Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December

< November 2010	Deletion review archives	January 2011 >

31 December 2010

Kinuyo Yamashita – deleted article userfied for improvement – JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

For review: User:Pkeets/Kinuyo Yamashita

I'm writing bios on women composers and I have primary sources that I could add. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I'd like to use what was there already. Primary sources are not that difficult to find for her. Thanks. Pkeets (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn delete. The AfD looks like it should have been a "no consensus" close anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a new revision at User:Pkeets/Kinuyo Yamashita for review. Pkeets (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the book references (#1, 3-4), you need to include page numbers so people can easily look them up. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I remember this as a very controversial deletion and think that the subject is notable. Some biographical information is covered in the 1UP.com article by Jeremy Parish, there are interviews with her ([1], [2] – the latter from a blog) and she is also mentioned (sometimes in passing) in reliable sources ([3], [4], [5]). Prime Blue (talk) 03:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as she seems notable. The list of her credits on jawiki is pretty long. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the new article is a substantial improvement over the one that was the subject of the AfD discussion, just move it into the mainspace. There is no need to review the previous deletion decision. However, if it's the article in your userspace that you intend to move, the external links section should be fixed first. Would you consider withdrawing this deletion review to follow this suggestion instead? --Bsherr (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised at the help desk to pursue a deletion review before attempting to post a new article of any kind on this person. I'm proposing to copy the main part of the revision from my user space into a reinstated article. I've copied the article from Google cache to revise it, and the "external links" were inactive there. If the old article is reinstated, presumably the links will be live. Reinstatment also has the advantage of restoring the history. Since I've only revised the article, the history should reflect this. Pkeets (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better for WP:A if the old article were properly userfied to you. Could an administrator please userfy the deleted artile to Pkeets? Pkeets, please then make the edits to the userfied article, and when you're ready, move it back into the mainspace. It may be nominated for deletion again (discussion), but, provided the article is a significant improvement over the previous article, it cannot be speedily deleted. --Bsherr (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the user option before posting the article for review here, but was told that I couldn't have a copy of the article because I hadn't contributed to it before it was deleted. I've got a proposed revision posted. What's wrong with having the deletion review now? Pkeets (talk) 00:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review is unnecessary per WP:RECREATE; you're allowed to recreate the article. If you used content from the deleted article for the article in your user space, that content needs to be properly attributed to its actual authors, per WP:CWW and WP:A. So, the deleted article needs to be restored to you, you need to make your revisions in that version, and then that version can be moved back into the article space. (If you recreated the article from scratch, and didn't copy any previous content, this doesn't apply; let me know if this is so.) --Bsherr (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the version in my user space is a REVISED version of the previous article with added primary sources. I have NOT recreated it from scratch. It would be plagiarism to move this revision into article space and represent it as my work, so I need to use the actual article with the edit history attached. I have no way to attribute the work to the original authors without the edit history. I have posted the request here for a deletion review so I can have access to the article (previously denied), and so it will not be immediately nominated again for deletion when I move it into article space. The consensus above seems to be reversal of the deletion. Do you have some substantive objection to that, or are you just wondering how the process should be handled? Pkeets (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so, could an administrator please userfy the deleted article to Pkeets, so Pkeets can make revisions and move it into the main space again? --Bsherr (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JohnCD (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

30 December 2010

ChiZine Publications – Allow recreation with sources. This is neither an endorse nor relist nor overturn. The "endorse" !voters do not address the speediness of the deletion well, and the "overturn" !voters are clearly in the minority. Normally I would let this go to AfD, but it would seem counterproductive since a draft has already been created. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted claiming "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." This article is about a publishing company and presents two instances -- producing a book trailer directed by a notable filmaker and putting on an academic conference -- that indicate why it is important.

There are plenty of publishing companies on Wikipedia with less information.

This deletion was done without any discussion I can find. I tried to add whatever content I could, but am new to Wikipedia. If I have been told specifically to add outside sources, or list more details, or something, I would have.

The Admin has refused to undelete the page himself. Eroomtam (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. So where is the revised draft with outside sources? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It is my understanding that if I reposted the article, even with revisions, it would be deleted again, and I need to go through this undelete process. Are you saying if I repost the article with outside sources, you will NOT delete it again? (I am really trying to understand the process here, so direct and specific directions would be appreciated.) Eroomtam (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Eroomtam[reply]

A draft of a deleted article belongs in what's called "userspace". There is already such an article in your own userspace here: User:Eroomtam/ChiZine Publications. I think RHaworth expects that version to be revised.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being specific S Marshall. That version in my user space was a draft I created. However, at that time the drop down arrow in the nav for Move wasn't there (checked in three browsers, three computers, logged in & out and it just wasn't there). So, not knowing what else to do, I copied this draft into the main space, kept editing and published an expanded version. So, please do not judge the page by this very old draft. I'll take the final, deleted text and work from that.Eroomtam (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, you mustn't copy-paste on Wikipedia, because it disturbs the article history, which is necessary for attribution. Wikipedia:Moving a page will provide you guidance on how to move a page when the tool to do so yourself isn't available. --Bsherr (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted until actual outside sources are provided. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7 speedy deletion - A7 Indication of importance in the article: ChiZine Publications involved major filmmakers in their projects and "few publishers had previously involved major filmmakers in their projects." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I don't think producing a book trailer is enough to demonstrate significance/importance. Perhaps to the trailer itself, perhaps to the director, but not to the producer. The conference may demonstrate significance/importance of itself, but not its sponsor. The page creator should seek to comply with Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) in working on a draft in userspace. --Bsherr (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of self-evidently promotional article by user whose name, "eroomtam", is the name of the subject's marketing manager spelled backwards. Consider me not fooled. Guy (Help!) 10:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy and list at AFD. Publishing books/works by notable authors is generally how publishers achieve notability, and the article includes credible claims to that effect. Whether those claims are sufficient to establish notability is a determination reserved for the community. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jason Upton – moot as article recreated, without prejudice to starting a new deletion review if this outcome is insufficient; nonadministrator close – Bsherr (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have improved the article, made sure it met the notability standards(distribution by majors labels and independent media coverage) and sourced it. It was userfied here.Cgadbois (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article differs substantially from the article that was the subject of the deletion discussion, there is no need to seek review of the deletion discussion. Simply move the new article into the namesapce at the appropriate title by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Moving a page. Do you consent to withdrawing the deletion review? --Bsherr (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just did it myself. As I said, because it's improved, it can't be speedy deleted under criterion G4, but, if there's cause and desire, someone can reconsider it for deletion. Have a nice day. --Bsherr (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore The Christianity today article is a RS and, in connection with the other sources, proves notability DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with DGG--Christianity Today is a major RS, and CBN is reasonable too, pushing him over the threshold into notability, though not by a whole lot. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, moved back to mainspace, not liable to G4, no DRV needed. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close, per Stifle. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kayla Carrera – List on AfD. If we're debating whether she meets WP:PORNBIO (i.e. notability), then she should at least pass the lower standard of assertion of significance/importance. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy Restore. Passes WP:PORNBIO, because she won an AVN Award. Links: IMBD & AVN Awards site. --Hixteilchen (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. Subject meets importance/significance standard based on the award. --Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A7 but allow recreation The AVN award was not mentioned in the deleted version, so the A7 nominator and deleting admin made a reasonable evaluation based on what was in the article when it was evaluated. Having said that, a future version should include a clear statement of notability, clearly referenced because of the BLP concerns regarding the nature of the notability. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cache has expired. I'd like to revise my opinion based on viewing the article. Could an administrator temporarily restore the article for purposes of the deletion review, employing {{TempUndelete}}? --Bsherr (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and keep deleted. Technically passing "PORNBIO" is not sufficient. I can't find any substantive, in-depth sources on her. Especially for a BLP on a potentially controversial issue, but also in general, passing a notability subguideline does not relieve the requirement to pass the primary one, it just indicates it's more likely you might. One weak source ("rabbitsreviews.com") is nowhere near sufficient. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are rules on Wikipedia, she clearly passes WP:PORNBIO (Award), and also you Seraphimblade should accept this! So if I can´t trust in written relevance criteria in what then? I would also write a new article, if you send me the old version on my user site. --Hixteilchen (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PORNBIO is an additional criteria, the additional criteria sections says:

People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.

so no meeting that criteria isn't an inclusion guarantee. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But winning an award is no exclusion criteria, too. So it should be possible to write a new article. --Hixteilchen (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't tend to have exclusion criteria and I'm making no judgement as to if an article meeting all the required standards is possible, the point is as User:Seraphimblade said the secondary criteria are and indication they may meet the standards, not a promise that they do. Therefore it's not unreasonable to look at substantive issue such as WP:BLP to determine if an article is appropriate or not. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Nominator does not challenge correctness of original deletion. Article subject has not won a notable award. Subject was one of fifteen performers appearing in a scene which received an awarded, which the awarding agency explicitly characterizes as not being an award for performers. Seraphimblade's point is also quite sound. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna have to pull out a ^{[citation needed]} tag on that statement. According to AVN Award the award is "awarded to performer(s) in a scene." Do you have a source that "explicitly characterizes" otherwise? -- RoninBK _{T C} 08:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn´t count. The AVN Award is a notable award. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz we all know you want no porn in wikipedia as you have shown often. Even if it´s a Group Scene, every actor gets an award! --Hixteilchen (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ark (Transformers) – Relist at AfD. AS a general trend, DRVs of old AfDs tend not to be very productive, and this is no exception. Rather than relisting this DRV and continuing to discuss a moot point, it's best to give it another run. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The book "Totally Tubular 80's Toys" by Mark Bellomo has a page 112 talking about the Autobot ship Ark and how it got the Autobots to earth in the classic series.
It's talked about in: "Transformers: an adult primer // Here's help understanding toy robots, the latest rage", Chicago Sun-Times; December 16, 1986; by Patricia Smith. The author gets parents up to date on the story of the Transformers, including what the Ark is.
'Transformers' coming to save planet Earth, summer cinema University Wire; July 2, 2007; by Michelle Castillo, the author complains about how they left the Ark out of the 2007 Transformers movie.

This clearly helps establish notability in three reliable sources. Mathewignash (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. Such information can be added to List of Transformers spacecraft, which is where Ark (Transformers) redirects. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really the point. ANY source I mention COULD be added to the list article. The question here is about the Ark (Transformers) article that was deleted because it lacked any reliable third party sources. I produced three reliable third party sources. Therefore I would like to have the article restored. Mathewignash (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close." Isn't there some kind of time limit in which to contest an AFD? This was closed on 1 September 2010...almost three months ago. Roadie4MarshallTuckerBand (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC) - This user is a banned sock puppeteer. Mathewignash (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No such limit and why we would we have? We are in the business of writing and encyclopedia, if viable articles can be written that furthers our goal. Deletion never prohibits topics from ever being covered, merely that a current incarnation of an article doesn't meet the standards and possibly no article could currently be written, in the future of course things change - be that future 1 day or 100 years. I wouldn't take this so much as an appeal of the original decision more that new information has come to light since then. Personally It doesn't seem these sources are upto much. The second sounds likely to be fairly trivial coverage and the third likely not a great source. The current redirect to a subsection describing it seems more than adequate given the level of coverage. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not "contesting" the closing from September. It was closed because it lacked sources at the time. I now have produced reliable third party sources. If this is enough to prove the subject is notable, I want the article restored so I can add them. If it's not enough, I need people to tell what they would need to consider this notable, so I can keep my eyes open for more sources. So PLEASE, if you vote against restoring the article, I'd love some exact reasons and what you would need to be proven it's notable. Mathewignash (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no limit, although perhaps there should be; there have been deletion reviews posted here more than a year after the disputed decision in the past. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A deletion review might still be appropriate after a year or so if, for example, the page is salted or was highly controversial, so we'd need to think carefully about the wording of any change.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above I agree, I think the question is about challenging the actual close of the debate, not about the other times in which DRV maybe appropriate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just reiterating Mathewignash's point that this is a restoration request, which is in-scope per the last paragraph of WP:Deletion review#Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the best approach here would be to add the reliably sourced content into List of Transformers spacecraft#Ark before requesting restoration so we can see just how much decent content a new article would have? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion. Why doesn't someone just re-write the article with these new sources and see how it fares? If it doesn't get AFD'd then the article proponents have a point. Sounds a lot easier to do it that way than doing it this way. Kiki Rebeouf (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to just write a new article with sources and put it there without getting in trouble? Mathewignash (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated to you above, add the reliably-sourced content to the list article first, and see how much there can be. It sounds like the sources you've got aren't about this, and just mention it pretty tangentially. That probably makes it more suitable for a list than a full article. But put your material in the list article first, and if it does turn out you really can write a great deal from those sources, it may turn out to be appropriate for a full article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 December 2010

Westbrook_Technologies – Userfied already, allow recreation. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Westbrook Technologies is a major document management software company which has received awards and recognition from various sources. It has been deleted for advertising/promotion, however I feel that the sources cited and language used show the importance of Westbrook Technologies in the document management industry. I have discussed with the editor who deleted, but he/she has not responded from my further questions and debate, giving me no further explanation. Please reconsider the deletion of the article (perhaps restoring the article for editors to see and discuss) or please inform me how I can edit it for approval. Odonnetp (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question do you have anything that could in any way be considered a conflict of interest regarding this subject, and if so what is the nature of that conflict of interest? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to Wikipedia and was not aware of Wikipedia's policies on COI. I have included it in my talk page as is recommended on the conflict of interest page. I don't believe COI is a valid reason to bar this article from inclusion in Wikipedia, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Odonnetp (talk • contribs) 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia! You're right to say that a conflict of interest is, in itself, not sufficient to prevent an article's inclusion but in this case I think there were two other problems. First, there was a lack of reliable sources that were independent of Westbrook itself; and second, the writing was more appropriate to corporate marketing literature for the technologically literate than to an encyclopaedia for general readership. Neither of these things necessarily means that Westbrook Technologies can't have coverage on Wikipedia. What it means is that Westbrook Technologies can't have this coverage. There's also a discussion to be had about whether any material we do include about Westbrook Technologies belongs in a separate article of its own, or as part of another, larger one. That discussion will hinge around the concept of notability.
The article as written began: Westbrook Technologies, founded in 1990, provides software applications to businesses across every vertical market – enabling organizations to streamline processes, improve efficiency, increase productivity and address specific business challenges. Feature + benefit + jargon is how marketers are trained to write for a tech-savvy audience, but encyclopaedists need to use plain English aimed at teenagers. If Westbrook Technologies was found to be notable within Wikipedia's definition, then a proper article might begin with something like: Westbrook Technologies is an American software company based in Wherever, Connecticut. The company has xx employees and a turnover of $yy. It has won an award for (award, plus link to independent, reliable source, such as a newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking). It was founded in 1990.
It's not necessary to overturn NawlinWiki's speedy deletions in this case, but I'm very willing to work with you to see if there isn't coverage we can provide within Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. The first stage would be to compile a list of independent, reliable sources that provide reasonably in-depth coverage of the company. The sources cannot be connected with Westbrook Technologies, or host advertisements for them, and they cannot consist of user-submitted content. This means no blogs, no messageboard posts, no Facebook pages, no Youtube videos, and no wikis. (Yes, that does mean that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by our own definition.)
You're welcome to post the list of sources here or on my talk page, it's up to you.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userify I think the best solution would be to move the deleted article to a subpage in your user space to be worked on further, according to S Marshall's excellent suggestions. I'm willing to do it. Will that be satisfactory? DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DGG. (See WP:USERFY for more details on what that entails.) Stifle (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. This is new to me, so of course there is a learning curve. DGG, if you can add it to my userspace that would be great. Stifle, I will check out WP:USERFY.
For sources, I used the following:

Westbrook Technologies is a Microsoft Partner with silver ISV competency
Document managing company forms new teaming
Fort Billings FCU Shreds Paper with Fortis
PCS launches document management software
The 2006 Deloitte Connecticut Fast 50
Banner Health and Westbrook Technologies Named 2009 I-Cubed Award Winners by Integrated Solutions Magazine
New Release of Westbrook FortisBlue™ Includes SharePoint® Integration Option and Other Advances
I realize that the last two are press releases, but I thought they would be note worthy because the first one is announcing an award Westbrook had received and the second is used to cite that Westbrook is integrated with Microsoft SharePoint. I had also found these two sources in the meantime and was going to insert them into the page somehow, or do you not see these as reliable sources?
Build Competitive Advantage With ECM
A medical center goes paperless for HIPAA; San Francisco International joins nine airports in biometrics deployment.Odonnetp (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't personally use sources 1, 6 or 7. Wikipedia's interested in what independent sources say, not about what companies or organisations say about themselves. The article should be a summary of those sources that remain, without infringing copyright.—S Marshall T/C 16:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a minimum number of third-party sources an article needs to be included in Wikipedia? When I revised the article from the first verson, my thinking was the more sources I had, the better. But, if an article is deleted due to the use of press releases since those are not third-party authoritative sources, is simply deleting those articles from the article enough to have the article accepted. For example, if I take out sources 1, 6, and 7 from the article, will that make the article acceptable for being approved? Odonnetp (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall is just offering an opinion. There's no prohibition on the use of primary sources, and using primary sources doesn't reflect badly on the article as a whole. But secondary sources are considered more reliable so, if you can find them, use them too. Also understand that these types of primary sources are discounted in determining the notability of the subject, a criterion for its inclusion here. --Bsherr (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion is absolutely right. What I say isn't gospel, it's what I think.—S Marshall T/C 23:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, the opinions can be harmonized: mixing in unnecessary primary sources can diluting the visibility of the secondary sources; the same can be true of weak secondary sources when there are better ones that cover the same ground. When there are good sources, putting in poor ones also gives the impression of including everything conceivably possible, which is a frequent promotional technique. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to User:Odonnetp/Westbrook Technologies; when you're ready, ask me or any admin about moving it back. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 December 2010

Slovio – Deletion endorsed, and this discussion has veered way off topic into a soapbox for the requester, who is, to put it charitably, rather vested in the outcome. – Guy (Help!) 10:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion review was listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 13#Slovio. Cunard (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

27 December 2010

File:SpywareProtect09block.PNG – Closure no longer applicable, as the image is now being used under a fair-use claim. If you wish to dispute that, please discuss on the talk page of the article. – NW (Talk) 03:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator closed discussion as keep (free), claiming that the text in the image was not subject to copyright protection because "malware is not afforded copyright protection." When I asked her to reconsider and cite authority for this, the administrator responded saying that "any person who claimed to own the copyright of this image would likely be prosecuted under laws regarding computer crimes." I am still not convinced that something along the lines of unclean hands allows us to disregard copyrights on images like this one or be compatible with CC-BY-SA. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closer may be right. In the meantime, let's not practice copyright-paranoia. Wait for a legal opinion, or a complaint from someone claiming ownership. At worst, I think a very strong fair use claim can be made to use this image. More likely, I think the owner lost copyright by fraudulently distributing the image. I think the owner holds no moral rights over the image. I think it is akin to a forgery. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. While morally objectionable, it would be news to me that that somehow affects the copyright status of the image. --Conti|✉ 03:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. It seems to me that the closing admin has asserted some premises that are tenuous at best. It would be better to have a "cleaner" close.. __meco (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/Relist Maliciousness of the software has no bearing on its copyright status. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. 14 days and no comment at PUF normally translate to deletion; closer's rationale is totally without support either in law or in our policies (though I'd imagine that the creator of such malware would be quite unlikely to actually try to enforce such a copyright, that is irrelevant), so there's no need for a relist. T. Canens (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not the right place for this, but would this qualify under Template:PD-text? NW (Talk) 18:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The text in the image is not a simple word, phrase, slogan, or title. I think it is sufficiently creative to be awarded copyright protection. Thus, the pd-text tag doesn't apply here. RJaguar3 | u | t 19:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per T.Canens Edge3 (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. I would have instead supported relisting, but the closing administrator ought to have raised the argument for discussion originally, instead of employing it without warning to close the discussion. Since the closing admin had a free opportunity to raise the issue, that ought to foreclose relisting it. --Bsherr (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete or relist - Closing admin's rationale is completely inconsistent with copyright law. Garion96 (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 notes from closing admin #1) I honestly do believe that there is no copyright here based on there being no license for the software and the fact that this is malware. #2) As can be seen here at his talk page this image was already restored once in the past by User:Explicit who has far greater experience with image deletions than I. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully believe that the anon on whose advice Explicit relied in undeleting the image was mistaken. Just because the screenshot is part of "a virus program [with] no End User License" does not mean that the software "was released to the public with absolutely no restrictions," as the anon claims. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EDITED TO ADD With respect to (1), the fact that the program was distributed without a license does not mean that it is in the public domain. It neither has a permissive license (like the GPL) to grant the necessary permissions needed to use a derivative work of the software on this site, nor does it have a restrictive agreement that purports to restrict the rights granted to the owner of a copy of a copyrighted work under US law. Thus, although there is no licensing agreement in effect, use of the software is still subject to standard copyright law, which binds everyone. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For your point (1) it shows you are ignorant of copyright law, and certainly shouldn't be closing such debates. Copyright is automatic and implicit, when editors cut and paste text from a website displaying no copyright notice, we tell them the same, no copyright notice != PD and != no claim of copyright. (Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others - "All creative works are copyrighted, by international agreement, unless either they fall into the public domain or their copyright is explicitly disclaimed." note the "explicitly disclaimed" i.e. they have to say they are not claiming rights). It was listed at FFD with only one opinion given, deciding how to close it based on the previous action of an admin not participating in the debate is ridiculous, there is no policy etc which says person X is always right no matter what anybody else says, if you disagreed then you should have participated in the debate, merely determining yourself to be correct and closing accordingly is not allowed. The easiest way to resolve this looks like just adding a fair use rationale. --87.112.87.182 (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, unfortunately this fails the Wednesbury test. Stifle (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

????. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John lilburne (talk • contribs)

Overturn to delete - With enough feedback, the admin should have reversed his own decision by now. But that hasn't been done. The closing admin is embarrassingly wrong. Even if it were true that "Malware is not afforded copyright protection", which it isn't and you are confusing patent protection with copyright protection (and in general there is no such sweeping intellectual property rule), the screenshot itself is not malware. It is just a screenshot. End User License/license for the software is contract law, not copyright law. The image does misuse that multicolored dot (which looks like something Microsoft would trademark) and Microsoft's "Internet Explorer" trademark name. OTOH, this image very likely is fair use of non-free media. However, since 14 days and no comment at PUF normally translate to deletion and there was no fair use reasons put forth, overturn to delete. Feel free to restore the image using a fair use of non-free media template. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Delete, not a valid image license rationale. Nakon 07:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Relist~~ (see below) - Sorry, but our existing standards dictate that this screenshot should have a fair use rationale. — C M B J 01:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, rather than overturn to delete. The pd-text issue seems quite arguable to me, and FfD is where that discussion should take place.—S Marshall T/C 09:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's arguable about that? This is not a "typeface[], individual word[], slogan[], or simple geometric shape[]". It's several sentences of text. PD-text simply does not apply. T. Canens (talk) 04:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a picture of some text. All that can be copyrighted about it is the one small image in the top left hand corner, or the few words of text. It could be argued that there's insufficient original work in that image for it to qualify for copyright protection. (I'm not actually arguing this, because I'm not sure it's correct. My position is that it's arguable, and it's for FfD to exhaust that argument and come to a conclusion.)—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The keep is correct. The idea that copyright applies is equivalent to saying that courts will enforce copyright on 419 spam emails. Copyright will not give protection to a document designed to defraud someone. In UK law (where fair dealing is weaker than fair-use in the US) copyright is not extended to wrong doing, you can read here in pages 14-18 how UK law treats such issues. John lilburne (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that fair dealing is weaker than fair use is completely irrelveant. Fair Dealing/Fair use is a defence and has nothing to do with the actions of the person claiming copyright. The issue there was "The jurisdiction [of the English courts] to refuse to enforce copyright came from the court's inherent jurisdiction and was limited to cases where enforcement of the copyright would offend against the policy of the law" and is unrelated to issues of fair use. It is not saying no copyright exists it is saying in some circumstances (for the court to decide, not me or you) that the copyrights would not be enforced in English courts. However it's broadly irrelevant (1) The purpose of our copyright policy is not merely to defend the wikimedia foundation, it's about creating a free encylopedia (re)usable worldwide (including derivatives of images etc.) (2) Given 1 second guessing if a court would or wouldn't enforce the copyright is not an exercise we should be engaging in, maybe this case is "obvious" there are plenty of other cases where there would be lots of disagreement (3) On a similar basis to (1) we don't accept images where permission is given to just wikipedia it isn't helpful to our goal (i.e. if wikimedia is "safe" isn't the only issue) (4) There are many images we could republish as is without worry of the rights holder trying to enforce them, again we don't since again that isn't our purpose we are trying to provide a free resource for re(use) including creating derivatives of the images etc.

The point of DRV is to examine the deletion process, is there a process which says "The closing admin chooses to determine if a copyright is enforceable and then ignores the discussion and closes according to the admins own understanding" - quite simply there is no such process. If as you the closer believed unenforceablity was a valid claim to make then they should have participated in the discussion.

The whole thing is rather silly, if we think the image adds value there is a very simple fair use claim which can be made in this case. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If considering whether a US copyright court would afford copyright protection to an image that is illustrating a scam, is second guessing then so is all those images of DVD and LP album covers, the images of book jackets, and the images of products in their packaging. All the images that are under copyright somewhere in the world, but not the US makes the encyclopaedia un-reusable elsewhere in the world. The use of this particular image is also transformative in that it is illustrating how malware presents itself to the user. Its not as if the image is being incorporated into a wikipedia malware package. John lilburne (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence is a non-free content rationale. Irrelevant to the question if there's copyright or not on this image. No, copyright on album covers is not second quessing. Basically everything is copyrighted, it needs to be proven that this image is not copyrighted. Garion96 (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put it another way: is copying an image of the text used to alarm someone into purchasing something they don't need, so as to inform the public of the scam sanctioned by law? If the answer to that question is YES then copyright does not apply. Is there a permissions market where one can license images of scamware so as to inform the public of the scam. If the answer to that is NO then copyright does not apply. One cannot use copyright to prevent the disclosure of fraud. John lilburne (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that such a usage might be fair use. However, (absent a court order), fraud does not place text associated with that fraud in the public domain. One problem with using images where copyright enforcement is likely barred by unclean hands is that if the copyright holder does purge themselves of wrongdoing, then they can enforce the copyright again, which means that we would have to remove all images and derivative works based on that image, plus other users of our content that relied on the image's public domain status could be in jeopardy. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is still second guessing how a court would respond and indeed how a court would respond in any of the many countries/jurisdiction we want the content to be freely available in. As I already said we can look at this and say it's obviously a scam and so obviously wouldn't be enforced if it ever came to it - that is however completely different to tagging it as PD - it's not and we don't have a tag for "We believe the copyright is unenforceable" which is what we would require. It also doesn't help us in billions of other cases where the underlying legality we disagree on. We aren't employed to make legal rulings and we shouldn't be doing so. Once again however we shouldn't really be getting into the situation where we are trying to make such judgements on the behalf of wikimedia or anyone else - there is a valid fair use claim, the same valid fair use claim we use for album covers and the like. Your noting it's a transformative use is of course one of the reasons we can make a fair use claim etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no need for this deletion review to continue if someone would just write a precautionary fair use rationale and slap it up on the description page. — C M B J 01:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request closure of DRV. I've added a fair use rationale to spare us any additional dispute over this matter. — C M B J 22:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of deaths related to Scientology – Deletion endorsed as most people seem satisfied with the new rationale for deletion. Troutslap the closer for not providing it at the time of close. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Faulty close. Clearly no consensus. Add to this closing admin's lack of rationale for the decision. meco (talk) 08:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (for a more articulate close). Unacceptable explanation that insults the participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Neither consensus nor no consensus can overrule Wikipedia policy, and the existing article was an unacceptable coatrack. This close was completely correct. The numbers added up to no consensus, but the arguments added up to delete. We don't make these decisions on numbers. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A general comment on the idea that "consensus cannot overrule policy": this makes no sense, because what we do is determining how policies apply to a case. And that determination is made by consensus, as assessed by the closer. Consensus can be wrong: a later consensus may determine that policy directed another outcome, but it doesn't mean that the consensus overruled policy, it means that the consensus missapplied policy. A closer may also have missassessed consensus. AFD determines the applicability of deletion policies to articles. DRV is generally construed to determine if the consensus was correctly assessed, not if the consensus was correct in the first place (ie, it's not AFD bis), although it remains a grey area. (I'm not taking any position in the present debate.) Cenarium (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the arguments did add up to delete, then the closer should have explained why. And so should you, Heimstern, if you're endorsing, because "the arguments added up to delete" is, by itself, just a statement of opinion.—S Marshall T/C 10:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, mm goi. NPOV is the reason. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is a reason to rewrite, or to rename. What's missing is the reason to delete.—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had already made this abundantly clear, but I guess not, so I'll say it here now: This article, as titled: cannot be be written in compliance with policy. As long as the words "related to" appear in the title, the article's very premise is that we will cobble together an article about deaths that have something to do with Scientology, even those that are about former members who happened to choose the L. Ron Hubbard's birthday for their suicide. This is a coatrack. Some people have pointed out that COATRACK is not a policy, and indeed it is not: rather, it is an exposition of a situation that violates a content policy, namely NPOV. (Frankly, too much in deletion arguments is made based on whether someone linked to policy in their post. Arguments with no links to policy pages can be every bit as policy-grounded as those full of links.) Neither editing or renaming this article is appropriate; the possibility might exist of starting a new one from scratch (as mentioned in the AFD) that actually has a causative link between Scientology and deaths might be considered (though I question the ability to source such a thing). NPOV is indeed a reason to delete in cases where the topic itself cannot be neutral. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, to "cobble together an article about deaths that have something to do with Scientology, even those that are about former members who happened to choose the L. Ron Hubbard's birthday for their suicide." is not a coatrack. It is simply condensing related events together under their common denominator. This is what we do everytime we write a list or even an article. Nobody here explained why such an article should obligatorily violate NPOV. The point is simple: if reliable sources are consensual on relating deaths to Scientology, then the NPOV thing is to have the article, and the POV thing is to delete it (because we hide NPOV information and we contribute to systemic bias). We must follow sources, no more, but also no less. The same is valid for every "list of deaths related to X", which I see some editors think are anathema, but give zero explanation of why. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Associating every ex-Christian that kills themselves on Dec 25 as a Deaths related to Jesus, or a Muslim that kills them self on the first day of Eid ul-Fitr as Deaths related to Islam, or on the third Monday of January as a Death related to Martin Luther is a NPOV? John lilburne (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends: what do sources say? If they agree that it's a Christianity-related or an Islam-related death, then it fits in. Otherwise it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and it stays out. Again, all issues that you can solve simply by reading the sources and editing. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specious argument - known as WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST. Shades of "foo - apartheid parallels". Rich Farmbrough, 11:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Overturn No solid consensus appears in the AfD discussion, and no reason was given for interpreting the narrow consensus for "keep" as "delete" instead. This is not the place, moreover, to now assert a policy-based reason for a closure which did not invoke the policy at all. We can not here use ESP to state that a reason was used which was not stated. Nor do I find WP:COATRACK to be labeled as "policy" - last I checked it was still an "essay." Has it been promoted? This is an "essay-based" deletion argument? And concerns raised by some are matters for discussion at the article talk page, not here. Collect (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - There is not even one policy- or guideline-based delete argument in the whole discussion, except for NPOV concerns. However NPOV is an issue of content and it is dealt within editorial consensus while editing the article: we don't delete articles because they're NPOV, we fix them. So this is not an AfD concern. That deaths related to Scientology exist is not a POV, is what sources present in the article said. Apart from that, the most cogent arguments brought called WP:COATRACK (an essay, even if a widely quoted one, which is highly debatable and prone to misuse, e.g. see here, where it basically reduces any criticism section to coat-racking) and then WP:WEASEL (a concern which I agree with, but that is a style issue that is entirely unrelated to deletion, per deletion policy). --Cyclopia ^talk 12:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC) - clarified --Cyclopia ^talk 14:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~This is the most baldly untrue thing I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I've no idea whether to charge ignorance or dishonesty.~~ There are many delete args with policy. Since when is NPOV not policy? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You are right: NPOV has also been called into question. But this doesn't change the point: NPOV is a content/editorial issue, not a deletion issue, so it's again a moot argument in a deletion discussion. If an article about Barack Obama is biased, we intervene to make it neutral, we don't simply erase it. Read WP:ATD. So, thank you for your personal attacks and merry holidays. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, funny comment style from someone who wrote editors often fail to deliver so much as a modicum of respect for the opinions of others concerning how issues should be resolved. Disagreement is fine, but the rude dismissals we see so often are contrary to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia.. Cheers. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I believe you are the one who broadly dismissed every single supporter of deletion as not based in policy, Cyclopia, so I'm afraid I think those words of mine apply to you at least as much if not more than to me. (Mind you, that essay of mine's ancient now.) The problem with your argument about deletion and NPOV is that the very nature of the article is POV, at least in the opinion of those supporting deletion. Under those circumstances, fixing is not an option and NPOV is not at all a moot argument. There you go. I do regret my initial reaction to this argument, though. Got angry that I was being accused of non-policy compliant arguments and got in a bit of a huff. Should have stayed away from that, that much is clear. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry and thanks for clarifying. I will clarify my comment above to reflect your observations. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The analogous case would be an article called List of deaths related to Barack Obama (or even better given the Vince Foster mess, List of deaths related to Bill Clinton. How would you "fix" the NPOV problems with these hypothetical lists "through editing" (aside from the obvious editing decision to delete the attack pieces?)Bali ultimate (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If sources agree nearly unanimously that a death is related to X, where X=Obama, Clinton or (for the sake of argument) the Cyclopia editor of Wikipedia, then we ought to have all these articles. It's simply putting things under a common denominator. I see no POV problem that can't be solved with editing. Deletion would make sense only if no consensus of sources relates a death to X. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list would still need to be notable and manageable. So Cyclopia realted deaths woudl be non-notable (I hope) and List of World War II related deaths would be to long. Rich Farmbrough, 11:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Incidentally we do have List of Christian martyrs. Rich Farmbrough, 20:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Endorse per Heimstern. --JN 466 13:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closed as "result is delete" when there is no clear consensus. As Par Cyclopia there were many different arguments and neither side had a clear policy on there side within a deletion discussion. More explanation was necessary and not given.Coffeepusher (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse was a clear attack piece with BLP implications. "Related to" was a weasel way around "caused by" -- since deleted redirects to this page like Scientology kills made the reason for the list's existence clearer still. Inclusion was purely arbitrary, and there are BLP issues at play.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, there are fundamental WP:NPOV problems with the article, not merely the kind that can be fixed by editing, correct? Cyclopia makes a comparison to Barack Obama above. The difference is that it is possible to write a neutral article on Barack Obama, whereas the delete votes made a compelling argument that it was impossible to do so with this article, something that the keep voters could not refute (note that even after John lilburne made his comment, no one increased the number of entries on the list; in fact, the list shrunk). So Endorse.
  In addition, a troutslap to meco for not discussing the closure at all with LFaraone first, and a troutslap to the rest of us for discussing the closure anyway. NW (Talk) 16:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - @NW Yes I believe the NPOV problems are fundamental and inherent to this list. The use of "related to" is meant to imply "caused by." We couldn't have a list that says "caused by" because that's obviously pejorative and judgemental (even in the case of McPherson reasonable people could object. i.e. was her death caused by scientology or caused by the various people involved with her treatment? Think of a nurse and doctor killing a patient through negligence or malfeasance in a catholic hospital. Would that death have been caused by Catholocism?) The list exists only to attack and disparage.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nonsense. To say that "related to" means "caused by" is a bad faith interpretation unsupported by any decent knowledge of English lexicon. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

related-to implies a logical connection or causal link. There is no bad faith interpretation, the words mean that, the death described, is either logically connected to, or caused by Scientology. There is as much room for a NPOV as there is for the assertion that George W Bush was president of the United States. Create a list entitled Dead people that once knew a Scientologist. John lilburne (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said it right: logical connection OR causal link. To say that "related to" means only "caused by" is bad faith or ignorance of language; there's no other way around that. "Related to" means that the list includes stuff logically connected (in our case, by sources doing the connection), of which causal connection is only a connection a specific type. A list of "Deaths related to Scientology" in theory could perfectly contain only Scientology martyrs killed by anti-Scientologists, for example. They would be related to Scientology, and strongly so. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some difficulty parsing that, but yes if a list can be constructed of Scientology martyrs, or of those whose death is similar to those the cults, that would rather pray for their kids to be cured of cancer, than go to the hospital for treatment. If you can build that list go for it as it will based in solid facts. Unfortunately the deleted list only had sources for casual links and showed no causal links between Scientology and the death. John lilburne (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were neither casual nor causal links: they were more like involvement of CoS in the death and most importantly the media coverage. Luckly the cached article is still available on Google, so:

Nobody denies the Lisa McPherson case as being a death related to CoS, I guess.
Noah Lottick: Lots of CoS-related controversies around the death, including coverage in "The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power so related to is germane.
Kaja Bordevich Ballo: Prosecutors stated in December 2008 that they were unable to establish a causative link between the Scientology test and Ballo's death., true, but we have anyway a lot of notable CoS-related controversy (e.g. Norway parliament member Inga Marte Thorkildsen commented that she thought indications were that Scientology had a role in Ballo's suicide). So, again, "related to" is germane.

