keepable and clearly deletable to nearly all editors—not just those who show up for a AfD and self select themselves. Also Statistics 101. (5) The more I think of this, the more I think DGG is right. Relisting was the appropriate way to go. Otherwise, overturn to No Consensus and someone can renominate later if necessary. (6) Many of the endorsers in the DRV are ignoring what look like reliable sources that were found during the DRV. I don't fault the closer for making a delete decision based on what was there at the time, however. That's why we have DRV. (7) The comments by DGG and Christopher Parham are particularly compelling, especially "...nobody provided arguments for or against anything [in the AfD]". Endorsing deletion due to strength of arguments in the AfD has no legs, and head counts are against policy. — Becksguy ( talk) 11:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Actually, a nomination is usually considered an implicit argument for deletion, on the grounds that the nominator wouldn't nominate the article if he didn't think it warranted deletion. Of course, that occasionally does happen, but in those cases the nominator explicitly states that the nomination is procedural. Shimeru ( talk) 20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Digito-Rename resize and convert and upload images – Decision endorsed, blatant spam. – Guy ( Help!) 16:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I have been restricted from crating the page Digito-Rename resize and convert and upload images

12:57, 17 May 2010 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) deleted "Digito-Rename resize and convert and upload images" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
16:22, 16 May 2010 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted "Digito-Rename resize and convert and upload images" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.blinksolution.com/?p=59)
12:19, 16 May 2010 Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted "Digito-Rename resize and convert and upload images" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.blinksolution.com/?p=59)

I want to write on this.Please conform how to do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikki agarwal ( talk • contribs)

Malformed DRV fixed. Tim Song ( talk) 03:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse my deletion. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 06:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse not a lot of sympathy for someone who posted a copyright-infringing article TWICE... in one day! Even if the copyright issue was cleared up this would still be advertising from an editor with an almost certain WP:COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse Seems clearcut. After reviewing the cache version, it potentially fails under several policies/guidelines: WP:COPY, WP:COI, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:SPAM, WP:N. Clearly fails WP:COPY, which is sufficient without any others. — Becksguy ( talk) 12:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion If you want to recreate this, write a draft article in userspace then contact the deleting admin and get their opinion. If that fails you can bring it back to here I suppose. Hobit ( talk) 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 May 2010

EO DC – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I would like to dispute EO DC being deleted. I wrote a response with the proper tag (at least I thought so :-) ). It does not fit any of the rules you have posted in the list on your page for deletion. EO DC is the Washington DC chapter/branch of the Entrepreneurs' Organization. It is a non-profit organization who's members are responsible for the employment of over 2,000 people in the region and over $700M of commerce in the area (as stated in the page). This is very relevant and contributory to our society. It can also be looked up and is listed via Google and other public reference sources. Additionally, one of it's peers, the EO London chapter has a Wikipedia entry as well. Could you please reconsider your decision and undelete the EO DC page ? Or, explain what is wrong so it can be corrected for a new page. Thank you. RobWolfeUSA ( talk) 11:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)RobWolfeUSA reply

I can't see the deleted text but it was deleted as not asserting the significance of the organisation. The details you give above, I wouldn't see as signficance as the employment/commercial value is not as a result of the organisation. Are there any reliable third party sources writing in a non-trivial way about the organisation? With regard EO London take a look at " what about X?" a look at that page shows it to be unreferenced and spends more text on Entrepreneurs' Organization in general than it does the chapter. If what is there is significant and can be referenced it'd probably be better merged into the main article and the title redirected perhaps. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I am satisfied that the article does not explain to any great extent what makes the organization notable. Would recommend userfication to allow RobWolfeUSA to improve the article and add references. Stifle ( talk) 10:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion (as original speedy deleter). The article did not assert how the company met the notability standards of WP:ORG. It was also full of promotional language like "EO is the catalyst that enables entrepreneurs to learn and grow from each other, leading to greater business success and an enriched personal life." I would be glad to userfy the article per Stifle's suggestion. NawlinWiki ( talk) 11:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Can someone please post a link to the deleted version for us non-sysops? -- Mkativerata ( talk) 11:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I just did that. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

endorse speedy deletion although the main organization is notable , I see no reasonable basis on which the local branch can possibly be considered notable, unless there are good 3rd party published references to major activities of some sort. There rarely are--what references can be found, even to much larger groups, are almost always routine announcements of meetings and the like. It is very exceptional that a local branch of such an organization is ever considered notable here. Perhaps this should have been be explained to the contributor when the article was deleted. As for the London branch, it could equally well be speedy deleted--it certainly won;t passAfD, and i see no reason to merge. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. There was no claim why this local organisation was significant or important. The global organisation yes. But significance or importance of a local chapter can't be assumed to derive from its global body. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 May 2010

Slovaks in Hungary – After a discussion at ANI the deletion (via userfication) was somewhat endorsed as "means justified by ends", and it was suggested that the article be improved to meet inclusion criteria and other relevant guidelines and moved back to mainspace at that time. Please note I have vacated the 19:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC) closure by Spartaz, as it is quite clear (to this observer, anyways) that userfication is a form of deletion and xFD's closed as "userfy without redirect" may certainly be reviewed at DRV. However, in this case further discussion at DRV is not required as it seems to be a foregone conclusion. – xeno ^talk 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

There are several reasons why I believe this close was a bad close:

Most importantly, the admin that closed it was very far from independent, see this post.
The admin has virtually admitted they have not followed process, see this post
The AfD was open for under three hours.
A new editor had just offered to stubify the article and this offer never got a proper discussion. It is my view that stubifing the article in better than userfying as more users are likely to find it and contribute to it. I think this option deserved discussion.

I realise that my actions in bringing this AfD are open to debate but because this admin disagrees with my reasoning for it he seems to have decided to override process. Dpmuk ( talk) 18:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This seems to me to be a futile exercise in process over policy. The article was badly written in fractured English, had very few and almost exclusively unreliable and polemical sources, gave the impression of novel synthesis and was unquestionably not compliant with WP:NPOV - the creator has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing. There is clear consensus, to my reading, at ANI and AfD, that this article is not compliant with core policy. It was userfied for rework but the DRV requester moved it back. It has now been userfied again. The article cannot possibly stay in mainspace in anything like its current form, the only question is whether having the current massively noncompliant version behind the history of a new stub (which would be extremely unlikely to contain any of the current content) would be better than rewriting the current content in user space. The "offer to stubify" is not relevant since a new stub could be created right now if that user wants. Why on earth the requester is insisting on having this unusable junk in mainspace is an exercise I will leave for the reader. Guy ( Help!) 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I suggest starting again with a new stub - after finding reliable sources. These ethnic issues need careful treatment. Some admins have a lot of experience about the quickest way to get an article sorted, and Guy is one of them - listen to what he says, and you'll have a much more productive time here. Stephen B Streater ( talk) 19:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
At DRV, our basic job is to check if the deletion process has been followed properly. Not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. On Wikipedia, the appearance of bias is sufficient to call an administrative action into question. Meatballwiki's article on FairProcess is also highly relevant. In this specific case, after taking the position he did in that AN/I discussion, JzG should not have closed the debate two hours and forty-however-many minutes after it was opened. Overturn and relist, and follow the process properly, so that the article can be deleted in a correct and orderly fashion.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This hasn't been deleted. Its been userfied so there is no deletion to review. Therefore this is out of scope for DRV. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Note the above comment was moved from the closing statement here. – xeno ^talk 19:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

411mania – Article userfied to User:Dream Focus/411mania. – – MuZemike 02:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I wish to undelete this article so I can work on it. There is a lot of new coverage which would make this a notable topic. Have already discussed it with deleting administrator, who said to take the case here. [59] The article was deleted years ago, but the situation has certainly changed. Google news search considers this site a notable news search, it appearing in its news search now. Over 600 Wikipedia articles link to it as a source for information presented in them. According to http://www.411mania.com/about_us "Today, 411mania.com serves 15-20 million impressions per month, has been mentioned on/in mainstream media outlets such as CNN, TNT, TBS, USA Network, SpikeTV, FOX News, MSNBC, ESPN, ESPN The Magazine, MTV, and VH1". They have interviewed many notable people, and many major new outlets quote from them. Please look at this: [60] That should establish notability clearly. Dream Focus 17:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Is there a reason why sending it to the incubator or userfying as a first step wouldn't be acceptable? I'm not saying you need to, I'm just asking if that would be acceptable. If you prefer restoration to mainspace, could you list the sources you're planning on using to meet WP:N? Thanks, Hobit ( talk) 01:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Userfy first. The clarity of establishment of notability is not clear enough, and may become clear in a formatted referenced article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Isn't a news site notable if it is referenced by many other major sites? Would that information alone prove it was notable? Would an article need to link to dozens of examples of this happening to prove it was notable? Dream Focus 08:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- I personally would say no, it's not. You need at least something in the way of independent reliable sources to write the article. Certainly if the coverage were weak I'd say the references by major sites might push it over the line. But not enough by itself either by WP:N or in my own personal opinion. Hobit ( talk) 21:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
"I wish to undelete this article so I can work on it." Fine. Userfy. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Tellers' wands─╢ 19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Userfy first, and then have review before allowing move to mainspace. Verbal chat 21:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Restore or userfy, but either way, restore edit history as well, since this may contain useful information in building the article. Dew Kane ( talk) 14:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Circle_hand_game – Deletion endorsed – – MuZemike 02:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Stub created at User:Hm2k/Circle_hand_game Hm2k ( talk) 02:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Can't see the reliable sourcing for this. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse While this was deleted a long time ago - which usually tends to weigh in favour of restoration - the sourcing of the userspace draft does not overcome the strong reasons why the article was deleted. Thus allowing this to be restored and then sent to another AfD where it would inevitably be deleted is futile. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I think Circle hand game ought to be a redirect to List of school pranks, actually.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse, there is no usable version of this article anywhere in its long and inglorious history. Redirecting to the list of pranks is a bad idea, we have enough trouble keeping made-up nonsense form that article already. Guy ( Help!) 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete and I agree with JzG that a redirect is not necessary. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2010

Film depictions of Italian-American mafioso eating dinner – Deletion endorsed – – MuZemike 02:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The discussion was trending to keep, as new sources were being added and the article's importance was shown through the addition of these sources. Sapporod1965 ( talk) 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse The delete voters did not impress with the quality of their argument but there were enough of them that the close seems reasonable. Colonel Warden ( talk) 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. The discussion was most certainly not trending to keep. There was at least a rough consensus to delete. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse- rough consensus to delete, and well within administrator discretion to interpret it that way. Reyk _YO! 22:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse per Mkativerata ( talk · contribs) ╟─ Treasury Tag► Not-content─╢ 19:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

International Society for Condensed Matter Nuclear Science – Deletion endorsed per rough consensus. – – MuZemike 02:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The society in question has been established for many years and comprises many respected Academics. The reasons for deletion seem to be that some people disagree with the work and science of the society, and apparently wish to suppress it. The society is notable for its members and its somewhat controversial research topics. quota ( talk) 09:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Well within admin discretion. Good close based on the strength of arguments. Late run of delete !votes was telling. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I've looked through things like the general notability guideline and can't find any establishment of notability just merely based on a members list or controversiality of research topics (not withstanding the memebers or the research topics maybe notable in their own rights). The normal standards of coverage in reliable third party sources of course do apply and the debate highlighted those as lacking. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 11:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
At a raw minimum this should be a redirect to cold fusion, where the group is named. I'd be inclined to say that the topic is notable ( [61] and the ZPenergy sources look strong enough if just. But the sources aren't so strong that the close was outside admin discretion given the discussion. weakly endorse close but redirect to cold fusion. Hobit ( talk) 14:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 May 2010

Rich Shapero – Overturn and relist at AfD. – Tim Song ( talk) 04:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Closing admin appeared to ignore WP:GNG in favour of much stricter guidelines including the largely irrelevant WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT. Only ~~two~~ three users supported deletion (of whom one is currently the subject of an SPI case), while another who had initially felt the same later moved to Keep with the comment that the user working to improve the article "has provided the necessary references to show his notoriety". Four other users also supported retaining the article. The close argued that the delete !votes were better grounded in policy, but neither linked to a policy while one Keep comment did and another linked to relevant sources which appeared to prove that WP:GNG was met. Alzarian16 ( talk) 10:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

See comment I just posted on this. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 11:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment I agree that that it wasn't closed in a proper way and that WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT are irrelevant in this case (since "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence"), but I wouldn't say that the closing admin ignored GNG. He did however interpret it in a much stricter fashion than the editors in this AfD (including me) did and when it comes to more subjective judgements like that I think the case needs to be much stronger for a close that goes against the majority view. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 12:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That's probably a fairer assessment of the close than mine, as looking at it again I suppose GNG wasn't really ignored but just interpreted in an unusually strict way. You are certainly correct about strength of policy arguments when the close doesn't agree with the majority view, and I felt the case wasn't strong enough. I should also add that since I made this nomination I've discovered that one of the two supporters of deleting the article, User:Canals86966, is currently the subject of an SPI which looks fairly likely to be closed with a block. Alzarian16 ( talk) 12:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment I was the editor that originally listed the article for deletion (and am not the one being investigated). At the time of listing the article had little content but as the discussion progressed the article moved towards focusing on the failure as an author. At the end of discussion I still felt that 'signficant coverage' under GNG was not strong (One article in SF Chron [ [62]] & a few in student publications), but think this is an odd case, as the person's notability is actually based on their lack of notability. Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 12:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sorry, I forgot about you when writing my rationale (the other one I was referring to was User:Starblind). I've changed it to say three now. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Looks like a defective debate rather than a defective close, to me. In the closer's defence, none of the cited sources seem reliable so we have what is effectively an unsourced BLP. This does place an onus on the closer to delete. Nevertheless, the debate was defective in three respects: first, that the participants failed to notice that Shapero's book Wild Animus belongs at RfD; second, that the majority of opinions expressed were not in accordance with the applicable policies and guidelines, so even though we have a prima facie "keep" consensus, that consensus is simply wrong; and third, that the debate failed to properly consider alternatives to deletion. WP:BEFORE says that alternatives should be exhausted before a deletion takes place, so a redirect or merge outcome ought to have been discussed. The big benefit of redirecting, in these cases, is that we don't leave behind a redlink that encourages an inexperienced user to write an article, so I'm personally in favour of redirection as the default way of dealing with non-notable people. However, there's no obvious redirect target.
On balance I'm minded to send it back to AfD for a fuller discussion that takes proper account of all the relevant policies and guidelines, comes to the correct conclusion (i.e. that Shapero does not merit an article), considers where it could be redirected to, and then leads to a proper redirection or deletion.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Discussion of sources

I have no problem with people having a different idea of what exactly "significant coverage in reliable sources" is. I think the position of both the nominator and the closing admin are valid but I draw the line at a different place than they do. If you think it's as simple as right or wrong clearly you have some reading to do. I'm not sure why you would bring up Wild Animus, as if that should have any impact on this AfD. We could discuss this further in another AfD, but right now the question is if this one was closed properly. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 16:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

On the basis of the sources cited so far, I do see this as a simple matter, yes. Simple enough that compromise isn't appropriate. Anyone who's studied arithmetic knows that a compromise between a correct conclusion and a false one is a false conclusion. Shapero simply does not appear to be notable and no amount of sources that fail WP:RS can change that. I'm open to being convinced otherwise on the basis of significant coverage in reliable sources, but I have not personally been able to locate such sources and I'll be hard to convince without them.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This appears to meet WP:RS for a start. So does this although it isn't really about the author (or even the book) so much as an event surrounding it. I must admit that many of the others are some way off... Alzarian16 ( talk) 17:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

First is significant coverage in a reliable source, and well done. Second is a reliable source but not significant coverage. GNG calls for significant coverage in reliable sources. The plural's important, so we need another source.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I can't tell if this would be considered reliable or not. What do you think? Alzarian16 ( talk) 19:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

There's two limbs to that: the question of whether bookcrossing.com is a reliable source, and the question of whether Jan Sassano (the interviewer) is a reliable source. At first glance I wouldn't say that bookcrossing.com is inherently reliable at all. But perhaps Jan Sassano is; I've never heard of her. If s/he is an authority of some kind then you have your second reliable source.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

PS: I don't mean this in a critical or hostile sense, but I do think the matters you raise are best discussed at AfD rather than here. It's a common meme that "DRV is not AfD round 2", and I should imagine someone will make this point forcefully later in the debate. I also think the fact that we're discussing things that weren't raised at the AfD—but should have been!—supports my view that this matter needs to be relisted at AfD so that a better debate can take place.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I should point out that you were the first to take this into AfD-type territory by raising the issue of sourcing as opposed to consensus, although given what how much there is to say on the topic that isn't by any means a bad thing. Based on the points raised here a relist may well be the best option. Alzarian16 ( talk) 20:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, perhaps straying into AfD territory was inevitable, given the extent to which this closure relied on weight of argument over headcount. In order to discuss such a closure meaningfully, DRV participants must compare sources to guidelines. I don't think we're disagreeing, so I'll hat this; please do remove the hat if you think it inappropriate.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 21:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think the debate may have been skewed a little due to the article changing rapidly as it went on. The article originally appear to be an autobiography / promo page which had been pruned down by editors to only a few lines of text - which is the article I tagged (the pruning may have been how the wild animus page was orphaned). As the afd debate progressed the article changed to one which focussed on notability due to the Rich's promotional actions rather than him as a author musician. I think this moving target probably confused the debate a little. I not sure whether relisting will result in a more policy driven debate; I think it may be more about whether the author meets GNC. Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 14:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
It seems to me that what is notable, if anything, is the failed marketing campaign around the book. would it make sense to add a sentence on this campaign at Undercover marketing, with sources, and make both wild animus and rich shapero redirects to this article? i participated in the afd, and edited the article a while back, but despite my keep vote, i do recognize that this may not be quite notable enough, though some notability has now been shown. its definitely open to interpretation, and i would not say it was a broken afd, but probably an incomplete debate, so i would support sending both to RFD. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist. There was clearly no consensus to delete and no demonstrated policy-based reason requiring deletion. By saying policy-based I emphasize that the GNG is a guideline not a policy, unlike WP:BLP or WP:NOTNEWS. In that context the community's views should have been followed. However the commentary above in this DRV shows that another AfD is warranted in very short order. If we think the debate was defective we ought to relist rather than second-guess the proper outcome. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and relist for further debate The debate in the AfD was clearly not full enough to have a clear decision. If one was forced to decide, the consensus (and weakness of the Delete votes on not citing any policy or having a strong rationale) would definitely lean toward Keep. It seems to me that the closing admin disagreed with consensus and closed the debate based on their own opinion, which closing admins are not supposed to do, they are supposed to interpret the consensus, yes, but not make up their rationale based on something that would fit more in a Delete vote than in a closing statement. I suggest that the AfD is relisted for further debate and study so that a more clear consensus can be formed. Silver seren^C 20:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
(after edit conflict) Overturn. The closing admin claimed that the "the delete views seem to be well grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines". Let's have a look at what those supporting deletion said:

No evidence of notability. Page appears to have been a vanity page which has been reduced down to almost nothing. Prod tag has been removed under promotion, and under notability
No evidence of notability. Sources require verification of credibility. One reference is self-published. Prod-2 tag removed without reason and without notifying editor.
author with only one book, and it's self-published.

"Appearing" to be a vanity page, being reduced to almost nothing, prod tags being removed, one reference being self-published and the subject being the author of one self-published book are all ungrounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines as reasons for deletion. All that we are left with is the question of whether the available sources are sufficient to demonstrate notability, and there was certainly no consensus in the discussion that they are insufficient, so this should have been a "keep", "no consensus" or "relist", but certainly not a "delete". Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn When searching for the proper name of the book, along with the name of the author, I find plenty of sources. [63] 13 reliable news sources talk about this. Thus its notable. Dream Focus 22:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn because of an incorrect closing. (FWIW, I do not necessarily think him notable). The closing admin used an incorrect standard "historic notability", which is not supported by the wording of WP:N. It would be a much higher standard, amounting very nearly to famous. WP:NOT uses the phrase "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events" which is much less than "historic" -- nor does it ever say that people who do not have enduring notability can not be fit subject to an article, just that WP "considers" this factor. The closing admin is welcome to his own personal restrictive view of WP:N, but has no right to impose it on the community. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn ~~and relist at editor's discretion~~ (see my comment a long way below). One of the main topic headings of our main notability guideline is that notability is not temporary, i.e. as long as coverage at the time is significant enough it doesn't matter if notability is transitory. Given that part of the closing admin's rationale was "None of the respondents in this discussion have actually shown any strong evidence of non-transient historical notability," I feel this has to be overturned as whether it is non-transient or not is irrelevant. ~~I also agree with the above comments about the standard "historic notability" not being grounded in policy~~ (see below again). Finally, and possibly most importantly, I also agree with another comment above that the closing comment sounds more like an argument than a discussion of how the admin read consensus and so the admin should have commented with that argument rather than closed. Dpmuk ( talk) 10:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn The close was too opinionated, overriding the discussion which did not conclude in a proper consensus for deletion. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Closing admin comment: Most evidence claimed to exist didn't actually support the claims made, when checked. AFD is not a vote. The views stated have to be backed up with evidence that supports them. In this case a careful review suggested otherwise. This was further underlined by the fact that just one genuinely reliable, independent, substantial, evidentiary source was cited in the entire discussion, and that one was not coverage of the BLP subject but of the unusual launch of his book (a transient event with no other evidence at AFD to suggest the event was notable per WP:EVENT). AFD closes must reflect policy based points and be backed up with evidence. Numbers alone aren't enough.

