Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May

< April 2009 Deletion review archives June 2009 >

31 May 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Robert I. Sherman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed prematurely. Although, admittedly, I was the only one who voted for keep, we didn't even get to discuss the question of notability. Since I have, from a cursory glance on the source, reason to assume that this person is notable, I would at least like to have the option of checking that. There were already about a dozen or so news sources present in that article. However, this is unnecessarily obstructed by that fact that the copy of the article I made on my user space (User:Zara1709/Robert I. Sherman) was also deleted. I received a laconic comment that I should take the issue to deletion review [1]. Well, I suppose I have to. How I am supposed to asses the notability of a person, when the article, which has several sources already present, is deleted completely. If anyone of the other editors has taken a closer look at the sources and can tell me why these are insufficient to establish notability, then of course this wouldn't be necessary. But this was not established in the previous discussion before that one was closed, and I would like to make up for that now. Zara1709 (talk) 04:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, as there was a clear consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably I wasn't specific enough. I am not asking for the article to be restored, I am asking for the copy on my user space to be restored, so that I may evaluate the notability of this person. If I come to the conclusion that he is notable, I can then still decide whether I want to inquire on this page that the article should be restored. Zara1709 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The purpose of DRV is solely procedural evaluation of the close of an AFD. In this case, as Julian pointed out, there was a clear consensus to delete. Your user space was speedily deleted as an attack page. As was pointed out in the AFD, the information is more appropriate in the articles of those being quoted. لennavecia 05:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting material out of an editor's personal userspace is a bit different from deleting it out of the mainspace. An attack page could justify that measure, but I think it would need to be a very clear-cut case.

    Endorse closure of the AfD and deletion out of the mainspace, but, I think a real question remains about deletion from the editor's personal userspace. At the very minimum, it would be courteous to email a copy of the page to Zara1709 so she can use it as a basis for a non-attack-page article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    PS: I take strong exception to Jennavecia's remark that "the purpose of DRV is solely procedural evaluation of the close of an AfD". This is simply wrong, because this editor was specifically directed to bring her case to DRV by an admin. For Jennavecia to then tell Zara she's in the wrong place is bureaucratic and Kafkaesque.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not an admin misdirected her here, WP:DRV is clear. The purpose of this venue does not change simply because of one admin's recommendation. لennavecia 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The purpose of DRV is surely more than procedural evaluation of the close of an AfD, Jennavecia. For one thing, any XfD is considered. For another thing, speedy deletions are often considered here and it's custom and practice that this is the place for such a matter.

    My position is that the purpose of DRV is to make Wikipedia better. And certainly once the deleting admin has directed a protesting editor here, we should at least consider it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I disagree. لennavecia 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm less than convinced that this is worth userfying, in accordance with WP:BLP. Clear endorse of the AFD in any case. If it were me making the decision, I would only permit userfication of the first paragraph, but luckily it's not (-: Stifle (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn/relist I'm sorry. But this should go through a full AfD. Moreover, most of the material in question (especially that dealing with Sherman's interaction with Bush and his interaction with Davis) are easy to relate in a neutral fashion. Whether the incident with the use of the term "negro" has enough reliable sources to be included in an editorial decision (from what I can tell, there's not enough. Olbermann for example is not a reliable source and the other linked to website is a blog). It is however clear that given the coverage regarding both Bush and Davis that Sherman is not BLP1E given that there's you know, more than one event. An article by itself dealing primarily with those two issues would clearly be fine. Regardless, this should have a full AfD so the case can be made in detail. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion of the user subpage as a GFDL violation: it was a copy-pasted copy of the article that failed to preserve the page history. Weak endorse the AFD closure: the consensus was clear, but still I would have preferred prefer for the discussion to remain open for the full seven days. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Clear consensus. With the backlog at AFD, I'm not concerned about an IAR SNOW close. Like a copyvio, a BLP shouldn't be userfied. Law type! snype? 01:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you claiming that any biography of a living person should not be userfied even if there is a userfiable version that is BLP compliant? Moreover, in what universe is a backlog at AfD a good enough reason to use IAR? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding 1) so since we have such a version here why is there an issue 2) Wikipedia has no deadline- WP:DEADLINE so it is really hard to see how to one can justify using IAR in that context for a simply a few days backlog. As to 3, if you are going to make a comment in a public DRV discussion you should expect replies and questions. Disagreeing with you or raising questions is not an attack on you as an individual. I'm sorry you apparently see it that way. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't claim an attack. I don't care if it's here on in real-life - I'm not likely to address anyone who prefaces a question with 'in what universe.' It's snide. Now, with respect to BLPs, what is the point of deleting it out of article space only to move the same article back into userspace? It still exists, but because it technically has a different URL, it's OK? No. If BLP applies to all WP space, then once userfied, it could be speedied as recreation of a deleted AfD result - obviously being somewhat elliptical. As far as IAR - I didn't remember there being a scale as to what reasons were better than others. In fact, it's ignore 'all' rules, not IAR as long as you can justify it to someone else. That would be more like what consensus is for. Applying consensus to IAR is the opposite of all that is written. The perfect time to apply IAR to administrative procedures, in my universe, is when there is a backlog at AfD. An intelligent and seasoned editor may very well be able to make a mature and informed decision without letting the AfD run its full course. This keeps the wheels turning and cuts down on the red tape which is already overwhelming. Not every article needs 7 days; some more and some less. Now that I've explained my decision, I welcome any polite commentary. Law type! snype? 04:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist it is almost always a mistake to close an AfD like this early, because it just leads to more problems. Better to run the full time, and probably there would have been sufficient consensus to discourage deletion review though I do understand the admins impatience with this article. As for the suitability of DRV, 1/ it is the appropriate place to challenge any decision on deletion at AfD, because procedure is to close in accordance with consensus and policy and to make an appropriate use of discretion; therefore, a mistake in evaluating any of this is a procedural error. 2/ if viewed as a snow close, doing one is always a use of discretion and therefore a straight procedural matter in the narrow sense. 3/ if viewed as a speedy for BLP, then arb com specifically ruled that the appropriate place to challenge them was DRV. Thus Jennavica's argument is incorrect in every particular.DGG (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The article as it stood was a biography of a living person which focused only on two incidents from his life and thus did not present an accurate picture of him. That said, I would allow re-creation of the article as there appear to be sufficient news sources about him and his activities. I would recommend that the new article be titled Rob Sherman as he is commonly known by his nickname rather than his full name. When I saw that this DRV was about "Robert I. Sherman", at first I thought it was about the guy who wrote songs for Mary Poppins. I would have recognized "Rob Sherman", though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and relist Closing an article that can potentially be fixed after just 1 day instead of 7 is a blatant violation of the speedy close policy. Any BLP problems can be altered through editing or commented out to give the creator a chance to fix it during the normal discussion period. (this means the closer's claim SNOWBALL applies is faulty because there is a snowball's chance of improvement that can change further voting. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Deletion review is not meant to be a second AfD. The first AfD had clear consensus to delete. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: There was only one request for the article to be kept, by the DRV nom, and in 24 hours there was plenty of consensus to delete that article. Recreating the article in userspace should be out of the question.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: I'm not convinced by any evidence presented that a second AFD will produce a different outcome or provide any benefit to the community. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from a few intelligent comments, the majority of what has been written here only confirms that I should seriously reconsider the way I have been editing on Wikipedia- or whether I want to continue editing at all. Roughly 24 h certainly were not sufficient to discuss the issue: Neither have Jennavecia and others explained where they saw a BLP violation (that couldn't be fixed) nor do we actually know that Robert I. Sherman isn't notable, since we didn't even take a look at the sources. Of course, it only takes 5 minutes to look at an article and say 'delete', but then, on the other hand, I've been working with the material for hours, if not for days. If the editors at Wikipedia were actually concerned with writing an encyclopaedia, they would at least give me the time I needed to bring my arguments forward. However, as I perceive it, the deletion discussion was not about writing an encyclopaedia; editors and administrators were probably playing some kind of deletion game there, the rules of which I don't understand. A discussion is supposed to be on the basis of arguments, not on the basis of votes. Seriously, if all it that is necessary to delete an article are a number of 'deletion' votes, then we don't need to have discussions (using words) to decide whether we should delete an article or not. This job could almost be done by monkeys with typewriters - they'd only need typewrites with a big 'vote delete' key. Anyway, since there are some editors here who I think are actually interested in arguments, let me bring one: I conducted a search at yahoo for the exact phrase: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens". I know that search statics alone are not a sufficient argument for notability, or here, for the coverage of a particular event somewhere in Wikipedia, but then again, you can at least try to guess how many pages yahoo found with this phrase. Surprisingly google only found roughly 1/6 that many, but that number still is rather high, if we compare it with the number of hits you would get for the content of articles like Religious discrimination against Neopagans. And I have some more arguments I could bring forward for the relevance of this issue; We could discuss those in detail if we relist the afd, but for the moment just think of this: There is a whole country out there that needs the answer to the question whether George H.W.Bush actually said that he doesn't know that "atheists should be considered as citizens". I took me only a few hours to find the answer (it is unverifiable that he said that), and it would be nice if Wikipedia could help provide this answer to the U.S.-American public. Of course, bot sides are not going to like the answer. Atheists would rather have it that we write that Bush actually said it, whereas many Republicans would rather have the issue not mentioned at all. (There are a few conservative Americans who also think that Bush actually said it.) Fortunately, though, "I don't like it." is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. If you were an editor with a pro-Republican bias, and I am not saying that any editor here actually is, you would have to seek another reason to delete it and keep you editorial bias to yourself, if possible. Considering that the discussion surrounding this alleged quote warrants inclusion in Wikipedia (imho), then we would need to see how we could do this the best way. And, although there are articles like Discrimination against atheists that could accomodate, I think the most elegant solution would be to have an article Robert I. Sherman and include it there. So, in conclusion: If the version on my userspace is restored, I can take a look at the sources, count and evaluate then and, if necessary, I'll write Sherman an Email to get to know what he actually though of his article, and whether he rather have the article fixed or no article at all about him. (Jennavecia apparently isn't telling me, what he actually wrote.) And if I then come to the conclusion the Sherman is notable, that the article can be fixed, and that I am actually willing to do that, then we relist the afd. Or we simply relist it and figure this out together. But, if neither one of this options is possible here, I not only wasted a lot of time figuring out the issue of the alleged Bush quote in the first place; I'll also consider a lot of other work I did for Wikipedia a waste of time. I consider myself an editor who can not only research this and many other topics and write from a neutral perspective about them, but who also bases his editorial views on sound reasoning. Some editors here may actually find this hard to understand: I a not making the effort with this discussion to annoy you, but because I think there are reasons why we should at least discuss keeping this article. And when I have to read 'Delete', with that what I've previously written being ignored, then I honestly don't feel as if am am talking with human beings who want to write an encyclopaedia together. In this case, this will be the last thing you will hear from me for a rather long time. I assume there are other projects I could work on. Zara1709 (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per Julian. MBisanz talk 12:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus was clear. Claiming the article was not pointy is rather disingenuous given the time and skill that it is claimed went into it. Moreover, the suggestion to recreate is about as far from "elegant" - given the policy concerns (BLP not least) - as I am wobbling home after a skinful. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least there is someone who has read what I've written - partly. You might want to read the (now archived) comments I posted on the noticeboards during the afd. Most of my efforts concerning our article space went into researching that alleged Bush quote; however, more effort went into discussing this quote in the discussion space. I didn't actually spent so much effort researching and writing about the person of Robert I. Sherman himself, I don't even know for sure yet that he is notable. I was about to research that properly, but then the article was deleted prematurely. And the version I made on my user space for precisely the reason of checking the sources to establish notability or not was deleted, too, which is the reason we now need to discuss this here in the first place. If some admin hadn't deleted that material on my user page I would have by now conducted the research and could tell you if he is notable according to our guidelines or not. And anyway, what policy concerns? If someone was the subject of several verifiable controversies, you can't claim that corresponding article is a blp violation if it is written from a neutral perspective. Even if it is not written from a neutral perspective, that can be fixed. If you want to have an encyclopaedia for the sum of human knowledge, then this would include the current controversies surrounding atheism in the United States. Do you want to write an encyclopaedia or not? Zara1709 (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2009 (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 2009

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

I would like to create this article, however it was deleted back in 2006 because it failed notability guidelines. However, I just discovered that Major League Baseball Advanced Media's contraversial blackout restrictions relies on this service according to the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps it's best to discuss whether or not this fact would merit notability, though it seems bizarre to unearth an article deleted 3 years ago. –BuickCenturyDriver 18:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion and allow re-creation. It's certainly possible that the company might have become more notable in the intervening three years since it was up for AfD. The version at the time of deletion was quite short and had no references other than the company's own web site, but I don't have a problem if the edit history gets restored. That said, there is no guarantee that the company will be considered notable now; you will probably need more sources to support a new article besides the Wall Street Journal article you cited. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation but do not restore the deleted page history, which contains nothing more than an AfD template and a copyright violation. The full text of the article was copied verbatim from an older version of this company page, and the text of that older version is available here (scroll to the bottom, where it says "About Quova, Inc."). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It may then be useful to recreate and redelete as a copyvio so it doesn't get accidentally resurrected in the future. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason you cannot just recreate the article. Thanks for asking here, but given that it was deleted such a long time ago, you shouldn't have any issue with a new good article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Krahu i shqiponjës (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

You can read the article at the address below:

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Xanxari_en./Krahu_i_shqiponj%C3%ABs

And if you are careful, you will notice that there are new sources and references of the most reliable. I don’t know what can be more reliable than the president of the Parliament of a country (Pjetër Arbnori}) and the National Library of a country?! There are photos there and documents (facsimile):

http://www.shefkihysa.com/al/xhaferri.html

which prove that Albanian state is our collaborator. See them and suggest us what other reliable sources can we find?!

--Xanxari en. (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The original AfD was here.

    Some of the references and sources used on the draft article would not normally be permitted, for example, the blogs and yahoo groups. Please read Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources.

    When I was doing my research for this DRV, I couldn't help noticing that the related articles, Shefki Hysa, Bilal Xhaferri and Jakup Mato, also contain references that do not conform to WP:RS, and I would suggest that these are also improved, as I doubt they would survive AfD.

    I also note that you have received the same advice for the equivalent article on the German Wikipedia, which is here. The English Wikipedia's referencing standards are higher. (On de.wikipedia, you can write it if it's sourced or if other editors think it's true. On en.wikipedia you can only write what the sources say.)

    I do not have the library to read the paper sources you cite, so I hope someone who does is able to participate in this DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit recreation since speedy deletion criterion G4 no longer applies. CSD G4 is for recreations of deleted pages which are "substantially identical to the deleted version" and if "changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". The userspace version presented by Xanxari en. is not "substantially identical" to the deleted version, which can be viewed here. Not only are there not insignificant differences in the text, but the addition of the references (even if they are problematic) is by itself a major change. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The first deletion was valid, then the version that tried to address the lack of sources was deleted as a recreation multiple times. Since the first G4 was invalid, the x other ones are also not valid. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 2 June 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Masalipit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

There is no consensus to redirect sourced articles about settlements to higher order administrative units removing sourced information from the encyclopedia. I have discussed this with the closer who acknowledges that there is a debate whether all inhabited settlements are inherently notable, if they can be verified. This concept, while not policy has obtained a level of support and is reflected in the essays WP:INHERENT and WP:OUTCOMES, which should give pause to someone thinking of deleting a settlement that there is a significant body of editors who would find that against policy. I am of the opinion that settlements are inherently notable: if Wikipedians are also of that mind or at least have no consensus that they are not, then redirecting or deleting settlements is against consensus or at a minimum there is no consensus to do so - which, contrary to what the closer suggested in our discussion, is not limited to who shows up for the debate. Even if you think that settlements are not inherently notable, this one is, and verification of basic facts was added after some of the participants in the debate had !voted, which apparently was overlooked at the close. Many barangays in the Philippines are small villages but are tracked by the Philippine national census, much like the US CDP's (and, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica were the "basic unit of local administration in the islands", [2] also not brought up at AFD when other editors contered that they were a few blocks of houses - without sourcing - which skewed the debate) - articles for which were created en masse by bot approved by the community based on the recognition that regardless of whether settlements are notable inherently or not, those for which national census data are available and maintained most certainly are. While this argument may run afoul of another essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - cited by the closer while dismissing the other essays - it also is fundamental to confront Wikipedia's WP:BIAS, which has reflected a particular need to confront it in geography - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Geography. While nearly any dot on an American map will likely have readily available information on the internet or at a library that many Wikipedians can draw from, those abroad may not. That doesn't make them less notable - nor is it call for deletion or redirect either. It calls for keeping the article and allowing it to grow organically as Wikipedians in that geography (or elsewhere) can add to it, with sources they have more ready access to. Here, the effect of the non-consensus close to redirect was to eliminate some sourced material - and some unsourced, which could have been redacted or tagged with {{fact}} as we do everywhere else - to point to an article to the next order administrative district that merely lists the place, without the sourced data, without any sources to verify the existence of the place. That is surely not the right result and should be Overturned here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a challenging one to reason through.

On the one hand, I sympathise with Carlossuarez. We're often told what Wikipedia is not. But Wikipedia:Five pillars says very clearly that one of the things that Wikipedia is is a gazetteer, and this content does belong in a gazetteer.

But on the other hand, it's hard to censure Fritzpoll for his well-reasoned close. I'm convinced that was a valid reading of the consensus he was supposed to be evaluating.

Fortunately, I think in this case it's possible to satisfy everyone, because a redirect is technically a "keep" outcome. What the AfD in fact decided was, this article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia. And the content of the bluelink is an editorial decision, not an administrative one.

Any editor can now take the discussion to the article's talk page and seek consensus to create an encyclopaedic article there. No reply would be such a consensus per WP:SILENCE.

Therefore my answer is that this redirect probably should be an article, but my reply in DRV terms is endorse closure as a valid reading of the consensus and wrong venue for the request to re-create.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. Given the reasoning of various parties, both for and against, at the AfD, I think Fritzpoll's closure as redirect and his reasoning was perfectly in line. Now let's address some of the arguments of the DRV nominator:
    1. Regarding the argument of WP:BIAS: people seem to think that if there are thousands of articles about U.S. places and there are a few in other countries means that we should create hundreds, if not thousands, of articles of those other countries. This is a fallacy. Countering the bias could also mean that we could also reduce the articles on the U.S. places (consolidating them into groups) or target some middle ground.
    2. Regarding the notion that "deleting" sourced material harms Wikipedia. Deletion of source material per se does not harm Wikipedia. WP:NOT (which is a policy) even guides us to delete material even if they are sourced. In addition, Non-keep AfD closures does not equate to deleting material. A redirect/merge close essentially means that the community would like to keep the material but that a separate article to house that material is not necessary. The sourced material that was in Masalipit can be included in San Miguel, Bulacan or even fleshed out in a List of barangays of San Miguel, Bulacan sub-article.
    3. The argument that whenever a government tracks something, it automatically makes them notable is also not true. The Securities and Exchange Commission of the Philippines, by mandate, tracks all legally incorporated companies and organizations in the country but that does not mean that we should have articles on all of those companies and organizations. If the Philippines implements the long-discussed National ID system, then that would be essentially a way of tracking its individual citizens (and that's why privacy advocates are against the ID system), but that doesn't mean that we should have articles on every individual citizen. So the argument that the national government tracks these barangays through census and local administration also does not mean that we should have articles on all of these barangays.
--seav (talk) 02:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I can add little to S Marshall and Seav above. We have not lost encyclopedic material as it can be merged up. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Seav and S Marshall. While I want to have more Philippine articles (That's why I joined in the first place), I don't want empty unsourced ones since Wikipedia is not a directory. My challenge to the nominator is that rather than argue using essays, why don't they back up the article with multiple reliable sources?--Lenticel (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were two reliable sources when the article was deleted - surely multiple reliable sources, so your argument is based on factually incorrect assumption - perhaps had you read it, you'd have realized it - now my challenge to you is change your !vote based on the facts to prove that your argument has any valid basis. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One was a page load error the other was a populuation cite which can be merged to the parent municipality's list of baranggays. The rs that I want are economic, political or any decent data that actually have content in it.--Lenticel (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin: I did think reasonably hard about the close, and have talked about this on my talk page. What I can say is that in instances where we have an AfD of geographic units (be they towns, wards, etc.) an admin is going to have trouble closing when the keep arguments are essentially this weird concept of "inherent notability". I have witnessed several discussions on this concept in my work on Wikipedia, none of which amounted to a consensus, and none of which have codification in our guidelines or policies. Whilst my personal opinion is that this omission cannot be left unanswered in the long term, the lack of notability indicated by the discussion can only be assessed by the GNG, and the consensus at the AfD was (validly) that the article didn't meet the requirements. Absent a convincing keep argument grounded in policy, there was little to avoid an alternative conclusion. However, since a merge was proposed within the discussion, the imperative to preserve information allowed me to use redirection as a tool in this instance. I am, as ever, happy to be overturned for any egregious error I have made here, but I think the long-term problem is the supposed security blanket of "inherent notability" that has been used in the past for this kind of article - but that is a topic beyond the scope of DRV or AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Per conservative close. MBisanz talk 12:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I might personally be prepared to extend the concept of the inherent notability of populated settlements to neighborhoods as a matter of course, but I don;'t think there is consensus here to do that-- and I think this is essentially the nature of most baranggays. But, using the GNG for these is going to become increasingly irrelevant as time goes on. Most such places worldwide will in a few years have internet accessible reasonably reliable sources discussing them in a reasonably substantial way, and the only way to continue the GNG will be to define "reliabl"e and "significant" in increasingly restrictive ways.DGG (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what basis do you conclude that this is a neighborhood rather than a village? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All barangays are subdivisions of incorporated municipalities, which I believe is how neighborhood is commonly thought of in the U.S. --Polaron | Talk 11:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the US-centricity of WP as I mentioned above. Most villages in Europe are subdivisions of municipalities and they are fine at WP - because they are first world. If Philippine geographic articles for population centers were limited to municipalites only 1631 articles could exist on them: 1521 municipalities and 120 classified as "cities" from List of municipalities in the Philippines. For a country of 90 million people spread out on 7000 islands, this is a bizzarre conclusion, as some municipalities spread over multiple spreadout islands it is somewhat odd how each becomes a neighborhood more than a village. but that's a WP fiction. Just for comparison, the Republic of Ireland is essentially most of one island with 4 million people has 1266 village and town articles, and lots of redlinks suggesting an incompleteness that will in time surpass 1631. I guess WP considers Ireland more important than the Philippines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • So why do you think en.wiki editors from the Philippines themselves disagree with you about the significance of barangays. The municipality is the civic identity in the Philippines. I doubt you'd find anyone from the Philippines saying the barangay name when asking them what locality they're from. Majority of the islands of the Philippines are actually uninhabited and it is not unusual for these uninhabited islands to be grouped together in a single barangay. Barangays are essentially census tracts or Wards and you're ascribing more significance to it than locals do. --Polaron | Talk 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm aware these are not precisely identical to US neighborhoods in the generic sense, because they are formally recognized; they perhaps might more closely correspond to a US ward or a Citizen's Board, which are the old and new fashions for elected minor officials in local areas of US cities. The have very limited responsibilities and are not self governing nor do they control major community facilities. DGG (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • This barangay is classified by the Philippine government as rural, which suggests the proper analogy is the village as a subdivision of a municipality in the typical Continental European models or unincorproated communities in the US one, not a "neighborhood" in any city/urban sense (a few blocks without much to say about it). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • It is discussions like these that reaffirm to me the need to establish community-wide standards for geographical inclusion, which are presently lacking, although the problem is likely to be that one side of the debate will settle for nothing less than absolute inclusion, and the other will resist any implied weakening of the GNG. Still, that debate is not for here: rearguing the AfD is not the purpose of DRV - if there is a procedural or policy error in my close, then that should be discussed. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Plot of Les Misérables (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First of all, the recent Deletion discussion was non-admin closed, but does not come under any of the requirements for an non-admin closure, and is thus unambiguously invalid, particularly as it was a speedy closure.

Secondly, the first deletion was an overrule one based on WP:PLOT, however, per recent discussion, that is not a deletion criteria. I think we should keep the article, and improve it by adding extensive literary criticism. The deleted article is well-referenced, and an excellent introduction to an in-depth discussion of one of the most important works of French literature. Seriously, we have an article on almost every chapter of the Bible; Les Misèrables may not have quite that impact, but having a sub article to discuss its plot in detail, allowing deep analys is of Hugo's work, is hardly a problem. WP:PLOT is an improvement criterion, not a deletion one. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not even sure this is the right place to be. Having an AfD closed as a non-admin speedy redirect after 1 day when the last deletion was 2 years ago seems like something anyone could undo. Thoughts on process? Is this the right place for the discussion? I'd think AfD would be. So reopen AfD and let run 7 days is my thought. Hobit (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect; Wikipedia is not for plot summaries. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-open the afd and allow to run for a full 7 days. A redirect is all well and good if there's consensus, but the fact that we're here is a decent indicator that there was no such consensus reached (at least not yet). If a consensus to redirect is reached at the end of the debate, so be it, but a redirect without enough time for a full discussion is not the way to go here. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused as to the target of this DRV. Is it contesting the AfD and DRV of July 2007 or the recent AFD and its closure as WP:CSD#G4? As to the former, endorse both decisions. WP:NOT and it's inclusive WP:PLOT element were and are policy and still applicable to those two-year-old decisions. As to the latter, this edit is the very definition of the G4 criterion for deletion (or, redirection in this case) and a determination I endorse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by pd THOR (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 May 2009
    • Invalid arguement. This is what WP:PLOT says (after the recent lengthy RFC reached a consensus on this issue)

      Plot-only description of fictional works: Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting. Articles on fictional works containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. For more information on writing about fiction, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction).}}

      It is certainly not meant to force deletion of an article someone wants to improve. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are we ignoring the subject of the redirect Les Misérables which contains the plot summary. As far as I can see your argument seems to be I want to improve the plot article to be the main article. Why not just enhance the main article if it's lacking in the suitable level of plot information? I certainly don't believe the intent of the recent discussion was to allow lengthy standalone plot articles split from the main article if you include some of the main article material in it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You verily misunderstood me. DRV is for reviewing the closures of AfDs for impropriety. Therefore, are you contesting (a) the July 2007 AfD decision, or (b) the more recent AfD's closure? I endorse the former's as proper in its time, and the latter as you recreated the exact same article that was decided upon previously, which is a valid application of the CSD#G4. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for an admin to close. Non_admin closure is only for non-controversial closures. The act of raising this DRV shows that the closure was controversial, and therefore the NAC is automatically invalidated. I'm of the view that any editor in good standing can, on reasonable grounds, simply revert a non-admin closure of an AfD.

    I must say that Les Misérables is an extremely notable work of fiction and its article is already well over the recommended 32kb length. Therefore per the manual of style, it would be appropriate to divide it into sub-articles.

    Whether one of those sub-articles should be Plot of Les Misérables is a different question, but it's one that should be addressed at AfD rather than DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ugh BE BOLD. If you want to make an article that isn't just a wikipedian giving a play-by-play of the work, do so. Go make this article. Make us proud. If you are asking us to overturn "formally" this decision at DRV two years later I say no. I endorse this decision "at the moment of decision" and I will oppose any attempt to simply force this article back into existence at the point of a knife. Protonk (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, you're saying I should work on an article, but with no promise it won't be deleted at any moment, because I haven't gotten the deletion overturned. And that's the solution? Bullshit. If you wat me to work on an article, I want enough time to build it, and bring in others. I don't want to be told that all myhard work may be flushed away at any moment, because of a no-longer-policy deletion two years ago. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's exactly what I'm saying. Sorry that isn't to your liking. Protonk (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll ask the same question I asked Deor. Let's pretend that we have an article that was deleted and then policy changed so that the basis of the deletion was no longer valid. What is the procedure for restoration? If there is a disagreement, where should that discussion be held? DrV? AfD? The discussion page for that policy? Hobit (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's the point? how is this different from my response below. This may sound rude, but I don't think it is worth our time to keep repeating this stuff. If you guys want to make this an article, make a post on the talk page or just be bold. If you don't want to be bold out of fear that someone will come along and redirect it again or G4 it, that isn't our problem. When I recreated Dragon kill points I didn't come here and ask permission, I just made it. Little discussion should be necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the policy that was cited as a deletion reason goes away (or in this case, significantly changed) then an actual review of if the article meets policy/guidelines now is in order. There is no need to change it in order to request that discussion. Just waving a wand of "be bold" and asking for changes isn't helpful as that's not the issue being raised. To repeat (which I agree isn't helpful, but appears needed for some reason) the question is if the article, as written, meets our current policies and guidelines. Hobit (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think that you and SH appear to be the folks most concerned about that question. You don't need to keep repeating the question. I'm not misunderstanding you, I'm just insisting that the question itself is unimportant and unrelated to the deletion at the moment of decision. Beyond that, pushing at PLOT for changes then coming over here for validation of those very changes seems a titch bizzare. I'm not waiving a magic wand, either. Precisely the opposite. Being bold in making or remaking this article is not waving a magic wand. It is asking an editor to step forward, use judgment and begin editing an article. It is hard work. Work that I'm not inclined to do because I don't particularly care if this is an article or a redirect. If there is someone who does, I really don't see the problem with them creating/recreating the article. If not, I don't see the problem with it remaining a redirect. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The underlieing reason for the DrV is to figure out what to do with this article. Does it meet the current policies and guidelines? If yes we should have it. If no, we should not. I'd argue that's the core question. What do _you_ think the core question is here wrt this DrV? Hobit (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I would argue, and have argued, that there isn't a core question to this DRV. It is a totally superfluous, almost aimless discussion that belongs neither here, nor at the talk page nor at PLOT. We aren't going to "establish a precedent" with regards to articles previously deleted in whole or in part to past wording of PLOT. We aren't really discussing the applicability of the policy (and even if we were, announcing that PLOT is no longer a deletion criteria has no bearing on a 2 year old AfD). And you clearly want a discussion that is outside the scope of the talk page for the main article. You guys seem to think that this review was compelled by actions outside our control, that some incipient issue has arisen demanding that we hash out an answer. In response to repeated claims that no such incipient crisis or problem exists, you have stayed the course. The core question of "a DRV" is to assess the validity of the deletion decision. We have made it something of a habit (not one I agree with, but there you go) of not only reviewing deletion decisions but reviewing recreated articles here. In the sense that this is a recreated article, you might think that we are reviewing a deletion of sorts. I disagree, partly because of the age of the deletion debate and partially because this doesn't need the tools for a solution. You could, if you want, disagree with Sceptre about the redirect and re-establish the article. You could insist (with some support from me) that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables (2nd nomination) should be reviewed as a NAC and the AfD simply relisted (rather than insist that some procedural question need be answered). Protonk (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I just want the article recreated and to have a chance to improve. I'm annoyed at the process thus far as we seem to be stuck debating process rather than resolving what to do with the article. I'd be fine with just removing the redirect, but given it is currently at DrV, I'm not sure that is a reasonable action. I guess that's what I'll do once the DrV closes. I think SH probably handled this poorly (no real fault of his, it wasn't clear what to do) and somehow it has resulted in a very weird situation. As far as precedent goes, I'm not overly worried about that. Exactly how to handle situations like this is in discussion elsewhere. I'd just like to see this article get a fair discussion on the merits. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per the result of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. (I'm assuming that some of this content was in fact merged to Les Misérables, so that the history needs to be retained. If that is not so, my opinion is overturn the recent "G4 redirection" and delete per the same DRV result.) This DRV's nominator has claimed that he wants this plot summary restored so that he can "expand this with literary criticism"; the place to cover literary criticism of the novel is Les Misérables, not this former article. Given the nom's previous comments at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not, such as this and particularly this, I suspect that he's trying to make some sort of obscure point here. Deor (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if something is deleted or redirected on the basis of a policy that no longer supports that action, G4 still applies in your opinion? How should one go about (if at all) making the argument that something that was deleted should be restored because policy changes would allow it to exist if it were created from scratch? Hobit (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the forum we're discussing this in is titled "Deletion review", and the box at the top of the main DRV page says that DRV "is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article"; so I'd recommend starting a discussion here rather than just re-creating the article. I have to say, though, that I don't think a separate article on the plot of any fictional work stands much of a chance in any discussion not dominated by ARS fanatics, since any non-plot information that might be added to it would belong rather in an article about the work itself than in one about its plot. Deor (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and avoid such phrasing as "ARS fanatics." We are discussing articles, not editors. Thank you. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you would prefer that once this DrV is closed, anyone wishing to restore the article based on policy changes should come to DrV? I suspect that would get tossed out on it's ear. Suggestions? Hobit (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You asked not what should be done with the article in question here but, generally, "how should one go about (if at all) making the argument that something that was deleted should be restored," and I gave you my reading of the relevant procedure. If it had been followed, we'd still be here, but we'd be having the discussion you apparently want to have rather than this discussion, which is supposed be about the validity of the recent AfD closure rather than the merits of the article. Don't worry, though; somehow I foresee a rash of DRV discussions involving old deletions in which WP:NOT#PLOT happens to have been mentioned. Deor (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So because an editor handled the "paperwork" incorrectly, we just won't have a process for restoring this article? That seem, well, wrong and perhaps the definition of bureaucratic . Hobit (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: it's a textbook G4: recreation of material deleted at AfD. And said content was stagnant for four weeks. SH should know by now to either sandbox in userspace before recreating, or, alternately, recreate material and then immediately work on it. SH did neither. Sceptre (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should delete (or in this case, redirect) independent of changes in policy that have occurred in the meantime? If we'd removed WP:PLOT would you still be in favor of hitting this with G4? Hobit (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, did you expect this to be non-controversial? Given that it's 2 years old, NOT#PLOT has changed significantly and an editor in good standing did this, I'd have thought it pretty obviously would not be, but I'd like to hear your reasoning there for the non-admin close of an AfD in less than a day. Hobit (talk) 15:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...We should make an article if we think that an article is worth making. If we think that the article prior to the redirect is a reasonable article, we should do so. what we shouldn't do is sift through old deletion decisions and have them overturned at DRV because times have changed. As for the 1 day NAC, I don't care. Honestly it seems pretty damn reasonable to me given that it took 2 years for us to consider overturning it. This whole DRV is largely irrelevant. If someone wants to make that into an article, they should. If someone speedies that (I doubt that they will), that can be discussed at DRV. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still fails the new NOT#PLOT. Sceptre (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article per lack of consensus behind WP:PLOT as evidence by recent RfC. The plot of this notable book, film, musical, etc. is indeed something covered in numerous secondary sources as well as despite the title of the article, can easily contain some out of universe commentary as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse decision per WP:IAR and close as moot. This should have been discussed at Talk:Les Misérables in the first place in regards to recreating the article. The first AFD had a consensus for deletion, with a history restoration in a DRV following that; in essence, this became a redirect which was confirmed as such here. With history and everything else still intact, spinning the plot article back out is a content issue which is to be hashed out either at Talk:Les Misérables or via dispute resolution. A second AFD, nor consequently this DRV, are not necessary and are only serving to further inflame and polarize many Wikipedians, let alone the two sides in this whole plot summary debate. MuZemike 23:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum – I am not judging as to whether or not this should be spun back out per guidelines and policies, but rather how this situation was handled and approached. MuZemike 00:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per WP:PLOT:

    "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." (emphasis added)

    In other words, an article should not consist solely of plot description, which is precisely what the restored article contained. The mere two sentences that provided real-world context, about reception and printed guides like Cliff's Notes, could easily (and should) be mentioned in the main article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've rather selectively quoted that. Literary analysis is encouraged, and that's best done in a spin-off. It's also an improvement policy, not a deletion one. In any case, the original non-admin closure was inappropriate, so it should be overturned, and sent back to AfD to decide. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see how my quote is in any way selective since it constitutes the whole of the first sentence of WP:PLOT. Also, while a neutral review of extant literary analysis (by the way, "literary analysis" ≠ "plot summary") is encouraged, literary analysis itself is most definitely not encouraged (Wikipedia:No original research). And, furthermore, I see no reason why a review of literary analysis of a work of fiction should be done in a spin-off article rather than directly in the main article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because you left out the part saying such articles should be improved (not deleted). Also,the original article is quite long. That's why this and the analysis is best spun off. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for clarifying that point. The part of WP:PLOT that emphasis improvement rather than deletion is, in full: "Articles on works of fiction containing little more than a plot summary should be improved to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context." However, this is not an article on a work of fiction, but rather an article on the plot of a work of fiction. That said, if there is adequate coverage in reliable, secondary sources of the plot of Les Misérables specifically (i.e. literary analysis)—and not just Les Misérables in general—such that including all of the literary analysis in the main article would negatively impact its readability, then I would support having an article about the plot. At this time, however, I have seen little to indicate that such is the case, and believe that any sourced literary analysis could be covered in the main article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn redirect. Let's underline the all-important word:

    "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." (emphasis added)

    This is about our coverage of a particular work, not about individual articles. Our coverage of Les Misérables certainly does contain more than a plot summary, to the extent that the article Les Misérables is too large to stand on its own without being split up into summary style sub-articles. It is perfectly reasonable for the plot section to be one of those spun out in this way, particularly as this is a work with a very convoluted plot, necessitating more content than can reasonably go into the main article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to second this (yes I !voted above) and further note that unlike the traditional "spinout" argument, no one is arguing that this article, as written has any problems with WP:N. The article itself is reasonably sourced. It is solely a question of NOT#PLOT. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded an image highlighting the relevent sections: File:NOT-PLOT highlight.jpg. Guest9999 (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a stand alone plot summary in mainspace is not going to grow into a novel kind of spin out article - within the relevant policies and guidelines - through normal Wikipedia editing. If someone wants to show how such an article can exist in a way that it is not simply a plot summary or redundant to the main article they should write it. Any information I can think of that would be relevant to the real world context of the plot summary would all belong in the main article of the work. Also I endorse the original AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables) as - two years later - I believe the closing rationale still applies and will apply until such a time until someone can show how a plot summary can be the subject of an independent encyclopaedia article. WP:NOT#PLOT makes clear that articles should not be plot only descriptions (Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary), until someone shows otherwise an article starting "Plot of..." would seem to be inherently a plot only description with no chance of improvement. At this time covering the content in the main article seems like a reasonable interpretation of policy. Additionally I don't see this as being a great "test case" to start with as I've seen more critical commentary in Articles about Simpsons episodes than in the main Les Misérables article, surely it makes more sense to work on improving the main article before worrying about spin outs the purpose of which is to elaborate on that article? Guest9999 (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Improper NAC as pointed out by Shoemaker's Holiday. These shouldn't be encouraged. ThemFromSpace 18:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist --
    • as for the immediate issue, which is not whether or not the article should be redirected or whether such articles are justified, or anything at all related to WP:N or to fiction in general, and something I would say about even an article where I think redirection clearly indicated, the close first No non admin should ever make an non-obvious contested close--there is a reason for screening admins, and not giving everybody such powers as soon as they start editing-- that is because they can be trusted to have some judgment about how to apply policy, as shown by this very discussion. I think we need a firm rule against non-admin closures of contested AfDs, when contested in good faith. The first comment above is right, that this should not have come here: any editor at all in good standing has equal authority to the one closing the afd, and could revert the edit, and i would encourage any editor who disagrees with a non-admin closure in any direction to do just that. Whether the close be right or wrong, they should not have made it. To avoid doubt, we should prohibit it flat-out as a matter of policy. As for making an early close, not even ad admin should do that in a discussion disputed in good faith. The reason we have AfD in the first place and do not do everything by speedy is so we can have discussion, not decide by whoever is willing to take the fastest action. The proof that an early close is contested and need a full discussion of the intact article is a good-faith request for restoration from an established editor, which should granted by any admin who has closed SNOW as a matter of course, and if denied, reverted by any other admin as a routine matter of course without need for consultation. SNOW like IAR is automatically and inherently invalid if there is bona fide disagreement. Thjis is already policy, but, again, we need a firm flat-out rule to avoid doubt. We also need a rule against redirecting without essentially unanimous consensus among those discussing it in good faith during an AfD. It confuses discussion and leads to situations like this which could be resolved better at the original afd.
    • As for the secondary issue of what to do about the article, as we will discuss further whern the AfD reopens, if there are multiple secondary sources discussing the plot of a work, and they are cited and discussed in the the article, then it will no longer be a mere plot summary. This should be possible for every major work of classic fiction, and also a great many minor ones by well-studied authors-- and increasingly for contemporary forms also. Those who doubt it are apparently unfamiliar with the way both academic and non-academic criticism takes place: they discuss plot and characters and settings in great detail, and are therefore suitable sources. The problem is only with those works not yet the subject of substantial discussion, where I think everyone agrees that a bare plot summary by a Wikipedia editor is not a substitute for a stand alone article. This is in conformity with even the rather confusing revised version of NOT PLOT--an article where there is sourced discussion of plot is not just a plot summary; it will always be justified in there are sources--the people most opposed to plot articles all conceded that much; they may have thought it rare, but they will soon see how widespread such discussion is; I expect , AGF, that they will be glad to see such an abundance of sourced articles. And in this particular case, where the work in question has multiple manifestations in multiple forms, the discussion of plot cannot be dealt with by the main article on the novel since an extensive amount of comparisons are needed. In summary, we make the rules ourselves, and can decide how to apply them. Even if one doubts plot articles in general, the ones on the major famous works of world fiction can stand on its own by any reasonable application of any rules, past or present. DGG (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect per CSD G4, if anybody wants to work on this in userspace and convert it into a viable article (which is a very distant prospect) they can try to do so. However, simply reverting to a version of the article that was previously deleted is absurd. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
JoomlaLMS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Dear Administrators, 1.JoomlaLMS article was deleted very fast after Dank (talk) has placed the speedy deletion tag. People had no chance to discuss this at all. 2. The tag placed - section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion - was incorrect as "This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on." JoomlaLMS is software, NOT a company. 3. The tag placed on 8 February 2009 by Slakr(talk)(Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G11 was removed long time ago as the article has been completely changed after February 2009 and the tag became outdated. 4. The JoomlaLMS is a highly notable software and used by THOUSANDS of people and is the most popular Learning Management System for Joomla and very well known among Joomla users what was written in the article as well. Please consider recovering article and discussing it if required. I'd like to put "hangon" tag and provide additional reference and notability to prove that* the article has a right to exists in open Encyclopedia. Thank you. Interkrok (talk) 11:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've moved this here from the AfD log page for this date, where it was mistakenly posted. No opinion on the speedied article. Deor (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I'd tagged for CSD A-7 because it looked like a company and the website gave the impression that the product/company were the same, and I couldn't find any references either, except launch notes and the like. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:49, 2 June 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lnlwedding.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Feel that deletion was unreasonable.

I contacted the closing administrator, Stifle, about reconsidering this image's deletion before I brought it here, but he declined. As I stated in the deletion debate and to Stifle on his talk page: "...[This image] is not decorative in the Supercouple article, in which it is used as the main image. This is the couple who started the term supercouple, which is very much sourced and commented on within the article. There is no free alternative image to use for this couple at their wedding (which started the initial supercouple era), and using any other couple as the lead (intro) image in the article simply because that image is free would be ludicrous. A free image of a celebrity supercouple as the lead image will not do, when taken into consideration that celebrity supercouples did not define the term and came after soap opera supercouples (at least when referencing the term supercouple)."

In addition to that first argument of mine about this, I must also state what I stated on my talk page and Stifle's: "I do not see at all how it is against Wikipedia's image policies by being used as the main image in the Supercouple article, considering that it is displaying the appearance of a fictional couple who 'created' the term and the event at which the term was coined, as noted in the lead and discussed within the article. Its use is more valid within that article than any other fair-use image there."

Newer arguments: I must also note that Damiens.rf, who nominated this image for deletion, did not seem to feel that this image was decorative in the Supercouple article. He nominated the image more so due to it being decorative in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article. Thus, I argue that it simply being decorative there does not discount its validity in the Supercouple article, which is why I removed it from the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article during the debate. In addition, one of the administrator's (Quadell) in the deletion debate for this image voted a "Weak delete" and in a way that seemed to suggest I do something with the lead to better validate this image's use there. In Stifle's closing decision for this image, he also did not seem to feel that this image necessarily fails Wikipedia's image policies. All of this tells me that there is some validity in keeping this image as the lead image for the Supercouple article. Further, Stifle also voted "Delete" regarding images Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg and Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg, while Quadell (who closed those two image discussions as "Not deleted") stated that they clearly pass Wikipedia's image policies. This makes me wonder how fair these image deletion debates are if they are more about opinion than policy.