It's just three cases, but they're enough for a list. No NPOV issues. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I reject your troutslap, because the closure wasn't done because of a superior argument regarding WP:NPOV, it was done because "result was delete". that is what we are discussing and it is a serious problem with the closure because of reasons that are already apparent. Everyone is speculating on the reasons why, and no actual closure is available regarding this issue. Until we hear from the closing admin a more detailed reason on why they closed it, we are just going to rehash every argument that has already been discussed. THIS is why it is imperative, especially on AFD's that generate such a diverse range of policy arguments, that the closing admin MAKES IT PERFECTLY CLEAR why the AFD was closed in such and such a way. If anything, the diversity of opinions in both the AFD and this discussion makes it really REALLY apparent that there is no consensus regarding this issue.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And perhaps the closer would have been able to come up a rationale if you gave them time to do so. That is the entire reason why the policy on notification exists. NW (Talk) 18:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to address the procedural circumstances which should always be front and center at a deletion review. You are making arguments that belong at the AfD discussion. As such, your vote should be summarily disregarded. __meco (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy is there for a reason, and you clearly failed to follow it. Do so next time please. And I am not making arguments that belong at AFD. I am saying that the closer appropriately weighted those comments above other ones. There is a difference. Would you like me to clarify further? NW (Talk) 18:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - When a discussion is not lopsided heavily towards the keep or delete side, closing the discussion with no explanation is usually unhelpful. If there was some particular reason why the closer thought that the reasoning to delete was more sound than the reasoning to keep, then he/she should have let us know what that reason was. Reading through the discussion, I see equally valid arguments for deleting and keeping, although many of the delete arguments do focus on issues which can be solved with editing. I would have closed this as no consensus or keep. SnottyWong ^yak 18:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn When there's no clear consensus and there's no overrding policy issue we close as no consensus. Closing no-consensus as keep or delete should only occur if there are strong policy reasons to do so. They don't exist here so result should be no consensus, defaults to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn This a classic "no consensus", with both arguments and numbers pretty evenly distributed on both sides. There was no consensus for deletion and the absence of an explanation from the closing administrator as to why the article should be deleted where reasonable policy-based arguments were made for retention only complicates the issue further. Alansohn (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There were legitimate arguments on both sides, and the closing statement inadequately explained the admin's decision. Edge3 (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There simple was no viable list there to preserve. It started out as a COATRACK and as the days went by the list withered away until there were just 4 items left. In two of the remaining items the cause was that someone who ought to have been in a psychiatric hospital killing someone. Those sort of cases happen every year or so in the UK due to Social Services not acting fast enough, or mental health patients being released back into the community to early, but we don't make a list of List of People killed by Social workers as a result. John lilburne (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As several before you in this discussion you too seem to believe that a DRV is an extension of the AfD. It isn't. Your arguments belong in an AfD. We're here now to discuss whether the closing admin made a correct call based on the AfD discussion, not to bring up arguments for keeping or deleting the page. __meco (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the closing administrator, I'm rather surprised that this was taken to DRV, as the guidelines indicate it's preferable to resolve the issue through a discussion with the administrator beforehand. Anyway, specific to this article, based on a reading of the arguments and references to policy presented, it was clear that there was a rough consensus for deleting the article. I should have explained more; I'm not opposed to having the article recreated, but in its current form all the examples provided had tenuous connections to Scientology. We might as well have a List of deaths related to Catholicism of all people who were related to / were themselves members of the Catholic Church. I apologize for not elaborating more in the closing, I just would have appreciated it if those nominating this to DRV had thought to engage in a discussion first. L Faraone 01:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please append to the initial close your full rationale, for the benefit of future readers of the XfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Its not the best explanation, probably, and might benefit from some expansion, but is a brief summary of the closing rationale. L Faraone 15:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as per Heimstern. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion discussions are not a vote. While there wasn't consensus to delete, there was certainly policy in place regarding its deletion. I endorse the decision to delete, although the interpretation of consensus is sketchy. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 01:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, the policy you refer to is NPOV? In other words, it wouldn't be possible to have a neutral version of this list?—S Marshall T/C 02:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my statement below The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. When I read your statement I see plenty of emphatic declarative and little recognition that there are complexities. Look, even the closer recognises that an article can exist with this title. (diff) And that's supported by a rough consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 9#Category:Deaths connected to Scientology. Arguments that this is a slippery slope towards List of deaths related to Catholicism don't cut much ice with me; the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy (specifically an informal fallacy) and besides, precedent doesn't count for much on Wikipedia. Coffeepusher made this point strongly during the discussion.
"NPOV" means "neutral POV". It doesn't mean "No POV at all". To the extent that there are reliable sources attributing the deaths to Scientology, it's reasonable to say it. But all the analysis of the sources that took place in the AfD was from the "keep" camp. Nobody who said "delete" showed much evidence of having examined the sources or dismissing them as unreliable—with the honourable exception of Scott Mac, whose arguments to delete based on WP:SYN strike me as far stronger than his NPOV ones.—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse a lengthy explanation by User:LFaraone would have been preferred but I think when you look at the arguments its pretty clear case. If you look as a Votes then "no consensus" is apparent result. here are the apparent policies that seem to be used: The tittle of the article itself violate WP:NPOV with WP:WEASEL word in the title no Neutral Alternate tittle can be used. Thus Fails the most basic application of the policy of WP:NPOV. Additionally The entire things implies guilt by associating ‘’’ these Death with ‘‘Church of Scientology’’ thus again violating NPOV when really the CoS has nothing to do with the murders or suicides. Lisa Mcpherson is was the only person on the list where CoS had any involvement thus a neutral version of the article’s list would only contain her and that is covered at Her article The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - No wrongdoing or missteps by closing admin, though a detailed rationale would've been nice. DRVs should not be filed because we didn't get our way at the AfD. Given the predictable "keep its notable!" calls plus the inherent NPOV concerns of such an article premise...a premise which it is impossible to ever write about in a POV manner, in my opinion...tilting towards the stronger delete arguments was within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Bad close, right outcome. The closing administrator came to the right conclusion in my opinion, however they should have left a closing note. Unfortunately, this article cannot ever be neutral. Resident Anthropologist and Bastique lay out the same arguments I would use quite well. AniMate 13:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as I cannot say that the closer was clearly in error. T. Canens (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - as noted above, it's pretty well impossible for this to be a neutral article, no matter how it's rewritten. Therefore, the closing admin acted correctly by not doing a straight count.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn procedurally horrible close. If you can't explain the close, don't close it when there are legit disagreements on both sides. I agree that the WP:SYN arguments might be enough to carry the day. I don't think WP:NPOV does. If the sources get us there, we shouldn't shy away from a topic. We just need to be sure we cover it well. But the fact is I can't tell why this was deleted and I think deletion is a huge stretch from the discussion so there is no way to endorse this decision. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hobit, that's not a valid reason to overturn an AfD, but rather a quite good reason why it is suggested that one contacts the closing admin first before scurrying off to DRV. DRV is becoming the classic 2nd parent in the "parent #1 said no, so..." model. Tarc (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Moved comment to where I think it was meant to be--hobit[reply]
  - A) I entirely agree the nom here should have waited for a response. At the same time the closer really should know better than to close a discussion like that without any explanation. Ignoring both of those for a second, I think we have to assume the closer felt the discussion had an obvious result and that the main argument, NPOV, was the reason for deletion. Certainly many endorsing here seem to think so. Since I disagree with that and think the synth argument is likely fixable I don't see a valid reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now that a more detailed rationale has been provided, does your position change? Tarc (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I find this close as problematic than the last. There is nothing other assertions that this is a coatrack, so to complain that the keep side only asserted it wasn't is fairly bogus. If something is a coatrack or not isn't an objective issue (where as WP:N, or WP:RS often can be). In this case there was no consensus that it was, and the closer doesn't get to pick which side he agrees with in a war of raw assertions. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion-related disagreements can often be resolved by waiting for the closer to respond to your request to clarification before listing a DRV. Was there any particular reason you didn't give him/her a chance to respond? Stifle (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, I concur with the conclusion in the closer's (recently posted) rationale, although I disagree that the title is a weaselly showstopper. The article was indeed a very poor collection of deaths only tangentially related to Scientology, and considerations of the article's merits were not addressed by the keep vote. Allow recreation as there was no consensus on the notability and validity of the subject. Indeed I believe that an article could be written here, for example the death of Kaja Ballo is one case which sparked a lot of controversy around CoS. (I know that problems which can be fixed by normal editing often are insufficient to justify deletion, but in this case, the content was of such a quality that it is better to delete it and start over again.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse article violated neutrality, afd can't override policy, and the close was fair and well-reasoned.--Scott Mac 22:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article as written, or the topic itself? Hobit (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I examined the article prior to my initial nomination, as Written its was not neutral. The Topic of Related to Scientology is not viable as it weaselly way of attributing blame on CoS. Caused by Scientology is not viable as it would not cover any one beyond Lisa Mcpherson and that is covered by her article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, article is not neutral. As this is not AFD2, this article was validly deleted by the closing administrator. Nakon 07:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Scott MacDonald. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there are more comments that are attempts to rehash the AFD than there are that are discussing the deletion policy itself. We already know who believes it was not neutral, who believes it was a coatrack, and who believes it should stand as it and read those arguments ad infinitum on the original AFD. This is not a rehash of that process but a examination of if the Admin closed the AFD properly. I know this is a fine line, but several people are wwwwaaaaaayyyyy over that line.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Such things typically occur not point in worrying when it gets off track, Any Admin can refractor if its too far off base The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's custom and practice that users at DRV have very wide latitude to engage in good faith discussion about these things. DRV's role is not just to supervise and control the closing admin. DRV also examines cases where the closer might closed in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus itself was unsatisfactory. We might well overturn a consensus that is not in accordance with policy, or that failed to consider an important source, or that was simply wrong on some point of fact; and any discussion along those lines inevitably tends to end up re-fighting the XfD. We tend to leave it for the DRV closer to disregard any unnecessary arguments.
      In short, I think it would be a very courageous, not to say reckless, admin who refactored any good faith user's comments at DRV.—S Marshall T/C 01:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per Scott Mac and others who have pointed out that the entry violated NPOV. There was nothing improper about the close either as it weighed arguments over votes.Griswaldo (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Article originally had serious neutrality and coatrack issues, could have been a more detailed closure comment but it was a correct result all the same. Good to see recently Administrators closing more in line with policy than with numbers. Off2riorob (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Heimstern, Scott Mac and John Lilburne. JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Closing admin added further details to the close when it became apparent more details were needed. So it was a poor close - however those details adequately explain the delete, so I'm endorsing anyway. Szzuk (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of African supercentenarians and List of South American supercentenarians – Relist on AfD. The scope of ArbCom is mostly user-centric (as opposed to page-centric), so that will not concern us here. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

note: I'm not that good with Wiki-formatting; someone who is good at it, please fix. Thanks.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African supercentenarians

The above AFD was closed with an incorrect assumption:

The result was delete. At "vote count" we have 5 delete vs. 3 keep (in a "normal" case with reasonable arguments on both sides this is borderlining on rough consensus), but what is compelling in this particular case is a lack of reliable sourcing for the list. It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable. The only keep voter who, to his credit, mentioned sources at all was Thecheesykid, but even he did not consider the reliability of the source. The arguments that this seems to be a regular almanac entry, and that the material is better in list form than individual articles seem rather irrelevant unless the sourcing issue is addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There are several problems with this AFD. I will start with the most-obvious:

1. "It was well argued that the main source for the list, GRG, was not a reliable."

This is FICTION! The GRG has been recognized by major sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Tokyo Times, USA Today, etc.

For example, check out this article here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-26-oldest-man-christmas_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Note the listing of the Gerontology Research Group, along with Guinness World Records.

Thus, the above conclusion is wrong on two counts:

A. It fails to consider the availability of reliable sources B. It passes judgment on the reliability of outside sources, even though reliability of the GRG is also established by other notable outside sources. I doubt any of you would argue against USA Today or the Wall Street Journal being non-notable.

2. If this were the only issue. Sadly, it is not. JJBulten has indicated a plot to delete all articles on supercentenarians sourced to "scientific" sources, because he believes they conflict with his belief that humans can live to 969 because the Bible says that Methuselah lived to 969. Aside from the fact that many Christians argue that Biblical longevity is not comparable to longevity today, what is at issue here is not JJ's belief but whether Wikipedia follows correct Wikipedia policies, such as WP:V and WP:NOR, which mean that mainstream, reliable outside sources should establish or disestablish notability, not one's personal agenda.

3. JJBulten has argued, online, even on Wikipedia!, that he plans to delete articles such as this first, and then argue that the List of European supercentenarians is biased because there are no articles on "minorities." Talk about incredulity! So JJ targeted minority articles first, because they were easier to delete, then he plans to hypocritically argue that the European articles are biased?

4. Can anyone seriously argue that geographic organization by continent is a bad idea?Ryoung122 03:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need a better way of organising our material about centenarians and supercentenarians. This AfD, which is still in progress, is highly relevant. I think we need lists of centenarians and supercentenarians, but lists of what kind? Alphabetical seems better than by continent.—S Marshall T/C 03:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall, you raise an interesting issue. I think, however, that a distinction must be made between "centenarians" and "supercentenarians," in particular, for a few reasons I state below:

A. Most centenarian articles are on persons who were already notable, but for whom great age conferred additional notability (such as Sir Moses Montefiore, 1784-1885). Most supercentenarian articles are on persons who are notable for great age only.

B. The USA, for example, has about 96,000 centenarians but only about 50-70 supercentenarians. Only about 1 in 1000 (if that) centenarians are 110+ at any one time. Thus, supercentenarians are several orders of magnitude rarer, and their age verification becomes paramount to both scientific and general public (Guinness Book) acceptance as "recordholders". Since age verification is tied to the system of recordkeeping in a given nation, it makes sense to organize cases by nation (much like a football team article will have a list of all the players on the team, by team). In this case, the "team" is the "national" team. As for continent-wide inquiry, it must be admitted that most of the cases come from Europe and North America, Japan and Australia. That said, it is incorrect to assume that validated cases cannot come from Africa or South America. Examples of verified cases from Colombia, Ecuador, or Cape Verde can help encourage a wider appreciation that, where-ever systems of recordkeeping are in good order, all humans live to the same ages (about 110-115, maximum, very rarely above that). A lot of this should be thought of as less of Wiki policy and more of reflecting outside sources. Consider, for example, that the field of longevity research into supercentenarians has had to battle myths of localized longevity, or the idea that certain groups of people live longer in certain areas. Thus, there is a stated need to show that, in fact, geography has relatively little bearing on maximum life span. Some have claimed that "mountain air" and "clean water" are responsible for people living to 140+ in places like Vilcabamba...ideas like that have been debunked. Instead, we find that genetics, not region, is paramount. Mitoyo Kawate survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima to live to 114. Tase Matsunaga lived to 114 in the biggest metro area in the world, Tokyo.

If we take a look at the continent-wide records:

Europe: 122 (Jeanne Calment, 1997) North America: 119 (Sarah Knauss, 1999) South America: 116 (Maria Capovilla, 2006) Asia: 116 (Tane Ikai, 2005) Africa: 114 (Anne Primout, 2005) Australia: 114 (Christina Cock, 2002)

We find that there is a base minimum (114). Without Jeanne Calment, the outlier, Europe's record would be 115. Without Sarah Knauss, North America's record would be 117

I think Wikipedia needs to do a little more qualitative assessment here.Ryoung122 22:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who closed the AFD as a "delete" based on the source reliability, and having done a bit more research into what the GRG is, I now vote to undelete and relist and if this happens, I ask that Ryoung122 put forward, in a much more restrained fashion, the evidence that shows why the GRG is an authoritative and reliable source. I must say however, that you are doing no favors at all to yourself by attacking JJB's motivations here, statements like "JJBulten has indicated a plot to delete all articles on supercentenarians sourced to "scientific" sources" seem to breach the WP:NPA policy in that they are attacking an editor instead of addressing the arguments he is making. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defer any action until the closure of the related arbcom case. I think that is the most prudent course here. T. Canens (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to either relist, or non-consensus. Actually Sjakkallei could simply revert his own close--I think that is always permissible. The arb com has no authority about the reliability of sources or the acceptability of articles, so its conclusions do not seem relevant here. . DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it would hopefully filter out a good bit of background noise and make consensus somewhat easier to judge. T. Canens (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to DGG:) I agree that undoing the closure myself is permissible, but I have chosen not to do that right away since I still feel that "delete" was the correct outcome based on the debate, where nobody there stepped up to defend GRG as a reliable source. The reason I voted to undelete regardless of that are new arguments which were not in the original AFD, but which merit attention. For a situation like that I prefer to have a bit more community backing before reversing the outcome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to the ArbCom case outcome. I'm smelling original research here and the closure was not one at which no reasonable administrator could have arrived. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The GRG is not a reliable source unless its members are published elsewhere. No one addressed that issue. Proper close.Griswaldo (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tase Matsunaga – Relist on AfD. It appears that both sides of the AfD had poor arguments. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The administrator who closed this (and similar) AFD's on supercentenarian articles (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asa Takii) Sandstein, listed a rationale for deletion that is contrary to the evidence presented in the AFD discussion. 1. Self-published sources: did Tase Matsunaga publish her own sources? Certainly not. She was covered in reliable, cited, outside sources. Therefore, the rationale for the AFD decision was incorrect. It should also be noted that this article was part of a massive 9-article "deletion" attack by JJBulten, who has confessed online to targeting supercentenarian articles for deletion, with an agenda. To call someone out for lying and cabalism, when those accusations are proven and sourced to online sources, is not "inappropriate conduct." A referee throwing a flag for a foul being committed is not the committer of the foul. Thus, this and similar articles need a second go-through. 2. Tase Matsunaga was Japan's oldest person and her final age (114 years 191 days) is higher than any verified supercentenarian currently living. Notability is not temporary; this is not a "one event." There were reports, for example, of her gaining the title, then reports of dying. That's two events, at a minimum. Thus, the second rationale for deletion is also incorrect. A third reason: JJBulten violated Wiki policies and decorum on AFD, including mass-spamming, mass-nomination of articles, voting for his own self, and recruiting/canvassing to get "votes." The article itself lasted for years and years. Does notability suddenly evaporate, like current events passing? I think not. A fourth reason: JJBulten has accused articles on supercentenarians of being biased in favor of Europeans, but this is after he targeted for deletion articles such as List of African supercentenarians, List of South American supercentenarians, and then supercentenarians from Japan. Thus, this person had nominated this article in bad faith, and got this through the process as if it were a 'vote'. It is not. Thus, the process needs to be reviewed. -- Ryoung122 02:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Deletion Endorsed - as correctly pointed out, at any given time on Earth, there is an oldest living person. As soon as they're dead, there's another oldest living person. While the other points may be valid ones, the deletion on this, in my opinion, is correct. Barking Fish 02:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Struck, see below Barking Fish 04:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

1. Did you know that the average world's oldest person keeps the title for 1.12 years? That's a lot more rare than, for example, a baseball player.

2. Yet, we have articles on ball players who had only 1 major-league at-bat, ever, and by default they are "notable". 3. The rationale behind the deletion was incorrect.

4. Another option, to merge to List of Japanese supercentenarians, was not considered. '

5. Notability for extreme age alone can be established by outside sources, not one's personal opinion of whether persons are notable by age.

6. Japan, with 127+ million persons, tracks 100% of their citizens and "confers" the title of "Oldest Person in Japan", thus establishing outside-source notability.

Ryoung122 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think User:Ryoung122 must not have heard that dozens of elderly Japanese centenarians/supercentenarians have been discovered to be long dead, to be frauds perpetrated by their offspring to keep the pension checks coming. Abductive (reasoning) 15:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies: 1: Yes

2: Again, Yes. They may only have had one ML bat, but if they're covered in major sporting press, they're notable

3: I can't comment on that

4: Or that.

5: As I said, once they're dead, they're not the oldest person alive anymore.

6: See 5.

Barking Fish 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC) Struck, see below Barking Fish 04:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "notability" has nothing to do with "fame, importance, or popularity" - the very things you keep arguing. Read over WP:GNG. Notice how none of it focuses on "fame, importance, or popularity"? You need to be using WP:GNG to support your Wikipedia notability position, not your personal view of what non-Wikipedia notability might mean. Your significant interest in the topic, significant lack of ability to add content to Wikipedia based on Wikipedia guidelines and policy, and your inability to refrain from accusatorial tone posts may cause others to endorse the deletion of a problem article that otherwise would be kept as meeting WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus/weak keep - The nominator and delete position requiring sources in the article's text is not based in policy or even a guideline. WP:GNG welcomes "ton of sources are available, in that her death was widely and internationally reported" and the deletion position that relied on and then disparaged her "fame, importance, or popularity" as a basis of notability was not based in policy or even a guideline. As for the last deletion position, the nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or do not exist and the status of articles on other similar topics has no necessary bearing on a particular article. See generally Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Individual_merit. Admittedly, the keep positions were weak as they relied on her "fame, importance, or popularity" as a basis of notability, which is not based on policy or even a guideline. In the end, using AfD to prod improvement of a topic that meets policy is not the way to go and following through by deleting the article for failure of anyone to improve the article is punative, not administrative. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The closing administrator got it right. Nothing on the page established notability. In this whole bunch of AfD's (you can see a comprehensive table of noms and results on the WOP WikiProject talk page) I tried to source what I could (Theirs, Farris-Luse, Chuganji). But the opponents of deletion of Matsunaga made no effort to do so and I could not. It's not enough to insist there are sources. They must be provided (and preferably cited), so notability can be verified. Here, none were. David in DC (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defer any action until the relate arbcom case closes (or, close without prejudice to relisting at DRV after the arbcom case ends). IMO that's the best course of action here. T. Canens (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Defer from Endorse - per T. Canens - I was unaware that an arbitration case involving the nominator here was in progress, I agree entirely that this should be deferred until any action is decided upon by the Arbitration Committee. Barking Fish 04:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: When I made this deletion review request, it was about the substance of the article, it was about the unfair practices applied to delete it. DavidinDC has been JJBulten's #2 man and i-voted in a lot of the deletion requests. He should have recused himself as this was seeking THIRD-party input, not biased input.

Please note that JJBulten, AFTER agreeing to cooperate/attempt to find consensus, underhandedly opened the ArbCom discussion when I said that I would be AWAY from Wikipedia for a month in order to concentrate on finishing my Master's degree in history, which I did complete December 15, 2010.

I see no reason to wait for the ArbCom results. The ArbCom was a political-religious vendetta that seeks to block/reduce the scientific position on supercentenarians on Wikipedia, in favor of non-mainstream religious fanaticism. Nominating sourced and vetted articles such as Tase Matsunaga of Japan, then claiming the sources don't exist when they do, or then claiming the sources are not reliable when they are, is typical of the inappropriate behavior that, indeed, should be discussed at ArbCom. But what can be discussed here is that:

A. Sources exist B. Notability is established by outside sources C. A compromise, "merge" option seems to often be overlooked by those who try to make this a chess game

Was Tase Matsunaga reported to be Japan's oldest person by the government of Japan? Yes.

Was Tase Matsunaga featured in continuing, multiple media coverage that existed outside of the local area of interest? Yes.

Does Tase Matsunaga rank in the top 50 verified persons all-time, as established by outside sources? Yes.

Was proper consideration given to adequately notify the article creator of the need to "upgrade" the article? No.

Were attempts made to tag the article before it became an article on a "hit list" by JJBulten? No.

Is clear and convincing evidence that JJBulten nominated this article for deletion in bad faith, as part of his plan to delete all supercentenarian biographies? Yes.

Therefore, the only fair thing to do is to undo the AFD, restore the article, and go through the process fairly.Ryoung122 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- "DavidinDC has been JJBulten's #2 man..." is untrue. I am #2 to no one. Well, maybe to my wife, if I know what's good for me. But seriously, as I've said before, I've never interacted with JJB except in the open, on-wiki. I'm a part of no cabal or conspiracy. If our respective edits are reviewed, this will be obvious. I'm genuinely hurt and insulted with every re-iteration of this unfounded calumny.

"...and i-voted in a lot of the deletion requests." I try not to couch my comments at AfD's as !votes. While voting isn't evil, precisely, it is not usually a good method for determining informed consensus. Arguments and !votes rooted in ignorance of, or willful disregard for, en.wikipedia policy and guidelines ought to have less weight, if any at all, than reasoned, policy-based persuasion.

"He should have recused himself as this was seeking THIRD-party input, not biased input." There's nothing unusual about a participant in an AfD also particpating in a review of that deletion. I'm hard-pressed to think of a reason why one shouldn't. Poisoning the well by calling my input "biased" is uncalled for and incivil. David in DC (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist The original AfD was contaminated. Arb Com will decide what to do about the individuals involve3d. We can and shoulddetermine what to do about the article, and a proper AfD discussion is the place. DGG ( talk ) 15:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Expand – The result was deletion endorsed.

In explaining this close, I'll start with a few headcounts, with the caveats that (a) headcounts aren't conclusive in closing either an XfD or a DRV; and (b) my headcounts might be a little inaccurate. The headcount at this DRV is 42-23 to endorse. Those kinds of numbers would generally need to be associated with a significant imbalance in the quality of arguments to warrant anything other than an endorse close. Two other counts are worth considering. First, if we exclude all participants in the TfD who !voted in favour of their position at this DRV, the headcount is 29-13. Secondly, and quite tellingly, six editors "crossed the floor" at this DRV to endorse the close that went against their keep !votes. Only one editor crossed the floor in the other direction. The above three counts together point to a consensus to endorse, subject to there being a significant imbalance in the quality of arguments that would warrant a different close.

The "overturn" side put forward the following general arguments at this DRV. This summary is necessarily brief and cannot be comprehensive:

Re-agitation of TfD arguments: obviously these are given less weight. It is well accepted that DRV is more concerned with the correctness or reasonableness of the deletion action than with the desirability of the deletion itself. Note that a few endorse arguments also fall into this category.
Assertions that there was "no consensus". Many of the overturn !votes make assertions of there being no consensus in the TfD. Without any support or reasoning, these !votes aren't particularly strong. It is not clear whether these !votes are appeals to headcounts or considered analyses of the arguments in the TfD.
The TfD, and the closing admin, did not properly consider alternatives to deletion. There were "alternative solutions" raised. But the overturn !voters here haven't given any convincing reasons why these alternatives are inconsistent with deleting the specific template at issue (see in particular Joy's answer to SoWhy). The closing admin maintains that the alternative solutions were considered when he/she closed the TfD. This argument only has the support of a very small number of overturn !voters: nothing approaching a consensus. Note that quite a few endorse !votes suffer from bald assertions that haven't carried much weight.
The closing admin imposed his/her own opinion. These arguments do not appear to have attempted to make a distinction between imposing one's own subjective opinion of the arguments (improper) and objectively assessing the quality of the arguments to help determine where the consensus lies (not improper). There is no convincing evidence presented that the closure was affected by the admin's own views of the template as opposed to an objective analysis of the arguments.
The closing admin misintepreted the debate. This is a potentially fatal argument when supported by reasoning (eg SoWhy). But in this case these arguments were adequately responded to by the endorse side, perhaps not conclusively, but to a sufficient extent to suggest the arguments weren't overwhelming strong or fatal to the close. See in particular the response of Sjakkalle to SoWhy.