Details of the AFD participants' views and the evidence problems I found, are below. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 01:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Details of claims and issues at AFD (by Closer)

The views for delete, and the views for keep, both hinged on the quality of sources and whether they showed notability. Views for keep pointed to the number of links on Google News (eg User:Dream Focus) and similar reliable source coverage. Views for delete stated those sources were insufficiently reliable or insufficiently good evidence. As AFD is not a vote, one job of the closing admin is to assess the strength of the arguments presented (not just the number of !votes) to try and understand which views in line with policies and guidelines best represent community consensus.
However..... there was a serious problem with the evidence claims. While Google News does indeed show some 50 mentions of the subject over an extended time period, a closer look shows all but 2 - 4 of those 50 are not capable of evidencing notability in the sense of WP:N. The vast majority are press statement spokesmanship, due to the fact that company statements are usually given by (or attributed to) some kind of senior employee or director as spokesperson. The fact X is a spokesperson on some occasions for a company does not make X personally notable. If Google News is stripped of mentions of the form "<press release> says Rich Shapero, a partner with Crosspoint Venture Partners", or "...managing partner at..." etc then it's clear that users relying on a general assertion of "lots of Google News entries" needed to look at those entries' quality as evidence. In most cases it didn't and couldn't evidence notability. (Eg, the releases could have been issued by anyone else in a sufficiently senior role, they don't speak of him personally).
The other area of coverage cited was minor and related to his book, but a book release is a transient issue, and the notability guideline discusses brief media mentions related to a single event or news matter. Even the cites in the article show the same problem - there are 7 references, but look at what they show: his employee page on his employer's website, 3 reviews of his book (including one from Publisher's Weekly) and 3 articles from college magazines.
When Google was stripped of non-evidentiary mentions (press releases and the like) the sole coverage seems to be this handful of reviews or mentions of his book. While a majority of AFD views stated "keep", AFD is not a vote. Those keep views needed to be backed up with evidence that Shapero himself has obtained significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and the closing admin must satisfy him/herself that the claims do stack up and the evidence presented does exist and is good evidence. I reviewed the evidence presented for keep, and the case was not being made by the AFD evidence or article citations. Despite the claims, almost no valid coverage were actually identified by participants; they generally alluded to claims about Google News that were not backed up by evidence, and just one reliably sourced discriminate reviews was actually identified - and that was related to a non-notable event of a transient nature (issue of his self pub book).
A pure count of views is not as important as good support for good arguments. Claims need their evidence. The latter was lacking at AFD. BLP also raises an overriding concern (as one person notes above): we can't write a bio article without sufficient reliably sourced significant coverage to ensure NPOV. Hence, without prejudice to recreation if better evidence does turn up, I closed as delete at this time. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 01:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It certainly helps to clarify how you arrived at the decision you did. However, I would still disagree with it for a number of reasons:

You correctly state that comments must be backed up by evidence and that policy-based discussion is more important than vote counting. However, despite what you said in your closing statement, aside from the nomination itself not one delete vote was based on or even referenced a policy or guideline. Taking this and the votes themselves into account, there was no valid consensus to delete the article. Only two users apart from the nom supported deletion, neither based their vote on policy and one is currently under investigation for sockpuppetry.
The strongest policy-based argument for deletion came from Mercurywoodrose but was retracted after sources were added.
In your closing statement you cite WP:NOT#NEWS as a reason for deletion, but you also stated that most of the coverage consisted of reviews and was therefore not news-based at all. WP:EVENT has more relevance but was not used as a rationale for deletion by any voter in the AfD.
You also mention something called "historical notability", but I can find no evidence of this wording in any relevant policy or guideline.

As such, I still feel that the case for deletion was not strong enough to justify your closure. Alzarian16 ( talk) 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn The arguments made above by the closer would have been great inside of the discussion. The discussion determines if the sources are sufficient, not the closing admin, which is what I feel happened in this case. The historical notability thing is particularly a concern. Hobit ( talk) 20:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Closer's comment: (@ Alzarian16 and Hobit):

1/ "Historical" or "enduring" notability has been written into core policies and guidelines for years. It's in WP:NOT: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events". The expression "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events" was used previously, until December 2009 [64].

2/ The closing admin's job includes assessing claims and views. The closing admin is not expected to be a "process wonk" if it is clear that there simply wasn't policy-compliant evidence presented to be reviewed. BLP also requires actual substantive, reliable, independent, neutral coverage of the subject. But nobody had linked to any of that, either.

The users in the discussion must make an evidenced and policy-based case for or against deletion. If the evidence is claimed but simply doesn't exist when checked, then a competent closing admin will not be able to agree the claims are policy based, even if they cite policy based principles. Also BLPs default to "delete" much more than most articles, if there is clear doubt as to sufficient, substantial, reliable, sourcing ability, and that's an overriding policy too. Most cited sources are college magazines and discussions of his book launch, not him.

We could be process wonks and say that the closing admin isn't "supposed" to notice or must allow stuff that contradicts policies and guidelines if enough people don't spot it. But we don't. The end result was that no cogent evidence of notability was presented and substantiated by evidence, and no evidence of sufficient satisfactory sourcing ability was provided, in a BLP AFD. As a rule in a BLP AFD, that usually means just one thing.

The community reviewed this BLP for the usual 7 days but despite a focus on sourcing, nobody had produced the kind of hard evidence needed for any other final conclusion than "delete", whether one applied WP:BLP (sufficient appropriate sourcing), WP:N (GNG evidence) or WP:NOT (the book launch as an event). FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

And yet, despite all this reasoning, nobody so far has unequivocally endorsed the close. Of all the debate participants, many of whom are DRV regulars who are very accustomed to examining AfD closes, I believe I'm the person who's come closest to supporting you in this, but even I think it ought to be relisted. If I might be bold enough to give you advice, I do think there are two learning points for you in this, FT2.
The first is that even for BLPs where you find a lack of notability, there are alternatives to deletion that must be exhausted before deletion can be considered.
The second is to be a little more conscious that admins are elected to enforce consensus. There is no exception for situations where the closer believes the consensus is wrong. In such situations, where you do have good reasons to believe the consensus is erroneus, you don't need to close. Another option you had was to phrase your opinion in the form of a !vote and leave the close to others. If you had done this, the next person to examine the debate would have had considerably better grounds to close as "delete".— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 10:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree it seems that way, yet I believe you're mistaken on a more careful reading of deletion guidelines:

Admins must prioritize policy over AFD views if there is a conflict ( WP:DGFA).
Most responses were posted before a fuller rationale was given and could not have been written to take it into account.
A number of concerns were badly mistaken - including users who thought "historical notability" was an invented term and didn't recognize it as being the core policy term in use right up until very recently (now described as "enduring notability").
Quite a few respondents missed the BLP implications of the lack of evidence shown on careful scrutiny of the AFD views, and that WP:BLP is an overriding policy for closing admins even at deletion discussions
...And that if claims of evidence at AFD turn out to be clearly flawed then the closer is not "blind" and should take note of it
...And that if the AFD evidence suggests that it is unlikely an article can properly exist without breaching policy then by long-standing guidance the closer must respect policy above AFD views ( WP:DGFA).

Ultimately the closer is checking arguments for policy compliance as well - if 10 users all claim notability based on something that clearly cannot show notability, there's a policy related problem. Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators the exact guidance is: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact ... are frequently discounted.... [Core] policies [which include NPOV, CITE, V, and should probably include BLP]... are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus... Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions."

Many responses were based upon claims of general evidence meeting policy or guidelines, where that evidence clearly does not meet policy or guidelines when carefully checked. A number of users vaguely alluded to "Google hits", which when examined were unable to substantiate notability.

I consulted last night whether I should self-overturn, close the DRV, and immediately relist at AFD. Your suggestion above (to relist and reach a fairly predictable concurring deletion on these grounds) mirrors this. But the response I got was that if the close appeared to have reached a correct result, then let it stand.

I believe the close was correct, though any close where the closer concludes most participants missed the point and policy mandates deletion will be a predictable DRV. I've therefore written as a post-event exercise, a "what if it were relisted?" analysis of the case at the AFD talk page which you might like to review. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Good points well made, and I think that on the substance of the argument you're bang on the money. I've said that I think it was the debate that was defective rather than the close. But equally, there are counterarguments that I'm sure you're aware of.
I've said elsewhere (probably too many times) that Wikipedian policies and guidelines are like scripture. Somewhere in the labyrinthine and self-contradictory network of rules, you can find support for any position. For example, I could make a convincing case that consensus is king on Wikipedia. I could show that there is explicit provision that a local consensus can suspend anything but a core policy in the case of one particular article. This means that as of today, an AfD could theoretically overrule WP:N and WP:BLP—though I think that in practice, unsourced negative material concerning a living person could not survive an AfD debate.
But the main reason I feel as I do is that part of the magic of consensus is to persuade editors that there is FairProcess in decision-making on Wikipedia; in other words, good-faith editors feel that they have a voice that will be taken into account. To a certain extent that's an illusion—some views will never be given weight—but there are good reasons not to dispel that illusion too blatantly. FairProcess helps newer editors buy into Wikipedia and, perhaps, turn in the fullness of time into people who write featured content, but a lack of FairProcess will drive them away. And I'm not saying that consensus-rule is entirely an illusion, either; consensus is what creates the policies that admins enforce.
Much of the benefit of relisting in this case is that it leaves a figleaf of consensus over the naked, Darwinian ruthlessness of notability and BLP.
This view is often denigrated as "process wonkery" by those who advocate driving a superhighway through the winding paths and lanes of collegial discussion between interested editors, but really, it isn't. It's not to worship process, but to try to cultivate collaborative goodwill from the people who'll write tomorrow's featured content.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think what you're saying is that there's no need to appear to override a matter when with a bit more process and forebearance it'll be obvious anyway. If so I agree - I asked round whether to self-overturn and relist on exactly the same reasons. Still more than happy to do that if the DRV closer feels it's needed. I would however be interested to hear from those who voiced an opinion previously, what they feel now there is a clearer explanation. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Good points, but I'm going to pick out one in particular: "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact ... are frequently discounted". On that basis no-one voted at the AfD! So I'd say the relist proposed by S Marshall is undoubtedly a good idea. Alzarian16 ( talk) 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your analysis.

The user who moved to keep that you stated "has provided the necessary references" had on review not provided any such thing. There was actually no significant coverage presented from credible reliable sources to support that the man was "notorious". Claims at AFD of him having "notoriety" were extremely poorly supported. The few cites relate primarily to the book launch and the main sources were just 3 student newspaper articles, which doesn't really stand a chance of supporting the pretty big claim of "notoriety". If the man himself was "notorious" then the article would have been able to show that and users could have cited it to a range of good quality mainstream media sources etc. But nobody did.
Your review request gives 2 diffs but neither show anything of value. The first diff is your own AFD post. It does "name a policy" (actually a guideline, GNG) but is merely an assertion that there are "plenty of sources" (without specifying any good ones). The second diff names Google News generally but clearly never checked the links. It's a "hit count" argument, and its one specific link is again to a student newspaper. Again, 3 student news coverages related to his book launch don't show "notoriety" of the man himself.
In your later comment you express concern about a criterion applied ("You also mention something called 'historical notability'"). I hope you can now agree that this was a policy wording used until recently describing a core Wikipedia criterion for people and events. It was recently changed to "enduring notability" [65].
Claims that someone is notable due to being "notorious" (which implies it may be seen as reflecting negatively on him by some readers), has made this article a potential "negative BLP/poor sourcing" issue even if all other issues weren't a problem. That too strongly suggests deletion as an almost unavoidable conclusion.
The nomination claim was "non notable". On careful AFD review no evidence was presented to show otherwise. If a BLP topic is notable then suitable sources will be readily provided to show it. None were, and on closer's review I found no good evidence either. In a BLP that means just one thing.

In this unusual case the community examined the right thing (sourcing) but made defective claims and conclusions from it, as S Marshall says. But a careful review of the debate does make a fairly convincingly case that grounds for rebutting the nominator's concerns and closing as keep just didn't exist. Despite the opening of a DRV all I'm seeing is still no evidence that the correct result was not achieved. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 21:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This seems to be a binary position: keep, or delete. But WP:N says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article" (although that sentence has been eroded over time; I wish it still appeared as I originally wrote it.) In any case, were no other options apart from "keep" or "delete" to be considered in the close?— S Marshall T/ C 00:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Not really any valid third choice. I looked.

The BLP subject is apparently non-notable. There's no evidence of notability, no evidence of sources for a BLP, and the claim that the person is notability due to his "notoriety" seems unsupported or very poorly supported by evidence too.
Most notoriety claimed to be in relation to promotion of a (self-pub) book. The publication of book and its related promotion would be an event in Wiki terms, so I looked at whether the event (as opposed to the person) might be notable. With almost no significant sources to back up any claim of notability of the book and/or its promotional actions would likely fail the core criteria of WP:EVENT.
No other related topic suggested itself as a useful merge or redirect target.
The issue appears to be actual non-notability and failed sourcing, a situation that rewriting cannot fix.

This was a case of "views stated for keeping, but the claimed evidence and rationales were flawed and untenable when checked". Failure of evidence meant a delete close. Pick from any combination of the following, they all point to the same direction:

Nominator's concerns not rebutted (nobody had shown in response that the topic was notable and claims to that effect turned out to be unsubstantiated or fatally flawed in each case)
AFD administrator's closure norms, for cases where evidence suggests a compliant article is unsustainable (articles where it appears a policy based article can't be written should close as delete per WP:DGFA)
BLP default handling (default to delete in certain cases)
General BLP issues (BLPs that show no sign of having sufficient high quality sources about the subject so a NPOV biography could be written are deletable)
Unsourced/poorly sourced negative BLP issue (the main claim is that the subject is "notorious", a claim that tends to suggest he would be widely seen in a negative light and that is the basis of notability. Such articles must have high quality sources for the claims, which are lacking here, mandatory delete if that were the case)
Individual views at AFD cannot override policy/norms ( WP:DGFA again. Crucially, there was no chance the AFD or article evidence could show what was claimed of it or what was needed for a keep, under normal policies/guidelines).
Probably correct ultimate result (likelihood that a properly drafted AFD and carefully checked evidence would result in delete anyway. Opinion based on evidence submitted and seen. Without prejudice to recreation if good quality evidence/sources exist.)

FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 02:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You are not reading WP:DGFA correctly. It says that "Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions." Except you have not stated what policy the article has breached. And one of the main rules shown there is, "When in doubt, don't delete." Silver seren^C 02:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think I've listed them. But will do so again. Policies that a BLP on Rich Shapero would be "very likely" to breach given the evidence at this point are BLP (both generally and perhaps negative unsourced), NOT (lack of evidence that actually speaks to subject notability where "Wikipedia considers topics' enduring notability"), the general principle that's surely in some policy or has policy-level standing that we need sufficient suitable sources to write an NPOV article before we can have an article (we don't have such sources on this individual). 3 policies straight off that make it "very unlikely" at this time. In addition at AFD the nominator felt there was not evidence of notability, and asked others to discuss that concern (that's what AFD is about), but after 7 days the claims of evidence presented were still incapable of credibly rebutting that concern and clearly failed to do so when checked. Finally the debate, being a BLP, is much less likely to default to keep. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 02:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. When I said overturn above I gave three reasons. The first one related to the "historical notability" issue. Having read what FT2 says above I can now see what he means. However the way he worded his close implies he menat something different. The mention of "historical notability" in policy was in the section in news reports and it seems pretty clear to me to mean notability doesn't come from a quick flurry of new reports. However the way the close was worded I'd take transisent to mean that and the "historical" to mean that the person needs to be discussed in say 100 years. It's clear that's not what FT2 meant but that's how I understood it and still would if I just read the close. The second related to "historical notabilty" not being in any policy. Although strictly true I can't fault FT2 for using slightly out of date terminology so I've struck the comment. However I stand by my final comment that the close sounds more like an argument than a close.

That said there's been a fair bit of debate there, so I'd suggest we overturn, make FT2's close comments into a normal comment, and instead of relisiting, ask a neutral admin to come along and close again and abide by what they do. There seems little point in enforcing another week of discussion for process sake, although of course that should be left as an option for the re-closing admin. Dpmuk ( talk) 07:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

If that were done (which is fine by me) then there's a useful "after the event" draft/summary here which might be relevant to the re-closer. But it still seems to me that the end result is unnecessarily elaborate. If there are reasonable grounds for a keep to be possible, then relist, but if it's still likely there are none or that a delete close would be the outcome, then close the DRV on that basis. Ultimately, despite the long discussion, I'm still not seeing good (or indeed any) evidence to suggest the end result and close was other than correct. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 09:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

With all due respect for your very ingenious arguments, a certain amount of self-justification is only to be expected when a senior admin's so resoundingly overturned at DRV, but there's a point at which one's analysis of the arguments in a debate strays too close for comfort to one's personal opinion on what's to be done. I think the consensus here is that your analysis would have been better expressed as a !vote. I don't agree with you when you say there were no alternatives to deletion to consider. For example, the debate might have considered whether to redirect to an entry on this list or a mention in the paragraph below it. I do think the debate was a bit too defective to safely close.— S Marshall T/ C 10:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

A redirect to an article no AFD participant suggested, that the closer hasn't heard of, not intuitively obvious from the AFD topic, and with no evidence to show it was a "best seller" (by the standards of self-publication best sellers) being presented, doesn't sound very likely. If it was a best seller according to good quality independent reliable sources then a mention in the list would be an option - but the sources don't seem to evidence that it was widely seen as a best seller, more (for those who commented) as a mass free giveaway. Claims such as "notorious" just didn't stack up according to the evidence submitted. The arguments aren't ingenious, but they are careful and as best I can tell in line with content norms and policies. FT2 ^{(
Talk |
email)} 10:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Disco Curtis – Already at DRV, please add additional comments to the existing listing. – Stifle ( talk) 09:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

i think now i've successfully made this notable. if it isn't, tell me what i'm missing, and i'll make corrections. qö₮$@37 ( talk) 04:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Speedy close. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 7#Disco Curtis is still open. Cunard ( talk) 06:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 May 2010

Varhaug Idrettslag – Deletion overturned and listed at AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varhaug Idrettslag. – – MuZemike 02:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I do believe that this sports club have done some noteworthy achievements. Football team played tier two (now tier four), women's handball team aswell (now tier three), mens handball team plays tier 3. Etc. (see deleted talk page). I don't know why the admin is not interesting in discussing the deletion with me, all I want is a serious explanation/discussion why it is not noteworthy. If we look at some other articles, especially for english sports clubs there are many articles there which I can not see have more importance, for example clubs existing for 5 years in the mid 50s playing tier 14 football.

I do aknowledge that England is more important than Norway on the English wikipedia, but I do believe that the club is noteworthy. Olaversterk ( talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Here are some links:

Women's handball team promoted to 1st division (2nd tier) (Norwegian)
Men's football team played 2nd tier football —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olaversterk ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Olaversterk ( talk) 23:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

England certainly isn't more important than Norway on the English wikipedia, or rather, it shouldn't be. There are more English-language sources, though, and these disputes all come down to the quality and number of sources available. I see that you do have one source, but is there another? The second link you provide is to Wikipedia, which (ironically) isn't allowed as a source for other articles because we don't meet our own standards for reliable sources. Your source doesn't have to be a link. It could also be a book, magazine, or other medium.
I'm a bit puzzled by the blunt and dismissive tone RHaworth took with you and I think he ought to have asked you explicitly and courteously to provide sources. I'm not thrilled to learn our admins are taking this tone with new users, to be frank.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 08:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I was shocked that I was not able to put on a hangon sticker even if i got told to do so. I think that rapid deletion tag should last 24 hours before the article is deleted, but again, that's not up to me. In RHaworth's defense the article was not too good, but I had plans improving it.

- Here is a link for source of men team football merit. This page again links to the following books as sources. I could look for the books at the library if needed.