Basically, I do not feel the Lnlwedding.jpg was simply decorative in the Supercouple article, any more than a non-free image of a fictional character used as the lead (intro) image of that character's article. Sure, the Supercouple article is not solely or even mostly about Luke and Laura, but they are the couple who started the term/"gave birth" to the term and the article is based on that/on them. More critical commentary about their groundbreaking wedding, which started the supercouple era, can also be added to the Legends section of the article. This imagery was seen by 30 million viewers and can clearly be significantly commented on further down within the article (in the Legends section). Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks to this nomination, I had to navigate through the 11,458 clicks necessary to find Stifle's talk page and read it. :(

    Using non-free images is always a bit tricky, and I think admins have a duty to err on the side of caution, so my starting point is sympathetic to Stifle, but having said that: does the non-free image in question appear anywhere else on the web, where I might be able to look at it?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment/Reply. I apologize for your having to search for the discussion I had with Stifle. Stifle does not have a table of contents on his talk page, and I subsequently did not think to link to it. For others, you can find the discussion I had with Stifle about this topic on his talk page in this link under the title Lnlwedding.jpg.
    • While I am sure that this non-free image can be found elsewhere on the web, as can the images Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg and Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg, I feel that this image falls into the fair-use category partly for the same reasons that Famous Luke and Noah kiss.jpg and Angie crying on Jesse's chest upon his death.jpg do...and for the reasons I explained above. Also, there is no free alternative that can display this same event/this same fictional couple. Flyer22 (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The "kiss" and the "dying character" images we're kept due to a bad judgment by Admin Quadell, that seems to believe that once plot passages are discussed by other sources, their discussion on Wikipedia get magically more complicated, and so, in the need of an image to illustrate. Quadell's decision shouldn't be used as a precedent, since I'm planing to put them for review in a while. As for this couple's image, I don't have to see the characters to understand a paragraph stating they were the first supercouple ever. And we have no obligation to illustrate the Supercouple ever with and image of the first supercouple. Any supercouple can do the job. --Damiens.rf 00:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Disagree with Damiens.rf's comments about Quadell's decision regarding the other two images and this one. Quadell was following policy, as other editors also felt that he was. It is just that some editors and administrators here at Wikipedia interpret Wikipedia's image policies differently. Saying that we do not need an image of Luke and Laura to understand that "they were the first supercouple ever" is like saying that we do not need an image of a fictional character to understand that fictional character and what is noted about them. What a character looks like is arguably significant to understanding that character. The same goes for a fictional couple, in which an article is about -- or, in this case based on -- them. In the same way that an image of a fictional character is perfectly allowed for the lead (intro) image of his or her (or its) article on Wikipedia due to it being the subject of that article, so is an image of Luke and Laura who are being discussed within the article and "created" the term after which the article is named. Anyone reading the lead of this article or the Legends section of it will want to know who Luke and Laura are/what they look like. But it is also not merely about what they look like (or rather looked like back then); it is also about the fact that this image does significantly increase the reader's understanding of this topic, is noted within the article, and can be provided with significant critical commentary in the Legends section about the further importance of this imagery/couple. From what I have read of Wikipedia's image policies, the other two images pass and so does this one. It is not about precedent (what Quadell did was not even precedent, considering that closing decisions similar to those have been done many times here at Wikipedia before); it is about what is right. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own deletion. As per the usual protocol, I discounted the !votes of 71.234... as an IP editor, and those of NeutralHomer, Silvestris, and Allstarecho as lacking any reason in policy. That left the nomination and two other delete !votes and a single valid keep !vote, which is a delete on number counting. The arguments to keep and delete were balanced, but I found the delete arguments more persuasive — there is surely a supercouple still alive of whom a free photograph could be taken, and the use in the other article was merely decorative. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. While Stifle makes a sound argument, the point is not about whether there is a fictional supercouple still alive. I assume he means fictional, as in their real-life portrayers. If we were to use an image of Luke and Laura's portrayers as the lead image of the article (such as them posing as themselves, not as their characters, together), that image would be an image of those portrayers. The image would not be about fictional supercouple Luke and Laura, no matter it being a free image. And any other fictional supercouple or their real-life portrayers would not serve as much purpose as the lead image. If Stifle means using a free image of one of the celebrity supercouples as the lead image, I already explained about that above. Furthermore, the fact that this image was decorative in the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article is beside the point, considering that I had already removed it from that article before Stifle made his closing decision on this image (as noted by me above). This image's validity in the Supercouple article should not be based on whether it was valid in another article and on persuasive delete votes. It should be based on policy more than anything else, and I feel that my arguments for this image remaining as the lead image in the article, or at least in the Legends section of it upon further critical commentary of the importance of the moment the image is displaying, is far stronger than the two delete votes for it (one of which was/is a "Weak delete" vote, as noted by me above). Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus I suspect Stifle is right and a different picture could be used here. But A) I don't think anyone suggested that in the discussion B) there were arguments that this is the "first one" and so might be "better". So I don't see how the closer can reach that conclusion from the discussion. Further, I don't think that the IP or Allstarecho's !votes should have been discounted. If this is based on strength of argument, the IP's well-reasoned comments should be considered. If it is nose count, those without arguments should be considered. Discounting both seems, well, wrong here. And Allstarecho does echo a policy-based reason for keeping, so I'm loath to accept that the fact he didn't bother to directly cut-and-paste the arguments he supported should mean his opinion should be discounted. Hobit (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you suspect that Stifle is correct, then that by WP:NFCC rules out having the image (criteria 1), so your !vote is contradictory. To suggest we ignore those criteria on the basis of no one making such an obvious suggestion would seem to be bureacracy at it's best. Your point (b) is also covered by NFCC#1 there is no real concept of better if it conveys the same encyclopedic information/purpose the free image wins each and every time, same way that a grainy shot of some dead popstar submitted as a free image would make a high quality (better) agency shot fail NFCC#1. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No? I suspect that is the case. As it wasn't brought up at the IfD, no one had a chance to respond to the notion. I certainly don't know enough about the context and just how relevant this "first" couple is or if that "first" notion is sourceable. As no one objected to it during the close, I think the closer needs to assume it's true unless it is factually incorrect. In other words, the closer doesn't get to replace the results of the discussion with his own views. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:NFCC is fairly clear that the burden of proof is required on the side of the keep, there isn't a burden to rpboe the other way. i.e. if there is no sensible supporting argument beyond "I say so", the burden is not met and the deleting admin is quite correct to ignore it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"X was the first and therefor an important image to have a picture of" is more than "I say so". Hobit (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the term Supercouple was coined due to Luke Spencer and Laura Webber. It is sourceable, is sourced within the article...and can be sourced with plenty of other valid references as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The file is at File:Lnlwedding.jpg. The deletion debate is at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 18#Lnlwedding.jpg. I don't believe Flyer22 characterized my comments accurately above, and I think it's worth reading the debate.
  • Endorse deletion. The deletion was thoroughly discussed, and the closing admin clearly understands policy and took all arguments into account. – Quadell (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The deletion debate is linked to above at the very top of this section. Surely, very experienced editors/and editors here who read the directions on how to list these articles at this particular Wikipedia project know that. And I do not see where in that debate this topic was thoroughly discussed, nor where I significantly misinterpreted your comment there. I stated a long and valid argument, with clear understanding of Wikipedia's image policies, and only got a copy and paste answer of delete from one editor and then a "Weak delete" from another editor (you). The decision for delete of this image does not seem to have been weighed more so in policy at all, from Stifle's own comment in the closing debate and from his one in this. If it was more so about policy, then delete arguments being "more persuasive" would not have been an issue. This whole thing seems more like an opinion of how a few editors feel about this harmless non-free image which has been in the Supercouple article as the lead image for the longest now remaining in that article, and not wanting to admit that they are likely wrong about this decision. If it was more about policy, there would not be any need for you to have voted "Weak delete." Right now, it only seems that if my argument of "Keep" had been "more persuasive" to two editors in that deletion debate, this image would have been kept. Not exactly a decision based more so in policy. In fact, as pointed out by me above, this image was mainly nominated for deletion due to it being decorative in a different article (an article it was removed from before the deletion debate of this image was closed). Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - correctly closed based on strength of numbers arguments instead of counting votes. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How was this correctly closed based on strength of numbers instead of counting votes? There was no strength of numbers; there was just a copy and paste vote of delete that does not even make sense in response to some (if not most) of the images and a weak vote of delete. And does policy even matter here? This image does significantly enhance readers' understanding of the topic, seeing as it is showing imagery of the couple who "started" the term and the event at which it happened. This is imagery that cannot be conveyed through text, and thus passes Wikipedia's image policies. Deleting this one image, as if it is a problem in the Supercouple article, as opposed to any other non-free image within it, and when the problem with this image was not even its use in the Supercouple article, is ridiculous. And Hobit likely has a point above about discounting an IP's vote simply to further "validate" the outcome one wants. Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed. PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL. And still disagree, per what I stated above. I saw no strength of numbers or strength of arguments for deletion of this image. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The use in Supercouple is replaceable, and the use in Luke Spencer and Laura Webber doesn't significantly add the reader's understanding in the context on the other image. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Replaceable? This particular image has no free alternative that can demonstrate the same visual. From what I know of Wikipedia's fair-use rationale policy, it is about whether there is a free alternative of the same image or free image that can produce basically the same thing. A free image of a celebrity supercouple is not the same thing as an image displaying the fictional supercouple who started the term, nor does it convey the same thing. Wikipedia allows non-free images...as long as those images significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the article or are backed up by significant critical commentary (preferably both), such as the image of Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in the article Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. If you mean that this Luke and Laura image can be replaced by another image of the same thing found on the Internet, well the same can be said of the image of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.
            • This Luke and Laura image does significantly enhance the readers' understanding of the article Supercouple for the reasons I stated above, and it can be backed up by significant critical commentary on the event it is displaying. But as for the article Luke Spencer and Laura Webber, I do not see how that is still currently an issue for this image, considering that, as I stated above more than once now, it has been removed from that article and was removed from that article before the closing decision for this image was made. Furthermore, considering that the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article will be significantly fixed up by me and editor Rocksey, to reflect articles such as JR Chandler and Babe Carey and Reese Williams and Bianca Montgomery (except for the fact that the Luke Spencer and Laura Webber article will no doubt be much bigger eventually and even better written), this couple's 1980s wedding will no doubt be significantly commented on within the article at that point and this image will be perfectly allowed within the section it is significantly discussed. Therefore, deleting this image is also a waste on that front. To have to upload this image again but possibly go through complications with it due to it being deleted before (without much validity) is not something that I feel is best (particularly for myself and any other hard-working editor here). Flyer22 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. if an image or scene in a film is discussed in a substantial way in an article, it should generally be illustrated by a photograph, which is generally necessary to make the discussion sufficiently meaningful. This is not a policy change--it has always been out policy, and it is fully protected by basic copyright law. We have not always interpreted it as liberally as we ought to. DGG (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Real MacKay (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Real MacKay was an article about a video blog related to STV News at Six. I nominated it for deletion on the basis that it was not sufficiently notable for an independent article, and the result - based on very few comments - was merge. Northern Exposure (video blog) is also a video blog related to the same news programme and I separately nominated that afterwards, but the result this time was keep (no consensus). This inconsistency is irrational, and given that there was no strong opinion at the AfD for The Real MacKay, I propose that the article be reinstated, contrary to my original proposal. I42 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No I didn't - but I will, and will report back. In this case I considered it non-obvious because there are essentially two AfDs to consider, and the admin clearly made a good decision based on the discussion on the AfD itself. I42 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Corralesx.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

May as well pre-empt the inevitable on this one. I closed this FFD as keep on the grounds that all the users other than the nominator recommended keeping, and consensus is that one non-free photo of a living person is pretty much always permitted. I've been asked to reconsider because of the policy basis of the !votes and WP:NFCC#2. While I can see merits in this, it is clear that a change to delete would result in a listing here anyway. Therefore, I am asking the community whether I have followed the deletion process correctly in closing this discussion as keep. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse keep closure The low resolution takes into account commercial opportunities for the copyright holder and the subject being deceased makes a free alternative unlikely. Unless we have direct line to representatives or family of said dead person, unfree images of dead people are generally accepted. I see no reason to review the decision when only one commenter disagreed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there was a clear consensus in the discussion to keep the image. I see no real grounds for possibly overturning this one. Good job bringing it here just to be sure, though =). Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Surely fails NFCC#1 - it's replaceable fair use. I though the consensus was generally the opposite, if the person is still alive unless there is something pecculiar about the image then it likely fails NFCC#1, or did we decide the replacability aspect could be ignored?> --155.140.133.254 (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah they are deceased, I guess the nomination wording needs fixing. --155.140.133.254 (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Britannica would have to pay Associated Press for using this image (event at this web-resolution). There's no possible fair use defense for us here. That the guy is deceased just makes the image even more valuable for AP. --Damiens.rf 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just out of curiosity, why didn't you !vote in the original FFD? If you would have made the same argument there that you are making here and on Stifle's talk page, it might have been able to be closed "delete". On the issue itself I'm Neutral. I think both sides present a logical argument but I'm not familiar enough with our non-free image policy to !vote one way or the other. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I didn't bothered !voting because news-agency's images are such a clear-cut case for deletion. Usually, no matter how many "I like it" or "I don't understand the violation" keep !votes are cast, the copyright infringing image is just deleted. --Damiens.rf 19:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Citing NFCC #2 seems to be the new strategy for deleting images. At the original deletion discussion, ViperSnake151 cited this part of policy and said, "Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image." ViperSnake151 then continued, saying "We can only use news agency photos as the subject of commentary of the image itself. This is not the case." Holding these two views at the same time is self-contradictory. If putting a picture online to illustrate an article harms the news agency's ability to sell that same image, then so does putting the picture online in a separate article to discuss the image itself. It's not as if somebody running around hoping to rip off the AP's work would say "oh, I can copy this image because it's being used to illustrate an article, but I can't copy this other image because it is actually the subject of the article." 68.43.196.251 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They are very different things, just because you don't understand the significance of the difference, doesn't diminish it any. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, explain. I was always told in elementary school that those who fully grasp a concept are able to explain it. Those who don't simply wave their hands, stamp their feet, and pout, saying "it is this way, it is this way." 68.43.196.251 (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A press agency sells their photos to illustrate the subject, that is their business. If we use the image for exactly that purpose without paying we are undermining their business. If the image is for some reason iconic in and of itself and we write up about how significant that image is, in wikipedia terms that means we must have reliable third party sourcing discussing that image and it's significance, meets neutral point of view, verifiability etc. the image is well known at that stage. In those instances (and it'll be rare for recent images) using in an article discussing the image isn't using the image in a manner which detracts from the agency's ability to sell it as illustrating X. In elementary school I was taught that there are none so blind as those who don't want to see. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So far you've told me nothing new. In any case, a press agency sells its images in significantly higher quality than what we've tried to offer here. They use them for news articles, promotional posters, television broadcasts, etc. Ask them if their business model includes selling stuff to Wikipedia. If they cared, they would have contacted us a long time ago. A 200 x 200 image that will become pixelated like none other when blown up doesn't get in their way. I see the distinction between (a) using a picture to illustrate and (b) using it for discussing the picture itself. But I think more broadly than people who follow this interpretation of policy. That is, I consider how much this picture would harm a company's business if people randomly started downloading and plastering it all over the place. If it's not harmful in case (a), it's not harmful in case (b). 68.43.196.251 (talk) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair use law says if I want to write a book, encyclopedia article or webpage about the award-winning Elian-Gonzalez picture, I don't have to pay AP for placing a small version of the picture on my media. But if I want to write about the Elian Gnozales taking by the FBI, I would have no fair use defense for freely using the picture. If you don't understand the difference, you have no idea what fair use is. --Damiens.rf 00:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunatelty the fair use doctrine cares not what you think is harm/not harm. We have a valid fair use claim if we are using it in a transitive form. If we are using it for it's original commercial purpose we don't (i.e. we are just taking the commercial value without paying). Regarding if the agency cares about wikipedia use (which would be no legal defence anyway, if you know there is an issue and do nothing about it, the rights holder is not obliged to tell you in a given timeframe), you know Wikipedia the free encyclopedia. We want to provide a resource which can be used and reused by anyone, non-free media is an issue for that (though in some cases we have little or no option), non-free media for which we are looking the other way saying "but the rights holder hasn't complained about our use" is an even bigger problem. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't see the picture being here as harming the owners of the picture nor has anyone explained how it does. Nor do I agree it is in violation of US fair-use laws. Hobit (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what the issue of harming the owners has on this. The criteria is "Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." - no mention of harm, no call for any wikipedia editor to make a subjective decision on harm. What is the original market role of the material? Is wikipedia using it in the same way? If the answer to the second is yes it fails the criteria irrespective of any questions of harm. The issue of violating the Fair Use doctrine (US) is in many ways unimportant. Since of criteria are generally stricter than US fair use law, and because wikipedia is actually interested in creating a global free resource, just because wikipedia is safe under US law doesn't mean the image is free enough to meet wikipedia's overall project goals. (The Berne doesn't provide for a fair use equivelant for images it leaves it to the individual countries/states, so places like Italy don't have fair use type provisions for images at all) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "replace the original market role" describes replacing not just using in the same way. I'm not sure I follow how that's the same as using in the same way or even exactly what that means. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 01:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are just being obtuse in your interpretation of this. The meaning is pretty clear. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I can think of a few meanings, but none that make sense in this context. I'd really like an explanation. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I suppose "harm" is being used to describe generically how an image is being used in a way that doesn't respect its market opportunities. In any case, I could imagine a case where Wikipedia puts a picture online to discuss it (the Elian Gonzales picture mentioned above, for example). So far so good. Then another website decides to direct link the image page to illustrate the topic of Elian Gonzales. We might have satisfied our policy, but we're still contributing to the usage of an image in such a way that it could infringe on the creator's right to sell the picture. In that case, we'd be left to conclude that photo agency images aren't allowed at all, regardless of how notable it is. If we don't like that conclusion, then we need to figure out what exactly NFCC #2 is supposed to mean. 72.196.196.187 (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is a clear violation of NFCC#2. The AP makes money by leasing their images to news agencies or individuals who pay a fee to display them. That's true for images of deceased celebrities as much as for living ones. If your hometown newspaper wants to use this image, they would have to go here and pay to do so, and they might wonder why Wikipedia gets to use the same image without paying. This absolutely undercuts the market value of the image. In a similar case here, a user had uploaded an AP photo of a plane crash -- it was absolutely non-replaceable, and had a detailed fair use rationale -- but Jimbo himself deleted it as a copyright violation. And it is. The AP routinely sues people who use their photos without paying, and although you might get away with it on your personal website, Wikipedia is far too prominent to get away with it. This use violates the letter and the spirit of NFCC#2, and it could easily lead to legal troubles for the Wikimedia Foundation. – Quadell (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a first step in the revision of NFCC, to make it clear that a low resolution picture does normally not interference with the commercial use of a photograph, and that in the absence of acceptable free pictures of a living individual, we can include one under fair use. I accept that this is not necessarily the present interpretation, but it ought to be. This is an appropriate place for changing policy as well as on the page itself. Acting as an admin, I will certainly enforce the interpretation we customarily use, but this does not mean or need to mean that I must support that it should be the interpretation. consensus can change, and I hope that gathering consensus will increasingly be to liberalize the policy up to the limit permitted by the foundation. DGG (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this is not the correct place for changing policy. I'm aware that you're supporting my closure, but you should place your !vote according to the policy as it is, not as you would like it to be, and if you feel it should be changed, establish a consensus for the change at the relevant page (which in this case is WT:NFCC). Stifle (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd note also that we've had a specific email from the AP saying that they would not consider our use of any of their images to be fair use. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just reread that, DGG, and your proposal that "in the absence of acceptable free pictures of a living individual, we can include one under fair use" directly contradicts the foundation licensing policy, so any change of that extent would need to come at foundation level. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see both sides of this, but after a fair bit of thought, I find Quadell's argument the most convincing. It's an overturn and delete from me. No reflection on the closer, since that does appear to be a correct reading of the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BackCountry CO (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I speedied this as advertising and the creator contacted me. Because s/he is editing in good faith, I userfied here and s/he added some links. I still feel it's advertising (primarily for this site and would need to be re-written in order to be encyclopedic. Passages such as this Nestled atop a dominant ridge, the Sundial House commands a dramatic location offering panoramic views of everything from downtown Denver, to Longs Peak, Pikes Peak, and the 8,200 acres of Backcountry Wilderness Area read as if they may be lifted from somewhere, but I cannot find where. I told the creator I'm willing to bring it here for further review. I'm officially neutral and have no problem with this being overturned if that's consensus. I'm going to be offline for the next few days and will not have time to work with the creator but have encouraged to participate here. Thanks. StarM 03:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that an article couldbe written, but this is presently boith promotional and speculative. DGG (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be some stuff lifted from here - the quote above: Sundial House commands a dramatic location offering panoramic views of everything from downtown Denver, to Longs Peak, Pikes Peak, and the 8,200 acres of Backcountry Wilderness Area
And the press release linked: Sundial House will command a dramatic location offering panoramic views of everything from downtown Denver, to Longs Peak, Pikes Peak, and the 8,200 acres of Backcountry Wilderness Area.
--82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is meant to highlight the Backcountry Wilderness Area, the trails, parks, and ecosystem. The Sundial House issue can be removed from the article and was included only because it does serve as the trailhead for all six of the trails within Backcountry. The other information can be rewritten or removed - my bad for making it sound promotional rather than encyclopedic. Let me tell you, when you are there, in Backcountry, it is so dramatic that you cannot help but feel in awe of the views and overall experience - you literally see for 100 miles! People here in Colorado really appreciate that, and my exuberance is best served outside of Wikipedia, but this is relavent, and I would like to get the article to a point that others can learn about Backcountry Wilderness Area also. My references are not in any way promotional. Please advise from here, and thank you for your help. Renaebomb (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)renaebomb[reply]

A bigger problem is that large chunks have simply been copied from elsewhere. The sundial house stuff above, the section "BackCountry Parks and Trails" has bits like
  • Discovery Park features a meandering waterway that makes its way into a pond along the Discovery Center’s edge. You’ll find some small, private spaces, perfect for reflection by the water, or time with a good book
  • Solstice Park will feature the largest manicured lawn in the neighborhood anchored by a line of trees that will flow south, leading up the hill to the Sundial House. This beautiful park is sure to be a favorite open space for a game of Frisbee or a picnic
Compare this to here :
  • Discovery Park features a meandering waterway that makes its way into a pond along the Discovery Center’s edge. You’ll find some small, private spaces, perfect for reflection by the water or time with a good book.
  • the largest manicured lawn in the neighborhood, Solstice Park, also anchors a line of trees that stretch south, leading up the hill to the Sundial House. Perfect for a game of Frisbee or a picnic, this park is a favorite when you’re looking for some open space.
The first being a very obvious direct copy. The second although not a verbatim copy is still far too close to avoid being a copyvio. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia: ECRI Institute (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Relist.Removed promotional language and added proper references. Thank You. Kocherecri (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is at User:Kocherecri It may be notable, but there is nothing specifically about the group to show it. I have no objection to listing it at AfD. I've tried to fix it so persistently that I may be overinvolved, and I'd rather the community decide. Kocherecri, that old Jama article is hard to find. the full ref is Medical technology watchdog plays unique role in quality assessment. by Stephenson J. PMID 7563468 JAMA. 1995 Oct 4;274(13):999-1001. -- that vol. of JAMA is not online at the publisher at the moment. Could you post the relevant part perhaps--it's the one plausible reference. DGG (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's it; it was essentially similar, except for the additional self-praise in the first version. FWIW, see the discussion between the editor in question and me on my talk page [3] DGG (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hindu terrorism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted in May 2008 following an emotional vote (as opposed to constructive review) pretty much along "pro-Hindu" vs. "anti-Hindu" party lines. In November 2008, the term "Hindu terrorism" made headlines as a neologism (BBC, 'Hindu terrorism' debate grips India, Reuters, India wonders how deep "Hindu terrorism" goes) so that undeletion would already suggest itself due to changed conditions in the real world. But there is also Saffron Terror, a synonym that passed AfD with "no consensus", so that I suggest undeletion and subsequent merge into Saffron Terror. dab (𒁳) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Also, is there a reason for the delay of nearly a year in requesting this review? Stifle (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is new information being presented with regards to the topic rather than new information regarding the (now rather old) deletion itself, would it not make more sense (and cause less fuss) to incorporate this new information into a new article (or section of an existing article since you seem to favor a merge), rather than dredge up a problematic version for which there was a fairly strong consensus to delete? For the record, I would have been more than happy to provide a copy of the deleted material for use as a reference in fleshing out other articles. Shereth 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • well, I was going to just make Hindu terrorism a redirect to the existing Saffron Terror, but I noted it was WP:SALTed and did not want to override protection unilaterally. It is true that the deleted content does not absolutely need to be restored. It will be enough to remove protection from the title. Since, as Shereth points out, this is about new information which appeared after the original deletion, I would usually have done this unilaterally as the straightforward course of action, but I wanted to present this to a few more eyes because of the intrinsically delicate nature of the topic. I do not understand Stifle's question of "is there a reason for the delay of nearly a year in requesting this review", seeing that I first noted the existence of this deleted article and the associated AfD debate yesterday. --dab (𒁳) 08:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Unusually, I'm asking for a deletion review of a deletion review; hence the XFD page above links to a DRV rather than an AfD. The AfD in question is here.

The grounds for review are those specifically described as permitted in the DRV closure: I'm bringing this back as a good faith request to examine the actual closure rather than the actions of the original DRV nominator.

My position is that the closing admin did not close in accordance with the debate she was supposed to be examining. Instead, KillerChihuahua seems to have closed in accordance with the consensus in an entirely different debate, and I think this goes beyond admin discretion. I think that if KC did not intend to implement the consensus that was actually in front of her, she should have !voted rather than closing.

The outcome I seek is a relist at AfD on the grounds that the debate was defective. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original AfD close, endorse DRV endorsement of the AFD.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what policy-based grounds?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made an argument at the previous DRV that was policy based and i believe still stands.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previous DRV was rightfully closed as an endorsement of the original closure. Unless there was some flaw with the previous DRV discussion, then the result obtained there - that is, to endorse the original closure - should stand. Shereth 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was such a flaw. The DRV focused on the original nominator's bad faith rather than the admin's actions; please see the DRV closure statement for the reasons for this one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such is your interpretation, but it is not one I share. I shall have to continue to endorse the closure. Shereth 18:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn AFD/DRV and relist AFD. KC closed the AFD of version of the article that was as such not previously at AFD with the consensus of a previous RFA, which was not the correct thing to do. Even if we assume that this was indeed acceptable closing, deleting the article afterwards, after closing it as merge(!), makes the whole point of closing it as "merge" void. The previous DRV did not address this outcome but seems to have ended in drama, which should not be the reason to close it as "deletion endorsed". Since now we do not have a sockpuppet nomination, we can concentrate on the AFD that should have been discussed in the previous DRV. As I pointed out above, the close was "weird" at best and even if one endorses the close, the following deletion foils the alleged result as merge by not allowing people time to merge the content. Thus I think the correct result should be to restore the article and then relist it at AFD to reach a separate consensus for this version of the article. Regards SoWhy 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually see this as a separate article? Ignoring the renaming, there was only a bit of change to the heading and a small section copied over from Rachel Corrie. The merge notice was there a month which wasn't productive. Nothing was added to the main article and nobody could remove anything from this one without being reverted (content was even being added). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was separate enough that it warranted a new AFD which took place. I understand that it was the same article at the first AFD (having re-read my !vote above, it's probably a bit unclear, my apologies) but I think it was changed substantially enough to warrant the second AFD. The extended discussion at the second AFD serves as a indication that the community did share this view and that they wanted a new consensus to be determined about the current state of the article. By closing the article with the result of the previous discussion (and subsequently deleting it), KC ignored this apparent wish for further discussion. The correct way would have been to assess the new consensus after the AFD has run for the full length and then act based on that. If the result had been merge again, then the better way to handle this would probably have been to history merge it to Rachel Corrie so that the information could be salvaged and incorporated to the merge target. Regards SoWhy 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I do not think that a close as "merge" of any AFD can ever be interpreted as consensus to delete, no matter what happens afterwards. Merge translates imho as "keep the information but reorganize it". So the deletion was actually against the consensus because it deleted the information that was !voted to be kept. So the deletion itself should be overturned as not being in line with the correctly closed first AFD anyway. Regards SoWhy 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_19 has the original DRV. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've notified KillerChihuahua of this new DRV on her talk page. I'd like to hear her input on this. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we need to restore the article temporarily. One of the big argument is whether this is in fact a new article or not and how much effort was made to merge, none of which can be determined without seeing the history and the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist afd. . There have been two simultaneous politically inspired series of actions on this and related articles: one, to try to have as little mention of her as possible, not even a single article, and also delete any other articles having anything to do with her, and , on the other hand, to try to make as many articles as possible. I deplore both of them. The attempt to deal with a merge result in afd, by on the one hand not merging, and on the other, but merely redirecting, were equally inappropriate. In any case, this is a different article and needs another afd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:42, May 28, 2009
  • Endorse AFD, endorse DRV, enough already - Anything related to the death of this person can be included in her article, as the AFD and the DRV correctly indicated. This new DRV is bordering on abuse of process. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it's certainly not abuse of process because the previous DRV's closure specifically permitted an editor in good standing to relist it. My position is still that deleting an article on the basis of a consensus at an entirely different discussion is an abuse of process.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the closer of the last DrV said "I won't object if a legitimate editor brings this to DRV again, though" in the DrV close. I think it's pretty clear that this isn't an abuse of process. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to no consensus for two reasons. First, I don't see consensus in the discussion. Second, the closer closed the AfD early (3 days early I believe) and, if I read the closing statement correctly, closed it while ignoring the discussion. The AfD should have been allowed to run it's course. Relisting is also an option, but this has already gone on too long. Hobit (talk) 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AFD, DRV, end the drama nothing untoward about the close - we have few "reactions to..." articles; rightfully so, if the reactions form part of the notability of the matter, it should be included in the main article - if they don't they are not notable. People die amidst conflicts - some people state regret, others point at the dead person and say it was their fault - no surprise here. Relatives sue after people die - no surprise there - the US is a litigious society and you can just about find any lawyer to sue anybody over anything. People call for investigations, then time passes and people move on and no longer find the fire in their belly to dwell on one person's death among many. I think that the article was basically a POV fork from the main article - much as would be a Reactions to the death of Leon Klinghoffer would likely be in the other direction. Let's face it: nothing in anyone's reaction was much different than anyone would have predicted them to have been and are well covered in the main article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. This topic isn't encyclopedic, i.e. one would not expect to find it in an encyclopedia. Going on about how the discussion was listed in bad faith, or whether there was an explicit consensus, or not, is heading right down the road of process wonkery. My feelings have turned against this article since the last DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it appears that the wonk essay has vanished. I shall have to rewrite it. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm surprised to see that your position has apparently changed since the last DRV, Stifle?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it has; my reasoning in the last discussion was that the process hasn't been followed, but I don't see a point in going through reams of process when the outcome is, in my view, clear. Stifle (talk) 18:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy.

            Possibly this article should be deleted, but I can't accept that the closer should get away with implementing the consensus from the wrong AfD discussion in order to achieve that.

            I'm really quite surprised that you don't see it that way, Stifle, in view of what I've seen of your previous contributions. (I'm less surprised at some of these others, which is why I've chosen your answer to reply to in detail rather than anyone else's.)

            Still, if that's how you feel, then that's how you feel and I'll accept it. But are you sure you won't reconsider?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • Yes, I'm sure. Wikipedia is not a court of law, although I am high on the list of people who use legal jargon inappropriately (and I'm not even a lawyer). There's no sense putting an article through more process for process's sake; in cases where there is a colourable chance of success, my feelings are different. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do I feel like Bill Murray with (marginally) more hair? Oh, I know, because I've seen this before. Endorse previous actions for pete's sake, and stop murdering poor defenseless electrons with rehashing this stuff over and over... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AfD. I agree that deletion is the likely outcome, but I think that there needs to be a reasonable opportunity for the case to be made that this article should exist. Regardless of how we got there, we effectively have a deletion that did not meet any of the criteria of any of our deletion processes. I see no compelling reason to IAR, and favor returning it to AfD for a full period of consideation. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
David Boothroyd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination) and recreated due to the new controversy sparked by a recent article in The Register. The closing admin of the previous AFD (Jehochman (talk · contribs)) re-deleted the recreation as G4 although the new article (by definition) was not substantially identical to the deleted version (thus violating the letter of G4) and although the new AFD also had users !voting "keep", thus clearly not being uncontroversial. When asked to reverse this decision, the deleting admin did not engage in discussion but pointed to DRV. Speedy deletion was incorrect here (twice) and thus the article should be restored and relisted at AFD to allow full community discussion (which can be expected given the recent involvement of the subject of the article as an Arbitrator on this project). Regards SoWhy 08:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict)You used G4 as a reasoning before you closed the third AFD. While we do in fact have a policy regarding such BLPs, there is no speedy deletion criterion that allows the deletion of such material if it has reliable sources (attack pages, as covered by G10 only apply to unsourced negative BLP for exactly this reason). To cite WP:BLP1E: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted" (emphasis added). Given the fact that the subject in question has appeared to give statements in public and to newspapers many times before the latest incident (refer [4] [5]) we cannot assume him to keep a low profile, thus WP:BLP1E does not apply here.
  • But the argument you put forward is incorrect for another reason: Only one paragraph out of four focused on these recent events (and only using two sentences). I think you were too hasty in assuming a BLP violation here when the source of the controversy is available to everyone both in the reliable source provided and on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Resignation. Your deletion, while probably well-minded, is not within BLP oder deletion policy and as such should be reversed to allow the proper venues to handle this. Regards SoWhy 08:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at AfD. Come on, a new source appears and we close the (3rd) AfD after less than 1 day? Not a valid speedy nor reasonable WP:SNOW case. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion We delete articles of people with only minor notability at their request. Hipocrite (talk) 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support that notion, but I do have two questions. #1 Does our current policy say that we do honor such requests? #2 Did he make that request? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious, I didn't see either in the AfD. If both are true, I'd strongly support deletion in this case (at least unless "minor notability" fades) Hobit (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive. We do delete individuals who have only minor notability if they request, so if that's not written into policy, policy is outdated. Yes, he made the request -see [6]. Hipocrite (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. I still feel there was a problem with the AfD, and as that's what DrV is for, we should relist. But I'd !vote to delete at this point (unless notability improves significantly). Hobit (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The closer made a number of mistakes here. He cited SNOW, SPEEDY and BLP. The Afd lasted just over an hour, with barely any indication that anyone had researched the subject, so claiming SNOW is not appropriate at all. Neither did he have any business citing CSD Speedy A7: an 'article...that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant' - the article detailed that the subject is a councilor, owner of an important website, and published author, as well as three seperate mentions in third party sources for noted actions. So that only leaves BLP as a grounds for deletion. And a 1 hour long Afd debate to discuss the merits of a BLP article that has existed since 2005, just because the subject requests its deletion because he has become the subject of some dirty laundry, is just not on, and smacks of censorship/cover-up. A non-attack page version of this article is entirely achievable. Rollback to a version prior to the latest controversy and properly list it as Afd as a non-notable BLP at AFD, where everybody can have their say. Otherwise, this DRV is just an exercise in performing the original Afd without the ability to improve the article, or even see its previous state. MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The non-attack version of the article had zero references. The only real coverage is that Guardian article, and it focuses on just one event in the persons life. There does not appear to be any way to write a neutral, reliably sourced article. The subject wanted the article deleted. Under these conditions, we should keep the article offline until such time as somebody is able to demonstrate the possibility of writing an acceptable article. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the second AFD, which closed less than a week ago; combination of BLP issues and a lack of solid sources added to the subject's request should trump a point-and-laugh style newspaper article. We don't need to kick people when they're down. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak endorsement of deletion At present the scandal in question has only been reported in The Register. If however this matter becomes more widely covered we are going to need to have an article on this topic. For now, this does seem like BLP1E. I would however have strongly prefered given the new information that this go through a full AfD again. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    blink Did JoshuaZ just endorse deletion? John Vandenberg (chat) 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC) my apologies if you have endorsed deletion before; I've never seen it happen.[reply]
  • Don't Endorse I don't like the speed of both the 2nd and 3rd AFD close. I think they should have stayed open for at least a reasonable period of time to allow comment. I think policy was bent a little on the quick deletions, and it at least appears it was done for the reason everyone's dancing around. That said at least at this time I don't think it should pass a full AFD and relisting is probably more trouble then it's worth.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. In addition to reasons provided above, am an advocate of the dead trees standard: the biography subject is not notable enough to be an entry at any reliably published encyclopedia and has requested deletion. A lot of site dramas would settle down if we simply applied this standard with no regard whatsoever to other factors. DurovaCharge! 17:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. Actually I agree with Stifle, but I think DRV isn't the right place to make that case. From a DRV point of view, this is a deletion without a proper XFD, in the face of objections from an established editor who is citing a source—and thus the deleter was way outside admin discretion. I don't see we have any choice but to overturn and then !vote delete at the XFD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? You are contradicting yourself. Either there should or should not be an article. Which option do you prefer. Jehochman Talk 17:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a false dichotomy.

        I think DRV is for deciding whether the closer erred. In this case, I think he did, so I suggest overturning.

        I think AfD is for deciding whether there should be an article with this title. In this case, I think there should not, so at the AfD, I would suggest deleting.

        These two positions aren't mutually contradictory.  :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Good. We both agree that the article should be deleted. I have no further questions. Jehochman Talk 18:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • He appears to be objecting to the speedy closure. Although I agree with the closure by a different rationale which would remain unaffected, there have been instances where subsequent news coverage during the normal AfD cycle nudged an entry above the notability threshold. A recent, positive, and ultimately uncontroversial example was Susan Boyle. Dead trees has no force in policy, so for editors who don't subscribe to it the factor of developing news would be relevant. DurovaCharge! 18:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The article as it most recently existed was really two deficient articles welded together. The first is an article on a local politician, with marginal notability at best, that didn't establish notability at all and in practice focused on negative coverage. The second is an entirely negative article on a Wikipedian, sourced only to The Register, which is not an acceptable source to hang such information on - they have a history of tabloid-style shit-stirring with regard to Wikipedia. Importantly, the second portion also does not establish notability, so the article as a whole does not. That means, in turn, that the article as a whole absolutely does violate the BLP policy, and so sending it to AFD is pointless, and potentially harmful, bureaucracy. If it's possible to write an acceptable article on this subject, it should be written independent of the existing article, rather than restoring attacks and hoping they get cleaned up soon enough. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - per MickMacnee. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The sources are sparse at best. One is Boothroyd's personal website, another is about Banksy and only mentions him. The only real source is about the controversy in the Register which is completely overblown. It is mentioned in just a single publication and since he doesn't appear to be blocked, their comparison to Essjay is a clear attempt at defamation. He's nowhere near notable enough for inclusion based on just a single controversy. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not want to sound cocky but you do realize that DRV is not about whether the subject is indeed notable or not? That is what the AFD was tasked to determine. The DRV is about whether the deleting admin's decision to close this AFD after just an hour and another similarly fast was correct within our policy (also considering that the article existed since 2005 and thus any BLP "damage" it could have caused already happened). Regards SoWhy 12:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You come off as clueless rather than cocky. The BLP damage is providing axe grinders and drama mongers a week to defame the subject on Wikipedia while the matter is debated at AfD. No, we should not do that when there is no chance whatsoever that the article will be kept. We don't do bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Jehochman Talk 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Since these "axe grinders" and "drama mongers" (whoever they are) had since 2005 to defame the subject, it's unlikely that following the process for a few days would have made a difference. After all, your first close was already incorrect, which was days before the Register article. The whole point of AFD is to determine whether there is merit to keeping the article, isn't it? So I do not think it's clueless to say that DRV should not debate the merits of the article but the process of this discussion. You have made it clear what your opinion about this person's notability is but saying that an AFD with keep-!votes by experienced editors like Agathoclea (talk · contribs) has "no chance whatsoever" to end with anything but "delete" is quite an assumption that I do not think is merited by the actual discussion. I am not advocating to keep the article but I am advocating that admins should follow policy when handling AFDs and as I have shown in my nomination, neither WP:DEL nor WP:BLP justify such a quick deletion without time to discuss. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was speaking about AfD #2, which was unanimous to delete. AfD #3 happened after the article was improperly recreated by a probable sock puppet account. I am not sure whether Agathoclea was fully informed about the prior circumstances. Perhaps you would ask that user to review the matter and comment here. The risk of axe grinding and drama mongering were greatly increased when Boothroyd's various Wikipedia identities were connected, and they resigned from ArbCom. Any clueful editor would see the potential for grave WP:BLP issues under those circumstances. The idea that nothing had changed since 2005 is highly disingenuous. Jehochman Talk 13:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The second AFD might have been unanimous to delete - after giving it only a little more than an hour of discussion. That is the point of this discussion here (otherwise admins could go around closing AFDs as SNOW delete whenever those in favor of deletion manage to comment on the matter before those inclined to keep). I would not contest the deletion if it had been within policy, I am asking for a review because you have not followed policy. And again, you can call me clueless all you want, but the second AFD was days before those connections were made (May 23 <-> May 26). You cannot justify a previous deletion in violation of policy on something that has happened days afterwards.
            • On a side note, I think Agathoclea (as an admin) is more than capable of clicking the link to AFD #2 and whether the recreating user is a sock or not (for which there is no proof or even indication enough to start an SPI case) has no impact on the validity of arguments. Regards SoWhy 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • For AfD #3, I did not assert WP:SNOW. I suggested that recreating a deleted article that violated WP:BLP, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:UNDUE was out of order. Those who disliked the result of AfD #2 should have come here to appeal, rather than making an end run around process. At the time I closed Afd #2 it was already common knowledge that Boothroyd had resigned from ArbCom. By their contributions TAway (talk · contribs) is obviously not a new user. The reason there's no WP:SPI case is that I don't know who the puppetmaster might be. Jehochman Talk 14:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's rather ironic to be talking about multiple accounts in the circumstance don't you think? Another irony is David Boothroyd reserving the right to become notable in the future, way back in August 2005. As for this specific debate, anybody would think no admin had ever seen a neutral verifiable BLP stub before, certainly fit for a proper Afd debate. It's a farce when looked at from a process POV, but obviously it is going to be chalked down to IAR/anti-wonkery, while ignoring the obvious conflict issues given the subject matter. I find the do no harm aspect particularly galling. I am definitely going to remember it at every DRV in the future where some admin or DRV regular gives me the runaround about how DRV is not Afd. You simply cannot simultaneously cite Afd 3 as a non-speedied and correct policy based closure of a deletion debate, and then claim it should not have occured in the first place because you yourself correctly speedily closed afd 2 and it must be appealed, and then carry on the deletion debate when it does happen, instead of addressing the reasons for appeal. That is definitely giving people who are obliged to follow policy the run around. The fact is, for me, the biggest error of yours here was in closing both Afds yourself. But to recognise that is definitely getting into the realms of self examination. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I am still waiting for MickMacNee to say something about David Boothroyd and St Catharine's College, Cambridge. I'm the only one that's mentioned it on this page, although MickMacNee has suggested the contrary, completely inaccurately. This seems to indicate that MickMacNee is not in the slightest bit interested in any kind of accurate biography of David Boothroyd. Why then are he and others lurking here? Mathsci (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'm afraid I really haven't got a clue what you are on about, I have already told you that his college is not even in the version of the article I have seen (and is not available to any non-admin or person who doesn't know where to look), so I am at a complete loss as to what you think I am supposed to be saying about it. If you are confused about the purpose of this page, read the instructions. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per blp and wp:notnews. There are too few sources to support a neutral biography. Tom Harrison Talk 15:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send for a proper Afd discussion - since the initial deletion, substantially different articles have been deleted without any analysis of whether they have overcome the issues that made the earlier versions deletable. Is this guy notable? close call, I'm sure that most recipients of this much press would be considered notable by many here. I read WP:BIO differently, figuring that significant coverage beyond "news" is required, but that isn't necessarily the majority position. I also note that the suff that may be considered "contentious" was sourced, so BLP may have been effectively complied with. Of course, one person's view of what's "contentious" differs from another's. If you have a broader view, surely deletion of the material not the article is called for? read WP:BLP. The other reason to have a debate is so that it doesn't appear as though we are sweeping something under the rug. It may be sufficient to add a blurb at Criticism of Wikipedia and a re-direct, but without the debate, how do we know. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. G4 did not apply and the article did not meet any other criteria for speedy deletion. decltype (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I did nomination #2. BLP1E/BLP, arguable trivial to no notability, WP:VANITY concerns a possibility (?), and the fact the article was barely sourced. We don't need this article today. Honestly, I'd say just bring it back to DRV in 6-8 weeks with a properly sourced {{NOINDEX}} userspace draft that shows it has the potential. Then we can review this. All that aside, AFD #2 was perfectly legitimate. rootology/equality 08:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Duvora.— Dædαlus Contribs 00:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist to allow a proper evaluation. The 2nd AfD and 3rd AfD were both closed in just over an hour by the same admin, who then speedy deleted the article on the basis of those AfDs. Though I am sure this was done in good faith, it creates an unfortunate impression. The first AfD delete summary was "no indication that the article meets criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, WP:CSD#A7. It is a biography of a living person that entirely lacks references". The third was then largely justified by the second with the addition of WP:ONEEVENT. It is debatable whether these assessments are valid, and the outcome should not have been determined peremptorily.
There was not sufficient time for the article to be examined properly by the community and for any further information to be researched—which is a key aspect of AfDs. Boothroyd has a profile higher than the run-of-the-mill councillor and has been involved in several issues with some contention; he has not been backward in stating a controversial view. There are more references than those included to date in the article. Topics he has been involved in include: election statistics,[9][10] Banksy mural,[11][12][13] gay flags,[14][15][16]affordable housing,[17] Reagan statue,[18](page 2) BNP,[19] Wikipedia,[20](now also reported by Iain Dale[21]). There are a number of letters from Boothroyd published in the national press, stating his views on various topics. He is a frequent poster to the blog of Iain Dale,[22] who name checks him several times.[23][24][25][26]
In the light of his forthright utterances elsewhere, it seems somewhat disingenuous for him to be shy of an article detailing them, and improper for this to be a determinant of the article. It is likely that people reading his views in the media will look for further information. The article has steadily over 300 views a month,[27] i.e. over 3,500 views a year.
Ty 03:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist Deletions where done in undue haste. AFD is 7 days for a reason. Agathoclea (talk) 08:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that as the close stated earlier that I had not been aware of the previous situation. In particular I had been aware that there had been a first AFD which was kept. I would not have commented on the 2nd AFD as - as I stated in the 3rd - I considered DB as borderline notable which could go either way and as such I would neither delete nor object to deletion. The speedy deletion at AFD 2 was already out of process due to the previous AFD. There was no BLP critical information that needed hiding and the article had been around for years - so regardless of the possible further outcome a bad call. Closing Afd3 as G4 was equally flawed as G4 a) requires a previous deletion discussion which was not allowed to run its course and b) the article was different in the sense that a event has entered the picture that altered the balance of notability. To the content of the AFD in question I might add that there are some strange thoughts entering wikipedia like "Councillors are never notable - no exception" forgetting the point that DB notability (as weak as it might have been until recently) did not come from his position as local Councillor but from his wider political activities. Agathoclea (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Afd #2 was unanimous to delete. Thus, a WP:SNOW close was proper considering that the article had been around for years, yet had zero references. One would think, nothwithstanding the long list of trivial mentions posted by Tyrenus, that a few years would be enough time to come up with proper references for a biography. When the article was recreated, nothing was added except a severe WP:BLP1E violation. It doesn't take much clue to realize that this particular biography is receiving so much attention only because the editor has resigned from ArbCom. I am puzzled by the handful of editors who wish to keep an obviously deficient article about an unwilling subject, an article that has been, and would continue to be, used for slander. Jehochman Talk 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Afd #2 was unanimous, but it had only been open for just over an hour, which seems a very short time to be sure per WP:SNOW that it didn't have "a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion." The dissent on this page and more references show that is a highly questionable use of SNOW. Boothroyd is an elected representative in a powerful position on a committee whose decisions affect people's lives and businesses in the centre of London. When he is quoted in the press with a pronouncement on such issues, it is not trivial, particularly when they are outspoken comments. Nor is an article whose headline refers specifically to him.[28] It is up to a debate of editors to decide whether cumulatively this does or does not merit an article, but that debate should be held to achieve a proper consensus. We are not concerned with why it has received attention — which is something that cuts both ways. I regard the other issues he has been involved with as more significant than the wikipedia one. If the article is deficient, and remains so, then a full Afd will settle the matter. The "unwilling" subject is a public figure and a politician, who has shown no unwillingness to air his views elsewhere. He is, and should expect to be, accountable. You will have to be more specific about "slander", as I don't see where that applies, and, if there is anything remiss and improperly sourced, then there are procedures for taking care of that, as with any other article. Ty 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, relist at AfD, and forbid Jehochman from being the closer. He has made his position on this article crystal clear and a fair AfD requires an impartial judge. There were already keep votes at the new AfD on account of this person having been the subject of significant new developments since the second AfD, so Jehochman's speedy close in light of that was inappropriate. We need longer than one hour under threat of speedy deletion to incorporate all the source material User:Tyrenius has linked to above, so let the regular 7-day AfD process take its course. TAway (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I hear that blp1e is a speedy criteria. Agathoclea (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody asserted that. The actual logic is somewhat deeper, but I will refrain from repeating myself again. Jehochman Talk 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is invalid as there were several events included in the article. Ty 03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist at AfD for the full 7 days. The critical procedural error Jehochman made was to cut short two AfDs after less than a day without compelling reason to do so. If there is a policy-based reason to delete the article, such as WP:BLP, its validity can be assessed better after a full AfD discussion. Jehochman, being clearly involved by now, should refrain from taking further administrative actions regarding this article.  Sandstein  04:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The compelling reason is that the biography was clearly not notable; the first AfD was unanimous. Subsequently, a few people appear to have used the bio as a platform for maligning the subject who was a very prominent Wikipedia editor, User: Sam Blacketer. That sort of thing should not be tolerated. Letting people take pot shots at a living person for 7 days is a very poor idea. You'll notice that a few clueful people supported my action, including several administrators and an arbitrator. I'm not out on a branch by myself here. Keep in mind that policy is descriptive, not normative. Common sense trumps bureaucracy. Jehochman Talk 05:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where policy tells us that we must or must not do something (such as not create unsourced BLPs), and where we block people for not following it, it is indeed normative. Although the idea is not necessarily a bad one, current deletion policy does not provide for the possibility to cut short AfDs just because they concern BLPs or Wikipedians. I doubt that one could obtain consensus for such a change when we have just extended the duration of AfDs from 5 to 7 days. And is it really necessary to resort to appeals to authority here?  Sandstein  05:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just want to point out that the fact Boothroyd=Sam the ex-Arb=Fys had zero to do with my AFD nomination; I saw a BLP I thought was non-notable; I'm reconsidering that based on the sourcing here and actually was considering a userpage draft based on the new sourcing. Politicians are by their nature 'public', and choose to be so, so privacy concerns fall away. Also, I am 1000000% opposed to any BLP article that is in fact an editor here getting ***ANY*** special dispensation, consideration, or action, that any other BLP would not get, full stop. We have are required to eat our own dogfood, and any special action or dispensation for any BLP subject that would be based on their status as Wikipedians would be considered abusive. We are not more special than other BLPs, and I hope your deletions/touching of the AFDs was not based on the fact that Boothroyd is our Sam Blacketer. rootology (C)(T) 12:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rootology, I generally agree with you when you say editors here should get no special treatment. I would especially agree if you mean that editors here are treated neither better nor worse. It is a very slippery slope if we start writing articles about editors for their hijinx on Wikipedia. One reason I stepped up on this issue was that I'm not friendly with Sam Blacketer. If he wanted a favor, I would be the wrong person to ask. For the avoidance of doubt, nobody asked me to look at this matter. Jehochman Talk 17:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AFD as neither AFD was allowed to run for anything like a full period. Given that there are reasonable (to my mind) objections to these deletions this should go back to AFD where I have no doubt that such an AFD would produce a large community response. Let the community decide in a full AFD whether an article is merited or not. Davewild (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion per zomg scary scary BLP factor. Gurch (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:BLP and Durova. لennavecia 16:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Durova, WP:BLP policy, and all above. — Ched :  ?  16:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There is not enough here to warrant an article outside of the article in the Register, and that is far too self-referential to justify the article. I took a look at the last version of the article prior to its deletion, and it's pure venom. Outside of a single marginally notable incident, the entire article was built around the subject's activities on Wikipedia. WP:SELFREF is the appropriate guideline here; this section is pretty clear about how Wikipedia is is to be discussed in articles, and his editing on Wikipedia has nothing to do with his public life. We have articles on other BLPs on people who have edited the project, and normally there is no discussion of their work on Wikipedia unless it is a significant chunk of their real-world notability. There is no indication that this is the case. Horologium (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
CIBT Education Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Please unblock this as I wish to explain the history of this entity. Emhc (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As it's currently protected due to persistent spamming, I'd suggest that it would be appropriate for you to start a new article in your own user space (at User:Emhc/Sandbox would do), and then coming back here with a draft for evaluation. be sure that it's properly sourced and not promotional. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Tony Fox. It's usual, when a page has been recreated so many times that an admin has felt it necessary to prevent its recreation, to provide a sourced, neutral draft in userspace. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of extraordinary diseases and conditions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as no consensus despite 18 arguments in favor of deletion and 7 in favor of "keep." I contacted the closing admin, he reminded me that AfD was not a vote and in his opinion the two sets of arguments "cancelled each other out." I disagree. While AfD "isn't a vote," most of the deleters made strong, policy based arguments. My biggest objection was that "extraordinary" is a highly subjective term with different meanings in different eras (disaeses considered "extraordinary" 50 years ago no longer are, for instance. What to do)? At any rate, when we have policy-based "delete" arguments at a greater rate then 2-1 against the policy-based keep arguments at an AfD, I don't see how it can be said that "no consensus to delete" was found. If this much lattitude is given to the personal opinion of closing admins, it breaks the whole AfD process and harms the whole consensus-based model here. I encourage an overurn to "delete."Bali ultimate (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list has since been renamed to replace "extraordinary" with "considered unusual". I find this no improvement. Problems include: Considered unusual by whom, when, where, for what reasons (rarity? gross? interesting -- insect eggs hatching out of a human forehead?)?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified every participant in the AfD of this DrV.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus closure. No clear consensus in this one. Afd is indeed not a vote and those saying to keep made strong, policy based arguments. Moreover article improved during the course of the discussion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which policies did they use in favour of keeping? I saw a lot more policy arguments on the delete side. Article quality should be irrelevant since everyone agreed that the article was already in good quality at the start; the discussion is about inclusion criteria and future problems. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They pointed out that it was not original research, that it was verfiable in reliable sources. Some of the keeps essentially make arguments that point to these without explicitly linking to them. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion Merely noting that DRV is a hidebound waste of time that should be deleted itself, and that deletion should not be reviewed. I should note that I was canvassed to vote keep on the inital AFD by ARSBot at Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles, who somehow seems to get away with positing lots of canvassing messages at the afformentioned page. I ignored his canvassing (I seem to do that a lot). I should also note that I was advised of the existance of this deletion review on my talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are 249 members, and they vote by their conscious, what they sincerely believe, be it keep or delete. Only 7 keeps for this article, and were all of them members of the Rescue Squadron even? There was no flood of people rushing over to vote one way. Everyone stated a reason for their position. Please keep all bad faith conspiracy theories and slander out of discussions. Dream Focus 17:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing happened. I don't see slander or bad faith conspiracy theories. If you'd like, I could add those. Hipocrite (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find one example of canvassing? Did anyone post anywhere to tell people to go there? Was there anything other than the Rescue tag, informing people this might be an article worth saving, to please share their opinions and help improve the article if necessary? Dream Focus 01:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, a bot posts a list of articles that are nominated to be deleted on a page watched almost entirely by people who regularly vote keep on nearly everything (queue the "I delete lots of stuff" chorus, you can all skip it, if you don't mind), and the bot dosen't just post a link to the article, it posts a link to the afd. The category is apparently not easy enough for people who want to add references to articles of questionable notability with a strong COI supporter, you need a watchlistable update on the articles as they get added. It's canvassing, everyone knows it, let it go. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse When supplemented with the provided explanation, the close seems reasonably consistent with WP:DGFA which states "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy" and "When in doubt, don't delete.". Colonel Warden (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or close as delete Should have been a delete. Is DRV ready for this kind of thing? I'd add a delete Not vote based on sound policy if I'd been aware of this. Verbal chat 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Relevant policies debated were WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V and although AfD is not a vote Bali ultimate showed above that there was a clear consensus that favored deleting this article that was developed out of these policies. ThemFromSpace 16:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Themfromspace. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I !voted delete. However I agree with the no consensus closure. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was no consensus. Obviously not everyone agrees on things, which is why we have AFD to decide the fate of articles, instead of everyone just destroying things on a whim on their own. It was closed properly. There was no consensus either way, both sides making valid points, and simply not agreeing. Dream Focus 17:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete and a note to the closing admin: when you close an AfD that runs counter to the consensus of participants, it is vital that you lay out your reasoning for doing so. There WAS clear consensus to delete; if, however, the arguments to retain were deemed more compelling, then this would have been better closed as a straight up keep. A no consensus close is procedurally flawed. Eusebeus (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When both sides make valid cases, and neither can convince the other, then no consensus is how you are suppose to close it. Writing out a proper reasoning for this, would've been nice though, but most administrators never bother doing this. Dream Focus 17:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I understand it, deletion review implies that the closing editor erred in the decision. I can understand the editor throwing up his hands on this one and calling it no consensus, there was quite an impressive smokescreen thrown up by the "keeps". However, I would have liked to have seen some evidence of the reasoning so help us understand it and would request that the closing editor provide the basis for the judgement, much as any judge explains himself. A good example of that can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full Armor of God Broadcast. At this point I am waiting to see what they can do with the article over the next few weeks and if it is still an unencyclopedic freak show to nominate it for deletion again. I am also looking at other articles in the "unusual" category with the same possible criticisms. This has exposed a whole underbelly full of inappropriate articles so in that sense the AfD was successful. Drawn Some (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save yall the trouble. Here is the comment from the closer, in toto: "Hi. AfD is not a vote, so it doesn't really matter how many people suggested that it be kept or deleted; the arguments from both sides seemed to cancel each other out enough that I defaulted it to a "no consensus."" I obviously think this "reasoning" is preposterous, as on this basis one "keep" argument could be considered to be equal in weight, or to otherwise seem to cancel out a raft of "delete" arguments. This seems to be pretty radical, and a practice that if more widely adopted that would do a lot of damage to AfD, as flawed as the process is to begin with.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like more of the definition of "no consensus" to me but like I said I can't blame the closing editor in this situation. Drawn Some (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- There was no consensus to delete there, and the arguments made by the people stating "keep" were far stronger than the ones for "delete". Umbralcorax (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Naturally, when someone gives a decision like this, those who support the result argue he is right to take the strength of the arguments into account, and those who disagree that a straight vote is necessary. When someone gives a decision based on a vote count, those who support and disagree say just the opposite. Very few people actually go by what the admin ought to do, rather by whether they agree or disagree with the result, on the apparent principle that the the role of an admin is to give them the decision they want. The reason why this nonsense is even possible is that there is in fact no agreement about what the role of the admin is. My own formulation is that an admin ought to disregard !votes not based on policy, but not judge the strength of policy, but that is not a sharp dividing line--what about !votes weakly supported by partly applicable policy--which is the usual case with a lot of !votes. My own reason to endorse is that I am very reluctant to disturb a non-consensus close in a contested debate, unless the article is actively doing harm. A relist is likely to be more effective in a month or two. DGG (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per DGG. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist as a defective debate. I found the arguments on both sides of the debate extraordinarily weak, personally.