There were good arguments raised to overturn. But they didn't influence the discussion in such a way as to affect the consensus. Notably, even after the few overturn !votes were made that attempted to engage with the reasons for the close, the endorse !votes kept coming, and if anything at an increasing rate (including those from non-participants in the TfD and those who "crossed the floor"). Accordingly, those arguments can't be said to have anything like consensus support. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The administrator who closed this TFD has obviously put a lot of thought into their close, but the simple fact is that the !votes on it are pretty much a dead heat, I don't see how this can be a delete close when it is clearly a No Consensus. They've already stated that the deletes are between 65 and 68, keeps at 67 - that is not a delete close. No way. I ask for this Deletion to be overturned forthwith, it is not valid to close in this manner when votes are this tight. Barking Fish 00:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close The template is still in the process of being deleted. Too soon. (Also, I thought we went with consensus, not vote counting?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin went with a head count and counting votes, so I go by what the admin did when they shut it. Barking Fish 00:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should now go with the headcount of this DRV. A few hours before close it is 40:23 for the Endorse. Szzuk (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved admin who couldn't care less about the template, I'd have closed it no consensus, especially given its TFD history of non-consensus and overturned deletions. --slakr^\ talk / 00:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and the fact that it's being deleted en masse is not a valid rationale for quashing a drv, in my opinion. --slakr^\ talk / 00:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that going by the reasoning behind each vote instead of vote-count — which is what we should be doing, and what BarkingFish clearly forgot — there's a consensus to delete. As the closing admin pointed out, the "delete" arguments were getting challenged less than the "keep" ones. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that for a while you've wanted this thing gone, but the last DRV, which covered the exact same situation, was only half a year ago. --slakr^\ talk / 01:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note [6] ongoing in bulk by User:TenPoundHammer after "speedy" comment above. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure - Well thought out closure. Garion96 (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close (having not participated in original discussion) – XFD closes, like AFD, are not mere vote counts. Weight of arguments matters and the closer is correct to try and assess those as well however difficult it may be.
(Every article can be expanded and improved. Requesting more or better information gets added is the expected condition of all articles, so noting this is true of a given article is a bit pointless unless it's made very clear why. Most of the important cases already have specific templates (limited geographic coverage, omitted significant POV's, etc)). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No word in bold from me yet because I need time to consider this, but I wanted to give pointers to where we've seen this at DRV twice before, here (delete closure overturned) and here (no consensus closure endorsed).—S Marshall T/C 02:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close - I'm also uninvolved with the original discussion. I read through the all the comments and made a rough tally of the !votes. Although there may have been 65-68 keeps and 67 deletes, when I counted !votes based on the merit of the argument presented, the outcome was different. I threw out any !votes that had no rationale behind them, I threw out !votes that were basically arguing that {{expand section}} is useful, and I threw out any other votes that had other faulty reasoning (i.e. "delete because it's overused"). I recognize that this probably opened the whole thing up to a lot of bias from me, but I also considered !votes saying that it encouraged new users to edit or let users know that Wikipedia is not complete. I feel like a) the majority of readers are aware of the fact that they can edit and that it is not complete, and b) if users do need to be encouraged and/or notified of this, the expand template is not the way to go. Anyway, after going through, I've come to believe that there is a very rough consensus for delete. It is still divided, but it seems to me that, more or less, the consensus is either for deletion or for a major overhaul of the expand tag. I wonder if this overhaul wouldn't be facilitated by deletion and then starting anew anyway. Anyway, we need to go with Wikipedia:Deletion process#Consensus's rule of carefully considering, dissecting, and eventually synthesizing each side's argument, and not simply counting heads. I think if this is done, a more clear consensus to delete can be found. Addendum: Also, per S Marshall's reasoning below. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this straight, GorillaWarfare. You think it would be easier to delete the template, creating an 18000 job queue, then making a new one and creating a new queue to replace it where it was taken from, than simply leaving it where it is and working on it live? That seems like an awful lot of hassle for a small template. Fix it, don't fry it. Barking Fish 02:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With so many of the articles tagged with this template, it's nearly impossible to understand what the original tagger intended to have expanded. I feel like removing it completely and starting anew would be easier, yes. But I also think this point is not pivotal to my argument. If it's completely overhauled without an actual deletion, to me that's more or less accomplishing the same goal through different methods. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well I've had that one explained to me, via IRC. Apparently it was originally created for Wikipedia:Requests for Expansion which died a couple of years ago. It is still, however, used within resources such as Twinkle, as part of the combined {{articleissues}} template. It seems silly to waste time removing it, then rebuilding it. I would be happy if this could be overturned to at least halt deletion, so someone (even me) could fix it with an alternative. Barking Fish 02:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After scratching my head for a while, I'm going to endorse this. It was a bold close, and it would be easy to find for "overturn to no consensus", but with this I think we need to prioritise the needs of our readers and newer editors over the wishes of maintenance taggers. Taggers are just going to have to get used to using templates that identify exactly what they think needs expanding.—S Marshall T/C 02:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that some essential tools for the Maintenance Taggers, like myself, are going to have to undergo a major rewrite. Things like Twinkle simply don't carry the option to enter exact information on what you think needs doing to expand the article, simply that it needs expanding. What you're supposed to do is tag with {{expand}} and then post on the talk page of the article what you think is wrong with it. That is going to slow a hell of a lot of maintenance down and make our job harder, but yeah, forget about the people that make sure others understand what needs doing, do what the readers want. (Sarcasm) :) Barking Fish 02:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that makes things harder for you. Maybe some changes to Twinkle would help?—S Marshall T/C 02:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they would actually. But it's a case of getting Twinkle's creator to rewrite the scripts, and it would mean then we could use Expand, maybe with an extra section like other templates do, for example: {{expand|reason=Not enough info on blah, blah, etc, this section needs to be clarified}} and so on... It would mean there being an alternative to {{expand}} if this was to happen, or the template being left alone and requiring a reason for it to actually work. Barking Fish 02:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it's accepted that Sjakalle's close has created work for the people who maintain automated editing tools. We need solutions so that maintenance taggers can continue to contribute to the encyclopaedia as effectively as before.—S Marshall T/C 02:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting it doesn't really change anything. Even if a better template existed today, we'd still have to delete most current {{expand}}ed tags simply because there's usually no way to fill in a description of whatever the tagger felt was missing, or even to tell if it's been resolved since tagging. So best overall delete all, then if we get an {{expand|reason=...}} then start afresh with that. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the need to modify various tools to be an incredibly weak argument for keeping a template around. It seems to lose sight of which comes first - the encyclopedia or the tools. This argument seems to put the tools ahead of the encyclopedia, and that is backwards from where it should be. The tools exist to simplify certain tasks on the encyclopedia. And if the community determines that policies need to change or certain items need to be deleted, then the tools need to be modified to work under the new rules. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) The support for a reason was already there, but undocumented. Try {{Expand|article|Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet}}. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as No Consensus. On !votes, this was a clear No Consensus. Many of the Keep arguments (in an admittedly WP:TLDR discussion) were ignored in the closure, of which the role the template can play in inviting readers to become editors is just one example. On the arguments, this was a clear Keep, but make substantial efforts to address concerns over misuse (particularly over unnecessary application to stubs, and too little use of the reason parameter). See eg AN thoughts on what can be done. To the list of possibilities we could add changing Twinkle to require a reason be given (or at least, a very clear "are you sure?" warning if it's omitted). Rd232 ^talk 02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus. There really does appear to be no consensus about this template. My reading of the discussion would lead me to a different conclusion to the closer. People appear to be putting forward plausible reasons for keeping the template, and it is widely used. That there appears to be some division about this template suggests further discussion may be of some value. SilkTork *^YES! 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome further discussion, maybe including some of the people who would need to work with whatever came out from it, like the script writer of Twinkle, and page patrollers for example - yes, readers are affected, and I appreciate the issue it raises, so I would be happy if we could get the finer points ironed firmly out, then decide on how to fix it before we eventually dispose of this one - deleting it while having nothing to replace it serves precisely zero purpose. Barking Fish 03:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've discussed it at great length and in enormous depth, at a total of (I think) four TfDs, one of which was subject to an RFC, and including this one, three DRVs. At some point someone's got to make a decision.—S Marshall T/C 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus It was almost evenly split between keep/delete, and there was not significant discussion regarding alternatives to deletion (i.e. changing the template). There were valid arguments for using the template in different ways than currently just slapping it on random pages, but we have yet to examine these. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse judging by the weight of the opinions. Many keep !votes were with no explanation or invalid arguments. There was misunderstanding about the future of {{Expand section}} too which the closing admin made clear. Perfect close. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus as DRV is for consideration of whether or not the decision was a fair representation of the discussion, I don't think there was a consensus for deletion, and the default position is to keep. We're not here (DRV) to discuss whether it is right or wrong to delete the template, but only to judge whether the evaluation of consensus was correct; therefore - regardless of my opinion about the template itself - I have to recommend overturning the decision. I do appreciate the efforts of the closing admin to explain their rationale, but I feel that their opinions would have been better within the discussion, not as a closing reason, because it offered too much in the way of opinion instead of merely stating the facts and findings of the discussion itself. I fully accept that the template can be misused, and might be improved, but I simply do not see a consensus to delete it. I think that we're trying to discuss overall article tagging policy in the wrong place. Chzz ► 03:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll prepare a list of the keep arguments to prove that most of them were invalid. TfDs aren't a majority vote -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After preliminary cleanup, they are 16,125 transclusions of the template. I removed it from all stubs and I fixed many referring to sections. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: simple !vote counting on an XfD generating as many comments as this is clearly not conducive to good decision making. The closing Admin therefore summarised the arguments, and analysed their strength, in making the close. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give up -- this is another failed proposal...with no consensus, closed based on a head count. If you want to try changing the way {{expand}} is used or phase it out, go ahead, but TfD won't do much. Mono (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion close - I am uninvolved with the original discussion and close. Such a well thought out XfC close is rare, but befitting a 130+ iVote discussion that established a policy RFC on how we convey the message that an article needs expansion. That close met every requirement in Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Consensus - careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments. From the close: "[M]ost maintenance tags point to a specific policy or guideline concern" and "request that an article contain more information is not one founded in any policy." "The tag nominated on this TFD is general it asks for an expansion of the article but is vague on detail." Among other issues, this has lead to a "specific concern over the template is its misuse." "The stub-templates can fill the role of this template." Since these were points raised in the discussion and not adequately rebutted, the closer did not interpret the debate incorrectly. In addition, there was no showing in the TfD, either measured or otherwise, that this template in fact has resulted expansion sufficient enough to improve articles. The TfD closer was correct to find "the arguments against the template to be lopsidedly stronger." I endorse the deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I was in favor of keeping the template. But a final decision had to be made, and I will respect it, especially if the alternative is more repetative TfDs, RfCs and DelRevs. It took a gutsy, bold admin to interpret consensus in such a close race and come to a final conclusion based on the arguments. I trust the closing admin to judge the matter and I believe he did so fairly and adequately in this case. Even though I may not like it, I will accept it, as a display of faith in our system of decision-making. -- œ ^™ 09:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus and a {{trout}} for both User:Sjakkalle and User:Mono. There is no way to close such as disjointed discussion as anything other than no consensus. The last two TfDs [7] [8] and last two DRVs [9] [10] should have made it even more clear for Sjakkalle that it would not be possible to close this any other way.
In addition, the TfD discussion was unfortunately inappropriately influenced by the non-neutral language User:Mono used for an RFC tag on the TfD "The {{expand}} template is up for deletion, again, as obsolete." [11] While it would normally be perfectly acceptable to add a neutral worded RFC tag to the TfD of such a widely used template, the non-neutral language was inappropriate and violates WP:CANVAS#Campaigning. Such language gives the impression to the larger community that the template is "obsolete", which while that may be the opinion of Mono, is not a view shared by everyone. It is clear from the timestamps and wording of the later !votes that Mono's addition of the RFC tag did in fact inappropriately influence the TfD. (See also: [12] [13])
While {{Expand}} can be used for non-article pages by defining the first unnamed parameter (|1=), the entire TfD discussion seems to have focused strictly on article usage. This included a lot of mistaken arguments that {{Expand}} was redundant to stub templates (we also do not use stub templates for non-articles), and I think this comment from User:Grutness probably refutes the "redundancy" fallacy better than anything I could write here.
Based on discussion from the talk page and TfD, I did quite a lot of work on this template in the sandbox, including properly implementing {{Expand|section}} and adding support for a hidden tracking category should a reason or talk page section not be provided. That work along with more discussion on the talk page should help alleviate some of the other concerns raised during the TfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. As much as I abhor this template the closing admin did what simply should not be done when closing XfDs: they went beyond looking at the discussion and weighed in their opinion on which position was the better one, which then became the closing result. I especially would cite the analysis of the validity of the five examples provided by one participant. That analysis should have been part of the TfD discussion, not of the closing rationale. __meco (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "No consensus. For multiple reasons:
- First, the closing admin completely ignored that a non-neutral RFC-tag was placed on the discussion by Mono (talk · contribs)[14] which most likely had a canvassing effect on the TFD. They also did not mention the notification sent by a IP editor to multiple people, including myself, although they used a neutral message, which is okay in WP:CANVASS. Still, multiple people mentioned it, so it should have been considered.
- Second, as Meco points out above, Sjakkalle violated one of the most important rules in closing a XFD: He cast a super-!vote. The closing admin's job is not to review the arguments someone else made but to judge what consensus is about those arguments. What they personally think about those arguments is irrelevant and if they let their personal opinion influence the close, as Sjakkalle obviously did here, they become involved and thus are disqualified from making a call on the discussion.
- Third, he weighted concerns of misuse as against the template, which directly contradicts WP:TFD: "If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion." Also, in allowing such a close to stand, we would create a dangerous precedent, i.e. that one just has to misuse a template often enough in order to have it deleted. That's not the spirit of our policies: If someone misuses rollback, we warn them and if they continue, we remove their rights. If someone misuses Twinkle, he is warned and, again, restricted from using it, if they continue. There is nothing in the policies and guidelines that says that misuse of a tool should result in removal of the tool and there is no reason to treat this template differently than any other tool or template.
- Fourth, he ignored a number of keep-!votes that provided specific solutions for concerns of misuse, in violation of the spirit of WP:PRESERVE (if we can fix it, we should keep it).
- Fifth, a large number of delete-!votes were based on misunderstandings of how the template should be applied. !votes like "use stub tags instead" have been rebutted time and time again by pointing out that the stub system is not meant for those articles where this template is meant to be placed. Yet there was no mention why such incorrect !votes should be considered "lopsidedly stronger". The same applies to !votes like "states the obvious" which were rebutted as well but still were counted towards a "delete" close. Not to mention arguments like "eyesore" and "we don't want readers to think this is not completed". One !voter even argued that getting readers involved in editing as a goal of this template would be a bad idea!
- Sixth, he claims that people have ignored that {{expand|section}} and {{expand section}} are not the same but he himself ignored that {{expand|section}} creates a smaller tag that many people find superior to {{expand section}} and which would still be deleted with this template, despite no argument being made in favor of deleting it. My mistake, sorry, I was going from memory. So Why 12:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seventh, the closing admin ignored that a TFD can be closed as "keep but change" which would be a result that satisfied both those who feel the template is too general and misused and those who want to keep it. A number of people !voting delete, such as Conti (talk · contribs) and Joy (talk · contribs), agreed that the template can be kept, if the way it works is altered. Such !votes cannot be counted as "pure" "delete"-!votes, especially when people (including myself) showed examples of how it could be changed.

As such, I think the close, while brave, is faulty and should not have been made in this way. Clearly, there was no consensus for deletion, although there probably was one for changing the template. Changing does not require deletion though. Regards So Why 09:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well argued and convincing, and should be conclusive. Unfortunately the brave-but-faulty close requires an even braver admin to overturn the close, in the face of a likely attempt to rerun the TFD. Rd232 ^talk 10:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have answered some of the comments on my close on my talkpage, and people may want to look at that. I make it a point never to endorse my own actions, but I would like to respond to the points made by SoWhy:
      1. The RFC tag was not as well worded as it should have been, and "obsolesence" was not the central issue. However, I believe people who participate in the debate are capable of independent thinking, and there was no indication that the message had gone out to a cherry-picked group of people who were likely to vote "delete".
      2. The second point concerning whether I supervoted is always bound to be a hot-button issue. On the one hand, the "head count" is an aspect which enters into the evaluation of whether there is consensus or not, but the WP:DPR page tells us that "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes." This consideration, dissection, and synthesis of arguments will to some degree be influenced by the closer's interpretations and opinions, and cause disagreement. I don't think I cast a "supervote" here, because my opinion was formed from reading the arguments, and not preconceptions I had over the template before I closed it.
      3. The third point concerns the misuse concern, but I think the interpretation of what I wrote is exaggerated. My comment on this in the rationale was: "It has been legitimately pointed out the abuse of a tag does not justify a template's deletion per se, but the concern remains valid if it is a template which lends itself to this kind of abuse." In other words, the problem is not that the tag was being misused, but that the tag was so easy to misuse due to its vagueness. Certainly, this close should not be used as precedent to delete all tags which can be misused by the clueless.
      4. I did not ignore the proposed solutions, per the penultimate sentence of my rationale: "Some of the concerns mentioned could be addressed by a different template (for example, a template a required parameter to specify what with the article needs expanding), but that would be a different template from the one being discussed here."
      5. I acknowledge that there were some poor arguments on the "delete" side as well, but I am not among those who make a tally of "good votes" and "bad votes", before counting up the "good", while ignoring the "bad". Instead, I look for the strongest arguments on both sides of the debate, and it is in this respect that the "delete" side came out on top.
      6. I am a bit unsure what SoWhy refers to in point 6, because the template's documentation says: "{{Expand|section}} produces the same result as {{Expand section}}."
      7. See my response to point 4.
    - Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry about #6, my bad. I remembered the time when one of the tags produced a large banner in a section and I did not realize it has been changed so that one mirrors the other. Regards So Why 22:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned my alternative solution as an non-clear delete vote, and one that detracts from Sjakkalle's closure. The point of my argument was not simply to cast a vote, because a discussion is not just a straightforward poll, but to examine what can be done. The point of this argument seems to be to enumerate a number of legalistic, procedural ways to object to that otherwise a reasonable and lucid delete-closure. Yet, in the same sense, I'm discontent with how that closure disregarded my argument as if it dealt with a different template than the one discussed - that's a bureaucratic distinction. A template is defined most simply by its current content, but also by its overall purpose and all the nuances of its contribution to all the articles it is applied to. When we have {{expand}} placed in thousands of places in articles right now, that placement has become an asset that shouldn't be ignored. The delete option says "it's best to tell a bot to just get rid of all of those placements en masse". The keep option says "it's best to keep everything as is". But no option examines is it perhaps most worthwhile to facilitate for something else to be placed in there, and how exactly? If the discussion doesn't really answer that question, even though we all realize that it's a valid one, then we should reform the discussion in a way that does, otherwise we'll just keep spinning in circles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing Rd232's comment below, I think I should clarify that I don't actually object particularly to the deletion. Nothing particularly bad will happen if we just delete the current flawed template, maybe some duplication of effort after people re-tag some articles with another more appropriate tag. I just had to voice my discontent with all these matters of process. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So on point 4, you didn't ignore the proposed solutions, you dismissed them out of hand in a totally flawed manner (see Joy's point above). An appropriate close would have been "no consensus to delete, but strong consensus to explore how to improve the template's usage, and no prejudice to renominating if after some time this proves unsuccessful". I would urge you to overturn yourself, because on the WP:PRESERVE issue your decision was completely flawed in the face of the range of possible options. Rd232 ^talk 18:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deleting this template improves the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 10:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV is not a re-TFD. Whether you think the deletion is beneficial is irrelevant for the question whether there was consensus for it. Regards So Why 11:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see: From those who said we have to keep this template:
- 13 because is better than stub. There are non-stubs that need expansion
- 3 per WP:NOTAGAIN
- 6 just said keep
- 5 per someone else with no further explanation
- 2 "the fact that there are many articles that need expansion is no reason to delete the template"
- 6 "template is addressed to viewers"
- 1 "nom gave in in invalid argument"
- 5 "it's useful" no further explanation or "as useful as any other template"
- 3 because is better than expand section for more than 1 sections or for pages needing a general expansion
- 5 because it's useful for general use when editor can't find a better template
- 2 because it's useful for general use and talk page can be used to explain further
- 3 because it can be used to sections (1 of them changed to "merge")
- 1 because "1 million pages need expansion"
- 4 because not all pages needs to be expanded and this tag shows us which need to
- 6 because it helps find priorities
- 1 weak because sometimes it works
- 1 because it can be modified to explain further what is needed to be done -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some things before deleting: We have to get sure that we replace Expand with {{Expand section}} inside sections. I am now running a bot to remove expand from stubs. Let's see how many page are left. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus) That was not a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought... This is not a case of deletion of content, which traditionally requires consensus. A decision one way or the other was required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the decision. The closer was thorough and accurately summarised the debate. Also, this is not a re-TFD, so let's not treat it a such, eh? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 13:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Tough close, but a good call. Although I opined a "keep" I see that most of my objections to deletion were rebutted quite well by other editors and the closing rationale. Them From Space 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Closing rationale is well thought through and convincing. Closer has dissected weight of arguments accurately IMO. –Moondyne 15:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Although wholly unexpected, the closing rationale was excellent in its summary of the closing admin's interpretation of the weight of the various points in the debate, and I cannot find fault with the reasoning provided. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to see some responses to SoWhy's comments from people making this sort of Endorse comment. Rd232 ^talk 15:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know if mine was "this sort of Endorse comment", but my response to it is in the collapse box below.—S Marshall T/C 16:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can gladly expand on this, and to SoWhy's comments specifically. 1 - I never knew there was a biased tag on the debate. I came to the debate from a notice at WP:CENT which stated "TfD on the future of the expand tag". Seems completely neutral to me. 2 - I find the "super-vote" accusation unfounded based on the clear explanation in the close. 3 - Weighting concerns and measuring them against policy is the closing admin's job and WP does not stand on precedent - consensus can change. 4 - Keep votes offing the alternative of using {{expand|section}} were exactly equal to delete votes saying to use the {{expand section}} tag instead. They pretty much cancel each other out in terms of strength of argument. 7 - Keep but change votes are moot due to the existence of another tag that already provides the functionality that would be achieved by the change - see point 6. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall's assessment of SoWhy's comments

- - First point: ... the closing admin completely ignored that a non-neutral RFC-tag...
  - It's a fair point that the tag wasn't 100% neutral, and that certain editors were canvassed by an IP address. Fortunately, there was so much participation in that TfD, on both sides, that I think we can be sure that all the relevant arguments on both sides were raised and discussed. Provided that's happened, I think there's a reasonable basis for a close.
  - Second point: ...Sjakkalle violated one of the most important rules in closing a XFD: He cast a super-!vote.
  - Any close in which the closer weighs one argument as stronger than another inevitably leaves the closer vulnerable to a charge of super-voting, but weighing arguments is exactly what we expect closers to do. There's a fine, and blurry, line between the closer's thoughts about the relative weight of the arguments and the closer's personal opinion. The only evidence we can have about whether that line was crossed is the closing statement, and in this case we're fortunate to have a very detailed one. I don't see any evidence in Sjakkalle's close of a super-!vote.
  - Third point (part 1): ...he weighted concerns of misuse as against the template, which directly contradicts WP:TFD:
  - This is true, and represents a genuine error in the close. We should ask ourselves whether that error is sufficient to overturn all the other factors.
  - Third point (part 2): ...Also, in allowing such a close to stand, we would create a dangerous precedent, i.e. that one just has to misuse a template often enough in order to have it deleted.
  - This is not such a good point. The slippery slope argument is a kind of informal fallacy, and Wikipedia disregards precedent in any case.
  - Fourth, he ignored a number of keep-!votes that provided specific solutions for concerns of misuse, in violation of the spirit of WP:PRESERVE (if we can fix it, we should keep it)...
  - WP:PRESERVE says "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." (It then goes on to suggest that WP:PRESERVE relates to not removing text from articles.) In fact, I think that where {{expand}} interacts with WP:PRESERVE is in the latter's use of the word "flag": the template is there to identify problems with other people's text. Since WP:PRESERVE says to flag "problems", I think we may assume that the clearer and more specific the tag, the greater is the extent to which it complies with the policy.
  - Fifth, a large number of delete-!votes were based on misunderstandings of how the template should be applied.
  - That's true in itself but it doesn't lead to an overturn. The fact that some of the delete-!votes weren't very intelligent doesn't detract from the weight to be given to the others. I imagine that Sjakkalle disregarded a substantial number of !votes in that TfD, on both sides.
  - Sixth, he claims that people have ignored that {{expand|section}} and {{expand section}} are not the same but he himself ignored that {{expand|section}} creates a smaller tag that many people find superior to {{expand section}} and which would still be deleted with this template, despite no argument being made in favor of deleting it.
  - I don't see the size of the tag as centrally important to this matter, but even if it was, it's not necessary to overturn the close in order to alter the tag size.
  - Seventh, the closing admin ignored that a TFD can be closed as "keep but change" which would be a result that satisfied both those who feel the template is too general and misused and those who want to keep it. A number of people !voting delete, such as Conti (talk · contribs) and Joy (talk · contribs), agreed that the template can be kept, if the way it works is altered.
  - This is true. Sjakkalle came to a decision, not a compromise. That's why I described it as "a bold close" above, but it doesn't make it wrong.

Arbitrary section break (page getting too large)

Endorse. I didn't participate in the TFD but i'm aware of the discussion and have been for a year or two. I used to be a deleter, started using it and became a keeper and now i'm back to a deleter. My rationale is that this is a crap templete and until we get rid of it a better more appropriate one won't be created to take its place. Closing admin had it pretty much right. Szzuk (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You fail to address the procedural aspects of the close which must be the focus of a deletion review. You basically state that you side with the close because it happened to land on your favored decision. I too want to see this template gone, however, the next time a closing admin crosses the border between XfD participant and closing admin the result may be against you. Are you then going to call for an overturn at the DRV? __meco (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is impossible to be objective when the decision requires a subjective personal opinion. The reasons given were thoughtful and appropriate. I was surprised because the decision was bold but the law of averages state sooner or later it'll be gone because its a popular template - but it isn't a good one. I'm willing to change my mind about the close but I've just read the following DRV comments and I can't see anything that points to overturn. Szzuk (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure as delete. Admin who closed this carefully considered the sides and the arguments involved instead of merely counting votes one per one. When so many people show up to vote without giving any rationale, and when there is rationale offered that deviates from Wikipedia policies, that is the correct thing to do. DreamGuy (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the closing admin went beyond looking at the discussion and weighed in their opinion on which position was the better one, which then became the closing result. I especially would cite the analysis of the validity of the five examples provided by one participant. That analysis should have been part of the TfD discussion, not of the closing rationale. __meco (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I voted "keep" in this debate, but I can see now that the "delete" side provided more compelling arguments for deletion. The closing admin was very thorough in his or her analysis of the debate, addressing every major issue that was discussed. More importantly, we do not count votes. See WP:DEMOCRACY and WP:POLL. Furthermore, we must remember that the closing admin acknowledged the possibility of creating a new template to address the flaws mentioned in the TFD: "Some of the concerns mentioned could be addressed by a different template (for example, a template a required parameter to specify what with the article needs expanding), but that would be a different template from the one being discussed here." Edge3 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some of the concerns mentioned could be addressed by a different template (for example, a template a required parameter to specify what with the article needs expanding), but that would be a different template from the one being discussed here." - is Exhibit A for the close being faulty (see SoWhy's point 4). There is zero reason why making a parameter mandatory is possible in a new template but not an existing one. Rd232 ^talk 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The closing admin was only providing an example of a different template. We could easily disregard his or her advice and just change the wording; if I understand the policies correctly, that wouldn't be a violation of the TFD decision. Edge3 (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment <redacted entirely> - Apologies to Sjakalle, I had indeed gotten confused over S Marshall's comments about them casting a super !vote. Barking Fish 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any !vote by Sjakkale in the body text; I think you're confusing some comments about Sjakkale's close being too much like a !voting opinion instead of a summary? Rd232 ^talk 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Did anyone ever address the argument that the {{expand}} template could be used to point out that a non-stub article as a whole needs expansion, with specific suggestions for improvement posted on the talk page? I know that this isn't supposed to be a repeat of the TFD, but if this argument wasn't adequately addressed in the closing comments, I would like to see how much weight it carried against the arguments for deletion. Edge3 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I did, very early on in the discussion.[15] I don't think anyone commented on it though. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A number of people arguing "keep" did so and I don't think that point has been considered in the close at all. Regards So Why 22:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So perhaps one could argue for overturning the TFD result because the closing admin did not consider this particular argument and explain how much weight it carried against the arguments for deletion? :/ Edge3 (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn very clearly a no consensus, and deleting is controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus - Per Meco, the closing admin espoused a point of view instead of gauging consensus. I didn't want the template to be deleted. But if it must be deleted, then I'd want it to be deleted because there was clear consensus to do so, not because an admin was playing court justice. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Closing admin accurately analyzed the arguments for consensus. As the number of !voters increases, the relevance of head-counting decreases proportionally. There are very few deletion discussions on which 100+ editors are going to agree in an overwhelming majority. We have to get away from the notion that there can be no consensus when too many people contribute to a discussion. There can be consensus, but you won't find it by counting heads. And anyway, if you liked using {{Expand}} so much, why not just use {{Incomplete}} instead? SnottyWong ^talk 22:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fully aware that we work on consensus, not votes, but I felt that I needed to point out an error in the closer's maths. I agree there were 65-68 deletes, but there were actually 70 keeps, not 67, comprised as follows (just in case somebody doubts my math):
- 59 Keep (includes 3 x Keep.)
- 5 Strong Keep
- 1 Weak keep
- 1 Keep and speedy close
- 1 Conditional keep (changed from a straight Delete.
- 3 others (1 each "Keep per Tothwolf", "Keep, and piss off with your whinging", "Keep but modify slightly")
- 70 - Total --AussieLegend (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mine was the keep and speedy close, as I was hoping we could all avoid this drama. Magioladitis' "summary" above of the various keep !votes completely ignores the majority of what I brought up in the TfD discussion and only focuses on WP:NOTAGAIN, which seems counter to WP:NOTAVOTE. I think the "conditional keep" and a number of other arguments made by those who !voted delete are also addressed with some of the code currently in the sandbox. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be obsessed with head-counting. Ok, the closing admin counted 67 keeps, you counted 70. Who cares? What does it matter? You might want to take a look at WP:CONSENSUS. SnottyWong ^squeal 00:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your assumption is incorrect. I was simply pointing out the error made by the closer. It's relevant because it was something that was specifically addressed by him and indicates that the difference between the "keep" and "delete" votes was wider, and in the opposite direction, to what he claimed. Errors made by the closer are entirely relevant at DRV so who cares? Everyone should. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid your logic is incorrect. Ok, you pointed out an error. Congratulations. But the error makes zero difference towards the end result. The headcount went from being a boring 50-50 to an exhilarating 51-49. I say again, who cares? No one does. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 04:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend has presented an extra piece of information with a declared awareness of its potentially minimal impact on consensus. How much a person takes the information into account when assessing this situation is up to that individual. Does it suggest that the closer hasn't examined the discussion as closely as he might, and so adds weight to overturning the close, or is it an example of a simple calculating error, of which we are all capable, and is of little significance to the essentials of the close? As with all aspects of Wikipedia, we collect and present information, and let the reader decide. Snottywong regards the information as irrelevant. Fine. Others may regard it differently. SilkTork *^YES! 12:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly relevant, if only to further emphasize that many are misinterpreting WP:NOTAVOTE to be a blanket authorization for admins to act arbitrarily when they can identify a certain subset of the community that feels the same way they do. Right, so we don't do votes, but how exactly do we determine whether consensus exists or not on an issue that affects all of Wikipedia? Maybe the appropriate middle ground would have been some sort of merge with another template, or modification, but now we'll never know because the discussion was shot down before anyone had the chance to consider others' positions carefully and change their mind or reach a suitable middle ground. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - As Snottywong said, the larger a discussion gets, the more likely it is to tend toward a 50-50 split based on headcount. The closer did a good job of actually weighing the arguments along with the numbers. As Magioladitis pointed out, many of the keep arguments were very weak, and in a few cases, non-existent. Mr.Z-man 22:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably not appropriate to make such comment here, given that you voted to delete in the original discussion.[16] --AussieLegend (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So did plenty of other people here. Given that you voted to keep it, its probably not appropriate for you to making such comments here. Mr.Z-man 23:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The difference is that I clearly identified what I wrote as simply a comment, not as overturn, since the neutrality of a vote that supports your position at the AfD can be questioned. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think there is any rule or convention where AfD !voters are discouraged from contributing bolded !votes at the DRV for the article. You're assuming that people can't separate their opinions on whether the template should be deleted from their opinions on whether the close was correct. In some cases, that may be true, but in many cases it is not, and no one should be discouraged from contributing in discussions. If that were the rule, then no one who participated in the AfD should be able to bring the article to DRV, because their neutrality could be questioned. SnottyWong ^gab 00:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        As per above, your assumption is wrong. I'm not assuming that at all. I meant exactly what I said. The neutrality of a vote that supports the position you took at TfD can be questioned. It's human nature to do so. We're not Vulcans. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My main point was that while there's plenty of people here who have voted on the TFD, you did too, and you're singling out someone who voted contrary to your position – and no one else – suggesting that they should not be allowed to substantially participate. Mr.Z-man 03:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm truly baffled by your logic, Aussie. So, you're not discouraging previous voters from contributing to the DRV, you're just discouraging them from expressing their opinion only if it matches too closely with the opinion they offered at the XfD. Do you expect people to change or suppress their opinions so that your perception of neutrality is preserved? No one is claiming to be "neutral" (whatever that means, in this context), we are expressing our opinions. Expressing opinions is inherently non-neutral. We are grown-ups, we can vote in an XfD and vote in a DRV for the same article without necessarily having some kind of conflict of interest. Also, discouraging editors who hold a view opposite of yours from contributing to a DRV is probably not appropriate, because of neutrality and all that. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 04:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        "...the larger a discussion gets, the more likely it is to tend toward a 50-50 split" - what is the rationale for this assumption? Where did this come from? This goes completely against the fundamental basis of WP:CONSENSUS because it assumes that discussion only leads to stratification in the opinions of the participating users. If it were true, there would be no purpose of maintaining talk pages at all because they would only cause editors to split themselves 50/50 into opposing camps. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This is from years of Wikipedia experience. On any discussion with any sort of controversy, the longer it goes and the more people get involved, the less clear the result gets based solely on headcount. There's no policy that says it has to work that way, it just does. Unfortunately, policies on Wikipedia have become less like documentation (as they were originally) and more like legislation. They're written based on how people want things to work, which often isn't how things do work. The problem with large discussions is that they're far from an "ideal" discussion; you get a large amount of drive-by comments. People who comment and then leave don't "discuss" and their decision won't be changed by later arguments or evidence, even if the basis for their argument is entirely refuted. Talk pages mainly attract people with a real interest in the subject, rather than a passing opinion like a deletion discussion, so they're more likely to stick around (talk page discussions are also typically much smaller). That is the main difference between something like this TFD and a typical talk page discussion and this is why decisions like these should be based on the strength of arguments rather than numbers. I was going to refer to FT2's 00:14, 29 December 2010 comment, but I see you've already read it. This template has been under discussions like these since 2007. More patience isn't going to make a lick of difference because any discussion is going to be plagued by the same problem. Even if you convince some of the drive-by voters from the last discussion to stay and discuss, there's going to be a whole new crop of them for the next one. Mr.Z-man 18:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "No Consensus" With all do respect to the closer, "No Consensus" really was the final outcome. There is no maintenance tag that can replace it. So instead of deleting this tag, wouldn't it be better to do an analysis of the "Delete" suggestions, similar to the closer's analysis, and use those suggestions to (dare I say it?) expand this tag just a little. This can be done with special emphasis upon what would keep this tag from misuse in the future.

— Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 02:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to No Consensus. The comment by the user Magioladitis above and his subsequent list exemplify the problems with this debate: "I'll prepare a list of the keep arguments to prove that most of them were invalid." If someone with a strong bias towards "keep" took all of the "delete" arguments and rephrased them - inevitably making them weaker since the person doing the rephrasing doesn't feel the same way - then naturally most of the "delete" arguments would appear invalid as well. This is a textbook example of a straw man argument, and it is blatant fallacy to interpret this as a rationale for endorsing the closure. While my personal opinion on the parent issue (delete/keep the template) would be to delete, that isn't of issue here. The closure appears largely motivated by bias towards deletion, rather than objective moderation of the debate which is unfortunate. Split decision is not a consensus, and decisions are not made by vote, WP:DEMOCRACY etc. The spirit of the consensus rule is to allow the community to reflect, during which users review each others arguments, and some people even change their minds. This is never a quick process, but it needs to be given the appropriate amount of time to occur. When the discussion goes around a few times and people start gravitating towards one side or the other, users will change their votes based on how others' arguments have convinced them, and gradually that 50/50 split will trend towards a clearly one-sided viewpoint if people are listening to each other. Only then will consensus have been reached. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Overturn;'. The closing admin said correctly that "* it is really more of a policy RFC". In the case of a policy RfC, the closing admin does not get to decide on their basis oftheir own view of what the policy ought to be. In a evenly divided vote--and I said "vote" not !vote", because policy RfCs are substantially in the nature of votes, a supermajority is normally required to change established policy. There clearly was no such here, and that should be the end of it. But let's regard it for the moment as straight XfD: the close was on the basis of what the closer thought the stronger arguments ought to be, and demonstrated it by making the arguments he thought should have prevailed. This is not appropriate--it was not a neutral close, he clearly had a particular position, and closed in favor of it. He should have joined the discussion instead, and let someone close who could ore fairly judge consensus. This was an attempt at a super-vote, and should be rejected. The closer gets only to decide what the responsible people present think should be the policy, buy throwing out non-policy arguments, not by judging which argument they prefer. They're in the role of a judge taking the decision of a jury; if the jury's decision is absurd, the judge does have the right in most cases to reject it & in some cases to overturn it. But the other arguments were not absurd, and then the judge doesn't really have a choice about it. They don't get the casting vote on hung juries. DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How was this a policy RfC, anyhow? I don't really see it. --Conti|✉ 03:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was tagged as such by Mono (talk · contribs) and not disputed, so it was advertised the same way. Whether this had any influence on !voter turnout is another question but one that should have been considered in the close. Regards So Why 08:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see now that there was simply no better RfC category to choose, since most are about content. Still, it's quite strange to assume that this was a policy changing decision that somehow needed a supermajority to gain consensus. No policy was changed or involved here. --Conti|✉ 13:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Create RFC category for non-content/non-policy/"other" matters? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is the wrong place in the discussion to put this (I haven't edited Wikipedia in ages- I've forgot a lot of the procedures), but I have to say this needs to be an "overturn due to no consensus reached". The admin went on a vote, and not the merit of the points put foward, and keep would STILL have won if they counted IPs. The expand tag is one I use all the time, like many other editors, if I see something wrong with an article I just tag and let the hard-core editors sort it out. This means that now I (and many others) will have to spend ages doing what the average editor shouldn't be expected to do (go through the whole thing and analyse exactly what needs changing, you might as well just do it). Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. 05:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't about winning. I am puzzled on the other point you raise - "if I see something wrong with an article I just tag and let the hard-core editors sort it out". How does a hypothetical "hard core editor" work out what aspect you felt was inadequate? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mod's statement wasn't written that clearly. I think he meant by "won" that there were more keep !votes - using "won" as "the majority" - such as "and keep would STILL have ~~won~~ [the majority] if they counted IPs". As regards the tagging - I suspect that Mod is saying that if he encounters a problem with sourcing or POV or copyvio or notability or need to expand, he puts on the appropriate tag to alert other editors more specialised and experienced in such matters. I both respond to and place such tags myself. Tags are a necessary evil. I would rather we didn't have them, but while we do, Mod's comment shows the appropriate usage of tags. SilkTork *^YES! 12:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay on the first, I'd like more thought on the second. Most tags explain what's involved - the geographic coverage is lacking, the tone is promotional, it has unsourced statements, etc. But when Mod tags an entire page as "expand" how does he expect others to read his mind as to what needs expanding, and how does he expect future editors to be able to gauge if his concerns have been addressed? Mod makes clear that in his view "the average editor" shouldn't be expected to figure out what's needed when he tags, because that's the "hard core editors" job. I'm not sure that's realistic. Editors don't divide that way, and if a tag is not obvious, you need to explain it. I use tags, but I'd expect to write them for following editors to understand the issue and agree or disagree, leaving a note or edit summary comment if it's not clear. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't expect others to read his mind as to what needs expanding because he doesn't have anything specific in mind. Why can't the expand tag be general like the cleanup tag? Why can't an editor just tag an article because they just feel there is room for expansion in general? I can look at an article with an expand tag and decide for myself how I can best expand it without needing anything specific to go on. -- œ ^™ 02:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the reason for a tag's placement on an article is not clear, I remove it with a comment that the tag's placement is not clear. I would agree with the essence of what Mod and OlEnglish are saying, that if someone feels there is something not quite right with an article I would rather they defaulted to alerting someone than simply passing on by. However, I would also agree with FT that tags which are too vague, and which are creating a huge, undealt-with backlog, are not that useful. I'm not entirely sure how I would have !voted in the TfD - I think that perhaps a wider discussion is needed, not just for this tag, but for others which are asking people to do something, where the action should be clear, and is not being done. It's a complex issue that a simple delete/keep vote is not quite addressing. SilkTork *^YES! 09:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Within admin discretion to read the arguments this way despite the vote count tie. Many if not most of the keep votes argued for keeping something slightly different than the template actually discussed, and there are separate templates for almost all of those mild variations. For intstance, the template that Edge3 asks for above (and DDG asked for in the TfD) exists as {{missing information}}. Arguably a redirect could be set up, but that requires someone to go through all the uses of {{expand}} and figure out what's missing. Not very practical at this stage. So "delete & possibly recreate" is more plausible. Another faulty argument also used in the overturn votes here is that {{expand|section}} and {{expand section}} produce different code. They do not; {{expand|section}} explicitly calls {{expand section}}. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that template! Editors interested in using a template to indicate the need for expansion should use {{missing information}} instead. I hope that would be an acceptable solution for everyone. Edge3 (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be acceptable because it requires the tagger to input specifically what's missing. There's no option to be generic with that template. -- œ ^™ 03:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And why must we be generic? We really shouldn't expect other contributors to understand exactly what we mean when we put up an {{expand}} template. Edge3 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear why "delete and recreate" would be better than just keeping the Expand template and improving it. D&r would solve the problem of the articles that have the Expand on them but don't really need it, however it would create the problem of losing the Expand template from articles that need it, then having to replace it on those pages. Seems like a monumental task either way. The Missing information template is a step in the right direction, yet because it is so specific, it might be too big a step. Some method to try to thwart misuse of the Expand template, such as being more specific about its proper usage directly on the template as succinctly as possible, is also needed.

— Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 20:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure I see nothing wrong with the way the admin closed the debate and it was within both expected boundaries and the policies. Personally speaking I have no opinion on the matter, other than that if tags are used sensibly, they're useful, and if they're overused or misused, their utility decreases. Orderinchaos 15:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I say this as someone who participated as "keep" in the original discussion. My jaw dropped when I saw the closure, because I had thought it was a no-brainer as "no consensus". I then read the closing rationale, and found it to be reasonable, somewhat to my surprise. I've tried to carefully consider the arguments here, and for me it comes down to (1) was it a super-vote?, and (2) was WP:PRESERVE adequately considered in the closure? The answer to the super-vote question hinges on whether the closer decided based upon whether the delete comments were more convincing within the discussion, or whether they were more convincing to the closer. That's a tough call, and a very subjective one. My gut tells me there was some element of the latter, and I would ask the closer to think hard about that for the future. However, the closing rationale does make a valid and reasonable case with respect to how the discussion by the community had progressed. It's inconclusive (for me) how much this was or was not a super-vote. As for whether there's consensus for keeping the template, but in modified form, I note that there were quite a few "keep" !voters who did indeed argue for some sort of modification, and there may well have been a consensus for deleting the template in its present form. I think the closure leaves the door very much open for users to create a new and improved version of the template, taking into account the criticisms that have been raised. So, on balance, it was one heck of a bold closure, but one that I cannot in good faith argue to overturn. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and award barnstar to closer for taking on such a massive and thankless task. Well within admin discretion. It seems that no matter what they do and how hard they try, closers will be either "super-!voters" or "!vote-counters". Honestly. T. Canens (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it is within a closer's ambit to evaluate arguments by strength rather than by numbers. Tim! (talk) 16:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that is arbitration, which is not what we do here at Wikipedia. The closer basically heard both sides - which were equal in number - and said "I agree with side A's arguments more than side B's, and since I am all-powerful, my decision shall be reflected in policy and further discussion is moot." The point of discourse is for community members to share their ideas and convince each other, and the role of moderators is to mediate not arbitrate.
- On a side note, if this thread gets closed prematurely, are we going to have a debate on whether the closing of the closure discussion should be overturned? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a tangent concerning this point, the problem is mainly structural. We are of a size where we usually cannot make "true consensus" work, or nothing will be done. A discussion in which all participants have to be given the years needed to consider all other views, and every last thread to be argued until finally some view gains an explicit endorsement that most or all could live with would be ideal, but is not going to happen in any practical sense. We need to make decisions in weeks or months, not centuries. The nearest approximation is that all speak their mind, and a closer tries to fairly assess from the views stated, the outcome that best covers the strongest points and is likely to be a good guess of pleasing more rather than fewer users. It's not "true consensus" but on this scale of community, true consensus may sadly be impractical for routine decisions. At the same time we (rightly) also want to avoid pure "count". Nobody considered a Wikipedia of this size when basic norms were created. T. Canens said it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that we are not talking about consensus, but a reasonable likeness of consensus. If that is the case, then we truly cannot consider this an appropriate close if it gives the appearance of no consensus. I'd say a 50/50 split in the opinions of contributors is pretty much the opposite of consensus, as far as appearances are concerned. In this case the closer is proclaiming that those who shared his/her opinion "won" the debate and no further participation is worth considering, even though no one's mind was changed up to that point.

Once again this was not an act of moderation but arbitration, and arbitration by someone who has a stake in the issue can never be a healthy thing. It's like a jury-less trial in which the judge is related to the victims - even if everyone's logic is flawless and the judge acts in a completely impartial manner, how could the public possibly perceive it as a fair trial. Do I have a better alternative for the process? Of course not, but instead of speculating on whether anyone on either side would have changed anyone else's mind, the debate should have been given time to observe if that happened. I think we're taking the fact that decisions are not made by vote at Wikipedia and applying that completely out of context to justify the closure of what was clearly an unresolved issue. Case in point, most of the "Endorse" comments here in this thread are people chiming in just to say things like "I agree" or "Admin's reasoning was well-thought out", comments which contribute nothing substantial other than a headcount of how many people feel a certain way. If we followed the same logic from the Template:Expand discussion (and a quick estimate on the totals), the majority of the "votes" here are to Endorse yet more of the Overturn "votes" substantiate their position logically. By the same logic that was applied in the former thread, this closure should be overturned, but I have no doubt that the closure will be retained because the Admin has the majority behind him/her.

Current Wikipedia policies have taken years to reach this point. I'd point out that the whole intent behind this process is to avoid an infinitely recursive RfD cycle...with that in mind, perception of administrators acting arbitrarily and without consensus whether or not that perception is true will ultimately hold back progress on this issue. A little more patience would have ultimately "got things done" faster in the long run. Yes, I wish we had an alternative decision-making process that wasn't so lengthy - if you have an idea there, be sure to pitch it to every major political state in the world because people have been trying to solve that one for quite some time. Personally I would have been in favor of deleting the template, but I also would have participated in the debate and listened to users on the opposing side. Unfortunately the administration appears to have been in such a rush to pass this decision quickly that only a tiny, minuscule portion of Wikipedia actually had a chance to participate before it was closed. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The closure should never be simply about counting the !votes, and the closing admin's analysis and reasoning are rock solid and well thought out.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 28, 2010; 18:13 (UTC)
Comment: {{Missing information non-contentious}} covers the case of {{Expand|concern=}}. This whole thing is cockeyed, but rather than just deleting {{Expand}}, at least transfer Expand cases where a concern is specified, and maybe for cases where it isn't leave a note on the article's talk page of the alternative template that can be used if a reason is given. Then turn {{Expand}} into a redirect with no output if no concern is given. Of course we could avoid this nonsense if we were willing to fix instead of delete... Rd232 ^talk 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as we conclude to delete we ll find a way not to lose the information. I already changed Expand|section to Expand section and I am planning to do more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From your phrasing, it sounds like the conclusion has already been reached this is just lip service. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There is an extensive discussion regarding this at Template talk:Expand#Type. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. Well thought out decision.--Echetus Xe 23:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Although I wasn't overjoyed that the result was delete, the admin gave a reasonable and well-thought out analysis which was totally correct. —Half Price 00:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Rd232 that we shouldn't lose info. For some time we have to mark the template as "deprecated" and find ways to replace it. I already did some things on this direction. Check User_talk:Yobot#Expand_tag_cleanup. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the users who voted for deletion have a point, I don't like the chosen procedure (repeated nomination nominations or deletion, until one administrator chose to ignore the [lack of] consensus and did what he believed was right). Furthermore, I don't think nomination for deletion is an appropriate way to stop an existing process. I would have preferred a different way: Make a request for comment; if/when consensus is established that the template isn't useful mark it as deprecated. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Something as widely used as the expand template, that has been put up for deletion several times in contentious, inconclusive debates, needs more than a week's review and input from a single closing administrator. Ideally, there should have been an RFC and several administrators should have weighed in to determine consensus. But it didn't happen that way. I think if you nominate almost anything enough times for deletion, it'll get deleted, depending on who comments on the discussion and who the closing admin is. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged and advertised as an RfC though, albeit obviously not conducted as one (with "View of User:Foo"s and lists of endorsements). --Cybercobra (talk) 07:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to make this explicit: overturn as out-of-process closure. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close A wise decision to get ride of a fairly gratuitous "I want more of this"-template. Peter ^Isotalo 09:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't really matter what the outcome is here, it'll go back and forth for ages. Had I been contributing to the TFD I would have been going for delete as all articles should be expanded. As for this DRV, I will apply my usual test: was the closure one at which no reasonable administrator could have arrived? The answer being in the ~~positive~~negative, I endorse. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I'm misunderstanding, but if the closure is one at which no reasonable administrator could have arrived, wouldn't you be !voting to overturn? — GorillaWarfare ^talk 06:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Typo in the rationale; should have been the answer in the negative. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - So its contentious and split both ways and the admin essentially gets the deciding vote. Well I think he's right. He could have closed it as no-consensus, but then what would that have done? It'd be back at TFD in another few months when some editor spots it plastered gratuitously across multiple comprehensive articles. The TFD points out significant ways in which the template is flawed, the seemingly positive uses of the template turned out to be negative - those articles would be better served in other ways. No consensus would just mean doing nothing about it, carrying on as before. Delete is bold and means trying something else, let's try doing something else, and if in six months time, we don't have a better solution - then allow recreation. - hahnchen 14:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A better solution to what? One of the main arguments against the template was that an article needing expansion in general is not really a problem to tagged, since every article needs expansion. We already have more specific templates for specific problems. Mr.Z-man 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not every article needs expansion. This will allow those specific templates to be exercised more. - hahnchen 22:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which articles don't need expansion? Mr.Z-man 22:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I did not take part in the deletion discussion, because I couldn't make up my mind either way. However, this closure seems very well thought out and reasonable, accurately summarising the arguments of the deletion discussion. J Milburn (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus as there was none. Immunize _{Contact Me} Contributions 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is a very hard decision, but honestly, the closure is thought out and reasonable. WereWolf (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I just came upon this issue today. I have read the decision and I have skimmed the arguments both at the original discussion and here. Had I been aware of the previous discussion I would have strongly supported deletion. The template is vague, misused and overused. What is worse to me is that this is but another template that enables casual editors, "drive-by taggers", to say, "Look, everybody! We have a mess here that needs to be cleaned up!" and move on without doing anything to clean up the mess. The project needs fewer means of indicating shortcomings and more editors who are willing to fix the shortcomings. JimCubb (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, this is not a thread for discussing the issue. That thread was closed, and this discussion is for whether or not the closure was proper. While you have made some valid points that would have been a valued contribution in the RfD debate, that debate was shut down as "complete" after only 0.00001% of the English-speaking community of Wikipedia users was able to participate. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn no-consensus - The rational by the closing admin was interpretative and did not recognize both sets of arguments fairly, and misinterprets the purpose of the expand template, which is not used solely upon stub articles. Sadads (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
30:16. I just counted 30:16 for the Endorse. I know we don't count, we weigh up arguments, but still it is interesting that the endorse outnumber the overturn 2:1. Szzuk (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I did not participate in the original TfD. The underlying fact is that the expand template is worse than useless. None of the keep arguments addressed this fact. Instead, they relied on "change is bad" and "consensus can't change" arguments. This template must stay deleted in order to disprove the validity of such arguments. Abductive (reasoning) 23:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this seems to be a source of confusion for a lot of both "Endorse" and "Overturn" comments here. Per Wikipedia:Deletion review: "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." In other words, it is not relevant to this review that you think the template is "worse than useless". What is being discussed is whether the closing administrator erred in the process of closing the deletion debate. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paucity of the discussion from people who understand DRV perfectly says something - there was nothing wrong with the close. So we're just left with a rehash of the TFD with little new added. Szzuk (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a lot of people here misunderstand DRV doesn't mean that the close was right. The two things have nothing to do with each other. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to think that I understand DRV. My argument Endorsing the close was that the closer saw the emptiness of the arguments of the keep voters. Those empty arguments are being used here in the DRV also. Abductive (reasoning) 03:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. I didn't participate in the deletion debate, but I've taken some time to look it over. I believe that Sjakkalle did an excellent job of weighing the arguments and counter-arguments. The idea that a ~50/50 vote split inherently indicates a lack of consensus simply isn't correct, and I commend Sjakkalle for investing the time and effort needed to properly analyze the discussion. —David Levy 02:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break two

Overturn as No Consensus - I did not participate in the deletion debate, but it seems as though the template served a useful purpose of alerting other editors and Wikipedia users of the feeling that the article or section in question is very inadequate coverage of a topic. Racepacket (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DRV is about procedural correctness of the close, not re-hashing the TfD arguments. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's very true. However, in evaluating the correctness of the close, it certainly seems apparent just from those users who erred in their interpretation of this thread, that the TfD discussion was closed too abruptly. A template deletion affects the whole of the encyclopedia, and yet we only had roughly a hundred people weigh in on it before it was closed. To make matters worse, the opinions were split almost 50/50 and the admin arbitrated that people on one particular side had made "better" arguments. Perhaps users on one side of the debate did make stronger points, and later on more users might have evaluated that and put forth an even stronger counter-argument on the opposite side, and maybe opinions on both sides would have changed as the community gravitated towards consensus. Now we'll never know, at least not until this questionable close is brought to light in a few months and the RfD cycle repeats, undoing any progress that might have been made here. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - a) 100+ separate contributors and 300+ comments is an abrupt close? How many is enough?
      b) Closing admin is supposed to arbitrate on which side made the "better" arguments. Szzuk (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - a) It's not about raw numbers, if it were the deletion would have been by vote which we don't do - for complex reasons. This went up for deletion, discussed, and closed as "consensus" very quickly, and we're all doing this in our free time. Even during holidays most users can't check on WP every day, and even when we do it's not every article that a user comes across the template in question. Personally I only came across the RfD on this template after it was closed and I'm quite sure I'm not the only one who didn't get a chance to participate - and ultimately keeping it open serves the interests of either side since no decision is going to "stick" until a decent number of editors have at least had the opportunity to contribute. As for how many is enough, deletion of the template affects all of en.wikipedia and there are hundreds of millions of English-speaking users, and even if 99.99% of them don't care, a relatively representative portion should at least have the chance to participate. Try this: one person says "hey I think this template kinda sucks", another person chimes in a minute later "good point", and an admin comes along and says "Ok consensus reached, discussion closed, implemeting." That's not going to stick, and there isn't even any disagreement. If it's called into question whether they had the chance or if this is the conclusion of a very minor subset who weren't even given enough time to go over each others' arguments, it was too soon. Not as a matter of headcount voting but as a question of significance, 70 people saying "keep" and 65 saying "delete" and no further deliberation isn't going to hold up very long, anyway.
        b) No, that is exactly what they are not supposed to do. "Sysops will not rule on content, but may intervene to enforce policy (such as wp:BLP) or to impose sanctions on editors who are disrupting the consensus process inappropriately." I don't see anything in there about sysops disrupting a discussion and declaring a consensus when the side that feels the same way they do has "won" the argument. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a) Ok, any widely used template has to have 5,000 contributors and 15,000 comments before a decision is taken. Probably 3 years. Is that any better?
b) Closing admin has to interpret consensus - closing admin determined the keep arguments were weak. Szzuk (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a) There's no need to express your frustration by stating ridiculous exaggerations. There's no need for an exact numerical limit, all we can establish from this discussion is this: whether the discussion was representative or not is questionable.
In good faith effort to locate the policy where administrators are charged with interpreting the content of a discussion and ruling on consensus, and found nothing. Maybe you could point out the part I missed? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a) The ridiculous exageration makes my point. This wasn't an abrupt close, it was in line with standard wp policy and we aren't here to discuss policy changes.
b) In good faith I looked for the right page which would explain it to you but I can't find it. You could ask at the Helpdesk or perhaps someone reading this will find it more readily than I can. Regards, Szzuk (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can demonstrate that this closure was in line with wikipedia policy, that would be an excellent substantial point which is missing from this debate. As it is now though, I see nothing to support this. You keep saying that it is the administrators' job to interpret and rule on the content of a debate, but neither you nor I can find policy statements to support this - and since I've pointed out policies that state the exact opposite, perhaps you should consider that this was an improper closure. I realize that there are some people out there who will never reconsider their own position no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented to them, but I'd rather assume that you're not one of them. :) 96.228.129.69 (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a) Go look.
b) You talk nonsense. Bye. Szzuk (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Wikipedia:Closing discussions? --Conti|✉ 20:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that Szzuk has chosen to plummet head-first into name-calling personal attacks, but causing that wasn't my intent. I hope he'll take a deep breath and come back. Conti - thanks for the link, but I don't see anything there about the admin judging the content of the debate. What I'm seeing is that "...the decider is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not select himself which is the better policy." That seems to run contrary to what the admin did in this case. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you take into account those active editors that did not have notice of or opportunity to participate in the TfD debate, the 50:50 tie has shifted to a majority for retaining the template. Racepacket (talk) 04:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can cherry-pick quotes from that page that suit our opinions. Your quote's missing the part that says "If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another...", and in this case there was no discussion based on policy. There was no policy-based argument to keep or delete the template. As such, the quote "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the administrators own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The administrator is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments" is the relevant quote here, and that's just what the administrator did, in my opinion. --Conti|✉ 13:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, that's a bit of a cherry-pick as well. The policy goes on to say "...after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." There was no listing of specific and identifiable logical fallacies, nor was there a demonstration that specific arguments showed no understanding of the underlying issues. Rather the admin acted on their own opinion of whose logic was better, for instance: "I feel the 'delete' side has provided a well-reasoned rationale that the stub-templates can fill the role of this template, and the argument has not been adequately rebutted". This is a general sweeping interpretation of the two sides, which goes in contrast to the guidelines which direct the admin to disregard specific arguments on the points outlined above, collate the remaining arguments, and weigh a rough consensus. However you brought up a good point, that entire section regards guidelines for administrators dealing with policy. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the administrators own views about what is the most appropriate policy." There's little basis for an admin to simply judge content without a policy basis, as administrators are selected for their experience with Wikipedia policy and not to act as mediators in general. If after tallying up remaining votes (not necessary, but he did) and showing a 50/50 split, the admin was still unwilling to regard it as unresolved, perhaps he should have turned it over to formal mediation instead of taking that action himself? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as No Consensus - Initially I have no comment about this but I oppose User:Sjakkalle's impose. If whether to found the discussion by pool or by discussion, or by consensus depends on what administrators' comprehension, Wikipedia can never run. (If you want to stress the importance of discussion you should use it in every discussion, not in just is one) Plus, when closing the discussion, User:Sjakkalle commented several "keeps" - this is simply too much! You may comment their "keeps" below their comments, but how can you impose your idea on the whole discussion?! In China, Mao put his own idea on the whold discussion and it leads to the Cultural Revolution! ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 07:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus The TFD debate was, understandably and admittedly, a tl;dr case – honestly, if I had closed it myself, I would've closed it without reading through the entire debate, and possibly closed it as "no consensus". Consensus of such debates are hard for anyone to judge. There were a lot of mixed opinions in the debate – there was no clear consensus to delete the template. So I'm voting to overturn the close to no consensus. Hey Mid (contribs) 18:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice but the closing admin did read the discussion and this is clear from the lengthly reasoning. As many people said it seemed to be non consensus unless you really read the whole discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above rationale utterly astonishing. Because you don't care to bother reading the debate in its entirety (and wouldn't have even if you'd intended to close it), you want to overturn the closure of someone who did take the time to read it (and thoroughly analyze it), blindly assuming that consensus wasn't reached? Absolutely unreal. —David Levy 19:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that even if the TFD debate had been closed as "keep", it would've still gone to DRV. Also, no, I never would've closed such a big discussion myself. Hey Mid (contribs) 19:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your comment gave me a chuckle. I normally say things that terrible when I'm drunk! :) Szzuk (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you don't wish to read such a large discussion in its entirety, and that's your prerogative. You haven't explained why this fact justifies overturning the closure of someone who did (followed by extremely thorough analysis). —David Levy 20:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse As somebody already said above, this close is not one that no reasonable admin could have made. Yoenit (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: Reasonable close. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus per SoWhy and DGG. Discussion was divided and consensus was not definitively reached. — C M B J 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse closure: As someone who actually voted keep, I note that the closing admin made a reasonable interpretation of the bulk of the discussion, and the closure is thus valid. This discussion HERE at DRV is becoming "AFD Part II" which is not what it about. The admin acted within his remit, made a reasonable interpretation of the strength of arguements presented in the discussion, and closed appropriately. No need to overturn, even though I personally voted (and still believe) it should have gone the other way; I am man enough to concede to consensus over my own beliefs. --Jayron32 01:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is becoming a deletion request rehash, it is because users keep doing exactly what you just did by basically "voting" and not substantiating. Saying that the admin "made a reasonable interpretation of the strength of arguements presented in the discussion" is effectively what most of the Endorse comments have said, and that contributes nothing more than where you turn up on a headcount. Why was the admin's interpretation reasonable, what were those strengths that were so powerful as to overwhelm the (slightly more than) half who felt the opposite way, and how exactly did the admin's decision to decision allow any further input benefit the attempt to reach a genuine consensus? Please just don't repeat what others have said because if the TfD discussion in question wasn't decided by a vote, this review certainly won't be.
  Talking about conceding your own beliefs in order to reach a consensus (and your manliness, apparently) is exactly what should happen in the discussion about the template, but that was never given the opportunity to occur because the admin acted like a referee in a sparring match, added up the number of blows, estimated how many connected and declared one side the "victor". Personally I would have contributed as one who believed in the deletion of the template, but I also would have taken the time to weigh arguments on both sides, discuss costs and benefits, and maybe work out some sort of compromise or even change my mind if logic warranted.
  Perhaps you're right and this thread is becoming "AFD Part II", but if so it's only because Part I was shut down before any real consensus could occur. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but dozens of people offered arguements, certainly enough to guage the strengths of those arguements, and the discussion ran the required seven days. I can't see where there wasn't enough opportunity to judge consensus. You're taking this exceedingly personally, to the point of trying to argue out every single person who votes differently than you want them too. That a sure sign that you are taking this far to personally, and its becomes clearer and clearer with every response you leave that the crux of your arguement is "this just didn't go the way I wanted it too". If you have confidence in the strength of your arguement, you make it once and leave it be. Berating every single person who makes a counterarguement doesn't display any respect for the process of consensus building as a means of solving disputes, rather it shows an intent win the dispute merely by being the loudest disputant. We know your position on the matter; there's no need to restate it every time someone has a differing opinion. --Jayron32 03:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "You're taking this exceedingly personally, to the point of trying to argue out every single person who votes differently than you want them too." Please read about assuming good faith and avoiding personal attacks. Your assumptions are rooted in the belief that, because I disagree, I must be acting in bad faith and that unravels everything else you've written. "...the crux of your arguement is 'this just didn't go the way I wanted it too'[sic]". It is clear from that statement alone that you didn't even read before responding, since I indicated in the very comment above that the TfD request did go the way I wanted it to - my dispute with the closure is that I felt it was closed before consensus was reached, and people who felt differently than me weren't given the opportunity to solidify their position. If you can't be bothered to read anyone's post before you make outlandish assumptions about the person and then attack them based on those assumptions, maybe you should spend more time on introspection and less time composing argumenta ad hominem. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 13:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. As much as I respect admins willing to be bold and ignore all rules, I believe Sjakalle did so incorrectly in this case. This was a clear case of 'no consensus', almost as clear as it gets; I don't think any other close would have been reasonable. The fact that this template is so widely used, and its deletion will have a considerable impact, should have been all the more reason to place a high threshold on the consensus needed to delete it; such a widely-used template should not be deleted on a 50/50 split discussion. Sjakalle's assessment of the arguments was not appropriate here - the 'delete' arguments were not so much stronger than the 'keep' ones to overwhelm the lack of consensus. As an aside, had I commented in this TFD, I would probably have argued for deletion myself; but I just can't see the grounds for closing this discussion as 'delete'. Robofish (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I was following the TfD when it was open, and didn't contribute due to a combination of the closeness of the opposing arguments and the fact that a number of people commented that it was bound to be no consensus. I believe the closer acted correctly and set out their arguments well. It is not the case that they used a supervote but they formed their opinion through "the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments", bearing in mind that consensus "should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes". (quotes from WP:Deletion process). Eldumpo (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Sjakkalle's overview was an entirely reasonable contribution to further debate - it was essentially a "metacomment" that summarized and criticized the views of others. It would have fitted in very well as an additional, quite persuasive post in the discussion, and a continued thread in the argument. My problem with it is that while as a critical comment it was entirely reasonable, it was not a balanced summary of community consensus. There were strong and reasoned views both ways. In particular, there was a strong case made against the view that "all articles require expansion". It's patently not true, particularly for articles about particular stars, exoplanets, species, characters from ancient history who may only appear in a handful of texts... moreover, it's not obvious to a non-expert reader (or editor) whether an article on something obscure and poorly documented actually contains as much encyclopedic content as could be produced from the totality of human knowledge, or could easily double or treble in length if an expert with access to better sources got their teeth into it.

To my mind, the really productive and useful part of the debate happened after the 3rd section break (well worth reading), where people started to discuss the actual efficacy of the template: does it actually improve articles? Are there mechanisms that could be used to form closer links between expert editors, and tagged articles in their area of expertise? (Several were proposed, but deleting the template would scupper this.) Once the TL;DR point had been reached, the end of the debate had degenerated mostly into people knocking each other's straw men. Unfortunately it's difficult to get XFD debates to remain solution-focussed (with the honorable exception of CFD, where the locus of discussion is usually firmly set on "how can we make this useful" not "we must burn this with fire/preserve it at all costs" headbanging). But when there is no clear consensus in the burn/preserve arguments, and there is a productive thread of commentary on how to improve the efficacy of a system, then the default position should usually be to give reform a chance. If reform fails, then that will give extra credence to deletion arguments at any subsequent TFD - and if reform succeeds, it may obviate the need for one.

What DGG said above is correct - where large but finely-balanced numbers of people hold reasonable disagreement, we're really not a million miles away from plain vote-counting. If we accept that an admin could look at this and close it as "delete", we must also accept that an admin from the opposing camp could have closed it as "keep" (so long as they wrote a fairly persuasive concluding summary - eminently possible, since there were intelligent contributions on both sides available to draw from). So to endorse this closure as "delete", really means accepting that all three outcomes were legitimate summaries of the discussion. This seems quite perverse in terms of the power it gives the closing admin in debates that involved very many contributors; even if "No Consensus" is really so abhorred as a conclusion, I'm uncomfortable with giving one individual a "casting vote". Pick 12 good contributors and true at random from the debate, tell them to read-through it, and ask them to arrive at a verdict on how the consensus overall had turned - Keep? Delete? As a last resort only, NC? - and whichever outcome they came up with, at least I wouldn't feel it came to a single casting vote. But for any of three outcomes to be possible, purely depending on which individual waits in the wings to come and close the discussion, doesn't work for me. TheGrappler (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reason of this DRV, isn't it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. That comment is an erudite addition that utterly misses the point. Szzuk (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if the point appears to have been "utterly missed", I may well be trying to be too subtle and just splitting hairs. There is obviously a fine line between a closing admin weighing up the strength of arguments expressed in a discussion when determining consensus (not just a vote-count, which is at least in theory a good thing), and essentially just casting a deciding metavote (bad). If I felt the former was the case I would endorse the closure, in the latter case I would call to overturn. The question is, how to determine whether that line has been crossed? The distinction seems subtle but important to me, and I wanted to winkle out how to separate the two.

DGG's reasonable suggestion was that, if the debate ultimately resembles a policy not content dicussion, then any closer's weighing up of non-trivial arguments can't be objective, so other than ignoring unreasonable [!]votes (e.g. those clearly made under a misapprehension of the topic under discussion) they should just stick to vote-counting.

If you re-read what I wrote, I have tried to add two other indicators of line-crossing. On policy or systemic matters, I feel that a solution-centered approach should be favored by default if an impasse has been reached. The line should be drawn flexibly if there is a discussion about potentially beneficial reform in a closely-matched discussion: a reasonable outcome might be "No clear consensus this time, suggestions for reform have been made, if efficacy does not improve then expect this to be XFD'd again, with less mercy". A second indicator I suggest is to consider "if we accept this closure, what other closures would be also accept by a different admin?" I feel this is a useful way of distinguishing between a "pure" consensus-determination and a metavote. Obviously there is an element of discretion: particularly between keep/NC or NC/delete. However to accept this delete closure would seem to imply that a closure from the other side of the fence, that was justified on the basis of some of the stronger keep arguments, would also have been valid. If all 3 options (keep/delete/NC) are alive on the table for closure, then that decision smells much more like a metavote than a consensus-determination. It's hard to imagine a situation in which discretion stretched so far that one admin could claim community consensus was delete and another that the community wanted to keep! Surely after a discussion, at least one of "keep" or "delete" should be dead in the water as options for community consensus - if both are even plausible, the correct summary has to be "no consensus"?

There is something to be said for metavoted closures, since strength of argument is important, but it's just too arbitrary for a single individual to do it (hence my "jury" comment). The reason I can't endorse this closure is because it crosses all three lines I set out: DGG's criterion; lack of latitude for a mooted solution-centered approach; arbitrariness that "consensus to keep" or "consensus to delete" would both have been plausible outcomes if we accepted this closure, depending upon the side taken by a single closing admin in a closely-split discussion. TheGrappler (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case your major point appears to be that the outcome of the TFD could be arbitrary. This is true - but that only matters if you believe the outcome of this DRV is also arbitrary. That won't be the case. Szzuk (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure Consensus is not and should not be determined by vote counting. The closing admin did what we expect of a closer, weighing the strength of argument and seeing which arguments were challenged or refuted by other users. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out the policy stating that it is within an admin's role to interpret and rule on the content of a debate? I've looked and have been unable to find any WP policy to this effect, though I have come across policy stating the exact opposite. I'm trying to avoid being overly vocal on this point, but it has come up multiple times within this discussion. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is described e.g. at Wikipedia:Deletion_process, which says "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes", and at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Interpreting and making a decision on the content of the debate is exactly what the closing admin is supposed to do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it directs them to determine when a rough consensus has been reached, to ignore arguments that are made in bad faith, disregard WP policy, or based on specific and identifiable logical fallacies - none of which were applied in this case. What I'm not seeing is a guideline directing admins to act as judge weighing the arguments of two equal sides and determine whose logic was "better". There do exist guidelines for arbitration as a last resort to dispute resolution, the admin in question is not a member of the arbitration committee. It just seems that the fact that determination is not based on headcount is being used as a carte blanche for a sysop to act any way (s)he pleases as long as there are some users behind him/her. I hope this is not the case, but it needs to be clarified to remove some of the doubt surrounding this closure. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure and award barnstar, as another user has already said. I read this close, and it was handled beautifully, looking at the weight of the arguments. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse closure This TFD had so many votes going every which way, but as stated countless times above, whether something is kept or deleted at xFD is based on consensus, not head-counting. I feel that the admin made the right call in weighing the reasoning behind the keeps, and I agree that the "delete" arguments were stronger and more rooted in policies and guidelines. Magioladitis' analysis of the "keep" !votes finds a great deal of WP:NOTAGAIN, WP:ITSUSEFUL, "Keep per X" and other similarly weightless arguments. So far, I see 39/21 in favor of endorsement, but most of the people saying "no consensus" seem to be going almost entirely by vote count, which is obviously not how we determine consensus. Therefore, I hope that whoever closes this is similarly levelheaded on analyizing the reasoning behind each !vote here and not just the head count. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Isn't this exactly what admins are supposed to do? Not just tally up !votes, but rather weigh the merits of arguments presented? Closer's rationale was nicely laid out and makes perfect sense. We need more closes like this, which give us more than just the easy way out of "no consensus". Yilloslime ^T_C 21:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can see a lot of people here mentioning the fact that consensus is based on a balancing of statements, not on head count. Maybe if the closing administrator had not been unwise enough to include the head count, or mention it in the closing, then it wouldn't have given cause to base anything on. If we don't go by head count, why use it as part of the close? Barking Fish 03:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus (or the lack thereof) isn't gauged via a head count, but that doesn't mean that the quantities of persons expressing particular views are ignored. In this instance, Sjakkalle was careful to explain why an analysis of the arguments and counterarguments resulted in a "delete" outcome despite an approximately even numerical split. Had Sjakkalle omitted these figures, this surely would have triggered allegations that no such consideration was given. —David Levy 04:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think including a headcount is a problem, it is an indicator that is widely used. But it wasn't used as justification for the delete it was for informational purposes. Szzuk (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Read the policy carefully: is not to be calculated solely by counting heads. Agreed, not solely--but it does not say it shoiuln't be primarily determined by counting heads, because it is to be so determined: counting is the primary mechanism, modified by discarding sockpuppets, SPAs, and irrelevant arguments, such as those contaminated by POV and OWNership, and interpreting a "rough count" to mean we do not make decision on the basis of 5:6 or similar close proportions. This still leaves the need for administrator judgement: in deciding what is too close to call, or what arguments are irrelevant. The practice of the admin deciding which of two comparable policies is the more important in a given case is often done, and sometimes endorsed here, and in my opinion is wholly and totally wrong and against the basic spirit of Wikipedia. Given that, the admin has essentially untrammeled license to decide anything they thing reasonable, which makes total nonsense out of the entire concept of consensus. I would never decide that way, even in a matter where I am the surest about which side is right. If am sure one way is right, but most responsible people think the other, no matter how sure I am, the consensus is the other and that's the end of it. I can be 100% right, and still not be on the side that succeeds--many people here seem to discount that possibility. That I'm an admin does not make me the more right, or the more entitled to enforce my opinions. My only role is in carefully ascertaining what the community feels and then enforcing it. To be specific, I interpret the policy as requiring that any admin deciding against the apparent consensus has the burden of proof--not just that their personal opinion is reasonable, but that no other opinion would be reasonable. As a corollary, any admin deciding a more or less evenly matched discussion and concluding other than no consensus, has the burden of showing that their opinion is the only reasonable one. The way some people would have it work, I would think I would have done better never expressing strong views on anything, but simply closing the way I wanted to. I think some admins do just that. Or worse, that they do express their views, and decide according to them. How is that to be prevented if an admin can decide what ought to be the stronger argument. The result would approximate the present--whoever gets there first has consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I wasn't sure how to say it without making it imply that the admin was deliberately abusing power in this case, which is not an issue here I believe. The admin was clearly acting in good faith to make the best decision, but ruling on the debate "winner" instead of consensus makes the decision questionable. Someone pointed out deletion guidelines which is mostly directed to admins interpreting policy, not logic, but it does include this rule:

4. When in doubt, don't delete.

Considering that rule 4 is the only one to appear in boldface on the page, it probably shouldn't be discounted. The spirit of the rule (in my inexperienced interpretation) is to avoid disruption of the encyclopedia such as having the decision later called into question, which would result in a re-hash of the decision process. This last rule certainly doesn't mean "don't delete anything", but when the decision is questionable, it should err on the side of conservation rather than change -- at least until major opposition points can have their concerns addressed and then consent to the change. In this case, there might have been a "close compromise", i.e. a few minor changes to the proposed deletion to which a supermajority might have consented, but now we'll never know. While I personally felt that it should be deleted, there were relevant counterpoints which motivated about half the contributors to oppose deletion, and these weren't well-addressed before the discussion was abruptly closed and ruled to a highly questionable consensus. Keeping it open a little longer to allow users, and not the admin, to agree on the major logical points may have saved time in the long run by allowing both sides to hammer out lasting compromise. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"both sides to hammer out lasting compromise". If only that actually happens in discussions such as these. Usually all you get is more and more users adding their personal opinions and stubbornly sticking to them. -- œ ^™ 02:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, wouldn't that make WP:CONSENSUS pointless? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break three

Weak overturn to no consensus. This is a very difficult one to judge for me, especially having participated in the original deletion discussion; at the time I thought that the conclusion (based on my mental tallying of !votes) would be "no consensus" - notwithstanding my personal support for deletion. I have to say I was very surprised to see it closed as "delete", and also surprised to see the logic and rationale for this. However, I thought it was a bold decision and one that was clearly in line with the accepted principle, rarely implemented in practice, that consensus is not equal to vote counting. Let me say, I think this decision is historic. If it is allowed to stand, it has the potential to break through a problem we have had for while: achieving consensus with mass participation discussions. As someone else noted, these inevitably end up as 50:50 votes, with little actual discussion between participants. My other concern, however, is just as strong: this decision will end up increasing the power of Admins, who will inevitably move away from a role of implementing community consensus and towards a role of arbitrating discussions. That, I believe, is a negative trend that would extend the power structures on Wikipedia and move us away from the flat structured community that has been the foundation of our success. As someone else said, this is about introducing !supervotes, and this isn't consistent with the established consensus among users for what the role of admins should be. Therefore, I would err on the side of caution and say it should be overturned, with the alternative solutions for dealing with the problem addressed instead. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"As someone else noted, these inevitably end up as 50:50 votes", but is that correct? Even if not always the case, can it be shown to be the rule rather than the exception? Sorry to state a point more than once, but I think is an important fundamental assumption in this discussion which has not been addressed yet. If true, it calls into question the entire basis of WP:CONSENSUS which assumes that participants will gravitate towards a rough agreement or compromise as they discuss an issue constructively. Also, I agree wholeheartedly that if endorsed, this could affect the role of admins in the future and thus demands caution. At present "administrators are primarily concerned with policy and editor behavior and will not decide content issues authoritatively" and various other policies restricting sysops from arbitration; so if this is not overturned, maybe then there would need to follow some sort of policy changes regarding admins. 96.228.129.69 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is interesting,because the underlying merits of the deletion are not related to fundamental policy disagreements, as some extensive tfd debates have been, or over the contents of articles about a controversial topic, as most extensive debates here at del rev are. The fundamental issue is the manner of marking problems in Wikipedia where there is no truly fundamental disagreement: everybody here wants to have problems marked effective so they will get fixed, and the disagreements over the template is simply about the details of one aspect of doing this. It's like many of the extensive MOS debates, where we have difficulty getting agreement over equally trivial issues. The reason I think for disagreements over matters like this are that are are really no very strong arguments on either side--we can basically do it in a satisfactory manner one way or the other. I think a matter like this for the MOS must be settled, because we need some degree of consistency. When its a matter of mere procedure, the balance should be to continue as we have been doing unless there is a clear majority otherwise. If a truly better way of indicating problems were devised, I doubt there would be any real objections made to getting it adopted. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All arguments of the "keep" side have been answered effectively.