- Link showing Varhaug IL men's A team handball playing third tier. Note that third tier has six leagues, while tier 1 and 2 in handball only have one, thus the women's tier two achievement is of greater importance as I see it.

Hope it helps Olaversterk ( talk) 09:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Book and magazine sources would normally need ISBN or ISSN numbers, plus a reference to which page the material appears on.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

excuse me, SM, since when do book or magazine sources require ISBN/ISSN in order to be valid sources? Most older works, and many current works published outside the main Western publishing countries, have neither. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Well, mate, I'd expect any reliable printed article about a recently-established Norwegian sports team to have an ISBN or ISSN. Norway's pretty far from being the third world and material on this team is not going to be historical. Yes, there are exceptions for certain historical or non-Western material, which is why I added the qualifier ("normally"), but I think a reasonable rule of thumb is that a reliable print publication normally has an ISBN/ISSN. — What I'm trying to do is explain that a mention in your local church newssheet doesn't satisfy the GNG.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 01:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply: Yes, most of those books do have ISBN numbers. But I don't know which one he has taken that exact data from. Olaversterk ( talk) 11:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment until we can see the article. Being in a highish tier of a sporting league would normally a credible claim of importance or significance. Sourcing is an important issue, but it is barely relevant to the CSD criteria. We seem to have pretty low standards for sporting teams. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment the primary criteria is going to require non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources - the references given so far are directory style entries, or other trivial coverage. Are there significant articles about the club? -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 19:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply: Did some googling:

There are also many match reviews of the men's a team in football and handball and women's handball in several news papers. There is much more info to build a great article here on wikipedia about the club found in this newspaper. Olaversterk ( talk) 11:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and list - including, in the club, a football team that played in the second tier is certainly enough to avoid an A7. I am not able to see the earlier drafts, in order to assess whether they contain worthwhile content, but the sources found above have the makings of notability. Probably enough doubt to merit an AfD discussion. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 19:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn. Notability should be discussed at WP:AFD. After looking at the deleted version my opinion is that it did not qualify for an A7, but it was a borderline case since most of the information in this review was not in the article. Rettetast ( talk) 23:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn. This subject certainly needs further discussion. One question about the football club though - have they ever played in the Norwegian Cup? The general rule of thumb (yes, I know it's not a guideline) is that any club who has played in their national cup is generally notable. Bettia (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Reply: I have found two times since 1980 the club has been in the Norwegian cup, 1982 and 1997. I haven't checked earlier years because I couldn't find data for these year. I want to friendly point out that this is a sports club, not only a football club. Olaversterk ( talk) 18:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

SEVEN Networks – Deletion overturned, and article moved back into the mainspace. – – MuZemike 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Reviewer deleted this page citing no explanation of the subject's significance and later that the references included were either internal links from the company's website, or from various unimportant other websites. My post contained references to a number of sources including publications such as CNET, Connected Planet (formerly Telephony) and Wireless Week. These are all very respected telecom industry publications. SEVEN Networks’ customers are primarily wireless operators, content providers, and device manufacturers so it is unlikely that publications such as the Wall Street Journal would cover this company at this point, but with more than seven million active accounts and growing, I believe these articles show the company's noteworthiness. With SEVEN Networks' competitors having Wikipedia pages that are far more basic than my post, I request that this page be reinstated. DJADave ( talk) 17:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Since no google cache version is visible, please could an admin temporarily restore the page history so we can see for ourselves.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
page visible at User:DJADave/SEVEN Networks, to which I moved the fullest version. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn. Article makes credible claims of significance or importance. The deleting admin is right that the sourcing is poor. But poor sourcing is not a ground for speedy deletion. Nor is a lack of notability. The A7 standard is lower and this article crossed it. Everything else is for AfD. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I've got to agree that A7 didn't apply. I have to say overturn per Mkativerata. Mind you, that "article" does look exactly as if it was written by a member of SEVEN Networks' marketing department who has Wikipedia confused with a free web host, and I shouldn't imagine for a moment that it would survive AfD, so I'd gently suggest to the nominator that starting again wouldn't be a bad idea.
An article about a company or organisation ought to begin: "(Organisation name) is a (nationality) corporation based in (location) which was founded on (date)". It should not normally give a list of products unless those products are themselves notable enough for their own articles, though it could give a jargon-free outline of the kind of business the company is in. (By "jargon-free", I mean that language such as "Push-enabled mobile mobile email and messaging solutions" is totally inappropriate for a general encyclopaedia.) It certainly should not use the letters ™ — that's a red flag for material written by marketing people. Encyclopaedias don't use that acronym. Mentioning the company founder's name is another red flag; an encyclopaedia wouldn't say that unless the founder was notable for some other reason, but marketers like to get the boss's name on the copy. In short, it wants rewriting from scratch.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 01:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn though it's close to a G11 (lots of spammy stuff, but enough there to avoid G11 IMO), I don't think it's an A7 as significance is claimed. Hobit ( talk) 14:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn then re-delete per CSD:G11, with liberty to userfy. Stifle ( talk) 10:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and list - not an A7 but, as many above have said, close to a G11. At present it lacks the sources to establish notability, hence the need to list. However, an overturn and list could well be a Pyrrhic victory since it is unlikely to survive in its present form. Better, I suggest, for the nominator to withdraw the application, and take time to produce a clean, sourced version in user space. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you all for your input and help getting this page restored. I have rewritten this entry with your input in mind and have added additional sources - would you mind taking a look and letting me know if this entry is ready to be published? You can find the edited entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DJADave/SEVEN_Networks DJADave ( talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, I'll look at it. I want to record here that I think DJADave is showing a very creditable willingness to learn, adapt and rework this material, and I think the new draft is a huge improvement. There's still work to be done, but I will help.— S Marshall T/ C 15:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Simran Sethi – Wrong forum, no deletion decision to review. – Bencherlite ^Talk 20:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I'm writing about the page for Simran Sethi. There is a message at the top of this page questioning whether she meets the notability guidelines for academics, but Simran is not primarily an academic. She does teach part-time at a University, but her primary accomplishments are in journalism and as a mainstream media figure in the environmental movement.

Her bio is factual and linked to plentiful outside sources——including features about her in Vanity Fair magazine, the Oprah Winfrey Show, the UK's Independent, etc.

Is there some way to have her classified as a notable person, rather than as an academic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.10.216 ( talk • contribs)

Comment this isn't really an issue for deletion review as nothing has been deleted. Generally for the sort of tag seen on that page, discussing on the articles talk page is the first point of call. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 20:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment I see that the message at the top of the page has, quite correctly, been removed. Those tags are often added by editors who use automated tools to make large numbers of edits very quickly, and accuracy is not 100%.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedy close as moot - nothing to decide in this forum. Bridgeplayer ( talk) 19:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 May 2010

Extentia Information Technology – Decision endorsed – Tim Song ( talk) 12:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Please restore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extentia_Information_Technology . There's a fair amount of coverage from the past 5 years on Google News http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Extentia+Information+Technology%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a . The company is legitimate, is a thought leader in the travel, hospitality domains and iPad related technology, and is well known in Pune, India for its support of social causes.

They will also do a 'fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic' per the admin's suggestion. Please help. Per process, I've discussed with the administrator Athaenara who suggested I bring it up here. Wikiven ( talk) 10:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse, this is not AfD round 2. Closing admin decision was quite ok for what the afd included. Sorry. WildHorsesPulled ( talk) 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment no one is questioning if the company exists, however mere existance is not enough for wikipedia they must have independant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The google news search fails at the first of those "independant" they are all press releases or otherwise company issued material. Regarding "they will do a rewrite" this isn't a free webhost for "them", if they are important and signficant surely someone else will be desparate to write about them? See also the conflict of interest guidelines -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
With the deletion history of this article, I think the best way to proceed is to present a neutral userspace draft with reliable, independent sources showing coverage above and beyond just press releases. Stifle ( talk) 07:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

eFront (eLearning software) – Deletion endorsed. The consensus below is that the closure of the AfD as Delete was within admin discretion. – Eluchil404 ( talk) 18:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was debated over notability. Enough arguments were presented that (in my opinion) establish a good ground for notability for this article including scholar papers, reviews on known tech sites, several blog entries, awards etc. The final deletion decision was based on the negative opinion of only one individual that do not offer solid ground for consensus. I would suggest to re-open the deletion discussion until a better consensus is reached or alter the final decision to keep through non-consensus.

(I have already talked with the administrator with deleted this article and he suggested I should post here)

Papagel ( talk)

Endorse. Well within admin discretion. The SPA !vote was properly discounted. After that only the arguments of the creator remained in the face of three contributors arguing for deletion, one of which went to considerable lengths to question the arguments presented by the creator. Why can't I sign my posts with the button under this new-fangled layout? User:Mkativerata - 08:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm afraid I think it's very hard to find fault with Tim Song's closure of that debate.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 09:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
My main concern is not regarding the good faith of the administrator but the depth and validity of the critic. One of the negative votes went to language tone and not the notability issue. If you think that a consensus has been reached regarding the non-notability of this software I can consider this issue closed. However, I have the feeling that this disclosure is not based on facts but on the SPA argument. Papagel ( talk) 10:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Closure was within administrative discretion, endorse. Stifle ( talk) 07:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I think I'd have closed that as no consensus as the SPA accounts are making vaguely reasonable arguments. That said, well within administrative discretion. endorse Hobit ( talk) 01:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Conrad Lynn – Overturn and restore. Note that this does not prevent an AfD at editorial discretion. – Tim Song ( talk) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Page is about a civil rights lawyer. It was nominated for deletion one minute after I created it, while I was in the process of adding a link to The Harvard Crimson (8 May 1963), that establishes his notability. Please see my post to the nominator's ( User:C1k3) talk page, and his second post to mine for more information. His original reason for nominating it was lack of notability, but after I talked to him he admits he may have jumped the gun. Page was deleted around 04:00 today by User:Texas Android. I request that the page be temporarily restored so that people can look at it and this be reconsidered. The deletion was done in quite a rush and there is definitely nothing libellous and no copyright problem. -- Ong saluri ( talk) 06:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

~~At least give the deleting admin time to respond to your message on his talk page before bringing it here - Mkativerata.~~ Thanks to S Marshall: I went straight to the deleting admin's talk page so didn't realise he was on wikibreak. Obviously coming straight to DRV in this circumstance is appropriate. And it is clear that the speedy deletion was inappropriate - the article makes numerous claims of significance and importance and thus easily crosses the A7 bar. Oveturn and restore - User:Mkativerata signing lamely because my button doesn't work 09:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The deleting admin's userpage says that he's on wikibreak, so it isn't strictly necessary to give him any time to respond at all; I think Ong saluri is within his rights to assume the deleting admin is telling the truth on his userpage. I also have a great deal of sympathy with Ong saluri here, and I think he may have been the victim of overly hasty tagging. Overturn speedy and restore, without prejudice to a future AfD.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 09:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn. Original article included a sufficient assertion of significance to make the speedy deletion incorrect. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn incorrect tagging, seems rather evident I suggest a speedy restoration DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn in my opinion credible claims of importance were made - hence the article was not eligible for deletion under criterion A7. Whilst not relevant to this discussion I do not think the community considers mentions in a student newspaper would generally be considered enough to establish notability. Guest9999 ( talk) 13:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Esther Ku – No consensus to overturn. Incubated at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Esther Ku. – Tim Song ( talk) 13:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

i asked the admin to reconsider at his talk page by saying this: hello. at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esther Ku there were 2 keep votes that listed many sources and only one delete vote. i think you did the wrong thing by deleting that page you should have at least listed it for another week and maybe listed the deletion in some discussion areas Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Actors and filmmakers Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Korea Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people . please think about this and consider relisting this for discussion or restoring the page. i would also have voted keep and improved the page if it was still there. thanks. he/she did not really address my concerns and just restated his reason for deletion, but i think he/she did not give it enough time for people to see the page and improve it. Aisha9152 ( talk) 05:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Deletion ~~review~~ is not a vote, in that a majority is not required to delete a page. The reasons are just as important, if not more so. I think the best way to take this forward is for the page to be userfied so that Aisha9152 can improve on it and move it back to the main namespace. Stifle ( talk) 08:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

this is ok but i think it is against the purpose of wikipedia to put all of the responsibility of fixing this article on me when there were other people who voted keep that would want to help to and userfying it makes it a lot harder for people on wikipedia to find the article without me contacting them first. i think the original deletion discussion should have been listed in appropriate places so people could have known and fixed the article. 3 votes is not enough visiblity. Aisha9152 ( talk) 13:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

If you'd like help fixing the article, WP:INCUBATE is probably the way forward.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

this sounds better but i have never seen an incubated article come up in a search i have done for that article i have always needed the link. it has always been very frustrating having to deal with articles that i did not create or ever edit and don't even know much about but think should not have been deleted. Aisha9152 ( talk) 13:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

If an article is successfully incubated, then it gets moved back to the mainspace as a fully-fledged article. Incubation isn't a permanent state of affairs. It's simply a way for you to ask other editors to help you get a wounded article back on its feet. On Wikipedia's deletion policy, I agree that it's sometimes frustrating and it does sometimes lead to informative and helpful material being removed. To be completely candid I sometimes think Wikipedia works in spite of its policies, not because of them. But equally, there are good reasons why things are as they are; if we didn't have notability criteria and speedy deletion criteria, we'd have drowned in promotional spam years ago; and if admins counted votes rather than weighing arguments, then the outcome would always prefer the person with the most sockpuppets over the person with the best case.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

i agree but i think that the admin only followed correct procedure literally. if the admin was really interested in helping the encyclopedia they would have at least cross listed the article and given it an additional week. not doing so seems a lazy act and not in the interest of wikipedia. i wanted to see the article because i am researching ms. ku, not because i am a fan of hers. the afd was only seen by 3 people most of whom were interested in keeping it. this shows a trend that if it were given more time the article probably would have been improved. Aisha9152 ( talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- That's an easy accusation to make, but we have millions of articles, dozens of which are listed for deletion every day and thousands more of which are deleted without a discussion. There is a fine balance between giving an article a chance and allowing dross to accumulate across the encyclopedia. This is why we provide such venues as the incubator and userspace drafts, so that people can beef up the article before putting it in mainspace. Stifle ( talk) 07:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

but again that is unfair to whatever user feels strongly enough that it should not be deleted. wikipedia is about collaboration and collaboration is much harder when you are forced to deal with these circumstances. i had to go through all this pain when Ron "Bumblefoot" Thal was deleted and all i did in the incubator was added all of the links that people gave in the afd. once i added those it was allowed to be back in mainspace. this is not the first time this has happened and i think it is a big waste of my time and the time on this board. if the admin has simply relisted it for another week that might have been enough time. if the admin had crosslisted it so people who are familiar with the subject would know it was nominated for deletion that would have been enough too. not all wikipedia users know that these things can be done and it should be the admins job to help wikipedia and to make sure the best procedures are followed to make wikipedia as good as it can be. if the admin does not have time to do all of this then maybe they are trying to do too much. i have already spent more time on this board than it would have taken for the admin to have followed these simple steps. so have both of you. Aisha9152 ( talk) 14:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You raise points I'd like to answer, but I won't do that here. We're talking about the principles of deletion and incubation, and the question of what admins should and should not do. We're no longer talking about Esther Ku. So I'll drop you a line on your talk page a little later.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

since this is going nowhere can we at least incubate this article so we can all move forward? thanks. Aisha9152 ( talk) 17:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to no consensus the !vote is split 50/50, a solid source was provided at the end and I'm seeing a lot of sources at [66] under press. A lot. The NPR interview mentioned at the end of the AfD would seem enough to push it over. Hobit ( talk) 15:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy – Userfied to User:Starblueheather/Okashina Okashi - Strange Candy. – Tim Song ( talk) 15:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I'd like this deleted webcomics article restored to my user space for potential improvements for a future article. Thanks, Starblueheather ( talk) 04:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Takehiko Bessho – Uncontroversial request fulfilled. – Tim Song ( talk) 15:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The previous versions were speedied by Wknight94 as WP:CSD#G8 in 2007. It is said a banned user's creation is speedied without substantial edits of others. I haven't been banned here on English Wikipedia, and I did so a substantial addition I believe as to which was honored to feature as "Did you know". So I think it is right to get back our previous edits and merge with the current version which has no substantial information without template. Aphaia ( talk) 01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have no objection to this. Socks of banned Tecmobowl ( talk · contribs) are not a recurring theme to my knowledge so WP:BAN is not as vital to follow. I don't know how best to accomplish this since the article has since been re-created as a stub. Restore all 2007 edits then "revert" the stub to the last 2007 edit with a note about the restoration? Whatever best satisfies Aphaia and GFDL is good for me. Wknight94 ^talk 02:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The awesome thing about history restoration is that they end up in chronological order, so the current version is still the current version. I just went ahead and did it, since I see no good reason not to and Wknight agrees. This can be closed now. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka ++ 04:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks, fellows. All stuffs are now merged. All in order, thanks! -- Aphaia ( talk) 04:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 May 2010

Paul Uppal – Undelete - deleting admin concurs that article is now suitable – Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 08:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This pages was deleted in 2007, when the subject was just a prospective parliamentary candidate, with some comments that it could be restored if he is elected. Well, he was elected to represent Wolverhampton South West in the United Kingdom general election, 2010. I would create a new page, like I have for Kwasi Kwarteng, but I don't know whether the previous content is worth restoring. Jttw ( talk) 18:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Technically from a DRV point of view, this is an endorse because the original deletion decision was correct at the time. Hopefully a passing admin will userfy the page to you so you can judge for yourself if any content is reusable.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I've started a stub article based on him being an MP. I suggest an admin provide you with the previous version of the article so that you can move any relevant content into the new article. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I've restored the history, although there's not a whole lot there. This can be closed I think. Stifle ( talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Jw-yr-voyage.png – Deletion endorsed - this is a clearly copyrighted image which fails our policies; no need to extend the issue. – Black Kite (t) (c) 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

inappropriate speedy, no reason to delete, image was being used on an article Watertower ( talk) 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse - All images from Google Earth are copyrighted. this image was not available to be used. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. A copyrighted image which had its status discussed before deletion. No case to answer. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Was the image really taken from google earth, though? The licence statement in the cached version says this image was self-generated by Watertower.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 May 9#File:Jw-yr-voyage.png suggests otherwise. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

So it does. I wasn't aware of that. Endorse.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Malamanteau – The redirect has been recreated during this DRV and an RfD on the redirect has been opened. Since no one here was arguing to restore the article, and since the outcome of the RfD would override any decision of this DRV, the matter is moot. – Tim Song ( talk) 15:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This page was a redirect to xkcd which was deleted [67] and protected [68] by UtherSRG outside of process. I attempted to discuss this with UtherSRG [69] without resolution [70] before bringing this to DRV. Apparently I'm also not the only one questioning the out of process actions. [71] [72] [73] [74]
I ask that the deletion of the redirect to xkcd be Speedily Overturned as an incoming visitor seeing this deletion log [75] will be given a bad first impression. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Actually, I origainlly deleted it *before* it was recreated and then turned into a redirect. I "restored" it as a deletion and protected it. when I first deleted it, I was unaware of the very newly posted XKCD. I still stand by my actions that this is not worthy of an article nor a redirect. No one is going to come here looking for it that doesn't already know about XKCD. No one will benefit from the redirect, and such a redirect can only cause vandalism to the xkcd article. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't say the deletion log gives a bad first impression, but it does seem to be misleading visitors into thinking that there used to be an article there (before today). An unexplained redirect to xkcd might actually be less confusing than the status quo. Melchoir ( talk) 05:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree with the deletion of the article, as per WP:N. I further agree with the no-redirect, as Malamanteau is not even notable in the xkcd context. It occurs in a single comic, and the xkcd page does not (and is not expected) to list every xkcd idea published. However, I suggest that the page is restored (and protected) for a period of 48 hours so that all the traffic from the xkcd site can get the joke. After 48 hours, the next edition of xkcd will be out, and no-one will come looking for the article. This would address most of the concerns raised in the deletion of the article.– RossJ81 | Talk 05:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- That works. I'd give it a couple weeks though. Melchoir ( talk) 05:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Restore and make it a fully protected redirect to XKCD. The argument that no one will ever look at it again after two weeks ignores reality--there will be people coming to see that article for a long, long time. Jclemens ( talk) 06:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree that it should have been deleted, but if XKCD's implications that it had two difference sources was correct, it should've gone through AfD rather than deleted out of process; I vote for restore the original so that it may be nominated to AfD properly. "IAR" by itself is not a reason why the deletion rules should be circumvented; it only means that the deletion rules should be circumvented if good reasons are given, and I don't see any good reasons here. -- Zarel ( talk) 07:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- By the way, the justification given for the IAR deletion was "Something made up in school one day", which reminds me a bit too much of WP:IDONTKNOWIT. -- Zarel ( talk) 07:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Speedy overturn and protected redirect to xkcd, with optional listing at RFD. Stifle ( talk) 08:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Restore protected redirect to xkcd, redirects are cheap and there was nothing wrong with the original deletion (xkcd made it up, the article was a hoax and met G3). Hut 8.5 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
A redirect is usually a better idea than a redlink.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and take to WP:RfD at editor discretion. Although I feel the first two deletion were probably correct (although as a hoax rather than IAR) I think the deletion of the redirect probably wasn't. I certainly don't think the redirect was vandalism. Speedy deletions are meant to encompass pages that the community would certainly delete, the fact that some of the community have since opposed it should have made it clear that an IAR deletion was inappropriate. Dpmuk ( talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment If I understand correctly, xkcd was just lying about there having been a fully referenced article here before; even on their own website the commenters seem to say that. If this is true I dont think it should remain, even as a redirect, because the content wouldnt exist in the target article and thus it would not educate anyone. — Soap — 11:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Useful info seems to exist on Talk:Malamanteau; I hope that doesnt get deleted by a bot as talkpages of nonexistent articles often do. I have saved it to my HD just in case — Soap — 11:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