    The 18 "deletes" is a WP:BIGNUMBER but they were all parroting the AfD nominator's argument without introducing anything new; and the 7 "keeps" boiled down to contradicting the nominator. Neither side gave any evidence at all that they'd examined the actual sources.

    I have some sympathy for the "keeps" because I find the deletionist mantra of "I demand this article is deleted unless someone else does a lot of work examining the sources" very irritating, annoying, and tiring, and I can understand the temptation to simply contradict them, but what was called for here was to show the deletes where their error lay; a proper examination of the sources would show that there's the kernel of an encyclopaedic article here, but it shouldn't have this title, and it needs a fundamental, source-based rewrite.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - I supported deletion of the article, but there was no overall consensus on the issue. ---kilbad (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete in accordance with the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete – I see more of a consensus on the deletion side on the basis of no original research than I do on the keeping side of refuting this rationale. MuZemike 22:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Overturn and delete I feel that the arguments for deletion were stronger and certainly more numerous. Some of the delete arguments were basically only !votes and should be discarded without a second thought. But others were significant and not really addressed in my opinion. DGG easily had the best argument for keeping it, but I feel other had better arguments for why he was wrong. I would strongly support userfication if someone wants to use some of the material as a source for an article on the book DGG referred to. Frankly, it seems to be an indiscriminate list as it stands and I think the folks in favor of deletion showed that successfully. At the same time, I'm not a fan of "indiscriminate list" as a reason for deletion unless it's really indiscriminate. Thus the weak part. Hobit (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure to no consensus. In reading the AfD discussion after-the-fact, I see cogent points made by both the delete opinions and the keep opinions. In discounting opinions that were offered as "close per" or "keep per" or "parroted the nominator" (in that AfD is not a vote by weight of shear numbers, and in not giving undue weight to many repetitons of the same arguments, it can be seen that the views did generally balance out and that the no-consensus closure was a reasonable decision. It can also be seen that One two three... had a difficult decision, weighed the discussions, and made the call. I do not envy him he mop. Oh... and just to be clear... I was not "canvassed" to comment here, and though a member of the ARS, I was not part of any discussions at the AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus closure. In a case such as this, where the admin closes as no consensus a discussion in which delete recommendations clearly outnumber keep recommendations, I would like to see a more fully articulated justification for the decision than "the arguments seemed to cancel each other out." However, the head count is (or should be) irrelevant to whether an article is deleted or kept, and the strength of arguments is what ought to be weighed. The closer's rationale for the no consensus decision is that the strength of the opposing sides' arguments are, in hir estimation, of equal strength. This is legitimate grounds for a no consensus decision, and I see no clear evidence that this judgment was in error. Nick Graves (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, but willing to consider weak endorse if a detailed closing rationale (not the one already given) is provided. I think that the arguments for deletion were more substantial than and better addressed the keep arguments. If the closer found the keep arguments particularly persuasive, saw a weakness in the deletes, simply defaulted to no consensus, or something else, the underlying reasoning should be disclosed. I support reasonable admin discretion, including closing against the numbers, but this looks to be outside that. Flatscan (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete "Cancel each other out" my foot. What a ridiculous rationale. It either fits with policy or it doesn't. You don't score policy-adherence-points against policy-violation-points and come up with an acceptable article to keep. If the article cannot be made to be in non-violation of policy, then it fails no matter how interesting or well sourced it could be. S Marshall's comments above I find offensive and he falls into the same trap as most of the keeps: that yes well I wouldn't keep this article but change the name to something else, do a bit of work, and viola you have an article that I would keep, so keep. The AfD is on this article with this name and this content. This was not an AfD on "List of rare diseases", for example, for neither the name nor the content required rarity. The second trap the keeps fell into was to regard the ability to find sources as proof that both WP:V and WP:OR could be satisfied. Yes, we can find sources that so-and-so thought the condition was extraordinary, or unusual, or weird, but all that tells you is that one person had an opinion. Opinions do not make facts. And WP:ASF (policy) makes it very clear that we couldn't have a List of greatest bands in history, citing someone saying that the Beetles were "the greatest band in history" as a suitable source. So although we could satisfy WP:V and WP:OR by sourcing the list to individual opinions, we'd fail WP:NPOV by attempting to state those opinions as facts. And those opinions are generally non-notable in each individual case. Sure there are some diseases we'd all regard as "extraordinary", though it would be a challenge to find an authoritative source for many (e.g., some survey where 90% of the population agreed that XYZ was "extraordinary"). But the other extreme has a ridiculously long tail of rather mundane conditions that somebody somewhere thinks is a bit unusual. There are parts of Africa, for example, where a visiting white person is surrounded by children wanting to touch their weird skin. Would that make White people an "extraordinary condition". In conclusion, WP:NPOV is what kills this list, and the admin failed to spot that argument wasn't "cancelled out" by any of the keeps. Colin°Talk 12:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A similar article, List of unusual deaths, has been nominated for deletion 6 times, and kept each time (including a no consensus and a keep and rename result). The most recent deletion nomination was made in an attempt to establish broader community consensus and precedent concerning lists of this type (List of unusual X), and the discussion participants strongly supported keep. Precedent set in other deletion discussions for similar articles carries some weight in the case of this list of unusual diseases and conditions, insofar as the rationale for deletion matches those made by supporters of other failed deletion attempts (in this case, the contention that there is no objective/reliable/consistent way to establish inclusion criteria with regard to what is unusual/rare/extraordinary). The closing admin did not appeal to such precedent, but it does provide some support for the contention that hir decision was not in error. Insofar as the article in its current state is in violation of policy (that is, diseases are included without verification from a reliable source that they are indeed unusual, thus violating WP:V and WP:OR), that is grounds from improvement of the article (culling or proper sourcing of entries), not grounds for deleting the entire article. Nick Graves (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse most of the delete votes were made before the addition of references and the change in the title. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The core of Bali ultimate's argument for deletion review is that "when we have policy-based 'delete' arguments at a greater rate then 2-1 against the policy-based keep arguments at an AfD, I don't see how it can be said that 'no consensus to delete' was found." It must be reiterated that AfD is not a vote. The ratio of keep to delete arguments is completely irrelevant. Whether these arguments are firmly rooted in policy is what is important here, and Bali ultimate admits that both sides had policy-based rationales. Determining the weight of these policy-based arguments is at the closing admin's discretion. There is no clear case to support the contention that the closing admin was in error. Nick Graves (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. This article title has now mutated to List of diseases and conditions with unusual features, which is even worse from a policy point of view. Almost all diseases have unusual features of some sort. For example, Down syndrome has transient myeloproliferative disorder as an unusual feature, so shouldn't Down syndrome be listed? The inclusion or exclusion of diseases from this list is entirely arbitrary. Eubulides (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There has been a recent debate about lists of unusual things. It only matter whether a reliable source considers the disease unusual. A rare disease which causes children to be extremely allergic to sunlight to the point they have to be completely covered up or can only go out at night is unusual since it happens in only a handful of patients and is widely considered unusual by both medics and the general public. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the idea that there were no clear inclusion guidelines could easily be solved through editing rather than deletion. Either we include diseases with a low prevalence or diseases with symptoms that have a low prevalence. Both are clear uncontestable numbers and if it's a problem to call those unusual, we can rename it to "rare" based on such numbers (see http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/ for one authority on the subject). Just because some diseases are misplaced in the list doesn't mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you define "unusual" as "rare" rather than "odd" then you do indeed end up with "list of rare diseases", which I have no problem with (other than impractical length). *sigh* I'm wasting my time here, obviously. Colin°Talk 11:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist (I'm amenable to overturning and deleting, but that is less preferred) This was close to no consensus, so I could be pushed into agreeing that "no consensus" was within the admin's scope of options. However a few things draw me back to overturning this close. The first is that while both 18 and 7 are "big numbers" which aren't compelling by themselves, "not a vote" tends to get trotted out when an admin comes to a decision contrary to numerically evident consensus and "rough consensus" tends to get trotted out when an admin comes to a decision contrary to a compelling policy argument. I'm not alleging bias, just realism. As a community we clearly prefer to avoid "mob rule" and we prefer to avoid process through statutory interpretation. This means, to me, that we balance these two poles when they happen to conflict (Obviously we would hope that relevant policy arguments favor the majority, but if a frog had wings...). If any balancing occurred, it did so in the mind of the admin because s/he left no indication as to the motivation of his or her decision. Looking at the delete arguments, they range from superfluous (one liners about subjectivity, without any reason why subjectivity is disallowed in the encyclopedia) to more meaty concerns about sourcing and inclusion. The nom (though it makes the troubling mistake of assuming redundancy to a category is a condition for deletion) advances the deletion arguments in a reasonable fashion, arguing somewhat compellingly that "List of diseases and conditions with unusual features" is ripe for editor definition, idiosyncratic inclusion decisions and sensationalism. Keep arguments range from the somewhat convincing (Col'n warden's argument being the sturdiest) to the outright unhelpful. Given the preponderance of arguments were for deletion and a preponderance of those arguments had at least as good if not better rationales than the keep arguments, I'm having trouble justifying this one as a close on the merits. Also, I'm worried that canvassing occurred and if it did, that gives us a strong incentive to rebuff that convassing here at DRV. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I did not make the "troubling mistake of assuming redundancy to a category is a condition for deletion". I compared a category with a potential "list of rare diseases", which (I have been repeating ad-nauseum) is not the list we are AfD'ing. The AfD list has no comparable category. It is a site-note that I consider a "list of rare diseases" (at 8,000 entries long, majority red-links) to be potentially not as useful as a category that points to actual wikipedia articles. I have repeatedly said I would not AfD a "list of rare diseases" even if I do consider it inferior to the existing category. Colin°Talk 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with no prejudice against relisting. Personally I'd have closed this one as a delete, but the closer made no egregious errors here - it's something of a borderline case, but it was merely closed as "no consensus" - not "keep". If the closure survives this review and the article remains there should be no impediment to re-listing the article for deletion in the near future, particularly if it does not improve. Shereth 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - looking at the article itself, I can still see the article being fundamentally flawed by original research and/or indiscriminateness, both points brought up in the original AfD and weren't really countered that well. Also, it's poor form to close something as "no consensus" without a rationale. Sceptre (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - I created this article two weeks ago, and I was initially very disappointed by hearing it was up for AfD. I had just been reading List of unusual deaths and believed it would be equally well writing an equivalent list of diseases and conditions. I wanted to give it a chance to show what it could evolve into with the combined effort of the community. However, just by looking at what it has (and has not) achieved in these two weeks makes me rather disappointed - not much improvement of the article itself, but, on the other hand, a hell lot of controversy and dispute. Yet, I guess we will always have to cope with this kind of altercation as long as there are articles in Category:Lists of things considered unusual, but let's not make it even worse. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Significant conflict is not inevitable, and improvement is possible. It is conceivable that a list of this type--with rigorous, well-defined inclusion criteria, and properly sourced information--could become a good, encyclopedic resource that far fewer Wikipedians would support deleting. Nick Graves (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The AFD did not present a consensus for deletion. It is not a vote. That said, any disease in the list should have reliable sources stating that the disease is considered "extraordinary." Chimerism conjoined twins and progeria are. Cancer, common cold, influenza and heart disease are not. Edison (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse I could see someone closing this either way but this is a reasonable close given the circumstances. I see no compelling reason to overturn. If necessary, wait a bit and AfD it again. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete – The policy-based argument for deletion (we should not present claims of opinion as claims of fact, per Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view) were not effectively countered during the deletion discussion. The list is, ultimately, a list of diseases and conditions that are considered to be "extraordinary" (a term which means different things to different people) by one or more editors, sources, or both. In principle, it is no different from a List of beautiful people or List of amazing places. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cal Con (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was closed as no consensus. However, none of the keep opinions were based on policy with vague assertion of references but no actual citations. This issue was raised with the closing admin. His response indicated no compelling reason for deletion. However, a lack of reliable sources covering a topic has generally been held to be grounds for deletion which was the deletion opinion advanced. Whpq (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete. Whether by numbers (4 delete 2 keep) or strength of arguments, I think One got this wrong. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the article remains sourced to a website run by this convention, the "largest and oldest gamers" convention in western canada, according to the convention's own PR. The arguments against keeping were 2-1 against, and the absence of reliable reliable sources should be dispositive to considering notability established, that there is sufficient verifiability.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The article says "Attendance 600 Average". Is a convention that has only 600 people notable? It does seem a bit odd. And you can't say you are the biggest and oldest, and also somehow the youngest, games convention in Western Canada, without some sort of proof, especially when you say only 600 people show up each year. Dream Focus 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Though I am very reluctant to disturb a non-consensus close in a contested debate, unless the article is actively doing harm, this is a case where a clear error was made. We can;t keep an article supported by no decent sources at all. I'm flexible in what counts as reliable sources in this area, but something is needed.DGG (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. I find DGG's case persuasive here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete--I do believe that despite the one (and a half) "yes," the "no" arguments should weigh more heavily, based as they were on policy (such as WP:RS, obviously). There were no sources, and I was somewhat surprised to hear the article was kept. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete as the editor who nominated it for AfD, I had done a search for any news sources and found nothing, I expected to at least see it in a What's happening this weekend in Calgary article, but it was not even mentioned. --kelapstick (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete my own closing per overwhelming consensus above. One two three... 21:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Anthony Tavera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)


I am still working on the page to make it more notable. How am I supposed to do that if it keeps getting deleted before I can finish it? Could it be undeleted so I can continue working on it. (I think that I can make this page much better if I could just have a few weeks to finish it correctly without admins deleting it every 2 seconds)--Ken Durham (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page has only been deleted once, so saying that admins delete it every 2 seconds is a bit disingenuous. Also, you didn't even give the deleting admin an hour to reply to your message before coming here. Recommend userfication (see WP:SUBPAGE) so that you can bring the article up to scratch. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so now I know how to bring it up correctly. Can you please undelete it? --Ken Durham (talk) 15:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been userfied; I think we can close this now? DS (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can!--Ken Durham (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with the article? Why the speedy delete? I see a list of movies the child actor has been in, which are blue links. There was no reason to delete the new article, it having some signs of notability in it. Speedy delete is only done for spam, slander, and whatnot. Dream Focus 17:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn' Checking on iIMDB, I very strongly doubt that a young person playing these minor roles -- some as just a voice-- is actually notable; The CSI role is probably not enough to be significant--I gather he's the victim-- but it was enough to pass speedy. Dream Focus is wrong about speedy; it is done and needs to be done when there is no indication of any possible notability, which happens quite a lot--of the 5 or 10 speedies I do a day, about half are for that reason. DGG (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close because the nominator indicates he is now satisfied. Further argument about this seems pointless.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hisham Zreiq (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Hello, I noticed that the article about Hisham Zreiq (also spelled Zrake), a Palestinian visual artist and film maker (see The Sons of Eilaboun was deleted by Number 57, and I don't agree with the what he said: (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance) Hisham Zreiq is an award winning director, he won the Al-awda award for his documentary The sons of Eilaboun, His film was featured in many film festivals and he have an imdb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3054116/ And for his visual art he won a German award from Hollfelder Kulturfreunde e.V. http://www.kunst-kultur-hollfeld.de/presseberichte.php?i=1 http://www.kunst-kultur-hollfeld.de/print.php?presse=true&id=1 http://www.kultura-extra.de/compuart/portrait/hisham_zrake_a.html There is an article about him in Arabic and German Wikipedia as well.

  • Reverse deletion AmirCohen (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that the article had was an infobox, categories, and the text "Hisham Zreiq (Also Spelled: Zrake, Arabic: هشام زريق, born February 9, 1968 in Nazareth) is a Palestinian-Israeli film director and visual artist. He is one of the first computer artists in the world, He started creating computer art in 1994, and in 1996 started exhibiting his work in galleries and museums. In 2007 he filmed his first documentary; The Sons of Eilaboun." It was written by User:Hishamzr, who may well be the article subject. As such the deletion was correct (it does not indicate the importance or significance of this person), and I endorse it, but as with all speedy deletions, anyone is welcome to recreate the article if they can overcome the issue that led to it being deleted.
    For future reference, it's customary to contact the administrator who deleted the page and ask him/her to reverse the deletion before opening a listing here. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Still don't think the film or producer are notable. Also, there is no German article, and the Arabic article was also written by User:Hishamzr. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no cache of the article to look at. Dream Focus 17:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rapid Overturn Certainly enough to pass speedy as an indication of notability, and possibly actually notable. That documentary is an award winning film, shown internationally at multiple festivals. Stifle is arguing the subject is not actually notable, but that is not the standard for passing speedy--to have created a film that won awards is an indication of possible notability if there ever was one. There is a German article for the film, though not the person. As for the notability of the film, it was deleted at AfD, and then recreation was permitted at Deletion Review. I notice that it was in fact a politically controversial film, and a speedy in such a situation is really wrong. DGG (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not completely convinced by DGG's remarks because I think a good argument could be made that it's the film that's notable rather than the creator. However, AfD is the place to make that case, not here. I think the article's claims of notability are sufficient to place it beyond the remit of speedy deletion and we have no choice but to overturn.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD the evidence provided proves he has some assertion of notability, which would be enough to overturn the speedy deletion. Whether that evidence is notable enough for Wikipedia is probably subjunctive and would be best for the people at AfD to figure out. Tavix |  Talk  22:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. I can't see the article, but it sounds like it asserts notability (from Stifle's summary). Hobit (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Although the second link given is actually the print version of the first, the other two give a good indication that sources about this man exist. Also, source 4 in the film article shows the award was given in the category documentary films and the film was directed, written and produced by this person. I a case like that such an award is clearly relevant to the notability of the person who created the film. He's not speedy material. (Of course, it would be better if all this was included from the get-go, but it's not something that cannot be fixed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 28 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Cole Tucker (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, the older deletion discussion forgot to discuss, that Cole Tucker got the GayVN Awards and the Grabby Award.

  • GayVN Awards 1998 – Best Supporting Actor[1]
  • GayVN Awards 1998 – Gay Performer of the Year[1]
  • GayVN Awards 2000 – Special Achievement Award[1]
  • Grabby Award 1999 – Best Performers[1]
  • Grabby Award 2000 – Wall of Fame[1]

So Cole Tucker should have his own side on english wikipedia as he already has on german wikipedia. GLGermann (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support it if someone sent them a copy of the text by email to avoid duplicate work done. - Mgm|(talk) 10:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If there is anything that doesn't violate BLP, it should be userfied or e-mailed. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Music Emissions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello, my name is Brian Rutherford, and I have been a music reviewer for eight years. First and foremost, let me apologize in advance if I have misused any coding or scripting here. About 18 months back I wrote an article on one of the sites I have been contributing to for six years. Here is the info on that.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#musicemissions.com. -Archive

--Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

More recently, about eight months ago, I spoke (chatted) with a fellow who was somehow associated with Wiki, I believe in Europe. I also believe I saved this documented consultation, but I do not have that conversation at this moment. The end result of the conversation was that MusicEmissions.com at the time, was not considered a credible source for Indie Music Reviews. After showing the representative various links that sourced MusicEmissions.com as a credible resource the representative saw no reason that MusicEmissions should not be considered a credible resource.

Here are just a few articles that reference Musicemissions.com http://www.sideonedummy.com/bands_interviews1205.php?band_name=Bedouin_Soundclash http://musicratty.com/article/6073b585d2aa4238a141f3a9b6403060 http://www.spraci.com/news/syndicated/413043/ http://www.papertrumpet.com/quotes/quotes.html http://www.musicianguide.com/biographies/1608004551/Alexisonfire.html http://www.clevelandagora.com/bands/info.asp?bandID=1291

Again, please accept my apologies if I have goofed up anything in this discussion. My ultimate bottom line is to get the MusicEmissions.com article retrieved from deletion as myself and 10,000 other registered users find it to be a great source for independent music. Please understand I do not say this in any kind of mean spirited fashion, and I do appreciate anyone who can assist me. Hstisgod (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a link to the archive of the Wikiproject case. Can you clarify what you are asking here? A good part of that discussion seems to be about a proliferation of links being added to other articles. Even if the site itself is considered notable for the purposes of an article, the response to such links is likely to be the same. Wikipedia is about enyclopedic content not links to reviews, many people find many reviews on many sites useful, we can't link to them all and it won't enhance wikipedia's primary goals. The releavant policies such as external links were linked to in that original discussion. As you have written for the site it appears you may have a conflict of interest in having the site listed here, it's usually best to let someone unconnected write about the site (which can include the negative as well as the positive). Since the deletion over 2 years ago it doesn't look like anyone else has tried to write an article on this. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action/keep deleted due to the lack of clarity on this request and the nominator's failure to return and prosecute it. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, but allow recreation. Given the state of the article just before it was deleted (substantial content was copy-pasted verbatim from the website and the article was essentially written as an advertisement), I think it would be better to write a new article (assuming that the topic is notable) rather than to restore and try to improve the deleted version. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Money Masters documentary (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The Money Masters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) (note: the article has been userfied)

The article seemes to have been deleted early 2008.
On its archived discussion page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Money_Masters I can find several people who just state that the article ( the film ) is "not noteable" without even justifying their claim. After which they go on to "disagree" with the content of the film. An Encyclopedia entry is not subject to wether or not one likes or agrees with the content. One does not remove articles about nazi germanys films by Leni Riefenstahl on the argument that its content isnt noteable.

The notability of the film lies in that it has been growing steadily over the years and is now a prevalent phenomna and because it has steadily increased in its spread throughout the internet, now has several million references throughout the internet. On that note itself it is a phenomena worthy of noting in wikipedia.

I have tried several times to conduct a civil debate on this, I added the hangon tab, I provided verifiable arguments and pointed out that I do not care about the views in the film.
the views presented in the film are not what is in question here.

Some of the most crucial and verifiable arguments for its inclusion go as follows:

  • The existence and widespread usage of and references to this documentary is a verifiable fact.
  • Just as any cult film this film is a phenomena (spanning two decades now) and has a large "following" no matter its content.
  • This film has been commented upon by several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedmann
  • The film gains several hundred thousands of independent hits throughout the english speaking world in google searches
  • It's content is also reflective of the main views of one of the US's larger political movement, through Republican Congress representative Ron Paul, and is reflected daily in the mainstream media and in the News (online), no matter wether one agrees with such views or not. This makes it noteable in itself as a source for finding out what and where the rationale for such movements come from!

Any argument just stating "50.000 sold dvd's" or "the film is not noteable", " I dont consider it noteable" can not pass for justified legitimate arguments.

I expect serious sincere responses conducted as adults and not the slapping on of wikipedia guidelines to pretend that this user has not read guidelines and using that as an argument for deletinon.
The issue here is the article, not this user or my abilities or errors as a wikipedia contributor . Again, remember, we are not doing this to review "views", we contribute here to inform people around the world. Wether we like or agree with the information or not.
sincerely, Nunamiut (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you provide independent references to substantiate your claims? MER-C 12:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google refrences. alternatively contact google if you want any more specific verification of their linking/refrence policies. The same goes for youtube. As far as I can tell they do not provide any obvious overall hits statistics that is easily monitored, but a search gives huge amounts of hits. It is possible to go to the individual userpages and see if they have made hits statistics statistics public. I'm no expert in these matters, but is abundantly clear to even the layman that this videos distribution is widespread. For more factual references I'll have to referr you to normal search and investigation of the matter. I could post a dozen links here but I do not see it as meaningful since you all are able to type and use google. Milton Friedman + "The Money Masters" should suffice to document that part of the noteability claim, and or going to the films official website and checking their refrences and documentation. There are dozens of reviews of the movie online but I do not know which author(s)/experts/sites are your favourites so again I'll have to let you choose which (or what amount of) results you wish to consider before you make up your own mind. finally I'll just have to echo users Hobit and MacGyverMagic (if its at all unclear) : I'd like to see this at AfD, undelete and list / Overturn and relistNunamiut (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you at least give us some citations for the comments by "several serious economists, including Nobel Laureate Milton Friedmann"? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Also, can you please explain why the article was repeatedly recreated, including under a different name to escape page protection, instead of the normal appeal process being followed? Stifle (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Flat out dishonest arguments again. As if a single users ability to respond and defend the article in time somehow supersedes all other previous arguments and the obvious fact that this film exists as a phenomena and the actual verifiable fact of its noteability as a widespread phenomena. Do you have a sense of proportions at all? You can see the moon for yourself but if _I_ fail to describe it and defend it to you, you're pretending the proper logic that follows is deletion of reference to it. This is clearly a dishonest train of thought, putting the burden of proof for any phenomena on to a single user each time, as if going to each jew individually and asking them each alone to prove conclusively with documentation that the holocaust took place to you, when the material is aboundantly clear and visible all around you for you to look at. This article is neither "my article" nor my "work" or "property", this is issue is on wether or not wikipedia admins chooses to honestly accept the fact that the phenomena exists" You sir are behaving like a juvenile in your line of argumentation, pretending that attacking my abilities is a sufficient reason for keeping the article deleted. I have already provided you with proper arguments. I will not waste any more time disussing it here if juvenile attempts at discrediting others like this user has attempted are taken as justification to leave the article deleted, I wont bother wasting any more time in an environment that stoops to such low levels of reasoning and behaviour. undelete and list / Overturn and relistNunamiut (talk) 05:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Whatever the initial version of the article didn't have, the latest version I checked had several independent sources, though not all listed in the reference section. The claim in the original debate that it didn't have independent sources no longer applies, so the G4 speedy was misapplied. Whether they are enough reliable sources should be reassessed. The claim that film notability guidelines don't apply is faulty. Book guidelines apply to magazines, journals and other written publications, film guidelines are pretty much the same, they apply to documentaries, films, videos, and animations among other things in the same vain. - Mgm|(talk) 10:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't look to be a pure recreation as sources now exist (in the cached version at least). I'd like to see this at AfD, so undelete and list Hobit (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article describes the film, but doesn't get into anything about why this film is notable. It's a film that thinks there's a banking conspiracy. Umm, there's more than a few of those out there already. The one possible attempt is the 50,000 claim, which is sourced to the producer. Yup, that's noted in the article, but seriously, that's a claim for notability? Another reference is to Nexus, which seems to cover conspiracy theories. shrug - no idea on that one. I'm not seeing anything present in the article that makes this film noteworthy. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article as it stands is not in question. Its the actual existence and noteability of the phenomena to deem it "worthy" of an article at all. We can discuss and change the content later. The article is the way it is because its not possible (and hasnt been) for people to update it or make it adhere, comply to the standards you ask for precicely because it has been deleted and kept out of anyones view. The film is a phenomena wether you read me saying so here or not. Your abilities or wishes to make serious inquierys notwithstanding the film has been endorsed/recieved praise from a Nobel Laureate in Economics, Milton Friedman. Can you please tell me why I or anyone else should value your opinion in matters of economic history above those of an economist, ANY economist? close to half a million hits in google makes it noteable in itself as a internet phenomena far axceeding any other cult film in its genre. I'll again ask all please to try to adhere to honest debateing techniques. undelete and list / Overturn and relistNunamiut (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, please don't add multiple bolded comments to the discussion, as it may give a misleading appearance that your position has more support than it actually does. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be conflating "honest debateing [sic] techniques" with "only people who agree with me can contribute here". Please accept that others may not share your opinion, or your zeal to have the article reinstated. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We live in curious times indeed. Episodes of the Simpsons have/get entire full page articles devoted to them, but any alternative media dissent or otherwise on pretty crucial and important socio-economic or political issues ( most anything and everything is political in some form or another btw..) and a lot of debates, however large an audience they have reached, are pretended not to exist and not to be worth mentioning. Seems There really is a war on for peoples minds.. they just dont get to hear or see documentation or get to see all information, or even see what has transpired and make their own choices and draw their own conclusions, because the information is simply not being made available to them and being pre-censored and erased from the mainstream consciousness. Our priorities and focus are obviously pretty sick these days. Not to mention our understanding of whats important in this world. Oh well. I guess its just a consequence the numbscull dumbing down of public education. A total lack of ability to understand or grasp certain very essential concepts of information and the documenting of our shared history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the article does not provide sufficient reliable sources about the film rather than supporting/discussing the ideas it promotes, to justify overturning a correctly closed AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion It seems as if we should have an article on this fringe "documentary", but I don't see how that's possible, considering that I couldn't find a single reliable source for it. Although there are 136,000 Ghits for it, the majority of what I saw were sites sellling the video, which doesn't count, plus a few fringe non-reliable sites discussing it. With no reliable sources, it's really not possible to have an article. Given the state of play, the AfD comments that said "Not notable" seem perfectly reasonable, so I don't see any reason to overturn the deletion. (Incidentally, the article, or some version of it, is userfied at User:Xiutwel/The Money Masters, for those who want to see what it was.) Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet Again. The issue is not the content of the current article,(or the movie. Are you here to judge the content of movies too???) but the actual existence of any documentation of it at all for people who wonder what it is, who made it and any exisitence of any info on it at all. But it has been completely impossible to even correct anything or create a new improved version since it is immediately deleted. The issue is that this film is a cult phenomena that probably has a larger audience and has been viewed by more people on the internet than any other of its kind in internet history. Google video had a couple of hundreds of thousands of views a few years ago. The film is abundant all over youtube and the internet. IF it has sold fifty thousand copies and we reason that not all viewers watched it alone, an additional 100 thousand. It is widely referred to, and discussed. I cannot find all the majority selling it as is claimed. That in it self would be pretty astonishing, more than a hundred thousand sites selling it.. This must be the best hidden cult movie in history.. So where do you suggest the improved article on the film is posted, and who is the all knowing individual at your history department it should be submitted to for approval? But thats enough. I've read Enough dishonest bullshit for a good while. 1984 indeed. You sirs are shills. Goodbye. Nunamiut (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
  • eAthena – Malformed request; this is for requesting that a deletion or deletion discussion be reviewed. Requesting that a protected redirect be retargeted should be done at WP:RFPP, and requesting that a redirect be deleted altogether goes to WP:RFD. – Stifle (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
eAthena (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wrong redirect. Looks like blatant advertising of commercial "Ragnarok Online" game.

What's the problem? Actually I had no idea what is this "eAthena" and wanted to learn meaning of this term. So I entered query to Wikipedia. Result was strange for me. There was something completely irrelevant - about some commercial MMORPG game "Ragnarok Online". This result is believed to be utterly incorrect. I did some investigation and discovered that there was older page but it has been deleted and replaced with redirect (see http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/EAthena). After googling I discovered true meaning of "eAthena" term and it differs from what redirect displays. I believe such actions are either vandalism or blatant advertising intended to advertise commercial "Ragnarok Online" game on Wikipedia. As you can see, this resulted in false information represented to me, I believe such practice is unacceptable for encyclopaedia articles.

The following issues were found with mentioned redirect:

  • eAthena turned to be open source MMORPG server project. Nothing more, nothing less. It haves nothing to do with "Ragnarok Online" game except they implement similar protocol which could be somehow compatible to protocol of "Ragnarok Online" game to some degree. This server is used by another open source games like "The Mana World" and "Aethyra" and these games have nothing to do with Ragnarok Online. Except their overall idea is similar - they're MMORPGs so ideas behind protocols are the same and there is even some partial compatibility may exist. However games using eAthena usually implemented from scratch and not directly compatible with "Ragnarok Online". So, redirect appears to be some unfair method of competition or some kind of blatant advertising of commercial "Ragnarok Online" game.
  • Article which is target of redirect contains exactly nothing about "eAthena". There is even no such word on this page, except redirect itself. So, visitor haves no chance to learn meaning of "eAthena" term at all. There is no links as well, etc. So, there is lack of proper information about term. This looks a bit like vandalism.
  • In any event, some server software haves nothing to do with whole complete MMORPG product. Server software is just some sub-part of final MMORPG product. So, at very least such redirect is very rough, inaccurate and could provide wrong information to visitors.

If you want more common and clear example, imagine if there is redirection of "Apache HTTP Server" article to "Windows". Just because Windows supplied with IIS web server and both IIS and Apache implementing same HTTP protocol and Microsoft wants to sell Windows and shut up Apache, etc. So, if this redirect should exist, you should also create redirect from "Apache HTTP Server" to "Windows" as well ;)

P.S. I'm sorry, I'm not a professional Wikipedia editor but rather casual visitor. If I did something wrong here, do not blame me too much. Instead, try to correct my faults and review my request based on Wikipedia goals and purposes rather than from bureaucratic and formal points of view. 91.77.158.255 (talk)

I think what you should be asking for is that the redirect be deleted, correct? If so, or in any case, DRV is not needed here. MuZemike 21:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may alternatively be an appeal of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EAthena (second nomination), which resulted in the redirect being protected. If that's the case, then this is the right place. If the nominator wants the redirect to be retargeted, Talk:EAthena or WP:RFPU is the place, and if xe wants it deleted, it's WP:RFD. I'm leaving this open pending clarification. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Aramark (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

While I'd agree some section might be construed as spamish, I do not agree that the article could not have been saved without major rewrites. I also feel that it did not qualify for G11 Speedy Deletion. Q T C 05:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. The article was not unambiguously promotional. Since the subject is clearly eligible for inclusion, a minor rewrite should be preferred to deletion. Example: "Aramark Limited is a food, facility and apparel service partner. With 250,000 employees, it is the 19th largest employer on the Fortune 500" decltype (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rapid Overturn The deleted article was not promotional,except possibly for a listing of a few too man officers of the company. It was speedy deleted twice: the An earlier version was not a valid deletion either: it had one promotional paragraph & one unbalanced paragraph of trivial criticism. If both had been removed, the article would have been passable. The company is important enough that the article should be much expanded. It is so large, that even if the entire article had been promotional, the article should have been stubbified bot deleted. If 2 different admins are prepared to delete material like this, we need to remove or tighten up the G11 standards. DGG (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC) DGG (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fairness, Sarcasticidealist only deleted it because someone had moved it to an all-caps version of the name and edited the redirect to prevent someone moving it back, so that deletion was entirely in order. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. G11 requires that there is no possible neutral version to which to revert, but that's not the case here. Stifle (talk) 16:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I was quite surprised when I saw this pop up on my watchlist as deleted. I don't know about the version Sarcastic deleted last year, but the version deleted most recently didn't look like it was an unrecoverable piece of spam. Maybe the officer's list needed trimming, but I do not believe CSD was the appropriate method. MBisanz talk 17:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting Admin As I can see there's an overwhelming consensus to restore the article, I have no issues if the article was restored and stubbed. I only ask that next time if a user disagrees with my actions, that they try and discuss it with me before listing it here, as deletion review is more of a last resort. I promise I don't bite! :) Icestorm815 • Talk 17:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies as Nom' Completely missed that section snuggled there at the end about discussing with deleting admin first :-/ Q T C 01:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nine Eleven Finding Answers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deletion log does not indicate whether this article was deleted following being tagged with a speedy delete, or whether the deleting administrator deleted it on his or her sole authority. The deleting administrator recorded WP:A7 as the reason for deletion. I don't know what the article said, at the time of its deletion, but I am sure a case can be made that the Foundation is fully notable. The deleting administrator hasn't been online in five months, so I would like to request someone else userify this article, its talk page and full revision history to User:Geo Swan/review/Nine Eleven Finding Answers Foundation. Geo Swan (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userify if desired at the time of the deletion the article was a request for help in doing a better stub, followed by the text: "Details : NEFA Foundation is an organization that seeks, tracks and publishes intelligence on the Islamic Terrorist / Jihadist movement. Its purpose is to inform people about and try to stop further attacks similar to the 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade centre. It may have information about or be connected to the intelligence services and other 'insider' data. (Anyone who has experience with such info will tell you that deniability and source-outsource separation is always a number one priority in intelligence so proof of this connection is by definition very difficult. Plausible deniability )" In the absence of sources one cannot tell if the organization is potentially notable. I consider this borderline speedy, but i would have checked for sources first. The mere assertion that there it an organization devoted to such purposes with no further information does not necessary imply notability. there are many non-notable political groups. DGG (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to userfy; DGG just quoted the entire text. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The article clearly met the speedy deletion criterion for organizations because it merely asserted existence and nothing about importance, fame or notability. I have no objection against recreation if such information can be found. - Mgm|(talk) 10:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Looks like a reasonable A7. Userfication seems pointless, per Stifle. decltype (talk) 05:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Venture Capital Investment Competition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It was nominated for speedy delete on the basis that the editor thought it was spam. I objected to the speedy delete because it is actually an organization, and many notable universities around the world participate in this. A few hours later, it was deleted. I believe if someone still felt it should be deleted, it should've gone to AFD to form a consensus. It did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. I have spoken to closing editor [29] already, who disagrees with me, and said I can just take it to the deletion review if I wish. Dream Focus 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. This was actually deleted under WP:CSD#A7 rather than as spam. The claim that 50 top business schools participate in this competion is clearly a claim of importance or significance. I note that the deleting admin cited lack of sources as the reason for deletion [30] (putting the justification on Dreamfocus's user page rather than the user talk page), which is explicitly not a reason for speedy deletion. Notwithstanding any of that, sources can easily be found.[31][32] Phil Bridger (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my haste to get my initial feelings about this known I didn't notice that this article is also about a subject to which WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply, being about a competition, not "a real person, an organization ... or web content". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The G11 speedy was declined, but the page was later deleted as A7. I'd like to see some refs for this, because it would be dysfunctional to overturn it only to delete again at AFD for lacking notability. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to significant process problems. Stifle, I think that raising the bar beyond what speedies are for is the wrong thing to be doing here. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I found this page on the "unpatrolled" log, which is odd considering the number of contributors who seem to have looked at it. I don't have any axe to grind, as I wasn't familiar with the subject matter. When I looked at the article, I saw a speedy delete nomination, which, on looking at the article, I felt was justified. For me it's not only borderline advertising but it also looks like a commercial venture - see the website's message to potential sponsors: Your tax-deductible contribution helps support a great educational program and puts your firm in good company - and I don't see evidence of notability in the article. Maybe a $10,000 prize is indicative of some level of importance, but then Readers Digest offers people that kind of prize every day. I would have been quite prepared to discuss it, but I don't restore deleted articles just because other people demand that I do. I certainly did not cite lack of references as the reason for deletion; the reason for deletion is clear from the deletion log, but I pointed out to the complainant that he had been advised to include references by User:Astronaut, whom he was quoting as a backer of his comments. As for putting my response on the user page instead of the talk page - well, you'll have noticed that User:Dream Focus doesn't sign with four tildes, so I think that was an excusable error. Deb (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I worded my comment badly - I wasn't trying to imply that any blame attaches to you for putting the comment on the "wrong" page, but simply pointing out where it was in case other editors hadn't been able to find it. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted under CSD A7

7. An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

The administrator's reason given was: (Deletion log); 20:58 . . Deb "Venture Capital Investment Competition" (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
It listing all the notable universities its involved with, should've been a clear indication. Dream Focus 14:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Overturn I am not sure the competition is separately notable in the absence of 3rd party references, but this is a question for AfD. Completely invalid A7, since it is not one of the permissible categories, being neither an organization nor a group, but an event. And the deleting admins justification is in part that the website--the website not the article -- was partly promotional. We obviously need to tighten, not loosen, the requirements for speedy --and the attention paid to what admins do. Unlike the deleting nominator, I do restore deleted articles and send to AfD when a plausible case is made in good faith by an established editor (which is rare: most challenges are not plausible in the least). Perhaps we need a rule about that as well. DGG (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • As you well know, and as I have said above, I am quite prepared to restore articles and have done so many times, when contributors have made a good case. This is not what happened. Deb (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD per DGG. Looks like there is at least a minimum indication of importance. As he put above, notability is a different thing and can be addressed at AFD. MuZemike 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. Let's charitably assume the admin concerned suffered a momentary lapse of judgment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did, in at least one respect - I believed that the "little R" mark indicated a registered company, but it seems it's just a trade mark. Deb (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It means a registered trademark. It's harder to own a registered trademark than a registered company, and registered trademarks are rarer.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:16, 27 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]

21 May 2009

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

This article was speedy'ed by User:Altenmann because "‎G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pentax K-7)" The previous article was entirely speculative, as it was about an unreleased product for which no reliable information existed; however, now that the product is released, there's loads of verifiable, reputable info. I was in the middle of adding reliable information when the article got unceremoniously speedy'ed yesterday. See discussion on Altenmann's talk page. I'd like to request immediate undeletion, as I believe a speedy-delete is inappropriate to this case. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn as it seems clear that the rationale for deletion no longer applies. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a deleting admin, I have nothing against recreation of the article based on "loads of verifiable, reputable info". I deleted the version which was not and which was recreated minutes after its first deletion. I restored it per request in my talk page for work purposes, assuming that the requesting editor will follow cite only reliable sources. - Altenmann >t 15:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
template:nearest tube (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was a non-admin closure marked as no consensus. An examination of the debate indicates that the bulk of the replies are for deletion, along the lines of the nominating rationale; there are only two editors leaving substantial keep comments, neither of which address the points made in the nomination. Seems to be adequate consensus to delete. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • template:nearest tube – deletion endorsed. The template should be subst'ed into all necessary articles and then deleted. I'll give 48 hours for that to be done; if a longer time period is needed, please let me know. (edit:Apparently it has already been subst'ed, so the template has been deleted. – Aervanath (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
template:nearest tube (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This TFD closure represents a blatant misinterpretation of consensus, using bogus arguments for deletion. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay, not a policy, the former having no force other than persuasive power, and not necessarily reflecting consensus. Even so, WP:USEFUL deals largely with AFD discussions, in which perceived utility does not justify the retention of articles violating Wikipedia's content policies. Consequently, the very essay Stifle is referencing describes a number of situations in which "usefulness" may represent valid grounds for inclusion / retention:

There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion.