"Articles need to be expanded" -> All articles need to be expanded. Don't state the obvious.

"The tag helps us give priorities" -> We have wikiprojects that work better.

"Some articles need to be expanded faster than other" -> It doesn't work in practise. Statistics don't show any difference in expansion between pages having the tag and pages that don't.

Some arguments of the "delete" side haven't been answered

"What's the use of just saying that a page needs expansion without telling in which direction?"

"We have tags for every kind of expansion"

I think many of the "keep" !voters have been convinced that the template needs deletion by the process and this is reflected to the TfD result by the closing admin. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, while these are great points of consideration regarding the specifics of the deletion, these should have been discussed in that talk page which is now no longer possible. I personally think that if only a few very minor changes were made to the proposed deletion, a large majority would have consented to the deletion, but we'll never know unless the deletion is later overturned and another round of TfD results. The point here is that the admin closed abruptly and declared a highly questionable consensus, preventing further discussion in which very valid points such as yours could be hammered out to an acceptable compromise. (Not trying to accuse you of bringing it up in the wrong place, just pointing out that as users we should have been able to discuss this during the TfD talk a little longer, rather than having a week-long discussion about the closing of the TfD.) Magioladitis, can you cite some of those "statistics" as I think it would be relevant to this discussion? 96.228.129.69 (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aymatth2 did some stats during the TfD. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to re-ask an unanswered question that I already posted above. Did anyone ever address the argument that the {{expand}} template could be used to point out that a non-stub article as a whole needs expansion, with specific suggestions for improvement posted on the talk page? (Liberal education was in this exact situation before I changed {{expand}} to {{missing information}}.) I know that this isn't supposed to be a repeat of the TFD, and I still believe that the closure should be endorsed, but if this argument wasn't adequately addressed in the closing comments, I would like to see how much weight it carried against the arguments for deletion. Edge3 (talk) 15:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 December 2010

AraPacis – Restore and list at AFD. – Courcelles 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

(i) AraPacis in the news, (ii) on blabbermouth.net, (iii) on bravewords.com.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Page meets notability requirements. Slugguitar (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - AraPacis (band) (compare Ara Pacis, and Arapacis (hotel) at Pinamar, Argentina), is a female fronted, Canadian hard rock/prog metal/goth metal band, formed in 2003 by former Miranie Morissette guitarist Jerry Fielden (Jerry Fielden AfD). 2 albums out. Roots in the 70s. Prior talk page discussions: 7 November 2005 and 7 August 2010. A mention of AraPacis in Toronto Star. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD. Closing admin acknowledged that the subject falls into a "grey area"; therefore it's not suitable for A7 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD to find out if any of the purported sources establish notability. --Bsherr (talk) 01:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and List at AfD, as should be the simple default for any A7 where someone desires a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 December 2010

Bhimsain Khurana – The deletion as A7 and G11 is overturned and the article has been restored. However, during the process of this review, it became apparent that the original article was actually a cut and paste copyvio. As such, I have redeleted the article as a G12 speedy. (Yes, I know, restoring and redeleting was just for the logs). Anyone is free to write a new article on this person, but we cannot build an article on such a foundation. – Courcelles 11:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion); (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal

06:45, 23 December 2010 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted "Bhimsain Khurana" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion)
17:48, 22 December 2010 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted "Bhimsain Khurana" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal,

wrongful speedy of referenced blp. Occoquan (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and send to AfD Neither the A7 nor the G11 speedy deletions were in accordance with policy or best practices. The sources were weak, but the claims to notability were reasonable, as was the tone. There was no compelling reason to bypass process in this manner. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn apparent error. Depending on what sourcing is available, might even be notable DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from CSD. Sigh... — After being hailed as a pioneer ... unprecedented success... Hailed as a milestone by the public and press alike ... two other successful feature films... won more accolades and rave reviews... further strengthened his credentials as a sensitive film-maker. highly successful and popular sitcom ...several profound and purposeful documentaries... revitalized the Indian animation scenario...This path breaking series — obviously no unsourced spam there then, why don't we sell tickets for his films too? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AfD - the latest version of the article wasn't particularly spammy (although it did contain a pride of peacocks), but there was an assertion of notability and and there are some references to back this up. We'll need a consensus to decide just how notable the subject is and, if kept, the text will need NPOVing. Bettia (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - as A7, G11, etc. do not apply. The policies need to be appied evenly, not emotionally.[17] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Another misuse of G11. G11 is for articles that violate WP:ADVERT, meaning they are blatant advertisements (blatantly offering goods or services for purchase or blatantly and wholly encouraging such). Articles with tone problems should be identified for fixing, not deleting. A template from Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup#Style of writing should be used instead. --Bsherr (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Easily pruned peacockery, not unsalvageable hype. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as the deleted article makes a credible case of notability not justifying speedy deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a duplicate of his Facebook description; however, this looks like it was copied to here from Bhimsain himself. Hence, I'm leaning towards an endorse of the deletion; this needs to be rewritten so that it is free of puffery and is neutral. –MuZemike 05:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, we have a mainspace essay called "delete the junk".

MuZemike, when did "this needs to be rewritten" turn into a reason to delete? Have all our maintenance tags stopped working?—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – It turned into a rationale when the article meets appropriate criteria for deletion (and this one does, as Jim appropriate notes). If people want to keep the article, they can rewrite it later, properly. NW (Talk) 16:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it wasn't even "written" in the first place, assuming it was just copypasted from the Facebook page. To me, it seems like overturning this deletion is encouraging people to copypaste their stuff from other websites. I wish not to send that message. –MuZemike 00:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, but... it's probably easier to restore it and then delete it again as a straightforward G12 copyvio since, as mentioned, it's pretty much a straight copy of the subject's Facebook page. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, in part per MuZemike. I'm convinced that in dealing with CSDs that necessarily involves a subjective component (G11 being a prime example), it is appropriate to allow a reasonable amount of discretion to the reviewing admin. I cannot say that discretion has been abused here, since I cannot bring myself to say that the deletion was clearly erroneous, whether or not I would have made the same decision. T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, then redelete as a copyvio, per Black Kite. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Not only is it a copy-paste from the Facebook page, but the Facebook page exists to promote the subject (hence G11 also applies). No objection to moving it to user space so that someone can write a proper, sourced, neutral article, but this is not one of those. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sarah Palin presidential campaign, 2012 – Deletion endorsed and consensus favors a trout wack to Rich Farmbrough for restoring this. – RL0919 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Self DRV; administrator User:Rich Farmbrough, involved with the RfD, overturned close without discussion, so am double-checking that close was right here. I don't see anything wrong with it though. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

One reason for deletion was that entering the title gave the target as first hit. This is no longer the case, the target is 3rd hit.
The page continues to get a steady trickle of hits.

Rich Farmbrough, 03:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What particular circumstances justify an administrator who had participated in a deletion discussion, where his opinion was not endorsed by the closing admin, unilaterally reversing the outcome of that deletion discussion? Regardless of the appropriateness of the redirect, I don't yet see a compelling reason for you to have done it--but I am willing to be convinced that there was a sufficiently good reason. I'm all ears. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reversal, things had changed since the debate. Moreover any user could have re-created the redirect, the only difference in undeleting it is that links to the deletion debate are preserved. Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Support the consensus - there is no campaign. Nothing has changed in the past week.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a wheel war, and per WP:WW we must refer it to Arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not. Had Wizardman redone the action rather than bringing it up for additional discussion (such as he's done here), that would have crossed the bright line. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at RFD and trout the recreator. We're in the wrong forum here. This forum reviews the procedural correctness of deletions. But what is being contested here, in essence, is the recreation of the page, not its deletion. The recreation was manifestly improper, although it was not wheel-warring, because wheel-warring covers only repeating a contested admin action. Given that the page was recreated by an admin, it cannot be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4, because such a re-deletion would mean repeating a contested admin action and would therefore constitute wheel-warring. The redirect must therefore be re-discussed on the merits, for which RFD is the proper forum. That is a bug in admin policy, which allows admin actions to be undone relatively easily, the so-called "second mover advantage", but we can't fix that here. Only if Rich Farmbrough continues to recreate deleted pages without seeking DRV, as would have been proper, an arbitration case against him would be warranted. Sandstein 16:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that whatever the technicalities of it, an administrator unilaterally reversing a RfD close on an article related to Sarah Palin would be a matter for Arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In recreating a page, it's easy to tell if new information has been added.But re-creating a deleted redirect might well be justified if there is additional reason to have one, such as if there was increased discussion of the subject under the redirect term, but there is no obvious way of demonstrating it. Personally, I think there's an easy solution here: there is enough material to justify a full article. Even speculation can be notable. Our refusal to admit people actually write in RSs about forthcoming campaign possibilities is a little ludicrous. (and, fwiw, thinking of this as wheel-warring is a little excessive for the circumstances.) DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page was deleted on December 3, 2010, but it appears people kept looking for it.[18] I agree that the entire is she or isn't she going to run could be put in an article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue? - Why are we here, when we should crystal-clearly be at ArbCom to discuss Rich Farmbrough's desysopping? An admin who participates in the losing side of an XfD that he then summarily reverses is not something that should be tolerated. Tarc (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the admin restoration - The close of the RfD by Wizardman read, "The result of the discussion was delete." The justification given for the admin restoration of the redirect was "One reson for deletion - tagert page hit by search- is no longer true."[19] That clearly is not a reason Wizardman gave for the close. This is an obvious misuse of admin tools. In that RfC, Rich Farmbrough wrote, "Keep, per nom. (existence of section covering this subject). We have articles on Flat Earth - no one argues we are suggesting that the Earth is flat. Rich Farmbrough, 05:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC). This is an obvious misuse of admin tools by an admin with a clear conflict of interest and a self interest in restoring the redirect. That being said, this only is a redirect, no one has posted this at the Administrators' noticeboard, generally no one seems too bent out of shape over this, and I'm not seeing a long string of "you jerk" posts on Rich Farmbrough's talk page (I didn't check the archives : ) ). Other than this DRV, not furthr action needs to be taken. Aside - The RfD was prompted by User:William S. Saturn's repeatedly listing the redirect for speedy deletion Sandwiched between trouble. Sounds about right for a Wikipedia Sarah Palin page. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted, per WP:CRYSTAL Nakon 09:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and delete again. I'm the nominator of the original discussion, so I plainly have an opinion on the matter, but I don't see where Rich Farmbrough's recreation addresses the plain problem stated in the original nomination: that it is speculative crystalballing. I don't see anything that justifies the use of administrative tools to undo the result of the discussion. Even more, I originally nominated this redirect to cut an edit war off at the knees, and I don't see anything that justifies the use of administrator tools to restart the dispute. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well surely that's the wrong use of RfD? One editor had attempted speedy three times and been declined each time. The dispute was whether the redirect constituted a hoax, which it clearly does not, the subject is discussed in major RS, including "The Daily Telegraph" and "The Guardian", and in at least one book. This is not an article like World War III, it is a mere redirect (to an existing section of an article about an existing American politician), it does not "present" the putative campaign (which one could argue already exists, even if there is no official campaign) to the reader. If you enter "Sarah Palin presidential campaign" in the search box, you do not hit this redirect, in fact you hit "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section of the Sarah Palin page. There is no sensible manner in which Wikipedia could be said to be asserting that there will be a 2012 campaign, much less electioneering (which would, of course, if true, mean that Wikipedia was campaigning, there fore the campaign existed, therefore would not be CRYSTAL anyway) Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - I believed that the redirect should be deleted, that the edit warring should stop, and that there should be a calm discussion instead. How is that a "wrong use" of RfD? It's the correct use of RfD. As to the other bit, you expressed your opinion in the discussion, others expressed theirs, and the deletion view prevailed. This is not a rehash of that discussion. When the deletion view prevailed, you used administrative tools to overturn it unilaterally; that's what we're discussing. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, this is DRV we're discussing the deletion, or at least that's the idea. It's only a redirect, though, not a big deal either way. Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse the original close, redelete the redirect, and trout slap Rich Farmbrough. If he ever does anything like this again, it should go summarily to ArbCom. Absolutely and totally unacceptable action for someone who participated in the debate. The wheel warring policy is clearly not designed to condone this type of second mover advantage. Courcelles 06:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the undeletion tool is both quite unnecessary and highly inappropriate, and unnecessarily exacerbated the problem. Endorse closure as within admin discretion, redelete redirect under G4, and {{whale}} Rich Farmbrough. T. Canens (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and redelete the redirect. It is clearly a conflict of interest when an administrator who participated in the Afd discussion makes such a move unilaterally that goes against the consensus.--JayJasper (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original deletion. The most appropriate action for Rich to have taken would have been to bring the deletion here himself, given his perception that things had changed, if he had proven unable to convince the deleting admin to reverse himself. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure, redelete, trout, etc., per Courcelles. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 December 2010

Agdaban massacre, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre , talk:Agdaban massacre, talk:Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, and talk:Garadaghly Massacre – Moot as pages restored. Nonadministrator closure. – Bsherr (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Buckshot06 used his administrative privilege to delete Agdaban massacre, Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre, Garadaghly Massacre articles without reviewing the case, participating in or awaiting the outcome of discussions on the talk pages. The deletion, as admitted by deleting administrator here, was carried out solely at the suggestion of Armenia-Azerbaijan ArbCom case participant, currently under editing restrictions per A-A Arbcom, User:MarshallBagramyan. Two administrators at WP:AN already opined here and here that the deletion of articles did not follow the appropriate procedure. I kindly request that the articles are restored and the proper procedure is followed for either deleting topical pages without selection of backgrounds or keeping them. (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, couple of minor points. Firstly, you're under A-A2 restrictions yourself, Atabey. Also, as User:Atabek, you were among the initial parties of the whole A-A2 case itself. Secondly, while one of the comments linked above is from an admin, the other is not. Third, previous discussion regarding this issue is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Buckshot06. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My original description of my actions was: ':::Hi all. The discussion and the original issue can be viewed at User talk:Buckshot06#New section, including the original request by User:MarshallBagramyan. The question at issue was whether the articles asserted that the massacres did take place without any question, or, whether they should reflect ambiguity over whether the incidents had taken place in the manner described. Not being able to read all the language refs provided (I don't speak Azeri or Armenian), I had to follow the English and what I could of the Russian, and decided that the articles did in fact posit the events had taken place, while they should have only been describing allegations. Therefore, I decided to delete the articles in accordance with WP:IAR so that better redrafting could take place.
Since then I've been attacked by what appear to be a number of nationalistic POV-pushers. Yet they do have a point; I probably should have sent the articles to a deletion debate instead. I would welcome attacks over potential misuse of process, but I am annoyed by those who imply a New Zealander is taking the 'wrong' view in a Azeri-Armenian dispute. Regards to all Buckshot06 (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)'[reply]

Thank you. But these points have nothing to do with deletion procedure being carried out improperly by yourself (as indicated here and here), based solely on suggestion of A-A participant and your personal view of him. Moreover, similar concerns raised in Maraghar Massacre article where most references were actually made up before, did not seem to cause a similar concern on your behalf. Again, whether I was participant of A-A or not, or what faith you assume about myself or other editors, summarizing one group of them as "nationalist POV pushers", is not really relevant to this deletion review. Looking forward for neutral administrators to look into the subject matter. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Based on a review of the Google cached versions, the articles are clearly not attack pages or negative unsourced BLPs. The deference due to speedy deletions for which WP:BLP is invoked as a justification carries with it a corollary requirement not to invoke the policy in defense of obviously unjustified speedy deletions. WP:IAR, which the deleting administrator is now noting as a reason for his actions, isn't applicable, since speedy deletion of these articles doesn't really improve Wikipedia: it is far easier to correct a perceived WP:NPOV problem in an existing article than to redo all of the work needed to find sources, and rewrite the article from scratch. The exact source list from a deleted article, though temporarily available in cached versions, can't easily be used, since contributors would not be properly credited. Chester Markel (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for review. If the articles can be restored now, I can proceed with researching and adding appropriate references. Atabəy (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast: because the deleting administrator cited WP:BLP in the deletion log, according to arbcom the articles cannot be restored until a full discussion of not less than seven days occurs, with sufficient participation to discern a consensus for restoration, even if this takes more than seven days due to the celebration of the Christmas and New Years holidays by large portions of the world. This is why inappropriate deletions for which WP:BLP is invoked can cause so much disruption. Chester Markel (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as out-of-process deletion. No prejudice to taking all three of these to AFD for discussion. --Jayron32 03:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest the deleting admin revert the close They recognize above they should probably have sent the article to AfD instead--I urge them to simply revert their own close, and to do just that. Nothing at all prevents any admin from reversing themselves when they realize they have made an error. Otherwise, I see no reason not to restore this immediately. As arb com has repeatedly said, BLP is not a free pass. These deletions were out of process; the reason given by the deleting arb does seem adequate: they were concerned over the exact wording, and therefore choose to delete the articles, admitting that there was no reason but IAR. The proper use of IAR is to restore the articles now, one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DRV has a long history of taking a dim view of IAR speedy deletions, and in my view that's quite right. Administrators are elected because they can be trusted to follow the processes correctly. Overturn and immediately list at AfD so that the community can make this call.—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, more or less per DGG and Jayron. I'd don't even see a credible basis for deletion. The cited Time magazine source sums up the matter well -- While the details are disputed, this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly two weeks ago. So far, some 200 dead Azerbaijanis, many of them mutilated, have been transported out of the town tucked inside the Armenian-dominated enclave of Nagorno- Karabakh for burial in neighboring Azerbaijan. The total number of dead -- the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians were slaughtered, most of them women and children -- is unknown. But the facile explanation offered by the attacking Armenians, who insist that no innocents were deliberately killed, is hardly convincing -- and its core content is backed up by the various citations to reliable human rights groups. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Time article above is referring to an entirely different event - Khojaly - not the one in the title of this discussion.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is all going one way. Should I undelete the article? I've been a little reluctant to do so because I wanted to avoid any more process short-cuts, but I'm quite happy to if that is the consensus. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend so. The use of unilateral administrator privileges outside of process works well when administrators are willing to accept feedback that a discussion would have been the more appropriate process. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article. I will keep an eye on potential edit-warring over it for a while; it may be nominated for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOT SUFFICIENT Per WP:AGF, I'll assume that you forgot how many articles you recently speedily deleted. Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) and Garadaghly Massacre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore), mentioned above as being considered for restoration, have yet to be restored. All three article talk pages remain deleted. Until all six relevant pages are restored, the matter being considered at this DRV is NOT moot, and you shouldn't claim that it is, in a manner that recently tricked a non-admin into premature closure [20]. Chester Markel (talk) 18:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per out-of-process deletion. Buckshot should be finally warned for using his administrative privilege to shut articles without informing and constructive position.--NovaSkola (talk) 11:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not helpful to ask DRV to sanction administrators. Even if Buckshot deserves sanction (and he doesn't), DRV doesn't have the authority. And we do routinely close DRVs where editors accuse closers, or each other, of bad faith. Basically, DRV is concerned only with content, and has no interest in conduct matters at all.
Apart for the most blatant cases which belong at Arbcom, there is in fact no effective mechanism for disciplining administrators on Wikipedia. Users intent on trying this are usually pointed to WP:RFC/U, which has never accomplished anything remotely useful in terms of administrator conduct, ever. However, it does helpfully contain the drama safely away from the content-related parts of the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

most admins when their decisions are overturned here, do as I did when it happened, and learn from it, and there is no need to even think about it being a matter of sanctions. WEe should not hesitate to bring what we think erroneous closes or deletions here, & doing so does not imply any great malfeasance, just error. An admin who defiantly continues to make the same error after being repeatedly corrected would be another matter, but such cases I hope would be rare (and in fact, I can think of only a very few admins who might fall into that category about deletions and even they might learn if corrected sufficiently): most people, whether or not they admit they're wrong, do learn from the public reaction. Of course asking them quietly to reconsider is the first step, but it not, it helps if several people do so , and out here where it's very public. Buckshot, as I would have expected, has now handled this right. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring only ONE of the three articles being considered at this DRV, while leaving Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) and Garadaghly Massacre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) and all three article talk pages deleted, tricking a non-admin into premature closure [21], isn't handling this right. Chester Markel (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's up to the nominator to name every page to be considered. The only page being considered here was Agdaban massacre, as it was the only one in the heading of this DRV in {{DRV links}}. To add the others and then pretend they were always there is abusive and misleading. I won't revert it, but I would advise you to consider instead starting a new deletion review for those. --Bsherr (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All three articles were mentioned in the nominator's statement [22] as being considered for restoration at this DRV. I merely clarified the header. The only way the deleting administrator could have missed the presence of the request to restore the other articles is if he didn't read the statement by the nominator, just as it seems you didn't. Chester Markel (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they are being considered, why wouldn't the nominator have properly formed the DRV header? --Bsherr (talk) 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being inexperienced with the deletion review process, the nominator probably formed the DRV listing using the provided template, which only allows one article title to be entered. The nominator's statement very plainly requests the restoration of all three articles [23]. Chester Markel (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment by another user participating in this DRV, prior to my fixing the headers, also recognizes that the nominator's statement requests the restoration of three articles [24]. Please take the time to read discussions before closing them. Chester Markel (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll endeavor to do so, but it would be better if you could correct malformed headers as soon as you notice them, to lessen the likelihood of mistakes. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn All If the article for Agdaban massacre is any indication, these are not attack pages eligible for G10 speedy deletion and it would appear that there are sources available to support notability. I would question the identification of each of these incidents using the word "Massacre" (with an initial capital), as this would make it appear that there is general consensus on the naming of the incidents. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Youi're gonna get a higher error rate under these circumstances and any error by Buckshot06 is explained by that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm concerned about my inability to find any news sources or books using the names given in the titles of any of these articles. Does restoring articles with those names help Wikipedia? Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted articles, whose Google cached versions are still viewable, contain adequate sources to support the notability of their subjects. If the articles are at the wrong titles, page moves are far more efficient than deletion and rewriting from scratch at new locations. Chester Markel (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Chester Markel. Garadaghly Massacre and Malibeyli and Gushchular Massacre articles should follow the suit and be restored as soon as possible since they were in a batch of incorrectly deleted articles. That fact has already been established. Tuscumbia (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Process - The original Agdaban massacre DRV listing was non-admin closed because the deleting administrator reverted the Agdaban massacre deletion.[25] A new editor (editing since 6 December 2010) reopened the non-admin closure and added a few more articles well after discussion had taken place.[26]. I posted a notice at ANI.[27] Enough time has passed and no action has been taken to close this DRV, so it appears that the present DRV is not out of process. Carry on. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all as out-of-process deletion. Not sure why it hasn't already been done. If things are not handled via established process, unfairness results. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. When I filed this report, I did not want to copy the same description for all three pages, instead listed three pages under one report. The same issue with deletion procedure applies to all three pages, not just Agdaban massacre. If I have to file separate reports for other two to be considered, please, let me know. Thank you and Happy Holidays! Atabəy (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please post a polite request on User talk:Buckshot06 for him to undo these other two deletions.—S Marshall T/C 21:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I just followed your suggestion here. Happy New Year to all. Atabəy (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the deleting administrator has silently refused to restore the remaining articles. Chester Markel (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should imagine the closer of this DRV will know what to do about that without any prompting from us. :)—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I've just been alerted by User:EdJohnson that this DRV is still open. Of course I'll undelete the other articles; please hold on. Happy New Year!! Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 December 2010

Canada–Tonga relations – Endorsed. Much of the argument to overturn this deletion was based on vote counting, or the 'strength' of those votes. I read the AfD with the intention of deciding if a delete outcome was a reasonable conclusion to make from the discussion. The keep comments seemed to me, and to many others on that AfD to be very weakly argued, particularly with the sources supplied. It therefore seems reasonable that those comments may be weighted weakly by a closing administrator. Taking this in to account, a closure as 'delete' seems to be within the discretion that an administrator has when closing an AfD. – Prodego ^talk 03:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The debate was relisted after seven days with a note reading, "consensus split, pointless NCing this one." I would agree that there was neither any consensus to keep nor any to delete at that point.
Since then, there were five further 'keep' arguments (one of which I presume you discounted as per WP:JUSTAVOTE, and rightly so) and three further 'delete' arguments. Of course voting plays no part in things but I do not think it could be said that those eight additional comments – nor the discussion they prompted – provided the overall debate with a consensus to delete the article.
In particular, some of the 'delete' arguments were spurious in the extreme, and there were strong elements of proof by assertion (people may well say that the opposing side also used such devices, and I might agree with that, but this would only strengthen the case for a 'no consensus' finding) including, "It's really not my problem if people choose to ignore the clear wording of WP:NOTE," "You act as if those links you've provided are substantial, when they are not," "Sources exist but you can't find them? pathetic," a statement that sources are only valid if they are available free online, a hint that sources covering more than one topic were unacceptable even if they contained relevant content [28], a suggestion that a proposed reference was invalid because none of the chapters were entitled 'Canada Tonga relations' [29] and even a copy-pasted deletion vote [30] – and note I didn't say, "copy-pasted deletion !vote."
I think it is clear that this result should be overturned to 'no consensus' – ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 14:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think the sources supplied are on the weak side, but feel the discussion showed a lack of consensus on that topic. Further I strongly suspect there exists a document that covers these relations in detail. Things like [31] seem like plenty evidence of a meaningful relationship. Was the close within admin discretion? I'm not sure, it's pretty close. I _do_ think NC was the better call though. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a consensus that my previous close of this debate should not have been made, and on Wikipedia one submits to the consensus, even when it's blatantly wrong. I'm grateful to Spartaz for stepping up and making the close that replaced mine, even though I think it went the wrong way. An argument for a merge was made and not refuted.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge argued or not, the close was not 'merge' – it was 'delete'. And while your close was overturned, it was not because the decision was considered wrong but because the procedure was. Neither of these points should point towards support of this 'delete' outcome. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 17:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point; merge was argued and not refuted, so the alternatives to deletion weren't exhausted, which makes the "no consensus" close objectively correct. But it's also true to say a number of editors did question my decision, rather than the procedure. That doesn't make them right, and I remain of the view that they were wrong. I also think it's a shame that with such a contentious discussion, a rather nuanced close should be replaced with a simplistic one.
But the other side of it is that Spartaz was backed into a corner. With so many editors !voting to overturn the "no consensus" at DRV, he had to take account of that discussion, which in itself represented a consensus.
So, objectively wrong though the "delete" camp are—and that's very clearly my position—Spartaz couldn't realistically have closed it otherwise. Even when the consensus is badly wrong, as in this case, it's to be obeyed.—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD isn't a trump. WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1#Deletion is to be a last resort rejected an addition along those lines in April 2009. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... which you've linked for me several times before, as if it refuted my position. I don't think it does; it's hardly an RFC, is it? Nobody familiar with DRV will be surprised that those particular editors took that particular position at a small and poorly-attended discussion.
It's true that WP:BEFORE does not have the force of policy, but both WP:ATD and WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM do. They aren't ambiguous.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not possible to refute your position outright – even if the discussion were stronger, it could be overridden by an updated consensus. I presented the WT:DGFA link again the second time, according to Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia talk:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1 1) for the benefit of other readers and 2) because I don't remember any previous responses. WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM points to the same section as WP:PRESERVE, which has been referenced at many AfDs without receiving special treatment. If we continue this discussion, I'd like to see evidence – discussions or individual AfDs – supporting your interpretation. I have seen AfDs split between merge, redirect, and delete closed as "redirect, history available for merging" rather than delete, but usually when the non-delete outcomes had substantial support. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the two aspects of my argument did you want me to prove with reference to discussions, please? That policies can prevail over !votes, or that WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD are both policies?—S Marshall T/C 09:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That response misses my objections entirely. I'll move this general discussion to another page where we might communicate more clearly. For this specific case, I added a comment agreeing with Mkativerata below. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't seem to see this other page you mention?—S Marshall T/C 19:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't started it yet – I'm planning to create a user subpage to hold a draft RfC. Remind me if I haven't contacted you in around 10 days. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It's unfortunate that this doesn't help the closer of this DRV, because I think what we're arguing here is the main, substantive point of contention. Opinion statements about the "weight of the arguments" are all very well, and there are about a million of those below, but they don't constitute a reasoned debate.—S Marshall T/C 12:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus The Afd was relisted earlier because there was no consensus, and the comments of those participating after the relisting were also rather equally balanced. The issues regarding copyright violations that had been raised earlier had been addressed and the arguments for retention regarding the validity of the sources counterbalanced the arguments for deletion. There was neither consensus based on argument or numbers for either deletion or retention, and the original non-admin close as "no consensus" was appropriate in terms of an end result, though questionable based on user involvement. While it was appropriate to undo the non-admin close, there appears to be no clear consensus for deletion. A justification from the closing administrator explaining the reasoning behind the close might have provided a basis for the close, but none was offered. Alansohn (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emdorse close. There was no outcome but deletion that would actually conform to WP:Policy on WP:Original Research. Abductive (reasoning) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV process is to discuss whether a close was procedurally acceptable, not whether or not you personally agree with it. Clearly, multiple editors felt that the article fell within the bounds of WP:NOR, so the question is, was there a consensus to delete? And the answer is, no. ╟─Treasury Tag►Captain-Regent─╢ 21:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that is purely your opinion. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a bit like, "There was no outcome but deletion that would actually conform to WP:Policy on WP:Original Research," is just your opinion? ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-close, unless there is a clear consensus here that the close was not just within discretion, but "correct". I recently pledged, at another DRV, to !vote to overturn any contentious XfD where the closing admin didn't give adequate contemporaneous reasons for the close. I agree with the outcome here as I always agree with Spartaz's closes, and I think I'm being a pain in the arse. But I nonetheless think it is an important principle for a number of reasons which I won't wank on about here. And I shouldn't abandon my position merely because I like the outcome. BTW, I'm still waiting on DGG's answer to Libstar's question in the AfD, which in some way goes to the question of "weighting" of the !votes in this AfD. Re TT above - none of the keep !voters even attempted to refute the NOR argument. It was essentially ignored by the "there are heaps of sources" catchcry. I can only assume that no-one attempted to refute the argument because it couldn't be refuted except by providing sources that discussed the relationship as a whole. It was a killer irrefutable point that should have decided the AfD as NOR is an overriding policy. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a killer irrefutable point if NOR was a reason to delete. But surely, NOR is a reason to rewrite, isn't it?—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some circumstances, yes. But in other circumstances the topic is irredeemably OR because on the sources available it simply isn't possible to write a NOR article on the topic. That was the essence of the point made in this AfD - that the sources wouldn't permit anything other than synthesis. That point was not refuted. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't the merge proposal have addressed it satisfactorily? And wasn't the merge proposal itself unrefuted?—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" didn't have anywhere near consensus support. It was a random idea thrown up in the discussion without any analysis of whether it would actually be viable. I completely reject the idea that if one participant throws up a merge suggestion, it has to be exhaustively considered before deletion becomes an option. I should add that the validity of OR as a reason for deletion is also understood by appreciating the close relationship between WP:NOR and WP:N (particularly WP:GNG). That is, without significant coverage in reliable sources, an article's subject matter is likely to be hopelessly prone to OR, because the article will either have to synthesise non-signficant coverage or rely on unsourced material. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it was a bit more than "a random idea". When I read that debate, I see significant, if minority, support for a merge and acknowledgement among the "delete" camp that merge is also a viable option. I also think that it's AfD's job to consider all reasonable suggestions made during the debate, and that if a reasonable suggestion is made during the debate but remains unrefuted, then the closer probably ought to take account of that.—S Marshall T/C 23:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if there is no explanation regarding what material would be merged, or what the material would be merged into, how is it a reasonable suggestion? What of substance would be merged into Foreign relations of Canada, an article that obviously discusses infinitely more significant matters than Tonga? No-one even sought to explain that. "Merge" isn't a proposal worth a grain of salt unless it is "Merge X into Y, which would be viable for the following reasons…". We demand reasoning from keep and delete !votes. "Merge" should be held to the same standard especially if anyone closing the debate is going to take the attitude that the mere fact of a merge proposal can stand in the way of a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, when I read it in context, I understood the reasoning behind the "merge" proposal. But I can understand how come others would not, and we might need to agree to disagree here. (Incidentally, I think it's hilariously ironic that you're making those arguments beneath an "overturn" recommendation while I'm essentially endorsing, particularly when you and I have both directly swapped sides since the last DRV on this article. :) We'd both be ripe subjects for a study of the psychology of Wikipedia!)—S Marshall T/C 23:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the psychology of wikipedia... I reckon it's just a DRV thing. :) --Mkativerata (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mkativerata here. The references to merging were not selective, which implies dumping the entire page into the two Foreign relations of articles. The delete comments generally dismissed the content/sources, and Mkativerata went further, calling the article a "random synthesis of factoids". I read that as an argument against merging. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's editors' discretion what's merged and what isn't. The details aren't a matter for the closer to decide. Personally I usually choose to read a "merge" recommendation as including some judicious trimming at editorial discretion, which would take place in accordance with the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that the closer takes no responsibility for the implementation of the merger. I think our differing assumptions highlight that if those comments had been more specific, we wouldn't have to assume. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse delete the poor attempt at original closure by a non-admin who even admitted it was heading to delete. the last deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_December_19#Canada.E2.80.93Tonga_relations clearly had consensus for delete. as with any AfD it's about strength of arguments, most keep arguments didn't bother to find sources, and the sources which were found were weak and far from indepth. there was clearly consensus that these sources were far from suitable from advancing notability. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus based on the strength of the keep votes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
which were weak indeed and didn't address the issue of lack of indepth coverage of the topic. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is purely your opinion [32] ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 09:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... says the guy who nominated the article for deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as no consensus There were 7 Keep votes, 2 Merge votes and 6 Delete votes (one of which was based on the copyvio which was fixed and would have also merged) in addition to the nom. Not a consensus to delete.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. Spartaz can count. And DRV isn't a vote either, so unless you can come up with a reason to overturn the close that's actually based on a policy or procedural deficiency, your !vote here is unlikely to count for much, I'm afraid. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus to delete and that's what my comment here reflects. If you are "afraid" that it shouldn't have much force because it is a vote, I think you ignore the argument I was making. I could also add that the closing admin didn't give any reason why the outcome of the AfD should have been a delete so I don't know what arguments he gave weight to. If I thought that this process was a !vote, I would have !voted for overturn to keep.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Pretty much what Alansohn and Treasury said. I did not participate in the first DRV. Outback the koala (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, to no-consensus There is no reasonable way there can be seen to be consensus about what to do with this article. I recognize they are somewhat of a problem. I know what I would like to do, which is to keep it for future expansion (or just possibly merging with articles on Canada's relations with other similarly situated countries or Tonga's relations with Canada and other countries in the Western hemisphere.--the problem for merging articles like this is which direction to do there merge--I am not at all sure which way would be the more useful. ) But I cannot pretend there was true consensus to do that--or to do a merge directly--but neither was there to delete. If we can not decide, to say so is the best we can do. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be desirable to merge text from an article with so many copyright problems [33]? That would just spread the mess around. Chester Markel (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I object to this DRV on top of a DRV. What was wrong with the close? Nothing: an admin did it, within his/her discretion, and with reference to established policy, guideline and consensus. None of the arguments to overturn are anything over than wishing it was kept, and only because of fear that similar articles would be next on the chopping block. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Object away, but they are 'appealing' two different closes in a perfectly legitimate way. And you may wish to see WP:AGF. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, consensus for deletion after discounting a few keeps. A closing comment would have been helpful. I disagree with S Marshall's contention that WP:ATD should take precedence here, and I have replied above. Regarding a merger, it is possible to avoid an attribution dependency by rewriting from the sources, and this may be preferable when considering the persistent copyvio issues. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgotpasswordsht provided no rationale (WP:JUSTAVOTE). Opbeith argues inherent notability for all bilateral relations, without reference to the specific case. DGG's "Keep based on the sources." did not specify individual sources or quantity of sources, and he did not answer 3 requests to clarify. Dream Focus provided a few specific sources, but they were rebutted, and 24,000 raw Google news archive results aren't very useful (WP:SOURCESEARCH). Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The delete recommendations based on lack of quality sources (including the copy-paste) retained their weight as each new source was rebutted by Hrafn. If a good source had been presented and not rebutted, those comments would have lost weight accordingly. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of current text without prejudice to recreation due to persistent copyright violations [34]. Chester Markel (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is an opinion about deletion (which is anyway flawed), not a comment about the propriety of the debate closure. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I find the closure reasonable in light of the debate. It was not a closure that no reasonable administrator could have made. If there is consensus to overturn the decision on the merits, the article should still not be restored until it is ascertained that any copyvios have been scrubbed. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order—I think all the copyrighted material was indeed removed during the course of the AfD. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Reasonable close within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be interested to know if treasury tag intends to respond to every single endorse comment. LibStar (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep watching and you may find out! ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 16:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The debate was relisted on the determination that no consensus had been reached. The post-relisting discussion, at worst, leaned in the direction of "keep". The closing admin provided no explanation for discounting the plicy-based keep arguments or for disregarding the previous determination of a lack of consensus. Therefore, the cose was both procedurally and substantively inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Per Mkativerata.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mkativerata's recommendation is to "Overturn and re-close" despite his agreement with the delete outcome. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Well within discretion, especially considering the relative strengths of the arguments presented. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:56, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- many editors expressed the concern that an accumulation and synthesis of trivial factoids does not an article make, and this concern was not adequately addressed in the AfD. I therefore cannot conclude that Spartaz was way out of line in interpreting this debate as "delete", even though the votes were numerically similar. Reyk _YO! 01:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reclose. Even though, of course, it's not a vote, with the !vote being relatively close, an explanation from the closing administrator is surely important if the administrator is going to close anything but no consensus. Let's give the closing admin an opportunity to state at the AfD the reasons for the close, and then we can debate, if necessary, whether it was within the admin's discretion to so close. Without that explanation, there's no evidence at the AfD to refute that the close was arbitrary. --Bsherr (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: many of the 'keep' !votes simply cited the fact that "sources" had already been cited in the AfD, when said sources had been demonstrated to contain minimal and highly tangential (and in one case completely irrelevant) coverage. The closing admin was perfectly correct in discounting them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should he also have discounted comments such as those I highlighted in my statement above? (Ie. for instance, should he have discounted the argument that a source was invalid if it didn't have a chapter entitled Canada Tonga relations?) ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 08:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the first two you 'highlighted' weren't !votes, its unclear as to whether he discounted them or not (and most probably irrelevant). I can certainly see how Yilloslime made his 'Estonian' mistake (since corrected) -- the material is such generic minutiae that a generic AfD response is not out of order (if you swapped the articles, and swapped the names, how many would actually notice the difference?). "Should he also have discounted" your !vote that blatantly exaggerated the level of coverage (including one source that did not even mention Canada and Tonga in connection with each other)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I had made a !vote which "blatantly exaggerated the level of coverage" then he should indeed have discounted it. Since, however, I did no such thing – and am not clear which of the sources I suggested "did not even mention Canada and Tonga in connection with each other" so I would appreciate some clarification of that – then obviously he should not. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 09:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"This touches on the subject"[35] -- that source "did not even mention Canada and Tonga in connection with each other" -- but rather "just mentions Tonga as a nation New Zealand has relations with", as I pointed out in the AfD. And as "said sources had been demonstrated to contain minimal and highly tangential", I stick by my "blatantly exaggerated the level of coverage" comment. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I stick by my "elephants are purple and anyone who says otherwise is a racist" comment. Doesn't make it true, though. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, unlike my comment, you comment is unsubstantiated, you can can "stick" your purple elephant where the sun don't shine -- and cease and desist your trademark Emperor-with-no-clothes argumentum ad nauseum. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, argumentum ad putting things in italics really convinces me more than argumentum ad not putting pointless italics all over the place. Good one. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 08:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TreasuryTag wit, or at least half of it. Have a WP:TROUT. Now go away, I'm done feeding your ego. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, argumentum ad unfounded accusations of trolling and bad faith, you're onto another winner there. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Yes, the raw vote count was close, but AfD closers have some discretion. Spartaz looked at the "keep" votes and saw they were based on the same specious process that has invented fictitious "topics" during this silly bilateral-relations AfD cycle. He discounted the desperate attempts to create something out of nothing by proclaiming a few scraps of totally irrelevant information a "topic" no one had actually heard of, and rightly so. By contrast, the "delete" voters actually know something about international relations and do not view this process as a game their side must "win", and their forceful arguments won the day. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, firing off pointless "by contrast, the 'delete' voters actually know something about international relations" insults against a group of people which actually happens to include at least one student of International Relations (hem hem) is not only non-constructive but also rude, annoying and disallowed. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 01:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I actually hold a degree in the field, so there. More to the point, it might be informative to talk to someone in your department who would know about these sorts of things. Ask what Canada's notable diplomatic relationships are, and the answer would go something like "US, United Kingdom, Mexico, France, India, Russia, China, Japan, Australia, perhaps a few others". Ask if Tonga makes the list, and you'll get either a puzzled look or a laugh. Or, I don't know, how about asking relevant Canadian experts if they've heard of their country's relationship with Tonga? Again, the whole notion is absurd when approached from that rational angle, as opposed to the "let's play the game of stuffing an article full of trivia about a fictitious topic so we can 'rescue' it at AfD" paradigm.