As I said, The article here was created after and as a response to the XKCD comic. I have provided a screenshot of the edit history. for those of you who can't view the history, I'm posting it here, as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Undelete and and put it through AfD A lot of entries are created after and in response to other events. Such an argument is nonsensical. The problem I have is the article did not go through proper deletion procedures after it was apparent it was getting attention.-- SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy ( talk) 14:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn without full protection. The only reason to protect is because of XKCD fans coming out of the woodwork, so I'd support semi-protection (and a close eye on 3RR violations) but not full protection. I agree that taking this to AfD or RfD would be best. -- Explodicle ( T/ C) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and restore redirect. Protect if/when it becomes a target of vandalism, not before. decltype ( talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn, restore unprotected redirect. (It appears that this has already been done.) Go through AfD if it makes you feel better. Do we have criteria for when to delete a redirect? ...comments? ~ B F izz 14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have recreated the redirect. I was unaware of this DRV at that time, so my apologies. Anyone who feels that this was out of prcess may redelete it. I will be mostly unavailable for a couple of days, so no need to contact me. I have also protected the redirect as being repeatedly recreated article. Fram ( talk) 14:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

It would appear that this DRV should be speedily closed as (inadvertently) moot; an RFD has already been opened. Stifle ( talk) 08:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Julie Stoffer – Recreation permitted. AfD at editorial discretion. – Tim Song ( talk) 13:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I deleted and salted this back in 2007 (using cascading protection at that time). There were BLP concerns and it was considered borderline notable in any event. The subject had apparently contacted the nominator asking for her page to be deleted. A user has requested I at least unprotect on my talk page. Given the BLP concerns, I'd feel more comfortable with a consensus decision. Of course, this is not your typical DRV, especially in that we're really here about unprotection, but this arises from an AfD so I think this is within this page's ambit.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 03:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: This is a case where we have to be careful with BLP issues. If we are going to allow recreation, I would say start the page in a user-namespace draft first. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. Agree with "king of". Restore to userspace so we can take a looksee but also blank and "noindex" it. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment. I believe the decision whether or not to unprotect falls under administrator discretion. Deleting and salting was clearly the right decision at the time, so we're not exactly "reviewing" that decision - whether or not it still is does not appear to be the domain of DRV. -- Zarel ( talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse protection as this was apparently a BLP causing real-life harm to the article subject, we shouldn't unprotect it without a spectacularly good reason, and preferably with the blessing of Wikimedia's attourney. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- It appears as though she's given an interview quite recently (see the userspace draft below). Is that enough evidence that she's no longer actively avoiding coverage? Also, do we have any formal documentation she ever requested deletion? Hobit ( talk) 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse protection per the subject's request in 2007 that her article be deleted. Marginable BLPs where the subject requested deletion should remain deleted and salted. Cunard ( talk) 03:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
On the one hand, we ought to respect the outcome of the AfD that the article be deleted and salted. On the other hand, there was never a consensus that the subject was not notable and a person's request to have an article deleted is not permanently binding on the community. There may very well be a notable subject here and the prospect of creating a good non-problematic BLP. I think the way to balance those competing interests is to endorse the deletion and salting unless a properly sourced userspace draft can be presented to DRV. If that draft is acceptable, consideration should be given to indefinitely semi-protecting in the article space. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Allow recreation Here's a userspace-draft. Stoffer appears to check out as a notable person.-- The lorax ( talk) 18:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Oppose recreating this userspace draft. Plainly it is not sufficiently sourced. A trivial mention in one article isn't enough.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 00:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation without prejudice to any future AfD. The sourcing has improved to the point that it can in my view be put on the mainspace. But I have no views on whether notablity is established. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 02:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- ~~Also oppose unless you find more sources. Well done on writing it neutrally, but it needs at lot more source material before it meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 ( talk) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)~~ reply
  - Actually, this seems to have improved a lot since I looked at it - it now has four sources as opposed to one. It seems to passing GNG now, so I'm inclined to agree with Hobit's view. Alzarian16 ( talk) 20:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- And another Oppose Recreation, possibly even Strong, based on that userspace draft and the subject's wishes. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Article clearly meets GNG and two articles are are solely about the subject. ~~I have worries about ONEEVENT however. Assuming there is a formal request by her for the article's deletion (which I've not seen evidence of), I'd say keep deleted (and protected). Otherwise~~ I'd say restore. Hobit ( talk) 18:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) _{Strikes per comment from Cunard
  Hobit (
  talk) 12:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)} reply
- Allow recreation I have reviewed the sources in the userspace draft and have determined that they provide significant coverage about the subject. Though I, like Hobit, believed that WP:BLP1E might apply, I think the following quote from OnMilwaukee.com indicates that BLP1E doesn't apply: Stoffer appeared on four MTV reality TV shows in the past four years, and currently, stars on a Canadian MTV show called "Electric Playground," which explores the technological side of the entertainment industry. (mine emphasized). Cunard ( talk) 02:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Note to closer: it's probably worth noting that a lot of !votes have been changed but not crossed out. Please look carefully at who is writing what when... Hobit ( talk) 12:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Muir Skate Longboard Shop – There is no consensus here (despite a numerical majority) that KoH's close was so incorrect that it exceeded the discretion afforded to AfD closers, especially given the canvassing, in which cases the closer has broad latitude to deal with the situation. As the DRV closer, I find that relist at AfD seems to be the best solution here; the page will be semiprotected for the duration of the discussion to prevent any canvassing. – Tim Song ( talk) 03:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

the arguments put forward by the keep !voters fail to refute the general consensus of lack of significant in depth third party coverage. there is zero coverage in gnews and only 1 hit for the shop's former name. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems also to be heavily pushed. subsequent discussion with closing admin is here User_talk:King_of_Hearts#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMuir_Skate_Longboard_Shop. LibStar ( talk) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Closing admin: In my first pass through the discussion, I thought this was an easy "delete." However, after convincing myself to ignore the tainting effect of the canvassing, I found that the "keep" side had some merit. Bonadea is the only person to question the non-local sources; that does not show a consensus for deletion. For a no consensus closure, the "keep" side is not required to show that the article is notable; rather, the "delete" side must fail to show beyond reasonable doubt that the article is non-notable. LibStar, in your DRV statement you are ignoring the fact that Google News is not the only place to find reliable sources, and that no one used WP:OTHERSTUFF besides the SPAs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Google news is not the sole way but the other sources cited do not qualify together for significant (ie a wide variety) of indepth third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 01:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
That is what you believe. But there is no agreement on that fact in the AfD. The huge row of "delete" !votes saying "fails (insert TLA here)" or "eww canvassing" are hardly better than "It has more sources than Harvard Book Store." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
that is your opinion. the onus is on those who want to keep to demonstrate significant (ie a wide variety) of indepth third party coverage. LibStar ( talk) 01:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This can go back in forth, and the burden can be on either side based on slight technicalities. (Trust me, I've been through this debate when discussing WP:NFC.) We have policies and guidelines stating that the burden is on those wishing to retain content, and ones that state just the opposite. But in any case, consider: If "delete" voters show unambiguously that the article is non-notable, then the result is "delete." If "keep" voters show unambiguously that the article is non-notable, then the result is "keep." But what if neither side is successful? According to your logic the article should be deleted since the burden is on those who want to keep. However, our deletion process clearly delineates that case as "no consensus," which defaults to keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

that is your opinion. LibStar ( talk) 01:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Could you show me where in my previous statement (dated 01:52, 12 May 2010) I included my personal opinion? I think everything is either facts or paraphrases of policies or guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

that is your interpretation of closing this AfD. I'll let others contribute to this discussion now. LibStar ( talk) 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse close. Though I think closing the AFD as "no consensus" was a stretch and most admins would probably have deleted, doing so was within admin's discretion. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse close- Close certainly seems within the realm of admin discretion. It wasn't an easy afd to close, I imagine. But then, that's why we pay the admins the big bucks. Umbralcorax ( talk) 03:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse close this was a tough one, I can see both sides, hence my agreement that there is no consensus. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
~~Endorse~~. Per Ron Ritzman. I'm not a big fan of this close but it was within discretion. I'm particularly loathe to disturb conservative "no consensus" calls. No consensus leaves it open to be renominated in the not too distant future and I would encourage that to happen. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Actually I've changed my mind on a second reading of the AfD and of the closer's explanation here. I'm not saying "overturn" yet but I am noting problems with the close. The closer states that the delete side must show beyond reasonable doubt that the subject is not notable. That test is plainly wrong and it looks like it may have affected the outcome here. I see only two non-canvassed !votes to keep: Paeon and Dream Focus. Cptono then "leant keep". On the other hand there are 16 delete !votes. Headcounting is of course prohibited, but a numerical majority of experienced editors to that extent points very strongly towards a consensus position. It can't be said that the keep arguments were overwhelmingly stronger than the deletes. I think the closing admin may have read too much into this discussion and imposed a burden on the delete side of the debate that is unwarranted. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I actually said the delete side "must fail to show beyond reasonable doubt" for no consensus, which is not the same as "must show beyond reasonable doubt" for consensus to delete ( inverse). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think the point is more the overlaying of concepts of who succeeded in the debate: see your question above regarding "what if neither side is successful?". Closing an AfD isn't a task of deciding who succeeded in establishing or denying notability; the task is to determine what the community's consensus was. So even if the closer believes that the delete votes haven't established non-notability, there can still be a community consensus that the subject is not notable. At 16-3, I think it would be quite unusual for such a consensus not to exist. Additionally, closing a discussion on the basis of whether notability was "established" runs the risk of over-fidelity to the notability guidelines. WP:CORP and WP:GNG are guidelines that only create presumptions of notability: it is open to the community to delete articles that do meet the guidelines and to keep those that don't. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to delete, incubate or Relist. Even if both sides have reasonable rationales, a valid !vote count 16-2 is a very high slant to push to no consensus. More problematically, the one source posited by User:Dream Focus as a reason to keep is just a "surf shop opens" short piece, and for the other editor, the pieces in the skateboard magazine aren't visible and for all we know could be press blurb. The rest are in the USCD Guardian and are therefore both local and primary. There is nothing at all in Google News. The other Keep votes are not only SPAs, but also ITSNOTABLE and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't think this was quite in the range of discretion. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and delete; I can't find a rationale for a no-consensus closure here. Stifle ( talk) 08:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to delete. My change of mind on this is complete. As I reasoned above, I am of the view that this AfD was closed on the wrong basis: not by asking where the community's rough consensus lay, but by asking whether the delete !voters had established non-notability in accordance with notability guidelines. That is the wrong question. To the correct question - whether there was a community consensus to delete the article - the only answer was "yes". It would take extraordinary circumstances (such as overwhelming strength of argument) to find that a 16-3 headcount of valid contributions did not represent a rough consensus. That was not the case here. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid I think you've got it quite backwards. I feel that the "16-3" headcount to which you refer should not have swayed King of Hearts in this case. In closing a canvassing-tainted AfD he would, quite rightly, have disregarded the headcount and focused on the question you describe as "wrong"--in other words, whether notability or lack thereof has in fact been demonstrated.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I certainly don't think there's anything backwards. The proper response to canvassing is to ignore obvious canvassing: the 16-3 headcount is the result of that. We don't reward keep-canvassing by being reluctant to close the debate as delete. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

delete per stifle and black kite - UtherSRG (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse, totally. Our AfD processes are designed on the assumption that no canvassing or vote-stacking takes place. Where such activities do take place, it is absolutely right that administrators should have wide latitude to deal with the tainted AfDs as they see fit. It is unfortunate that in this case, the canvassing has been rewarded by achieving the result it desires, so I would urge the closer of this DRV to consider using their discretion to relist at AfD.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 09:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- If you're saying "Relist", why have you bolded "Endorse"? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Well, I'm saying that I see the result as within the closer's discretion in a canvassing-tainted AfD, hence "endorse" the no-consensus outcome. I then went on to say that I'm a little uncomfortable because in this instance the canvassing has led to the outcome the canvassing party sought, and I would prefer to see a fresh discussion involving un-canvassed users. With a no-consensus outcome, there's nothing stopping an early relist, so I could simply "endorse" and then relist it myself, but I don't like the overtones of that—I prefer a more nuanced outcome in which this DRV decides:
a) That an admin has discretion to close a canvassing-tainted AfD as he sees fit;
b) That canvassing is deplored;
c) That the nomination is not entirely without merit and an untainted AfD might well have had a different outcome; and
d) That a fresh discussion untainted by canvassing should take place.
I'm specifically anxious to see that DRV does not seem to admonish or disapprove of King of Hearts in this matter. Admins should be able to close canvassing-tainted AfDs in the knowledge that DRV is aware of, and sympathises with, the difficulties of doing this.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
We all know that AFD isn't a vote-counting exercise; indeed, an admin that treats them like that doesn't deserve to have the bit. But if you're going to go against such a large consensus, you need to explain why the minority viewpoint's arguments are stronger, and in this case they aren't - indeed they're actually weaker, amounting to "look! I found a reference on the Internet!". Black Kite (t) (c) 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn Mkativerta is absolutely right. Furthermore, if a closing admin had encountered the same keep and delete votes in a discussion without the disgusting canvassing then it would certainly have been deleted- 16 policy based arguments against three is obvious and unequivocal consensus- so to somehow conjure up a "no consensus" close here is to send a clear message that canvassing works. Reyk _YO! 10:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to incubate. There was more of a consensus to delete than keep, but given the nom's move to supporting incubation and the convaluted nature of the debate it's probably fairer to move it and give the keep supporters a chance to improve the article rather than deleting outright. Alzarian16 ( talk) 12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn Looks like King of Hearts failed to accurately read consensus, and in particular to address the impact of canvassing to the debate. Suggest King of Hearts seriously considers stepping back from closing discussions, particularly contentious or complex ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: Maybe WP:N should address different types of local sources for notability or non-notability. I'm tired of hearing over and over again, "Where does it say that local sources don't show notability?". I thought that even without it saying that in WP:N, it would be obvious. This isn't a local newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. Joe Chill ( talk) 22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
That would be a good idea. We have a general notability guideline, topic-specific guidelines, and a guideline on reliable sources, but no page that specifically deals with which sources can be used to show notability. (Indeed, there are many types of sources that would be considered reliable enough to prove a statement in an already notable article, but not enough to show notability per se.) When I was closing the AfD, my personal opinion would have been delete, but in the end found the keep arguments quite convincing. If our consensus is "this can be used to show notability, that can't," etc., then we might as well make it more well-known through a guideline or an addition to an existing guideline. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I have heard users bring up that the size of the community where the newspaper is printed or how many cities/towns they are printed in can show notability. Joe Chill ( talk) 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I think this would be too much instruction creep. Let the community decide on a case by case basis. Reyk _YO! 23:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think this is a great idea. Maybe a caveat as simple as "In general, coverage should not be from local sources exclusively" would do the trick. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse This is an example of technical compliance with GNG trumping common sense, and I think is good evidence why the GNG for some things has gotten inclusive beyond reason, even for me. Whether local sources show notability depends on what they are--if they are responsibly edited and do not automatically cover any local group or business in an indiscriminate way, they can show notability. In general, I do not accept a college newspaper covering a local business as sufficiently discriminate, but the UCSD article does discuss the shop in a substantial way in connection with a campus dispute about sponsorship, so the usual basis for ruling out local sources does not apply here. Nonetheless, a local business with nothing actually special about it is not suitable content for an encyclopedia. The proper place for this would be in some WP extension, which I call Wikipedia II to indicate it would deal with a lower order of notability, not just local. But I think the decision was realistic--there was no consensus on how we should handle this article, or this general situation. If renominated, i will vote to !delete on the basis that notability should mean something, and not be dependent on the accident of sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination) and semiprotect so that a discussion can be held about the local newspaper article not establishing notability, without the noise of people who are canvassed. Though, I cannot see how this could be closed as no consensus — I believe there was a clear consensus among the established editors to delete; contrary to the closing admin's assertion that only Bonadea discounted the local sources, Joe Chill, VernoWhitney, Reyk, and JamesBWatson also mentioned in their arguments that the local coverage in the article was insufficient to establish notability. — there likely won't be a consensus here to overturn to delete. As such, a second AfD will probably have to be held, and I have no doubt that that debate will be closed as delete. Cunard ( talk) 03:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment The admin's statement upon closing the discussion said all that needed to be said. A second deletion discussion (hopefully with less shenanigans) might be a good idea. He interpreted the debate and overall weird situation correctly so this may not be the correct venue. Cptnono ( talk) 08:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Well-reasoned decision, clearly within the closer's discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and delete or go to a second AFD and semiprotect Toddst1 ( talk) 20:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse A messy discussion with with some dubious reasoning on both sides. The closing admin's reasoning is in my opinion perfectly valid. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 May 2010

File:Triangle-gold.svg and File:Triangle-grey.svg – Restored; sourcing information should be added in the next 7 days. – Tim Song ( talk) 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hasty and erroneous speedy deletion of SVG vector files under F4. The GIF versions, File:Triangle-gold.gif and File:Triangle-grey.gif, remain up, and each contains the necessary licensing (released into public domain). Please restore ASAP as these are being used in multiple articles. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 13:21, 11 May 2010 (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, and making such a request along with providing a proper source for the images would almost certainly have been sufficient. Was there some special reason why you chose not to do that? Stifle ( talk) 08:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This is the first time I've ever requested a deletion review. I did send notices to both the deleting admin and the person who placed the deletion tags on. Pardon my n00biness. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 12:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
It never ceases to amaze me how people manage to selectively follow the instructions on how to list a DRV but can't, don't, or won't follow any of the three separate appearances of the request to discuss with the deleting admin first :) Anyhow, restore and fix the licensing. (And BTW, the image was tagged for over a week, so it was hadly a hasty action.) Stifle ( talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Restore and clarify licensing, snowball if the trend fits. Don't worry about Stifle, he chews on the newbies a bit, but he's usually nice enough not to bite down. :) Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. The deletions were neither out of process nor erroneous. You were warned that if you did not provide licensing information within 7 days of being notified, the files would be deleted. Because you failed to provide that information on time, the files were deleted. If you feel the files are still needed, feel free to re-upload them. WP:DR is not the correct venue for something like this. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 04:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Wrong. I was not the one who was informed, because I didn't post the pictures. I was someone who simply came across a red link one day for a picture that was being used in several articles and requested that it be restored. There was no warning on the pages the picture was being used as is the usual protocol when proposing images for deletion. As such, there is no way I could have the picture in question. Remember what happens when people assume things. J. Myrle Fuller ( talk) 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:The Time of Angels illustrative image.jpg – No consensus to overturn, closure endorsed by default; exercising my discretion as the DRV closer in such cases, I note that this file may be relisted at FfD immediately by any user at editorial discretion. – Tim Song ( talk) 15:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I (very broadly) agree with the result of "no consensus" – but WP:FFD clearly states, "Files that have been listed [...] for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if there is no clear consensus in favour of keeping them." The result of "no consensus" should, therefore, be an impossible result for an FfD discussion: or rather, where there is no real consensus, the presumption is to delete the image.