Surely, insofar as templates are intended to be useful for some purpose (which is why, indeed, CSD T3 applies to "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion..."), a claim of utility can hardly be an invalid argument per se in a TFD discussion. Stifle's count "of the three keep arguments..." also apparently omitted the following:

*Very Important - This template, if anything, discourages pages being written as tourist guides as it does not need there to be a section on transport links necessarily. It is a quick visual aid that adds great ease of use and has great value as it enables users to quickly find out information regarding the location of a place within Greater London. It would be a great shame should it be deleted as it improves the ease at which users can access information regarding transport on wikipedia. George5210 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it preposterous that, in arguing for the deletion of the template on the "strength of arguments", Stifle completely ignored an argument for retention (indeed, one which claims that the template facilitates the enforcement of Wikipedia:NOT#TRAVEL) simply because the editor placing the comment did not prepend it with a boldface "keep", although he clearly favors the retention the template. Erik9 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have provided a compelling explanation of why the closure as "delete" was incorrect. To offer, as the sole justification for Stifle's closure, that I, being a non-administrator, shouldn't have previously closed the discussion, is vacuous, and bears little relationship to the matter at hand. When an XFD closure is challenged at deletion review, the closure must stand or fall on its own merits; to impugn the perceived motives of the editor bring the matter to DRV certainly does not serve as a basis to sustain an otherwise indefensible closure. Erik9 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that you should only close unambiguous keeps but that was not the reason at all that I endorse Stifle's closure. I endorse Stifle's closure because it was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus at that discussion. Garion96 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the administrator closing this deletion review will presumably weigh the strength of the arguments offered here just as much as you and Stifle claim to be doing with respect to the original TFD discussion, your opinion would carry considerably greater weight if you explained why you believe that Stifle's closure "was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus", rather than simply making a conclusory assertion. Ideally, it would be helpful if you could respond discursively to the argument against Stifle's closure that I presented. Erik9 (talk) 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The delete arguments are not policy. 1/that in London it cant be done just by geocordinates--quite true for almost anywhere, but the template doesn't do it that way, the stations are inserted manually by the editor 2/that it encourage guidebook writing -- just the opposite , it presents appropriate geographic information in a good standardized way 3/that its non-encyclopedic--but the 5 pillars says specifically that wp incorporates elements of a gazetteer, & the examples at NOT are very different from this 4/the icon is not a good choice--just a question of editing. 6/ that it could be done for 100s of other cities also -- yes, and a good thing it would be, too and 7/ (which most of the deletes said, that a better more general template could be used--absolutely true, and when it is, we can retire this one. That's not an argument for deleting what we currently have because we could do it even better. Erik got the right closure--unless one threw out the delete arguments as totally without support in policy and concluded it as Keep, but an non-admin shouldn't have done that Stifle did not do it right. Its entirely the opposite of what he said, he based his decision on exactly those arguments not supported to policy, and did a rough count instead. DGG (talk) 05:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And the keep arguments hardly seemed policy based, why just discount or give less weight to the deletes whilst giving full value to the keeps? For a couple of your responses (2) So those commenting believe one thing and you believe something else, don't see how that weakens their argument (3) The 5 pillars may say it incorporates some elements, it doesn't say all elements, so the commenters see what those included elements should be (or how they should be included) differently to you, again I dodn't see how it weakens their argument. (6) Again your view, how does that weaken others comments. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, we need not entirely discount the arguments favoring deletion to conclude that there was no apparent consensus in either direction, so long as the arguments favoring retention are properly credited. Erik9 (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which fails to answer the question. The issue is why give less weight to the weaker delete arguments whilst giving full weight to the weaker keeps arguments. It also fails to address how the determiniation of those delete arguments being weak seems to be solely on the basis of the individual commenting having a different view on the matter and very little to do with policy as claimed. And yes I know you believe it was no consensus, you don't have to reply to every comment restating it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an afterthought in circumstances where the closing admin has passed judgement on the arguments in such was as those 3 points, they've found themselves here criticised for closing the debate rather than contributing to it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why discussions in which there is no consensus are properly closed as such :) Erik9 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which again misses the point. Admins closing discussions reading opinions and discounting them because they personally disagree with them (rather than their being a strong policy basis), is not a reading of consensus, it is the admin giving greater weight to their own point of view. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. DRV isn't a do-over of the AfD. Stifle's evaluation of the relative weights of the arguments presented in the AfD as it played out is correct. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, since DRV is a discussion, not a vote, it would be helpful if you could explain why you believe that "Stifle's evaluation of the relative weights of the arguments presented in the AfD as it played out is correct", and if you would respond in a reasoned manner to the argument against Stifle's TFD closure that I presented above, rather than simply making a bare conclusory assertion. However, to the extent that this DRV is closed on the basis of "vote counting", I note that all three of the established contributors who have endorsed the closure have a conflict of interest: Chris Cunningham nominated the template for deletion, Stifle closed the TFD discussion, and Garion96 was previously involved in a conflict with me over non-administrative closures, for which condemns me in his !vote (see User_talk:Erik9#TFD). DGG, as the only uninvolved established editor participating in this discussion, concurred with my assessment that the closure was incorrect, and should be overturned to "no consensus". Erik9 (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't talk such utter nonsense Erik9, we had a discussion not a conflict. Besides the last time I did deleted some templates from a discussion you closed as delete. I wouldn't really have done that if I am condemming your closures would I? Garion96 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On my talk page, you stated that "I do think it would be better though, since you are not an admin, that you don't close discussions as delete anymore" [33] "it would be better if you simply do not close discussions as delete" [34], and in this discussion "advice Erik9 again to only close discussions which are unambiguous keeps" [35]. Coincidentally, you have endorsed Stifle's TFD closure, without providing any explanation more substantive than "I endorse Stifle's closure because it was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus at that discussion" [36] (and even that only after being requested to provide some explanation of your position beyond two boldface words [37]), while simultaneously refusing to respond to either my or DGG's argument against Stifle's TFD closure, or to otherwise discursively engage in this discussion. Your motives are transparently obvious. Erik9 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mea culpa I had some time on my hands today, and thinking this matter was closed, I converted the template to its rather wordy textual equivalent. Over some 160 articles. I was in favour of retaing the template - but had already bowed to the inevitable. Reviewing the contents of each article was a useful exercise, and pulled up some errors. It was not my intention to pre-empt the outcome of this discussion. Again, my apologies. Kbthompson (talk) 15:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - closing admin was entirely correct - the keep arguments offered were extremely weak. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could explain why you believe that "the keep arguments offered were extremely weak" and respond to my and DGG's arguments against Stifle's TFD closure, rather than simply making a conclusory assertion, lest the pile-on of endorsements with little articulated reasoning give the impression that "the arguments in favor of Stifle's TFD closure are extremely weak". Erik9 (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An argument of 'keep per x' in the case where x has changed his or her mind and voted delete is about as weak as any argument could possibly be. Also, saying 'useful information, even on an encyclopedia' is a weak argument. However, looking at the discussion again, the view expressed by Kbthompson was entirely reasonable. However, while there was at least a single reasonable keep argument, there were several more reasonable delete arguments, so clearly the consensus was to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Acknowledging the general view that I have a bias towards keeping articles, I only close undisputed XfDs, or if the conclusion is delete, or otherwise against my general view for that type of article. DGG (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Per DGG. In addition, without the template the material will just end up in the articles anyways in a potentially less useable form. But that's more of an XfD argument... Hobit (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also MacGyverMagic's point #4 is something I was trying to work out myself. While articles shouldn't be travel guides, having a small part of the article (like this) which aids in travel isn't against the way WP#NOT is generally handled. As such, I think the !votes in the AfD that argue NOT#TRAVELGUIDE should have been largely discounted. Hobit (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Reasonable close. No consensus closes are risky as NACs. You took the risk and got bitten. It's fine. Protonk (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you be clear which close you are endorsing Protonk? Hobit (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not to be rude but it should be self evident. I'm endorsing stifle's close (which is the one under review), that's why I noted that NAC's get overturned above. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was my guess, but it wasn't self-evident (to me at least). I guess I'm an idiot. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You aren't an idiot. That wasn't my intimation at all. My comment was merely to show where I stood and also to point out that clarification should have been unnecessary. If it was necessary, I'm sorry and you should have stood your ground and said that clarification was required. If it wasn't, then there is no need to respond like that. Protonk (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral leaning to overturn and "subst:" There are several conflicting parts to this: 1) Unneeded decoration with images within text is discouraged. This appears to apply because the templates are used in the body of the article and not in templates~, but it can be handled by removing the image without applying full deletion. 2) Using templates to make something easier is entirely acceptable, but in that case they should be subst: (they should be anyway if this ends up deleted). 3) Easier or not, this template provides little additional advantages over simply writing the thing yourself. 4) Travel guides have nothing to do with this. A single sentence doesn't make an article a travel guide and the information is encyclopedic and verifiable in nature. - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. On raw vote count, I see seven "delete" to three "keep", so in the presence of reasonable arguments on both sides, and barring a deal-breaker keep argument, I think there is a reasonable consensus for deletion here. In this case, looking at the arguments made in the TFD, I find the deletion argument far more persuasive. There is very little reason to decorate the body text with London Underground roundels. The roundels may serve some point in an infobox since it may improve readability there, but situating figures elsewhere makes the text look like a scrapbook more than an encyclopedia. I am not at all opposed to mentioning the tube stations in these articles; transportation links are and always will be, a relevant issue in geography, but I see no reason to highlight this aspect in particular with small images. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Chazwozzer.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deletion was due to the fact that the term was related to the "Simpsons", in fact it has taken on another meaning. A foreign species introduced into an ecosystem. It still is of course also slang for bullfrog but redirecting to the bullfrog page doesn't tell the whole story. Cazub (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about. There is no history at File:Chazwozzer.jpg. I'm guessing you mean Chazwozzer, which wasn't listed for deletion there. If that's right, mind if I fix this? Otherwise, do you have an actual source for more information (because being a foreign term is just a redirect generally). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The first two deleted edits were from 2005 and ended up being redirected because the content was a dictionary definition; the redirect was deleted as a neologism. Unless someone can actually prove Chazwozzer is indeed slang for bullfrog, I'd request deletion for the redirect too. The first three pages of Google results yielded no reliable sources to back up the claim.- Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Image:MASH-episode2.jpg – Based on the later comments in the debate, it would be against policy to allow an editor in good standing the chance to address the issue the image got deleted for. I've restored the image to give the editor in question a chance to provide the fair use rationale. – Mgm|(talk) 10:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:MASH-episode2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

screenshot, one was used for each episode, this one was deleted rather than fixed, now it is missing in the series Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It was deleted because it didn't have a rationale almost two years ago. Since the image was deleted in July 2007 and has remained so since then, has its omission really been detrimental? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The same rationale could have been cut and pasted from any of the other 124 episodes. The rule is to attempt a fix before deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no obligation on anyone else to find a rationale if the original uploader can't. Given the reason that the image is not eligible for inclusion on it's own ("Free" encycolopedia) and the sheer volume of such images it is outside of the Foundations requirement for retention of such images to keep them indefinitely waiting for someone to fix them. (Not to mention if the person attempting to fix them didn't believe there was a reasonable rationale, then that's their attempt to fix finished). Additionally if I take a look at episode 1 image the rationale wasn't added until a year after this image was deleted, it would be pretty tough to do a cut and paste in that instance. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As much as some parties would like to think that WP:PRESERVE was the encyclopedia's primary rule, it certainly does not apply to fair use images at this point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline restoration per Ricky81682. Clearly, if it wasn't missed until now, its omission is not detrimental to the article. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline but with no prejudice against another image from the episode being uploaded with proper licensing and NFC rationale. The deletion was in order, but that doesn't mean that such an image can't be used in the article, if it has a proper rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion but now restore as noted, having one image per article is generally accepted. Deleting was fine, but as long as Richard Arthur Norton is willing to write the rational for the image, I see no reason to download a new image (which he might not have access to) rather than simply restore the old one. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I will add the needed rationale. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you, per your comment above, simple copy and paste the same rationale from any of the other 124 episodes? Otherwise, if I may, what would the rationale be for an image that hasn't been needed for almost two years? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • erb? you are arguing that because the article lacked an image (or even this one) it couldn't possibly be helpful enough to meet our non-free usage guidelines? I find that hard to understand. Hobit (talk) 01:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the requirements under WP:NFCC is that the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I find a claim that the omission was detrimental difficult given the period it wasn't there. Similarly, pretty hard to argue significant increase in understanding since it wasn't needed for years. I'm just curious if the rationale will simply be the same as all the others. As A Nobody notes below, we can evaluate the rationale later and I'm just curious what the rationale would be beforehand, to save time. Not really required, but just curious. No real opinion either way, but if there's a good rationale now, I'd support restoration. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per WP:AGF. No reason why we would not allow an established editor to provide a rationale. We can always evaluate that rationale later, but in the best case scenario, he provides a good one and we improve the visual quality of the article; in the worst it is deleted again, which only takes but seconds. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and no objecton. Image was deleted in accordance with policy. However, if any admin wants to restore, that would be ok, provided a rationale is promptly added. Obviously, it could still be listed at WP:FFD. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit restoration, following the argument that a good rationale is possible. DGG (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this DRV It was deleted two years ago. If you want to make a FUR for it and upload a new image (or make a FUR and get the old image restored, assuming it wasn't hit in that image bug from last year), go right ahead. The original deletion was sound, but if you obviate the reason for deletion, there is nothing for us to review. Protonk (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2009 (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 2009

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

This article needs to be undeleted because he is a notable player and the page was deleted for no reason. Ice (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and list: wait, an incoming college basketball player with at least three or four reliable sources was deleted under A7. What happened to "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance"? We can debate whether he fits WP:ATHLETE (I'm somewhat doubtful) but I don't think that's a speedy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list: I don't have access to the article, so I can't tell whether there was a credible claim of significance / importance. But if there was, the article should not have been deleted as an A7, regardless of WP:ATHLETE. decltype (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list I can't see the original article, but with a quick search there are dozens of sources that raise this subject over A7. At minimum deserves it's chance at AFD.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have been happy to undelete it and list it at AfD on request. Done now. Prodego talk 17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Estonia–Luxembourg relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

clearly a delete consensus, only 1 vote for keep. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I think you agree with me that at least two of the points advanced for deletion were contradicted by your assessment for deletion. -- User:Docu
  • I do not agree with you, no one found significant third party coverage (almost all coverage is in multilateral context). my point on non resident embassies stands. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two contributors stated that there is no coverage while you even include a link to the coverage in your nomination. -- User:Docu
There is no coverage of actual bilateral relations.. there is trivial coverage in a multilateral sense, that's what my search found. No reliable sources of bilateral relations were found. LibStar (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bilateral" as I understand it, would be between the two countries. The link you provided does provide such sources. -- User:Docu
yes bilateral as opposed to multilateral, almost all coverage relates to events involving several nations in the EU and thus does not provide evidence of bilateral relations ie one country actually speaking to the other. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my search in the nomination appears to only find 1 article of bilateral relations, a minor tax treaty. Articles in the same search entitled "Ireland recognizes Kosovo's independence", "Serb rioters set fire to US Belgrade embassy over Kosovo" " Turkey refused EU membership" "LUXEMBOURG: EU to go ahead with expansion despite Irish vote rejecting..." etc. and various articles on competing in the same football qualifying rounds do not prove in any way bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - It's pretty clear that consensus favored deletion here. At the very least, a rationale from the closing administrator would have been useful. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse based on strength of arguments; however, a "no consensus" rather than "keep" would probably be a better read of consensus, because while not a vote, we should consider will of community to some extent. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to no-consensus Much as I would like these articles to be kept, this was a close without specifying reasons that did not properly judge consensus. I am normally very reluctant to change keep to a non-consensus because the immediate effect is the same, but this was so inappropriately done that it should be changed in order to establish the record properly for future discussions. I don't think there is consensus about what to do with an article like this: it's above the most minimal level, but there ought to be a good deal more to make a proper article. The current rash of deletions of them without searching & at a time when it's clear we as a group haven't any real consensus what the standards should be, is inappropriate, as was the insertion in the first palace. I think everyone dealing them them is heartily sick of the problem, but we still need to solve it. DGG (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no consensus it should be marked as "no consensus" not keep. that is standard practice. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how can one ill-informed opinion of keep that was quickly and completely rebutted qualify an article for consensus of "keep" against the nomination plus five additional deletes, three of which made very valid arguments plus a redirect? I'm not familiar with the closing editor but unless this was an error made in haste it is wildly inappropriate. Very disturbing indeed. There needs to be some level of trust in those closing these discussions and this undermines that trust. Drawn Some (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Docu, I am just now seeing your comment just above mine. I believe you should refrain from closing these debates in the future due to poor judgement. Drawn Some (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
totally agree with Drawn some. LibStar (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the repeated posts, I am quite disturbed by this. Particularly, your (User:Docu) judgement is poor because there was a clear consensus for deletion but even if there were not it should have been "no consensus" and calling it "keep" is completely rogue and makes a good case to end non-administrator closure of AfDs. Drawn Some (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Docu is actually an admin (but fails to mention this on his/her user page). LibStar (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Drawn Some, are you aware of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Bilateral_relations#Article_copy_and_pasting? -- User:Docu
Yes, I saw that the other day. It's absurd. Copy and paste is a time-saving technique and quite appropriate when essentially the same process was used to create thousands of articles which shouldn't have been created in the first place, which is the elephant in the room that everyone is overlooking. LibStar has gotten nothing but flak when he has put forth a great deal of effort on a needed task. Were it not for him no one would have done anything about all of these crap articles. Drawn Some (talk) 04:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an administrator as LibStar says? Drawn Some (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Docu has been an admin since December 2003, per [38]. Docu has done lots of helpful Wikignome actions, not so many discussion page posts or blocks. Edison (talk) 20:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it is a signature but with no date and time stamp it is hard to keep track. in addition, when I asked Docu directly if he/she were an admin on their talk page they gave me a very vague response. hardly useful when I was requiring clarification. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On closer examination, I can all the more see where Docu is coming from. Despite the number of deletes, they seem to have been made indiscriminately across multiple of these discussions and thus present a false consensus. For example, this "Kill it with fire!" hyperbole appeared in near copy and paste across multiple of these discussions: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], etc. It seems the same half dozen accounts saying to indiscriminately delete all of these bilateral relation articles, which truthfully vary consisderably one from the other in regards to importance of their relationships. After all, if we had an AfD for say Apple in which five accounts who say to delete all fruit related articles say delete as not notable and only one account says otherwise, the admin closer would be totally correct to keep. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, that reasoning might hold up if ALL fruit articles were put up for deletion but LibStar has but a great deal of effort into researching each article and reporting on his findings so the ones put up for deletion were for the most part quite valid. You're discounting his work. Copy & pasting is smart, I use it, and not indiscriminately. Drawn Some (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see more effort in trying to improve the articles first per WP:BEFORE or to merge any cited content per WP:PRESERVE. Besides, isn't there a discussion asking for a hold off on these to see if anything can be merged? Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, so there's no rush to hurry up and delete these if other options are available. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 03:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As indeed we all would. Take these 20,000 articles and divvy them up 5 each to 4,000 editors (or similar) and we'll make short work of them. You're overlooking the fact that LibStar has researched these prior to bringing them for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure improving them may take some time, but what is the rush? They are not likely to become less notable over time nor would less sources likely be available. If we hope and expect Wikipedia to stand the test of time, even if it say took us years to improve these, so be it. Wikipedia has no deadline and even good articles can be improved further somehow or other. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Canada - United States bilateral relations hasn't been put up for deletion. Drawn Some (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what nonesense. Not only have the vast majority of x-y articles not even been nominated but I even wrote one, Australia-East Timor relations, that has zero chance of ever being deleted, because its sails over the GNG and is very, very well sourced and eminently expandable. Of course, mindless "keep everything, even thousands of stubs compiled by a computer program of no demonstrable notability" is another issue.Bali ultimate (talk) 08:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear A nobody, check the articles I've created log [45], if I want to delete all bilateral articles as you assume, why have I created 11 notable examples in recent weeks? LibStar (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to see some who either not adequately researching these or really do just want them all deleted. In one, someone flat out declared that a country was not a colony of the other half of the relation, when in fact the country was conquered and colonized several times by the other country and in three separate centuries for as long as over ten years at a stretch, but we still get "not even a colony" kind of comments, which are not just not true, but would have been verified easily by any Google search. In that same discussion, you said, "only relations are in a sport context", which again, is false, because relatively easily others turned up that they have signed non-sports related treaties in addition to their colonial relationship over the course of three centuries. Then we get comments like "nothing more to say than where the embassies are", which subsequent improvements showed that more can indeed be said. Or comments like "no third-party indications of notability" when a book devotes a whole section to the actual name of the article as a topic. Finally, we have stuff like "Keeping this article and the others like it creates the precedent for thousands of minor articles for the relations between every single country in the world" when I am not going out of my way to defend all of these; however, some instances such as ones with a colonial legacy and subsequent modern interactions are indeed notable by any stretch of the word. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If people have valid reliable sources for keep then produce them in the AfD. I don't talk for others in terms of their reasoning. It was a bad faith assumption on your part that I always support delete. As for "only relations are in a sport context" I meant that coverage seems to reflect that. There is often minor bilateral agreements like double taxation or something weaker like a memo of understanding, these alone do not signify notable relations. I think the consensus is clear here for this article. Debate the other articles at its AfD. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People seem to be producing such sources that others should be able to just as easily find. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then those voting keep should supply these. not which I've seen at least 20 times "keep it's notable", "keep excellent almanac entry" "keep, and expand". If people don't produce good reasons for keep, in any AfD not just bilateral AfDs, and then complain when article is deleted? LibStar (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those voting to deleting should be doing more to look for sources and improve content as well and yes in all Afds and not just the bilateral relations ones. I usually make edits to improve even articles I say to delete and I pretty much always find sources for those I say to keep. I have seen waaaay more "delete, non-notable" only to have someone assert notability anyway. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. voting keep or delete everyone should give some solid reasons backed with evidence. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted "overturn" here, but I've closed several dozen bilateral relations AfDs as "keep" in the past. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I do usually find you to be an objective/neutral closer for whom I rarely if ever see any need to contest a close. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- As has been said before, it wasn't the number that carried the day in keeping the article, it was the strength of the argument. And unfortunately for the delete voters, the one Keep vote wasn't refuted in the slightest. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refuted the one keep vote. The google search by the one keep vote found much the same as me, Estonia and Luxembourg in a multilateral not bilateral context. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/question: LibStar, why are you asking those who typically say to delete in these bilateral discussions to come here: [46] and [47], for example? Are you going to contact Richard Arthur Norton and anyone else who is usually on the keep side, too? I have no issue with notifying editors, just making sure it is a fair notification going on here. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 03:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
because they are admins familiar with bilateral AfDs who have both kept and deleted such articles. Richard A Norton consistently votes keep without fail. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - Consensus was for deletion, not sure why closer ignored consensus, with zero rationale. AFD closer seems to not be neutral/independent on this subject, and should refrain from closing AFDs on these topics in the future. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain how you evaluated the various arguments provided? -- User:Docu
  • Overturn and delete in respect of the consensus at the discussion. Closer clearly substituted his own opinion, which should have been expressed as a !vote, for the consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. It was the clear consensus at the time and the closer didn't provide a solid reason to elevate the single keep vote over the opinion of the majority. - Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. There appeared to be consensus at the time. No rationale was given for why the minority viewpoint was taken (which though not necessary is certainly helpful). The closing admin has not been helpful in responding to queries either. Quantpole (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - A poor decision in complete contradiction to the AfD discussion, overturning this should be a no-brainer. That there wasn't even a rationale provided is more worrying though, and a perusal of this admin's talk page shows a rather callous disregard for communication with other users. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Several of the delete arguments noted policy and guideline based reasons, including that WP:N was not satisfied and that it was a directory-type listing, contrary to WP:NOT. Thus there was a clear policy-and-guideline based consensus for deletion. No reason was stated for overturning that consensus. Edison (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Yet another bad close against consensus and policy, by an admin who has clearly made up his mind on the issue and is so resistant to feedback that he can't be arsed to include a simple link to his own talk page in his signature. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete – improper admin closure. Reasons for deletion were policy-based and had established a rough consensus. Per AFD guidelines, deletion should have been the proper closure. MuZemike 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - incorrect decision. Agree the lack of a rationale and link to his user page are causes for concern. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, odd close to say the least. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 02:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, I'm going to AGF that the admin just hit the wrong button when closing, but even so, this should be overturned posthaste. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. At the top of this page it should say "Admins who disregard consensus will be overturned", preferably in large red letters, because these "creative interpretations of the consensus" are getting all too common nowadays.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply to the last group of comments: overturn, yes, but the consensus was not to delete: there was no consensus. DGG (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of your commentary so far here, but a 5-1 in favour of delete, where the sole keep vote was contested without response, seems to be to be a pretty clear "Delete" consensus. On what grounds would you close this as no consensus instead? Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - It seems that, if there was no consensus, but the consensus on DRV is to overturn the admin's decision, it would be most prudent to relist the XfD again and try to redo the process. From there, a more expansive discussion of the article's deletion can take place.--WaltCip (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And give the inclusionists a second bite at the cherry to flood the debate with "keep, clearly notable" and "keep until the centralized discussion is closed? There was a clear consensus; we wouldn't be here if not for Docu's faulty closure. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes I agree with Stifle. the inclusionists will come back and vote "Keep, it's notable/excellent article/an almanac entry." LibStar (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that I would do that--I do not !vote keep on all articles in this category; nobody does. Even the most inclusionist for this topic let many of the AfDs go to deletion without protest if it's clear they can't be improved enough in a reasonable time. The above argument is " I got the result I want, so let's not overturn it." Myself, I do not know what result i want for this one; if I did, I would have !voted at the original AfD. DGG (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to turn discussions into "inclusionist vs. deletionist" WP:BATTLEGROUND. As DGG suggests above, I also argue to keep for only ones that I believe have potential as well and abstain from commenting in actually most of these. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:34, 23 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Great Clay Belt (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is one of many redirects improperly deleted by Maury Markowitz for being unused or "polluting Google". I know that, in this case, I could simply create the redirect (it presumably pointed to Clay Belt), but there are way too many to do this manually. I would like consensus that this deletion in particular, and more generally his reasons for deleting this and others, was improper so that some sort of mass undeletion can take place. NE2 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • RestoreOverturn: that's a perfectly plausible redirect. In fact, it looks like the article was originally at Great Clay Belt and was moved to Clay Belt where Lesser Clay Belt and Great Clay Belt details were combined. I would think part of a name would be a logical redirect to keep. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RestoreOverturn: Seems like an essential redirect; certainly not implausible. decltype (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, no valid reason for deletion provided. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn According to the deleted history, Maury combined the two articles into one. Combining two closely related topics into one article seem like a good reason to keep the names of the individual entities as a redirect. They're certainly not implausible. As for polluting google, I don't think redirects are actually spidered... - Mgm|(talk) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, and for other reasons at Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting. --NE2 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google actually does spider redirects, not that that's necessarily a bad thing. Maury seems to be worried about performance issues caused by people clicking on a redirect rather than a direct link. --NE2 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore' Deleted contrary to WP policy. There is no basis in deletion policy for uswing such a reason via speedy, and I doubt it would even get consensus to delete at RfD. There is some dispute about the degree to which admins can use their judgment to invoke IAR to go outside the stated reasons, but IAR requires the knowledge that any reasonable person here would agree. That is far from the case--in fact, it seems to be the exact opposite. Cause for RfC if it continues. DGG (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Complete abuse of administrator power by Ricky81682. How could we let a featured article or a featured list quality work like this be destroyed? First, instead of actual discussion with Kasaalan over the work he created, the admin abuses his power to create Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, with only minimal participation and it gets deleted. Then the powers that be ignore the views of Alansohn and Ceedjee at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 16. Then, after Kasaalan rewrites the article to follow the AFD, he goes and lists it again for AFD without discussion. THEN, whining about Kasaalan's simple attempts to get more intelligent discussion, the admin goes to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Possible_convassing_concern and threatens yet again. What's wrong with asking people who know the issue to comment? What's wrong with notifying the Palestinian noticeboard about an article that affects them? It's not an Israeli issue. Finally, to further abuse his power, the great admin whines again that he's losing to his buddies, so that his friend can close the AFD in three days without discussion. We cannot allow people to be abused this way. A simple glance at the discussion among the people who truly understand Rachel and truly understand the need for this article all support it, it's clear that it should have been kept. Kasaalan listed everything at Talk:Rachel Corrie and instead of letting whoever just managed to wander by and give their ignorant views decide this issue, we should wait until the people who know and understand Rachel and what she means the best have thought about it and decided. Why make rash decisions within a few days when there's so much to lose? Suggest immediate restoration and listing as a featured article or a featured list following Ceedjee's discussion. In fact, this should be put on the front of Wikipedia immediately. Biasprotector (talk) 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close, largely because of the numerous bad faith accusations against this one, that one and the other one made here, that has nothing to do with the merits of the case. This appears to have been filed by a brand new user with a suspiciously high degree of proficiency in the ways of wikipedia. I find the special pleading that editors should defer to the judgement of "the people who truly understand rachel" because, well, obviously the people who argued for a merge clearly don't understand anything unworthy of adult conversation.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral and yes, I know it's strange coming from me, but I'm a policy wonk for the most part. Ignoring the clear bad faith allegations, the last point (not the very last one obviously) about it being closed early is concerning. I didn't think it was a clear G4, otherwise, I would have left the redirect I put in place. And it clearly wasn't a SNOW situation. I think it deserved the full time, but I also understand WP:IARing it away. A warning to stay away from the fun of the I-P universe. And Bali, as I noted, read the entire AFD, this user's complaints about who's judgment isn't alone, for what that's worth. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that having reviewed the AFD more thoroughly, i think it was a good close reflecting both the policy arguments (needless content fork) and appears to have been the recreation of an article that failed AFD recently without going through the DRV process, so appears a good close on the process side.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I was the one who asked for it to be kept here. Probably a dumb idea, but I had some concerns procedurally and given the number of users who were disgruntled with the close, I figured we could all ignore the attacks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse due to lack of actual arguments: a) nomination contains lots of bad faith accusations, those are usually speedy closed to cut drama b) nominator appears to be a sock created to avoid this discussion being linked to his main account, that's not good (AGF and all, but it seems that there is strong WP:DUCK evidence of who this person really is) c) nominator makes no mention of the arguments in the AfD d) the only real argument is that the comments of two editors were ignored in the DRV of a similar article, not in the AfD e) sending an article to AfD is not "admin abuse" since any non-administrator can do it.
A nomination without all these problems can probably be done, and it should explain why it wouldn't be a POV fork, and show some good sources that show that this is really an encyclopedic topic, and not just an indiscriminate list of any source mentioning her. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: What was the policy basis for that close? I'm not seeing it, which makes me lean towards overturn at the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (later) I should probably elaborate on that. The closer's justification seems to be that a similarly-titled article was merged a month ago, and the consensus of that previous AfD was to merge. But when I read the actual debate attached to that AfD, what I see is a fairly apparent "no consensus".

    What I want to understand is how the closer got from the debate to the result, because I'm not seeing the links at all.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the original AFD (for Artistic Tributes), the decision was merge. It was never actually merged since the article was instead moved to "Public reactions" with some additional text. I myself changed it to a redirect after month (since I originally thought none of the content was worth saving in the first place as did some others), and was told by the author that it was a "new" article, so it would be an abuse to use the original AFD as justification. I'm guessing the closing admin thought this wasn't a new article but a pretext to save the last one. Expand the first extended content section to get a better idea of the history, including a discussion of which editors have the proper experience, assuming anyone supports that argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that, but was it a consensus? I don't think so.

I want to understand the policy reasons why the closer didn't judge that debate as "no consensus". Because it seems to me that the close has little to do with the debate.

I think the closer might have decided the debate was defective, disregarded it and instead, acted as decided in an entirely different debate. Which is an automatic "overturn" from me as a bad close. But maybe the closer can cite some policy that supports their actions.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Without getting involved in faith discussions of deletion nomination, review or any other outcome, we should somehow discuss the content. :Yet a lack of getting involved to the main article, and without knowing the case fully, it is hard for others to appreciate why the separate title is important and necessary. The voting and admin decisions were based on somewhat without reading the case fully.
However creating the Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie is somewhat a broad article, and without help of other editors a quality article is not possible in short term. The Rachel Corrie article should somehow deal with her life, especially her early life actions more deeply and with her death. While a public reactions title should be separated to represent the case in more detail. Yet somehow we couldn't create a successful Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie title, because we couldn't have much time to develop it, before it got deleted.
We first created the page as Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie but it nominated for deletion claiming it is POV Fork, deletion voters suggested a more broad Public Reactions to Rachel Corrie would be more suitable, I tried to create it, yet they again liked to delete it for it is fork.
Ricky shouldn't nominated the article, without first tagging first and discussing with other main article editors, if you ask me. Most of Our most active editors of last 6 months from the main article taking wiki breaks currently, and it is no good time for deletion nominations or reviews. But I can tell the last admin that closes the title in 3 days with some arguments, he did not seemed to investigate the case fully, and even not bothered to read Ricky possibly. Because the original deletion admin advised another deletion review would be good, so Ricky nominated the article himself to discuss this further. Ricky later stated I could even ask another deletion review since admin closed too early but I didn't bother to get another review, because people not reading the case before they vote, also the time wasted during reviews could be spent on improving the article itself.
'Main Question I already implemented the Documentaries on Rachel Corrie to the main page. Actually we may also implement, political reactions to the main article somehow. Yet, there are more than 30 songs devoted to Rachel Corrie from 30 different professional artists (while half of them highly notable and famous, some others not much famous) all around the world, and we have a good table representing the songs. Yet without creating a separate title, it is not much possible to implement the table, and artist comments into the main article, since we have length and reference number limitations according to the guidelines. Only the song table is based on near 30 references itself. So my question is, is it advisable to create a List of Songs Dedicated to Rachel Corrie or List of Songs (and maybe Poems) Written for Rachel Corrie for dedicated song tables, and artist comments on why they wrote a song on Rachel Corrie. Kasaalan (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I put a copy of the content to be merged in main page discussion page Songs and Poems Dedicated to Rachel Corrie. I have other things to do, so I may not be around for a while. Kasaalan (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you created a table of those songs and poems (I still debate whether the sources are appropriate) doesn't mean that we must find a place for it to be. As I noted before, the talk page hadn't been edited in days and none of "main article editors" you've wanted commented on the first AFD, the first DRV, the actual article afterwards, the main article afterwards, the second AFD, and now here, excluding the ones you specifically notified. At some point, we cannot keep on waiting for the people you think are qualified, even if the nominator thinks so as well. Do you care at all about the views of those who actually took the time to make an opinion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources has verifiability, yet it is not about sources. You are determined to object any page titled List of Songs Dedicated to Rachel Corrie or Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie because you claim it is against guidelines or claim it is a (POV) FORK. You argue guidelines, but quoting or applying them just the partially. Yet the full wiki guidelines clearly refer it is neither POV, nor FORK, also there are numerous articles in the wikipedia, that have been reviewed by numerous other editors and approved, so it is not other examples exist case in any way, since the wiki guidelines are still same and applied likewise to any article. But in none of the deletion discussions we could discuss the policies fully, instead we wasted more time on faith of the parties, which is why the discussions were not productive.
You claim the same arguments, yet you still lack proper ones. In the last 1 year, the article has been improved greatly, by hard work of other editors from conflicting parties after month long debates. None of the editors I refer is my friends by the way, and I have serious conflicts with some of them. As you haven't replied to my previous questions, here I am asking again, did you even read the article from start to end even once before nomination, or yet. It is not that I don't care about others opinions, but they state their opinions without fully investigating the case, and without knowing the issue stating an opionion on the issue not helps much. That is what you have been doing the whole time. Without reading the article fully, or contributing it (excluding your 1 minor edit at the time of your nomination), tagging the article for improvement or without even taking other main page editors' opinions, you nominated the article for deletion, I cannot call that a constructive approach. We could have improved the article, instead these long debates over deletion of it. Kasaalan (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm arguing against it because pulling together every single song that mentions her is a mix of trivia or a synthesis of sources, not an encyclopedia article. A discussion about how she's received in the artistic community, by secondary sources, I could possibly live with (and probably won't be worth more than a paragraph), but tables of songs based on nonsense like a iTunes search for her name is just a mess. Not every piece of content is work keeping, and sometimes people just say delete it and move on. And it seems clear that discussing it with others doesn't matter, since practically nobody you want has bothered to comment. I know, I know, again, we should wait for them to be back from the wikibreaks, which sounds a lot like the nominator's argument. I have read the articles in question, I have commented since then at Talk:Rachel Corrie, a review of the various versions of this article showed me it couldn't ever be anything remotely useful without a complete overhaul and as I noted in the AFD, your constant reverting any attempt to summarize or remove any detail at all make it impossible to actually work on. Even the closing admin from the AFD gave up after a month and made it into a redirect. I refuse to wait around arguing with you until you feel like the discussion is complete. Frankly, I think the nominator would be easier to deal with than you. At least he put it up at DRV instead of just complaining. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strike all that. I'm not getting into another argument with you about how I don't need your approval to edit these things or list them for deletion. The last part is accurate though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you if you have read the article fully at the time of nomination, you didn't answer, you still haven't answered if you read them fully at that time or yet. Because you have been coming up with some clearly wrong arguments, and you still do, so I am not sure you have read the articles fully or checked references correctly. The itunes site used as a reference for song lengths, not more than that. I explained that to you already, but you keep coming with same wrong argument. If the references are the issue, I can come up with better references. But you object the page totally, not only to references. Kasaalan (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous articles in the same manner of Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie in wikipedia, and you haven't showed any guideline that restricts creating it in the first place yet. When you do so, then the discussion is over, but you coming with vague arguments. Tell me what is the difference between Cultural depictions of George Washington and Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie articles. Kasaalan (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It stresses the parts I like to point out most. Especially the questions I ask and my replies to others arguments. I write long, not everyone reads every part, so I use bold for main sentences. Kasaalan (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of your points are wrong. No this is not an othercasesexist argument, because wikipedia is full of same content articles not only a few. Throwing guidelines here and there, but not refferring the main idea behind the guideline not useful. The Wikipedia:Other stuff exists guideline clearly explains that, for consistency other articles that established and continued to exist in the same nature is a good insight for notability of the concept.
"... such an argument may be perfectly valid if such can be demonstrated in the same way as one might demonstrate justification for an article's creation. It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency. Unfortunately, most deletion discussions are not as clear-cut, but the principles are the same.
In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia."
I don't know if you have any insight on Gandhi's life, thoughts and actions, but if you read his life, you can easily tell the similarities between Gandhi and Rachel Corrie's approach to peace. The same guidelines cannot be applied to the apples and oranges differently within Wikipedia. So if you claim the cases are different, you should first prove why they are different and why the same guidelines should be applied differently. Kasaalan (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you created Artistic Tributes, it was rejected, it went to DRV, that decision was accepted. You moved the article and changed it to Public reactions, that was somewhat rejected (disputable), and now we are here. Now if this DRV or another AFD or whatever is again a merge or a straight-out delete, will you again create another title and repeat these arguments again for another round? It's not going on the main article as Talk:Rachel Corrie indicates. Is there a point where consensus and finality actually mean anything? Otherwise, what is your goal here, other than arguing that Rachel Corrie is on the same field in terms of notability as Elvis, Gandhi, and George Washington? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page, you nominated it for deletion before you contributed to the main article or artistic tributes pages, or without tagging or bothering to discuss this issue with other editors first. The majority of votes, including 2 main page editor's vote was in favor of keeping the article, or merging into a more broader public reactions page. However the admin closed the page, though he admitted he doesn't even know who Rachel Corrie is, so he didn't read sub article fully too. Yet some delete voters including you and closing admin advised a more broad public reaction page would be better, Therefore I tried to create a title accordingly. But again it is nominated, but this time it is perceived as a "workaround" for deletion so it rejected by majority of votes, yet 2 overturn votes by editors after they read the article. Kasaalan (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument was textbook other stuff exists. That's why that page is there. It addresses arguments like yours. "Allow me to make this because there's 'x tribute to x' elsewhere, so that proves that it should stay." No, it doesn't. Especially when it is apples to oranges. You cannot argue that Rachel Corrie is anywhere near as notable as those people. Rachel Corrie became notable with her death. All those people you referred to were extremely notable while living. That's a fairly significant distinction. Enigmamsg 05:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just partially take some guideline sentences to reach a synthesis, guideline clearly says "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts" against your allegations. No they don't have the same level of notability, but they all have notability. Also Gandhi has at least 10 times more long coverage in wikipedia, and more than 10 titles dedicated under him. Gandhi template proves it. They have coverage by sources, not your allegations. The same guidelines apply likewise to every article. Also your other argument clearly false, she is not only notable for her death, if that would be the case any westerner that IDF killed would have same notability. But no, she is notable because her activism works in Evergreen, she is notable because her actions, she is notable because her writings, which were published and become an international theatre play and even part of a cantata, she has over 30 songs devoted to her name depicting her actions even if she died in 23 years old. Did you even read the article fully yet or are you still just speculating. Kasaalan (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are honestly going to argue that Rachel Corrie was at famous as Gandhi? You can't honestly be arguing that Corrie deserves the same amount of coverage as Gandhi? From a basic results perspective, I'd say Gandhi accomplished more but it's clear from your user page what your perspective is. And it looks like you still argue that the mere existence of things (the play, her writings) indicates her notability, not independent third-party analysis of them, which is what [[WP:RS}] asks for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being famous and being notable are not directly related. No Gandhi is at least 10 times more famous than Rachel Corrie, at Gandhi is cumulatively more than 10 times more coverage than Rachel Corrie in wikipedia. As I stated before, Gandhi has more notability, but they both have notability. And there is no he is more famous therefore his article should be longer, she is less famous trim her article policy exists. Also if you know about Gandhi at all you can easily tell the similarities between their actions. Arun Gandhi speaking at The Rachel Corrie Foundation’s 2006 Peace Works Conference All Rachel Corrie articles, build upon references, though you try to claim separate "famousness" for every single piece under a title, for a song, written by a notable party like Patti Smith for another notable party like Rachel Corrie and being covered by a verifiable source is enough to mention it in the relevant article. Kasaalan (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" Rachel Corrie was 23 years old, from Olympia; a sane, articulate, and dedicated American who had studied with care the methods of Gandhi and Martin Luther King." David Bromwich Professor of Literature at Yale The Huffington Post Thoughts on the Death of Rachel Corrie May 22, 2009 Kasaalan (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
DataObjects.Net (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was unreasonable. Alexyakunin (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for undeletion and relist of DataObjects.Net. Article is updated and represents a neutral position, it has some credible references and is notable. The original decision from the previous deletion debate is no longer the case because all the article has been rewriteen.

Moreover, for ~ 3 last months there was accepted DataObjects.Net v4.0 page. The text of DataObjects.Net page is based on its content, but we added "Features", "Example" and "Architecture" sections. Probably I should delete DataObjects.Net, rename DataObjects.Net v4.0 to DataObjects.Net (because now v4.0 is the most current version), and update its content, but I simply re-created DataObjects.Net and put a redirect from DataObjects.Net v4.0 to it.

From Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DataObjects.Net:

  • "This 'development framework' was initially released 85 days ago" - incorrect, v1.0 was released in 2003, and there were lots of subsequent releases.
  • "The article does not demonstrate that the development framework is notable" - hopefully now it is. There are links in the end proving this, that can be removed, if you consider they advertise the product:
  • "and does not give sources for its assertion that the product is different from its competition." - that's because v4.0 is really new. In fact, its final version is just releasing this month. So we're (authors) are the only ones able to show the differences. Some features listed in the article are unique, e.g. built-in database (Google easily proves this). And... Actually I don't understand why are you requiring to show and prove the presence of differences. They obviously exist (this can be said about any two software products). But on the other hand, it is always possible to find a person claiming there are no noticeable differences between a particular product and all its competitors, especially if there are many of them: the "cumulative" set of features offered by competitors is usually wider than the features offered by a particular product, and the small set of features left can be considered as negligible by a particular reviewer.
  • "The framework is at least partly a profit-making enterprise, meaning that this article functions partly as an advertisement" - we removed any (super)relative comparison degrees from the content to make it closer to the article format. Btw, the same can be said about many other open source products with GPL\LGPL license having the articles here - their copyright owners quite frequently get indirect profits (visibility, services around, etc.).