I'm sorry if my general comment insulted you personally, for such was not my intention, but this sort of activity does not inspire any sort of confidence about the education you're receiving. In the future, you may wish to be more discerning about what sort of bilateral relation you view as notable. It would be helpful if you based your decision on sources that made such notability readily and obviously apparent to a broad swathe of readers and editors, not on meaningless scraps of information pasted together as part of a game. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, as well within the discretion of the closing admin. I strongly disagree with Mkativerata's contemporaneous statement requirement - not only is it inconsistent with the basic principle of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY ("A procedural error made in posting anything [...] is not grounds for invalidating that post"), but it is also unworkable in practice: since the word "contentious" is poorly defined, closing admins are left to guess whether a closing statement is necessary to avoid automatic overturn !votes in borderline contentiousness XfDs. Given the rate at which XfD closures are brought to DRV (probably one or two a day on average, at most), the result would be a lot more unnecessary admin work, and less admins closing XfDs because they don't want to have to write a closing statement simply because some people, somewhere, may find that XfD contentious when the result is obvious (note that even a near-unanimous delete !vote XfD is not a safety valve, as demonstrated by the recent DRV of Category:Music, mind and body). I agree that contentious closures that are not supported by a rationale even when one has been explicitly requested from the closer should be overturned unless no reasonable admin could have reached a different conclusion, but I frankly see no justification to require closers to supply a rationale at the time of the close. T. Canens (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The inconsistency, as I see it, is that admins are encouraged to treat AfDs as "not a vote", discounting !votes with no or poor rationales. A number of such !votes would have been discarded in this AfD. !Voters are expected to explain themselves. So why shouldn't the admins who close the debates also be expected to explain themselves? Their actions are the most decisive of all. It's not just about procedure (although I think there is a strong procedural imperative to require reasons). It's also about respect to our contributors. All it requires in a case like this is a few sentences. It's not in any way an onerous bureaucratic imposition. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Why"? Because it's a catch-22 -- if somebody disagrees with a (bald) close, they're just as likely to disagree with the reasons for one -- see WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 16#Template:Expand for a voluminous close that is being contested, in large part, because the closer discounted !votes, in spite of explaining the reasons why. If contentious closes are going to be contested whether the closer is verbose or brief, then the length of the close is going to just be a matter of closer's personal preference. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly have a point. Often I suspect a detailed and honest closing rationale invites appeals. But I'd prefer a DRV where the reasons for the close are clear to all to a DRV where we are left to guess what those reasons were. The last thing we would want is for admins to avoid reasons in order to avoid scrutiny. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we could hardly claim to be "left to guess" -- the quality of the sources were being hammered, but people still kept !voting "based on the sources"/"The sources are fine" -- or my favourite, Cdogsimmons' keep-as-personal-attack-on-Libstar (though Opbeith's keep-because-of-vague-dogmatic-waffle comes a close second). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we were left to guess at the closer's rationale, then I agree with your approach; but we are hardly "left to guess" when the closer is willing and able to explain the close when requested. Spartaz has explained the close both on his talk page, and below. T. Canens (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafa's assertion that those who disagree with a bald close would automatically disagree with a reasoned close is an unabashed failure to assume good faith. Bald closes against the !vote count invite the accusation of arbitrariness. Administrators who wait until deletion review to explain such closes disserve us. --Bsherr (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This was well within my discretion as closing admin and I based my decision on the absence of specific sources that discussed the relationship between Canada - Tonga. None of the sourcing provided in the discussion was anywhere near substantial enough to demonstrate notability for the subject and the delete site had solid policy based arguments and a compelling analysis of the available sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Quite within the discretion of the closer, I would say, especially in light of the disparity between the quality of arguments on either side. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think our mutual friend was offended that you implied that he'd only insert a single comment -- he's much more indefatigable than that ;) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

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

Artur Balder – Restored to be listed at Articles for deletion. Consensus is that neither A7 nor G4 applies. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

There's an editor, User:Lolox76, who seems to be hot under the collar about the deletion of Artur Balder which seemingly arose out of the AfD for Curdy. Input from the upset Lolox76 appears on User_talk:Rodhullandemu#Deletion_of_new_article_Artur_Balder. The gist of the case appears to be "A simple Google search would proof evidence of his work as a well known writer, and the article at the english wikipedia Little Spain recelntly appeared sustains enormous critical attention evoked by the documentary that discovers a district of Manhattan." I remain unconvinced, but I had two minutes to spare and thought I'd help the complainant by putting this deletion review together. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have temp-undeleted the article so that (by looking in the history) it can be seen during this DRV. JohnCD (talk) 12:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send to AfD Looking at the AfD, I see very good consensus to delete the article on Curdy, but not sufficient consensus to delete the article on Balder. The article on the author was added midway in the discussion, and thus did not have the necessary 7 days discussion. I think it would need at AfD by itself. Orland, who brought the AfD of Curdy. said in fact later there there might be sufficient information for the author to be considered notable. As an author of more than one book, he is certainly going to be more notable than any one of his books. I await a discussion on the AfD to determine that. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD. There's no way a 2008 AFD can serve as the basis for speedy-deleting an article which asserts significance/notability solely on the basis of a subject's involvement in a 2010 documentary film. I don't even see enough information to reliably conclude that we're not dealing with two different people sharing the common name. (It may well be the same person, but in the absence of on-Wikipedia information showing that, there's just no way G4 can apply.) The article appears to include enough of an assertion of significance to survive A7. The related Little Spain might also be sent to AFD, but not bundled, as that subject might be notable even if the film/filmmaker aren't. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - Cutting corners is not a good way to run AfD because it will make people hot under the collars. Artur Balder only had a 5 day AfD run and was added after others listed their positions at that AfD.-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please remember that this biography was once a part of a large spamming campaign, with Balders bio and protagonist in more than 60 wp-languages; way than more notable spanish authors as Cela. Balder now seems to have changed career, but he's maintained the talent for publicity. --Orland (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I am really not an expert on Wikipedia. I work for a production company based on New York City, and my purpose was to make it easy for wikipedist in relationship with the work that pulled together the documentary "Little Spain". Without this documentary, almost a century of Spanish American history in New York City would not be known. The documentary would not have been possible without the work of Artur and a great number of Spanish American still living in the area. So I would preciate so help since Im not a wikipedist and of course I dont know the procedures. I say sorry if I did something wrong, but I think the deletion of Balder in many wikipedias has been a bad image for the wikipedia itself, and it is time to do it better. The references ARE there everyone who wants to see it. Thanks anyway and I will try to edit the references. Lolox76 (talk)
- Question: Lolox, you say that you "work for a production company based on New York City". Yet, your google searches indicate that you actually might be living in Belgium. How come? You are very welcome to email me to confirm your identity. --Orland (talk) 08:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answer: This is out of the procedures. As far as I know, my work, the way I get paid, what I do and when, is not relevant or the subject of the matter. First, it is Christmas time and people do travel; second, it is not your bussiness what I am doing in Belgium. At the same time, your frustration or professional desperation is not the subject of the discussion. I think you are very hot about the question because you take it too personal. The profile of your contributions to the organisation look much more destructive than constructive. But you know, and many other will agree with us, that the deletion of the article with the present references is just something that goes obviously against the rules of Wikipedia. The production company Meatpacking Productions LLC will give proof if required by impartial editors, openly. But I'm really impressed seeing how you dont look at the official website of the documentary, the Latin American Herald Tribune link, or EFE AMERICA sites... as listed below, and just make the comprobation by yourself before write nonsense down, which will destroy your own prestige as editor of Wikipedia -if anyone still secretly has it towards you. Somehow we can undestand your desperation, because these proofs and facts show that your spam campaign about Artur Balder was inflated by personal missfeelings, and we recomend you to step back, undestand the situation, and start with me editing some interesting articles, not only about the director, but about some other subjets related to the Spanish American district of Little Spain, for instance. --Lolox76 (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dear Lolox. There is little or nothing in my edits in this case, or in any other antispamming campaigns i've participated in, that should indicate any "personal missfellings" from my side. (previously I've been accused in a similar way of been against turks etc). So far I have not made any vote against Balder, just reminded about the wp history of his biography. By accusing me of personal motives it seems as if you are trying to reduce the weight of my commitment to wikipedia and my experience in these matters. This kind of false arguments is not a good way for you to seek support for Balder's and your company's interests. Bw --Orland (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is not about seeking for support, it is about the below listed references that you don't want to check. Here the reference at Meatpacking Productions LLC website, section productions, with information about the project 2010 and what's going to happen in 2011 with new feature length projects. Of course, at IMDb the production company listed at "Little Spain" is ours. http://www.meatpackingproductions.us/productions.php And I insist: your commentaries like "Balder now seems to have changed career, but he's maintained the talent for publicity" are too personal against the honour and work of a person who publicly is recogniced and wellknown by his creative work and contribution to literature and now to the history of New York and the memory of thousands of Spaniards that had a hard life in America after the dictatorship of Franco. On the other hand, if you go to http://www.little-spain.us/gallery.php (the documentarys' official site) and click on "Directed and written by Artur Balder", you will go here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_spain_14_street_manhattan_new_york_documentary_movie_tv/sets/72157625270475380/ the english section about the director. In the small bio you will see, that the writer and the director we are talking about are THE SAME person. So the doubts above from John are answered (no?). --Lolox76 (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References: I dont know if it should be done here, but I will add some references below.

There are references to Artur Balder as writer in the most important Spanish media. I list some of them:

El País, published for instance in nacional sites, culture, books 2006: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Artur/Balder/triunfa/narrativa/infantil/debuta/historica/elpepicul/20060610elpepicul_5/Tes?print=1

On the other hand it is strange that someone can state that may be the Artur Balder of Little Spain is not the same as the Artur BAlder of the books, since at the official site of the documentary you can download the press kit in high resolution, and in the chapter that it dedicates to the director, Artur Balder is the author of El Evangelio de la Espada, Crónicas de Widukind, and this is too in the GERMAN wikipedia stated. Both links:

http://little-spain.us/Little_Spain_Prensa_2010.pdf

http://de.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Artur_Balder

The Little Spain official site links to an official Flickr site where is clear to see the references of Artur Balder. I invite you to visit the www.little-spain.us

Artur Balder is author of, as far as I know, 7 novels, some them translated into 8 languages, including nederlands, italian, french, with major publishing houses. The publishing house in spanish for his fantasy fiction is Random House Mondadori. You can read at the corporate website of RHM the recommendation of the author:

http://www.randomhousemondadori.com/Sellos/SellosFicha.aspx?Idioma=En&id=15

The historical fiction is being published by Edhasa, a major prestigious publishing house in Spain:

http://www.casadellibro.com/libro-el-evangelio-de-la-espada-cronicas-de-widukind-/1811185/2900001410005

The official site for its last historical fiction, published in november 2010, had a shortfilm for promotion of the saga, and all the information is available in english, german and spanish, with an excerpt of the book in russian, too:

htt://www.widukind.eu

References caused by announcement the documentary of "Little Spain":

http://www.google.be/search?q=%22little+spain%22+documental&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&client=firefox-a

Looking at the search result you can see ALL the spanish media in the list in the first 100 results, from La Vanguardia, El País, El Mundo, La Razón... Just all. There is consensus about the relevance of the work of Artur Balder in relationship with the restoring of the historical memory of a large number of immigrants in New York City and Little Spain.

The information, that was not intended primarly to the american media, was however trnaslated from agency EFE AMERICA reports into the pages of the Chicago Tribune and Latin American Herald Tribune, and translated into english:

http://www.google.be/search?q=%22little+spain%22+documentary&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&client=firefox-a

Particularly the link to The Latin American Herald Tribune:

http://laht.com/article.asp?CategoryId=13003&ArticleId=378105

And this is the resulat of a first private screening at La Nacional, the Spanish Benevolent Society of NY, last november, for the Spanish media and media agencies. Wikipedists have to know that the documentary is going to be released in a major film festival of New york city in 2011, but I cannot write down the name since it will be 100% sure.

The IMDb has accepted the credits of Balder's work in film industry during the last 10 years:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3470412/

Articles about Artur Balder are present in about 10 languages of Wikipedia, included the german one.

I hope I can rebuild a logical article about the subject, and later continue adding other contributions since there are a lot of historical interesting discoverings at 14th street of Manhattan in relationship with its Spanish American past.

Lolox76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Some references at Spanish and American media about the documentay Little Spain, which directly mention the director and writer Artur Balder.
Little Spain references at IMDb.
Little Spain references at The Herald Tribune.
Little Spain references at El País.
Little Spain references at LA VANGUARDIA.
Little Spain references at El Mundo.
Little Spain references at Antena 3 TV, Weekend News.
Little Spain references at Levante EMV.
Little Spain references at news agency Europa Press.
Little Spain references at Todo NY.
Little Spain references at La Voz de Galicia.
Little Spain references at Canarias Ahora.
Little Spain references at La Opinion de A Coruña.
Little Spain references at Hispanic New York Project, edited by Claudio-Iván Remeseira, prof. for hispanic research at Columbia University.
Little Spain references at ABC.
Little Spain references at Diario Informacion.
Little Spain references at Faro de Vigo.
Little Spain references at Panama America.
Little Spain references at La Voz de Asturias.
Little Spain references at Ideal de Granada.

--Lolox76 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Lolox76 (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 December 2010

SoftArtisans – Restored to mainspace. Second AFD at editorial discretion. NB: I am the original closing administrator. Courcelles 21:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Now meets WP:CORP Cdulaney (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney[reply]

A whole lot of trivial coverage does not meet our requirements. Wikipedia does not exist for promotion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Why is the coverage trivial? Yes, some of it is technical, as befitting its subject, but some, eg the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Inc. articles, are mainstream. Cdulaney (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney[reply]
restore or relist while the first few sources are trivial, most of the others are decent, including a couple of complete paragraphs on the subject. I think this new draft is reasonable (though I can't see the old one) though on the weak side and meets WP:N if just barely. If there remain doubts, let's send the draft back to AfD. Assuming it doesn't qualify as a recreation the nom could have put this draft into mainspace without DrV anyways. Hobit (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the old history is under the new article at User:Cdulaney/SoftArtisans. Courcelles 23:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - There is substantial new information via the references cited. The write up didn't let the reliable sources tell the story. Instead, the author thought of what would be good in the article to promote the company and added that. Straight to article space and AfD would be the way to go. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should I revise the text to encompass more of the cited sources and then relist it in the old /SoftArtisans space with an Afd tag? Cdulaney (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Cdulaney[reply]

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

21 December 2010

20 December 2010

Richard A. Karp – restored and listed at AfD. To be honest it looks like a reasonable A7 to me, but with the level of community disagreement demonstrated below, the appropriate course is to restore the page, list it at AfD, and not consume any more time in in the process. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2010

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

Procedural nomination. This article was speedied by Orangemike (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. Quuxplusone (talk · contribs) has been urging me to undelete it and take it to AfD instead. I have no strong opinion on the article itself; I think the A7 was reasonable, and I also think the request to grant a full AfD is reasonable. But rather than taking it on myself to undo the administrative actions of another admin I think it would be better to go through proper channels, so I'm bringing the request here: please undo the speedy deletion and take this to AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and list at AFD. Minor assertion of IoS, let the community make the call. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at AFD. Although the claims are very weak, it does make a "credible claim of significance or importance" (see A7). It would likely not survive an WP:AFD, but I think it deserves a shot. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 15:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore: Not an A7 case.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore - A7 doesn't parse grades of importance or significance. Did the speedy admin not read "Between 1974 and 1975, while a graduate student at Stanford, he worked with Vint Cerf on an early implementation of the Transmission Control Protocol, or TCP."? That indicates why its subject is important or significant and if an admin can't make such a clear conclusion, there are plenty of others to work than speedy deletions. It further is wrong to make Quuxplusone grovel. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - that fell under WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS, to my way of thinking; but I'm not gonna break into tears if I'm reversed. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response - If the only counter-A7 claim was that Karp was a grad student of Vint Cerf, then I'd be on Orangemike's side (although unilateral speedy deletion would still be inappropriate). It was that plus the similarity of names and fields that makes me believe an article (and disambiguation hatlinks) is worthwhile. Anyway, how many Restore !votes do we need before someone closes this review? mutter mutter --Quuxplusone (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at AFD. An A7 should be overturned in favour of AfD by default on a reasonable request by any editor in good standing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at AFD per SmokeyJoe. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 December 2010

Canada–Tonga relations – NAC Voided – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was closed by a non-admin and was a contentious one that clearly falls outside the boundary of appropriate closures for a non-admin. this non-admin even it came to close to delete but does not appear to give good enough reason why it falls short. the discussion failed to yield substantial evidence of indepth coverage of this topic. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and re-close. Interesting one. If S Marshall was an administrator I would't argue with the close at all. S Marshall is a deletion expert who should be given the administrative tools to make closes like this. The project would be better for it. If it weren't for his personal decision not to be an administrator, S Marshall would be one. So why should it make a difference in this case? Shouldn't we allow S Marshall to act as a quasi-admin and trust him to carry out contentious closes? The answer is that it isn't about trust or ability. The answer is that S Marshall could not have touched this AfD if he was minded to close as delete. That's because he doesn't have the deletion tool. Allowing non-admins to close "no consensus" AfDs creates a bias towards no consensus - it expands the pool of possible contentious AfD closers to include persons who cannot close as "delete". Each-way AfDs should only be closed by editors who actually have the technical ability to decide each-way. Only administrators fall into that category. And this was very much an each-way AfD: S Marshall said the AfD came "very close to a delete finding". There is no compelling reason to start loosening WP:NAC (which while an essay is treated de facto as being much more substantial than an essay - witness the number of non-admins who have been pilloried for inappropriate closes). AfD is the least admin-backlogged area of the project. As for this AfD, "no consensus" is within discretion. So is delete: in my view the keep side is very weak (although of course I would say that - I !voted delete). I'm still waiting an explanation from DGG about his "per the sources" keep !vote, apparently made in less than a minute (per his contribs log) despite there being some real and complex questions about sources on the cards at the time. Having said all of the above, if there is a widely held view by uninvolved admins here that no consensus was the correct close, my "overturn" !vote should be ignored on the grounds of putting outcome ahead of process. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse since realistically, there was no consensus to delete. So wbhat's the problem?╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 09:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Though well-meaning, in effect the close prevented the likely and proper outcome; deletion. The closer nearly admits that the keep arguments would not withstand the correct application of policy and guideline. Abductive (reasoning) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mkativerata's right that it's interesting. :) This tests the water on WP:NAC, and in the interests of full disclosure I should also point out that the most recent four edits to WP:NAC were by, er, me. In November. In other words, I'm closing in accordance with an essay that reads exactly how I want it to read.
If I'd actually come back to the keyboard in time to notice this close was being challenged, I'd have followed my usual practice (which is to drop a note on the Administrators' Noticeboard asking an uninvolved admin to consider the matter and re-close if appropriate). But since it's gone to DRV now, let's let it run.
I obviously endorse my own close, and my position is that the nominator is factually wrong, in that I think my closing statement is not just perfectly clear, but it actually explains the policy-based reasons in much more detail than usual. Mkativerata's point is fatally undermined by his clear statement that if I had been an administrator he would not have questioned it, so in my response I need only note that that is what he says. And Abductive should say why policy leads to deletion in that case before his !vote has any substance.—S Marshall T/C 00:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of Canadian–Tongan relations has no secondary sources, and the paltry primary sources that were provided had to be stitched together using pure original research thread. By way of a contrasting example, the Chinese–Tongan relationship has many secondary sources in books; [36], [37], [38], and [39]. Abductive (reasoning) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... which is an argument that the subject isn't notable. Is deletion the only way to deal with something that's not notable?—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Is deletion the only way to deal with something that's not notable?" It is if none of the contents of the article aren't sufficiently noteworthy that merging them into the target articles would not be giving them WP:UNDUE weight. Information that is arguably trivial in the context of 'Canada–Tonga relations' is just that much more trivial in the context of the Foreign relations of Canada or the Foreign relations of Tonga. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy there is the attempt to apply WP:N to individual data points. Notability applies to subjects and topics. It doesn't apply to each individual fact or source in an article.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I did not "attempt to apply WP:N to individual data points", there is no fallacy here. I said "noteworthy" not "notable" to emphasise this point. Most articles on the foreign relations of a country do not list trivial items like individual Prime Ministerial visits, individual extradition treaties, individual missionaries, etc (unless of course there was a prominent event linked to them), as they are not worthy of noting in the article (i.e. "aren't sufficiently noteworthy"). "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." (WP:NOT) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the AfD you said, "delete, or in extremis, merge". You're using more of the emphatic declarative in this subsequent discussion than you did in the debate I closed, Hrafn. In my close I was careful to acknowledge that yours (along with Mkativerata's) was among the arguments I found strongest. But I didn't see the "merge" argument as having been refuted by what you said, not least because you did acknowledge it as a possible outcome.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but (i) that was given before the article was loaded up with trivia & (ii) "merge" was stated as "in extremis" -- i.e. as a very distant second to deletion. Whilst I did not explicitly disavow or rebut merging with my latter comments, my later statement that new additions were "all sorts of superficial and tangential information" should surely be read as indicating scepticism towards their suitability for merging. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ "fatally undermined": you're missing the point. The point isn't that the close was within administrative discretion, it is that as a non-admin it was the only close available to you within that discretion. Contentious discussions shouldn't be closed by editors who only have the ability to close it one way. "Delete" would also have been within discretion. Since you couldn't have exercised that option, you shouldn't have closed it. Note I didn't say I agreed with the close, only that it was within discretion. I might have closed it as delete, but I would have endorsed this close had it been made by an admin. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin closing a debate always means that you have to look at it and know that "delete" is not an appropriate outcome before pulling the trigger with a close.—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the comment above. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I'm reading this discussion as a full delete; to the point that if I had seen this on the log and not at DRV, I would have reverted the close summarily and deleted the article. So many of the keep !votes were just vague waves at sources. This was not in any way suitable as an NAC, if for no other reason than the significant surgery that needs to be done on the history per RD1 to expunge copyright violations. Courcelles 03:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If RD1 is needed, it should be applied even if the article is deleted, since the page may be restored for merging through WP:Userfication, WP:Requests for undeletion, etc. I asked for assistance at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Canada–Tonga relations. MRG removed some copied sentences and tagged a section as close paraphrase, but she didn't RD1 any revisions. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse This was either a NC or perhaps a delete. Given I believe the closer deeply understands our deletion policies, I'm not too worried about the NAC. As an admin closure, NC would have been a reasonable closure, so I'll endorse this close. Hobit (talk) 04:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Certainly not a candidate for NAC, especially when the closer is one of the usual combatants in this genre of AfDs. Sheesh. Yilloslime ^T_C 05:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "a usual combatant" in this genre of AfDs. Yes, I've expressed an opinion about them before, but who hasn't? As for "not a candidate for NAC", do you believe that administrators have a monopoly on judging consensus? I assure you, the wisdom of Solomon isn't one of the tools that comes with passing an RFA. ;)—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to delete, consensus for deletion after discounting a few keeps. I disagree strongly with closers citing WP:ATD to tip decisions away from deletion. WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators/Archive 1#Deletion is to be a last resort (2009) may be a relevant discussion. I also disagree with the NAC, but it doesn't affect my recommendation. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: (i) not a legitimate WP:NAC candidate (not "beyond doubt a clear keep") (ii) Courcelles' "So many of the keep !votes were just vague waves at sources" demonstrates that an argument could be made for closing this as a 'delete'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as to (i) that's a selective reading of what the consensus version of WP:NAC says, and as to (ii), I think everyone agrees that an argument could be made for closing this as "delete". The question is whether that argument is correct.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) No, it is NOT "a selective reading of what the consensus version of WP:NAC says." It is the unequivocal statement of WP:NAC#AfD: "experienced non-admins in good standing may consider closing a discussion on that page which is beyond doubt a clear keep", WP:NAC#Appropriate closures: "Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), absent any contentious debate among participants" & WP:NAC#Pitfalls to avoid: "Extra care should be taken if a closure may be controversial or not clearly unambiguous. With the understanding that the closure may be reversed, non-admins should generally avoid closing such discussions." None of which suggests that non-admin closure of non-beyond-doubt/contentious/ambiguous AfDs is endorsed. (ii) My point was: if there's a reasonable chance that an Admin may interpret the result of an AfD as 'delete' (as there seems to have been) then it is appropriate to leave the decision to an Admin. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what users who didn't !vote in the debate have to say about it, Hrafn. At the moment, every user who has appeared at this DRV who !voted "delete" in the debate has !voted to overturn, which is perfectly normal at DRV. The only user who !voted "keep" in the debate and who subsequently came here has !voted to endorse, which is also quite normal. We've only had one opinion from someone uninvolved: Hobit (who endorsed). If there's any significant support for "overturn" that comes from uninvolved parties, then I'll revert myself and let one of the anointed few with the mystic power of judging consensus re-close; but that's not the situation as of this moment.—S Marshall T/C 11:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) If you don't want me to respond, then don't misrepresent my comments. (ii) Neither Flatscan nor Courcelles participated in the AfD, and both have !voted to overturn. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, that's accurate about Flatscan and Courcelles. In the circumstances, I've vacated my close and will post on the AN for an uninvolved admin to reclose. :)—S Marshall T/C 12:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ideal leadership – No deletion to review. The article has been prodded but not deleted. – Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is pretty straightforward I think. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 December 2010

Four (TV Channel) NZ – Redirection endorsed. – RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is a new channel not a rebranded C4. C4 will continue and is moving to replace C42. Socks 01 07:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse redirection The channel is just going under a rename with the music video programming being pushed over to lower tier digital space, and no change of ownership, so clearly the C4 content should be shifted to FOUR upon that network's launch, while the new C4 should have content merged with that of C42 (TV channel) under a new title. Also I made it quite clear in my redirection that further discussion of the rename should be made on C4's talk page, and that has not been done, so I ask again all discussion should be there. All of this under this title is moot anyways as the name of this article does not meet MOS anyways; it should be either FOUR (New Zealand) or FOUR (TV network), and my rd decision was made under MOS naming rules. Nate • (chatter) 07:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The Articles for deletion close was redirect Four (TV Channel) NZ to C4 (TV channel), but keep the history of Four (TV Channel) NZ. The AfD couldn't have been closed otherwise and there doesn't seem to be a loss of content due to the outcome of the AfD. C4, 4, Four, C42, TV4, C4TV, The Steelmill ... I have no idea what is going on. My take is that this all seems to relate to one topic and one title and there is disagreement as to the correct title at present. That can be addressed via Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (summary style)/subarticles on the article talk page. Good luck over there with that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 December 2010

Transformers: Timelines – No consensus to overturn, relist at AfD, so that we can get a debate that is hopefully less tainted by socks. – T. Canens (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page had no real third party sourced when nominated, when the initial votes were made. I then added several good citations. Sadly sock puppets got involved in voting, and one person kept advocating for deletion. Initially the page was found to have "no concensus", but then one keep vote was found to be a sock puppet, making the delete outnumber the keeps, so the page was decision was changed to delete by the admin. Still, I feel it has sources now, so despite some initial "delete" votes from when it had no sources, it should be acceptable as an article now. Mathewignash (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find any sources like mentioned in the AfD? This includes:

Any significant coverage of Timelines as a whole. (As in about Timelines material as it's own subject, instead of simply mentioning it as among the stuff you can buy at BotCon.)
A third-party review of a set of Timelines toys or stories instead of a review of only one thing?
Any reliable third-party review of Timelines fiction with a good plot synopsis
Any reliable third-party source regarding the transformersclub.com prose stories.

No reason to restore an article about something without significant coverage. NotARealWord (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about these articles: http://www.mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/botcon05-review.htm and http://mastercollector.com/articles/reviews/airastro-review.htm Mathewignash (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't look like a reliable source. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically why do you think they are not reliable? Mathewignash (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think they are? Maybe I'm wrong but looks like a fan site. No evidence of editorial control, fact checking or peer review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a review site that has subscription, editors, advertising, etc. It's run by a company called Master Collector. Mathewignash (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't use of the mastercollector website one of the things you get for joining the Transformers Collector's Club? (which is the source of much Transformers Timelines media) So yeah, reviews by mastercollector staff are not very third-party since they're somewhat affiliated with the collector's club. NotARealWord (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you get membership in the transformerclub.com web site. mastercollector.com is a seperate site. Mathewignash (talk) 14:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fan site then. what about peer review & fact checking? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, up until recently, people who join the transformers club get monthly copies of the mastercollector newsletter. Nowadays, they get to put an ad on one of mastercollector's websites. So yeah, they are soooo affiliated. NotARealWord (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too sure about the RS critique here. Are there better sources which cover transformers collecting? If the best a topic has is stuff like this, some sort of a best evidence rule should apply. I specifically don't find the "not third party" critique compelling, because if applied fairly and universally, that would eliminate e.g. Rolling Stone as a source for music, because it is supported by ads from music distributors. DRV should not be a place where the narrowest possible interpretation of RS'es is used as a hurdle. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mastercollector seems quite affiliated. [40] More so than your rolling Stone comparison. NotARealWord (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is from RS

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight.

& This from V

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The GNG says

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.

"Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]

I don't think we need to apply any additional standard then this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to non-consensus~~Endorse delete~~ - The Transformers: Timelines name seems to imply that the article was a list of times (timeline) related to Transformers. However, "Transformers: Timelines is the toy line and annual fictional comic series created by the Transformers Collectors Club. Transformers: Timelines stories and toys are produced by Fun Publications each year since 2005."[41]. The delete reclose three days after the no consensus close was out of process. Consensus for the original close should have been delete, not no consensus, since the topic didn't meet WP:GNG as brought out in the original AfD discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to non-consensus per DGG, Mathewignash, and NotARealWord (through the date of this post) below. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I had NEVER voted for "revert to non-consensus". NotARealWord (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master collector: SOOOOO not third party

This site is published by Fun Publications, Inc. (hereafter Fun Publications) 225 Cattle Baron Parc Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76108. Telephone 817-448-9863, weekdays, 9:00am. to 4:30pm. Fax 817-448-9843 available 24 hrs., Central Time. Copyright © 1995 Fun Publications, Inc.(...) Fun Publications has exclusive right to all material displayed online;
— Master Colector disclaimer page

See, it's run by Fun Publications, the company responsible for Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still ignore all the citations in the article itself, which prove notability. Mathewignash (talk) 13:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean ignore? There were no sources matching the criteria which I listed above. NotARealWord (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to non-consensus Looking at the AfD, such was the rather clear result . The references seem sufficient for the subject; they would not be for something like BLP, but different topics have different kinds of sourcing available, and consequently different standards for what counts as a RS. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the third-party references matched the criteria given by Jfgslo, as in sources which are about the Transformers: Timelines comics and toys overall, instead of simply an individual toy or issue. I don't think there was even any source reviewing a whole storyline. (Yes, there are storylines going across multiple stories, but apparently most people don't realize that since most stories are only accessible to people who joined the Transformers Collector's Club. Even if hey can afford the fee, it doesn't seem to make since joining if somebody wasn't a collecor.) Also, see my list from earlier in this thread. NotARealWord (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much how it went with the nomination. Any time anyone tried to say anything positive about the article a single editor kept posting paragraphs of negative comments, repeating himself over and over. He seems completely oblivious that it's a developing page for a currently growing comic book series, that's being actively edited. It has at least the POTENTIAL for a full article, and therefore deserves the chance to develop. Mathewignash (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I think about it, storylines is too strong a word (unlesss one counts the magazine serial). But, fiction set in the same continuity have about as much relation as different episodes of a TV series, assuming that said TV series usually have episodes with self-contained plot (like he original Transformers TV show, I guess). More importantly, why do you accuse me for not paying attention to the article? And by the way, during the AfD, your explanation of the subject's "potential" was that new stuff is still being produced, not that there's already enough stuff to write an article about. NotARealWord (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion- from a thorough reading of the debate and scrutiny of the supposed sources, my opinion is that the consensus was to delete. Furthermore, to argue that the debate should be closed as no consensus because it was tainted by sockpuppets would mean that socking works, and that in the long run would do the encyclopedia more damage than removing a single bad article of dubious notability. No prejudice against re-creating when and if real, reliable sources come into being. Reyk _YO! 01:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There is no assertion or demonstration of any real-world relevance in this topic. The original discussion was closed as delete and was riddled with mass fraud in the form of sockpuppetry and vote-stacking in any case. My suggestion to the editors advocating for restoration is to use your energy in writing about encyclopedic topics rather than politicking, lobbying, and wikilawyering on behalf of any topic that even tangentially touches upon your vaunted twenty-year old plastic toy line. Pasupgalo (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of banned user. –MuZemike 03:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that the goal of the sock puppeteer was to keep the article, it was merely to disrupt wikipedia. He voted under several identities both to keep and delete. If he intention was to use socks to keep the article inappropriately, he would have used all his puppets to vote keep. Mathewignash (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true with the Wiki brah socks, but User:Divebomb was more of a good hand bad hand case. Of course, it seems that all sockpuppeteers around Transformers deletion-related discussions have not been votestacking to bring the discussions any way or another. NotARealWord (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If no more third-party sources have turned up, I don't think the article should be restored. NotARealWord (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material
— General notability guideline

I think this was addressed at the AfD that no sources have Transformers: Timelines as their main topic. I'd like to point out again that nobody seems to have found third-party sources regarding the transformersclub.com prose stories. Those stories make up the bulk of Timelines fiction, but they don't seem to receive any reliable third-party coverage whatsoever.NotARealWord (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Of the three keep !votes, only Mathewignash's was valid in any way. The other two were both socks. Five non-sock users support deletion, three with valid policy-based reasons. That looks to me like a consensus to delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, it should be pointed out that some of the delete votes were made because the article lacked any sources when the nomination and voted, which were later added. So the article really deserves a second shot. Mathewignash (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "second shot" bit is only true if (and only if) the people who !voted delete did no bother rechecking the article after a while. You're assuming that most people who !voted "delete" simply !voted and never checked again to see whether or not they should change their !votes. The fact that they did not comment further could mean that they did not find the later "references" convincing enough to change their !vote. I'm not sure which one is true, should somebody ask them? (By the way, there was a least one person who cast their !vote quite a while after more references were added. Also, the initial third-party references were found to be unreliable, but they were mostly removed before the AfD had ended.) NotARealWord (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just Ines – Userfy to User:Marquitox/Just Ines so that the additional sources can be added prior to moving the page back to mainspace. – RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

NEW SOURCES The film is notable and has reliable sources now, a selection of which you can find attached. Deleting admin Ron Ritzman suggested to open a Deletion Review. JUST INÈS featured in German national broadcast: http://www.swr.de/tv/-/id=2798/did=7224930/pv=video/nid=2798/c6wa5g/index.html
JUST INÈS featured in UK blog: http://roomsmagazine.blogspot.com/
Film France webpage: http://www.filmfrance.net/v2/gb/home.cfm?choixMenu=actualites2
There are also several mentions of the film on Screen International: http://www.screendaily.com/grant-and-meadens-shipwreck-starts-post-on-just-ines/4035825.article http://www.screendaily.com/marcel-grant-starts-shooting-third-feature-just-ines/4033170.article http://www.screendaily.com/festivals/other-festivals/-bizes-the-life-of-fish-opens-59th-mannheim-heidelberg-festival/5020513.article
Just Inès page at the IFFMH: http://iffmh.de/Comp_Just_Ines
Variety: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118026904?refCatId=1061
Review of the film at NEGATIV-film: http://www.negativ-film.de/2010/11/iff-mannheim-heidelberg-just-ines.html
plus several printed newspaper articles

Marquitox (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. The film's notability is now established. There may be thousands of indie film articles on WP, why should not this one be included? ᴳᴿᴲᴳᴼᴿᴵᴷ☺ᶤᶯᵈᶸᶩᶢᵉ 12:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Then fix up the article by adding the sources, and then move to the mainspace when ready. This recognizes that, given the evidence, the AfD was correctly decided, but that consensus may change on a new article, while preserving WP:A. Does that work for nominator and closing admin? --Bsherr (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Marquitox/Just Ines per Bsherr (talk · contribs) to allow Marquitox to improve the article to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 03:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ephraim Shapiro – Deletion endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 15:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deletes clearly outnumber the keeps. In fact, there are 7 of them. But as the AFD was coming toward a close, there were attempts made to address the issues in the article that lead to the deletion proposal. Toward the end, there was one keep and one person who offered to change a delete to a keep if these changes were made. Someone was already in the process of working on adding sources from long in the past that they claimed existed. I, myself, tried to offer a compromise solution. The main problem is simply that "time ran out." There was no time to discuss what to do following these changes, which I did not even get to see myself. The AFD reached 7 days in length, and therefore, a closing admin came along, saw all the deletes, probably thought automatically this was something to delete, and quickly closed it as such. Evidence of this can be seen in that the admin simply wrote "The result of delete" and nothing more. This page should be restored, at least for now, to allow more time to discuss. Xyz7890 (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse result The closing admin clearly went with the consensus here. I feel that it would be appropriate to userfy this to Xyz7890's user space if that user is willing to work on it -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 04:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and possibly relist The consensus to delete took place only before I added the sources I did. I believe the sources that I added, which cover several decades, are enough to make the subject notable, and had they been there, at least some of these people would not have said delete. I know at least one person said they would change their vote, but it got closed before there was a chance for that. Linda Olive (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please either temporarily restore the article for DRV purposes, or userfy it, to make the history visible. It's impossible to judge the truth of the nomination without sight of the article's history.—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to PhantomSteve for restoring the article for DRV purposes. It's now clear for all to see that several new sources were introduced in Linda Olive's edit of 15th December, and that all the "delete" opinions predate the addition of those sources. Under the circumstances a relist is appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - No amount of sourcing can fix an article for someone only know for being accused but never actually convicted of hundreds or thousands" of molestations. This was just a trainwreck of a non-notable hit piece masquerading as a bio. Consensus was read correctly by the closing admin. Tarc (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The sources I added had nothing to do with the molestations. They were news articles from the 1940s to the 1980s, showing with the headlines things like positions he was hired for, honors he received, and his retirement and death. The molestation issue was only published in 2007. Linda Olive (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Adding non-notable resumé-like material doesn't amount to much either. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The problem is that the article was written as a biography and half of it delt with allegations of child molestation. Another problem is that there just isn't that much press on him. Perhaps there is enought to get passed WP:GNG. I found some material, but didn't even find an obituary on him, which tells you something about the importance of his life. (but see wife's obit. Also, this may be the same Ephraim Shapiro who in November 1978 was part of an alleged Republican conspiracy to solicit political contributions from county employees and the one who died either in 1987 or 1989 and his estate still had not been resolved in 1995.). However, when you dominate a minimially notable biography with allegations of child molestation, then the topic becomes a serious problem (WP:BLP etc.) and that explains the delete consensus reactions at AfD. If you want this topic to appear in Wikipedia, you best bet is to write a draft at User:Xyz7890/Allegations of child molestation against Ephraim Frank Shapiro and come back to DRV or go to WP:REQMOVE asking to move it to article space. An article Allegations of child molestation against Ephraim Frank Shapiro will overcome the problem at AfD of dominating a biography article with allegations of child molestation and the new topic won't be subject to the outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ephraim Shapiro (2nd nomination). Wikipedia does have allegations and accusations articles, but see Molestaion allegations against michael Jackson and Accusations of rape against United States presidents. Personally, I don't think this topic has enough press coverage to overcome Wikipedia's policies. But I think the approach I laid out is the only option you have left at this point in time if you want the topic to have stand-alone coverage in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sounds like you do agree with me, that the title of this can be renamed, and the focus of the article could be made into something else. With that in mind, I suggest that you change the heading of your comment from "endorse" to something else to reflect that, and we can discuss here what we should change this article to. Xyz7890 (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "you do agree with me." Well, sort of. If the AfD were overturned, then it would be a few months or so before this could again come up for deletion. If Ephraim Shapiro deletion is endorsed, then that makes that biography topic subject to WP:G4 and would compel a retooling of the approach to the subject matter. A new article, such as Allegations against Ephraim Frank Shapiro, might get you past the dreaded WP:G4, but would immediately be subject to AfD, which is a good thing in view of the topic. The best way to approach this is to gather all the raw reliable source articles on the topic, use those to develop a chronological article, then stand back and perceive the overall gist of what the reliable sources are saying as set out in your chronological article. Then, write an article name that captures that overall gist. In about a month or so after the close of this DRV, when passions have cooled and everyone has moved on, move to article space and let nature take its course. An alternate approach to a stand alone article is to add the material to an existing article. I can't think of any article to which the subject matter is relevant enough to be included. Another approach is to contact reliable sources and get them to write more about the topic. A detailed write up by the New York Times or a national magazine on this guy would go along way to the topic finding a permanent home in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that the best option is to rename the title to one or your suggestions or similar immediately following closure, and from there, work on making appropriate changes. If this article were to be deleted, the edit history would be lost, and in this case, the edit history is important because it is especially useful in seeing older versions and being able to create the new article. It would be much harder to start something like this from scratch. An article that has been overturned in DRV cannot be G4ed. Xyz7890 (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been temporarily undeleted for this review -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The consensus for delete was very clear. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 04:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with the sources I added after the consensus to delete because of lack of notability was formed, the subject should be notable enough to have a standalone article. These sources are not about his molestation that was discovered after his death. They are specifically about him, during his lifetime, his accomplishments, positions he held, etc. Even if you left out the molestation completely, he would still be notable. Linda Olive (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

endorse but prefer a relist sources added in good faith that late into the debate probably indicate a relist is appropriate. That said a deletion closure is within admin discretion though IMO a second choice. Hobit (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who added the sources late, I would be okay with a relist. Linda Olive (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elektronika kroz istoriju – has been userfied as requested – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is part of student colaboration project on Serbian Wikipedia. The user who created i mistakenly made it here, who please undelete the article and move it to his userspace. It is urgent, today is deadline for evaluating student works. -- Bojan Talk 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:EdwardRobertArmstrong.jpg – closed - already reuploaded by user; nothing further needs to be done. Feel free to undo closure as necessary, but I don't think it will be necessary. – Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No notification to my talk page, no valid reason to delete beyond deleter saying rationale wasn't good enough, the person is dead. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore There was no fair notification to Richard Arthur Norton, who could have possibly made changes to prevent deletion. Linda Olive (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement to notify the uploader although its a usual courtesy. The tag would have flagged up on RAN's watchlist and sat there for 7 days. If he wasn't watching it then that's his look out not ours. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a copyrighted image with no FUR. Deletion was perfectly appropriate in the circumstances and as usual RAN failed to discuss the deletion with the closing admin. In these circumstances I see no reason why he can reasonably complain that the usual courtesies were not extended to him. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you post the complete fair use rationale you propose to use, please, RAN?—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse can't see a problem with the process. Of course if a full rationale is provide there should be no reason this can't be undeleted (notwithstanding any future challenge for such a rationale) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's more of a history behind this deletion than it first appears: you can read an appropriate and brief history at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 30#Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100822 and my talk page. In summary, Richard has uploaded a lot of images, and a few users have asked him to write better rationales, which at one point he was declining to do. It looks like it's calmed down a bit and he is adding rationales: [42]. As I stated on my talk page, I wasn't aware that Richard was unnotified (at which point I certainly would have notified him and given him another week, or just added it myself). I have asked Richard what he wants me to do on my talk page, and I have yet to receive a response, so I've not acted. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, another editor nominated almost every image I loaded to Wikipedia to punish me for opposing him in an AFD. He must have spent hours adding the deletion tags to all my photos including images of myself on my userpage. I have to admit it was a great strategy. Here is a novel strategy: When you find an image that doesn't have the newest template, or doesn't have the exact wording that is now required, add or fix it instead of deleting it. It takes a fraction of the time to fix instead of delete, and the reference work we all trying to improve wins. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard, the image had no FUR whatsoever just a tag. That's not acceptable and, as the uploader, the onus is on you to fic it rather thenc complain that otjer people should clear up after you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, do you think if someone notified me, that could have helped? That is the difference between deleting for the sake of deleting, and fixing to make a better reference work. As always in the time it took to delete that time could have been spent fixing the deficiency, with a dead person, it isn't hard to figure out a proper rationale. If the effort is the same, where do you think people's time is better spent? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well to take a couple of snippets - "do you think if someone notified me, that could have helped?" and "It takes a fraction of the time to fix", yet here we are. You are now aware, and it will take little time to fix, so why aren't you just providing a full rantionale, that seems to be the sensible action for someone trying to improve the project. Arguing it here isn't going to alter anything else of yours tagged for deletion, if you want to bring everyone here it's going to take a long time to go through them all, and at the end of it they are all still going to need the current level of rationale. If you think that some else has listed these for illegitimate reasons, you want WP:DR not WP:DRV --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your rationale is "If he wasn't watching it then that's his look out not ours", your goal isn't to improve the project, but to enforce for the sake of enforcement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we already lost sight of the fact that you have been asked for the FUR several times. I guess its easier to attack other people then fix the problem eh? Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh, No. There was never a notification to me on this image ever sent to me. Again, your wikilawyering to justify the deletion of an image for a dead person, where anyone could have supplied the FUR template using a fraction of the time we are spending here. Again if the goal is delete as many images as possible, this is the best route. If the goal is to have the best reference work, fix before deletion. Anyone can fix, not just me, and especially the person who finds the rationale inadequate, since they know what secret word is missing in the text version of the rationale. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly became aware of the deletion by some means before listing it here. You could easily have provided the rationale at that point and I'd have thought pretty much any admin would have undeleted it on mere request. If there is an issue with the behaviour of the editor tagging the deletion, then that's something for dispute resolution not DRV. If you think that notification of such tagging should be mandatory, again that's not something DRV is going to be able to fix. So I'm at a loss as to what your purpose in bringing it here, whereas you yourself note that providing the rationale didn't take much time. As a side note I don't think we can actually insist that the person tagging should have just provided the FUR, if it were the case that there is always a rationale then we wouldn't need rationales at all, and the person tagging need not believe there is an actual valid rationale (particularly when you get into issues of replacability, and increase in understanding, I for one can't see how that image signficantly improves the understanding such that not having it would be detrimental to understanding.) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems blatantly unfair to nominate this image for deletion without notification. The built-in delay is explicitly for the purpose of fixing the rationale--this is not a matter of immediate speedy. It's time we finally dealt with this once and for all by writing a bot for this, but pending that the least we can do is make it required. I think its a matter of basic minimal politeness, and if there was a previous or ongoing discussion about related problems with the user , all the more reason to be scrupulous. As for the watchlist, very few of the really active contribs can follow it carefully or at all-, and the newcomers don't know about it--the point of notices is to make sure the really important stuff gets called to attention. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or the common-sense solution is to, y'know, not upload images without fair-use rationales in the first place. The fault here is squarely on Norton's shoulder's, and no one else. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's pretty much unfair, as far as I can see the original upload contained a basic rationale in the edit summary, and at that time the requirements for rationales was very weak. The requirements for more detail in the rationale have come along since then. WP:FURG's creation post dates the original upload date from the log --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ALthough it would have been best for the uploader to have been notified, it is not strictly a requirement. The image had no FUR, and so was eligible for deletion from what I can see -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- yes, it would have been politer to tell RAN and no, mild discourtesy in not a reason to overturn a deletion that was done according to policy. Reyk _YO! 04:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this much more than "mild" discourtesy. The failure to observe basic fairness is a negation of the principles of cooperative working. In this case, the user subjected to it was an experienced user, but this sort of treatment when applied to new users has been shown time after time to drive them away permanently from Wikipedia. It is the sort of mindlessly arrogant practice that are found in so many of our processes. the encyclopedia depends for its future on new users, who obviously must be given an opportunity to learn gently. Anyone who thinks it too much burden to notify manually manually can get a bot written. It's time we showed some degree of responsibility to the people who work here. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC) .[reply]

This is the same courtesy that RAN failed to show the deleting admin by failing to discuss the deletion with them and by refusing to provide a FUR so we can undelete the thing. The kind of disruptive behaviour that wastes other users' time arguing over something that could be fixed immediately with a less confrontational approach. Yes? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Blowupradio.com – Userfy to User:Guysmiley13/Blowupradio.com. – RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The BlowUpRadio.com page was deleted for being not being significant. Every line of the page had been attributed to a source. The website/internet station is the only 24/7 swtation to play NJ bands, has been around 10 years, has helped break many well known bands, and done benefits to help the community and non-profit organizations (again all attributed on the page). I ask that the page be reinstated as it is clearly of significance. Also, a link and mention to BlowUpRadio.com was deleted from the NJ Music page as being spam,[43] even though BlowUpRadio.com is the only station that plays NJ music 24/7, and has been doing so for 10 years. I do not understand how that reference is considered spam. Please reinstate the mention and link. -- ; Talk 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)— Guysmiley13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Endorse deletion, routine and uncontroversial, purported sources were all primary, unreliable and / or trivial. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelialble or trvial? Newspapers and respected music websiters (which have wikipedia pages so must be considered significant) are considered unreliable or trivial? The site is the only site out there supporting NJ bands. It is a godsend to our music scene. It has helped to break artists that are nationally known. if that is not sgnificant, then I am appalled at the way wikipedia is run. What do I have to do to get you guys to reinstate this worthy page. I'll do it, that's how important this page is to the local music scene here in NJ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guysmiley13 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC) — Guysmiley13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's fairly easy to get round an A7 deletion, just say a few words in the article about why it's notable. Unfortunately, it'll be re-deleted again pretty quick unless you can prove it's notable. Wikipedia's detailed definition of notability is here, but the cliff notes are, it needs to have received significant coverage in reliable sources (note the plural—there needs to be more than one source). The article needs to say what the sources say.
Wikipedia's detailed definition of reliable source is here but basically it means, not a blog, not a messageboard post, not any website connected with the subject, and nothing that accepts user-submitted content. (Yes, this does mean that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source by our own definition.) You're best off looking for articles in local newspapers or magazines. If there aren't any such sources, then a Wikipedia article isn't going to be allowed, I'm afraid.—S Marshall T/C 18:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Folk You! Anyway, I added info about Blowupradio.com back into Music_of_New_Jersey#Audio_broadcasting. To get a better idea of how Wikipedia works, look at the difference between your post and my post. To get an idea of how to write an article on internet radio stations, look over some of the articles in Category:Internet radio stations in the United States. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:Guysmiley13/Blowupradio.com The coverage in this Google News Archive link indicates that Blowupradio.com may be notable. Some of the articles are passing mentions, but some may provide enough coverage to establish notability. A userfication will allow Guysmiley13 (talk · contribs) to address the notability concerns. Cunard (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this was not an A7 as IoS was asserted in these 2 statements, BlowUpRadio.com is the first and only internet radio station dedicated to playing music from New Jersey's independent music scene and The station and Lazlo have been nominated every year for multiple Asbury Music Awards every year since 2001 [3], and for Hoboken Music Awards since they started in 2009 [4], but has never won any awards, this should have been sent to AFD. However, I think userfying or incubation is the best course of action here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - I don't consider either of those an assertion of notability. I have no deep philosophical opposition to userfying the item (GuySmiley was sole author, by the way, to answer Bsherr's question below). (A much feebler version of this, far more lacking in sources and assertions, was speedied in 2007 by NawlinWiki.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, they're not assertions of notability (one of the standards for AfD), but of significance or importance (the standard for A7). Ron abbreviated it IoS (which took me a second to get, too). --Bsherr (talk) 18:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I think Ron Ritzman's points are all correct, but speedy deletion shouldn't be a means to coerce an article out of the mainspace by misapplication of the criteria. Since the article is deleted, I can't see whether it's the product of a signle or multiple contributors. Could the page be restored or could an administrator answer? If it is the product of a single contributor, I think it would be advisable for that user to consider userfication, because this article would be at risk for its lack of reliable sources. If there are multiple contributors, I think incubation would be advisable if all agree. But absent that, the article should be restored. It was deleted for lacking credible claims of significance, when it did in fact have them. --Bsherr (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't normally restore something to mainspace if it is obvious that it would be highly unlikely to survive an AfD, whether or not it technically passes the CSD. Userfication/incubation sounds fine, per Ron and Cunard. T. Canens (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, correct me if I'm wrong, but articles for which reliable sources exist, even if they're not in the article, are usually not deleted at AfD. Doesn't that make it unobvious whether the article would be deleted at AfD? --Bsherr (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that line is a bit fuzzier than that - since if it is obvious that it won't survive an AfD we simply don't restore it at all, userspace or not. With a crappily-written article that has some potential of surviving an AfD, though, userfication is the better option IMO (this also avoids bombarding the nominator with process after process). Really, the question is whether the encyclopedia is improved by the existence of a crappily-written article on a potentially notable subject in mainspace. I think not. T. Canens (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 December 2010

FedEx Express Flight 647 – close endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

First off, it's starting to look like it's only ever Cirt who closes these aircrash Afds - that is surely grounds for reviewing his decisions to make sure they are correct in terms of the community's view of these debates, as from where I'm standing, his closing statements, which are at least now progressing beyond the no statement at all approach to closing, don't look similar at all to the detailed expressed thought process of other admins who have closed them in the past w.r.t how they read these debates - namely what constitutes a good and bad argument, and how editors can and can't show that EVENT is met. In this specific closure, Cirt simply just makes a vague statement that there is a "strong consensus", so we can start with that - how exactly were the delete arguments rebutted, for example 'Wikipedia is not a list of aircraft hull losses'? He doesn't say. What did he think of the accusations and defences of argument by assertion in that regard? Again, he doesn't say. Secondly, he goes on to say there were "editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter" - well, from where I'm sitting, ignoring the immediate 2003 news report, which surely every can see does not meet EVENT on it's own, then this must amount to the 2006 NTSB report, and the one news article from 2006 about the report coming out. So, is he endorsing the keeper's view that all you need to write an aircrash article that meets EVENT is just an NTSB report, or not? Is he endorsing the idea that this one 2006 news report represented 'significant, extensive, in-depth, ongoing' coverage that meets both GNG and EVENT, or not? It's worth clarifying that point at least, because concluding that NTSB reports are defacto N-worthy for EVENT has huge implications, as it makes every single crash automatically notable - a very obvious violation of WP:NOT if you ask me. And if he didn't mean just the NTSB report and it's one piece of (trade press) news coverage, is he referring to the book sources presented? If so, why does he not comment on the fact that the keepers didn't present any evidence that they contained anything about the crash, apart from a list entry? Even if we are (completely artificially and unjustifiably) restricting this notion of aircrash notability to 'hull losses', why did Cirt not comment on the complete silence that met the presentation of actual figures which show just how many crashes per year per one aircraft type would meet this notion of notability, and the obvious implications? Frankly, precisely because this whole topic is in dispute, with contradictory views on both sides, a closure that actually addresses the specific points raised is beyond necessary by now. If Afd closers don't actually start to close them with actual reference to the actual arguments made and disputed, then these articles are going to continue to be written, and Afd'd, not least because the attempted guideline to settle this dispute, AIRCRASH, has not got any further than 'it must meet the GNG, EVENT, and NOT#NEWS', and editors still have frankly, massively different ideas about how you meet those for aircrashes - as you can see in this idea that an NTSB report is a secondary source, and is all that is required in terms of WP:N - at the very least that is what Cirt should have commented on, not give vague statements (actually, stating 'strong consensus' means that the delete arguments were utterly shit - so that requires some explanation - exceptional claims and exceptional evidence and all that.) Frankly, when you actually look at his closure - "The result was keep. Significant consensus is present for Keep, with editors noting there is a good deal of coverage in WP:RS sources available to improve upon material relating to the subject matter" - if you actually go and look at some of them, you could copy and paste that into any past aircrash Afd for any article except the most absolutely trivial of incidents which simply don't make the news at all, and it wouldn't sound like it contradicts the 'consensus' one bit - well, if you read AIRCRASH, that is quite obviously not what the purpose of that essay or even Wikipedia actually is, for some pretty obvious reasons, starting with WP:NOT and working downwards. MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that MickMacNee (talk · contribs) decided to go straight to escalating this matter to deletion review, and failed to even attempt to raise the matter for discussion with the closing administrator. -- Cirt (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Firstly, was there any chance at all that you would have overturned your decision? I've never seen you do so in aircrash Afd's given similar objections to here, so why would you have done so now? Secondly, I had already said in the Afd with this post that if the closer did not explain their view of certain aspects of the debate in their closing statement, I would be DRV'ing it, so, while you are free to ignore that completely, you cannot claim that you are now surprised I have indeed done what I said I would do. Unless you never even read that comment? I did point out in the last Drv that there was evidence that that you had at best, given the debate a quick scan, and so might miss that sort of thing. So, given all that, why exactly should I be bound by such obvious process wonkery for no reason? And don't say WP:CIVIL, because it would have been civil of you to at least acknowledge the post I linked above, either in closing, or at least to me personally, whether you wanted to act on it or not. (WP:CIV - "Do not ignore the positions of others"). MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone, choice of language, lack of politeness, and desire to escalate the matter directly, are all unbecoming. -- Cirt (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your answer? That's your sole explanation for complaining that you are apparently now upset that I did exactly what I clearly said I would do? MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an exact repeat of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17 to me. Once again, MickMacNee thinks his personal view ought to overrule the consensus, and once again, he's wrong.—S Marshall T/C 17:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a repeat in the sense that if you are a sign of what's to come, then 'reviewers' at DRV seemingly have absolutely no intention of doing any y'know, reviewing. You have jumped in here so fast, is there any reason to believe you even read the whole of my rationale, let alone the whole of the discussion it refers to? If you think your personal opinion carries more weight than mine, brilliant, that sounds like a great recipe for building consensus. Let's forget all about that clearly inconvenient notion that you win the argument, or at least show to others how you are right, by actualy demonstrating to the other person exactly how and why they are a complete dumbfuck using a bit more than just your personal opinions, even though like here, their only dumbness is in engaging you in that way themselves, wasting time referring to policies and the Afd instructions in their lengthy explanations of their detailed reasoning, like, y'know, an actual rational argument. So, if you've nothing more to add, I guess I'll see you at the next DRV, because my opinion of the policies has not changed, the instructions for how to discuss an Afd have not changed, the concept that consenus is a little more than a dumb vote count has not changed, and if your response is going to be typical, I still see absolutely no reason why I am wrong, and you know full from last time that I am most certainly not alone in my objection to how these closures are being done, and the non-reviews like your comment embodies, before you try and paint this as one lone madman's crusade. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, an exact repeat. Assumption that anyone with an opposing viewpoint must have failed to read the debate or the guidelines; absolute refusal to accept consensus. Please do add another huge wall of text, because that'll definitely help.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not a simple vote, or a round up of unsupported personal opinions. You've said absolutely nothing in support of your endorsement here, so nobody here has anything at all to convince them that you have read the debate, or do understand the Guidelines at all. Your endorsement is as informative in that regard, as Cirt's complete failure to even mention what he thought of a single specific aspect of that debate, which had such stellar opinions registered as 'keep, it's not as boring as this other article' FFS. Why you think that people should extend you this amount of extraordinary good faith in a review, that your unsubstantiated opinion rules all, and other people's opinions don't count at all in that exercise, even though they have expended huge amounts of time backing up their opinions with policy and instructional wording. Based on the timings alone of my posting the DRV, and you voting, that's good enough for me to just dismiss your endorsement out of hand as some sort of expression of personal emnity. Your complete refusal to say anything of substance in further reply, such as for example, an attempt to detail how you would have interpreted the specific arguments with some specific reasons, just puts the icing on the cake for me, as does your apparent dislike of 'walls of text' (or as other people might call them, full explanations of a position) which I am putting out there in an apparently futile expectation of the same in return. Sod it, let's just disable the edit function completely, there's clearly no point in discussion here at all, we might aswell just make Afd and Drv an exercise in radio button pushing. We can all rate from 1 to 10 how much we 'like' an article, or how well we think the closer did in counting up the resulting numbers. MickMacNee (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to make detailed arguments in cases where I can link to the previous discussion which shows crystal clear that your understanding of "consensus" is seriously at odds with that of most DRV participants. This isn't an "expression of personal enmity", but my relatively sharp tone reflects your open hostility to Cirt, my habitual lack of patience with those who won't accept consensus on Wikipedia, and the fact that you didn't learn anything from the last time you did this. Learn it now: except in very unusual circumstances, a good faith consensus of established editors is the law, whether or not you think it's wrong.—S Marshall T/C 09:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think MickMacNee has a valid reason for deletion and if consensus was that WP:ONEEVENT applied here, I'd endorse deletion. But the consensus clearly went the other way. ONEEVENT isn't a black-and-white issue (a significant enough event can overrule it and the bar for that isn't a bright line) so the opinions of the editors matter quite a bit. Endorse. 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
?. WP:EVENT is not the same as WP:ONEEVENT, which is if anything just about BLPs. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel strongly that my delete argument on this AfD was left largely unrebutted, and a lot of the keep arguments ignored policy. However it seems that the eventual decision did reflect consensus, at least insofar as the number of keep !votes clearly outweighed the delete !votes. So... sort of undecided as to whether or not I endorse the decision and, in any case, I am clearly biased. I'd be interested in hearing some outside views first.--Korruski^Talk 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Mick, your argument about people claiming the NTSB report confers notability is bit weak, seeing as WP:N was only brought up by others with regards to it after you did. The only mention of the NTSB report linked to Wikipedia policies before you linked it to "WP:N-worty evidence" here was LeadSongDog's comment here, which cites the NTSB as a RS, not N. Oakshade's later comments about the NTSB report and WP:N were in response to you. Also as I pointed out there, your tone is distinctly unbecoming of somebody who has the best interests of Wikipedia in mind; WP:CIVIL is stretched to the limit often, and some of your comments, both there and in your OP here, IMHO really stretch WP:NPA even. Not to mention instantly tossing it to DRV because you didn't like the outcome (following a statement that you would do so if the closing admin didn't do things your way), as well as essentially accusing editors of canvassing because they notified the ARS in accordance with their guidelines, say a lot. But conduct detrimential to Wikipedia completely aside, the article was determined, by consensus, to be worth keeping. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you want to discuss civility, instead of the actual issues for review here, then I suggest you don't blithely throw out accusations yourself - the idea that I accused anyone of canvassing in that Afd is utterly false. What is infact incivil also, is your characterisation of a very long, very detailed, policy backed review rationale, as me simply 'not liking' the outcome. That's two blatant pieces of incivility right there, in a comment where you are supposedly complaining about me being incivil. And no, me stating that I would take this to review if the closer didn't comment on certain aspects is not infact a POINT violation in the slightest. I would love to see any admin block someone for a POINT violation in this circumnstance, it's only you who seems to believe that would be remotely correct. The Afd instructions are crystal clear, and I stated that they were pretty clearly not being followed by certain voters. If a closer does not want to comment on that aspect of an Afd, then anyone is well within their rights to DRV it. That's the whole point of this venue, supposedly. On the one factual point you did raise in this comment, out of about 20 points in the review rationale, there's simply no point in even talking about who said what first about the NTSB report and N, if Cirt isn't going to expand here on whether that was even what he was talking about in his closure when he mentions sources. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will not endorse this as I already !voted keep in the original discussion. The user who opened this seems more like they want to get their way than anything else, and starts off this thread with a salvo fired at the administrator who closed the discussion. I will repeat what I said at AfD: the accident was a commercial revenue generating flight, it resulted in the complete destruction of a large aircraft, it has ongoing ramifications for crew emergency evacuation training throughout the industry (aka not exclusive to the MD-11, FedEx, or cargo flights), and reliable sources are available. To that I will add one more: this accident is just one of a disproportionately large number (relative to the size of the fleet) of MD-11 accidents caused by control issues during the landing sequence. I initially became aware of this accident, and by extension the deletion discussion, while researching MD-11 control problems. N419 BH 19:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The Bushranger's statement above in reply to Mick is pretty reasonable. Also, at Wikipedia we sometimes have to accept the outcome of a vote, discussion etc. Taking an AfD to DRV just because you didn't accept the outcome (especially if the consensus is clear), is not the best thing to do. The admin who decides the outcome of the particular AfD generally 1) looks at the consensus between the "keep" and "delete" votes, and 2) checks the validity of all the votes and comments. Mick, if you voted "delete" on 10 AfDs, and none of those were deleted, would you then start 10 DRV discussions? I suggest speedy closure of this discussion. Hey Mid (contribs) 19:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will DRV any Afd where there is grounds to believe that 1) the admin hasn't properly weighted the arguments (and maybe you can explain how that consensus was derived here with what weight to what argument, if Cirt refuses to, and I will then be more than happy to accept it, if people then choose to endorse your explanation, but you simply saying 'he's done it right', is just compounding the problem), or 2) possibly hasn't even read the debate in detail (ref. Cirt's surprise it has come to Drv). MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The overwhelming consensus was to keep it, so it got kept. Dream Focus 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A DRV is to review what and nominator thinks is an improper closure, not a continuation of the AfD. All MickMacNee's arguments here are a gigantic re-hash if his extremely lengthly, almost mathematical, AfD formula of his interpretation of our guidelines to explain his delete vote and then attacks the closing admin for not agreeing with him. Overwhelming consensus here to keep the article with those supporting keep using their arguments based on their interpretations of guidelines and polices, which this nominator obviously disagrees with. Interestingly, MickMacNee constantly attempted to "invalidate" those in favor of keeping by citing WP:VAGUEWAVE or argument by assertion whist ignoring one of the 3 "delete" votes which was the epitome of WP:VAGUEVAVE and argument by assertion, which even further justifies the admin's closing. That SIX days before this AfD was closed he stated "this will go for review" demonstrates he had no intention of respecting consensus if it didn't end the way he wanted it to. This is DRV is looking pointy. --Oakshade (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC) (Note - I hope this was an accident, but MickMacNee deleted my opinion here. [44])[reply]
First off, of course it was an accident. Now, let's get a few things crystal clear - it is NOT the closer's job to agree or disagree with me, it's their job to weigh the arguments based on policy, and instructions. You wanted the article kept, based on a strawman, and then an apparent belief that all investigated accidents are notable (that is, like it or not, the ONLY logical conclusion from your interpretaion of WP:N). Now, in terms of deletion review, it is absolutely meaningless for you to be coming here, claiming with zero evidence that, surprise surprise, your 'interpretations' were of course brilliant, and the closer must have agreed with you as he kept the article, and everything's rosy in the world. It is not. The closer has said absolutely nothing specific in his closing, and not for the first time in aircrash Afd's, even though they are wholly disputed and in need of clarity, and that is what I am putting up for review here. For all we know he might have thought your opinion of WP:N was worthless, or he might have thought your strawman was the best argument he's ever seen - but we will apparently never know from him directly. I am not rehashing the Afd at all by pointing these basic facts out, I am objecting to the process given the large amounts of evidence that many of the arguments in the Afd were poor. If you really want your arguments to be shown in this review to have been superior to the delete side's, then I would think you would have wanted more clarification from the closer too, instead of playing these games where you and others throw casual insinuations out there about how it's 'interesting' that I did this, or how pointy you think that comment was (have any of you actually even read POINT btw? It's completely irrelevant). You want to play it that way? Well, I think it's really 'interesting' that you repeatedly tried to claim I was asking you to copy and paste the entire source into the Afd, when I did absolutely nothing of the sort. And I think it is really 'interesting' how many times you chose to completely ignore whole portions of posts when they referred to actual policies, guidelines and instructions, and instead chose to variously claim I had apparently 'admitted' to or 'agreed' with things I never had. That is incivil btw, especially to do it repeatedly. And I think it's really 'interesting' that you refused about 5 times to even acknowledge the logical outcome of your interpretation of WP:N. That aspect of the debate was not even an issue of interpretation that the closer would have been agonising over, it's a flat out simple issue of fact. Again, who knows what he thought of that? No comment form him, and no sign of that level of review here yet. We can all play these games of evasion and misdirection, but they are irrelevant sideshows to the issue up for review here - how did the closer come to this decision, given the fact that no, argument by assertion is NOT considered a valid expression of an 'interpretation' of a policy, this again is not an issue of interpretation, it's a basic fact of Afd, as are all the other things in the instructions that many keep votes (and remember, it is claimed there was a STRONG CONSENSUS in there) clearly and boldly violated, repeatedly. MickMacNee (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. A 2nd gigantic rehash of your AfD arguments and rebuttals/harassments of those who disagree with you. The only addition in this AfD you've offered up is "I was brilliant and everyone else was awful, therefore the closing admin was wrong." Your attacks on my AfD arguments here are contradictory to reality, but as clearly you've failed to understand that a DRV is not an AfD, I'm not going to engage with you again. Cue your long rant. --Oakshade (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, this is more reminiscent of your Afd behaviour tbh. You pretend you can ignore others at length yet still assert you are 'engaging', as well as making yet more outrageous accusations that you could not hope to support if anyone ever pulled you up on them (you are now accusing me of harassment FFS!), and yet again when people put some actual facts to you, you do a diva style exit stage left. You can either properly defend your statements, like that "contradictory to reality" comment, or you can storm off. You cannot do both and expect to retain any credibility. There is frankly more than a little bit of childishness about your whole approach actually. MickMacNee (talk) 01:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting argument, since that pretty much describes your own tactics with the exception of the "diva style exit", and the fact you use umpteen words of blathering to try to beat people into agreement through sheer force of text-wall. And no, before you ask, I'm not going to bother any more either; I've made my comments, and people can judge who's right and wrong using their own minds. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tactics indeed. Pretending that how much I write is justification for not having to defend things like your canvassing comment, or your countless other slurs and insinuations masquerading as comments or answers in here or in the Afd, is a straight up 'tactic' if ever I saw one. It's called poisoning the well. Combined with diva-exits and misdirection, it's extremely effective. I answered every part of your post above, foolish as that was, because here you are, stating you refuse to even read it, while at the same time having the gall to claim that I engage in 'tactics' like ignoring people. In the real world, people would judge who is right and who is wrong in this case quite easily. But then again, in the real world, if there was a clear instruction like not giving weight to arguments by assertion, people would actually follow it too, or would at least expect a review of such an accusation, to be conducted as a review, not this farce. MickMacNee (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read every word you wrote, and never said otherwise; claming that I did is yet another example of your taking things out of context, twisting words, and generally bending civility to the very limit. And for what it's worth, I do appreciate the fact you wrote it up and attempted to defend your position, regardless of how utterly indefensible it is. However I don't "slur" or "insinuate", I speak what I firmly and honestly perceive as the truth - not my truth, not your truth, but the honest, verifiable truth. And I didn't "defend...[my] canvassing comment" because frankly it's obvious to everyone, but I've attempted to explain it below. To speak honestly, I'm saddened that you can't understand how you come across to everybody else here, because your passion and conviction are beyond admirable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Mick, your even bringing this to DRV is concerning, considering the unanimity of endorsement that the last aircrash DRV you initiated received. Editors are expected to modify their understanding of consensus and policy when their own interpretations are significantly out of sync with the community's, which appears to be the case in this topic. If anyone's conduct is at question here, it's certainly not Cirt's. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might have had a point here, except 1) the crashes in question are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT in every way possible, 2) the AIRCRASH guideline has completely changed between then and now, even though it is still not clear there is agreement on how it should be read (or are you just ignoring all the delete votes?), and 3) plenty of people were reluctant to endorse Cirt's last closure, but effectively said they wouldn't have been brave enough to go against the 'consensus' of a dumb vote count in favour of actual policy based weightings of arguments, which is what an overturn would require, and 4), like here, nobody in that DRV even bothered to address the points raised, so it was just a vote count on top of a vote count - that's not something I am ever likely to be persuaded by, especially when it involved most of the same people from the Afd and Drv, and yet again was given a one word closure. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So...it's a cabal, then. Nice to know. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This snarky comment makes no sense at all. Where have I alleged a cabal exactly? MickMacNee (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