However, when I asked the deleting admin, they said that they "closed the discussion as no consensus, defaulting to keep," which is, in my view, in appropriate, particularly given that a copyright/ NFC issue is involved, and none of those arguing in favour of keeping the file presented any substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Counsellor of State─╢ 08:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment WP:DPR#FFD provides "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default". This seems to conflict with the statement quoted above at WP:FFD. Surely this has come up before? For what it's worth, "no consensus defaults to delete" seems more appropriate for FFDs. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment - I'm not sure if it is relevant, but here is an example of the image being used in the article. As of this message, it was removed.-- Rockfang ( talk) 08:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I also think that since WP:DPR#FFD is a guideline while WP:FFD is essentially just a listing that the information on WP:DPR#FFD would "trump" anything on WP:FFD.-- Rockfang ( talk) 08:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Responding to both of the above comments: That is somewhat of a conflict. My understanding of the policy is that no discussion at all defaults to delete (see item 8 of WP:DPR#FFD), but a discussion that fails to reach a consensus defaults to keep. Stifle ( talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

~~Alter to No Consensus, defaulting to Delete~~See below With no consensus the closing admin should have deleted. Didn't meet WP:NFCC the first time and still doesn't. If there isn't consensus that a non-free image passes NFC then the default must be delete - NFC is very clear about that. Black Kite (t) (c) 09:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Weak overturn to no consensus, defaulting to delete. I'm a bit equivocal on this one. On the one hand, while Treasury Tag correctly quotes the policy when he says "eligible for deletion", I would interpret that as a call for admin discretion. I do not agree with Treasury Tag when he goes on to say that "the presumption is to delete the image". I think that if that was what WP:FFD was intended to mean, then that is what WP:FFD would say. So I see that aspect of the decision we are considering as a legitimate matter of admin discretion. But on the other hand, I think Black Kite raises a more substantial point with WP:NFCC. NFCC is strongly-worded and taken very seriously, and that is as it should be. This argues for "overturn to delete". In the closer's defence, only 82.7.X.X raised this matter in the debate, and 82.7.X.X did not specifically reference NFCC, but on balance I do think the closer (as an admin) ought to have recognised the remark as a matter of NFCC regardless and applied the policy accordingly.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Just to say, I fully accept S-Marshall's point where he disagrees with me; on reflection, his interpretation appears to be both sensible and fair. I also think he puts the case for defaulting to deletion in this particular situation very well. ╟─ Treasury Tag► senator─╢ 17:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you for those kind words, TT.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I also agree with most of your points, but there is a factual error in your remark that "only 82.7.X.X raised this matter in the debate". The nominator also raised the issue and I responded to it quoting points raised. So, there were actually three of us in the original debate who addressed NFCC. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 06:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes, I do see that. I think 82.7.X.X's remark referred to it most clearly, and I also think it would have been better to link to the policy you were talking about. (I do feel we need to do more of this on Wikipedia because otherwise new editors will find our labyrinthine maze of policies even more completely impossible to make sense of, and also in the closer's defence, he isn't a mindreader.) But I accept that others do also seem to have had NFCC in mind and that while they did not explicitly reference that policy, the closer might have been expected to understand their remarks in that light.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 09:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep as no consensus, defaulting to keep. Posters here who want to "default to delete" are seeking to change a long standing WP:DPR#FFD policy. The Deletion Review of a single image is not the appropriate forum to agree such a wide ranging change. (Also User:TreasuryTag states "... and none of those arguing in favour of keeping the file presented any substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria." He is entitled to hold this opinion, but others are entitled to disagree. I believe my contribution to the community review ( here) addressed WP:NFCC points #1 and #8 both substantively and eloquently.) HairyWombat ( talk) 16:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- WP:NFCC says "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". That seems fairly clear that the default should be to remove the image from the article if consensus cannot be reached - and orphaned non-free images are automatically deleted. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment. WP:DPR#FFD is even clearer, "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default". HairyWombat ( talk) 19:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- - And at my discretion, I felt that both HairyWombat ( talk · contribs) and EncycloPetey ( talk · contribs) provided valid rationales. — ξ ^xplicit 19:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - And WP:NFCC#1? "An image of a transparent Weeping Angel standing in front of a screen". I'm not saying that there is no image that can pass WP:NFCC for the infobox of this article, but this one doesn't. It's effectively just a picture of the baddie. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to delete pretty much as per my comments in the debate. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Note to closing admin - issue with canvassing on this DRV - here and here - current discussion at WP:ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:02, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Permanent link ╟─ Treasury Tag► First Secretary of State─╢ 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse as closing administrator, per my reply to TreasuryTag here. To reiterate, I'm a user with deletionist views, but applying WP:NFCC#8 is very much to at any user's discretion. I did not weigh the delete votes any heavier than the keep votes when both adequately addressed the non-free content criteria policy, which is why I closed the discussion as no consensus and defaulting to keep. As HairyWombat pointed out above, how I interpreted the discussion differs from TreasuryTag's interpretation of "substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria"—point eight of the NFCC policy has long been open to debate from my near three-year experiences here, so I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. I also agree with the points further above stating that the text at WP:FFD contradicts the WP:DPR#FFD guideline and should be addressed after this discussion, as to not sway consensus should it be done during the DRV. — ξ ^xplicit 19:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse with Comments - Generally, I understand the reasoning behind the NFC policy and the fact that it's to minimize complications with the potential free distribution of the articles here. However, this seems to be one of four related nominated, the other 3 on May 2, for FFD by the same editor that have seen its enforcement poorly executed.
- Looking at NFC, ideally some aspects of it can be addressed in a straightforward manner by tagging the image, tagging where it is use, and informing the uploader. In fact, the maintenance tags for improper or no FUR, no Licensing, no sourcing, and replaceability all have a template call provided to add to where the image is in use. That speaks volumes to the intent of the process there - give the editor(s) a week to fix the problems, if possible, or the image goes away, normally by 'bot.
- Since the crux here is NFCC 8, it would seem the ideal way for such an issue to be dealt with is to stick with the article level.
  - You feel the image violates point 8 - remove it from the article, give a short explanation in the edit summary, and maybe a bit longer one on the article's talk page. Don't turn around and compound the issue with an FFD (more on this in a bit). Since point 8 is a bit open to interpretation, the editor or editors that have to show there is a reason or consensus opinion that the image meets point 8 to put it back. The key there is that there needs to be a consensus to keep - just like a BLP deletion needs a solid ref to re-add.
  - If the consensus at the article is to keep it and you still feel the image violates point 8, then go to FFD. But the image should not be removed - again the FFD template has a template call to add to the image caption announcing that it is under consideration for deletion. Deleting the image and FFDing it creates two problems:
    1. Factually inaccurate iVotes. This happened with the other 3 images nominated on May 2 with editors commenting "Delete - Not used any way," apparently not realizing that the editor that nominated the image also deliberately orphaned it at the same time.
    2. Fait Accompli deletions. The XFD process should take no more than 7 days. Should. At times though it doesn't. Right now there is at least one 'bot that automatically purges the orphaned categories starting 0:00:00 UTC. And there is another that runs regularly to check the FFD for still open cases with deleted files. If and FFD is still going, for what ever reason, this combination moots any comments or growing consensus. This is also something that almost happened with this image - it was deleted as orphaned before the FFD was closed ( 00:01, May 11, 2010) because the nominator insisted on shoring the extension to "tomorrow" ([http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=File:The_Time_of_Angels_illustrative_image.jpg&diff=361228869&oldid=361228685 and [76] and not these were in response to [77] which gave the FFD 6 extra days instead of one, if that).
  If the image has gotten to an FFD, it should be assumed that there is some reason why it was not just removed from the article outright. It could be a consensus of the editors working on the article, it could be that the nominating editor is not sure it's explicitly yankable, or it could be any other reason. But once at FFD, the "No consensus" close is a keep but open to a sooner but not immediate re-list.
- I'm also not too keen on the the tone used on the file's talk page. At best, half of it is unhelpful.
- Also a few of the nominators comments in this file's FFD and the others are also less than helpful.
  - "JUSTAVOTE" is a little bit goading from the perspective of an editor. And darn near insulting to potential closing admins.
  - "Clear WP:ILIKEIT violation." is more than a little inflammatory. Last I checked, "ILIKIT" arguments aren't forbidden, but should be taken for what they are. And in this case the comment it was directed at doesn't meet the "ILIKEIT" type of iVote.
  - And there are a few leaps in logic at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 2#File:Doctor Who Flesh and Stone.jpg:
    - The nominator comparing the use of similar image for a similar function - a visual reference of "This is the episode being covered by this article" - to that of File:Adipose.jpg in Partners in Crime (Doctor Who). And the nominator notes "...that has an image which illustrates a first-time-ever-used-on-TV method of animation." I'd agree with that reasoning - if the image were at that section of the article instead of in the infobox. It's in the infobox to clarify "This episode".
    - And when it was observed that "And frankly, looking at these noms, it looks like the FfD cudgel can and will be used to prevent any image from being added." the response was "Not at all, there are countless Doctor Who articles with images." I really have to wonder especially since, when the nominate deleted the image from use he left this edit summary since it mirrors the edit summary used when he nominated and deleted the previous image - Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 2#File:Doctor Who - Flesh And Stone.jpg.

- J Greb ( talk) 23:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Small addendum - I had seen this this morning and had intended to drop the above prior to finding HairyWombat's comment at my talk page BK. - J Greb ( talk) 23:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse closure Should've been an obvious keep. The only arguments for deleting it is that it isn't necessary for the article, not that it violated any copyright laws. The nominator felt that instead of using a screenshot from the episode itself, a picture of a classical painting should've been used instead, which makes absolutely no sense at all. All episode articles should have a picture from that episode, not some random unrelated image that only confuses people. And if the episode is called Time of Angels, then you need a picture of the angel transforming in time. Dream Focus 00:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
"The nominator felt that instead of using a screenshot from the episode itself, a picture of a classical painting should've been used instead," – this is an absolute lie. I never suggested anything so ridiculous! Furthermore, DRV isn't to argue the case, which you appear to be doing. It's to discuss the propriety of the closure itself. (And you seem to fundamentally misunderstand the context of the issue, unsurprising if you think that the picture showed "the angel transforming in time"...) Do you have any comment to make on that? ╟─ Treasury Tag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Sorry, misread that. Someone else mentioned the classical painting thing in the AFD and the files discription [78]. Your comment was "Can easily be replaced by free content (words: a grainy translucent stone angel standing in front of a television set)". That's even more lame. If someone made some free content like that, it'd probably look rather crappy, and those who saw it would think it was from the show, and thus think negatively of the visual effects, they less likely to watch the episode. Someone who saw the episode mentioned it shows the emergence of the angel. The time that the angel emerged, and the episode is called Time of the Angels. The show is about a time traveler moving around and having adventures. Never mind. My attempt to have an amusing play on words seems to have failed. There was no copyright violation, this counting as fair usage, and no reason not to have an image for the episode article. Dream Focus 08:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse closure. WP:DPR#FFD is quite clear. In fact, it should have been keep, if anything. It is commonly accepted to show a screenshot for an episode. Text can always be used to describe a copyrighted image, but the effect simply is not the same. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse closure. Visual media should be illustrated and not merely described in words. The entire point of the visual arts is to visually convey impressions and emotions, by means of artistic expression, that cannot be adequately presented in written form. An article about architecture, drama, painting, or dance would be expected to have a suitable image, and the same is true of television. To (loosely) quote from the episode being illustrated "Where are the pictures? Why are there no pictures?" The nominator's own comments in the deletion discussion expressed his opinion that Wikipedia's text should not be emotional. So, how should the emotional impact of a visual medium be expressed to a Wikipedia reader? In an image, obviously. The image of the angel shows it coming into existence with terrifying fangs exposed in a hideously opened mouth, talons on tense fingers raised on outstretched arms, with an eeire electronic glow. This description cannot be expressed adequately in writing because it would contain writer's opinon and emotion that the nominator says Wikipedia shouldn't have. So, let's keep the image because, clearly, it provides emotional context and visual impact that cannot be expressed in text. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 02:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
DRV isn't to argue the case, which you appear to be doing. It's to discuss the propriety of the closure itself. Do you have any comment to make on that? ╟─ Treasury Tag► constabulary─╢ 06:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Your closing statement of the purpose of this DRV is that "none of those arguing in favour of keeping the file presented any substantive explanation of how the image meets the non-free content criteria." I am responding to that statement by pointing out in fuller detail that there indeed was such an argument presented, despite your claim to the contrary. The closer specifically referred to my comments as persuasive in the closing, and so your statement is incorrect. If you did not intend for this DRV to address that issue, then why did you raise it at the outset of this DRV? What specifically about the closure did you have a problem with, and how much of your reasoning at the top of this DRV is superfluous to that concern? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 06:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to delete. If the result of the debate had properly been no-consensus after a discussion, it would default to keep, but it was not. The closer should have discounted all the keep arguments (except perhaps that of magnius) as not based in policy, leading to a consensus to delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
In what way is HairyWombat's argument invalid? What we care about in the article is "what this Angel looks like" (emphasis original), because it significantly adds to the reader's understanding. (To dispute this point would be to dispute all the precedent we have with all episodes getting a screenshot. If you think all this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, then make a proposal to eliminate all those screenshots.) We might as well show two pictures of the Gateway Arch to illustrate McDonald's logo. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
"A picture is worth a thousand words" is a proof by assertion and is meaningless. The fact that the image is discussed in the article is necessary but not sufficient; WP:NFCC requires that the image also be irreplaceable by free content (in this case the textual description) and that it significantly improves readers' understanding of the article. Stifle ( talk) 07:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to delete per Stifle, that being said, my understanding has always been that FFD defaults to delete if NFCC cannot be proven, this is not a question of guideline or even consensus, it's a legal implication on the foundation. That's why WP:NFCC is classified as such a policy. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Relist because there's a lot of confusion here. Let's make it clear; the FFD shouldn't be deciding whether an episode article should have a screenshot - there's every possibility that one could be found that passes WP:NFCC. Secondly, the FFD shouldn't be considering whether the image might ever pass WP:NFCC under any circumstance; it possibly might. The only thing it shuold be considering is whether this image passes WP:NFCC when positioned in this particular article - and the answer is no - it doesn't. It's just an image of a Weeping Angel which doesn't convey anything to the casual reader that couldn't be transmitted by text. There may well be a screenshot that exists which does pass all the criteria - and if so that's fine. But this one doesn't - there's nothing in the image that explains something to the reader which isn't communicable by text. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I puzzle over how relisting would resolve anything. You write that this image does not pass WP:NFCC. You are entitled to hold this opinion, but others are entitled to disagree. If a closing administrator behaved in the way that you suggest then their decision would inevitably be taken to a new Deletion Review. Which would bring us back to where we are now. HairyWombat ( talk) 13:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn: Deletion discussions, for obvious reasons, default to delete if there is no consensus the NFCC has been shown to have have been passed. However, the arguments for keeping the image are lacking anyway, and so is the rationale for the image (which fails the Doctor Who Manual of Style as well as the NFCC. Sceptre ^(
talk) 11:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Wait, what? We have a special manual of style for articles about Dr Who episodes? I've seen some truly silly things on Wikipedia, but this scales new heights.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 10:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

WikiProjects commonly have manuals of styles for articles under their scope. The contents are built over long-time consensus and practice. Sceptre ^(
talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse No consensus is a reasonable close, and it appears FfD discussions default to keep in such cases. Hobit ( talk) 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse The only way to interpret policy is by consensus. In the absence of consensus, we take no action, and that includes deletion of images. NFCC is a strict requirement, but we expect that participants in the discussion will take that into account, and the relevant consensus is whether the file does or does not meet the strict requirement. The default if there is no agreement. is still to keep if the file is present. Had it been deleted, we would need consensus to restore. DGG ( talk ) 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 May 2010

File:RUeyegouge.jpg – Overturn and list at FfD. The question of replaceability boils down to the question whether the image's use is decorative, as the deleting admin argued, or whether using the image to illustrate the consequence of gouging "significantly enhances the reader's understanding of the subject" ( WP:NFCC#8). I doubt that anyone would disagree that a decorative nonfree image is by definition replaceable; and on the assumption that this image is not decorative, as the discussion below appears to be based on, the consensus of the discussion here is that the image is most likely irreplaceable. Shoehorning an NFCC#8 problem into an NFCC#1 problem generated quite a bit of confusion, as reflected in the discussion. NFCC#8 is not a speedy criterion, and if anything is clear here, it is that this image should not be deleted without discussion. – Tim Song ( talk) 05:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I believe this image or similar image is not likely to be found free. Gnevin ( talk)

Endorse I agree with the considered reasoning provided by the deleting administrator at their talk page. A picture on eye gouging is very likely to be replaceable. Of all the rugby union matches played throughout history, there may very well be a free picture of eye gouging. If not, head out to your local park with a couple of mates this afternoon dressed in rugby union getup and take free pictures of you eye gouging each other to your hearts content. Irreplaceable does not mean "I can't find any free pictures on flickr". Sounds tough, I know. But such is the conservative approach that is demanded of fair use claims. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: Are you high? If not, head out to your local park with a couple of mates this afternoon dressed in rugby union getup and take free pictures of you eye gouging each other to your hearts content eye gouging is extremely dangerous behaviour which can result in blindness and the lose of the eye and you are seriously suggesting I go to a local park and carry out criminal behaviour! You've in a round about way admitted that a replaceable image is not available Gnevin ( talk) 08:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Just a bit of humour. I could accept using a picture like this to demonstrate anal poking as it's only been known to happen once. But with the multitude of examples of eye gouging throughout the history of kick-chase-gouge-whistle-scrum-whistle-kick, you can't possibly argue that there's not likely to be a free image of it happening somewhere. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The image wasn't of a gouge it was on the result of a pretty horrendous gouge . Most gouging in RU doesn't result in eye damage, this limits the number of options, of those that do most if not all aren't free . The image can be found here. Shouldn't people endorsing actually look at the image? Gnevin ( talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

To repeat what the deleting admin said, if the image was used to illustrate and comment on that particularly horrendous gouge, an NFCC#1 claim could potentially be made out. But the image was used to demonstrate gouging generally; thus it is replaceable by any free picture of gouging. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Well if you want a picture of gouging (Why,I don't know) there is one on the article here lower down. If you really want it though why having an image showing potential criminal action is beyond me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 21:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Third time explaining this too you, maybe if you took time to listen instead of being owe so funny! The image shows the eye damaged caused as a result of an eye gouge not an eye gouge in progress Gnevin ( talk) 08:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That's not the 3rd time to me. I think you may have misread me, I already knew this was a photo showing the result of a gouge, (In fact, I was the one that found the source that contained this picture). And what I said was directed at Mkativerata who said he wanted a picture of gouging itself rather than a picture showing the damage that can be done. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 12:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The you refereed to Mkativerata not yourself The C of E sorry about any confusion Gnevin ( talk) 00:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn The very nature of gouging is that is an underhand act. It's unlikely that anybody would undertake in gouging someone when it is clearly visible, let alone easily photograped. While the picture is not particularly pleasant (in fact its very unpleasant), it is not gratuitous and is very effective in illustrating the dangers of gouging. It is highly unlikely that it could be replaced a free image from elsewhere G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn: Well, I think that although the picture may be gruesome, it does illustrate a point of what Eye-Gouging in Rugby can do to a person. The person in the picture was blinded in the gouged eye and had his Rugby career ended so as Gnevin says, it is highly unlikly to have another free equivilant. (I Will also say that I found Mkativerata's "joke" very insulting to both the sport and players who have had their lives dramatically altered because of someone trying to rip their eye out.) The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 20:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn: Per my reasoning above and the fact that any replacement would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose Gnevin ( talk) 20:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse: While such eyes may be rare the list where this image was used shows that it happens regularly. Therefore a free equivalent could be created if one does not already exit. Rettetast ( talk) 20:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment It doesn't happen often. Cases of contact with the eye are common, really? We have an average of 3 or 4 cares per the 100's of top flight games played a year and in most of these it's eye contact near the eye area. Cases of out and out gouging as defined as where fingers are inserted in the eye are quite rare and cases of eye damage extremely rare. I've been watching Rugby for 15 years and this in the only case of physical eye damage I recall. If you look at the list you will see 1 ban of 2 years or more and the player he gouged eye wasn't damaged Gnevin ( talk) 21:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