The latest version of article can be viewed from User:Alexyakunin/DataObjects.Net

  • 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? Also, this article was deleted over five months ago; can you please advise why you have waited until now to make this request? Stifle (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes - I've contacted both persons responsible for deletion of both articles (User:MBisanz, User:ESkog). User:ESkog has asked me to follow this procedure.
    • "About five months ago": it was mainly because of lack of time. Actually I never though writing an article for Wikipedia can be rather complex. So I delayed this, and finally asked another person to do this. He has published DataObjects.Net v4.0 article - probably, because he has not understood what exactly should be done to review the deletion. DataObjects.Net v4.0 article has been approved. Alexyakunin (talk) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin AFD opened the required period of time, unanimous support for deletion, I'm still not seeing anything above that would overcome the comments made at the AFD IMO. MBisanz talk 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: why does the latest version not actually use any of the sources you've listed? Just throwing them into the External links section and leaving a detailed unsourced listing of the version changes doesn't seem like too much of a change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be fixed. Alexyakunin (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a bit of advice but personally, doing things like this tends to annoy people more than encourage them. If you are the one trying to keep this article, saying that google in Russian mentions this isn't going to help that much. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Err... Link to google.ru was really occasional - there should be a link to google.com, if it should be. My intention was to show the product has its own community. Most of discussions related to this product were running on our forum; there ~ 10K messages, 99% - in English. We didn't seriously pay attention to promotion of it outside, that's why it is actually not so easy to find articles related to it, but not related to us - i.e. we've built a community around it in our forums. Reviews made on other web sites (such as the one at ComponentSource) are, most likely, made by our customers, and some of them were finally published on our web site. So I'm not sure if you consider them as "independent view on the subj.". That's why I provided the link to google search page. Alexyakunin (talk) 09:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In any case, I understood it's better to give some links to particular web pages. Alexyakunin (talk) 09:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just updated the page. The most important external reference (reader's choice award) is mentioned in article's text now. I didn't put any references to short responses related to the product on the web sites that aren't related to us at all, since they can't be considered as real articles, and will likely just confuse the visitor. And actually don't want to put references to e.g. our forum to proof the public notability - again, it will just confuse the people. I hope the article itself looks descriptive enough to be published now, and there are some evidences pointing on its notability. And... I looked up the pages of similar products, and found that pages of many of them are providing nearly the same quality and notability of references. Examples are: LLBLGen, DevForce, ObjectMapper .NET, Persistor.NET, Subsonic (software), Habanero.NET, EntitySpaces. I hope current content worth to be published here.
  • Endorse deletion It's been long enough. The AFD was properly done, procedurally fine. The references Alexyakunin has included are only useful for features of the program. The only mention is that it won the 2007 Reader's choice award in dot.net Magazine for O/R mapper, which is based on reader's votes. The forum isn't going to qualify no matter what. Combine that with a clear COI and I just don't see enough for notability. Still nothing to indicate meeting WP:CORP. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Paradiso Girls (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

5 "deletes" (including nominator) citing established guidelines and one "redirect". On the "keep" side, User:Mahmud200, an editor with a whopping 4 contributions, uses "next big thing" and User:Whadaheck uses "there aren't any sources, but they have fans". Who knows who the anon is, but his argument seems to be "foreign Wikipedias haven't deleted it yet". Numerically, the deletes have it, and once the arguments are weighted, it's nearly a slam dunk. I've discussed it with the closing admin, and he seems to place a lot of weight on the IP's argument, which is one of the worst I've encountered. On my talk page, he summarizes it as "Other language editions have articles on this subject, which means it is considered notable", which isn't any better than my summarization of it: policies and guidelines in foreign language Wikipedias have nothing to do with our policies and guidelines. Our guidelines indicate that this article should be deleted, not kept. —Kww(talk) 01:04, 18 May 2009 (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 2009

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

Request for undeletion and relist of Shirelive. Article is revised and represents a neutral position, is has many credible references and is notable. The original decision from the previous deletion debate is no longer the case because over 70% of the article has been changed since. This article can be viewed from User:Bunzyfunzy/Shirelivechurch bunzyfunzy (talk) 11.01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I continue to see no significant 3rd party sources about it. DGG (talk) 03:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry thought i neede to show point —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunzyfunzy (talk • contribs) 06:42, 18 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
  • Percussive maintenance – History undeleted. I found no content problems that would require the content to remain deleted, and there were no such issues raised in the AFD discussion. The prior revisions should be useful for this article, because they make a point that is lacking from the current article. – Uncle G (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Percussive maintenance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

History-only undeletion. WikidSmaht (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2009 (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 2009

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

Christian Engström is the main candidate for election to the EU Parliament for the Pirate Party in Sweden. Since the page was deleted, the Pirate Party has gained prominence (due to the recent Pirate Bay trial), and recent polls show that the Pirate Party is likely to gain either one or two seats in the EU Parliament, making Engström the first elected member of the Pirate Party. Since deletion he has also had significant press coverage, including mentions in articles on the BBC news website, and this Wired interview: [48]. Therefore it is only appropriate that there should now be a page on him. 81.179.252.108 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Optimal Thinking (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Request for relist and undeletion. I tried discussing the matter with the original admin who deleted the page.

In answer to the various requests for deletion of my Optimal thinking article:

The instructions in WP:RS state that "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process;

their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

Perhaps these editors are unaware of the way the international publishing industry works. 17 translations of the book "Optimal Thinking" have been published by reputable publishers who understand this original, important concept and decided to share it with the citizens of their respective countries. The reviewing process for publication is a strict legal, logical, relevant and viability-based one that is thoroughly made before a company decides to publish. A book's originality, validity, and profitability (sales-wise) is analyzed by various experts before any additional monies are laid out or paper is printed. This is not the same process as when choosing to translate and publish a novel where good story, etc. are important; for a non-fiction, psychologically-based thought and peak performance conceptual book, authority, cogency, and intelligence rules in the decision to publish the material and share it with their citizens.

I am able to provide, as sources, numerous endorsements from experts in the psychology, self-help and business development fields who are familiar with and consistently use this form of thinking; the inclusion of Optimal Thinking in the curriculum at California State University (Fullerton) Department of Management, School of Business Administration, and numerous press articles extolling Optimal thinking as the cognitive foundation of peak performance. Further research on my part has revealed that optimal thinking has been incorporated into the cultures of many government organizations (including the U.S. Army and the IRS) and corporations, many in the Fortune 500 (who do not waste time or money on anything that is vapid, vague or neo-logistic).

I want to add that the article for Chicken Soup for the Soul lists only licensed products, and references only itself. And the page for Edward De Bono's concept of Lateral Thinking lists De Bono's books as primary sources. It may be interesting to note that Dr. De Bono, the creator of Lateral Thinking was a speaker at the same conference where Dr. Glickman gave the plenary speech in 1992 i.e. at the prestigious annual gathering: The Fifth International Conference on Thinking in Queensland, Australia.

Per some of the commentators on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal thinking page, I must point out that Cazort extols his unreliability in editing positions at the top of his page by saying:

  • I apologize for the times that I screw up edits; this is something I do frequently
  • I am also guilty of many bad practices on Wikipedia.
  • I am moody and highly emotional.
And that Drawn Some has proven himself unreliable when you read the comments on his page about his editing tactics and thought processes. It also seems to me that Smerdis of Tlon, whose comment was that Optimal thinking is “vapid, vague self-help coinage ”, is making one of his vacuous truths. Not understanding a concept, possibly because of poor writing skills on my part, does not make it vapid (dull and lifeless) – on the contrary, including the practice of optimal thinking into your life on a consistent basis will bring you to peak performance levels (neither dull nor lifeless) - or vague (again, a possible result of my writing skills in distilling the optimal thinking concept into article form).

I ask that you please review your decision to delete this article. I would like to add more information on this topic and would be grateful for your help.

Best wishes Newthoughtguy (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have reformatted the above discussion because I found it practically illegible in its original format. I have not changed the nominator's words, only their layout.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall leave aside the various accusations of bad faith in the nomination and focus on content rather than conduct. (Conduct disputes make me tired, so I leave those to administrators.)

    You might be surprised how familiar some of us are with the way the international publishing industry works (or more accurately, fails to work).

    It's significant that nothing from the nomination shows how the closing administrator erred in terms of Wikipedia policy or practice. I'll treat this as a request for the AfD to be re-opened on the grounds that the previous debate was defective.

    In order to consider this request, I need to see evidence of reviews or discussions of this book in third-party reliable sources. The publishers themselves explicitly do not count.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In answer to the various requests for deletion of my Optimal thinking article → it is not your article. Once you hit the "Save page" button, it becomes the community's article. With that being said endorse as this is not AFD round 2. Proper read of the consensus and good close. Accusations of bad faith make this DRV request particularly damning. MuZemike 19:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse' Correct result. Correct close of a discussion where nobody said keep. I didn't bother piling-on the deletes for this one because it was so obviously promotional. I would probably have deleted it as a G11 on that grounds alone had I spotted it. I see that "Optimal thinking how to be your best self" is in 6000 worldCat libraries, but I can find no reliable reviews. The NYT ref simply mentions it exists in an article about such books in general. We have a number of other promotional articles for self-help books that need improvement-- or removal if improvement is not possible. I admit I'm always a little skeptical about this genre, but that is because it's difficult to tell the promotion from the content. DGG (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tynisha Keli (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

She just charted at #6 in Japan. [49] Requesting Unsalting as she now passes WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASPOLICY (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Was improperly deleted, it is the short synonym for an essay, and is used in over 30 current article discussion pages and now they have no link to the essay. The deleter believes the length makes it a proper deletion. For instance see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for another synonym. The length is a red herring. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, it is used in "over 30" AfDs because RAN posted it there claiming the essay it was pointing to, his own personal essay, replaced WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nothing stopping him from editing his copy/paste postings to point to the full name of it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment. RAN asked two admins to undelete this, without noting this DRV discussion,[50][51] then recreated the shortcut in the main article space at DONTQUOTEPERSONALESSAYSASIFPOLICY. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a collaborative essay, not a personal essay at all. That is a misrepresentation of facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is definitely a personal essay. It was created by Richard Norton purely to respond to a point I made on a deletion discussion. so conveniently invented to back an argument he was making. LibStar (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:ESSAYS Essays are allowed in main space. See WP:PUFF. It is common for editors to make up essays that support their viewpoints, then use them in AFDs. Everything you state here is perfectly normal and acceptable. Ikip (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Is there a strict rule that determines how many letters must be in a redirect? Is the argument that if I shorten it it will be valid. Tell me what the Wikipedia limit is for a redirect and I will compose on that is shorter but still conveys the concept. Lease convey the exact number of letters that I need, so there is no misunderstanding. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing collaborative about it. You created it and have done almost all edits. Of the other people to "edit" it, one did some grammar fixes, one tagged it for CSD, another declined, one made a null edit comment, and the last just added categories. All insignificant maintainence type things, not actual contributing in terms of adding content and showing support of it. The content is purely yours. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is a complete distortion of the facts. The two line essay was rewritten by another user to its current form. I wrote "Generally it is not a good idea to quote personal essays as if they were Wikipedia approved policy." it currently reads: "Generally, it is not a good idea to quote personal essays - including this one - as though they are Wikipedia approved policy. Essays can be written without much - if any - debate, as opposed to Wikipedia policy that has been thoroughly vetted. Giving a link to an essay without explanation risks misrepresenting it as more than it is - the opinion of one or more editors." Either way it has nothing to do with the argument that the redirect is "implausable". It is no more implausible than OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted per the precedent of WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT. The poor conduct pointed out by Collectionian will also not do this nomination any favours. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's take complex accusations of bad faith to dispute resolution, and focus on content rather than conduct here.

    The deletion rationale does indeed appear to be "this redirect is too long", with a specific statement from the deleter that "I have no problem with the essay". But we have (for example) WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. I'd be interested to know if Dank will expand on his reason for deleting, because it doesn't look all that brilliant to me from the information I have at the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure, I could be wrong on this one. The drop-down box for R3 says "recently created, implausible redirect", and WP:CSD#R3 says "Recently created redirects from implausible typos or misnomers. However, redirects from common misspellings or misnomers are generally useful, as are redirects in other languages." I deleted per R3 on a judgment call that this redirect is implausible and not "generally useful". Back when I did more work with style guidelines, I had a lot of conversations about shortcuts, and there was very rarely support for shortcuts even half as long as the one proposed here. Individual exceptions have been mentioned above, but they're exceptions. I'll be happy to take the question of whether this is a valid use of R3 to WT:CSD. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what sense is it "implausible" given that we have evidence of it being used 30+ times, though? Would you agree that it's "generally useful" to at least one editor?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It depends on what "generally useful" means, I suppose. - Dank (push to talk) 21:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah. Does "generally useful" mean "useful to at least one editor" or "useful to several editors"?

            A key point is, if the latter, how is Richard Norton supposed to prove that? It's been deleted before anyone else used it, so the deletion becomes self-justifying. I'm not sure that's appropriate for a speedy, though it would obviously be so after an XfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • It's not useful for one very simple reason. WP:EANP and WP:NOTPOLICY have been around for years, and point to better essays that have also been around for years. I strongly suspect that any editor crying that xe would type 34 characters to point to a poor essay rather than typing in 7 characters to point to one of two much better essays of far longer standing, would be at the very least deluding xyrself for the sake of making a point. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion The only person using it was the creator of the essay himself, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). The essay itself is basically a round-about admonishon to other users to not do exactly what he is doing, despite instances where some such pages have widespread acceptance and his does not. The essay itself, used as it is, is probably a good candidate for MfD. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete This is exactly what essays are for. I couldn't agree more with the problem of editors citing seemingly-official abbreviations that are often presented with an air of authority that they appear to be policy. WP:CRUFT, as just one example, has been cited in dozens of AfDs as a rationalization for deletion. This is the perfect antidote, and the "implausibility" of its use is no issue once people start using it. Count me in as another editor who will be happy to cite this policy to counter essays as justifications for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either undelete or better yet also delete other far more useless shortcuts like WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, etc. that add nothing to mature, academic discourse. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the spirit of these last two votes, but all I'm saying is that I've been in on a number of discussions about redirects for guidelines and policy pages, and I can't ever remember someone wanting a "shortcut" that was this long or this hard to remember. How would you guys feel about WP:THATSJUSTANESSAY or WP:THATSNOTPOLICY? - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and list at RFD to determine whether or not there should be such a redirect. Cunard (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally have no problem with administrators deleting things that don't fit a CSD, if it's a good move. In this case, however, I don't believe that the criterion cited applies, and I don't think that any provided rationale for summary deletion is strong enough to negate the necessity of an RfD. So I support undeleting and listing at RfD. ÷seresin 22:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and take to RfD That's the place for discussing the actual issue. There are some rare occasions for using IAR at CSD, but this was not one of them. DGG (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I do not know what it was, but it would be interesting to look. Just insert underscores in the title, and everything should be fine.Biophys (talk) 23:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a redirect, to a short essay, as explained right at the start of this discussion. It was purportedly a shortcut. But it was really an argument masquerading as one. It's not really reasonable to think that extending a 34-character shortcut to 39 characters, by inserting underscores, will result in "everything being fine". No-one is going to use this shortcut, for the simple reasons that shorter shortcuts already exist, and better essays, written by editors with good levels of Clue when it comes to the workings of Wikipedia, already exist and have existed for some several years. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and take to RfD. I don't see how this meets R3 and clearly enough users disagree with the deletion that it shouldn't be unilateral. Oren0 (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as implausible. --Kbdank71 01:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why must it be spelled out in full capitals as if yelling; seems as though the purpose is not to redirect but something else... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It is definitely a personal essay. It was specifically created by Richard Norton purely to respond to a point I made on a deletion discussion. so conveniently invented to back an argument he was making. I don't believe Wikipedians should do this to illustrate their point. LibStar (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. The essential question here is whether the deletion was an R3. It sets a bad precedent to say that speedy deletion of long shortcuts is unilaterally okay, as sometimes it's difficult to invent a short shortcut, or some users prefer to use the longer shortcut for clarity. If a user created a long shortcut for a widely-accepted essay, and used it, even if they were the only one using it, they would only look a bit silly, not be doing anything objectionable. The deletion of this redirect is apparently an end-run around the proper procedure for dealing with Richard Norton's disruption. Take the essay to MfD if you feel it was created in bad faith or to make a point. Take the redirect to RfD if you think the redirect is useless; this also gives Richard time to replace all his uses if necessary. Finally, pursue mediation with Richard if you believe he has a pattern of disruption to make a point. Dcoetzee 22:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, what disruption, from everything I have seen, he responded to the mass deletions of an editor. Which is perfectly okay. I find it ironic that an editor attempts to delete the first season of one of the most popular shows in american television history, deleting hundreds of editors contributions, with no conversation before hand, violating WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE and RAN's reaction to this is disruptive. Ikip (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete this seems like much ado about nothing. Ikip (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • undelete and send to XfD as desired. There seems to be no reason to speedy this.  !Hobit (talk)
  • This isn't a shortcut. It's actually longer than the full title of Wikipedia:Essays are not policy. There's no real reason to have this, and it is, ironically, doing the one of very things that these essays rail against: using the shortcut itself as the argument rather than the thing that the shortcut points to. We already have WP:NOTPOLICY pointing to Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy and WP:EANP pointing to Wikipedia:Essays are not policy, both of which have been around for some years. A poorly written third essay, explaining less than the first two do, was not a useful addition to Wikipedia, nor was a 34-character "shortcut" that isn't a shortcut (but was an argument masquerading as one) and that is longer than the full title of existing essays.

    Anyone opining that xe will in the future actually use that 34-character shortcut and poor essay, rather than the existing shortcuts (that are actually short) and existing essays (that are far better), is at best fooling xyrself for the sake of making a point. It's as implausible to think that anyone here will actually do that, in the knowledge that the better essays and shorter shortcuts exist, as it is to think that this shortcut was intended to be a shortcut in the first place (espcially when it was dropped into article space). WP:NOTPOLICY, WP:EANP, and WP:OMGWTFBBQ are useful and plausible redirects (pointing to essays written by editors with Clue that make fair points well). This redirect, is neither.

    The right outcome has happened, albeit by quite the wrong route. Uncle G (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete. It looks to me like we've got consensus not to use WP:CSD#R3 for this purpose. It would be fine with me if you guys want to move on to RfD or some other forum. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question did this shortcut link to Wikipedia:Don't cite essays or proposals as if they were policy, which has been around since 05:17, 6 June 2006? I mentioned this DRV there. Ikip (talk) 07:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Whether the i's were dotted and t's crossed, a WP redirect to a redundant, poorly written personal essay--a redirect that is ludicrously long--ought to be deleted, and sooner is better than later. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete & list at RfD. While I'm opposed to this longcut and not convinced by the reviewer's appeal, R3 appears a bit of a stretch. MLauba (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slap the deleter for a bad speedy (There are some rare occasions for using IAR at CSD, but this was not one of them. DGG), but keep deleted (You'll look pretty foolish typing in 34 characters when "WP:Essays are not policy" is only 24 and "WP:EANP" is only 7, and the essay is a better one, to boot. Uncle G) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete, we sometimes have humorous shortcuts to essays, like Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. There's nothing wrong with this. --B (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't used to make curt attacks at people though. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at RFD - meets the letter of R3, no question about it, but probably not its spirit. As DRV is not the place to discuss whether this redirect is really useful, take it to RFD to sort it out there. Regards SoWhy 16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List or endorse I'm w/ SoWhy. It isn't a short cut. It isn't widely used. Seems to have been a reasonable decision on the part of the deleting admin. Questions about the essay are extraneous. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I too would not speedy this, so I could live with a relist at RfD. However, the deletion is the correct outcome simply because, as Uncle G and others continually try to point out, the only purpose that this essay could possibly serve to this encyclopedia is fulfilled more ably by other, more widely cited essays with easier to use shortcuts. This is like taking a race car and redesigning it into a Model T. I question neither your right nor your ability to do it, but to what purpose? Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TV Tropes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Original reason for deletion no longer the case. (Note, Much of this reasoning was originally posted by me on an admin's page who was helpful enough to direct me here) I was not a participant in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TV Tropes Wiki (2nd nomination) but I have read it over before. I was reading a two page website article from a college newspaper, published in February of this year on the topic of TV Tropes: [52], and was reminded of this debate. I recalled that the main argument for deletion had been that the TV Tropes wiki did not meet the standards of notability for a website set forth under WP:WEB, mostly due there being no known reliable sources that made anything more than a passing reference to the site. Curious, I looked to see if there were any other articles published that went in depth on the topic and found an extremely in depth article on a website related to semantic computer science that talks about the site in an immense amount of detail. [53]

Also Bruce Sterling devoted an entire posting to it on his Beyond the Beyond blog on WIRED. Yes. That Bruce Sterling, and that WIRED. (Mind you, Much of it appears to be website analysis that Allen Varney sent to Sterling to be posted in the blog, with responses written by Sterling highlighted in triple parenthesis, but looking over other entries in the blog, this is not an uncommon way for Sterling to make a posting.)

[54]

Reading over WP:WEB I very much think the initial issues for which the article was deleted are no longer valid. The site now fits the standards of notability for website related articles on wikipedia. After the Bruce Sterling/Varney one, I sort of didn't see a need to look for any more sources. The two articles I had already gotten seemed to fit well under WP:RS They were not self-published, they were independent and neither of them appeared to be trivial, but the Sterling/Varney WIRED article seemed to push it over the top. As per suggestion from the person who's user page I initially posted this on, I also have a rough user space draft User:Sgore/TV Tropes. Mind you, if I remember correctly, the original entry was much more detailed and fleshed out than what I put together, but like I said this is a rough draft. If possible though, I would really recommend restoring the original page and merging some of the notable references in. Thank you. -Sgore (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • John R. Talbott – Following discussions with Keegan as to the best way to proceed, and after correspondence between Mike Godwin and the subject, I've decided — with Keegan's full consent — to undelete the article, reopen the AfD to let it run its natural course, and archive this section based on the developments in discussion between Mike and the subject. Thanks to all for their input. Regards, – Daniel (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John R. Talbott (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The AfD was abruptly closed based on OTRS messaging that contained rumblings of legal threats. A full discussion of what transpired is found here: [55]. The article itself was properly sourced, not malicious, and confirmed the notability of its subject, who is a prominent writer. closing admin freely acknowledged in the AN/I discussion: "My deletion was totally against policy and process, and summarily incorrect. I am not going to undelete the article." Pastor Theo (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yup, that sounds about right. Please consult Mike Godwin if you have any concerns over the legalese of the matter, I freely admit to Ignoring All Rules when performing the deletion. This is an extraordinary convolution of onwiki-discussion, OTRS emails, and private emails. Nothing short of a clusterfuck, largely because of me attempting to mediate the dispute. I have no qualms with review and/or undeletion of this article. Thanks, Pastor Theo, and happy editing to all. Keegantalk 00:53, 15 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]

The discussion has now been relisted, and notice as described above given [56] [57], [58], [59] Erik9 (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, links to the TFD discussion will not be added to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details or MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Erik9 (talk) 00:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:R from other capitalisation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Category:Redirects from other capitalisations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Did not follow any of the suggested remedies. Deleting this could break features of Wikipedia.

  • I'm also concerned about the actual closing. That result was pulled out of his ... (hat). Nobody suggested replacing with the CATEGORY, only a simpler redirect to the TEMPLATE {{R unprintworthy}}.
  • But I'm the lonely keep — and gave a detailed enumerated discussion:
    1. The template provides an explanation for the redirect purpose, so that the redirect won't be carelessly removed.
      • There are at least 27 redirects to this template, indicating wide usage by editors.
    2. The eponymous category is used by category intersection software (such as Cat Scan), and more generally by program-assisted editing software.
    3. The Unprintworthy category is required for CD archive generation, and *** MUST NOT *** be removed!
    4. Created in 2004 by the eminent Docu (talk · contribs), one of many such long-standing features of Wikipedia.
    5. The template and related categories have survived numerous XfD, as far back as Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Not deleted/August 2005#Template:R from alternate name and others.
    6. "Useless" is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.
      • The original nominator admits not knowing about Deletion Policy.
      • The nomination was placed in the wrong XfD queue.
    7. The primary rationale given so far is that some editors are unhappy that non-administrators must use a longer process to move over these redirects (Wikipedia:Requested moves). That is considered a "Good Thing", as this inhibits move wars!
  • In fact, the deletion decision did not address the latter concern, merely replaced adding a template with adding a category. Same effect, without the explanatory text.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The closure was in line with the consensus; none of your points demonstrates why the closure was incorrect. We do not have to consult the entire community for a change of this magnitude—it's not that signficant. Your views above on the validity of the template were presented in the XfD, and were rejected. Consensus was followed. seresin ( ¡? )  23:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Editors supporting the deletion of the template argued that
    1. The continued addition of the template to redirects served to obstruct legitimate pagemoves to the redirects edited, since non-administrators cannot move articles over redirects having more than one revision. It was observed that such moves could be accomplished through WP:RM; however, convenience in conducting pagemoves is regarded as a sufficiently important consideration to permit ordinary editors to perform moves in most cases, instead of limiting the move function to administrators. It was argued that a template should not be utilized as a back-door mechanism to restrict pagemoves to WP:RM.
    2. The addition of the template to redirects, and consequent obstruction of pagemoves, provided negligible benefits in terms of navigational value.
    3. Only by actual deletion of the template could its further addition to redirects be prevented. Merely redirecting Template:R from other capitalisation to Template:R unprintworthy would allow the subsequent usage of the former template. To prevent the creation of > 260,000 red-links, the deletion of the template absolutely requires that edits be made to the redirects in which it is transcluded.
  • Furthermore, since Template:R unprintworthy's sole function is to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects to redirects, preceded by an explanation of the category's purpose which essentially duplicates the description provided at the category page itself, I concluded that it would be more efficient to add Category:Unprintworthy redirects directly to the redirects, rather than create > 260,000 transclusions of Template:R unprintworthy (which currently appears on less than 3,000 redirects). Erik9 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query
      1. Did you not understand -- in terms of number of edits -- that adding any category to the redirects has the same effect as adding a template to the redirects?
        • That is, the edit count increases from 1 to 2, and moves over those redirects require an administrator?
        • How did your closure remedy that complaint?
      2. Where did you get the idea that the redirect templates and their categories provide "navigational value", rather than administrative value, pursuant to {{Wikipedia category}}?
      3. But this argument is true of the Template:R unprintworthy itself! Your argument is fallacious on its face.
      4. The logical conclusion of your assertion is that redirect templates can be replaced by their bare categories:
        1. In that case, what is the difference between adding Template:R unprintworthy and Category:Unprintworthy redirects? It only is "more efficient" assuming the template adds less value than the category. Otherwise, the efficiency is the same: one (1) edit.
        2. Are you arguing that all 3,000 Template:R unprintworthy also be replaced by the category?
        3. Was this an attempt to somehow distinguish between original Unprintworthy redirects, and deletions of other redirect templates that are also Unprintworthy?
    • Therefore, the close itself was not valid. It appears, in addition to pulling the solution out of your ***, you didn't understand the arguments (and lack of valid argument) presented in the discussion. Many "votes" had a "useless" argument. A "vote" is not a substitute for discussion.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist so fuller attention can be paid. I would recommend ensuring that there is adequate attention to any discussion at CfD or RfD that actually does have broader implications. Thjis is certainly one of them. RfC or the VP is the place, or at least a wider attention notice. Erik's argument may be right, but it deserves fuller attention than here or CfD. DGG (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though every TFD discussion has "broader implications" insofar as the templates whose removal is being considered may be transcluded on a large number of pages, TFD closures are not ordinarily invalidated on the basis of a lack of extensive, project-wide notice. Nonetheless, if the editor requesting this deletion review actually believed that the TFD discussion would have benefited from broader publicity, he could have posted notices about it at WP:AN, WP:VP, template:cent, and other neutral locations, then mentioned this action in his "keep" comment, and requested that the closure of the discussion be delayed. For William Allen Simpson to request the invalidation of a TFD discussion in which he participated on the basis of inadequate notice, when he refused to remedy the problem at the time, is blatantly obstructionist. Erik9 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and initiate a wider discussion at the Village pump if required pending the fix of MediaWiki T16323. The code changes related to bug # 14323 broke one of the more visible aspects and functions of the redirect information templates.
    It's clear many of those involved in the original discussions who "!voted" delete had absolutely no idea what the {{R ...}} redirect templates actually did and many freely admitted this fact in both the CfD and TfD. See "discussion" at Bot owners' noticeboard (permalink), CfD 2009-05-04, and TfD 2009-05-04.
    While I believe it was inappropriate to initiate a CfD and then TfD for a category and template where the editors involved in the discussion had no idea what its real purpose actually was, at this point I see no reason not to assume good faith for the editors involved in those discussions because these templates are very old and their actual functions have not been well documented.
    On the other hand, even after the discussion in the TfD and on the Administrators' noticeboard (permalink), which is still ongoing, I'm having a hard time with the reasoning Erik9 has presented for closing this particular TfD the way he did.
    As I've pointed out elsewhere, it is not possible to simply "delete" this template and its category. Both are used by different parts of the Wikipedia project for a number of purposes, none of which have anything to do with the original complaint of "this template won't let me move a page over a redirect", which is not a fault of the template itself but rather an issue of MediaWiki's design. If there is an issue with subsequent edits to a redirect page not allowing a page to be moved back, this is something that needs to be addressed on the Village pump and with the MediaWiki developers. That is not a valid reason to target a widely used template and category for deletion. The page move issue is clearly much larger in scope than only pages that use this particular redirect template and attempting to delete one template as a temporary or Band-Aid fix is certainly not the way to go about solving it.
    This template is also very much in use by editors who add it by hand as well as with automated tools. Deleting the template itself, which is what Erik9 apparently was trying to do after he closed the TfD is simply not possible. See Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Redirects from other capitalisations
    As I stated in the TfD and on AN, if there really is a valid reason for deleting this template, this is an issue that must be presented in a forum where there will be more community involvement. It is quite obvious that the earlier discussion was made up of only the "regulars" present on WP:BOWN, WP:CFD, and WP:TFD. Another editor I'd very much like to see involved in a larger discussion is Lenoxus as he spent a great deal of time standardizing these templates.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 06:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main problem seems to be related to the way one of the bots operated when adding this template to existing redirects.
Whether we apply the template or categories directly, I don't think it matters that much (I wonder if the template doesn't pre-date categories).
In any case, it seems a waste of resources to edit the redirects to change between templates and categories. -- User:Docu
  • I believe the template does predate categories. Categories were implemented around mid 2004 and this template was created prior to that. I'd be interested in seeing the revision history on the original category as well since it was renamed in 2006.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Docu, you created it in 1994, before templates or categories were done, using [[MediaWiki:R_for_alternate_capitalisation]] and [[Special:Whatlinkshere/R_for_alternate_capitalisation]]. (Memory is the first thing to go, good thing we have some edit histories to look back upon. But the histories are getting rather longer as time goes by, compared to 2003-2005.)
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
AsiaPulse News (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was speedied but I was not notified to object. It needs to go to AFD. It is a source used in over 30 articles in Wikipedia. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:
  • It's customary to contact the deleting administrator first before making a listing here. That doesn't appear to have happened here. If there was a discussion, can you please point it out; if there was not, can you please explain why you omitted that step?
  • Notification is encouraged, not required, for pages nominated for deletion.
  • Based on your contributions, you were not online during the period between nomination and deletion, so it would have been irrelevant whether or not you were notified.
Holding off on !voting until you reply. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went by the book. No assertion of notability. Law type! snype? 11:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only PRODs are overturned on any contest. The nominator is the author of the article in question, and so he can't remove a hypothetical CSD tag himself, which means it was not a "legitimately-[sic]contested" speedy. seresin ( ¡? )  23:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could have done so, and thereby made it a legitimately-contested speedy. So this hardly invalidates my remark.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
file:Underground entrance.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Someone claimed that since the photographer doesn't own the copyright to the statue that the file is not free. This is ridiculous. Even if the law somehow fails to acknowledge the freedom of panorama, it is obviously still licensable as fair use and it was entirely inappropriate to delete it.  –radiojon (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the closing admin. I agree that the law is ridiculous, and I would love it if the U.S. changed its laws to match those of Germany, where any photo of a public statue in a public place is acceptable. But we have to deal with the law as it is, not as we would want it to be. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sigh - This is verging on disruptive. Nominator refused to comment at the discussion, instead simply undid the nomination twice. [60] [61] Radiojon did not respond to my message on their talk page asking them to comment [62], then commented after the file was deleted [63], and then started edit-warring with a bot account [64] [65] [66]. Now someone has created an SPA just to make a strange !vote above. I don't know why this person (or persons) is acting so strangely, but please let this discussion be the end of it. Endorse deletion as an appropriate response to the lack of responses to the nomination, as well as an accurate interpretation of copyright law and WP policy. It is not a free image, and it is not a fair-use image. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 14:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This possibly the most bizzare discussion I've even been involved in here. First, I have nothing to do with whatever was at UMBRELLA Consulting. Check the history of this page and you will see that someone else failed to follow the template for adding a listing here. If your vote to endorse the image deletion was due to this strange insertion, please reconsider based on this fact, maybe just start over again below. With this edit, I am correcting that user by moving that discussion below this section with a proper header.

As for the image itself, deletion of the image is baseless, and therefore unexpected. I've never dealt with this process before so forgive me for not knowing the best way to handle it. I undid the auto-closing of the discussion because the discussion was not done yet, and the bot clearly did not realize that, just as I did not realize there was another way to handle it by coming here. (What exactly is an SPA?) Yes, WP:FOP states that statues have not been covered under panorama in the US yet, but there is no discussion of that under other image-use pages (like WP:IUP), so I had nothing to refer to until I found WP:FOP after the fact. Even then, it still qualifies under fair use (see WP:FU#Images, which explicitly uses statues and an example), and a legitimate rationale can certainly be provided for use in the article about the place where it is located (considering the statue would not warrant an article of its own to use the image in). I am creating a section to discuss the statues at Underground Atlanta #Statues, such as their authors, titles, and meaning.

Lastly, it appears that a user is trying to discredit me with things that have nothing to do with this situation. First, I have in no case ever changed the content of anyone else's comments! What is cited above was to move a request from "Uncontroversial requests" to "Incomplete and contested requests", because I was contesting it. WXIA-TV was reverted due to vandalism by an anonymous user who kept deleting correct information and replacing it with incorrect info. The user also appears to accuse me of being or having a sock puppet, which makes no sense whatsoever, and is absolutely false. There is no basis in any sort of fact, and I don't even understand which other user is being referred to. Making accusations to the contrary (regarding any of these three things mentioned by the same user) is completely disingenuous and does not help further this discussion at all.

In any case, please consider undeletion based entirely on its merits, and not any of this other crap that has been thrown into the discussion.

The fair-use rationale is as follows:

  1. There is obviously no free equivalent
  2. A picture obviously cannot replace a statue
  3. Only the front side of the statue is used
  4. It is permanently displayed on a public street
  5. It is encyclopedic, and used in the article that discusses it
  6. It meets WP:IUP, which specifically mentions a photo of a statue
  7. It was used in one article and will be restored to it
  8. It would be unreasonable and difficult to discuss the statue without showing what it looks like
  9. It is used in an article and nowhere else
  10. The description page will be updated to relect required fair-use info when it is undeleted

 –radiojon (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Umbrella consulting comment was supposed to be a separate DRV; the brand-new user inadvertently placed it under this discussion. I was thinking of some connection between Miami and Altanta. Relevant comments stricken with apologies. MuZemike 19:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the uploader is sock-puppeting. I believe he is acting in good faith, and trying to follow policy. But I have enough experience with our non-free content policy to know that this will never pass NFCC#8 in an article on Underground Atlanta (since seeing the statue is not necessary to fully understand the article). Many people are surprised to learn that the non-free images they uploaded cannot be used in an article, even when it makes the article look better... but as a free encyclopedia, we only use non-free images in a very limited set of circumstances. I myself have uploaded my own photos of sculptures, years ago, and had them deleted. I hope it doesn't discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off-topic query: Does anyone know when these statues were erected? IronGargoyle (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like a good rationale; can someone please tell me which article(s) the image is intended for? That will enable me to decide for myself whether it passes NFCC#1 and #8 in the context of that article. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore since there's obviously a solid way to apply fair use. Question: Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama links to a US Copyright Law on Architecture, but what part of the law actually discusses statues? Not mentioning them in this particular clause means that one doesn't apply to statues, but it doesn't mean no alternative exists. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By default, any photograph of a copyrighted work is a derivative work, requiring the consent of the copyright holder of the photographed object. There is a specific U.S. law that exempts architecture, but no law that exempts sculpture, and case law has verified the right of sculptors to sue for photographs of their works. By the way, "fair use" isn't the issue. If it's non-free, then (as you know) it has to adhere to NFCC, whether it passes a "fair use" exemption or not. – Quadell (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. (I suppose I get to vote for myself?) Thank you all for some rational discussion on this. I understand that its original use could be considered "decorative". My intent is to create a section at Underground Atlanta #Statues about this statue and another one located there sitting at the cascading fountain. However, I can't find anything about them so far, such as authorship, ownership, meaning, installation date, etc. Still working on it, if you have any ideas please post them.  –radiojon (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as the fair use rationale looks solid enough to me. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Restore fair use looks fine. If once added it is found to be purely decorative and ends up orphaned, we'll delete again of course. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Adequate fair use rationale. I didn't comment before, but what Radiojon said is sufficient. DGG (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

DO NOT DELETE!!!

LEAVE IT FREE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A HUGE CORPORATION THESE GUYS ARE INGENIOUS!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by G0d di4bl0 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has been deleted four different times, by four different admins, in two days. Every time, the deletion was appropriate. If these guys are geniuses, then they're presumably smart enough to not want your help. – Quadell (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's unusual. Deleted for a promotion and then deleted for an attack page? It sounds as if several different editors have created this article with different versions of the text?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty much just been User:Qtgeo, and some anon-IPs and SPAs, which are likely one guy. The page was recreated as an attack page against the deleting admin, briefly, and was deleted for that reason. All other times it was deleted for being essentially unsourced advertising for a non-notable company. – Quadell (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Paraguay–Switzerland relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted prior to seven days. Please relist. -- User:Docu 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

    • I withdraw this request. -- User:Docu 03:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Relist per Docu, discussion closed too early. Additional discussion might have yielded more sources such as this Swiss government webpage detailing the bilateral relations with Paraguay. There is also this article from a publication of the Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches about "decade-long" close connections between Swiss and Paraguayan churches. This bibliography by the Swiss Federal Archives lists four publications as relating to the diplomatic relationship between the two countries (see the heading "Paraguay"). The AfD will have to determine whether these and similar sources findable through Google suffice for notability.  Sandstein  16:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - While I found these blind x-y relations AfDs with scant or no regard to WP:BEFORE disruptive, consensus seemed unanimous here, perhaps WP:SNOW, and the AfD was in fact just about three hours under seven days. Not worth relisting.--Oakshade (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't it one day too early? -- User:Docu 16:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
  • No, it was just under three hours early.

    I think it's got to be an endorse, because the error of process involved was minuscule and could not possibly have changed the result. But the closer gets a gentle piscine caress from me for deleting after 165 hours instead of waiting the full 168.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The problem with the discussion is that several participants paste more or less the same comment into numerous other discussions and some of the arguments are contradicted by the article itself. This can partially be excused by the mere number of AfD someone started (apparently there is a barnstar for them in this field). As Sandstein said, a quick research finds additional resources. -- User:Docu
  • Comment It's a bit odd that other encyclopedias have entries on this topic and we deleted it. -- User:Docu
  • Comment Too early is a reason to relist, but three hours is not substantial enough to be a concern; it would have closed just the same. I would certain !vote here to relist any AfD closed more than one day early unless explicitly closed as speedy or snow. For anything still being debated, I might vote the same for more than 12 hours. As we get familiar with 7d, there should smaller tolerances. 3 hours though can be a time-zone error.
as for the article, in practice we do not seem to be keeping articles with just that amount of minimal information. Personally, I think that we should, and so I will continue to say, but the consensus is beginning to seem pretty clear otherwise, and we might as well admit it. Thething to do is to find some more sources and then write an improved and longer article. DGG (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion instructions seem to suggest that it has to be a full seven days. Accordingly, this shouldn't have been deleted before May 14. As the deletion was made based on notability, I'm not entirely convinced that your approach is acceptable. -- User:Docu
    • there is such a concept a harmless error. I was one of the people who pushed the hardest for the change to 7 days, and I've been pushing it for over two years before it finally was adopted. Yes, it really does mean the full number of hours, and I will certainly criticize anyone who closes consistently before that, but using a three hour difference to reverse a closing when the consensus is clear is not in proportion. I've also been one of the people supporting these bilateral articles, & one of the first people to join ARS, but this article is not of high enuough quality to make a deletion review case based on it. It is not productivde to make a point of an issue when the underlying material is this weak. DGG (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The article was closed before ARS had a chance to work on it. The articles that ARS has worked on have all been voted to keep or as no consensus after the work was done. With 5 articles up for deletion in this class each day, it is much easier to add the delete tag then add in the required references. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the ARS is a succesful AFD vote canvassing machine and brings in votes to afds (which often end in "no consensus" closes on completely unimproved articles as a consequence) is not a reason to reopen an AFD closed three hours early.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic: Two things I'd challenge about this comment. (1) Criticism of the ARS as a whole, whether or not it's justified (on which I have no opinion), doesn't belong at DRV. (2) Improving articles is everyone's responsibility, not just the ARS's; you don't get to bring something to AfD and insist that it's improved (by someone else) within seven days or get deleted. Per WP:BEFORE the nominator's job is to make sure the article couldn't be improved in the first place before it even comes to AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is nothing to prevent people from writing a better article if you can really find sources. DGG (talk) 23:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Half-Life: Uplink (film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Though the film didn't amount to much I still think it garnered enough reliably sourced attention, as evidenced on the article before it got re-directed, to make it a notable film. Earlier another user tried to restore the article from its re-direct, but that got reversed, so I though to take it here. Cheers. 86.149.60.116 (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closing admin: The IP editor does not make clear how I erred in closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Half-Life: Uplink (film) as a redirect. In that discussion, no contributor argued for keeping this as a stand-alone article. It does not appear that new sources providing notability for this film have appeared since the time of the AfD.  Sandstein  15:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take it to the article's talk page, is my suggestion. Redirect is a "keep" outcome, because the article wasn't deleted in the sense that its text is still accessible through the history, and sufficient consensus on the talk page would empower you to restore the article.

    In DRV jargon this would have to be endorse from me because the closure was fully in accordance with the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Closing admin assessed consensus and closed the AfD appropriately. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Since the article history is still available and the anon isn't arguing for deletion, there's nothing for DRV to do here. If you want to discuss whether a merge should be done or undone, the article talk page or WP:MRFD are the correct location to do this. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hoshino Fuuta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed as keep in the words of the closing admin, "Based solely on the disruptive block drama." In short the original nominator made a personal attack against one of the commentators in the discussion and was indefinitely blocked for it. This is not a valid close because the nominator was blocked partway through the discussion and there is no indication that the article was nominated in bad faith. --Farix (Talk) 02:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's a valid close. Bad maybe, but valid ;) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This DRV should be closed, with a procedural relist and a new AfD discussion page started for it. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the new AfD will be immediately closed under WP:NOTAGAIN. The reason for WP:DRV is to determine if the closing is valid. In this case, I don't think it is. Especially when the closing admin suggests to relist the AfD. --Farix (Talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just say "Per DRV, WP:NOTAGAIN does not apply here" in the nomination.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree with that DGG (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist As the target of the threat mentioned, I think Vondell was blocked prematurely. It would've been more appropriate if he continued after having the link to WP:TROUT pointed out to him. That said, if it is relisted, it should be done with a reason that is in line with deletion policy, so doing so in a new nomination that points to this DRV is probably a good idea. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark Howard producer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

this is an award winning record producer. he has won grammy awards. this should not have been deleted. Charliedylan (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as moot – article already restored by deleting admin. Two words of advice: first, ask the deleting admin next time before coming to DRV, and second, it doesn't matter how notable it is—if it's a clear copyright violation of another source, it's gone. MuZemike 03:01, 13 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
ZK Framework (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

ZK is a popular framework for developing rich internet applications. I found out yesterday that the article about it was deleted last month for it's purported lack of notability. ZK does not have many external articles or books written about it by non-principals but that is not unusual in the world of software tools. There is a reference to ZK in a Wikipedia article that lists 90 web frameworks (Comparison of web application frameworks) of which only one (Yii) besides ZK appears not to have an article devoted to it but none of which seem significantly more notable than ZK. This is only one list of such "non-notable" software in one small area of software tools, just the tip of the iceberg in the huge world of software. I am sure we can find hundreds perhaps thousands of software articles that lack external references. I know it's never a good argument that "all the other kids have article pages" but I prefer that to the alternative of deleting any more software articles, none of which strike me as more notable than ZK, but all of which I find helpful, interesting and worthy contributions to the encyclopedia.

Evidently the hundreds of thousands of downloads of ZK software, tens of thousands of developers in the world, Fortune 500 companies (such as Barclays, Sun Microsystems, Swiss Re, Oracle, Société Générale, Alcatel-Lucent, State Grid, MMC, China Southern Power Grid), governments (such as USA, Spain, Japan, Australia, China, New Zealand) who are working with ZK do not contribute to its notability since they have not written enough external references to signify notability. Most software does not have a huge marketing budget to give it "notability" but there is a plethora of Wikipedia articles about these "non-notable" works. Would it improve Wikipedia to delete them? I don't think so, but if I'm wrong, why has ZK been singled out? The administrator User:MBisanz who deleted the ZK article is on wikibreak so I have not taken this up with him. Sreed888 (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, there is a systemic bias, as well as over 2,000,000 articles. Other articles will be dealt with in due time. MuZemike 05:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD. The nominator is welcome to nominate other articles for deletion if he feels they represent non-notable subjects. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy is my face red! Unbeknown to me, ZK Framework was usified last Friday and was reinstated today! Sorry to have bothered you all. Sreed888 (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Title tracks released as singles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Title Tracks Category I would like to protest the deletion of a category called Category:Title tracks released as singles. It was a fair delete, but still the category was defining. Many title tracks do get released as singles, and should still have a category containing such singles. The list may be too long, but there are categories that are very long anyways. I think that this category should be re-created, or at least find more proof that it's probably defining. There can't be as many title tracks than singles. For example: Say that 10,000 albums were released. Four singles were released from each album. That's 40,000 singles. Now say that 7,500 of those singles were title tracks. That means that 7,500 of the 40,000 were title tracks, and that's not a majority. This means that there can't be that many title tracks that were released as singles. I think that this category deserves a better chance. Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, "A Real Fine Place to Start" being a title track when the album was only called Real Fine Place proves a point, but i don't know whether or not it should be included in such a category. Or maybe we should still include it. All i know is that i'll probably lose this discussion anyway. But at least i try. Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didnt know we go by chance, though I suppose that;'s a reasonably accurate description of CfD. DGG (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call that a "chance"? I call that an unfair execution. That's like executing somebody without clear evidence, or in this case, it's like a judge having an innocent person executed without even the slightest reason. That was not a chance, that was just more of a "blah, blah, blah, whatever this is, delete it". Is keeping this category like opening pandora's box or something? Ryanbstevens (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Kufic.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The image is of a page of Kufic calligraphy from a Koran from about the 9th century CE. A thumbnail can be seen at Google cache here. The image thus appears to me to be an entirely typical example of {{PD-Art}}. The Foundation has staked out a deliberate public position that it is important to defend that {{PD-Art}} images should be in the public domain, and that the Foundation will if necessary commit resources to actively preserve their freedom.

The image was peremptorily deleted by Bjweeks (talk · contribs) on 23 April with the edit summary "Unambiguous copyright violation". When I tried to engage him about this, he merely responded "I deleted the image along with all of the users others" [68], and has otherwise declined to engage on the subject [69]. With regret, I am therefore bringing the question here. Jheald (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do you have an actual link that says it's from the 9th century? Neither the link nor the caption used ("Surah Al-Baqara written in Kufic form.") indicate its age. The google cache doesn't seem to indicate it either. It's possible that the image is pre-1923 (it's from the classics department, it's an old script, and it just looks old), but it's also possible for someone to write in that language today and post that. I'd rather be cautious than accept a possible concern for an image that's just another illustration for a gallery. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this is a user with a history of a lot of deleted images because he just pulling them from websites, so I mean, it's possible that he got one right, but Bjweeks' action is not entirely unreasonable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The style of calligraphy was dominant from the 7th century to the late 9th century CE. After that, it went out of use. I can't think why an academic site would put up an image of a modern ersatz attempt rather than the real thing. The google cache image is too small for me to be sure, but from what I remember the particular letter-forms and diacritical dots used in the calligraphy were very similar to this page in the Smithsonian, of a slightly different section of the same sura. The five-line page layout was a particularly characteristic one at this time, and should be illustrated. Expanding the article is something that has been on my "to do" list for a while, and I would like to keep this image. Jheald (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. How did they describe the image? Did they claim that they had drawn it themselves? Or is it, as it appears to be, a faithful photograph of a ninth century piece of calligraphy, and therefore public domain ? Jheald (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also very curious about what the image-hoster said about the image. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The objections to the image seem singularly unlikely. Museums and other institutions are notorious for claiming copyright on everything in their possession, whether of not they actually own it. DGG (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we need to know what the OTRS ticket said at the very least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Oksana (pornographic actress) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was speedy deleted because of previous deletion. The previous deletion review discussion was extremely short and quite old (2007) and deletion was on the basis of lack of notability. This seems to me traditional bias against non US porn actress. The actress has established notability in France (appearance in mainstream media, etc). I therefore kindly asked another deletion review where arguments can be exposed. Hektor (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they appeared in mainstream media, don't just state it. Provide the evidence for other people to evaluate. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can remember these evidence were in the article which has been deleted, but since I have no access to it I can't provide them. Typical evidence I can provide is that if you cross her name with TF1 (the most popular domestic network in France, afaik), you will find on google that she has been featured in shows broadcast by this channel. The French wikipedia article about her also indicates that she played in a mainstream movie by notable French director Frédéric Schoendoerffer. My point is that if a North American actress appeared on a main network show and in a mainstream movie she would probably be considered as notable. I am not saying that she should be kept, but that I think that this matter deserves more than a speedy. Hektor (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, technically, it was based on the prior AFD but I get your point. Look at the prior deleted history at Oksana d'Harcourt, it mentions "TF1's La Méthode Cauet show" and "Frédéric Schoendoerffer's Truands" and includes a full filmography. So it seems like you have the same evidence as discussed over two years. Do you have more sources to help us out? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my review, the article is sufficiently different from the article that was deleted at AFD to warrant a relist. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just (temporarily) restored both articles so that people can compare. Whenever an article is tagged as G4 (delete per prior AfD), I don't automatically hit the "delete" button, I look at the prior article. When the reason for deletion was non-notability, as in this case, I look to see if the new sources (if any) overcome the strength of the arguments in the AfD. It's up to you guys whether I made the right call. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, too much to do today ... okay, they're now both in my userspace, noindex'd, at User:Dank/Oksana (pornographic actress) and User:Dank/Oksana d'Harcourt. I reverted the second one to the last version before it was converted to a redirect. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, note that Hektor has been adding references this morning since I restored the page, which is great, but look at the earlier version if you want to know what I was looking at when I deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - no procedural errors in the original AFD and no new reliable sources in the article that indicates she passes either WP:PORNBIO or WP:N. Suggest that if someone wants an article on her that they write it in user space then come here for a review of the draft. Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see both sides of this, and I think both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt.

