Rafael La Porta ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

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

Pet naming ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

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 [1] 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