P.S could be created if one does not already exit. Are you offering up your eye? Gnevin ( talk) 21:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Thankfully its extremely rare, I've been watching/playing rugby for 20 years and I have never seen an out and out gouge taking place, mostly these are only brought to the attention by citing after games and the examination of television footage, for want of a better term these things happen in a blink of an eye and I can't see how it could be recreated. While this image is horrible, I cannot think of a better example to illustrate the point. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 21:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and restore The newspaper article makes it clear that this is not replaceable in any reasonable way. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Was this image copyrighted by anyone? Google image search shows thousands of images for eye gouge, and you could easily take a picture of someone touching someone's eye. By if this was a particularly famous eye gouge, an event mentioned in an article, and no copyright laws were violated, it should've been kept. Dream Focus 01:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment : Sigh explaining this again ! The image shows the eye damaged caused as a result of an eye gouge not an eye gouge in progress Gnevin ( talk) 07:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn per Gnevin.-- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Porn creep – Deletion endorsed. The general consensus of the discussion below is that an AfD delete close is inevitable; hence, there is no need to engage in process for the sake of process. – Tim Song ( talk) 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I added the review tag and got another message about it being speedily deleted. I am confused. I need the article I wrote to be reviewed as it was deleted on the grounds that it was the same as one written over a year ago. It bears no relation to that page, I don't even know what the one from 09 was, it was not written by me. Mine has new references and is wholly original. Please review it. Thank you William Edmonds ( talk) 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC) (Original post: [79]) Feinoha ^{Talk,
My master} 20:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse. The above editor is correct to note that this is "wholly original". The first AfD nomination said "PoV essay, whose original research is not supported by the listed references.". Whether or not the new references check out is of little import; this is still original research by synthesis -- amalgamating various sources into a personal essay that idiosyncratically defines the subject term. it also suffers from heteronormativity. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion classic example of WP:OR. I removed a speedy tag asking for deletion as no context, which is not applicable. G4 would apply, but we might as well let this review come to a conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and list at AfD. WP:OR is not a speedy delete criteria. Taking the nominator at their word I can't see how G4 applies as if written by a different editor I doubt it's "sufficiently identical" to the AfD'd version as required by the criteria. Yes, in my view this version of the article is also likely to be original research and very likely to be deleted at AfD but if it's not the same article as previously deleted then that decision has to be taken by the community at AfD not by a single admin deciding it's still original research. Dpmuk ( talk) 12:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and list at AfD, I agree with Dpmuk, G4 does not seem to apply. And see, e.g., TIME (2009). Perhaps it will be deleted at AfD, but I take the recreation as a legitimate attempt to create a new article.-- Milowent ( talk) 16:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse I agree with the nominator that this isn't really similar to the earlier article, but it's still completely unacceptable for an encyclopedia, including a "What you can do for your child" and a "list of tips". A serious attempt at an article on this topic would be better off starting from scratch than with this as a starting point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Google news archive search [80] shows it mentioned as different things, none of which I see as the addiction mentioned in the article. That is called something else. There is an article about Wikipedia being accused of porn creep, for allowing images to be uploaded, as well as other places mentioning it as allowing it to creep in to the mainstream. The topic could be recreated for what it actually is, or the article renamed to something more appropriate, there surely news and book results for porn addiction. Dream Focus 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse deletion Original research and synthesis. AniMate 01:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and list at AfD, almost certainly to be deleted as WP:OR, but not certainly enough to make the assumption. Also, the state of an article is not the topic of AfD or DRV, the topic is. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 07:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse original deletion - but this is new material, which needs its own AfD for the obvious WP:OR and WP:NEO. -- Orange Mike | Talk 17:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse deletion Original research, encyclopedic. There is no reason to overturn. What would be the point? Keep it deleted per WP:SNOWBALL. -- Pstanton ( talk) 20:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep deleted - this article is not what "porn creep" is. [81] and [82], among others, define porn creep correctly - it is the "mainstreaming" of pornography by the media. In other words, "porn creep" refers to how it is less and less shocking to see more and more revealing acts on the news or in mainstream TV/movies. This article is about a symptom of pornography addiction, not about porn creep. -- B ( talk) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse original deletion; no need to put it through AfD. Glass Cobra 04:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Brandy Howard – Recreation not permitted at this time; consensus is that there is insufficient sourcing at present. – Tim Song ( talk) 05:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I userfied the page deleted through AFD to User:Trannytime/Brandy Howard. Trannytime has worked on it and now wishes to see if their contributions are enough to recreate it. Sending the page here procedurally. NW ( Talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This source, cited in the draft article, looks like it might be okay. I'm not so convinced about any of the others.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Isn't "Along with her writing partner Brandy Howard, ..." just a passing mention? -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 20:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes, certainly. When I said that, I was trying to broach the subject of the draft's sources in a not-entirely-negative-and-discouraging way.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 20:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Ok, can't say I see it myself, personally I'd find it pretty negative to find I'd been misled as to the value of something in the interest of being "nice". I'd find it more constructive to be given a realistic assessment such that I wouldn't go off and find more of the same. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 21:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Michel Tardieu – Speedy deletion overturned. – Cenarium ( talk) 00:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Contest speedy deletion I am reluctant to contact apparently anonymous deleters ----Clive Sweeting Clive sweeting ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 10 May 2010

Why? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
With regard to Michel Tardieu, which we have seen before at DRV, I did make contact with the deleting admin, here. Until he has had chance to respond, I am ~~neutral~~ See below.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn It will presumably pass afd under WP:PROF, because of "Pensée grecque et sagesse d' orient: hommage à Michel Tardieu," ed M.-A. AMIR MOEZZI (et al.), Brepols 2009 , as well as the position at College de France. In any case it clearly makes assertions of importance as an author, and as a professor. The original deletor might well have restored it if asked, however, since it seems a clear error. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn. There was a credible claim of significance or importance, as per the DRV a few days ago (which the deleting admin wasn't to know about as it was under a different title). -- Mkativerata ( talk) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
'Overturn A quick Google book search shows thousands of results, some of them obviously about this guy. [83] This should not have been speedily deleted. Dream Focus 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Some time having passed since I raised this on the deleter's talk page, I'm now going to run with overturn speedy and restore per DGG and Mkativerata.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC

But this remains deleted_---Clive Sweeting

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ano Ilisia – Article restored by deleting administrator (non-admin closure). -- Mkativerata ( talk) 06:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Contest speedy deletion I am reluctant to contact apparently anonymous deleters ----Clive Sweeting Clive sweeting ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Preceding undated comment added 14:43, 10 May 2010

See listing of Michel Tardieu above. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 18:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Why? Also, deleting admins aren't anonymous. Just go to the deleted article and it'll list the deleter and the provided reason. - Vianello ( Talk) 20:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn. The article subject is clearly identified, assuming that the Google cache link is accurate, so this doesn't fall under WP:CSD#A1. Phil Bridger ( talk) 22:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn Speedy deletion reason used was not appropriate. Might possibly survive afd if references could be found. I suggest Vianello simply revert his mistaken deletion and if no references are rapidly forthcoming, send to afd. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Comment. Seems reasonable if multiple people agree here. The topic didn't seem readily apparent to me (or apparently the nominator), leaving me thinking, "A what district?" but that's probably a culture gap thing. No notability demonstrated, but I don't know how that applies to locations, so I'm okay with reinstating this and just seeing if that even becomes an issue. - Vianello ( Talk) 03:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2010

Powlz.com – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This is a vaild website page and it's importance and significance is CLEAR if the artical is read Jacobhasnopens ( talk) 10:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have userfied the article here. I do not endorse undeletion. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse Clear A7, all references from website owner's own site, apart from Alexa rank - but that is misleading, as the Alexa link given is for ismywebsite.com (i.e. all subdomains of it - this website is just one of those); and putting the article name into alexa gives nothing. Incidentally, the main claim to notability is that the website is not blockable by school filtering systems, but if the website owner thinks that logging on from a shifting IP will achieve that, they're going to have a bit of a surprise. Edit: I note that the author has now been blocked for repeated recreation under different names. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- And the alexa link isn't even for the site, but one the site it links through... -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I've read the article and it's significance and important ISN'T clear, in the sense wikipedia means it even less so. Has this been written about in a non-trivial way by reliable third party sources? -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 13:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- No. The only references out there are; Wikipedia, the website itself, the site's Facebook page and a couple of the IP login pages. And that's it. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - OK, I notice the lister here has now been blocked, the other article they've created Mexicos Got Talent I've listed that as a hoax, since the references used were broken (the official website being a parked domain, a new link being broken and to a tv products company not a news site, the facebook fans being empty etc.) can't believe the series winner receives a burrito... -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 13:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - Yeah, deleted that and created a redirect to Got_Talent#Other_countries where the actual Mexican "Got Talent" show (which has a Spanish title) is mentioned. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Maybe snow close this?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:33, 9 May 2010 (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) 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sironta – Closure endorsed; recreation not permitted at this time. – Tim Song ( talk) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I have a new accurate version of this article and I would like to publish it, but it is protected and can be only done by administators.

Can any administrator verify my article and guide me if something is not right? I would like to help and be helped to increase the wikipedia. Marj9543( talk) 13:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse the article wasn't deleted for being "inaccurate", it was deleted for lack of notability. Unless you can prove that things have changed substantially in the less than a month period since then, rewriting it isn't going to help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Wrong venue for request. Create the new text in userspace (e.g., User:Marj9543/Sironta) and then ask the deleting administrator ( RHaworth ( talk)) if it is sufficiently improved that it can go back. — C.Fred ( talk) 17:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC) reply
- Ok, thanks! Marj9543( talk) 9:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  - C.Fred, surely this is the correct venue for the request?
Endorse my deletion. Nothing has changed since the AfD closed only three weeks ago. The new draft contains no extra evidence of notability - the three PDFs referenced do not mention the product at all. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC) reply
- I have added PDFs mentioning Sironta as an European Comission Project, to add notability.— Marj9543 ( talk) 10:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Another references added: University of Surrey book talking about Sironta. Tamperee University link added, DEN4DEK project links added, OPAALS projects PDFs added, all of them referencing Sironta. More external links added. In my opinion, this article ( User:Marj9543/Sironta) has the needed notability and references to be republished. Waiting to some admin to endorse it. -- Marj9543 ( talk) 10:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 02:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment to Marj9543 ( talk · contribs): Please provide the specific page numbers of the PDFs that you believe establish notability. Because most of the references are PDFs, some of which are very lengthy (over 200 pages), it is difficult to evaluate them to determine if they are reliable and have in-depth coverage of the Sironta.
The PDF I checked did not establish notability because it didn't seem to be a reliable source. On page 36 of the pdf ( non-PDF version for easier viewing), the source says: "Our information about Sironta is from the Sironta development wiki, discussions during OPAALS conference in London in May 2008 and online discussions with the developers of Sironta." This doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Cunard ( talk) 02:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Quite likely not reliable, and certainly not independent of the subject. JamesBWatson ( talk) 08:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

In strict DRV terms, my answer is endorse, because I'm simply not seeing the sources that take this over the bar for WP:N. But considering this is free and open source software that conforms to Wikipedian ideals, I think it behoves us to be a little more helpful to the nominator than just parroting "Endorse" at him. So to Marj9543, I'd say that the fact that Sironta isn't notable enough for its own article doesn't mean that all information about Sironta should be removed from Wikipedia. It just means that Sironta shouldn't have an article of its own. So, for example, it may be appropriate to add Sironta to the List of free and open source software packages—assuming it meets all the relevant criteria—in which case, this article title might reasonably be converted to a redirect. Or if that doesn't work, there will likely be another appropriate list to which Sironta can be added, because individual items on a list do not have to be notable in their own right.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 May 2010

Nicholas Beale – since the decision here is split almost right down the middle, the best option for now might to redirect to Questions of Truth, in order to encourage and to allow for a redirect discussion at editorial discretion – Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 12:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was most recently deleted in January after its fifth AfD, which was closed by kurykh ( talk · contribs) as delete and salt on grounds of non-notability. To be clear, I'm not arguing that the closure should be overturned - I agree with it completely - but I think the title should be created as a redirect to Questions of Truth (the book whose co-authorship is Beale's main claim to fame) since it's a very likely search title and pointing readers to the book will tell them everything noteworthy about the man. It's my understanding that an AfD closed as delete does not by default preclude creation of a redirect over the title. Indeed in this case several editors argued for a redirect and none argued against one, so I don't believe that creating one would be against the spirit of the AfD's result. Kurykh seems to disagree (I asked them first here, where kurykh didn't reply but SlimVirgin did, and subsequently here) and I don't want to wheel-war by creating a SALTed page, so I brought it to DRV to get a consensus. I agree that SALTing was a good idea to prevent the page's continued recreation, so if we do create a redirect it should remain protected, which achieves the same result. Olaf Davis ( talk) 21:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Allow Redirect I don't think creating a fully-protected redirect is against the spirit of the discussion. It's basically the same but with a useful change for those who search for this term. Since no one in the AFD specifically argued against a redirect and there was no consensus against one, there is no reason to no create one. Regards So Why 21:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep deleted. A search for Nicholas Beale brings up Questions of Truth as the very first result, so it's only one click more for people to find it. Why is this change necessary, other than for the vanity and puffery of a known COI editor? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 22:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep deleted Though common sense might argue for a protected redirect, I am wary of future disputes over the protection. Note that if you type 'Nicholas Beale' into the Wikipedia search box and hit 'Go', you will see Questions of Truth listed as the first search hit. So the practical need for a redirect may not be there. The person who has been attempting to create Beale's article in the past has shown amazing stamina, and we should be prepared to show him that 'enough is enough.' (See protection log). I speculate that the subject is behind the numerous re-creations of the article. Based on the log, it appears that someone tried to re-create the article at least seven times in 2009. EdJohnston ( talk) 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I concede that it's not the end of the world to make people go via a search results page, but I definitely think it's less user-friendly. Since it's clearly the page people typing that search will want to read, we should send them there automatically unless there's a good reason not to - and I still can't see any such reason. A protected redirect and a protected redlink both prevent recreation of the article, so I don't really understand the argument that we need to show 'enough is enough'. Are you worried that Beale will see the redirect and start campaigning to have it unprotected so he can recreate the article? If so why is he more likely to do that than campaign against the salting, which has stood for four months? Olaf Davis ( talk) 23:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep deleted A redirect is, as noted by Rjanag and EdJohnston, unnecessary because a search for "Nicholas Beale" easily leads readers to Questions of Truth.
Furthermore, creating this as a redirect is misleading because the Questions of Truth article mentions Beale only in passing; thus a redirect would create the illusion that the article has nontrivial discussion of Beale.
Because of the long history of disruption (per EdJohnston: someone tried to re-create the article at least seven times in 2009), this should remain a protected red link to prevent further abuse of Wikipedia. The article has been created and salted numerous times, and one salting was circumvented when a user asked the closing admin to userfy the article. Cunard ( talk) 23:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Allow protected redirect. The salting was only to prevent recreation, not because of any offensive in the title. The alternative is that internet searching lead to these: User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale; Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2 (#Beale); and User:NBeale. "No index" tags are not well respected. We should allow the redirect and let searchers find the best thing that they would be looking for. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have nominated User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale. Your argument about the alternatives for Internet searching is flawed because a search will also return Questions of Truth since Beale is mentioned in that article. In fact, a Google search (with the search term: "Nicholas Beale" site:en.wikipedia.org) returns a number of results, of which Bouvier Beale is first, User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale is second (now at MfD) and Questions of Truth is third. The system is working as it should be, so a redirect is unnecessary. Cunard ( talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Google results depend on your past google activity, and those who live near you, and those who do searches similar to you. Yes, the internal wikipedia search brings up Questions of Truth third, but it should be first. The redirect is useful, and usefulness is sufficient for a redirect. Redirects are cheap. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The internal Wikipedia search for "Nicholas Beale" brings up Questions of Truth first. Cunard ( talk) 00:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

So it does, my mistake. I must have been looking at the google search [84]. I think the redirect will help google send people to the better page. (Or is Bouvier Nicholas's father?) -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The redirect, while it might help Google refine its search results, will not help readers. Readers who want to learn about Nicholas Beale will be disappointed that Questions of Truth barely discusses Beale. If people using Google search are searching for biographical details about Beale, it would be more worthwhile for them to try another website. Cunard ( talk) 00:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Allow protected redirect, per Smokeyjoe and my comments in AfD#3 and AfD#4.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep deleted. This issue has caused too much upheaval. I can foresee more problems being caused with a redirect, but in the interests of BEANS I won't spell them out. SlimVirgin ^{talk
contribs} 00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. If you felt like emailing me with your reasoning I'd be happy to reconsider my position; perhaps it's not worth the trouble though. Olaf Davis ( talk) 09:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I would like them (or some, or even one) spelled out (by email maybe). My ability of foresight here is apparently not so great. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Allow protected redirect as it will reduce issues upstream. Stifle ( talk) 09:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep deleted. Redirect unnecessary and unhelpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep deleted Redirects are cheap, but there's not a whole lot of convincing reason to have one which will likely prove problematic. The target is already the first seach result anyway, so the navigation aid is minimal bordering on nonexistent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

How might the protected redirect "prove problematic"? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Allow redirect as no valid reason has been provided not too. "Will reduce issues" isn't overly compelling without spelling out those issues. Hobit ( talk) 19:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Allow protected redirect Seems like a simple solution which would finally lock down this contentious page. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 19:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Allow protected redirect It improves navigation and no valid reason has been given to explain why its existance would be a problem. Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 11:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Expand – consensus here is to overturn the decision to no consensus, although with good respects to the closer – Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 13:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Coren ( talk · contribs) closed the TfD discussion for this template as "delete" several days ago. I am requesting that this decision be reviewed because I feel we are losing a very valuable template that was very useful in certain situations (and not only in situations where certain sections need expansion) and I feel that there was clearly no consensus to delete the template. Therefore, I request that the deletion of this template be reviewed. Immunize ( talk) 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse; (as closer). As I've stated in the close rationale, consensus was unclear by a simple headcount but the keep arguments were mostly in favor of its section version (which is redundant with the {{ expand section}} template) or what seemed to be to be a flawed argument that it was simply harmless; given the strength of the arguments about its lack of usefulness, and that a gradual phase out is a reasonable way to proceed, it seemed to be (and still is) the proper way to close that discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 19:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus The expand template discussion was, while very long and with many editors, filled with limited discussion. Although the arguments mentioned were limited, or as the closer states, "flawed", the community did not come to agreement (Not even close). Editors voting 'keep' rejected the notion of stub-classing articles, in favour of keep the template for a variate of reasons, most of them ligit. There was no reason to close anything other than no consensus. Outback the koala ( talk) 20:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse - Coren gave a good rationale by looking at the discussion and not simply by a headcount. Garion96 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse - Coren's closing rationale was well thought out. I have read the discussion myself and agree with the closing. Note that we still have a myriad of "stub" templates, and "expand section". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This does not address articles with no sections or that need expanding throughout. To litter every section, or almost every section with a tag seems to be committing the very act that the the deleters are against. Moreover the figures given on usage are wildly wrong, there are less 30% of the number used as article labels than are claimed. A simple code change made the explicit section usages work like {expand section}. This is not a template run wild, as the argument maintained, but one that is used on less than 1/2 percent of articles. Moreover the arguments were very weak - "all articles need expanding" is simply not true, some need shortening, many need minor improvements or polishing. The claim that it "does not benefit readers", while worthy of argument, is not a reason for deletion. The template can be made invisible, thereby serving its other purposes of categorisation and tracking. And of course, fundamental to DRV this is not an indictment of the closing admin's action, let alone rationale, it is simply a statement that an editor believes that the page should not be deleted, even after seeing the discussion and closing, and ideally discussing with the closing admin. Rich Farmbrough, 22:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC). reply
Okay, I can see the logic behind your last statement, and I agree that the merits of deletion should be reconsidered. However, I do agree that this particular template could be used in a more targeted manner, rather than simply filling up a category which will never be cleared. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think most of us are in agreement about this but that can be solved without deleting the page since its not strictly a problem with the page itself. Regards So Why 16:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to no consensus While Coren obviously put some thought into his rationale, he seems to have failed to addressed some reasons cited in favor of keeping the template, e.g. that it can be helpful to have the template if multiple sections have to be expanded (or even the whole article is in dire need of expansion to be useful) as a way to avoid using {{ expand-section}} multiple times or when there are no sections yet. If one takes those reasons into account, I don't think one can say that the discussion has resulted in anything that can be considered consensus about what to do with this template. Regards So Why 21:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse The idea that the template should be kept because it is useful was debated to death in the Tfd, and Coren's closure gives no reason to believe he did not assess this aspect of the debate. The nominator presents zero evidence that the consensus was "clearly" keep, let alone how Coren made an error in judging it. MickMacNee ( talk) 22:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, it was not "clearly" a keep, however it was not clearly the reverse either. Outback the koala ( talk) 03:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to no consensus. As someone who did not participate in that debate, I'm afraid I think Coren was simply wrong. "Redundant" is not a reason to delete at TfD. "Redundant to a better-designed template" is a reason to delete, and Coren seems to have confused that with "Redundant to a more specific template" (i.e. {{ expand section}}). But "more specific" is not the same as "better-designed". By analogy, {{ who}} is more specific than {{ clarify}}, but we wouldn't delete {{ clarify}} because of that, would we?
Rjanag made this point rather clearly in the debate, and he was not refuted. MuZemike's remark further down is also highly apposite.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 00:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus Coren gave a thought-out rationale, but the result of the discussion seems to be a no consensus. I did a quick count and found that roughly six users stated that the template should be kept due to its usefulness in sections. I certainly wouldn't say that this counts for most of the keep votes, which was part of the rationale for closing. In addition, there seems to have been a failure in addressing the valid reasons given for keeping the template, both in the rationale and in the discussion itself. Other than to point out invalid reasoning, there was little back-and-forth discussion among users, meaning that neither valid keep nor delete votes were suitably discussed out, which makes it a weak community consensus. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 00:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus. Don't normally participate in this kind of review, but was surprised to see user closing discussion by looking past and effectively dismissing clear emboldened statements such number of strong keeps as if those users meant something other that what they said or somehow made a mistake and were not being reasonable or reasoning properly?! There clearly was NOT a consensus and closing discussion in that manner can not be seen to constitute Consensus decision-making the way it is normally understood. Bruceanthro ( talk) 10:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Extended wrangling