    List at AfD to give the benefit of the doubt to the nominator, no reflection on Dank to give the benefit of the doubt to him.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse without more sources, the problems that led to afd haven't been overcome, and now we have a tougher BLP standard to meet, this falls far short. And I contend, that all bios of "porn actors/actresses" are inherently contentious and negative per BLP (imagine seeing your mom's name there and someone saying, but they like this negative publicity). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse please provide reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 13:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
2006 WPA Men's World Nine-ball Championship (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I dunno how a world championship tournament could be deleted, speedily, at that. –Howard the Duck 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC) –Howard the Duck 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Also, this article was deleted over five months ago. Can you please explain why such a delay until this review request? Stifle (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for the tardiness was due to the stealthiness of the deletion. This wasn't on my watchlist so I didn't know it was deleted until I noticed its link was red when I was cleaning up the 2007 tournament article. As for asking the admin, it's already here so lets just do it here, I'm sorry for the harm it may have caused. –Howard the Duck 10:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The opening sentence says that it is an international sports tournament sanctioned by an official organization of that particular sport. A7 does not apply to articles about competitions especially not when said article is referenced and its deletion would be controversial - which it is. If the tournament can be used to establish notability for a person, then the tournament itself is notable enough to avoid speedy deletion too. I suspect the deletion was the result of a dispute on whether it should be merged as admins can see in the deleted history. Since the opening sentence asserts notability, this should be left for discussion by a wider group of editors. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per Mgm. I'm unclear how this could be speedyable. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on strictly procedural grounds as A7 doesn't apply to competitions at this time. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Encyclopaedia Metallum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted due to lack of notability, but the editors who voted to delete it either ignored the notable sources that I posted, or tried really hard to invalidate them by giving frail excuses.

When I presented the following article as a notable references, two editors said that it didn't count, because the guy who wrote it is a member of the site. Encyclopaedia Metallum has almost 140,000 members. It's completely stupid to say that everyone who has an account there cannot write anything that can be considered as independent source. The member who wrote it cannot be considered an active member by any stretch of imagination. He barely used the forum and his only contribution to the database was to submit two reviews during almost two years, out of more than 43,000 reviews that were submitted by other users. Why such a member cannot be considered as an independent source?

My other source is an interview that appeared in the Finnish magazine Miasma, one of the top heavy metal magazines in Finland, which is distributed alongside all the other big music magazines in the country. The translation of that interview can be found here. The other editors said that the interview didn't count because it was "Self-promotion and product placement", which is completely absurd, since the magazine is 100% independent from Encyclopaedia Metallum, and the interviewer "only asked questions. That's trivial.", which looks like some rule invented by him. Since when interviews should be considered trivial if the interviewer only asks questions?. Evenfiel (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. That was the consensus. I think the consensus was wrong, as it usually is about WP:NOTAGAIN—it's a completely nonsensical feature of Wikipedian process. A deleted article needs to be brought back to AfD to be re-created with the same content, but a kept article can be re-nominated with the same arguments and deleted without coming anywhere near DRV, and I think that's systemic bias in favour of deletion.

    Still, wrong though it was, that was the consensus and Stifle interpreted it correctly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I fell that drv rule number 3 applies to this situation, Deletion Review also is to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion. I've only established Miasma's notability right in the end of the discussion, after everyone had already voted and maybe didn't even see the discussion again. I fell that this is an essential piece of information. Sure, that information didn't appear after the deletion took place, but right before it, so it's pretty much the same thing. Evenfiel (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Earlier commentators didn't have the time to take into account later sourcing so at best this should have been closed as no consensus. The sources as given seem to meet WP:WEB given that late in the discussion Miasma was established as a WP:RS. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No new evidence has been provided that wasn't actually provided in the AFD so rule 3 doesn't exactly apply. Without that consensus was correct per S Marshall so there seems no reason to go back. Spiesr (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFD is not a court of law or debating society, where users "win" or "lose" because their arguments are "right", "wrong", "better", or "worse". It is a forum where users establish whether or not a consensus, that is to say the general feeling of the community, supports deleting an article or not. Endorse own deletion as reflecting the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly. It's also a forum "to be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion", and as JoshuaZ said, "Earlier commentators didn't have the time to take into account later sourcing so at best this should have been closed as no consensus."Evenfiel (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The strength of arguments seemed to be on the keep side frankly. It meets WP:N and the arguments that it doesn't are weak at best. Hobit (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn - had I been tasked to close that AfD, I would have had to go with a no-consensus. The delete arguments do seem to be somewhat trumped by the keeps, and even numerically it's marginal. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment "Not again" does not apply here. It was a non consensus close the first time, nominated again a month afterwards. I do not think that hopelessly unreasonable. if it had been a keep, I think it would have been unreasonable, and I think the consensus would have said so pretty clearly. DGG (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The references presented in the AFD and in the discussion here establish the site's notability, IMHO. Where there is a significant dispute between established users regarding whether the article's sources are sufficient, as there was in this AFD, the proper closure is no consensus, because there isn't any. Erik9 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The AfD should have been closed as No Consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of American public officials convicted of crimes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't think the participants in the debate fully considered the issues at stake; some of that was my fault, since my nomination could have been clearer. The question here is whether this article can be written in a way that doesn't violate NPOV (I think it's clear that it's a gross violation as it stands now). I say no. Currently we have an odd mix of cabinet-level and sub-cabinet-level appointments, congressmen, and one judge. This leaves out probably hundreds of people who would fit the implied criteria; just to name a few: Haldeman, Erlichman, Scooter Libby, etc., but I'm sure there are many many more on this level who are not nearly so prominent (people convicted of crimes that don't involve their jobs may not show up in the news). So the article could be renamed "American cabinet-level officials, congresspeople, and judges convicted of crimes," and Poindexter and Abrams removed from it, but that seems a bit silly to me. More discussion, at any rate, is sorely needed. Previously discussed with the deleting admin here and here. As I told him, I blame the debate participants for not thinking it through, not him. Chick Bowen 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse; although I !voted for deletion in the AFD, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's correct. That's why I specifically said that I thought my nomination did not make the issues clear. I'm asking that the AfD be judged invalid as not taking into account the important policy issues that need discussion. Chick Bowen 17:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. However, I'm not all that convinced that DRV is the right platform for this discussion (nor, for that matter, that such a platform exists). I'm bound by the restrictions on DRV which are that it should inquire into whether the deletion process was properly followed, and in this case, it was.
        However, I think we can come up with one good idea out of this, and it is to permit immediate relisting at AFD to deal with the issues raised. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, Stifle. Like you, I'm not at all convinced this article should be a bluelink on Wikipedia. Observe the following redlinks: List of British public officials convicted of crimes; List of Canadian public officials convicted of crimes; List of Australian public officials convicted of crimes; List of New Zealand public officials convicted of crimes; List of South African public officials convicted of crimes... in fact, nowhere in the English-speaking world has an article like this, or ever had, except the US.

    I think it's reasonable to say the coverage of US politics on Wikipedia is disproportionate (important though it undoubtedly is), and the sheer number of different articles allows or even encourages POV forking. I also think the whole thing is a confusing mess for the end-user and virtually impossible to police, and I think it's urgently in need of cleanup.

    None of that is a matter for a DRV of this particular article, but I feel it's important background to a discussion, and I do think DRV has a role with respect to this particular article. While Juliancolton's closure was fully in accordance with the discussion, I think there's room for debate on whether participants in the discussion might have failed to take full account of the WP:BLP and WP:WEIGHT issues quite clearly described in the nomination.

    I also wonder whether the article might fail WP:SYN, because I don't know of a reliable source that gives a list of convicted criminal politicians. (Such a list might well exist in some US publication of which I'm unaware, though.)

    Another important aspect is WP:NPOV, as the nominator here states. I mean, George W. Bush was very famously convicted of driving under the influence on 4th September 1976, and I find it very suspicious that he's not mentioned here.

    I think this is a duck for a coatrack and a WP:BLP minefield, and we should be looking for a relist outcome as a defective debate.

    No reflection on Juliancolton's closure, which was fully in accordance with the views expressed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is List of Australian politicians convicted of crimes and Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. (I don't think a list needs a single source to avoid WP:SYN, any more than an article does.) Occuli (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That list consists of elected officials. Though I don't think that would eliminate all problems, I would far rather a list of elected officials than a list like this that includes appointed officials willy-nilly. Chick Bowen 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SYN refers to combining sources to advance a new or novel point of view not reflected in any of the sources. The interpretation that you appear to me to be giving it, S Marshall, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it refers to any use of multiple sources in an article, in which case half the encyclopedia fails it. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not at all — it seems I've inadvertently been unclear, and I'm sorry for that.

        I think that articles and lists should be about subjects that other people have already treated in reliable sources. That sounds obvious, but the key word in it is "subjects".

        As an extreme example, I could write, and source, an article about "Differences between chimpanzees and digger wasps". Such an article might have a good source for every sentence, but it's still a WP:SYN because nobody else has written about "Differences between chimpanzees and digger wasps".

        So I think it's a valid question: has anybody else written an article about "US public officials convicted of crimes"? If not, it's a SYN. And please note "politicians" != "public officials".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • You're interpreting WP:SYN far too broadly; it warns against the "synthesis of published material that advances a position," which this list does not inherently do, provided its descriptions are NPOV and its entries do not favor or single out any political parties. The inclusion criteria for this list is simple and obvious, and it can hardly be said that the convictions of public officials have never been written about. It's possible that no one has ever attempted to list them all together, but that hardly constitutes OR in this instance. Postdlf (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nothing wrong with the AfD, this isn't round two. I didn't comment in the afd, but had I, I would have said keep: The fact that links for similar articles about other countries are red is not a reason to delete a blue link - WP has a systemic WP:BIAS toward topics pertaining to English-speaking industrial countries (note US & Australia have blue links), which is mitigated by turning red links blue not in making blue links red. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse keep The keep reflects the consensus after improvements made during the AfD. Like SMarshall, i did not comment at the AfD, but i would have said keep, because the material is notable, and passes BLP. If there are not other articles for other countries, they should be written. We need to start somewhere. DGG (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for clarification: Given that this article has been compared with the Australia article, does that imply that endorsers would like it to be renamed to "politicians," and for unelected officials to be removed? Or do they wish it to remain as it is, with undefined criteria? Thank you. Chick Bowen 15:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't "politicians" include unsuccessful candidates who never held public office, or even prominent political activists? Public officials at least is limited to those who have actually held elected office or were appointed to positions in government. Postdlf (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which is an enormous and rather undefinable group of people (postal inspectors? town clerks? members of state educational boards?). Chick Bowen 23:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see your point, but even the hypothetical inclusion of such low level officials may not be a problem, given the requirement that each entry must be notable and reliably sourced to the satisfaction of WP:BLP. Postdlf (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Hedgehog0 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A mystery to Me 217.171.129.74 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I would like to refer the reader to the following lengthy series of discussions that I [a new user] had with a more senior/estbalished user:

User talk:212.20.240.70#Hedgehog

I first created a wikipedia page about a new Java API called Hedgehog that I had spent over 2 years creating and thought the rest of the Java programming world might be interested in the page was created I was threatened with police and legal action against me.

The moderator who threatened with me with such action was subsequently banned from Wikipedia.

I then engaged in a lengthy discussion about the best way forward to proceed. As the referred to discussion clearly indicates it was suggested to me that I create my own "personal" page and once the Hedgehog API had attained sufficient "notabilty" that I would then promote this page to a main article page.

This I did - refer to the discussion.

Today I discovered that the Hedgehog0 page has been "speedily" deleted.

The deletion of this page is a complete mystery to me as it started out life as a copy of the Mathematic template.

For some unknown reason to new users, pages such as Mathematic are allowed to blatantly self-promote their products and yet other users are unable to do so, threatened with legal action and have their pages speedily deleted.

There really does appear to be double standards at work within Wikipedia.

I have also reached the point of totally losing my patience with wikipedia and really starting to question its viability as a "encyclopedia that anyone can edit".

Yes, anyone can create a new account and add pages but a select few will have final control.

This isn't a free to anyone source of information. It's more a akin with how the scriptures were rewritten by a select group of monks in the dark ages.

It's not truly "free" information but highly censored information by a select group of moderators and administrators.

The rules of wikipedia are an absolute mystery to new users such as myself, and their complexity draws new users into all sorts of conflicts, notability issues, threats of legal and police action, what's acceptable an what's not, and so on an so forth.

Yes, my past few months experience with wikipedia has left me really questioning its original objective. It may have started out notable but in my opinion is a mile away from a free knowledge experience.

Yours sincerely

Dr Graham Seed

  • Can you please clarify exactly what you want done? Stifle (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe he wants the page User:Hedgehog0/Hedgehog Java API placed in mainspace. DGG (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was some previous discussion summarized at [70] after the user, then an anon, was attacked outrageously at the help desk by a sockpuppet of a now banned troll, Hamish Ross, pretending to be an administrator. This page was nominated for G11 , and placed in userspace by Wknight94 (who I just notified). However, i see no evidence at all that the program is notable; there seems to be zero references to it in google except for your own publicity. The program was apparently just released this March, so when there are reviews from established 3rd party reliable sources, then would be the time to add them and write the article. See our FAQ about businesses, other organisations, and articles like this. DGG (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD as a WP:BITE issue.

    This new user has had an article deleted under circumstances he sees as unreasonable. I think that he should not see an unchallengeable summary deletion; rather, he should see the Wikipedia community debate his article and reach a policy-based consensus.

    I think it likely that the article would be deleted following such a debate, but I think it's important that this user should see the said debate take place.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion – biting aside, I do not see how this article would possibly pass for inclusion. I am especially wary of the ownership and clear conflict of interest issues present. I am also of the opinion that the user account (not the user) should have been blocked for violating the username policy as a promotional username (that is, if I saw the created on Special:NewPages and saw who created it whilst seeing an exact match in the username, I would have reported to WP:UAA). MuZemike 20:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AFD per S Marshall. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perfectly happy for my user page, article and account to be deleted and I'll never use Wikipedia again if an administrator can provide suitable explanations to the following:
    1. If product endorsement pages are not allowed then why is the Mathematica page permitted? The Erik Satie page is not a product endorsement and I see no conflict of interest. However, if you believe that the Mathematica page is not all about product endorsement then you are wrong.
    2. It appears to me that a product endorsement page is acceptable provided that the product is notable. The fact remains that the page is still a product endorsement however notable it may be.
    3. Explain the difference from my user page which was deleted and the following accepted page Jscience.
    4. Explain the difference from my user page which was deleted and the following accepted page Javolution.
    5. You'll probably reply something along the lines "Previous accepted pages should not influence future policy...". This is unacceptable as the current wikipedia pages should lead by example. Also, if the above pages 2) and 3) would not be accepted today but are not deleted then you are simply drawing users such as myself into conflict of interest traps.
  • I don't have anything against the above pages. They are simply randomly selected examples from thousands of such pages, which if a new user copied the format of and published themselves would be rejected.

    Yours sincerely

    Dr Graham Seed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, Wikipedia is inconsistent. It's gloriously, radiantly, sumptuously and unselfconsciously inconsistent, and this is often surprising to new users.

      Users accustomed to authoritarian, political, legal or business management-style decision-making processes tend to expect pretensions of consistency, so they expect precedent to have value. But Wikipedia is an ochlocracy that, very early in its history, specifically disavowed precedent as an influence on decision-making; see WP:WAX.

      Yes, it's amazing that such an "organisation" works. (Wikipedia's only successful in practice. In theory it's a total disaster.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could the OP please provide links to legal and police threats? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted wikipedia is in some ways inconsistent. Wikipedia is also a volunteer effort and there is no onus on anyone (regular editor or administrator) to rush off and try and make the millions of articles perfect and consistent. People work within the areas that interest them and the things which come to their attention.

    Notability is the implementation in guideline form of wikipedia is not an indescriminate set of information, it forms a basic inclusion criteria at the topic level, fail to meet that and the article will usually go, meet that bar and there is still no guarantee that the underlying article will be perfect.

    You perceive some articles as product endorsements, others will not perceive them as that. Wikipedia follows various core policies, netural point of view - essentially articles are in balance with the general view point sources provide not weighted to much to minority views etc. If something is generally written about positively by that virtue the article will be generally positive. Verifiability - verifiability not truth, we write what can be verified from other sources which doesn't always meet with absolute truth.

    Some of the articles you point to may require further attention, removing the advertising, rewording to a more encyclopedic tone or deletion (at the whim of whoever wants to do it), if you find an article which isn't up to scratch then feel free to try and fix it, if it's beyond repair and fails to meet our basic policies then you can nominate it for deletion.

    There is actually a level of consistency in all this, none of the articles are beyond scrutiny, editing or deletion. Articles which have gone unnoticed for months or years get deleted, others just through the deletion process gain interest from some editors and get made far better than their origins. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • when a product is notable, then we describe it. There are major differences between an encyclopedic description and one in an advertisement : we explain the features, we do not praise them. If articles for notable products are written in a fashion like an advertisement, they are deleted or rewritten. Sometimes promotional matter escapes detection, but when we do detect it, we remove it, for it's a major threat to our objectivity. But in order to justify a description, the product must first be notable. for computer programs, this normally means they must be reviewed or otherwise written about in a substantial matter by reliable independent sources. Until they are, they do not justify an article in the first place. New products can attract such interest as to get such reviews, but by no means all products do. Until they do, there cannot be an article. We write about things that are already notable. I have no objection to this going to AfD, but I like everyone else here thinks the result will be obvious.

      The comments that you received when you first wrote the article were unfortunate. They were not by an administrator here, but by someone pretending to be one. They would not have been accepted from anyone--any administrator who would make such threats would undoubtedly be quickly removed from the position. When the matter was presented, it was determined that this was a user who had already been banned from Wikipedia, under another name, and the new name was blocked as well, permanently. I do not know nor need we figure out whether the motivation was a professional or personal rivalry or pure malice--there is no conceivable basis where it would have been acceptable here, or any respectable web site.

      the best advice I can give you is to wait until you have such reviews, and then rewrite the article accordingly, under a user name that does not itself include or suggest the name of the product. At such a point any of the people commenting here would be glad to check it for you DGG (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What absolute rubbish.

    Certain pages are speedily deleted by making reference to "product endorsement" and when a page such as Mathematica is put forward as in breech of the product endorsement criteria no administrator or senior user can provide an explanation.

    An answer of "yes it's inconsistent" is simply unacceptable. Why isn't the Mathematica page deleted based on the product endorsement criteria?

    The page was originally deleted entirely based on "product endorsement" and yet as soon as I raise the related Mathematica page administrators quickly move to "notability". If the Mathematica page failed on both product endorsement and notability then something else would be raised. A new user can't win and an answer to a simple question will always be dodged by throwing up some other criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I've thought all along - wikipedia has double standards.

    Dr Graham Seed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.240.70 (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As you know, pretty much anyone with an internet connection can edit Wikipedia. In order to ensure that we can produce a high quality encyclopaedia aiming towards high levels of accuracy and reliability we cannot just rely on the information given to use by editors. The threshold for information to be included in Wikipedia is "verifiability not truth" (see Wikipedia:Verifiability), information must be attributed to external reliable sources. Another of Wikipedia's core principles is to put forward a neutral point of view, this is also a founding principle of the Wikimedia Foundation - the charity which supports Wikipedia. In order to ensure a neutral point of view, third party sources usually have to be provided to support the information in an article, information put out by the subjects of an article themselves or companies associated with them is likely to be favourably biassed and so cannot form the sole basis of a neutral article. A simple Google News search of Mathematica ([71]) gives 100's of results from third party reliable sources including PC World and the Wall Street Journal, these can form the basis of a verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia article free of unsupported original research. In short, until third party sources have covered a topic, whether it be a company, programme, person or other it is not usually possible to write an article that meets Wikipedia's primary inclusion criteria of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. If and when your product has been covered by independent, reliable sources it should be possible to have an article about it included. Guest9999 (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again - I repeat the question but what about the Mathematica page ultimately being a product endorsement?

    I reiterate my main point that if certain users/administrators/moderators choose to keep a page then product endorsement goes out the window. Your reply effectively states this conclusion by seeking other criteria in which to accept a page.

    In each of the above replies I still haven't seen a satisfactory reply/answer to whether or not the Mathematica page breaks the product endorsement rules. I suspect that no one wants to answer this question as it would mean deleting tens of thousands of other pages.

    Fine, but don't delete other pages based entirely and purely on "product endorsement".

    Dr Graham Seed

  • Looking at the current state of the Mathematica article I would say it is not among Wikipedia's best. Most of the content is purely descriptive of the product with no information on its critical reception. Having said that the information that is there appears to be presented in a neutral fashion and because of the sources available the article could be improved to give a greater critical context. No Wikipedia article is perfect and even the very best are continually edited and improved. The key thing is that improvement to a point of acceptability is possible. Product endorsement does not meet that a product cannot be described or that praise it has received cannot be mentioned, rather that "Articles about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style" - an article about something that has received many positive reviews would reflect that. When there are no reliable sources available for a topic there is no potential to improve it. Additionally when no mainstream or industry specific sources have mentioned a product then writing about it on Wikipedia is often seen as a form of promotion in itself - an article intended to promote or raise publicity for something is almost inevitably not neutral and so not acceptable. This applies to articles about people, companies, bands (for example those who's only coverage is their MySpace page) and any other entity. In order to determine which topics can meet the primary inclusion criteria - which I mentioned above - Wikipedia has developed a set of guidelines. the basic principle behind them is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". If a topic meets this criterion an article about it will likely be kept (with exceptions such as copyright violations and pages intended only to disparage or unambiguously promote their subjects) this applies even if the article is not in a great state as anyone can edit and improve it.

    Essentially the difference between your article and the Mathematica article is the difference in the topics of the articles. One has received sufficient coverage from relaible sources that a high quality, verifiable, neutral encyclopaedia article could possibly be written, one has not. Guest9999 (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been talking to Graham (Hedgehog0/212.20.240.70) since this issue first surfaced on the WP:Help desk. A vandal had threatened Graham with legal/police action, and was then blocked (IIRC). Graham had been - and indeed still is - working on an article, which was then subsequently moved to userspace. Most recently, it has been deleted, and then restored (by the deleting admin). In terms of WP:DRV I'm not convinced that there is anything to be done - the article was deleted from userspace and then restored to userspace. In terms of WP:BITE my goal throughout this has been to rectify the appalling treatment Graham received from a vandal, and mitigate the hard knocks he might receive from ordinary, well-intentioned editors. I suggested that Graham create an account instead of editing as an IP, and then use a sub-page of the registered account to work on his article. Someone mentioned above that "Hedgehog0" is a username violation; if it is then that is my fault, not Graham's, and I ask that we work amicably with Graham to address that issue. Regarding the userspace article itself, since it has been restored all I can ask is that if anyone is able to provide friendly and helpful advice to Graham then I am sure he would appreciate it. He has taken on board the comments I've made, but I'm one editor with limited skills and knowledge. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
1520 New Hampshire Avenue (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The weight of argument was for a Merge. The nom was for Delete, and put forward several valid reasons for there being only one article and for merging back the contents. Two others said Merge. One said Keep or Merge, with the view that "I don't think it's a good idea to cover the building and the embassy separately". The creator of the article said Keep, though later agreed that merging back was a viable solution. User:Stifle (who requests not to be informed of DRV - User_talk:Stifle/wizard/experienced#Deletion) felt that the Merge discussion should take place on the talkpage of the article - though the merge discussion has already taken place with the outcome that the article be merged, so further discussion should not be needed. SilkTork *YES! 09:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • And merging is an editorial decision and action, so what are you asking for here? If there is already a consensus to merge, get on with it and put an appropriate redirect in place. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raising it here to forestall a more drawn out debate on the talkpage, or a potential conflict by someone objecting/undoing a merge because the AfD close could be interpreted as not supporting a merge. Just seemed common sense to me. Does that help? SilkTork *YES! 13:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested I did the merge, and - as expected - someone objected - [72] - [73]. We are now into the process of suggesting a merge on the talkpage. Nobody taking any notice, other than the creators of the articles who will object. Then taking the matter to Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion. As my interest in this matter is not that strong, I am now withdrawing from this matter, and so - even though there was a consensus to merge the articles, and people here see that as the sensible action, this is unlikely to happen because the AfD did not close as Merge. SilkTork *YES! 09:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are more close options than a simple Keep or Delete: there are Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki" or "KEEP (including any variant such as NO CONSENSUS, REDIRECT, or MERGE)". It can sometimes be helpful for the person closing to look into possible wider issues to reduce the potential for later drama. Anyhow, as the consensus here is leaning toward someone doing the redirect and leaving the AfD close as is, I'd be quite content on doing that myself and closing this DRV early. SilkTork *YES! 13:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Michelle Belanger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Version deleted at AFD version deleted by spartaz

Deleted under G4 by User:Spartaz. Article had, however, been rewritten to address the concerns of the AfD - all promotional language removed, and the article restructured and rewritten to explain the notability of the subject. New sources were added, including media sources such as Fox News Channel, The Washington Post, and Bizarre magazine along with books The re-enchantment of the West: alternative spiritualities, sacralization, popular culture, and occulture by Christopher Hugh Partridge ISBN 0567041336, and Magickal Self Defense: A Quantum Approach to Warding by Kerr Cuhulain ISBN 0738712191. SilkTork *YES! 00:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion assuming SilkTork is correct that the rewritten version addressed the concerns of the AFD. G4 doesn't require a proposed new version be reviewed here at DRV. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own DeletionThe article was only just deleted at AFD and endorsed at DRV for concerns about spurious sourcing and one admin doesnt have the right to overturn a consensus formed elsewhere without testing to see if it had changed. I'm also not opposed to relisting the article as AFD is a better place to test the new sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 04:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the new sources. The Washington Post is a general article that she is interviewed in and does not discuss her in detail.
    • Bizarre Magazine is another general article that interviews her I don't think it counts as a reliable source that discusses the subject in depth.
    • The fox news segment is another one that discussed vampires where she is interviewed. Not about her in depth.
    • RS requires non-trivial secondary sources that discuss the subject and all of these are about vampires in general not michelle Belanger. The links to the Bizarre Magazine scans are copyvios by the way and cannot be maintained if the article is restored as we don't link to copyvios. None of these new sources cut the mustard in my opinion and Silktork shouldn't have substituted their opinion for that of the DRV or AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While new sources have been added, that is not the main point here. The concern in the AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Belanger was about the promotional aspects of the article. Those have been addressed. The comments in the DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 29 endorsed deletion as appropriate, though suggested the article be rewritten to address the AfD concerns. That has been done. I'll admit I didn't study the wording of the comments closely (I scanned through and saw "userfy", "allow recreation", etc - and as I was addressing the main concerns, felt that was enough), and only note now when scrutinizing carefully that there are suggestions that DRV take a look at the recreation before returning to mainspace. Fair enough. I had expected an AfD challenge as there are issues in the background. What I didn't expect, and I oppose, was an immediate delete under G4, as G4 is not appropriate. There were several other solutions open - returning the article to userspace would have been one, discussing the matter with the admin who userfied the article (myself) would have been another; however, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and we all do things that would have better if we were fully aware of all the facts - however, we are simply volunteers working in our spare time on this project, so lets not annoy each other unnecessarily - a deletion is a big slap in the face that could have been avoided. I am, as people may detect, a bit irked by this, so forgive the wordiness of this comment. SilkTork *YES! 07:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, given that I closed the DRV you can imagine that I was a bit irked that this was restored summarilarly without discussion with me. If you read the DRV carefully you would know that there were issues about the sourcing and the sources you have used to restore the artice quote the subject but only discuss her tangentially in the context of the wider article so, if you forgive my grumpiness, it does rather look like you decided to supplant your view of her notability for the communities. You also waited barely 6 hours for a reply before raising the DRV when checking my contributions would have showed I was offline and I actually have no objection to your restoring this and listing it at AFD. I should also note that given the amount of work you have done on the article you are clearly not an uninvolved admin for the purposes of using admin tools on it withoyt a consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion As one of the new editors who was supposed to work on this article, I would have loved to acctually read the revisions prior to deletion again. I trust that SilkTork cleaned it up to satisfy the notability issues and the npov complaints, so now there's a problem with RS? Give me a break. The Washington Post and Fox aren't good enough? I thought the issue for Afd was notability, and that has been established. And let's not forget the vote stacking by sockpuppets that got the Afd happening in the first place. Allow the article to stay, watch it, and protect if it gets spammed by socks again. Ebonyskye (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The Washington Post and Fox aren't good enough?" I think Spartaz addresses that in the comment directly above that. i.e. the requirement being that the subject is the primary subject of the article in the reliable source. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be incorrect. Being widely cited or an important figure is also grounds for establishing notability for creative professionals. Having a significant "cult" following or significant roles multiple notable television productions is sufficient for entertainers. No where does it state that a person must be "primary subject of the article in the reliable source." That is simply one path or possible criteria for notability.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean that would be incorrect in your understanding of the policies/guidelines. Perhaps you can expand on that by reference to the actual guidelines an policies. The view I see being put forward is based on WP:N. The subsection of this Notability requires verifiable evidence indeed doesn't state a requirement that the verifiable information is mainly focussed on the subject, it however does state: "If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline.", which if you then review the general notability guideline states " 'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail...". --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, directly not tangentially in the context of the wider subject. The kind of thing we are looking for are biograophies, profiles in wide circulation newspapers that kind of thing. being quoted in the paper doesn't earn you wiki-notability. Spartaz Humbug! 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion Belanger is widely consulted as an expert on the vampire lifestyle community by reliable sources: Fox, Washington Post, A&E, History Channel. That meets one of the criteria for notability. Additionally, Belanger has made multiple appearances on the show Paranormal State, a notable program, thus meeting another of the criteria for notability.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out which policy/guidelines you are refering to as criteria for notability? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing my understanding of notability off what I read in Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals and Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that page has various sections, the basic criteria "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published..." which again requires them to be "the subject of", the additional criteria you list and a special cases section. The latter section specifically considers "Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria..." which essentially specifies they aren't suitable for a standalone article and suggsting the information is contained elsewhere. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So under or as part of another article that as notability?--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G put this best:

"Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content. That a subject is non-notable does not mean that verifiable information about a subject should be excluded from Wikipedia. It means that the subject is not an appropriate one for an article."—Uncle G in On Notability

In other words, as part of another article that has notability.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:08, 10 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]

8 May 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
James Hoffmann (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The AFD closed with only three people having participated. Please revisit this issue and re-open the discussion so we can gain some consensus. Yardleyman (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Besides, this article is a promotion based of a person that serves coffee. It should be deleted under WP:N.Yardleyman (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there were seven people who participated, which I reckon is actually a reasonable number for most debates, and I would say that the consensus was more heading towards the keep side than the delete end. Anyway, no consensus seems a reasonable close to me. It's also a good idea to contact the closing admin before opening a review. Quantpole (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I might have thought a keep close would have been more appropriate, but no consensus is certainly not unreasonable based on the AFD. There certainly wasn't anything resembling a consensus to delete. 69.242.101.88 (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ack, the above was me, don't know why my computer had me logged out. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect, bold or otherwise still doesn't require any deletion to take place. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close is a plausible close (if this were an individual who had participated in a more standard competition such as a sport we wouldn't even be having this discussion). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close Opinions were roughly evenly split. Calling it a no consensus is the correct thing to do. - Mgm|(talk) 08:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there was no consensus in the debate and while I always prefer larger participation in AfDs, closes with three/four participants is something we've had to get used to. This debate was open 8 days, a full day more than requisit and saw more participation than many other debates. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - It doesn't look like it'll matte here, but Yardleyman has been blocked as a disruptive sockpuppet. Mr.Z-man 15:45, 16 May 2009 (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 2009

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


Levi Johnston (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was speedy deleted by a [somewhat] involved admin. KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is extensively involved in the Sara Palin topic. There is a controversy on Wikipedia over whether Levi Johnston is notable. He has appeared in primetime TV interviews recently, so his notability is open to question. KillerChihuahua reasons for deleting the article included BLP and an XfD of redirect opened back in March which resulted in a deletion. However he hasn't articulated a clear BLP violation and he recreated the redirect despite the XfD. The article should be restored and taken to AfD.   Will Beback  talk  20:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-examined the Rfd; Will is correct that consensus was to delete; although mention was made of a redir to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy, this did not have consensus. I have therefore corrected my error and deleted the Redir. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will, can you please undelete this article so editors can see the topic in question? Ikip (talk) 00:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel comfortable undeleting the article, at least until KC explains why it was deleted. There is a prohibition against restoring deleted BLPs that contain policy violations, but we haven't heard whether or not KC believes the article contained any such violations. I suggest you ask KC.   Will Beback  talk  03:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one has bothered to ask me, but as the deleting admin (who did not anticipate this kind of controversy) I would be happy to undelete so the article can be placed at Afd, or undelete to userspace during this Drv. Do you wish that, and which? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KC, as the deleting admin would you please undelete the article so that it may be be placed at Afd? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note: I am not in any way "involved" - I do not edit the Sarah Palin article. I am enforcer of the article probation on that article. Will, I would appreciate it if you would strike your inaccurate and hostile characterization of me as biased in this matter, as it smacks of personal attack. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not familiar with the job description of "enforcer", but I'd be surprised if it includes free reign to delete articles outside of process. Deletion of a redirect is not comparable to the deletion of a properly sourced article, so I don't see how that can be used as a sufficient cause. Is there a reason why this article shouldn't go to AfD?   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I'm not faimiliar with the job description of "enforcer", but I'd be surprised if it includes free reign to delete articles outside of process."? Will, try to keep your personal hostility of me off this Drv. Your desire to attack me and smear me has no place here; this is inappropriate. I will not respond further to your blatant attacks, and suggest you strike or remove them. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it a personal attack to say that you are involved in this topic? That's a much lower threshold than I've ever seen before. The assertion that I have a desire to attack you fails to AGF. This response shows a lack of dispassion. All the more reason to bring this to AfD to let uninvolved editors weigh in.   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Will, your failure to understand that admins properly carrying out duties on an article talk page are not "involved" and that the process was correctly followed has led you to a personal attack and a failure to assume good faith. Treat this on its merits and present evidence of notability, if any, don't try escalating this by what look like smear techniques. . . dave souza, talk 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, for people unfamilar with the circumstances here, the alleged notability of Levi Johnston is based on the fact that he is the ex-fiance of Bristol Palin. Bristol Palin's alleged notability is based on being a child of Sarah Palin. There is currently no article for Bristol Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Catching up and continue discussion above
An AFD and RFD are two very different things. Even so I think the article about "levy Johnson" has some merit in its notability I have no strong feelings about this (article) but I have "strong feelings" when an (at least partially) involved admin makes a bold move by deleting it and not check and hand such decision to another uninvolved admin. I sense some abuse even so I assume food faith and give the editor the doubt of "not guilty until proven guilt" and would like to see his/her bold move to be confirmed or rejected by another (completely uninvolved) admin. I think KillerChihuahua did a good job at Sarah Palin's page so far but might went over the top by this. And also, citing an (over a week old) RFD as reason for deletion doesn't seem right to me at all. Instead, the editor should and could've started a legitimate AFD about the redirect that involved into an article. Oh, and to decide to make it a "speedy" makes it even more questionable and about KillerChihuahua's statement above not being evolved at all, again (as I stated above), S/he is partially involved no matter how good of a job s/he did handling the Palin main article and no, this is not meant at all as an attack at all. I'm just giving my opinion on the deletion (which might even not survive a regular AFD but this is not the point). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk • contribs)
  • Overturn The article should be restored - there were 20 reliable sources in the article, representing an 8 month period detailing various events of which Levi is the subject. Many of these reliable sources were written AFTER the RFD - this was clearly noted in the article that was deleted. If other editors feel thatthe subject's notability is questionable, then it should be taken to AfD - per nom and Peregrine Fisher. Otherwise the deletion needs to be overturned and the article restored. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and allow it to go to AFD. Have no interest in the various iterations of alaksan trailer trash but this fellow and his family have been the subject of lots of coverage in reliable sources and this encyclopedia is filled with articles on fictional characters that have never been covered by any reliable sources. This seems odd to me. A non BLP-violating article is more than theoretically possible here. He's not a minor, and he has sought out publicity. Take him to AFD as that's the place to establish if consensus finds him sufficiently notable (the only grounds i can see that need to be determined for inclusion in this case).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold deletion of biography of a living person of little or no notability: at best someone who has appeared lately in a few news items about someone they have a relationship with, who in turn isn't personally notable, but her mother is a public figure. This is the page for presenting evidence that there is enough notability to justify undeletion, not a page for making spurious claims that an admin has become "involved" by correctly carrying out admin duties on a talk page. Such claims in no way warrant recreating any article where its notability is in serious doubt, and certainly not in the case of a BLP. . . dave souza, talk 23:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not the page to decide if the subject is notable. This is the page to decide of the deletion was made according to policy. KC has said that he deleted the article under A7 of the speedy deletion criteria.[74] However that criterion says:
      • An article about a real person, an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. This criterion applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people and organizations themselves, not to articles about their books, albums, software and so on. The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.
    • The article did make an assertion of notability so it is not a valid reason for a speedy deletion. Nor would G4 be appropriate, because the article was substantially different from the deleted redirect. So the deletion does not appear to have been made according to policy and it should be overturned. Whether the claim of notability is sufficient should be determined at AFD.   Will Beback  talk  23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will, that's not what I said. I am going to respond to your inaccurate accusations and statements about me one more time, but please let this be the last time. I commented to you that the BLP was "speedyable", and was asked by another editor "Which SPEEDY thing did it match". I responded A7. At NO TIME did I ever state that was why I deleted the page. Please get your facts straight. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KC -- Not to make this more heated. But what is the speedy criteria under which this was deleted. If I understand correctly, you say that A7 was not the reason you deleted the page. Just so we're not talking past each other here, what was the criteria that you used? That would help us stay on track here I think.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KC - I apologize for getting that wrong. Please correct me and say which speedy deletion criteria you believe that this falls under.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original criteria of notability for deleting the article as a redirect still stand, as far as I've seen. Evidence of a real change in the situation is needed. . dave souza, talk 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect was once deleted because the target article didn't mention this name is the speedy deletion reason for this article? That doesn't make much sense and I hope you're wrong.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the target article had been subject to discussion of the name of this third party whose only claim to notability is that his girlfriend has a famous mother. The determination that his girlfriend / common law wife is non-notable applies even more so to him. I'm willing to review that when you produce sources mentioning him as notable in his own right, not the occasional news sources about Bristol. . dave souza, talk 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dave -- I though AFD was the place for establishing notability? If I understand A7 would apply if there was a failure to assert some significance, which is defined as a lower threshold than notability. I can't look at the deleted article, but simply to assert something like the family feuding that he helped color political debate about palin (which it has -- whether this is "notable" is of course another question). If I look at a the yahoo news aggregagator for "Levi Johnston" [75] I find stories from the New York Daily News, USA Today, AP, LA Times, CBS news, etc... all in the past few days. Let it go to AFD and have the community decide if this passes the various notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Uphold deletion KC has not been an active editor on the topic of Sarah Palin. The person is not notable under WP BLP standards, and the article was being used as a coatrack about Sarah Palin, which is evidenced clearly by the accusation that KC was involved in the Palin article. The article was also being used as a coatrack to introduce the exact birth date of the child, which was found not germane in the Palin article, and falls under protection of a minor on WP. And the existence of the article was being cited as a reason for more Palin coatrack articles, including one on Bristol Palin. If such is to be prevented, the sooner the better. And "appearing in TV interviews" has not been held to per se confer notability on anyone. Collect (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, again as some editor pointed out before, this thread is about the "one handed speedy" deletion and not about Johnson's notability to get his own article at WP. I even doubt that the deleted article would survive a regular AFD but that is in my opinion where it belongs. Besides, if it (the article) would fail there, there would be NO conversation like this here going on for at least quite a while. Gosh, let's have a regular AFD about this and decide it for good (at least for a while). Guess we have better things to do then spend our time on this.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as noted before, this is related to a notability discussion held in T:SP and thus that material is relevant here. And the fact that KC was not "involved" as was claimed is certainly also relevant. Lastly, we can certainl;y expect canvassing on the topic for an AfD, which would mean that this is the only venue where the original discussion is apt to be relevant. Thanks! Collect (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The redirect of an individual so non-notable that there's no need to mention his name on articles about the notable individual he relates to was fully valid, creating a new article with no evident further claim to fame clearly goes against that precedent. If he has an independent claim to fame, please set it out for discussion. . dave souza, talk 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. It's clear that there are several of us who think the article should stay, so a full discussion via AfD is far more appropriate than a speedy. If the deletion stands, then at a minimum there should be a redirect. The prior discussion is not accurately characterized in this comment by KillerChihuahua: "consensus was to delete; although mention was made of a redir to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy, this did not have consensus." What actually happened was that there were 10 editors who favored having a redirect (either to the Palin bio or to the "Image" article) and 6 who favored deletion. The 10 who wanted to keep a redirect included the original nominator, who wrote, on March 16, "Note, if the mention of Mr. Johnston in Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy appears likely to stick, then I support retargeting the redirect there rather than deleting." That mention has stuck. Furthermore, of the 6 editors favoring deletion, 5 of them expressly based their conclusion on the assertion that Johnston was not mentioned in the Palin bio, which was at that time the target article (see the comment above by Peregrine Fisher). Johnston is now mentioned in the image article, and the mention seems likely to stick, so it would be appropriate as a target for the redirect. Preferable, though, in light of his subsequently increased notability, would be to restore the article. JamesMLane t c 00:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy, send to AfD I'm not seeing a valid speedy rational but I'll fully admit I've not read anything beyond this DrV. In addition I suspect the subject of this article is notable. Hobit (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. It's quite apparent to me that this is too contentious to speedy, and merits a full discussion; and whether or not KillerChihuahua is an "involved admin" in any factual sense, there's clearly a perception among some users that he's involved. That perception is important.

    My personal position at AfD would be that this material should be deleted, but I think it matters how it's deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion and list at AfD Speedy deletion is not for this case. At the very least, Levi Johnston is asserted to be important. And I'm sensitive to the BLP claims, but that's not decided -- there seems to be serious disagreement on that point, meriting a proper discussion at AfD. RayTalk 02:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: This is a pretty clear issue of WP:BLP; we're not a tabloid, and this falls under both BLP1E and presumption in favor of privacy. I think it's a reasonable application of WP:BLP, and one I believe is supported by policy and prior ArbCom decisions, to delete the article as KC has done. I guess it could go to AfD, but if I'm being totally honest, I've been completely underwhelmed with the general respect for BLP issued evinced in AfD discussions. MastCell Talk 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't fall under BLP1E, which states: If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [emphasis in original]. Aside from the issue of whether he's notable for only one event, the subject did not maintain a low profile but instead has sought publicity.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Concerning the low profile please see Johnston's April 2009 media blitz; on Larry King Live, the Tyra Banks Show, the Early Show, etc... Not a low profile by any interpretation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: Per MastCell.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those are good arguments. Ones I'd expect to hear at an AfD, but they don't really apply to this situation. I don't think 1E or 7A or whatever the reason for deletion (I'm still not sure) applies to an article created at the same name as a redirect which was deleted because there was not target for it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article. Routine news coverage of such things as tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. See WP:Tabloid. Am I missing something, or is the event in question that this guy impregnated the daughter of someone famous?[76]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) That's how it started. If it had ended there, there probably be much to debate. I started the article when I was watching the news and they were talking about this media blitz he's been on lately. I wanted more info, went to wiki and found a redirect that didn't lead to anything that covered it, so I started the article. He was just a small part of the election coverage, but has now become a media personality of a sort. - Peregrine Fisher (talk(contribs) 04:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm sure that was done in good faith, but he continues to be a small part of political coverage of the grannie of his child. The issue of whether Bristol Palin is notable has been properly tested, and she was found to have inadeqate notability to overturn BLP concerns. That applies even more so to her partner, though I'm open to seeing specific references otherwise. . dave souza, talk 17:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrylodge, while I would be happy to counter your argument about the inclusion of this topic in Wikipedia, that would be an AfD discussion (I've fallen into the AfD-talk in DRVs before and probably will again). This is about the validity of speedy deleting this article. --Oakshade (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on when a speedy delete is appropriate, but if it's ever appropriate in any instance, I would think that (not to put too fine a point on it) an article about a guy who screwed a gal who has a famous Mom would be such an instance.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY are for a small set of clearly defined situations, which, while this may seem like a no-brainer to you, actually requires a bit of thought and community input. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn I suspect that another AfD will result in a deletion and we don't need to go through that process again given that that's almost certainly the correct result at this time given that the individual's notability is so tenuous: he happened to get pregnant the daughter of a notable individual. I would like another AfD to actually see what happens and I'm not a fan of out of process deletions. Note however, claims that KC was too involved to make this deletion are simply wrong; having done work with related articles doesn't mean one cannot make a deletion, and we are if anything more willing to let people make deletions when there is a BLP concern even if they might have some involvement(I'm not convinced should but the precedent in that regard is clear). If we do decide to endorse, then there should be a redirect put in this place since people will definitely be search for his name. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. WP:BLP applies, and trumps pretty much every other policy and relevant process. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With apologies to Stifle for flatly contradicting him, WP:BLP specifically says:

      "Page deletion should be treated as a last resort, with the page being improved and remedied where possible and disputed areas discussed. If the dispute centers around suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this should be addressed at xFD rather than by summary deletion."

      The shortcut to the original text for this is WP:BLPDEL.

      Therefore, I feel Stifle's remark should be disregarded because it is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Our primary aim with BLPs is to do no harm. Mr. Johnston has been in the news due to the connection with Miss Palin, who in turn was connected to Mrs. Palin. The article we had really didn't do him any justice. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this DrV was openened on the spurious grounds that KC was "involved", and the more reasonable grounds that the procedural basis for speedy deletion does not allow for this situation. The article was deleted after discussion of its notability in the context of BLP standards, there have been a few more news items sincee, following (as far as I've seen) one interview of the non-notable Bristol Palin at which Levi Johnston also said a few words. If there's sufficient evidence to give a reasonable presumption of possible notability that evidence can be presented here, but recreating an article in order to delete it is WP:POINTy and a clear breach of BLP standards. So, if there's a good case for existence of the article, please show that here. . . dave souza, talk 11:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per MastCell and WP:BLP1E. Kelly hi! 12:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This far into a discussion and still - there has been no clear reason provided why this article fails BLP!!! The article clearly stated notability and contained 20 references from reliable sources of which Levi is the subject. Not just one, but many events over an 8 month period were in the process of being expounded on (while the article was tagged Underconstruction) and also while a discussion on constructing the article was ongoing on the talk page. The article was deleted because an admin didn't like it, that's not reason enough - thus Overturn remains the correct response to this flagrant out of process deletion. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say overturn and send to AFD if I wasn't absolutely certain that the political aspect of this article would result in a massive flood of bovine fecal matter that would result in a no-consensus keep (or, quite possibly, a straight keep, depending on which side gets out the most vote). So, as MastCell points out above, endorse deletion per WP:IAR on the deleter's part - we're not a tabloid, we don't need an article for a guy whose 15 minutes are about up. Let him live his life without having to deal with an article that will almost certainly become a massive political dramafest. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article, as it was when speedy deleted, was not about his 15 minutes - which would of been his introduction to the world as a father to be by Sarah Palin on September 1, 2008. From this point on for 8 months there have been multiple events. The most recent is just from a 2 days ago, when both of them participated in two different well publicized interviews concerning abstinence. 8 months of publicity from reliable sources for mulitple events is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it goes to AFD and is deleted as it rightly should be once the inevitable seven days of dramaramarama are over then I'll apologize for encouraging admins to take steps like this to protect single-note people, especially teenagers, from having an outlet for people to politicize them. As it stands, this is essentially going down along political lines and is going to be a charlie foxtrot no matter what. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm trying to stay out of this and let the process take its course, (personal attacks and inaccuracies about me excepted) but I feel this question must be asked: What "multiple events"? Levi's only claim to notability for WP's purposes is that he dipped his wick in Bristol, the nn daughter of the very notable Sarah. Did he get someone else pregnant, or am I missing some best selling book he wrote, or what? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • KC, you've never said which speedy deletion criterion you relied on for the deletion. If I gather correctly from your statement above, it wasn't A7. Yet you seem to be making an A7-type argument here, that the article made no credible claim of notability. Could you please clarify the policy basis for the deletion?   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • KC, you have yet to state by what criteria you speedy deleted this article. What is it? Are you now arguing it is only a one event BLP? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ism, what criteria I used to delete has nothing to do with my question. I've also already answered that several places, and was trying not to repeat myself, as I am remaining out of the argument here on the Drv, and do not wish to be seen to be promoting any position here. However, as both you and Will seem to have trouble finding (and in Will's case, understanding) what I say: Rationale was BLP, which is not a speedy criteria per se. As Arbcom has instructed that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance." then clearly deletion in a BLP context is an appropriate choice. I have also opined that as the article made zero claims of notability (I consider calling Levi a "celebrity father" intensely bad writing, not a claim of notability) it would have also qualified under A7. Finally, as a side note, the article was in the space of a redir which had been deleted due to the nn of the subject, it seems unlikely the subject is actually notable enough for an entire article - which did indeed contain the date of the child's birth, which has been removed elsewhere as violating privacy of a minor; this does make the article a coatrack for trying to get that irrelevant detail in past those watching the Palin family of articles. Something I haven't bothered to mention prior to this, but as long as I'm posting this, I might as well - the article also highlighted Levi's "I don't want kids" and "I'm a f - - -in' redneck... Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass" from his MySpace, which he took down the minute the news media found it, which is precisely the kind of thing BLP protects him from having to endure - his old bs comments on MySpace should not haunt him forever, and he clearly doesn't want them public or he wouldn't have taken them down. As an OTRS volunteer, I would certainly remove should someone open a ticket requesting such youthful folly be expunged, as it is not news, not relevant, and is embarrassing. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, with nothing better to do than embarrass people over trivial details of their past. Add it all up, and there is zero reason to have this article on WP and quite a few not to. Now I have answered your question, hopefully for the last time - Peregine Fisher got it[77] two days ago - and I would appreciate it if you would answer mine. What "multiple events"? Levi got one girl pregnant, not a notable thing to do. You claim "multiple events" - What else did he do? KillerChihuahua?!? 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-evaluate admin privileges. The article clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy delete. It asserted notability and was extensively sourced, given the brevity of the article. Further, KillerChihuahua should probably have her admin privileges looked at, or at least be advised to WP:WIKIBREAK. She seems unable to procecss contrary opinions as anything other than a personal attack, and it's keeping her from being the kind of editor (let alone admin) that WP deserves. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, excuse me? KC is one of our most productive admins on the project. Making a deletion that people disagree with, or even making a genuinely bad deletion(which isn't what happened here), isn't by itself a reason to desysop someone. Given the large (although inconistent) leeway the community and ArbCom have given about BLP issues, such a deletion cannot be held against KC. Nor is strong arguing for one's point at all being ugh"seems unable to procecss contrary opinions as anything other than a personal attack." JoshuaZ (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sticking to the subject at hand; I agree with your statement that "The article clearly does not meet the criteria for speedy delete. It asserted notability and was extensively sourced, given the brevity of the article." This should be the main point of the discussion. Admin related issues can be discussed elsewhere. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad she's productive. I truly am. She may be helpful in the edits she makes to articles, but everywhere I look in the Talkspace, she's getting superdefensive in a way that does not encourage participation. I'm embarrassed for her, really. I'd like to see her keep her cool, which is why I strongly recommend a wikibreak. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your ignorance of the part admins play in articles under sanction is understandable, but your comments reflect badly on you rather than on KC. You should find my comment below informative, particularly in relation to the justification for speedy deletion of this previously deleted article. . dave souza, talk 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked, which is why I found it unconvincing. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Information – a number of editors do not seem to have noticed that Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation refers to Wikipedia:General sanctions. In terms of Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, KillerChihuahua is considered "uninvolved". The section immediately above that refers to Special enforcement on biographies of living persons – Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance..... This does not preclude the use of emergency measures where necessary, and all administrators are explicitly authorized to take such measures at their own discretion.
    Many editors commenting here consider this article likely to fail AfD on BLP grounds, and in my view recreating an article without clear evidence that it complies with the letter and spirit of BLP policy would go against the express provisions of these sanctions. . . dave souza, talk 18:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you quote the relevant sentences, there's a lot to read there. Also, to me, but apparently not to all others, there's a big difference between creating an article where there was a deleted redirect, and re-creating an article where there was an actual article that was deleted. I don't think there are any guidelines or policies that specifically address that, although I could be wrong. I don't think KC was an involved admin or anything, but I think they've gone into unexplored territory, which should then warrant a full AfD to be sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was no emergency requiring the deletion of this article without going to AFD, and it's not even clear that there was any violation of BLP to begin with. This is not a private or semi-private person we're discusing, but instead someone who has sought publicity for himself. AFD is the correct place to determine whether the assertions of notability meet Wikipedia standards. This has nothing to do with the Palin probation, which doesn't prohibit the creation of articles or empower "enforcers" to delete articles out of process.   Will Beback  talk  18:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's important to be clear about what WP:BLP actually says.

    I've heard a number of editors, in various XfDs and DRVs of late, suggest that WP:BLP implies a presumption to delete articles. That suggestion is certainly false, and I point again to WP:BLPDEL, which is that part of WP:BLP that says very explicitly that for contentious deletions, the correct venue is XfD.

    I think the confusion comes from WP:BURDEN, which says: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles and do not move it to the talk page (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for details of this policy). As Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has put it: 'I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.'"

    The distinction here is not, actually, subtle or difficult to understand. All editors (not just admins) are empowered, enjoined, and earnestly requested to cut any unsourced material from biographies of living people. But cutting unsourced material is not the same as summarily deleting articles; it's perfectly possible to cut unsourced material and leave a stub.

    Therefore, WP:BURDEN is not in conflict with WP:BLPDEL. Our policies explictly require that this should go to AfD.

    I've said before, at DRV, that I think there's room for discussion about whether a BLP should lead to a presumption to delete. But that discussion has not yet taken place and our policies say what they say.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and send to Afd, where I think it has a good chance of being kept, on the basis of extensive continuing coverage. do no harm has its limits when it comes to public figures. Involvement in a presidential campaign destroys privacy even for relatively peripheral individuals, and everyone involved surely must have been aware of it from the start. DGG (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold Delete Perhaps KC was hasty and overzealous in deleting the page but in my view the snowball clause applies. The arguments being waged here are much the same as in the RFD and likely to be the same in an AFD. Restoring the article will just allow parliamentary maneuvering to let a coatrack article exist for a short time Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two main arguments in the RfD were keep and delete because the target contained no mention of Johnston. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I counted the votes. It was 8 keeps, 4 delete because the target contains no mention, 2 delete because he isn't notable, and 1 redirect to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy. If there was any snow, it was keep. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correction to your count: There were 10 editors favoring keep (4 supporting a redirect to the image article, 2 supporting a redirect to the main bio, and 4 supporting "keep" without specifying their preferred target). Of course, not all of them would support having a standalone article. As against that, some of the editors who favored deleting a pointless redirect (because its target didn't mention the redirect term) might support a standalone article. What we learn is that, if you want to know whether the Wikipedia community considers an article on Levi Johnston appropriate, you have to ask that question, not try to read the RfD tea leaves. We ask that question through AfD. JamesMLane t c 05:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Snowball" means overwhelming support or oppisition. I don't see how that applies here. Further, I don't see how the article can be considered a "coatrack", which is an article that purports to be about one topic but which is really about another. The article in question was narrowly focused on its subject. In any case, "coatrack" is not a legitimate reason for deletion - it's a problem to be fixed.   Will Beback  talk  03:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Coatrack means that the article is a pretense to push a point of view about another subject. Levi Johnston is only interesting because he is an embarrassment to Sarah Palin. Snowball means that ultimately the action being requested will fail and is therefore a waste of time. I realize that respondents to the RFD cited the fact that he wasn't mentioned in the article (I was one of them), but the underlying point was that Levi Johnston is not notable and should not be mentioned in the article or be given inappropriate attention with a redirect. If we need to debate the merits of a separate article, why not do it here and now? We can have the same debate with the article deleted as we can with the article nominated for deletion. Insisting that it be undeleted and then debated seems like a bureaucratic tactic to allow the article to exist for 5 days when it will ultimately fail on it's merits Ucanlookitup (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was the old Levi. The new Levi is interesting becuase he's gone on a media blitz. Just this latest bit of going on interviews has enough coverage in reliable sources to be notable on its own. Also, I think it's a good idea to be able to see the article that is to be deleted, like with AfD, instead of saying it has problems without looking at them or discussing them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ucanlookitup, I don't believe that the Johnston article pushed a particular point of view, especially not about any third party. However since the article is deleted we can't look at the the contents or sources. Five days isn't significant one way or another. We don't know how an AFD will turn out, and there's no harm in seeing. The article did not contain any apparent BLP violations and no speedy deletion criteria has been given either. So let's undelete it and put it through a proper AFD.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with Peregrine and Will. I add, in response to Ucanlookitup, that "coatrack" refers to the content of the article, not to your speculations about why some editors choose to work on it. It would be a coatrack if it briefly mentioned the pregnancy and then said, "This incident illustrates the futility of Palin's cherished abstinence-only education," followed by a lot of text about abstinence-only education. By your theory, Mary Jo Kopechne and Monica Lewinsky would be deleteable as coatrack articles. JamesMLane t c 05:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • hmm- in both examples you cite, they were central to a historic controversy. Levi Johnston is central to ....nothing at all. That's the point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucanlookitup (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 May 2009
              • That relates to notability but not to your charge of coatracking. The point is that if the article's title is "Person X" and the article is actually about Person X, then it's not a coatrack, even if some people may be happy to see the information about Person X because it's thought to reflect badly on Person Y. JamesMLane t c 07:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • If the article doesn't pass notability, it shouldn't exist. If we create it anyway as a place to put information that reflects badly on Person Y - information that was removed from Person Y's page - we are using it as a coatrackUcanlookitup (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update KC stated above that he would be happy to undelete the article so that it can be placed at Afd. I replied above and asked KC to please undelete the article so that it may be be placed at Afd. It would be more appropriate to continue many of the discussions above in that venue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
  • Colombia–Croatia relations – overturn and delete. First, none of the opinions presented to keep in this DRV or the first AFD related to the validity of the specific topic of Colombia-Croatia relations. Rather, they refer to an internal Wikipedia process, a so-called "centralized discussion" to produce results. In almost all cases, a discussion like this cannot block the major processes like AFD from taking place unless the sheer volume of nominations is becoming disruptive. I note that AFD discussions on other "x-y relations" are taking place at this time, and are still being closed in the usual manner, some with keep, some with delete. No disruption is being caused by this. Typically, the articles which only consist of an article skeleton, i.e. just a map with a mention of mutual embassies and a year when diplomatic relations were established, usually wind up with a consensus to delete, and this article fits into that mold. I believe that if anything more substantial could be written on this topic, the consensus on whether to keep or delete might be different, and if information establishing the significance of Colombia-Croatia can be found, the deletion here should not be used in order to prevent the creation of a more substantial and comprehensive article. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Colombia–Croatia relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion with 6 delete and 4 keep !votes closed as keep. Delete voters addressed the complete lack of notability, keep voters did not even deny this and made only an invalid procedural argument that was ignored in many other AfDs. Closer ignored request to review for 33 hours, then went on wikibreak. [78] [79] Some background for evaluating the procedural argument: WP:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations, WT:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force#Moved from main page: can AfD's be suspended. Hans Adler (talk) 12:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and delete per the expressed consensus at the AFD. The closure was based on an inappropriate motive. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify, there is no sense in waiting for the outcome of a centralized discussion, which may or may not close with a consensus, and giving blanket approval to articles concerning it in the meantime. (I see plenty of opportunities to circumvent proper process in that too.) There was a consensus to delete at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - With respect to the closing admin, the closure was inaccurate in my opinion. The arguments from the delete side were far stronger than those from the keep side; additionally, the keep "votes" failed to address the notability issue. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's plenty of trouts to go around here. First, the person or persons that is/are creating these X/Y relations articles. Second. The people who nominate the articles for deletion right away instead of giving the centralized discussion a chance to take place. Third, the people whose vote in the AFD consisted of "give the discussion time to take place" and "what's the harm?" instead of actually improving the article to the point where it might be acceptable. And fourth, the closer who listened to that argument instead going with the consensus. So, while I'm as sick of seeing these X/Y relations AFD's as I am of seeing the articles, the consensus here was delete, and it should've been followed. So its with great annoyance to most of those involved that I say Overturn and delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse: A solid decision for a number of reasons. At the time of the closure there were signs of the central discussion producing agreement on stub like articles being moved to umbrella pages – so by waiting for that to materialise much useful information could be saved. Secondly, as we've demonstrated time and time again many of these stubs can be considerably expanded, with reliable secondary sources available that explore the relationship in depth. In the opinion of many of us bilateral relations are inherently notable due to their bearing on international trade, world peace, prospects for international cooperation etc etc. While we'd certainly prefer to address each article on its merits, with approximately 10 new articles nominated each day there simply isnt time - looking for sources on these relationships is time consuming as the best sources are sometimes not in English , and many hits from searches are about trivia. Valuable articles would be inevitably lost! A brave admin decision to go against the popularist , superficially sensible but on serious inspection flawed view (given the high rate of noms) that we ought to be trying to save these articles by addressing each individual case !). FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Juliancolton.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn that some guideline or policy might come into force at some unknown time in the future that would encourage the retention of unsourced content of no demonstrated notability seems a poor reason to close an AFD as keep. We still have notability and verification guidelines that are quite servicable and have the added benefit of actually existing (as opposed to some theoretical future guideline or policy). And those quidelines tell us that notability needs to be established via multiple nontrivial mentions in reliable sources about the subject, in this specific case, for this relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as closing admin. After reading the central discussion, it appeared as though deleting the article would provide no benefit, and keeping it undeleted would help the discussion. FeydHuxable summs up the reason for deletion. But it appears that this will be deleted anyway, so might as well do it anyway. Xclamation point 17:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And on an additional note, the wikibreak was not to avoid scrutiny. My trip has been planned for months now, and I put it on last night in the event that I would not have access to a computer before I leave. So please don't accuse me of trying to avoid scrutiny. Xclamation point 17:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your !vote. Do you mean "overturn and delete" or "endorse [keep]"? I didn't want to accuse you, but I felt I needed to explain per WP:DP#Deletion review why I asked for a review before there was even a dialogue between us. Looking at some other cases here I am no longer sure that's true, and perhaps my frustration came through stronger than it should have. Sorry for that. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I am about to request a temporary suspension of all AFD's and merges for bilateral relations. I want to wait for the result of the discussion. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, just in case it wasn't clear from my nomination. A suspension of AfDs for utterly non-notable cruft makes no sense unless there is also a moratorium on its creation. This article was created by Plumoyr, a sockpuppet of banned user Groubani. The only other edits were a categorisation, a hyphen->ndash correction, and various tags. At the AfD (and here) nobody even claimed that the topic comes close to notability. A theoretical bilateral relations guideline in the future may have something to say about borderline cases, but it won't magically make all 20,000 such articles notable, just like it won't make United Kingdom – United States relations deletable. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close No consensus probably would have made more sense given what happened but there's no compelling reason to delete here. There's no strong policy justification for overturning. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. The delete arguments overpowered the keep arguments. There have been a great many efforts to create notability guidelines in the past which dragged on for weeks or months before they were ended as failures to achieve consensus. This one does not look any more likely to achieve consensus than the efforst for religious congregations, schools, news items, or shopping malls, so there is no good rationale for not letting the AFDs proceed. The compiled AFD results would be important input data to any guideline should one eventually emerge, as reflecting the actual consensus of the Wikipedia community. Edison (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - just because the specific notability guideline isn't finalized, that doesn't automatically imply that articles can't be deleted, especially if they fail the general notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse They should all have been closed this way, except the ones that had enough sourcing to be obvious keeps. The continued nomination of these articles is an attempt to pre-empt a proper centralized policy discussion. correct practice is that such a centralized discussions should cause a moratorium on specific instances. Seems obvious to me. what else are they for? DGG (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A moratorium even for obvious cases would give an incentive for one side (the one which includes Hilary T, who is now banned for threatening sneaky revenge vandalism via accounts created from open proxies) to prolong the process, and for the other side (the one that is nominating articles with potential because of their current state) to derail it. I don't think that would be wise. --Hans Adler (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're assuming that the editors nominating these articles are acting in bad faith. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not assuming bad faith for anyone other than the editor who is making vandalism threads. However, the large number of non-notable articles (see User:Pixelface/AFDs bilateral relations) and the fact that some feel obliged to defend them in good faith have led others to nominate many of them. As we all really want to write and improve articles instead of further putting massive effort into this discussion, errors of judgement such as the nomination of German-Libyan relations are bound to happen and are then taken by the other side as proof of bad faith. We need to get out of this spiral, but not by a one-sided moratorium. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Striking the irrelevant part of my message. From the indentation it's clear that Nick-D was replying to DGG. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist only two editors had asked that the nomination be suspended and they were greatly outnumbered by the editors who thought that the article should be deleted or kept. There's no consensus on anything in the centralised discussion and it appears unlikely that there ever will be and there is no policy that I'm aware of that requires that AfDs be suspended if there are related discussions ongoing anyway. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete The article clearly fails all notability guidelines and policies, and the "keep" was an incorrect act. There is no sign that any acts on any other issues will result in having all the trivial articles retained, nor do I even find people arguing that on the page in question (BRTF), thus using it as an excuse to keep all the artcles in incorrect. Collect (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete The article itself was merely boilerplate, and three out of four of the 'keep' votes were bureaucratic waffle unsupported by any applicable reasoning: closing as keep was clearly wrong. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete Custom is that consensus at AfD, in line with policy, governs the deletion of articles, not centralized discussions and guidelines elsewhere -- which may inform, but not decide, the discussion at AfD. This is a good custom, and one that we should keep, since it allows us to take the pulse of the consensus on a regular basis, and not force editors interested only in one article into controversial centralized discussions. In this case, the consensus at the AfD was to delete, and so we should. If consensus at the AfD had been to wait for the result of the centralized discussion, only then should we have done that. RayTalk 16:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, because the closer interpreted the results incorrectly. None of the "keep" voters addressed the article on the merits, which is what AfD is for. All "delete" voters did so; thus, the result clearly was in favour of deletion. - Biruitorul Talk 20:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist There was no overwhelming consensus to delete in the AfD that was ignored by the closing editor. While I think the close was flawed, the article is better relisted to allow for a consensus rather than railroaded to deletion here at DRV. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DGG, lets all work together to merge these. Ikip (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete: "there's an open CENT about this topic" is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Otherwise, we'd have millions of articles about one-shot fictional characters kept just because FICT was on CENT. Sceptre (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reclose, maybe the centralised discussion will yield results, maybe it won't; looking at it I can't see much progress thus far. In any case individual AfD discussions like this should probably only help in the formation of a descriptive guideline. Guest9999 (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case I'd think we should relist and let those who argued for a deferal to the centralized discussion weigh in on the merits of this particular article. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see why any user who effectively thinks that individual discussions are a waste of time because of the ongoing centralised discussion would be inclined to contribute further to one before the final outcome of the centralised discussion. Guest9999 (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No reason to rush, let's wait for the centralized discussion to get to this. Hobit (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments should address the AfD at hand, not some discussion that has no official status and may never reach a firm conclusion. - Biruitorul Talk 02:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very well, let me be more clear. I feel that the !votes in the AfD to defer to the generalized discussion took were good and proper and should not be discounted. If no firm conclusion comes of that discussion in the next 3-4 weeks, relisting at AfD would be a good option. I believe it is a formal RfC, which has as much "official status" as pretty much anything else. And the chance to avoid all these AfDs is worth the cost of some of these sitting around for a few weeks. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Explore Kent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was merged with Kent County Council on the grounds of it being overly promotional by having its own article. Votes were 2 Redirect, 2 Keep, 1 Weak Delete.

I would like to highlight additional information and ask for a review that Explore Kent is worthy of its own page on the grounds of its size and breadth, and that an article on a promotional website is not just promoting itself or its 'product' (which in this case is the Kent Countryside).

Explore Kent is a Kent-wide initiative to promote all access to Kent's countryside and coast, irrespective of ownership or management. Explore Kent promotes public access supplied by KCC, District Councils, National Health Service, Trusts and charities, private landowners, and more. Explore Kent promotes the entire countryside access 'estate'. It is for this reason that Explore Kent is globally unique.

Explore Kent is a significant sub-brand of the KCC. It is not heavily promoted as a KCC brand (printed materials often bare only a small KCC logo, often on the reverse) but is instead promoted as a Kent-wide brand. The brand operates on a not-for-profit basis.

Explore Kent is not exclusively funded by KCC. Several funding partners,including the European Regional Development Fund contributes to the funding of the brand. There is no advertising in any of its publications or online.

Explore Kent is an information provider/portal, giving the public information about the Kent countryside and coast. Explore Kent tend only to promote not for profit organisations/ establishments as the ethical focus is to advise the community of these locations without bias towards one company over another. The main focus is to offer alternative solutions to spending money to entertain the family or to get fit and offer alternatives that are often on the doorstep for free.

Whilst the website is part of kent.gov.uk (for hosting and management convenience) , it is misleading to believe that this gives an accurate picture of the offline status of Explore Kent.

The most recent issue of the free magazine has a print run of 95,000 and will be published this month.

Explore Kent produces many free guides - the most recent 'Explore Kent by bike' had a print run of 42,000 - which includes an A3 cycle map of Kent. Of these printed guides 40,000 were distributed to tourist information offices in Kent and London. There are also guides and leaflets for walking, horse riding and parks and open spaces with similar print runs which have been distributed across the South East of England . Guides that are charged for only cover print and distribution costs and therefore do not make a profit

Online, the website contains digital pdf copies of many publications and has had close to 300,000 page views since January 2009. It is the only place members of the public can find the definitive map of public rights of way in Kent, with all gates, stiles and related information, which was gathered as a result of a 4 year GPS survey. The site is globally unique in this regard.

It is likely that a significant quantity of members of the public interested in Cycling, Walking, Horse riding and Parks will have encountered the Explore Kent brand either online or offline. Having Explore Kent as a sub-section of the KCC page is potentially confusing to the public, as many people which have encountered Explore Kent printed materials may not even have realised it is part of KCC.

Further to the undelete request I would urge community development of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExploreKent (talk • contribs) 12:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC) — ExploreKent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Those are big numbers. Got anything verifiable and independent to back that up? MuZemike 13:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explore Kent uses Google Analytics data for online views. I'm not sure how this information could be displayed in the context of Wikipedia, especially as the exact specifics of this data are potentially sensitive; however information on visitor statistics exists. In terms of printed materials, Explore Kent is ultimately owned by KCC which follows policy on providing true information - What could be used to verify this independently? InvictaExplorer (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC) — InvictaExplorer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Probably the easiest way to verify it would be for me to submit a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and publish the data received, but whether or not the information is verifiable doesn't matter in this case.

Our primary remit here at DRV is to probe into whether the closer erred, and he did not, because "merge" is a keep outcome. Thus we have four "keeps" and one "weak delete", which the closer quite correctly interpreted as "keep". (It's important to note that because a "merge" is a "keep", this DRV is technically unnecessary; the "merge" part of it is not something the admin is empowered to enforce if there were a talk-page consensus of established editors who agreed it would be appropriate to separate the articles. However, a talk page consensus would not be forthcoming because for reasons I'll explain in a moment, this "article" is not what Wikipedia is about, and it's in breach of our core policies.)

Personally, I think the nominator here is on a hiding to nothing. This request is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is, and what Wikipedia is for.

We are not a directory of local services. We are not an indiscriminate collection of links. We are not the Yellow Pages.

The nominator wouldn't try to insist that the Encyclopaedia Britannica should have an article on Explore Kent, because the nominator would understand that this topic is not, fundamentally, encyclopaedic in nature.

My advice to the nominator is, give up on Wikipedia and get in touch with Yellow Pages instead.

I therefore endorse the closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is Explore Kent different to Kent TV? They are both KCC sub-brands. InvictaExplorer (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kent TV is well-sourced from the BBC, which means it meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability through significant coverage in independent reliable sources.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. Kent TV has nothing whatsoever to do with the BBC. It is a KCC funded, KCC run (via a board of KCC governors) sub-brand. InvictaExplorer (talk) 12:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about funding or management. What I meant was that the article on Kent TV cites a substantial number of reliable sources. Because the subject has attracted substantial attention from sources independent of the topic, Wikipedia has an article on it.

If the BBC, the London Times, or other similar reliable sources had given substantial coverage of Explore Kent, then you could certainly make this point in support of overturning the deletion, but to the best of my knowledge that's not the case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close but follow up by taking the redirect to RfD. I didn't notice this one, but we very rarely indeed keep tourist magazines, which are intrinsically advertising. I don't see this as a useful search term, even. I would have closed delete. DGG (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as a reasonable interpretation of the debate and implementation of WP:NOT and WP:Notability. I agree with DGG that this is a pretty weak search term but it does little damage as a redirect and is unlikely to be misleading as such. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:11, 13 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:LOTRrules (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

And all user sub pages that were speedy deleted by admin Keeper76 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The pages are needed for administrative purposes as this user is still attacking users under other accounts, abusive users such as this may not have their sub-pages deleted. As shown in Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_pages.3F--Otterathome (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Otterathome (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see discussion at User talk:Keeper76#User page deletions. This is wonkery, IMO. Keeper | 76 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted subpages

  1. 14:07, 2 May 2009 User talk:LOTRrules/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes
  2. 14:07, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes
  3. 14:07, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/permalinks
  4. 14:06, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/Shortcut&Graphics
  5. 14:06, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/B.O,W,s
  6. 14:04, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/Referances
  7. 14:04, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/civillian Muslims
  8. 14:04, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/List of Fullmetal Alchemist chapters
  9. 13:54, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/WikiStatistics
  10. 13:53, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/info
  11. 13:53, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/polymath
  12. 13:53, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/Shortcuts
  13. 13:52, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/Uploads
  14. 13:52, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/Maes Hughes
  15. 13:49, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/B.O.W's
  16. 13:49, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/The Hive (Resident Evil)
  17. 13:49, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/MiniBrags
  18. 13:48, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/Barnstars
  19. 13:48, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/Ali Nawaz-ish
  20. 13:44, 2 May 2009 User:LOTRrules/HobbyBase
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sug-ubon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although two separate editors commented in the AfD that there was no point in redirecting or merging this unsourced three sentence article, it was closed as "The result was redirect to Bislig City. Redirected, article not deleted thus some merger of relevant information can be undertaken by a willing editor". Note that no sources have been offered to show that this place actually exists (and I was unable to find any in an English-language Google search). The closing admin appears to have taken offence to my asking them to re-examine their close, so I'm bringing it here rather than argue. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - Nothing has actually been deleted; this was closed as a redirect (without first deleting the article) to Bislig City.
  • Comment - I was asked to explain the closure on my talk page by the initiator of this review. I asked him multiple times why the redirect was unsatisfactory, however his responses never addressed my question. Further it should be noted that no offence was taken over him asking for an explanation, as that's part of the job and I'm used to it. What was less than exciting for me was his choice of wording in his edit summary and the fact that rather than answer my basic question, he flipped it back upon me. This DRV may have been avoided if he had been courteous enough to comply with my query and give reasoning for his disapproval, as it's possible he may have pointed out something I missed causing me to re-consider. Nja247 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't take this an attack, but your defensiveness about this is remarkable. It was a simple and politely worded request to review an AfD closure. I think the AfD discussion is pretty clear and I don't feel like arguing about this either here or on your talk page. I'm just asking for someone to take another look at this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a little confused here, you are complaining about the question "flipped it back upon me", but as I read the discussion it's you who flips it the other way around. The requester asks you to reconsider and asks if certain opinions were considered (as in they think the redirect was contrary to those opinions) rather than answer about those opinions and/or give a more detailed break down of your rationale for the close, you flip it back on them and ask your question which you are now apparently frustrated at they didn't answer where as it started with you not answering their question. Your question seems to be implicitly covered by the request anyway, the redirect was unacceptable because the requester saw it as contrary to the argument presented in the deletion discussion, which is the basis on which deletion discussion's should be closed. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, according to the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per Stifle. I'm sorry, Nja, but I can't for the life of me see how your closure was based on the AfD consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fravia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Please reconsider the deletion of this article. While it was rather poorly written and badly sourced, I think this would be better solved by a rewrite rather than deletion/redirection. Ooseaway (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Phillipbrutus.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

See http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Public_domain, discussion on my talk page, etc. --Elvey (talk) 05:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC) See http://commons.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Federicaswilson.jpg#File:Federicaswilson.jpg <sic>. Please don't take this request if you don't have the time to review the evidence. The current situation (which has been the case for months) is a bunch of directly conflicting decisions. Mike Godwin stated that the Foundation has no official stance on this, according to Moonriddengirl. Here's how I see it: If Mike felt the use was permissible, he'd take the stance he took, just to be on the safe side. If Mike felt the use was NOT permissible, he'd say so plainly. So either he has no opinion (highly unlikely), or he felt the use was permissible, IMO. Some of these are on commons, others on en. --Elvey (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse own deletion. Our standards are not "it's probably PD", "the copyright holder won't care", or "the image is all over the internet anyway"; they are "verifiably free". Your analysis is one way of looking at it; the other is "we think it might be OK but are waiting for the DMCA notice". In simple terms, if we can't be sure the image is free (and there's no fair use claim), we delete. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Back on topic:
  • Query—Why do you feel the image was covered by Template:PD-FLGov, Elvey? Please supply your evidence.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - firstly, I'm unconvinced that if Mike Goodwin says that he doesn't have an opinion, we should interpret that as the equivalent of saying it's been approved. Secondly, if the Commons and Wikipedia evolve meaningfully different approaches, that's something were going to have to live with. PhilKnight (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean Mike Godwin, I presume. I hope and believe that Commons and Wikipedia editors are smart enough not to do that, but I see your point. Do we really want to be in a situation where it's appropriate to modify the guidelines about what to put where based on differing understandings of the law by the two user bases? I sure hope that's a last resort. --Elvey (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—You say it implies the work was "created by" the Florida Government, but actually I'm not convinced of that at all. "Used by" the Florida Government, yes, but "created by" does not seem a reasonable inference. Also, the pdf you link is rather clearly talking about software rather than images. Could you elaborate further on how this goes together?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This remark was addressed to Phil Knight. Elvey's response between Phil Knight's and mine is a later interpolation, and when I wrote this, Phil Knight's was the remark immediately above.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do I? Sure. Actually, the pdf I linked to is NOT not talking about images. The large relevant parts -i.e. the bulk of the legal discussions and references are about Florida copyright and all media with respect to public records public domain amendment and statutes. Please take another look! BTW, your sig is illegible to me. I see black on black.--Elvey (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The pdf linked has a summary commencing "Under Florida law, data processing software is a public record." so does appear to be focussed on that, regardless of if the discussion surrounds broader law concerning general media, it still focuses on that area. For me it doesn't follow that it will automatically cover all relevant law related to images. From my perspective I see the following:
      • Mike Godwin takes no position - assumption Mike Godwin thinks it's fine.
      • The image appears on a Florida Government website - assumption the Florida government created the image, and therefore the copyright becomes subject to the appropriate laws on that.
      • This document is about data processing but does so with reference to general law on media produced by the Florida government - assumption the discussion covers all relevant law/angles for all media not just the focus of the document.
      A final assumption which also appears to be being made is that Mike Godwin's opinion about legality from the wikimedia foundations point of view and the acceptability for inclusion on any given project are directly related, frequently they aren't. I could suggest an alternate view on Mike's lack of position in this matter is that he think's legally we'd be safe using it, that however doesn't mean that (a) it'd be because the image is effectively PD (a fair use claim say) or (b) that fits with the projects non-free content guidelines which isn't primarily a legal issue --82.7.40.7 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could all discussion participants please mention any relevant legal expertise they have, and whether they've read the relevant constitutional amendment?--Elvey (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • And the relevance is? Or do you think this is some sort of credential waving contest? (Not that it'd be smart to just take a set of anonymous or pseudo-anonymous claims of expertise that seriously anyway, if it pleases you please believe me to have any level of legal expertise inferior to your own which I presume although undeclared here you believe to be significant.) As S Marshall sums up above You say it implies the work was "created by" the Florida Government, but actually I'm not convinced of that at all. "Used by" the Florida Government, yes, but "created by" does not seem a reasonable inference. - without resolving that the issue as to copyright status of Florida Government created works is potentially just a sideshow. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Credentials are not relevant to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • AGAIN, where do I say "it implies the work was "created by" the Florida Government"?--Elvey (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No policy requires it, agreed. Expertise is relevant to me; I have given added deference to editors who have indicated they have relevant experience, for example, hence the question. No one has answered the second question either. I'm aware that Wikipedia is not its predecessor (i.e. no experts...) I can ask people to answer; editors are free to not answer, and not tell me if they read the relevant constitutional amendment.--Elvey (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was asked to weigh in on this, though I'm afraid I'm not going to shed much light. First, it's true that Mike said that the Wikimedia Foundation has no official stance. User:Elvey's interpretation of what that means is possible. It could also simply mean that since no one had officially complained, Mike didn't feel the need to investigate the case and has no opinion. And even if he did mean that he thought it was okay, I don't think we can base our decisions on guessing that. I think "no official position" means it's up to us. I myself went hands off on the question after that communication and given the closure of the TfD for Template:FLGovernment as "keep." I will admit, though, that I remain uneasy about the template, which might be interpreted as an "official stance" by our users, who may rely on it in placing material here that could later see them in trouble if it turns out we're wrong. We also have the complication that apparently Florida can copyright some of its governmental works, and I have no idea how to determine which ones they have. In short, the whole situation seems messy to me, and the fact that we have no official stance is going to lead to contradictory decisions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought folks would want to know that you wrote "The short story is that if it's from a Florida "gov" domain, it's probably okay from a legal standpoint. If the state of Florida ever requests that we remove it, we will." (on your talk page).--Elvey (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was my opinion based on a contributor's asking about removing text from an article and I don't think it has bearing on this discussion, which is about restoring something as "safe" that has already been deleted as "unsafe." That's a rather more active step. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. Sorry if you felt misrepresented. I'm thinking my hopes of consistency are unrealistic. --Elvey (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel misrepresented; I can see why you might have expected a different position. (Though I hope you didn't invite my input on the basis of that.) I'm not comfortable recommending that people add material or restore material to the project that is clearly marked "copyright" unless I myself am certain that it isn't. I'm not hunting it down and removing it, but I'm not going to be cavalier about something that could land contributors in legal troubles, either. This material may well be public domain based on the Florida court case, but if our attorney isn't willing to say that it is, I'm certainly not going to. That said, if we want consistency, we need an official stance...whatever it may be and however it may be derived. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation as to why the pdf is relevant, despite the software focus: For example, The pdf states in part "While some Florida agencies have been authorized to hold copyrights since at least 1943, it could be argued that in a state with a constitutional right of access to public records, agency work products that are public records should be considered to be in the public domain, like those of their federal counterparts." and continues with a discussion regarding when/where and why this argument is and is not correct.--Elvey (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, do you claim there's no evidence Template:PD-FLGov applies? I'm not an admin, so I don't have access to the uploader's rationale. Do you think File:Gov_Jeb_Bush.jpg should be deleted? Do you concede that http://www.myfloridahouse.gov is an official FL gov't website? That it claims a FL copyright on the image? --Elvey (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—I think the question before us is fairly simple.

    Template:PD-FLGov would clearly apply if this were: "a ... photograph ... made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any ... separate unit of government created or established by law of the State of Florida." (Quotation taken from the template itself.)

    The question is whether the uploader was justified in assuming that an image of a living person hosted by the State of Florida is in connection with the transaction of official business.

    I think that if it's not clear the uploader was justified in that assumption, then we have to endorse Stifle's deletion of the image.

    Would anyone disagree?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stifle, for the umpteenth time, do you ...concede that http://www.myfloridahouse.gov is an official FL gov't website? That it claims a FL copyright on the image? --Elvey (talk) 3:03 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)--Elvey (talk) 22:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's relevant. All this discussion about "Are you a lawyer?" or "Is this an official FL government website?" is a red herring, which is why participants in this DRV are ignoring it.

We aren't here to decide matters of law. If the law was involved, we would defer to the Wikimedia Foundation's decision on what to do. We also aren't here to decide on whether there's anything legally wrong with Template:PD-FLGov. As far as this DRV is concerned, Template:PD-FLGov is a perfectly valid justification for the image. The only thing we decide here is matters of Wikipedia policy.

The specific question we need to decide now is whether Template:PD-FLGov applies to this image.

If you can show that it does, Elvey, then this DRV will result in the image being kept, because I'm 100% confident that under those circumstances, Stifle would reverse his own decision and re-upload the image. But if you can't show that it applies, then I think this DRV would have to endorse Stifle's deletion.

The position so far is that you've shown that the State of Florida hosts the image. But that's not sufficient to show that Template:PD-FLGov actually applies to it.

So I'll repeat the key question that this DRV hinges on: Was the uploader justified in assuming that an image of a living person hosted by the State of Florida is in connection with the transaction of official business?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 06:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I accept that myfloridahouse.gov is an official Florida government website. I do not accept that the image was created by the State of Florida or any county, district, authority, municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government of that state, and if it was, I do not accept that the image was made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with official business. The burden of proof is on you, Elvey, to show that the image meets all the criteria, and your bluster about how I'm not responding to your questions on the matter of one of them is not especially helpful. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Section break purely for editing purposes

Carnildo wrote "Source website [1] says "copyrighted"; there's no evidence that this is any of the types of work that {{PD-FLGov}} applies to." as the reason for the XFD. i.e. A; B. I think there's a leap of logic from A to B that's both unjustified and incorrect, and in fact the opposite is close to the truth. I'm proceeding in a methodical (sometimes step-by-step) manner to show that (or at least figure out why it is that we're reaching opposing conclusions regarding the acceptability of this image on WP). Hence the questions. Can I consider it established fact that FL has asserted copyright over content it created that its constitution says it can't copyright? I think we've reached consensus that the answer to that is yes. Establishing affirmative answers to "Is this an official FL government website?" and "Do you concede that it claims a FL copyright on the image? " is, in my plan, key to establishing, in turn, that the source website (in particular the copyright notice) establishes that it's a product of or created by the State of Florida or any county, district, authority, municipal officer, department, division, board, bureau, commission, or other separate unit of government of that state which, I believe key to establishing, in turn, that {{PD-FLGov}} applies. But, I'm trying to make the argument step-by-step. So, YET AGAIN: 

Do you concede that it claims a FL copyright on the image?

Can I consider it established fact or even most likely that FL has in the case of this image, asserted copyright over content it has NOT created? I think we've reached no consensus on that answer. Thoughts?--Elvey (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Stifle, could you please state for the record why you currently think the image shouldn't be on Wikipedia? It's becoming increasingly unclear to me. If you agree with what S Marshall last said, say so, and that answers my question--Elvey (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because I believe it's copyrighted and we don't have a license to use it. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you are implicitly asserting Florida has asserted copyright over content it has NOT created, namely this image. (Right?) Upon what basis do you make that assertion? It seems a rather bold claim to make, and I see no evidence for it. Are you aware of anyone in particular who believes they have a copyright on it (or any other Florida legislators pictures currently or recently on a wikimedia site, other than Florida?) If so, who? --Elvey (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      No, I'm asserting that Wikipedia does not have the right to use the image. I agree with what S Marshall last said.
      I really do think we're going around in circles here. I can't put it more plainly — I feel that the circumstances in {{PD-FLGov}} do not apply to this image, either because the Florida government (or other state agency) did not create it, or because if it did create it, it was not made pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business.
      In the alternative, if the Florida government does, somehow, hold copyright to this image, I believe it has not licensed us to use it under that copyright. Stifle (talk) 23:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not putting it plainly; there could be a host of reasons that you think the circumstances in {{PD-FLGov}} do not apply to this image. And you are avoiding saying which it is by your use of the word or. Pick one. Florida has asserted copyright over content it has NOT created, namely this image? or Florida has asserted copyright over content it has created, namely this image? Or do I'll have to show that either way, {{PD-FLGov}} applies to get this overturned?! --Elvey (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the case of the former, you are "implicitly asserting Florida has asserted copyright over content it has NOT created", which has the problems I've pointed out. In the case of the latter, please read point #4, below. What branch of Florida do you imagine created it that isn't included by sentence 2? (It, to my eye, includes all non-federal government in the state!)--Elvey (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hello? Stifle, please respond to this. This is where the main discussion is taking place. Instead you're just addressing peripheral stuff, as I described it in an edit summary.--Elvey (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          Straw man. You're attributing a weak argument to me, and saying that I'm not defending it.
        • My point is not who created it, it's what it is. The image is not, from what I can see, "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business". Therefore, {{PD-FLGov}} doesn't apply to it.
            • Not a straw man. You wrote that "You currently think the image shouldn't be on Wikipedia": "Because I believe it's copyrighted and we don't have a license to use it." You then wrote: "I feel that the circumstances in template PD-FLGov do not apply to this image, either because the Florida government (or other state agency) did not create it, or because if it did create it, it was not made pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business." (emphasis mine) And yet, you then say your point is NOT <sic>who created it.
            • It is a fact of logic that since you believe Florida has asserted copyright over this image, then it must be true that either you believe Florida has asserted copyright over content it has NOT created, namely this image, or you believe Florida has asserted copyright over content it HAS created, namely this image. So, I'm showing that your argument leads to conclusions that don't make much sense, therefore it must not be valid.--Elvey (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          Elvey, we're getting into WP:IDHT territory here. You have yet to say, despite multiple requests from myself and S Marshall, why you feel that the image meets that definition. Stifle (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not true! I HAVE stated why I feel that the image meets that definition of PD-FLGov: 1. I wrote "The image was stated to be from http://www.myfloridahouse.gov, an official FL gov't website. It's certainly funded by the FL legislature; the official website is not run on a volunteer basis, according to common sense." 2. In addition, PhilKnight and I BOTH said: "It was sourced to http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/details.aspx?MemberId=4244&SessionId=37 that implies the work was created by the Florida Government, which it appears would place it in the public domain, contrary to the copyright notice on the web page." 3. Re.what it is: The phrase you reference, "made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business," is not the language in the constitution. It's just from statute, and is in PD-FLGov, as has been brought up before. I have just attempted to rectify what may have been a problem with the template, namely employment of a definition of what public documents the sunshine clause of the constitution put in the public domain that may have ben narrower than the definition actually in the sunshine clause. Therefore, {{PD-FLGov}} (especially given this edit) currently does apply to this image.--Elvey (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you're changing the template to support your position once your argument was defeated. Sorry, but I'm finished with this DRV; you've made it clear that you won't accept anything that doesn't agree with your point of view. The closing admin will determine the result. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • GoodBye. I note that you've done an end run in order to avoid responding to my argument directly, and set up a straw man. Your behavior (e.g. insulting statements toward me, WP:IDHT, etc) suggest a strong emotional attachment to the outcome of this DRV. It is not a personal attack on your being.--Elvey (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • My position was that a bunch of directly conflicting decisions existed and warranted discussion. (Look up at the opening sentence of this DRV.) My position has come to also be that that the image is permissible on wikipedia, in particular, it didn't violate policy and it doesn't violate copyright because it it a work of the Florida government, based upon review of the mostly likely interpretations of the facts and application of Occam's Razor. Your position is that "the image shouldn't be on Wikipedia" because it would be a copyright law violation. You've conceded that Florida has asserted copyright over the image. Would Florida do that if in fact it has NOT created it? The answer to that is simply a commonsense 'probably not', as there is no evidence to support that idea. Plus, there's no reason to assume Florida would be asserting copyright over lots of images it didn't create, other than copyright paranoia. Therefore, we can conclude that Florida created it, in which case point #4, below, applies, so the sunshine clause applies, so there's no copyright law violation in having it here. Whether {{PD-FLGov}} was applicable is relevant, and was the focus of dispute until you bowed out of the discussion. Generally appropriate editing of {{PD-FLGov}} is entirely appropriate, even if the edits (such as mine, which you've reverted) make {{PD-FLGov}} a better argument for why the image in question doesn't violate policy. I'm hoping someone with experience with this will be {{closing}} this DRV soon.--Elvey (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Restore / Undelete (this is my DRV) . No cogent, defensible argument for why the image must not be here. I hope that the admin that closes this doesn't consider arguments that are logically fallacious to have weight. --Elvey (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            Struck the bolded comment; by listing here it is clear that you wish the deletion to be reversed; adding bolded comments like this may give an incorrect appearance that other users support your position. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Clarifying; Reverting. With all proper DRVs, Oppose own deletion is not the position of the deleter, yet you've both put your position in bold, and stricken mine! Opinions on the appropriateness of deletions of this class of images (i.e. images alleged to be in the public domain based on an argument supported by Microdecisions v. Skinner) are FAR from uniquely mine. Many users have expressed opposition cogently; I have linked to such arguments here already. another argument. I believe statements by the likes of PhilKnight, MichaelMaggs, Miranda, Quadell, Crypticfirefly, JPG-GR, Dcoetzee, Callelinea, Carl Lindberg, Simetrical, Gamweb, Andy Dingley, etc. indicate broad support for the appropriateness of images backed by the same rationale as this image, and some Undelete support, even if not expressed WRT this particular image. I agree, we are getting into WP:IDHT territory indeed!
  • I think the simplest interpretation of the facts before is us that the Florida government does hold copyright to this image.

    The Florida Government clearly asserts copyright over it, and I see no reason not to take that assertion at face value. I think it's also reasonable to presume that the Florida Government understands the law of Florida.

    The various facets of this can be reconciled if this is the kind of content over which the Florida Government is entitled to assert copyright: i.e., something that is not "in connection with official business". This interpretation makes sense to me, because hosting someone's personal website and promotional pictures is clearly not the "official business" of a state government.

    This seems to me to be the fatal flaw in the argument for undeleting this image.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • S, this argument is easy to dispel. Please read the two sentences from the Florida Constitution below. There's no "in connection with official business" in there. The language is quite different. And take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-FLGov and http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_12#Template:FLGovernment --Elvey (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm afraid I don't even slightly care what the Florida Constitution says. US law is about as relevant to me as the law of Timbuktoo.

        What I care about is Wikipedia policy, and that's where I'm getting the language of "in connection with official business" from. It comes from the actual template itself, which quite explicitly uses those words.

        Now, you could argue that the template is wrong, but if you wish to make that case, then you're in the wrong forum. DRV is here to decide whether Wikipedia policy has been misinterpreted, or not followed, by the deleting admin.

        Please make a case why Stifle was wrong in terms of Wikipedia's policies, rules, or guidelines.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Please watch your tone. DRV is certainly for more than just allegations of policy violation by the closer. It's appropriate if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or there's some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not previously presented during the debate or to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, which may also involve reviewing content in some cases, as well as purely procedural error, substantive or not. No. It's both funny and annoying how there's a hop from argument to argument as each sinks into the inky blackness. BTW, IIRC, your sig violates sig policies, rules, or guidelines because of its height. Yup. --Elvey (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Shrug. I tried hard.