Who, if anybody, gave a plausible evidence backed argument to keep the template, let alone one that was "strong" enough to outweigh the huge amount of delete opinions given? Consensus does not mean every discussion has to be unanimous, not in the least. MickMacNee ( talk) 10:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't think that's the right question to ask, actually. The number of "delete" opinions is as irrelevant as the number of "keep" ones. The right question is, were all the "keep" arguments fully refuted in the discussion?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I of course was not talking about vote counting. Coren was already pretty clear that he did not simply vote count before making his closure. For all the people claiming he didn't take account of this keep argument or that keep argument, they need to show the reverse too. If it matters, I hereby change my vote to "stong" delete, as I saw nobody refute my objections to the template. Infact, I got told to shut up! Pretty strange then that people want to overturn the closure for lack of evidence of back and forth discussion. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
When you say, "For all the people claiming he didn't take account of this keep argument or that keep argument, they need to show the reverse too", I don't agree. Our deletion policy says (in bold, no less!) "when in doubt, don't delete". A well-reasoned objection to deletion raises, or ought to raise, a doubt that has to be overcome before deletion may proceed. There are some things that can overcome that doubt, such as a copyright violation or other core policy issue, but no such policy issue applied here.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 13:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The main thing that can overcome that doubt, are counter arguments which go ultimately unrefuted. The delete positions exist and are numerous, they are not discountable just because keepers raise doubts simply by voting, without ultimately following their arguments through. To believe that really would mean that deletion discussions are just votes. They aren't. MickMacNee ( talk) 13:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree that unrefuted counterarguments would overcome the doubt, but I do not see that Rjanag's argument was countered at all. Also, when you say "To believe that really would mean that deletion discussions are just votes. They aren't", I really don't think that follows.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 14:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Rjanag merely stated it has some genuine uses, but is often abused or misued, thereby already weakening his case. His only example of a genuine use, was to show how it can be used in the exact same way as {section-expand}, without saying why this redundancy is of use to anybody. I don't see anywhere else where he expanded on his keep rational that it has genuine uses, and I see plenty of rebuttals to it, both before and after. As far as I can make out, all he really argued for there in terms of action, was rolling {expand-section} into {expand}, which nobody else suggested, quite the opposite infact. Muzemike, like many others, merely suggested this template was useful, again by simple assertion, without adderessing the numerous counter-arguments made that it's use in the way he described (to highlight incomplete non-stubs) was redundant to other more appropriate and better supported systems. I will say again, I see no evidence Coren didn't weigh these opinions as given. MickMacNee ( talk) 14:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Your very first sentence doesn't follow. The fact that a template might be abused or misused does not "weaken" the case that it has genuine uses. Your last sentence also doesn't follow. You cannot expect to "see evidence" of how Coren weighed the arguments.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I can request evidence that Coren didn't weigh those arguments, which is what I actually asked. And fine, if you think pointing out how a template is abused isn't weakening the case for keeping it, I'll let you have that. I don't believe it, but it is hardly relevant to the main issue - as said, he didn't back up his actual argument for keeping, plenty of people disputed it, and Coren has given a good explanation as to how he weighed these arguments. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Thank you for that concession. Are you really asking me to provide "evidence" concerning Coren's thought processes?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No, just evidence that the thought processes he used came to a flawed conclusion, just like any old routine deletion review. MickMacNee ( talk) 20:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I provided that evidence in this diff. Specifically, I showed: (1) That I perceive an error in the reasoning in the close; (2) The reasons why I felt there was an error; and (3) That Rjanag had raised this precise point during the discussion, which means that the closer ought to have taken this reasoning into account during the close.
You responded by asserting that "I see plenty of rebuttals", but you have not shown who rebutted it or where this alleged rebuttal took place.
Incidentally, I'm hatting this long back-and-forth since it occupies more than half the DRV so far.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

- I try to avoid snark, but by your argument if I said strong close that would have somehow made my argument more important and you couldn't bring it to DRV? I'm sorry, but when you evaluate consensus, it's the strength of the argument that counts and not how strongly it's expressed. — Coren ^(talk) 14:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The words strong or weak might just sometimes usefully serve to communicate particular users level of conviction to their argument, and this can not be seen to be irrelevant to genuine effort to inclusively, persuasively, and respectfully bring users to a consensus. Sometimes it may just simply be that NO consensus has yet been reached (as in this instance) no matter how strongly we may wish to bring discussions to a positive close (potentially finding 'false' consensus where there is in fact none) Bruceanthro ( talk) 22:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Nonsense. I have a strong feeling this template is useless but I didn't stated strong delete instead of delete. One can argue about the closure (although I agree with it) but whether editors voted strong or not is totally irrelevant. Garion96 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus, which is the accurate result of the discussion. S Marshall is right about which way the burden of proof lies. DGG ( talk ) 14:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
How do you prove the template is pointless? You can't really. What you can prove is that it isn't, and despite about a hundred requests, nobody gave any evidence to support the keep arguments that it isn't. Apart from I suppose, people slap it on articles, sometimes appropriately, sometimes not. Which isn't proving anything really, because the template has a purpose beyond decoration. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse no actual problem cited with close. You don't get to fight your lost battles over again here. Tarc ( talk) 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn the arguments relied on in the close were faulty - the faults had been illustrated in the discussion, and data given to support the deletion was wrong. I brought this up on the closing admins page per process. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC). reply
I saw your comments there. It did not take into account all the usages of this template through Template:Multiple issues though. Garion96 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus I only found my way to this page because I was trying unsuccessfully to use the expand template on an article that I felt needed expansion in a number of different senses, including adding new sections, such the that {{ expand section}} template wouldn't be useful. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 03:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to "no consensus". This template has applications that even the Expand-section template does not appropriately cover. If there is any doubt by editors whether or not to delete, and there seems to be much doubt, then as per policy, the Expand template probably should not be deleted. Coren made a good call based upon the closing rationale, however it is obvious that by revisiting the deletion issue, we have found the need to rethink the decision to delete this template.

— Paine ( Ellsworth's Climax) 04:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle ( talk) 09:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn. There clearly was No consensus. -- œ ^™ 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn, the bureaucrats who inhabit the deep reaches of this encyclopedia need to stop making people's lives harder. The very fact that the template is widely used means it should not be deleted. There was NEVER ANY CONSENSUS. Wik idea 19:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
comment For the less visited processes, the decision there will often not be representative, and, for fairness, Deletion review must sometimes serve the role of a second xfd. There is no practical way otherwise to recreate the template as there is for an article, by improving the article to meet the objections, and reinserting it. This normally is either accepted, or brings a second AfD, but I cannot see how one could do this for a template. I think it very unwise to delete a widely used general template without an extended discussion, and we probably need a rule to that effect. I have asked at a minimum that we have a rule that that the talk p. of everyone who has used the template be automatically notified, but this was rejected--that was two years ago and perhaps we are a little more careful about paying respect to the general community now, when WP is a little less subject to cliques. As for the merits, there is no other general way to say that this is an article which much needs to be generally improved by expanding the material. Labeling them as start class is much less effective. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to no consensus In reviewing the TfD, I really can't see how it could be closed as anything other than no consensus. I wasn't even aware that the template had been nominated for TfD so I wasn't able to participate in it. This template is intended for an article that is past the stub threshold but still in need of expansion. To quote Template:Expand/doc: "{{ Expand}} should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates - a stub template is an explicit request for expansion. {{ Expand}} should only be used on articles that are beyond stub length, in place of a stub template." The way in which the TfD unfolded reminds me of what happened with {{ R from other capitalisation}} [85] [86] [87] and I find myself very much in agreement with DGG in that there really should be additional notification for deletion discussions of such widely used templates. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 10:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have seen another TfD discussion that concluded in a delete decision for a widely used vandalism template. I was unaware of the TfD nomination, and had I been aware of it I would have put in a keep opinion,which might have altered the outcome of the TfD. Immunize ( talk) 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I feel that we should have a system where, when nominating a widely-used template for deletion, everyone who has ever used the template should be automatically (with Twinkle) notified. Any thoughts? Immunize ( talk) 14:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That's a discussion for the WP:VP but I would object to such a notification. High-use templates (like {{ expand}}) have tens of thousand of people who might have used it once - there is no way that notifying all of them would be in the project's interest. I'd rather suggest WP:CENT for advertising such a discussion. Regards So Why 14:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Should we be mass-notifying users of this deletion review? Immunize ( talk) 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I advise against it. It could fall under inappropriate canvassing, unless it is done oh-so-carefully to avoid bias. If you were to notify everyone who has ever used the template (which would be ridiculous in my view, considering the number), it could be considered bias, as anyone using the template would probably be in favor of keeping it. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 May 2010

Nasty Party – deletion endorsed – Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 12:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Nominating on behalf of User:Dwanyewest, who made this edit to DRV talk recently, which I understand to mean a request for deletion review. I am neutral. — S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Oppose recreation. I don't think it's an attack page, just non-notable; just because there have been a few usages of the term in reliable sources doesn't make it article-worthy. I wouldn't object to a sentence or two in Conservative Party (UK) though. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Restore How and why was this removed? There are hundreds of reliable sources for the usage which has been common in political circles since Theresa May used it in her conference speech. We might have it as a redirect to her article initially but there's scope to expand it as it is a notable and significant political concept which is now extended to other parties. It's commonplace in recent years to observe that Labour has become the 'nasty party', for example. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep deleted - We don't need to fill the project with every idiotic, partisan nickname that political opponents come up with. Dhimmicrats for the Democratic Party and Rethuglicans for the Republican Party get a lot of use too. Tarc ( talk) 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You seem to misunderstand the topic. The concept and term was coined by a leading member of the party in question. By documenting the matter properly, we will enlighten and inform the ignorant and prejudiced and so fulfil our educational mission. Colonel Warden ( talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I don't misunderstand the non-notability of pet nicknames. Nice try though. Tarc ( talk) 01:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

[88], [89], [90] lots of verfiable information to support an article. Dwanyewest ( talk) 04:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Yes, I think anyone who understands British politics would agree that this has, of late, been a commonplace term for the Conservative Party. With all due respect for Black Kite's view, I think he's wrong about notability for this title. I think the concern is not about notability or verifiability, but about neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. There are certainly editors who feel that such a title is "inherently POV", which is Wikipedia jargon for any material on Wikipedia that tends to persuade rather than to inform. This is the objection you need to deal with for the deletion to be reversed.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 15:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse per Tarc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse per Tarc and WP:NPOV. Glass Cobra 19:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Disco Curtis – consensus is to keep deleted until passes a notability criteria for musicians and ensembles – Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 12:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

i am currently creating this page in my user, and i would like to request permission to re-create it in wikipedia's database. thank you. Qö₮$@37 ( talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I assume you mean User:Qotsa37/Disco Curtis? Are there any reliable third-party independent sources giving non-trivial coverage? Or evidence they pass WP:BAND? -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- how's this? Qö₮$@37 ( talk) 02:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - One of those is a local festival and is merely their name on a schedule. The warped tour looks more promising however the criteria is a bit more specific than just appearing and the coverage on the tours website is just the bio from the bands myspace page. i.e. it's not independant coverage. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Since the band doesn't appear to pass our notability guidelines for musical acts, if the article wasc moved to mainspace at this time it would certainly be deleted. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse does not pass our music guidelines, and frankly doesn't even come close. Please do not re-nominate until it passes at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria, and has an independent reliable source verifying that claim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep deleted for now. The article as currently written would not be speedy deleted (or it least it shouldn't be), but the evidence of notability would not pass muster at WP:AFD. No reason to re-create in article space until it is at least a plausible "keep" candidate. I would encourage User:Qotsa37 to hold onto the draft and keep adding to it as appropriate, since this is a situation where the subject could break the notability barrier in the future. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 May 2010

List of vaporware – Closure endorsed; the consensus of the discussion below was that the closure was within the discretion of the closing admin. – Tim Song ( talk) 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Vote was 8 to delete and 7 to keep, which is 'no consensus', so should have defaulted to keep. Unreferenced were removed prior to deletion which satisfied the nominator's criticism. Category exists for same topic, but now the references that were used for appearing on list and in category, no longer exist, since they were contained in the list. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 14:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but you know that. Further, I'm not sure what you are or are not counting among the !votes in the AfD, as I'm seeing very different numbers but most importantly, much better motivations on the deletion side. The key arguement is that the inclusion of something into this list is inherently subjective as an arguement could (and most likely would) arise if you started a discussion with a developer about whether his software was vaporware. The only way to make a list like this objective would be to call it "list of software which has been referred to as vaporware by the media" - and that's just a version of WP:WEASEL. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 15:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment Unless the topic is 100% objective where 10 out of 10 people will always give the same answer, most lists are subjective. That is why we rely on reliable sources to tell us what to include for subjective lists such as List of child prodigies or Films considered the greatest ever or List of highest-grossing films. We don't call it List of highest-grossing films as reported by Box Office Mojo and other reliable media. By removing the reliably sourced list and keeping the unsourced category we are taking a step backward. The same references are good enough that they are included in the article space for each article in the category, then they should be good enough for the list. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn to no consensus. That wasn't an unambiguous delete. I'm not convinced by the argument that the inclusion criteria are subjective, and even if they are subjective, I'm not at all convinced that subjective inclusion criteria for a list make the case for deletion. As with all no consensus closes, no prejudice against early renomination. There's an interesting possible tangent here about how much weight a closer should give to !votes that come from an IP address in an AfD, by the way.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 18:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. The discussion was more imbalanced than suggested in the faulty 8-7 count given above, and some of the "keep" comments were based on the notability of the concept of vaporware, which is fine as a defense of the Vaporware article, but not an adequate defense for this list. I wouldn't say the consensus in the discussion was overwhelming, but it does appear to exist and favor deletion, as the closing admin found. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn The delete arguments were based on no RS being present or even possible--but there were at least a few good ones, e.g. BYTE and pcmag.com. The deletes were also some of them relying on the argument that some of the items in the list were not well sourced, which is not a valid argument for keeping or not keeping the article as a whole. DGG ( talk ) 19:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn I was not involved in the AFD discussion. But with the greatest of respects to the closer, even a redirect to Vaporware where notable examples of vaporware could be (have been) listed might have been a more appropriate close... and such an outcome was even hinted at by the nominator Sebquantic when he wrote that he was tweaking the Vaporware article to include some of the more notable. But more, and as DGG notes above, there are indeed references available that could have been used to exapand and source the article. Their not be included would have been a reason to encourage improvement to meet concerns, [91] [92] [93], rather than deletion being seen as the only possible outcome. Overturned to a non-consensus close to keep, it might be revisited in a few months to see if it were actually improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse- The "overturn" opinions thus far amount to the mistaken beliefs that AfD is a snout-counting exercise and that DrV is AfD round 2. Having read through the original AfD I can see no reason to suppose the closing admin misread consensus or acted improperly. Reyk _YO! 03:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. This is a good example of an AfD that could have been validly closed in more than one way. In these cases, the admin's exercise of discretion should not be disturbed. In my view, a run of late !votes going one way or the other can be a good indication of consensus based on strength of arguments: here there was a clear late run to delete. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 05:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse; the close is valid and well within admin discretion (even if the headcount reported by the nominator had been correct). — Coren ^(talk) 13:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
As the instructions on the deletion review page, which the nominator should be very familiar with, 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) 18:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle ( talk) 19:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- And even if I were not endorsing deletion for that reason, I would still endorse as the admin's closure was accurate. Stifle ( talk) 08:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
overturn per DGG. JoshuaZ ( talk) 19:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. Not a vote; perfectly within discretion. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse per User:Usrnme h8er. In a nutshell: WP:NPOV is not negotiable. Editorial opinion, even in media that is otherwise WP:RS for facts, should not constitute a basis for categories or lists. List of people that have been called curmudgeon in reliable media? Oh, wait, we had that at curmudgeon (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Curmudgeon). Pcap ping 15:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Undelete There was no consensus to delete the page. Immunize ( talk) 19:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Vaporware. There were not good reasons to delete with the availability of a suitable redirect target. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment - I have redirected the page as you have suggested. I would be happy to restore the history if an editor believes a merge would be appropriate. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 02:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Please restore so I can merge the list to the article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 07:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sure! It has been done. Take good care, Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 15:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) merged the list. Please be mindful of attribution requirements for copied content. Flatscan ( talk) 04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn There was no consensus. Admins do not have casting votes - if there's no consensus then just leave it at that, please. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse close - CLosing admin correctly weighs the merits of the arguments, not count heads. People here should know this by now rather than waste tine rearguing an AfD. Tarc ( talk) 20:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse AfD is not a vote. I see the keep arguments as weak. The point is moot anyway, per AfD closers above comments to merge instead (which I also endorse). Outback the koala ( talk) 04:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse. The first few votes, both keep and delete, were quite weak. But I find that the delete side won out at the end. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment: I won't comment on whether the deletion should be overturned, but I want to comment on the recent merge. Putting the deleted list back in the main article unchanged and slapping a {{{multiple issues}}} tag on it is not productive. I think it creates a mess with the wrong assumption that somebody will eventually^when? come along and clean it up. If you're going to merge it, please take a few minutes and fix the content as you see fit instead of tagging. — Sebquantic ( talk) 06:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- To be clear, RAN copied the content and two other users placed/edited the tag ( history). Flatscan ( talk) 04:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  - I should have mentioned I wasn't balming RAN. Was more of a general comment to the group about it being unproductive. Bad use of "you" there. — Sebquantic ( talk) 05:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse, by my reading the delete arguments were stronger and generally unrefuted, and a close as delete seems like a decent interpretation. I agree that this is the kind of discussion that could have benefitted from a closing statement elaborating on the admin's conclusion... and the ultimate decision to restore and merge is probably the best outcome once cleaned up. ~ mazca ^talk 09:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment - The DRV was essentially usurped by the simplistic dumping of the old list article into Vaporware#Examples. I cannot fathom how this was done with anything resembling good faith. Tarc ( talk) 15:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Comment: User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) asked that the history be restored so that the content could be merged. While I suppose this deletion review could have been avoided with a discussion beforehand, I didn't mean to usurp this review. I thought it would be uncontroversial, and the loose ends of the merge could be tied up at Talk:Vaporware. Is that what you meant? Sorry. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(
talk) 20:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Wasn't blaming you, no. Upon a request like that, I'd assume that the requester would take the material and then begin a discussion on the article talk page about how best to include it. Tarc ( talk) 21:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

It seems a bit harsh to fault RAN for being bold in this case. If you object, I suppose you could revert and take it to the talk page?— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 22:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

There's a big difference between being bold and cynically circumventing consensus here and at the original AfD. When the community decides, twice, that the article ought to be deleted you don't just dump the entire thing into another article. I also feel that RAN is thumbing his nose at everyone. Reyk _YO! 23:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
My opinion is that being bold in the face of existing discussion and apparent consensus is usually counterproductive – WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Notes has a similar take. Regarding the copying, WP:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion (last bullet) was written for AfD, but may be relevant here. Flatscan ( talk) 04:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Any "simplistic dumping" need not even be brought up. Just fix it. Move the list to the talk page. Formal community discussions are a really bad way to handle these routine editorial actions. The page should have never been listed at AfD, just boldly redirected to the target, and if someone disagreed (no one has to date), discuss on the talk page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn to keep or no consensus at least Did anyone look at all the references in the article? [94] Many reliable sources do confirm the things mentioned as being notable vaporware, thus it a valid entry on the list. Wired magazine actually gives a yearly award for all the notable vaporware that came out that year! Byte even has an article titled "Famous Vaporware Products". Did the closing administrator take a moment to look at the article itself, before coming to a decision? Dream Focus 01:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse per OutbackTheKoala. ╟─ Treasury Tag► most serene─╢ 09:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 May 2010

4 May 2010

Twenty Two Points of Ulema – Nominator working with deleting admin to fix the issues with the copyright of the translation – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.voice.pk/?p=1939 Through speedy deletion, the article Twenty Two Points of Ulema, was deleted. The allegation made is that it was “Unambiguous copyright infringement" of “ http://www.voice.pk/?p=1939”. I strongly feel that the material I placed in the article is not “ copyright infringement” of any sort (including G12) and thus it does not become a valid candidate for deletion. I explain my viewpoint here:

The “22 points” is not copyrighted material. It is not even an intellectual property of the website “ http://www.voice.pk”. The website has reproduced it only beacause it is an importat document of the political history of Pakistan. As explained in the introduction of the article, 22 points were actually a demand made from the representative Ulema of all the Muslim sects of Pakistan. This demand was presented to the first constituent assembly of Pakistan, regarding drafting and adopting the constitution for Pakistan. As far as my understanding is concerned such demands, by their very nature, are public properties and never considered as copyrighted material. 22 points demand was presented to constituent assembly in 1950, and is a historical document. Its importance regarding the evolution of the constitutional process in Pakistan makes it a proper choice to be part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia already rightly contains such historical documents, for example Fourteen Points of Jinnah. It is a 14 point demand made by Jinnah from the then British government of India. Like this document, my document is also not copyrighted, on the rational I explained above. I hope my arguments will be cinsidered and I will be allowed to reconstruct the page. Bhaur ( talk) 04:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Copyrighted or not, this appears to be appropriate for Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Stifle ( talk) 14:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

(from speedy deleter) I think for the purposes of this undeletion question, all we need is whether this is a copyrighted translation (or was the original in English?). A good article on the topic would discuss what reliable sources have said about the document and I think link to the original source (on wikisource if appropriate), but that can be resolved editorially. The text outside of the points and the endorsement list I believe is within the requirements of respecting copyright. If anyone can answer the question of translation, I think we can go ahead and undelete. Bhaur, if you would like I can restore that portion now while the rest is discussed. - 2/0 ( cont.) 15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The solution is to write an article explaining them in their historical context, in which they can be appropriately quoted, not just reprinting them. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
"such demands, by their very nature, are public properties and never considered as copyrighted material" is, actually, never true. Works are copyrighted by the act of creation, and publishing them (however widely) does not extinguish copyright. Now, it's possible that the copyright has since expired, or that the document was explicitly released to the public domain, but evidence of that needs to be presented. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I thank you all for your valuable feedbacks. Yes, the original was in Urdu, and the translation is an intellectual property, thus copyrighted. So, I arrange to get the original Urdu draft, translate it in English myself, and put it on Wikisource. I am going to collect data, in order to discuss the topic on Wikipedia, supported by reliable secondary sources. This will also contain the explanation of the topic in historical context. 2/0, after doing all this, I’ll put it on your talk page, so that you could retore it. 2/0, please let me furnish you with at leat my translation of the points, before you restore the page. Thanks and regards, Bhaur ( talk) 05:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jessica Jarrell – Deletion endorsed. However, the page has been userfied to User:Candyo32/Jessica Jarrell. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

First of all speedy deletion was declined to begin with, and a user re-nominated soon after, again. No one even took the time to reply to the talk page or consider it. Even after this, the article met WP:MUSICBIO #'s 1 - Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. #10 and #11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Candyo32 ( talk) 18:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Can you please provide external reliable sourcing that either invalidated or postdates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jarrell? The deletion reasoning in question was G4, that it was recreated content which had been deleted through AfD, and those can sometimes be a bit rash - something I cannot comment on without being able to see the deleted content. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 11:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Oops, I'm kind of confused at what you mean. Candyo32 ( talk) 23:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I suspect there is a little confusion here since there was a second more recent AFD than Usrnme h8er has listed, the initial DRV listing missed an _ which caused the link to be wrong... Fixed now -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Well observed, missed the progression a bit and didn't notice the 2nd AfD. Notice that speedy deletion and AfD are on very different grounds, and the latter is generally the consequence when the former is denclined. The article was listed for deletion on the 25th, deleted on the 2nd as a result of a low attendance but fair AfD, recreated immediately after the deletion and then deleted G4 moments later. I really don't see a way to take issue with the G4 CSD (hangon is seldom motivated with G4s and it's discresion of the Admin whether to discuss before deleting) and I see no issue in the process of the AfD. I am relying on Stifle (below) to have confirmed that the G4 was valid (no previously unavailable sources or anything else that invalidates the AfD). Endorse as not AfD round 2. If MUSICBIO 1 and 11 have indeed been met, please provide links to reliable sources demonstrating that. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment The speedy criteria are supposed to represent community agreed cases whereby a full discussion is unwarranted and so maybe deleted immediately. The rule of thumb being, if in doubt don't delete take through a deletion discussion. Hence the initial decline of the speedy deletion in no way stops someone nomintating it for articles for deletion. This is what happened. In order to have DRV do anything, you need to show either that the deletion process was incorrectly followed (it doesn't appear to be, as said it went through a community discussion as is perfectly valid despite the declined speedy), or if there is new information which renders the discussion no longer valid i.e. the third party reliable sourcing etc. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 06:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse deletion, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Well new information has come up as I found out the article met WP:MUSICBIO's #1 & #11. Candyo32 ( talk) 11:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Sources, please. Stifle ( talk) 14:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Allow userfication at User:Candyo32/Jessica Jarrell where User:Candyo32 will add the sources alluded to. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 May 2010

kidStart – Overturn and relist. It is to be noted that the closing admin made no error in judgment; rather, the discussion itself is not well argued. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Please can you review the deletion of Kidstart. If you read through the history you will see that the page was currently being worked on to fit the Wikipedia guidelines. As per my discussions with fetchcomms I have been working on notability and looking to add further citations. With the speedy deletion tag removed I thought I had a little time to work on this plus in the UK we had a bank holiday weekend.

Also I dont see much difference in this article entry and the Quidco or Top CashBack (or any site listed on the wikipedia Category:Reward websites ) other than on the Kidstart site you actually save money for children / charities. Emmamme ( talk) 22:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Fixed malformed listing. Stifle ( talk) 08:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The purpose of deletion review is to flag cases where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not an appeal court or a venue to get a second bite at the cherry when a decision hasn't gone your way. Furthermore, we explicitly do not accept arguments that some other site has an article and yours does not, nor do we, as a global website, take account of holidays that may or may not exist in various jurisdictions — the deletion discussion, to which the present nominator did not contribute, was opened on April 26th.
However, in this case, I am minded to overturn and relist this closure. My decision is based on the fact that the deletion argument of Fetchcomms was not well-founded, as the article showed several instances of coverage in reliable sources, and the deletion argument of Nuujinn was not well-founded, as the article was largely neutral in tone, despite that it appears to have been written neutrally.
I express no opinion, for now, on whether the article will survive such a second deletion discussion. Stifle ( talk) 08:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Endorse but permit recreation. There was a clear consensus to delete which should be followed. However, the basis for the consensus was that the article was promotional. Neither of the delete !voters raised notability as a reason to delete. It therefore cannot be said that the consensus is that the subject is not notable. If a new version of the article can overcome the concerns of promotion, recreation ought to be permitted despite the AfD outcome. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
It's hard to censure Cirt for closing a unanimous discussion in that way. I agree with Stifle that the article did cite several reliable sources, and I agree that this means the discussion was defective and needs to be overturned and relisted, but I would be happiest if the closer of this debate would please say in the close that no blame attaches to Cirt, who did exactly what admins are supposed to do:- he assessed the debate, and not the article.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template talk:Free trade agreements of Hong Kong – Restored by deleting admin at Template:Free trade agreements of Hong Kong. – Stifle ( talk) 14:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Created based on similar templates for New Zealand and the United States. 19:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The template page has never existed; you created a template talk page, which was deleted because the template didn't exist. It would appear that the template talk page should be undeleted, moved to the template page, and this discussion speedily closed. A quick request to User:Anthony Appleyard, who deleted the page, would almost certainly have resolved this matter quickly. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I have undeleted Template talk:Free trade agreements of Hong Kong and moved it to Template:Free trade agreements of Hong Kong. (Sorry about the delay: I was at the dentist.) Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 10:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Jewish people – Overturn and relist at CfD. The consensus of this DRV is that the closer correctly assessed the CfD debate, but the debate is itself defective with respect to this category. Thus, a relist is appropriate. – Tim Song ( talk) 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This long-time category was named Category:Jews since 9 June 2004 [95] to the satisfaction of all editors, particularly experienced and knowledgeable Judaic editors. Suddenly on 10 March 2010, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 10#People by ethnicity - Fooians to Fooian people, a barely noticed but sweeping decision was made by a tiny handful of editors, without serious input and discussion from Judaic editors or digging into this at WP:TALKJUDAISM, the long-established Category:Jews was redirected to the new Category:Jewish people, sweeping six years of consensus aside with abruptness and now trying to apply it to other Jews categories. This is wrong for many reasons and should be reversed and overturned and because of the complexity of this topic, these are some of the main reasons: (1) First off, there are over 38 million Google hits for "Jews" but a little over 3 million for "Jewish people", "Jews" outnumbers "Jewish people" 12 to 1. (2) The term "Jews" is not offensive and Jews ARE Jewish "people" -- that's what "Jews" means. (3) This flouts the correct English proper noun and 100% correct translation for the Hebrew word and proper noun for the word Jews = יְהוּדִים Yehudim (singular: Yehudi) and the Yiddish word for Jews = Yidden יידן (singular: Yid) and in all languages Jews are called Jews and not Jewish "people" that defies logic, history, facts, reality, truth and much more. (4) At times Jews or things connected with them are described in adjectival terms as being "Jewish" meaning "of the Jews" or "about the Jews" or "concerning the Jews" but the main subject is always "Jew/s". (5) The usage of the term "Jewish this-and-that" is sometimes helpful and sometimes just wasteful circumlocution, but the correct name for Jews is Jews! (6) In the bulk of the sub-categories in Category:Jews the term "Jews" predominates and correctly so. (7) It would also seriously mess up the fact that Category:Jews is the first half of the key parent category Category:Jews and Judaism. (8) Jews are not an ethnicity as such, see the Jews and Judaism articles to better grasp this. (9) To push all Jews into an "ethnicity" category is a violation of WP:NEO and WP:MADEUP and even of WP:NOR. Wikipedia cannot take on itself to decide serious matters of theology and peoplehood and dump topics relating to "Jews" into categories that are totally incorrect and wasteful. Jews are members of a religion, known as Judaism, and they are also part of a "nation" or as some would have it an "ethnicity" but they cannot be split, unlike Christians who are only part of a religion called Christianity and do not belong to an ethnicity unlike Jews who by definition are both part of a religious group as well as a national/ethnic/cultural group. (10) For this kind of serious discussion relating to the complex subject of Jews and Judaism there should have been very long and highly serious input requested from learned and highly experienced Judaic editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism many of whom are highly skilled editors some are admins, fully aware of this subject matter. IZAK ( talk) 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Relist (Overturn) back to Category:Jews for above reasons. IZAK ( talk) 08:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK ( talk) 08:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. The term "Jews" is not offensive in and of itself, a quick search of Google seems to show "Jews" as the predominant term used, and "Jews" is a much wider and far-reaching term than "Jewish people". -- nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 08:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. Apart from all the issues outlined by IZAK, the change of name of this category is also being used (in my opinion, in anyway, unjustifiably) as a basis for changing the word "Jews" to "Jewish people" throughout sub-categories (including the subcategories of Category:Jews by country), using the Speedy Cfr procedure. A CFD was opened by me here for reverting the category Category:American Jewish people back to Category:American Jews and which contains additional reasons supporting the relist (overturn) proposed above. Davshul ( talk) 10:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. I don't know who is responsible for this change, but it was a very bad one. - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 11:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn, this seems to have been swept along with a larger change, many of which did make sense. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per IZAK. I do not see anything wrong with the existing category called Jews. A strong justification should be given for changing it. In the absence of such justification, the category name should remain as it was. — Dfass ( talk) 13:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I completely agree with IZAK on each and every one of his arguments. Debresser ( talk) 15:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) — the standard term is "Jews," not "Jewish people" Bus stop ( talk) 22:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist separately - there are a number of moves that probably should have been aired more thoroughly. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) Jew is a noun, not an adjective. -- Shuki ( talk) 21:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per nom. While a few editors took it upon themselves to make sweeping changes across the board, we Jewish editors have been working for years to streamline all the Jewish-content pages through discussion and consensus. Recently, a major discussion over at the main page, "Jew", renamed the page as Jews. I've also noticed over the years that important Jewish-content pages like "Ashkenazi Judaism" and "Sephardic Judaism" have been changed to Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardi Jews. Categorizing Jews (and Christians, Buddhists, and Atheists, for that matter) as "people" doesn't work for sub-categories of Category:People by religion as it does for Category:People by ethnicity. Yoninah ( talk) 21:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) Per IZAK and Yoninah and because of the unique interplay of ethnicity and religion absent from any other religious OR ethnic group. -- Avi ( talk) 00:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per nom. Also, no need for wordy circumlocutions ("Jewish people") when concise, accurate terminology ("Jews") is available. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per nom. This was one of many listed in a single cfd, most of which were perfectly reasonable renames. The 'interplay of ethnicity and religion' noted above makes this a special case which should be re-considered. Occuli ( talk) 15:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per nom. While I agree with most of the points IZAK makes in this review, I have to at least mention something about point 2. While I am Orthodox Jewish and the term Jew/s is something I will always be proud with/of, to some people in this world it's a degrading name calling word. I assume that the editors involved in making this change meant good faith editing for the above mentioned.-- Shmaltz ( talk) 01:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist (Overturn) per nom. It's ridiculous that less than half a dozen editors swept this major change through in the first place. Torchiest ( talk | contribs) 19:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist only. The discussion with respect to this particular category was defective. However, we really disagree with the outcome of that discussion, not it's process. The closer correctly read the consensus here, and as such did nothing wrong. Having said all that, I will concede that the number of commentors here may demonstrate to the closer of this DRV sufficient consensus to obviate the need for a new discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist for this category only and make sure the discussion is broadly advertised. No evidence has been presented to indicate that the closing admin misinterpreted the consensus of the CFD, which included a number of other changes to which no one has objected. Clearly from the comments above the inclusion of Category:Jews in the rename was something that the broader community did not notice at the time of that earlier discussion, and there are serious objections that are particular to that category. But there is no need to make the same mistake twice by overturning the entire discussion based on potentially one-sided participation at DRV. -- RL0919 ( talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn, don't rush to relist. Jews are not just another Fooian people. This particular category was not sufficiently discussed. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Relist, don't "overturn". A technicality, to be sure, but as Xymmax says, there was nothing wrong with the close of the CFD. Obviously, there is post hoc dissatisfaction with this particular move, which means it should be relisted, but there's no reason that has been given to formally overturn the closer's decision. "Relist (overturn)" is kind of a contradiction anyway—don't we usually either relist it or overturn it? I don't see how we can call for both simultaneously. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- Good ol, read the wording of the nomination carefully and you will see that it is very clear to specifically return to Category:Jews only. It's pretty obvious from the lengthy nomination that the aim is to overturn. The language of "relist" is to follow protocol and procedures, but the aim of it is clearly to "overturn" and they are not mutually exclusive. What would be the point of bringing everyone who has made themselves very clear here to repeat themselves. In addition, you were informed of this deletion review at the outset [96] and you have always claimed not to care about this subject altogether [97]; so if you had a problem with the wording you should have said so then. Thanks, IZAK ( talk) 07:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
NOTE: The CFD discussion here, proposing to rename the adherents of other religions (including Christians) using the formula "FOOian people" (e.g. Christian people) was unanimously opposed by all users who commented and the discussion has now been concluded, with a decision not to rename any of the categories. Davshul ( talk) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Handover – History undeleted. The actual content can be worked out later, on a talk page. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Note: I messed it up when handling this (as you can see from the delete log); the original handover article is now at Handover (political). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The article was about the transfer of the sovereignty of a territory from one sovereign state to another, as suggested by the tags on the article's talk page. It was overwritten when Handoff was moved to Handover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.153.52 ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

This article would probably be best served by a dismbiguation page, as the term can have a number of meanings and doesn't inherently pertain to telecommunications. I wouldn't consider a DRV nessecary for that though. Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 11:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
- The original article, which was overwritten, already serves the purpose of a disambiguation page. Undelete that article is better than creating a new one. 12:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.153.52 ( talk)
  - Which would force a move of the current article to a third address, since handover is the correct term for this in telecoms. I'm unable to see the deleted content, but your comments above made me think the previous article was about national territorial transitions - not a generic disambiguation. I'm chosing not to express a hard and fast opinion since I am unable to see the artilce to determine whether it was a valid WP:CSD#A5 (as motivated here). By the way, signing is done by adding four '~' marks when editing, that is "~~~~". Usrnme h8er ( talk · contribs) 13:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    - Or alternatively the old content can be moved to a third address. 13:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.153.52 ( talk)
Additional information: As suggested by What links here there are many articles pointing at Handover that refer to territorial transitions. 119.237.153.52 ( talk) 04:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I have notified User:ProhibitOnions of this discussion, since he performed the article move (Handoff -> Handover) and the A5 speedy deletion of the old Handover that were mentioned above. EdJohnston ( talk) 12:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Here's the deal. There was an unsourced dicdef-ish stub at Handover, while the telecoms term was located at the secondary term Handoff. The content of the earlier Handover article, which I deleted, was this:

Handover, in the political-historical sense, often refers to the transfer of power of former colonies (particularly those of former British colonies) to the local people. The term was also used for the transfer of the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone to Panama, and the returns of sovereignty to Iraq by the United States.

The transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong, a former British crown colony, from UK to People's Republic of China in 1997. After the Handover, Hong Kong has become a special administrative region, a first-order division. See transfer of the sovereignty of Hong Kong.
The transfer of sovereignty of Macau from Portugal to People's Republic of China in 1999, and has become a special administrative region.

Also the term (especially in the media) refers to the Olympic protocol when the mayor of the city that organized the Games returns the flag to the president of the IOC, who then passes it on to the mayor of the next city to host the Olympic Games.

You should, I hope, see the OR concerns here. Now ProhibitOnions does know a thing or two about the 1997 political transfer of power in Hong Kong (I was there), and it was indeed called "the handover". However, it's far from clear that this is the main term that is always used to describe such occurrences, and the specific Wikipedia article titles suggest otherwise. I considered a dab, or moving this to Political handover or Handover (politics) but ultimately there's nothing here that isn't addressed in Sovereignty, or defined in Wiktionary. So I deleted it altogether to move the telecoms article to the more appropriate title, and changed the title within that article (I'm open to a dab or a much better article about sovereignty transfers instead, but at present this is the only substantial article to have a claim to the title). I forgot, however, to add a This or For link, as I had planned to do (i.e., "This article is about the telecommunications process. For political handovers, see Sovereignty). ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 May 2010

Till Tantau – Relisted as an AfD – Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 12:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Speedily deleted (A7) despite hangon and page indicating importance.-- Oneiros ( talk) 16:16, 2 May 2010 (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) 17:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I did not in this case, but in two others deleted by him( Hans Hagen and Taco Hoekwater). Since his reaction there was negative, I supposed here it would be also.-- Oneiros ( talk) 18:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and restore. This article made credible claims of significance or importance: main developer of a notable product; professor. Whether those claims amount to actual notability is disputable, but that dispute is for an AfD debate. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn unjustifiable speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Taco Hoekwater – Relisted as an AfD – Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 12:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Author of LuaTeX (successor of pdfTeX), maintainer of MetaPost, developer of ConTeXt (alternative to LaTeX), which indicates importance. Article was speedily deleted (A7) without any prior discussion. Oneiros ( talk) 15:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Endorse, article gave no reasonable indication of importance or significance. (And I have a maths degree, so I know what all those TeXs are.) Stifle ( talk) 17:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

"main developer of LuaTeX"—how should that be worded to indicate importance or significance?-- Oneiros ( talk) 18:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and restore. This article made credible claims of significance or importance as a developer of a notable product and the main developer of another. Whether those claims amount to actual notability is disputable, but that dispute is for an AfD debate. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn did not meet the conditions for speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn and list at AfD on the basis that someone would like a discussion. This should be automatic for non-offensive speedies. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Hans Hagen – Relisted as an AfD – Pax:Vobiscum ( talk) 12:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Author of ConTeXt (alternative to LaTeX) and LuaTeX (successor of pdfTeX), which indicates importance. Article was speedily deleted (A7) without any prior discussion. Oneiros ( talk) 15:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Overturn and restore. This article made credible claims of significance or importance as a developer of a notable product and the main developer of another. Whether those claims amount to actual notability is disputable, but that dispute is for an AfD debate. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Overturn possible claim to significance, so did not meet the reason for speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 May 2010

Cryoshell – Deletion endorsed; failure to provide evidence of such claims – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Cryoshell, a new Danish rock band, have released their latest music video and are currently in the top 20 of the Danish music chart show Boogie. It there any chance that the wikipedia page for the band can be undeleted/unmonitered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantoka951 ( talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Sources, please. Stifle ( talk) 17:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC) reply
If you can find reliable independent sources that discuss the band. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.