            Endorse deletion because I see no intelligible reason in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines why it was wrong.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • No defensible explanation for why it should have been deleted, or why Template:PD-FLGov doesn't apply to this image, has been presented. No defensible explanation for why it should have been deleted has been presented! The Florida Constitution (which you so astonishingly dismiss) is obviously relevant; especially when you just said "The Florida Government clearly asserts copyright over it, and I see no reason not to take that assertion at face value"! You make an argument grounded in the law and the constitution and then say you don't give a care about the law and the constitution. I'm not aware of policies, rules, or guidelines that specifically state that an admin can or can't delete something without a reason. Hence my previous statement. I do want to bring attention to deletion guideline #4:"When in doubt, don't delete."

--Elvey (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other arguments

1. And aside from the argument that {{PD-FLGov}}, I don't suspect it would be terribly hard to make a fair use case for this image; this is wikipedia, not commons. What arguments appeared on the images page or talk page prior to deletion?--Elvey (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2.http://meta.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Avoid_copyright_paranoia --Elvey (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay, and it's valid in some circumstances. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may be tagged an essay, but it's really not. It's just a talk page. I think it's most often invoked as a catch-phrase, really. The first time I sat down to read it, I found myself wondering if those who invoke it actually have. It includes such statements as "There's no "trend": we've always been "paranoid" about copyright infringement, and I like it that way, personally!" and "While I don't think we should delete entire articles that such material is inserted into, it would be extremely bad for the project's credibility to tolerate these to remain." and "Copyright infringements put Wikipedia's owners and the project itself at some risk. That's why we care." and "I'm really saddened to see this article. The fuzzy thinking -- "We won't get caught, it's not that big a deal" -- is sloppy and unprofessional. Or, unamateur, to be more specific." and "We don't delete non-free content because we're afraid of getting sued. We delete non-free content because it's non-free." In other words, it's always struck me as a slightly odd link for those wanting to argue against removing potentially unfree material, since consensus there seems to be "It's not paranoid; it's good scholarship and good sense." (Though surely there are some offering different views as well.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3.Consistency. http://en.wikipedia.orgview_image.php?q=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May&sq=Envato&lang=en&file=File:Richard_Cheney_2005_official_portrait.jpg is delete-able; as no valid source for the image is provided. (The source URL is invalid.) If I wanted to be POINTy, I'd propose its deletion. (However fair use would be easier to argue with, given how hard it is to catch Dick in public! :-) )

Not relevant; each image stands or falls on its own merits. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think official guidelines matter. I think that where a decision is made based on respecting a policy or guideline, and the same issue comes up again, it should be decided the same way.--Elvey (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Note: the Florida Constitution says, and read it carefully, "Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record made or received in connection with the official business of any public body, officer, or employee of the state, or persons acting on their behalf, except with respect to records exempted pursuant to this section or specifically made confidential by this Constitution. This section specifically includes the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government and each agency or department created thereunder; counties, municipalities, and districts; and each constitutional officer, board, and commission, or entity created pursuant to law or this Constitution."--Elvey (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that makes it public domain or freely licensed, because it does not give people the right to make further copies, redistribute it, etc. In Ireland, people can have access to pretty much any damn record they want from the government or a whole host of agencies, under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. But having access to something is not the same as having permission to recopy it or make derivative works from it. As S Marshall says, this is a Wikipedia policy issue, not a legal issue. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you say you don't disagree with http://commons.wikimedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-FLGov and http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_12#Template:FLGovernment! If you agree with the winning arguments therein then you're exhibiting doublethink. That part of the constitution DOES make works "public domain". It DOES "give people the right to make further copies, redistribute", etc. --Elvey (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, with respect to this discussion, I can't find a cogent explanation for why you consider both my and the uploader's justification for the use of Template:PD-FLGov for this image invalid.--Elvey (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some works created by or under the copyright of the state of Florida are PD by operation of law. I believe that this isn't such a work. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's short, but not cogent, for reasons already given.--Elvey (talk) 03:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion, the crux of the arguement is whether being hosted by the State of Florida and presented on a webpage copyrighted by the State of Florida means this image falls into Template:PD-FLGov. Having reviewed the frankly spectacular and enormously repetitive discussion above I do not feel that this has been established. Since this has not been established and no one has come up with fair use criteria (living person, recreatable image, I can't think of a sound reason). Matter of law notwithstanding, this image does not meet wikipedias inclusion criteria, a subset, as they are, of legal inclusion standards. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 May 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Global Warming: Hype (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While there was a majority for deletion, I feel that there arguments were insufficient.(I also would like to get an explanation from the closing admin). I believe that because the term "global warming hype" has been used in various sourced articles, that all the article needed was cleanup and not deletion. I would like to see it relisted, and am requesting that an admin userfy the article for me if the decision is not overturned. Smallman12q (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No I wasn't asked, however I think the AFD explains itself and if the initiating editor wanted more specific reasoning then they should have asked (I don't usually bite). As this is open though: I'd say generally that the comments by Apoc2400 summed up the AFD closure for me. Nja247 20:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ask the admin, though I should have. I will remember that for the future.Smallman12q (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion. I don't see any new argument here to counter what people said in the AFD. And as Stifle says, you can usually get clarification from an admin if you just ask on their talk page. Admins don't normally provide a detailed rationale when there's a very large majority going one way or the other, but any decent admin should give one to you on request. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - correctly closed in accordance with consensus. In my humble opinion, the deletion reasons were entirely adequate. Agree that a detailed rationale isn't required in cases where the consensus is obvious. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A spinout article on criticisms of global warming (including hype) is reasonable and should exist as I have to imagine there is a lot that can be said but would cause undue weight to the topic in the main article. That said, the AfD was clearly delete and the article title is horrible. So endorse but no objections to a criticisms spinout if it doesn't already exist. Hobit (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse It might be possible to write an article on the phrase, or or various other specialized points, but the general issues discussed here have been covered much more fully in multiple Wikipedia articles. Overwhelming decision to delete, and I don;t see how else anyone could possibly have closed it. DGG (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I think the arguments and rationale in the deletion discussion clearly point to a consensus to delete. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus was very clearly against the article, and after reading it I have to agree with that conclusion. The article makes no attempt to adhere to the WP:NPOV policy; the problems start at the title already, and get worse with lines such as "Scientist has ignored the fact that sun plays an important role in the climate change" and the article concludes "This is how global warming is more of a hype than a threat". Global warming controversy is the article which should cover this topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion due to a clear consensus. I doubt that an encyclopedic article could ever exist at this title, and would only userfy to facilitate use on some other website. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Per consensus in AfD. DRV should not be AfD take 2. DianaLeCrois  : 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw DRV, I have come to realize that an article with such a name would have a difficult time having a NPOV and so instead, I have create a redirect for Global warming hype to Global warming controversy.Smallman12q (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Hollie Steel – alter closing remark from "keep" to "no consensus". General practice across Wikipedia XFD discussions is that a "no consensus" close should be primarily marked as such, even though this results in the same immediate result of the article not being deleted. – Aervanath (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hollie Steel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

While there was a majority arguing for the page to be kept, Wikipedia is not a vote. Steel is only notable for auditioning in Britain's Got Talent, unlike Shaheen Jaghrafoli or DJ Talent, and Wikipedia should refrain from articles about people notable for only one event. None of the "keep" arguments countered this reason for deletion. Additionally, Steel did not have a cultural or societal impact like Susan Boyle did. Finally, she's a minor, and we should show restraint in creating an article about her. Thusly, I find the closing of this AfD as a "keep" to be a error in judgement. Sceptre (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The closer did not treat the matter as a vote as the closing statement indicated that he had read the points made and considered that the Keep arguments were stronger. The BLP1E argument was specifically addressed and refuted repeatedly so the DRV justification above is false. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that "the BLP1E argument was refuted repeatedly." All I see in the AfD to counter BLP1E is you saying "the person is the topic, not some larger event in which she played an incidental part" (with which I also disagree), and various assertions that the number of mentions she got in the press somehow exempt her from BLP1E. Her article says nothing notable about her outside the context of this 1E. - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should perhaps look at our exchange in which I made yet another point by observing that BLP1E does not indicate deletion. You disagreed but it seems that the closer did not buy your argument. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, it does. Read BLPDEL: "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed." 1E is part of "this policy", and it's nearly impossible to fix a 1E objection about someone that's only notable for one event. Sceptre (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- based on the closer's reasoning, probably should have been a no-consensus, but since that defaults to Keep anyway, no point in changing anything. BLP1E was addressed and refuted in the AFD, and besides, this isn't AFD part 2. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wasn't. To address and refute BLP1E, you need to show notability for a second event. Steel falls way below the baseline for ignoring BLP1E. Sceptre (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse that there was no consensus. I think people get too worked up on deleting this stuff just to follow the letter of BLP1E... a policy that was created to deal with negative articles on people of very marginal notability. Maybe when the dust settles we'll want to delete a lot of these articles... but if they're of a person who's getting a zillion news stories at the moment for a positive or neutral reason, it really just seems a waste of energy to run into a buzzsaw trying to get their Wikipedia article deleted on principle. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Steel has exactly one news story about her in the past 24 hours, and even that's marked as "satire" by Google. This is just her fifteen minutes. Sceptre (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    but 413 in the past week. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, fifteen minutes of fame. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close I can reasonably see the BLP1E argument here. Indeed, if I had commented in the AfD, my primary comment would have been something like "let's wait a week and see where this goes. Leave an article for now". If the basis of BLP1E is to do no harm, then we shouldn't too worried about people who are arguably BLP1E when the covered event is clearly extremely positive. A no consensus close in this case seems completely reasonable. If in a month the situation is unchanged then we can AfD it again. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked just a few hours prior to the placement of this request for a comment (though not by the initiating editor). I'm not sure of this review generally as I've considered the AFD discussion prior to close and as I noted during the close the keep's were generally more convincing. Further there wasn't a solid consensus, meaning it'd default to keep anyhow. I, like everyone thus far commenting here endorse the close, and I remain confident it was the best choice. I cannot understand why the initiating editor believes I've erred in judgement, surely not because I've came to the opposite conclusion of what they were hoping for. Nja247 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My tally of the arguments
keep worldwide coverage in RS
keep no BLP1E argument
keep (author)
keep (per above)
keep newspaper coverage, notable
keep good refs now
keep might be BLP1E, but passes WP:MUSIC several times over
keep and let it develop
keep making headlines around the world
keep passes WP:N
keep good sourcing 

merge to series
merge to series
merge to series

delete, WP:NOTNEWS
delete BLP1E
delete BLP1E
delete another reality show contestant
delete textbook case of BLP1E & NOTNEWS (well refuted)
delete BLP1E
delete appearing on a talent show is not notability
delete no real notability besides a few articles (well refuted)

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • How many times must I say that you can only refute 1E by either showing notability for a second event or by arguing that said person had a notable and undeniable societal impact? Steel has neither. Sceptre (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. Cannot see how this article is harmful to the subject as it is very well-sourced. Decisions on whether it passes or fails the NOT#NEWS policy is dependent on consensus, and that was not present for this AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A no consensus result in a BLP discussion should default to delete, and I would overturn and delete bearing that in mind. No objection to recreation if she puts out an album or something. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this your interpretation of policy? Otherwise, I'd appreciate a link to the relevant bit of the deletion policy that supports this view. I understand unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be deleted, and the entire article for that matter if the article is bad enough, but what you've stated above isn't that so I'd hope you could direct me in the right direction. Cheers, Nja247 10:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no such part of policy. It's not even close. BLP was created to ensure accuracy of the articles and specifically address negative information about living people. Steel's article has no accuracy concerns or negative information. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But BLP applies to any biographical information about living people. Not just negative information. A positive-slanted BLP would still be eligible for deletion per 1E if said person was notable for one event. That's not even considering the fact she's a minor and thus we should presume privacy over her fifteen minutes. Sceptre (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above this was addressed in the AFD debate and needn't be rehashed here. I appreciate your tenacity in having your point heard, but please keep this discussion on the deletion closure itself. Nja247 11:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not my interpretation of policy, but it is how I have seen some AFDs closed and thought it was a precedent. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I would have merged and redirected the article, had I been able to figure out where to merge it (there doesn't seem to be a place yet for information about BGT contestants who don't merit their own articles), but I see nothing wrong with the closure of this AfD as "Keep" and the rationale given ("no solid consensus"). - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse default keep, but change to "No Consensus" - While there wasn't a consensus to delete this article, there wasn't a clear one to keep it either.--Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I guess a "no decision" could also have been the result, but that would have defaulted to keep anyway. The article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability and that was what carried the day at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But not notability for more than one event. God, I feel like a broken record. Sceptre (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'keep' arguments seem to be based on the premise that she's not low-profile right now. Give it a few months, and I believe she'll have become low-profile, and then perhaps an AfD will succeed. - Brian Kendig (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One could argue she's low-profile right now with the emergence of another Auditionee-Who-Does-A-Shockingly-Good-Performance-Of-A-Song-From-A-West-End-Musical. Sceptre (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closing rationale confuses me – keep is bolded, but the extended comments indicate no consensus. Flatscan (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Linguist. I'd like to say clearly, here and now, that there is no consensus suggesting that a BLP1E should default to delete.

    I do, however, think there should be a wider discussion on whether it should.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse but closer may wish to amend to "No consensus". Hard to see that as a clear anything. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep as sympathetic as i am to the 15 minutes BLP1E argument, this is sociology worthy of coverage, reality shows are culture, and wiki needs to cover, even if the talent quality is equivalent to the average church choir member. pohick (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but amend to no consensus I think the BLP1E argument was correct, but this is not the place to rehash it. Nja correctly diagnosed a lack of consensus on the matter. We could revisit the topic after a suitable amount of time, at which point I think those of us who supported by BLP1E argument can reasonably expect to be vindicated. RayTalk 16:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Neenyo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted on the grounds of Billboard magazine not being a credible reference and that "Neenyo" did not produce any Factiva results (which searches news article databases). Please note that after searching through wikipedia, most of the largest producers in pop music do not cite any references on their articles.

Billboard is the leading trade publication in North America for the record industry; if there is a better reference I should use please advise.

Factiva searches news articles and I don't believe applies to verifying the validity of creative persons (artists, songwriters, record producers). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnotaes (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was a low-participation AFD the nominator apparently missed, so I don't think they're asking for 'round 2 of AFD'. The question is whether Billboard is a meaningful source... can you cite where in Billboard this would be found? Billboard does several types of publications, I believe. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. The article was speedied as supposedly no different than the version that underwent AFD. If you look at the references, you can see there is a clear attempt to fix the issue raised in AFD about the reliability of the references. So it shouldn't have been speedied. - Mgm|(talk) 04:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD again. While the article's content is almost identical to the version deleted via discussion, the author did make a good-faith attempt to address the reason the article was deleted (lack of reliable sources) by removing the unreliable sources and adding two references to billboard.com. This does not fit the WP:CSD#G4 critera. The reliability of the billboard.com references should be discussed on AfD if necessary. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endore deletion. This article should stay deleted, especially as it is a biography of a living person, because Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources. All that exists for this person is producer credits on a couple of websites. The new references added were: 1 2 3, 2 has no mention of the article subject, the other two are simple credits. If nothing more than simple credits exist in reliable sources (such as the billboard website), then Wikipedia should also include simple credits (which is already done). Incidentally, Factiva does include the magazine Billboard (but not the website). Wikipedia:Conflict of interest may be relevant if you have a personal connection with the subject matter. I was the person that nominated the original article for deletion.--Commander Keane (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle: I have requested how I can make the article within the wikipedia guidelines from Commander Keane, unfortunately I didn't get a straight answer. Keane seems upset, and slightly hostile in his responses regarding this article for reason I am not sure of. I feel this article is being treated unfairly by Commander Keane. If this articles reference do not meet standards, approx. 90% of the articles on American and Canadian music producers should be removed from the website as well. I am new to the wikipedia, but I don't think an article should be removed without offering some assistance to correct it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnotaes (talk • contribs) 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was deleted by User:SchuminWeb. Why did you ask some other user? Stifle (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mnotaes originally posted the question "Why was this page deleted?" at Talk:Neenyo. I was watching that page, and knowing that the talk page would get deleted promptly (not that it should) I posted at User talk:Mnotaes. At the user talk page I also suggested deletion review. In regards Stifle's question above, I didn't think of suggesting to Mnotaes to contact the deleting admin, and given my thoughts on the article, deletion review seems like a good choice. Also, I am not upset about this article. I just think that it can't meet Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. If some sources can be found then I am happy to write the article, but at the moment there just isn't enough to base an article.--Commander Keane (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The deleted article was sufficiently different from the new version to defeat a G4 claim. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean it is going back up? Also can anyone offer suggestions of music related websites that are more trusted then Billboard? And being credited for writing and producing a songs is "trivial" to listing albums that the producer has worked on, how else should this be show Commander Keane (to avoid any problems in the future)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnotaes (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • After a period of about five days, an uninvolved administrator will determine the consensus of this discussion and take whatever action is appropriate, which may include undeleting the page. Stifle (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or possibly seven days, depending on if anyone reverts me. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to everyone that offered help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnotaes (talk • contribs) 03:57, 7 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]

2 May 2009

[edit]
  • Red cunt hair – A contentious DRV for a contentious AfD. However, I am closing this as deletion endorsed. The original AfD was within the discretionary range and it's clear the closing admin based their decision on the strength of the arguments made. – TNXMan 15:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Red cunt hair (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No clear consensus, so should have defaulted to keep  Chzz  ►  22:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck, see below.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, notavote. Deletion had the arguements, keeping had the numbers. I don't like numbers. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. When a deletion discussion has roughly the same number of people supporting and opposing deletion, the administrator closing the debate should take into account when determining the result the strength of arguments, and whether either side had the force of a Wikipedia policy or guideline behind it. That was exactly what happened here, although the basic delete closure without an explanation of this might have been a suboptimal choice. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Proper admin closure per guideline. I believe the arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments against it. MuZemike 16:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, other editors would've given a great deal less weight to Smerdis of Tlon's argument than I would have!—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse This probably belongs on a list somewhere, so ideally a merge would have occurred instead. But target isn't clear. As Stifle indicated, the closer ideally would have provided an explanation (and again, ideally, mentioned a willingness to merge given a target). Hobit (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking !vote. I'm annoyed with the ARS issues and the canvassing claims that keep getting thrown around in poor faith here and elsewhere. Finally L at Large shows this was probably no consensus. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse good close, no procedural problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse good close - arguments by those favouring deletion were obviously stronger than those favouring retention. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - clearly worth keeping and far away from being a dictionary entry. Topic has a long enough history and the article was well written and had good sources. Why was this deleted in the first place? Both discussions ended very close and were within weeks. Do we repeat AfDs until an admin can be found who's willing to delete the article? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 20:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that this DRV has been canvassed at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron - (diff). Black Kite 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notifying WP:ARS about content under deletion review is not WP:CANVASSing. The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The project has been approved to assess the viability of content for the project and vote accordingly."
        No, it hasn't. You may want to read WP:ARS#So ARS wants to keep everything? and WP:ARS#What the Rescue template is not for. It is not an article inclusion thinktank. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nonsense - ARS' remit is to provide sources and cleanup articles that are at AfD. It is specifically *not* a vote-gathering exercise. It is sad to see the cynical impression that some have garnered of the ARS so quickly confirmed by one of its members. Fritzpoll (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest you re-think that. Indicating that ARS is a mechanism for voting in a certain manner at AfD and DRV would probably lead to an MfD for the project. However, canvassing is clearly indicated here, as many Keep voters on the original AfD were ARS members, and thus likely to vote Overturn here (as you can see below). Black Kite 21:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blatant and wholly inappropriate canvassing by the person who brought this to DRV. Absolutely unacceptable behavior. In cases like this we really should simply close the discussion altogether, but I suppose that'll just stir up drama. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If ARS has a remit limited to providing sources and cleaning up articles that are at AfD, why was there a notification regarding this DRV? From my perspective, it certainly looks like canvassing. PhilKnight (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems, as a personal observation, that any AfD involving an article "tagged for rescue" has lately become filled with ARS members voting "keep" with little or no reference to guidelines or policy. Whether or not this is the explicit purpose of ARS, bringing unreasoned "keep" votes to AfDs appears to be what happens when that rescue tag goes on. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • More accusations of canvassing of ARS yet DRV is in fact one area in which we can help. In this case I don't see what we can do without actually being able to work on the article but making blanket accusations against the whole project seems less than productive. If the article did exist we would apply the {{rescue}} tag and point to the DrV - which in turn points to the AfD. Potential rescuers would need to take in all the salient stated deficiencies and see if the article was indeed rescueable. I find the toxic approach of labelling all the work of the rescue project as canvassing uncivil and unproductive. Our members have rescued many many items and will continue to improve Wikipedia in this manner. Jumping on editors for stepping out of form seems likely over-reacting. If closers on AfD and DrV can't adequately weight the many facets of a discussion that is a different issue that ARS has no control over. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article has been in user space for over a week here where it could be improved. Half the votes were for the article to be moved to Hair (unit of measure), which could created regardless of the outcome of the AfD if new content was added. There is a lot ARS could be doing instead of vote stacking. BJTalk 23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Knock it off, ARS has never and still doesn't advocate violating policies. Please desist in suggestion so which does violate our civility policies. I'll look to what can be done about userspace work. -- Banjeboi 00:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's true. WP:CANVASS is a guideline, not a policy. Not sure how that makes a difference here, though; it was still wholly unacceptable to canvass for "overturn" votes. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The point is the same ARS has not and does not endorse canvassing despite several editors insisting so despite lack of any evidence. Could this user posted a more neutral post, certainly, is it fair to slander an entire project based on this - not so much. As usual, the over-reaction to perceived canvassing has done far more disruption than the original post ever did. It's also a leap of bad faith that the DRV closer isn't able to fairly close a discussion and apply due weight appropriately. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • What else would you like a group of users all coming from the same place and then voting the same (with one exception) be called? BJTalk 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'd rather you knocked off the disingenuity. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Benjiboi, I don't doubt that the ARS wikiproject members have good intentions and do good work. I think perhaps the idea of improving articles and hereby preventing them from being deleted may have been co-opted by some members into an ideological battle between "inclusionists" and "deletionists". Even framing things using those terms is automatically divisive and puts the focus on editors instead of articles. You probably don't share my impression of what has been happening lately. It wasn't my intention to start a discussion or get into specifics here, just to share my observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I think all projects go through some soul-searching and that's not a bad thing, I appreciate any constructive suggestions and also invite you and anyone else to make solid suggestion to my talkpage and I will suss them out one by one. If we were the Article Mercy Angel Squad putting articles out of their misery it likely would have similar concerns along another bent axis so I appreciate the insight. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've not observed enough data to form a correct conclusion. For example: Biblical definition of God (AfD discussion) was not tagged, but it was rescued. (Tagging an article for rescue doesn't mean that rescue actually happens. And the converse is true, too. Rescue happens even when no tagging occurs.) You won't find any silly bloc voting at either its subsequent deletion review or its second AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outdent. If we needed to call them anything besides volunteers you could use editors, fellow human beings, Wikipedians, etc. Anything else seems to present your POV and a bad faith assumption. Closers look at the merits of !votes not the volume of noise to signal. We know there are AfD participants on both ends of a deletion/inclusion continuum who make rather empty comments. I think in general our closers can suss out those issues in the best interests of the overall project. -- Banjeboi 01:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That doesn't mean it is ok to votestack. Just the opposite. Adding noise doesn't make it easier to just remove the noise again. It makes it harder for any closing admin to properly read consensus for a discussion. I have every confidence in our AfD closers, but we shouldn't set them up for failure. Point is, using ARS for votestacking is wrong and it brings up a question I've had for a while now. Why aren't you guys at ARS the most fervent enforcers of this? Why aren't you on the lookout for anything that even gives a hint that your project is becoming (even partially) a tool to stack votes at AfD and now DRV (A DRV I might add, for an article which was nominated because it was outside the project scope, rather than because it lacked sources or polish)? Protonk (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure anyone has ever suggest vote-stacking or canvassing was OK? And ARS, IMHO, has indeed taken steps to address the perceptions of some editors such as yourself, who only see ARS as inclusionists or something. And when someone visits our talkpage with less than neutral posts we would deal with it except some self-appointed editors have inserted themselves as authorities. This even resulted in an RfC because I had posted a link to a TfD discussion, the result?, TfDs are now offcially under ARS as well. And DrVs have always been as it is an article that can be improved to satisfy the original concerns of the AfD. As to why we don't do more? Well lately it's been a non-stop barrage of accusations of canvassing from the same editors who have routinely lobbed that against us for a very long time, with little to no evidence whatsoever that we are in fact a vote-stacking group a of inclusionists. Several of the deletionists in our ranks are quite insulted by that as well as those, like myself who aren't particularly embracing either camp. My hunch s most of us are somewhere in the middle and don't need the drama. If you have any constructive suggestion feel free to ping my talkpage as ARS has been turned into a battleground by our detractors. -- Banjeboi 20:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see ARS as all inclusionists. I see it as dramatically more inclusionist than it was when I joined in April of last year, certainly. I don't think that this conversation will really get us anywhere. Protonk (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate your insight and agree as above that maybe this isn't the best venue. My concern was to address the oft-repeated accusation that I feel should be addressed directly and I've done that. There are some valid concerns and i believe they can be addressed systematically without causing disruption and that is my aim. -- Banjeboi 10:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn no consensus outcome would have been correct.Ikip (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If my actions are classed as canvassing, then I sincerely apologise. It was suggested to me that I inform ARS of the DRV, and the idea that this could be construed as canvassing honestly never occurred to me; all I can do is to plead ignorance/stupidity.  Chzz  ►  08:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't feel that there was consensus to delete the article. I also feel like they were just taking stabs at the apple only a few weeks after the first AFD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The delete arguments were much stronger than the keep arguments. OlYellerTalktome 22:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The keep arguments generally seemed to be "but it's well sourced", ignoring the basic argument. Quantpole (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus And the delete arguments were IDONTLIKEIT. of the two, well sourced is much nearer to policy. I was undecided myself, & therefore didn't comment at the afd, But looking at it there was no consensus. There's no way to judge what the closer may have based the close on, as he has never said. DGG (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They weren't IDONTLIKEIT arguments. They were "Hey, we've been through this previously and decided to create a separate project for dictionary definitions" arguments. Have one citation, have sixteen: a dictionary definition is a dictionary definition. If only this were codified somewhere.... ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I don't see much of a clear leaning in either direction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. (disclosure: I recommended Keep in the AfD) After taking some time to distill the arguments in the disucssion, I see a clear "no consensus". There were more "keep" arguments than "delete" arguments (12 to 10). The keepers basically said "it's notable and it's already more than a DICDEF". The deleters basically said "it's a non-notable DICDEF or I don't like it". Neither side really supported their arguments with evidence, other than the references already in the article. Thus, instead of a "keep", it should be lowered to "no consensus". Data:
Keep arguments:
    Keep Sourced, notable, move to Hair (unit of measurement)    1
    Keep Already more than a WP:DICDEF                4
    Keep Sourced, repetetive nomination                1
    Keep + move to Hair (unit of measurement)            1
    Keep per WP:NOTDIC                        1
    Keep Sourced, WP is not censored                1
    Keep Sourced, notable                        3
                                    
Delete arguments:
    Delete Article is ridiculous, WP:DICDEF, Not notable        1
    Delete WP:DICDEF                        6
    Delete Article is nonsense/ridiculous                1
    Delete Article is ridiculous + WP:DICDEF            1
    Delete Not notable                        1

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: I am not arguing "delete" or "keep" here. I'm arguing that an objective analysis of the merit of the arguments clearly points to a "no consensus" closure. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've done just the opposite. This is as far from "an objective analysis of the merit of the arguments" as you can get; it's a list of votes, without the arguments. For example, notability was not something at issue but suitability for an encyclopedia. And this article was not well sourced at all, despite all the claims by the people who wanted it kept and refused to explain their claim. Listing quotations of a term being used does not establish the merit of the term any more than every other word in the language. What you're doing is listing the vote rationales devoid of their reasoning, to make it look like the two sides were equally cogent in their arguments, when it wasn't the case. Dominic·t 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • All I have done is condense the arguments so the discussion can be analyzed at a glance. The closing admin probably shouldn't even look at the article. They should interpret and implement consensus based on the arguments and supporting evidence given in the discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The correct finding was "no consensus." "IDONTLIKEIT" arguments should have been ignored. Edison (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Personally I would've gone for some merge/redirect with the unit of measurement article, but there's nothing wrong with this close. Those arguing above that Delete !votes are WP:IDONTLIKEIT are missing the point that at least there's a rationale (WP:DICDEF) there, whilst many of the Keeps are vague armwaving that somewhow it isn't a dicdef or it's notable purely because there are lots of sources (at least six votes say something along those lines). Black Kite 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Within the discretion of the closing administrator. Protonk (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with no prejudice to relisting for further input. There clearly wasn't a consensus to delete. If it had been me closing, I would have closed as "no consensus" just to be safe since it's actually borderline "keep" that could fall to "delete" with just one additional reasonably sane opinions as to why. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 09:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Did the closing editor simply take one look at the title, and dismiss it as nonsense, or did they take the time to read the arguments from both sides? Also, those who wish to endorse this, have you actually read through the AFD? What delete argument convinced you? Dream Focus 10:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close this DRV as irretrievably tainted by canvassing at WT:ARS, with liberty to relist in a week or two. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "No consensus" per DGG and LinguistAtLarge. Both demonstrate that, once the ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT !votes are discounted, the main arguments were about whether this article was really only a dictionary entry or did have further encyclopedic value. There were good arguments for both sides but none was really stronger, so the correct outcome would have been "no consensus".
    @Stifle: We are here to get consensus on the decision of an admin's AFD close decision. Consensus is, like in that AFD, something that does not rely on the number of people !voting a certain way but on their arguments. Even if one were to think posting at WT:ARS is really canvassing (I'd rather say it's a friendly notice), it does not counteract our goal here, i.e. to determine consensus based on arguments. Your approach would allow any editor to disrupt any AFD/DRV process by simply posting a notice at WT:ARS or similar, thus allowing them to get any discussion speedy closed, which cannot be the result we want to have. I think we should just ignore this posting (for which Chzz even apologized above) and concentrate on the AFD at hand. Regards SoWhy 17:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if I'd posted a notice of this DRV to all the editors that !voted Delete on the AfD, that would be a friendly notice as well? Given that a very high percentage of the Keep !voters on the AfD were ARS members? I think not. Black Kite 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're assuming - seemingly in bad faith - that ARS is the Borg and think, act, vote alike. Instead each is responsible for their own actions just like everywhere else. If a similar note were posted to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion I wouldn't assume all responding editors were vote-stacking at all. We are compelled to assume that all are here to improve Wikipedia. -- Banjeboi 00:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, let's be pragmatic about this. Chzz advertises this AfD at WT:ARS, and lo and behold lots of ARS members turn up and vote "overturn". I am quite aware that many ARS members aren't voting machines and that a lot do good work to rescue saveable articles (including yourself). However, a number more do little else but vote Keep on rescue AfDs. ARS should be able to co-ordinate the good work that it does without becoming a votestacking forum - something which many people[who?] believe it is already. Black Kite 06:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Bjweeks made a perfectly reasonable call. I would prefer if AfDs were scheduled a bit more than five weeks apart, though with no consensus it is not as important. via ARS, and I cannot see the deleted article to judge the merits of the arguments. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per LinguistAtLarge. -- Banjeboi 22:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Stifle (moved from "Overturn" because even though I feel the closure was in error, I agree that the inadvertent canvassing has invalidated this discussion).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to speedy close, per Stifle. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How would canvasing affect things? The majority of people said Keep, so would object to being simply ignored, and thus would choose to overturn this decision. You have some editors[who?], mostly administrators it seems, who watch this page and seem to Endorse the actions of any other administrator, no matter what it is. Seriously, have those who said Endorse here, ever once said Overturn? Seems like you have an automatic bias. Dream Focus 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Kite has, possibly unknowingly, identified the nub of the problem here. This article was rescued. LinguistAtLarge and Phil Bridger did some rescue work in the first AFD discussion. Despite the canvassing and the tagging, there was little actual rescue work done by the self-styled rescuers in the second. Ironically, neither LinguistAtLarge nor Phil Bridger are listed as Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Members, despite the fact that they've rescued several articles, both at AFD and Proposed Deletion. This is the nub of the problem. We have people calling themselves rescuers who actually are not, since they don't do article work. And we have people who actually are article rescuers, with fairly long lists of rescues that they can point to, who aren't ARS "members". The problem here is that the self-styled "members" have been canvassing and stuffing non-existent ballots, whilst the actual rescuers have been working on the articles and not bothering with the silly badges.

    This is a problem for addressing on Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron, but the net effect that it has had on AFD and on Deletion Review is to wholly obscure two things: the article was rescued, and (as can be seen from the efforts of yet another article rescuer in order to answer the question posed below) was further rescuable, in exactly the way pointed out in the first AFD discussion, by the time of the second AFD discussion. The actions pointed out in the first AFD discussion could have been taken, and did not involve deletion.

    As such, clearly the action taken by the closing administrator, of deleting the article, was the wrong one; clearly following the path pointed out in the first AFD discussion is the action that should have been, collectively, taken (even the nominator in the second AFD discussion was persuaded by it, once it was pointed out to xem); and the action of (selectively, see below) history merging the draft at User:Chzz/Hair (unit of measurement) with the history at Special:Undelete/red cunt hair, and then renaming to Hair (unit of measurement), is the one that should now be taken. The route was shown, by an actual article rescuer, in the first AFD discussion, and it is a route that is in accordance with our Wikipedia:deletion policy.

    Indeed, the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy, so happily pointed to by the people opining to delete in the second AFD discussion, itself includes an explanation of renaming and refactoring articles to fix them. Read the rationales as they stand, in the light of the very policy that they cite, and clearly the correct course of action is in fact not the boldfaced words that prefixed those rationales. The boldfaced words should be ignored in favour of the policies cited in the rationales, and what those policies actually say, and have said all along for about eight years now.

    Shame on the people who either didn't read the policy that they were happily pointing to, or didn't put it into practice. Shame on the self-styled ARS "members" who aren't actually article rescuers, for your efforts generating so much palaver that you wholly obscured the work that was done by actual article rescuers on the article itself. And shame on the people critical of those latter, who have diverted this discussion into a discussion of ARS and away from a discussion of whether our content and deletion policies were correctly applied for this article. You know where Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron is.

    Undelete and put the article back on the path that was outlined for it two months ago — a path that is fully in accord with deletion policy and the policies pointed to in both AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the last point in your penultimate paragraph, that's a matter I raised on the DRV talk page.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the next paragraph?

A lot of people are claiming that this article has merit in an encyclopedia. The current draft is two paragraphs which consist entirely of an extended dictionary definition. So my question is: what's the next paragraph? What do the people voting "overturn" here propose to add here? How does this article grow? --MZMcBride (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a language or "word" article. Some logical growth would be Etymology, History, Notable usages in literature, Usages in popular culture. It really depends on what sources provide to work with. -- Banjeboi 01:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's not a next paragraph, by the looks of things. It's a preceding paragraph. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should you be discussing that here, or in the AFD? If you are going to discuss it, then you need to allow everyone to see what the original page was. And this is suppose to be about following the consensus of those participating, not ignoring them and doing what you want instead, otherwise the consensus process and AFD discussion become pointless. Dream Focus 03:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... you need to allow everyone to see what the original page was." Err, I linked to the current draft. And, the ultimate goal of any discussion anywhere on the project should be to improve Wikipedia. Ignore the page title. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've boldly redirected it to Figure of speech for the moment. It's a remotely plausible search term, and those shouldn't be redlinks on Wikipedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's added to the difficulty, alas! Should this draft be placed into article space, it has to be history merged with Special:Undelete/Red cunt hair for GFDL compliance (see above for some of the editors who got this article to where it stands today and whose history attribution most definitely needs to be retained). Unfortunately, we now have three sets of unrelated page histories, your redirect included, at that title. So the history merging administrator will have to perform a selective undeletion of just the history that actually went into forming the page as it stands in the draft. If it's the route chosen, give me a nudge and I'll merge the histories. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question posed in this section is now answered, I think. Uncle G (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answered? We need the closing administrator to explain their reasoning for their action. Dream Focus 15:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, answered. Please read what the question actually is. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, dismissing my thoughtful reply and experienced with this type of article response with Wikipedia is not a dictionary is part of the problem - from a relevant essay - Word articles which fall somewhere inbetween a dictionary definition stub and a lengthy well-written and well sourced article are treated in an entirely random and haphazard fashion, and might be kept and expanded, rewritten into something different, redirected, deleted, or who knows what else, based on the personality of the editor who finds it, the particular group of editors who wander into the article's AfD page, or perhaps the phase of the moon that day. We do have articles on words and this has the potential to be a good one. -- Banjeboi 18:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rubbish. It's not part of any problem. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't do dictionary articles. Expanding the prior article with etymology or cargo-cult written "usages in popular culture" was not the correct path, and policy tells you that. As to what this article has the potential to be: It has the potential to be what was outlined in the very first AFD discussion, which is not an article about a word, and not a dictionary article. Indeed, the current draft is an existence proof. You'll find that it's about a verifiable unit of measurement known as a hair.

            Pointing out our oldest policy to you is in no way part of any "problem", except perhaps if you then ignore that policy and continue to suggest that we should run counter to it. If anything is actually the problem, it is the lack of willingness on those who sport the ARS badges to actually work on rescue in this instance, accompanied by vague counter-to-policy handwaving along the lines of "We can just grow a dictionary article, with etymology and quotations." when pressed for how they would rescue an article. And this problem is compounded by AFD and Deletion Review discussion canvassing that eclipsed the rescue work. Shame on the supposed rescuers who did that!

            Even now, as you point out some people's lack of adherence to policy (which is all that that essay's complaint, as quoted, really boils down to), you totally fail to address the rescue work of the original rescuers, their ideas for further rescue and article development expressed in the AFD discussions, and the userspace draft immediately at hand. You may well have put thought into your reply, but the end product was a poor one that was contrary to policy, when a good one was right there staring you in the face, supplied on a platter by several editors, across two AFD discussions. Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • We actually do have many articles on words. and this can be one of them. As for can it be something else, possibly but I don't have a strong opinion or interest in doing battle on the matter. This issue for AfD is can this be a good article and what is the path to it. For DrV the issue is was the AfD closed properly and is there extending circumstances that proose a better outcome. Please aside all the ARS generalized accusations, we each act according to our own interests and if there is any coordination to parrot each other I'm utterly unaware of it but also believe it to be just as ill-concieved as coordinated efforts to remove content that is encyclopedic. Thanks for the many visual cues and loaded phraseology but I'll continue to assume good faith that all are here to improve the project. If you wish to dole out shame there are plenty of more appropriate websites to do so. -- Banjeboi 22:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is some discussion to be had about DICDEF and its limits. We do articles on words, the best example of a marginal article being Nucular. I think editors arguing here about the borders of purely or largely etymological articles would do well to read that AfD and DRV. I still think it is a fair argument to say that we do not do articles like "Red cunt hair" (which is a very different article than "Hair (unit of measurement)") largely on the basis of WP:NOT regardless of sources noting the existence of the phrase.
  • It is also fair, in my opinion, to have discussions about the relevance of {{rescue}} to this article. I can agree w/ Benjiboi that the discussion isn't perfectly germane to the DRV. This is decidedly not the best venue to have a reasonable talk about that issue (given that emotions about the contingent outcome of the article will get in the way). I also can agree that rescue is appropriate (though just barely). Lastly, the relevance of the rescue template to the article at DRV is another issue and shouldn't be handled under the broader issue of relevance to dicdef articles.
  • I'm not sure yet what the best venue is or what the best course is. Protonk (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was proposed for renaming to Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer on April 18. With very little discussion, the rename was approved, effective April 24. (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18#Category:Songs with lyrics by Johnny Mercer.) Only one person posted an opinion in favor of the change; one other said "put it on hold" and one wrote against it. This does not appear to be a consensus in favor of the change.

In fact, I did not know the change was up for consideration, as I received a notice on my talk page on the 18th, but did not happen to be editing on Wikipedia from the 18th until after the discussion had closed. So I was unable to put forth my arguments.

To me, "Songs written by X" implies songs where X wrote both lyrics and music. Mercer wrote both for only one or two songs; he was by far known primarily as a lyricist. Putting songs like "Autumn Leaves" and "Moon River" in a category of "Songs written by Johnny Mercer" minimizes the roles of the other partners in the team that created these songs.

Some persons have objected to having three categories for one songwriter: "Songs written by X," "Songs with music by X," and "Songs with lyrics by X." While I would think this to be the most accurate way of handling this, I would accept the idea that for people like Johnny Mercer who wrote primarily either music or lyrics there should be two categories: "Songs with music by X" and "Songs with lyrics by X," with the very small number where, a person wrote both being put into both categories. Where a songwriter primarily wrote both, I think a "Songs written by X" category is appropriate, with either "Songs with music by X" or "Songs with lyrics by X" used where appropriate for any where he wrote only one or the other. And for someone like Frank Loesser, who was a major lyricist but also wroth both lyrics and music for a lot of songs, yet another treatment might be appropriate.

To satisfy Alansohn's comment that "While there are many music aficionados who would appreciate the nuances of splitting a single artists songs based on what component they created, there are many more amateurs who would only be baffled as they navigated through categories trying to understand why a song they associate with Johnny Mercer isn't listed under songs written by but is instead in songs with music by" there only needs to be a cross-reference such as was done in Category:Songs with lyrics by Tom Lehrer. -- BRG (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I nominate the merge, but encouraged BRG to bring the matter here for further discussion. I also notified BRB on his talkpage and at Wikisongs. Whereas I agree with BRG's comments regarding JM and writers of that era, what happens when 1. WP can't verify who wrote what? 2. What's to stop a singleton writer being listed under both composer and lyricist? 3 Some less notable person than JM is known for one lyric and one composion only? Furthermore, a category is a navigation tool, not a definition of who wrote what, so anybody interested in songs that JM is involved with will go to the article and discover exactly what his contribution was. If you applied the logic that BRG is using you would have separate, say the Lennon/McCatney category into "songs written by Lennon, but credited to Lennon/McCartney", ditto, McCartney. Please note : If a songwriter is purely a lyricist or a composer I see no problem categorizing accordingly, nor putting something into the JM category to establish he is principally a lyricist who also composed music. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cases of "What's to stop a singleton writer being listed under both composer and lyricist?" and "Some less notable person than JM is known for one lyric and one composion only" is covered by what I said earlier: "Where a songwriter primarily wrote both, I think a 'Songs written by X' category is appropriate." The first is a different issue, and it certainly is of a kind with other situations where an important piece of information is unknown. (In at least one case I managed to be able to make a good guess; see Ricochet (song), where I've tried to make it clear that it is a guess, but with good reason.) -- BRG (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately your solution to Ricochet fails both WP:V and WP:OR, which is a shame because you are probably correct in your assumptions and your good faith is not in dispute in any way. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the words there again. What was stated there was verifiable, namely that particular members of the team are known to have written lyrics or music to specified other songs. While you might make a case for WP:OR, if you wish to say that deleting the conclusion' is necessary, a case for that may exist; but that needs to be discussed elsewhere. -- BRG (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and discuss the merits there, not here, or in a more general forum. The closer said: "If wider consensus is to split all of the "written by" categories out into "lyrics by" and "music by", this can be reversed. That, however, is a very large undertaking and will require more input than this". As for the particular instance: here was only one support of the original proposal; the nom himself , after introducing the nom by saying "I consider this a very contentious nomination," said "Not adverse to this suggestion" to an alternate proposal. DGG (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There was no clear consensus. - Mgm|(talk) 17:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just nominate Category:Songs written by Johnny Mercer and have at it there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that a new CfD discussion has been started. I didn't mean to suggest that this should be started prior to the conclusion of this DRV. It was just my opinion about what should be done once the DRV was closed. I suggest the new CfD discussion be closed pending the outcome here, since having 2 ongoing processes for the same thing is confusing. Sorry if my comments were misinterpreted in this regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then close the new CfD discussion. My understanding of your comment was that you thought a CfD discussion was more appropriate than a DRV. If you had meant "once the DRV was closed," perhaps you should have said that. -- BRG (talk) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whoa, ease up, tiger. "Votes" in DRVs are typically taken as opinions about what the closing administrator should direct, not what we should all drop and do right away. I didn't think it was necessary to specify "at the close of the DRV", just as the other commenters did not. I did previously apologise if my comments led to a misunderstanding, though. If you want to close the CfD you started, you can do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – Category:Songs by lyricist dates from 2005 so this is not a new venture; indeed Category:Songs by songwriter is the upstart. BRG's views are in accordance with mine on this (that 'written by' means or should mean both music and lyrics) but certainly the whole area is littered with difficulties (eg co-writers, often 5 or 6 of them). Occuli (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look. (from Wikipedia:Deletion_review#What_is_this_page_for.3F) Was this done? It could have saved all of you a lot of typing... --Kbdank71 17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kbdank71, it looks as though you are the one that closed the discussion. Therefore, you are the one that I should "courteously invite ... to take a second look." Have you done so? -- BRG (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Newtones (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted under speedy delete criterion A7 in March having survived an AfD discussion in January. From Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements.". Whilst the discussion was rather short and a non-admin close I think the correct procedure would have been to relist or reopen. I approached the deleting admin last week but they do not appear to have been active since the 25th. Guest9999 (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn should have gone to AFD. And judging from the first AFD, there were multiple claims of importance (winning awards, reaching the International Championship of High School A Cappella semifinals) so WP:CSD#A7 really didn't apply anyway. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Having been kept in an afd, less than five months ago no less, and had claims of notability, there was not proper criteria for speedy deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 21:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- Nominator hit it on the head. The policy on CSD says that if its gone through an AFD, unless a new Copyright infringement is discovered, then an article cannot be speedied. The AFD didn't have much in the way of comments, granted, but it was held open for plenty of time, with no delete votes other than the AFD's nominator.Umbralcorax (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, it's a bright-line rule that a page that has survived AFD can't be speedied except for copyvios. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn unless it's a copyvio, it should not have been A7'd per policy. MuZemike 16:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • snow overturn as clear process error. I have a reasonable confidence the deleting admin would acknowledge it as such. DGG (talk) 16:36, 3 May 2009 (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 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Storyz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Djpinklady/sandbox - page not meant to be spam Djpinklady (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Twitter Wikipedia

Finances About US$57 million of Twitter is owned by venture capitalists. CEO Evan Williams raised about $22 million in venture capital.[7] Twitter is backed by Union Square Ventures, Digital Garage, Spark Capital, and Bezos Expeditions (led by Jeff Bezos of Amazon).[8] Institutional Venture Partners and Benchmark Capital backed Twitter in 2009, investing an additional $35 million.The Industry Standard has pointed to its lack of revenue as limiting its long-term viability.[9] On February 13, 2009, Twitter announced on its official blog[1] that it had closed a third round of funding in which it secured more than $35 million[10] When asked about how he was going to use the additional investment funds in an interview, Williams said:

We don't know all the ways we're going to use that money, hopefully we'll keep a lot of it in the bank. If we never need a lot of it, that's great, but in the climate we're in we don't want to assume too much, and we don't want any short term concerns to distort the potential of our long term vision, and our investors and the boards and everybody is very on board for building a very long term viable company. We need to do that step by step, and we need to invest a lot to get there.[11]

is this also a claim of importance? Djpinklady (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm unsure what Twitter has to do with this article. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Best I can figure is that she's saying that like Twitter, which is highly notable, Storyz got major funding from notable investors. Unfortunately Wikipedia notability doesn't really work like that, there needs to be evidence of meaningful third party coverage of a topic. Just for the sake of making this DRV less annoying to close, I'm going to say allow recreation (moving the current page from the userspace to the article space). There's a claim of importance now, if anyone disputes notability (I might) this should go to AFD, not DRV. there wasn't an invalid deletion here, but there is an improved article to move back to the article space. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • yes Chiliad22. thank you. that is what i'm trying to say. it is my understanding that wikipedia is a resource. i thought that meant the more information you had on an article, especially the history of the business, the more resourceful the article was. i added in the funding actually based off the Twitter article to add more history to the company itself. not as a claim of importance. I feel that the Storyz article is being misunderstood. Djpinklady (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. There is no real chance of this passing AFD, so it would be dysfunctional to send it through that. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ a b c d e Premi