especially when it involved most of the same people from the Afd and Drv - exactly there; the only way such a statement can be interpreted is an accusation of a cabal, exactly the same way your stament that you hoped the closer of the AfD "should be aware" that ARS was notified can easily be interpreted by a reasonable person as an accusation of canvassing (yes, the accusation was never explictly made, but there is this thing called "not in so many words"). Mick, for what it's worth, I came into these discussions determined not to have the well poisoned with regards to you by the comments I saw others making about you, as I've seen that kind of thing far too often in too many other places not to know that it's very easy for somebody to develop an unjustified bad rap and be stuck with it regardless of the facts. However, given what I've seen in these AfDs, well...here we are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: I'm not sure what Cirt (talk · contribs) did to get on your bad side....there is nothing wrong with the close. Since WHEN is an NTSB report not-notable. You let me know, because, frankly, without an NTSB report, the article is not complete nor fully sourced. While I have not agreed with everything Cirt has done, and have had bad experiences with him in the past, I certainly don't hold grudges. This seems a bit Bitey to me....Cirt is absolutely right, you brought it right here, without going to him first. There was no community consensus to delete, your single opinion is not going to change that outcome, and bringing it here was silly. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, and by the way, bieng rude and making comments such as dumbfuck is not going to help your case -- it just extends to the amount of crap that is going on here. Instead of being rude and push, not to mention your lack of ability to accept a consensus, why couldn't you have brought it up with Cirt first, instead of running here. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's he done? He has closed far too many of these Afds, ensuring that it becomes a question of over-reliance on a single person's judgement over a dispute that has huge implications for thousands of potential articles, and tens of thousands of historical ones (look at the figures presented in the Afd). And he's done it repeatedly with either one word closures, or closures like this, which when examined, don't actually say anything at all wrt the issues. This is inspite of the fact that, as he has closed so many, he knows full well that there is a real dispute here that requires actual clarification. And please, do not believe the insinuations being made in here, it is not just me who is not happy with this, and it is not just me who does not agree with the blind assertions that are being thrown out in Afd's about what makes an notable plane crash. Nobody said NTSB reports cannot be used as sources, the issue is whether they count as coverage for the purposes of EVENT. "WHEN is an NTSB report not-notable." - when to claim that it is, results in an outcome that every single investigated accident gets an article on Wikipedia automatically through simply having happened - that is such a bad path to go down it's unreal. It's worse than when people used to claim Wikipedia should have an article on every single Pokemon - that's how divorced such an idea is from our primary mission as it is, or should be, understood in 2010, with all the beneift of things like EVENT, which are supposed to mean that no, Afd is no longer simply a venue where making up and asserting your own personal notability standards, as many still like to do, is remotely allowable, if it ever was. And frankly, Cirt can complain all he wants about my supposed impoliteness, he knows full well if he read the Afd that I intended to DRV this if the closer did not do what frankly most closers do as a matter of course in similar Afds where there is clearly a schism in (editor's views) of a policy or guideline that is well understood in other topic areas (have you ever tried to get an article about a massive road pile up kept at Afd, even if you have news coverage, an official investigation, and recommendations for change?). I do not believe for a second that me talking to him first would have been anything other than time wasting process wonkery, he surely cannot be claiming he didn't realise this would be a controversial closure if he didn't have the first intention of talking about even the core elements of the dispute in the closure? Who exactly even claimed that the issue was a simple lack of RS, for example, as he suggests with the only bit of extended reasoning he provided? Nobody that I can remember. MickMacNee (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Given the arguments made by the participants at AfD it would appear that there is little room for considering a close of anything other than "keep". Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Cirt's closure was spot on, and reflected the consensus of the community that the accident was notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. MMN was warned in the AfD discussion that taking this to DRV would be POINTY (and therefore disruptive). Mjroots (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The administrator appears to have interpreted the debate correctly, and I see no procedural malfeasance. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 08:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 December 2010

Battle_of_Karánsebes – There are a lot of comments and debate here and while there is no questioning that the deletion process was properly followed, or that the closing administrator acted improperly in any way, there is a broad consensus that the deletion should not stand. Therefore, while the original closure is endorsed, there is a consensus to undelete due to the AFD being unsatisfactory. There is liberty to relist immediately if editors desire to do so. – Stifle (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The argument for deletion were many errors and sources from 50 years after the fact. While the details of the defeat of the Prussian army by the Turks may be debatable, the battle itself is documented. The report of A.J.Gross-Hoffinger (Leipzig, Nachdruuck, 1847) Die Geschichte des Joseph II (a scanned version can be seen at Josephs des Zweiten, but it is rather difficult to read because of the gotic alfabet) may not be of confidence, and the events narrated by him are probably bogus. But there is a letter from Joseph II to the first minister Kaunitz (Austrian Archives, Lettres d'empereur Josph II à prince Kaunitz) Joseph writes "The disaster our army has suffered, because the cowardliness of some units, is at the moment imponderable. The panic spread everywhere, in the heart of army, in the heart of Caransebes people, and by all the way to Temesvar, what is about ten leagues (about 40 km). I cannot describe in words the violence and the terrible carnage that happened." (translation from a translation from French to Portuguese of the letter is mine). The details of the reason for the defeat, like the Gypsy camp and the liquor, and the dispute for the liquor probably are not true, but the battle is documented, as is the defeat, and it is documented by a very good primary source, Joseph II himself. About the two modern books cited, The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders by Potomac Books does not cite sources, and its publisher is not well seen, and the other book Hinge Factor by Eric Durschmied was published by the now closed Arcade Publishing, but there is at least two other books: The history of nations. Vol 14 by Henry Cabot Lodge published by P. F. Collier & son in 1907 and Annals of the wars of the eighteenth century. Vol 4 of Sir Edward Cust published by J. Murray in 1862. There is still a description of the campaign and the defeat in an Scotish Magazine in 1788: Scots Magazine 1788. It seems the the battle itself, and the defeat is documented, or better, the panic and deaths during the retreat is well documented, and the later chase of the Prussian army by the Turksish army, while is questionable that we can call this "battle" it seems that something very wrong happened in the retreat, and call this event "battle of Karansebes" seems logical, there was an important defeat. This event is documented by the letter of Joseph II, the press of the time, and at least two books besides of the cited in the deletion talk (I am researching what were the sources of these two books), this seems to corroborate the A.J.Gross-Hoffinger report, at least in the part about the retreat an the deaths, but none of them cite the event of the liquor that really seems like a hoax. -- Agranero (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - archive.scotsman.com shows a hit for 1849. There is an April 25, 1999 review of The Hinge Factor: How Chance and Stupidity Have Changed History by Erik Durschmied in the Scotland on Sunday entitled "How numpties made history" that basically says the book is full of it. The book looks for the apparently trivial detail ("hinge factor) which decides the whole issue of a military battle (the whole issue of the militry battle hinged on that trivial factor). The book mentions Karansebes in 1766. The review notes, "Perhaps the most astonishing section is 'A Barrel of Schnapps', about the debacle of Karansebes, where the Austro-Hungarian army managed to end up fighting and fleeing from itself, with thousands of casualties." Searching "Karansebes" in google books brings it up as well. Maybe write a new article entitled Karansebes in 1766 (or would it be Caransebeş in 1766?) to get away from the "battle" focus. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was some more discussion on the quality of the sources at the article's talk page, now deleted of course. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have temporarily undeleted the article and its talk page so that people can see it during this DRV. JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Against restoration - Whether the battle even happened at all is extremely disputed, and the only sources cited for the article's sake were two popular entertainment books rather than reliable scholarly sources. Such as it is, the article should not be restored, unless its primary substance is about the debate of the battle. -- LightSpectra (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Endorse~~. Fair AfD. Consensus, especially User:Starblind, reflects my reading of the article, that it reads like a hoax. "Meanwhile, the entire camp awoke to the sound of battle and, rather than waiting to see what the situation was, everyone fled." is an eyewitness report. If good sources can be found, the article should be rewritten from scratch. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, optionally relist after a while. I think Phil Bridger 20:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC) below is right. Allowing for variation in terminology, there appears to be further sources. The AfD did not consider this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't endorse this at all. There are two published sources, so only a BLP issue or copyvio should lead to deletion. If this "battle" didn't happen then it's Wikipedia's job to say so.—S Marshall T/C 17:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify. I'm not aware of any standard by which if there are two sources we must have an article or articles become ineligible for deletion. Surely if the sources aren't reliable it isn't wikipedia's job to research that in order to write an article about that (OR), we'd need some sources having done that analysis and reaching that conclusion? If reliable sources don't exist to support the event having occurred, and sources don't exist which conclude it was a hoax, then we've no basis for an article. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can clarify. The spirit, the letter and indeed the whole point of WP:V is that Wikipedians don't get to decide they know better than the sources. If the material appears in a reliable source and there are no other sources that conclude it was a hoax, then we've no basis for deletion.—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm still confused then, are you saying you don't endorse because you believe the two sources to be reliable? i.e. you disagree with the opinions in the deletion debate that the sources weren't reliable. (WP:V does require us to assess the reliability of sources)--82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're reliable within the usual Wikipedian meaning; they're non-self-published books. Mind you, I don't want to overstate the case. The honest doubt about this means in-text attribution is appropriate ("Source X says that Y happened on Z date").—S Marshall T/C 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't speak for anyone else but I don't take anything non-self-published as reliable and the question of evaluating sources such as WP:SOURCES certainly are more involved than that. Regardless of my or your view on the reliability of these, those arguing the xFD also evaluated them as process wise is proper, and we aren't somehow superior to those views expressed in the debate, so I can't see how this was a process problem with the xFD. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be aware of people like von Däniken, or Velikovsky. Wikipedians have rightly taken it that they are not reliable sources and that their claims are not necessarily true. But that doesn't mean that our encyclopaedia shouldn't address them; it would be inappropriate to delete their articles. The AfD should have made that finding and didn't.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the article sourced solely to Velikovsky, which is essentially what we are discussing here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt if I'll find one. Von Däniken and Velikovsky have both generated what one might call a significant corpus of refutation, and such things are rightly included in articles about their theories. A better parallel is Baldock Beer Disaster, which is a redlink because it was deleted at this AfD—the difference being that this material has sources.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Von Däniken and Velikovsky was different and that was my point in asking the question, there are significant reliable sources discussing the cases of Von Däniken and Velikovsky so their theories can be written about (at which point contextually they are reliable for what there theories are, not for the "truth" of those theories). For your parallel the conclusion was we can't write about something as hoax unless there are reliable sources discussing it as a hoax . We can't write about it as truth unless there are reliable sources for that. We don't seem to have reliable sources on either side of this, which was my original statement "If reliable sources don't exist to support the event having occurred, and sources don't exist which conclude it was a hoax, then we've no basis for an article.". --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like that outcome, because it's having it both ways. In deleting this material, we're deciding that Wikipedians know better than the sources. Which doesn't sit very well with WP:V (my original point), but perhaps there's a consensus to suspend that rule for the moment. (By the way, a decision a source is wrong is also, in the absence of a source that says it's wrong, original research. Among various other heinous Wikipedia sins.)
If we're giving ourselves that much leisure to ignore the rules then we need to finish the job and explain why the sources are wrong. I mean, Wikipedia isn't Snopes, but there's an overlap when dealing with known error in print: it's our role to inform. To educate, in fact. By letting known error stand unchallenged we're failing.
I can't help thinking I'm failing to communicate with you here, though. :(—S Marshall T/C 00:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the last sentence, I somehow doubt we're too far apart just can't make the link in the middle. WP:OR doesn't apply to assessment of sources, and it's not deciding we know better, it's looking to the source and saying we can't trust the source so we can't tell one way or other (i.e. the source maybe correct, but then again random dribblings on web forums by chance will soemtime be right), some may by extension may decide that for certain events the general signficance would normally be met with more sources, so the one is a hoax, I don't think we can conclude that, but it does mean we are short of enough material to write anything useful. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OR doesn't say that it doesn't apply to assessment of sources, but I can understand why you think it should. Let me try another angle. I think that this DRV needs to focus more clearly on what Agranero actually says—it's not insignificant that he presents new sources that don't seem to have been considered at the AfD. Even more so when the AfD concluded that the existing sources weren't to be trusted. The casualty figure of 563 seems to have been accepted at the AfD, and the 10,000 rejected (to my mind, rightly). In fact, to my reading, the AfD seems to have decided that an incident of some kind did actually happen. The "delete" outcome seems at least partly to be on notability grounds. Are you with me so far?—S Marshall T/C 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the feeling that we might be best off if this were merged into Austro-Turkish War (1787–1791), but since this is DRV not AfD, endorse. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to generate discussion ground in policy. Per S Marshall above, "Wikipedians don't get to decide they know better than the sources." The AfD reasonings were based on unsourced statements. If this is a hoax, then reliable sources will be available to present such information in the article. The two books cite in the article were:

Regan, Geoffrey (2000). The Brassey's Book of Military Blunders. Washington, D.C.: Brassey's. ISBN 157488252X. Relevant excerpt on Google Books.

Durschmied, Erik (2000). The Hinge Factor: How Chance and Stupidity Have Changed History. Arcade Publishing. ISBN 9781559705158. Relevant excerpt on Google Books.

The AfD focused on deleting these two references, not the article. Whether the sources were reliable should take place at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The discussion did bring out enough additional reliable source material to support an article on the topic. Just because some Wikipedians hold their noses to the tale told by those sources is not a basis to delete the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources noticeboard is not the sole arbiter of what is/isn't a reliable source. AFD should quite rightly evaluate the reliability of sourcing available. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go further than that, and say that the main business of the encyclopaedia writer is evaluating sources, so there's almost no page anywhere on Wikipedia where an evaluation of sources would be out of place.—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been around since 1788. Things have been written about the topic since that time. Wikipedia is here to convey such information. The main problem I'm seeing is that some editors are saying the topic must be true and since we cannot tell whether it is true, then it should not be in Wikipedia. It is the same thing they do to those nutty, notable professors who throw religion into science. These editors say the nutty professor doesn't qualify under wp:prof, therefore delete. The problem in both these approaches is that it puts Wikipedian's in charge of what the reliable sources should have wrote about and if they didn't, then the topic doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia. That is not how Wikipedia is set up. Wikipedia is nothing more than a conveyor of information written by others. The article should reflect what the collective of the reliable sources say about a topic without personal bias or judgement. As brought out in the AfD, the above two sources do not make up the entire collective of reliable sources and judging on whether the topic should be kept based on these two sources is not supported in Wikipedia policy. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think that a large part of the problem that caused this AfD to gather consensus for deletion was the article title. Most sources that I can find describe the events as a "panic"[45] rather than a "battle". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 December 2010

Connexion.org – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Connexion.org has grown in reach considerably since this page was removed and given the other sites that have pages, I'd like to ask that this one be restored so that I may update it and make it relevant with citations. Alexa rank 57,830 with 145 sites linking in. I tried contacting the deleting admin but didn't receive a response. Laddbosworth (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what sources do you have? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of mentions as a starting point:

Laddbosworth (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- None of those look like reliable sources. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think techcrunch and the advocate are reliable and that queerty might be (queercents looks like a blog, but not sure there either). I'm not sure the coverage is there, but what problems are you seeing with reliability here? Hobit (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly the coverage is weak and having looked a secondtime I accept that techcrunch and Advocate appear to be reliable as they have staff and attributed writers and all. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put together a draft at User:Laddbosworth/Connexion.org and then ask here to move it into article space/request recreation of the topic. "Significant new information has come to light since a deletion" is a good reason to allow recreation of an article that has been AfD deleted. The AfD happened on 12 March 2008, so there is bound to be post 12 March 2008 informaiton on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked and not found much. One gets the sense that this site _is_ important and fairly popular (a lot of people, including RSes, discuss it in passing just assuming the reader is familiar with it). But I can't find much. The Techcrunch article would seem to be the best for an actual discussion of the site, and it's pretty weak. One good RS article and the rest would probably put it over the top though. Hobit (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Greyfriars, London – withdrawn – Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Withdrawn, see below) This article was created by Peter Damian V (talk · contribs), a sock of banned user Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I declined the sock's unblock request (in which they threatened more socking) and deleted the article per WP:CSD#G5 because no other users had made substantial edits to it.

Without either contacting me or asking for deletion review, as he should have done if he disagreed with the deletion, Nev1 (talk · contribs) undeleted the article with the rationale "clearly satisfies notability guidelines and deleting it thoughtlessly damaged the encyclopedia". Following discussion at User talk:Sandstein#Greyfriars, London, I ask that my speedy deletion be reviewed and, unless there is consensus to overturn it per DRV rules, that the deletion be reinstated. Sandstein 14:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? Are you disputing the content of the article or is it just because it was created by an ostracised editor? Nev1 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latter, see WP:BAN. Banned sockpuppeteers have no right to edit Wikipedia, and keeping their contributions, even good ones, just encourages them to sock even more. Incidentally, the content of the article appears to have been copied without attribution from User:Quisquiliae/sandbox, so it is technically also a copyvio. A checkuser in the audience may want to check whether Quisquiliae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), created yesterday, is another Damian sock. Sandstein 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid that it was the latter reason which shows a complete disregard for the encyclopedia and treats Wikipedia as a game. Discarding good quality edits because you don't like the author is nothing short of ludicrous. Nev1 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above analysis by Nev1. This instance reinforces the view put forth five years ago by Robert McHenry, characterizing Wikipedia as "The Encyclopedia Game." —Montana Mouse (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.132.4 (talk)

WP:CSD#G5 says that deletion is discretionary not mandatory and Nev1 is correct in labelling the removal is was an act of vandalism. I for one would be interested in a history of this site, regardless of who the main author is. It contained tombs of Marguerite of France, Isabella of France, and Eleanor of Provence. In addition it was an important part of medieval scholarship. It occupies an important place in UK history. John lilburne (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the credited response. Nev1 is not banned, he is apparently not violating copyright, and he is not continuing any imaginable disruption by posting this clearly encyclopedic content. Do not redelete. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yet another very new account with a strange editing pattern. Sandstein 16:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to parse the above non sequitur, it looks like an attempt to be sly, so perhaps you may like to correct that impression.

But yes I am a new user. However, new user or not, I did noticed that you similarly deleted another good edit by Damian today. So that you can improve in the future I'll simply remind you that a discretionary power is not exercised if one always acts in one particular way. John lilburne (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't redelete This subject clearly warrants an article, which is why I contributed to editing it. I am currently researching it, so if it's deleted then I will end up re-creating it in some form or another, although I'm not sure how attribution can be properly maintained if that happens. I don't want to claim the article creation for myself just so as to "not encourage" future sock puppets, neither do I want to reword large portions just for the sake of it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion was proper per WP:BAN (though I personally disagree with WP:BAN on this unless the user was banned for copyright or related problems). Nev1 should have politely communicated with the deleting admin rather than undeleting his own and claiming the deleting admin acted "thoughtlessly". Sandstein did something well within policy and that policy has had a lot of thought put into it. The general consensus is that these deletions should be done. Given that significant edits by a non-banned editor have now been made to the article, redeletion isn't appropriate, but a WP:FISH to Nev1. He did improve the encyclopedia, but doing so in a non-civil way hurts the encyclopedia too, and there he failed. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we can't engage in civil discussion. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
endorse both deletion and undeletion Practise is that any user may remove content provided by a banned user but users are also allowed to restore content if they are prepared to take responsibility for the edit so both actions appear to be correct. I recommend the closing admin trout both the nominator and the undeleter for failing to behave with decorum about the whole thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greyfriars, London should clearly have an article on Wikipedia. (I'm also personally of the opinion that Peter Damian seems to be making a sincere attempt to generate encyclopaedic content and we should consider giving him another chance accordingly, but that's not a matter for Deletion Review to decide.)—S Marshall T/C 20:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that's actually the case. Content creation is a side effect of his stated purpose. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not re-delete Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia. To the extent even our most difficult editors do work, so much the better for us all. I recognize the need to find an effective way to deal with sockpuppetry, and for banning to have some effect, but the current tactic of deleting even good work by banned editors does not seem to be working, and therefore, on balance, is interfering with building the encyclopedia. I congratulate the undeletor for their courage in pursuing the proper course to improve Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article- I agree entirely with the three editors directly above me, and can add nothing to what they have said. Reyk _YO! 11:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the CSD is there for a purpose and the undeleting admins failure to recognise that and general attack to this seems somewhat lacking. As mentioned by other above there is room in the criteria for some leeway so overturning the outcome just because it wasn't handled well would be silly. On the overall issue this isn't really an area which DRV is good at answering, if there is a general problem with an admin being out of touch with the communities wishes by undoing G5s etc that's a DR/RFC type issue, similarly if there is a belief that the communities intent on G5 is no longer generally supported, that's really better suited to broader discussion at CSD. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as in accordance with policy about banned users. Endorse undeletion as also in accordance with policy about banned users, assuming Nev1 is prepared to take responsibility for the content. Suggest that the tone taken by both Sandstein and Nev1 is unhelpful. Especially Sandstein, who as a recent ArbCom candidate presumably knows better. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR was written to remind us that the content and quality of WP comes first above everything else. Thus, this nice article should be kept, and damn the rest. S B H arris 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is I have had issues in the past with sockpuppets and I understand the deep frustration that is felt when dealing with editors who abuse their editing privileges. Often this turns into an effort to sweep away anything that the editor in question had touched, sometimes without a thorough evaluation of the validity of the sockpuppet's contributions. In this case, we appear to have a properly sourced encyclopedic article and Wikipedia is better of with it than without it. There are clearly instances where a sockpuppet's work should be deleted, but I do not believe that this is the case with this article. Alansohn (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (there's no consensus toward a G5 is a must, and Nev1, by undeleting, has made the article his responsibility) and close this DRV quickly; we're just making users targets for WR giggles now. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn the request to review my deletion because the article has now been substantially edited by non-banned users and cannot therefore be re-deleted per G5.
I advise those who believe that Peter Damian should be unblocked because he does good content work to encourage him to appeal his ban through the proper channels, or to take WP:OFFER, instead of socking. Otherwise any work by him remains liable to be speedily deleted. I do not think that it is helpful to encourage a banned user to continue evading their ban, even if it is to do good content work. Sandstein 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Educational segregation in Sunflower County, Mississippi – overturned to no consensus with agreement of closing admin. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closing admin stated that there were no keep !votes, however my stated "oppose" to deletion was intended as such. I'm not sure if this will or should overturn deletion but the deletion rationale is not correct. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too many editors participated in the discussion - so one Keep may have shifted the debate to a "No Consensus" result, or at the very least a relist. Have you asked the closing admin to have a look? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did post a note on his talk page, to which he has not yet had a chance to respond. It's entirely possible I've not exhausted all the necessary steps before DRV. I'm not trying to be confrontational; it's just ignorance about this process, I'm afraid. I too would have thought a no consensus keep or relist would have been the way to go, had he noted my oppose !vote. Clearly just an honest mistake. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could be - which is why I'd still like a response from Steve. That said, easiest way to avoid this is to stick to make sure you phrase your proposal in the context of Keep and Delete, to make sure there is no mistaking it. Not a problem, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I guess so. I've never had this problem before, and I variously use both keep/delete and support/oppose in XfDs. Oh well, live and learn. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin To be honest, I did overlook Shawn's oppose deletion; I'm getting ready for work, so don't have time to do it myself, but I think Overturn to no consensus is the correct result here - I don't think relisting is the correct result here, as there was (in my opinion) enough of a discussion. Sorry for missing your keep, Shawn! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given the comment from PhantomSteve, the closing admin, I'd also recommend that we Overturn to no consensus. Since I've participated here, could another admin do the honors? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Microvision Incorporated – Deletion Endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Their picoprojector won awards at CES this year, and there are articles all over the place about SHOWWX+, the new version. They have a contract with the U.S. military to develop wearable displays, and they are on the stock market with pretty decent profits. It's only a matter of time before this company is a household name, I can't understand why there is no page because I'd like to find out more. 192.198.151.36 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reformatted your request, since the formatting marks (> and <) were pwning the wiki-links. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The old deletion is clearly correct for the time, but new sources might exist. That said, I'm having problems finding reliable sources which discuss this subject in enough detail to meet out inclusion guidelines. Can the person who initiated this DrV provide any such sources? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion without prejudice against recreation of a new article based on reliable sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 December 2010

Waupaca Electric Light and Railway Company – Clear consensus to restore – Black Kite (t) (c) 13:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am trying to fill in the Wisconsin gaps in two Wikipedia lists, List of streetcar systems in the United States and List of Wisconsin railroads by writing pages where they do not exist. (see my talk for details). I started with the small Waupaca system because it was easier. Only to see it deleted because it was small! The whole point of the exercise is completeness. The other rational for deletion was that there are few results of a Google search. However almost all material predates the internet, does that lessen its value? To make information available online is part of the point of writing the article. Every railroad line ever built in the UK is described on Wikipedia. The completeness of the project is a wonder to behold. I suppose I could go though them deleting the small ones now no longer operating on the grounds of none importance but what would be the point? So what was the point of deleting the Waupaca system? --Wickifrank (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points of information: (1) The article was speedily deleted with an A7 rationale. (2) It has since been userfied to User:Wickifrank/Waupaca Electric Light and Railway Company. LadyofShalott 16:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Restore At the very least, an article about a railroad line that had actual operation is not appropriate for A7 speedy deletion, since that is a reasonable clim to importance (& in my opinion, for actual notability also, but, if challenged, that gets tested at AfD not speedy or Deletion review). That two excellent admins speedy deleted this on that rationale means we may be drifting into using A7 too expansively DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'll be honest and say that speedy deletion is still something I am learning, and because of that I actually tend to avoid articles in the csd category that are tagged as being eligible for csd deletion if I am not more than 90% sure that an article meets all eligible criteria for deletion. In many ways this is also a learning experience for me, since this allows me to get a better understanding of where I misjudged the criteria, why the article should not be deleted, and what I should do in the future. To that end, if you could elaborate a little here on why this was a bad deletion I would be thankful, it would help me avoid repeating this error in the future. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should clarify that I came into the picture only after the article had been deleted - I userfied it for WickiFrank and pointed him toward TomStar81 as the deleting admin. While I would not myself have deleted the article, I did not think it my place just to singlehandedly overturn it either. LadyofShalott 02:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per DGG. Not suitable for A7 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the advice this user was given on his talk page, to develop a list or combined article covering several such minor railways at once, was the best course, since a procedural overturn of the A7 would lead to an AfD, but developing a combined article avoids the need for an AfD at all?—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I thought too, I've seen nearly twenty of the oldest pages I created for the Mobile Suit Gundam franchise condensed into a single List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units. Arranged in a unit like on the example page the material could be collectively considered important enough to remain here, and if it turns out that more information develops then the individual lines of note can be spun out into their own articles. If nothing else it is worth noting that this would be one way to resurrect the material without tripping the recreation of deleted material speedy deletion guideline, and that could be important if the article ends up at afd. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I would not support the use of a combined article is that it would only be useful for the smaller systems on the lists. These systems would have nothing in common other than that they happen to be in Wisconsin, and because it only contained some systems it would not in itself be a complete article. The division between this list and systems deserving a stand alone article would be arbitrary. Sometimes you have to add another layer.--Wickifrank (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having a list article would not preclude stand-alone articles for those systems needing more room than is appropriate in the list. There can always be blue-links within a list. :) LadyofShalott 19:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - The first sentence of the article says it all, "Waupaca Electric Light and Railway Company was set up in 1898 ..." In the past 112 years, there likely has been enought RS material published to meet WP:GNG. It was important because it was the successor to the Waupaca Electric Light Association. Its significance is that it served 600 Civil War Veterans and their wives. Its significance is that it served vacationers visiting the Waupaca Chan of Lakes. I don't see how any admin could have missed these in their A7 decision. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – I agree that it doesn't meet WP:CSD#A7. –MuZemike 23:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - I think I'm correct in saying that railway/road companies are generally seen as notable enough to sustain their own articles. If the majority of sources are offline, then that should not be a barrier to the article existing. WP:V only requires that info can be verified, it does not require that it must be immediately verifiable onlyine. Non-fiction books generally pass WP:RS. Mjroots (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Geographical features like tram lines are not A7-able. 8 km isn't really a short line either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 December 2010

Bitcoin – Consensus obtained that notability has now been met. Article moved back to mainspace. Given the apparent COI editing on the article, additional eyes are appropriate. – Jclemens (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has had a turbulent history, with an AfD marred by SPA activity, a lot of agitation suggesting off-wiki canvassing, two previous DRVs on August 4 and September 26, and repeated reposting which led me to salt the title. However, over the last weeks the incubator version at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Bitcoin has been seriously improved. In my opinion the references are now good enough for the article to be returned to the main space, but in view of the history I bring it here for the community's view. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain: The reasons for its original deletion has been fixed. It does still have a dependence on largely one source (the bitcoin forum) for its more detailed information due to a lack of in-depth (longer that a newspaper article) secondary sources. This does not merit its continued deletion though. As a contributor I feel obliged to abstain though. Ultra two (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration: This is a slamdunk case. Has 3 notable third party sources from PC World, Irish Times and LWN. The article is neutral enough yet informative. The writing is a lot better. (Note I edited this article since it's been renominated) Genjix (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, I was involved in the AFD and some related discussions. While I agree with Ultra two that the current version is still too reliant on the bitcoin's forum and self published sources, I also note that the article is much better than it was and that there are now sufficient reliable sources to support the article. It still needs some work, but I don't think we'll be finished with wikipedia today. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Restoration The incubated version of the article makes a credible claim of notability and provides appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as original deleting admin The original deletion was sound as two previous DRVs have shown. The new references which have only become available since the original deletion make the recreation of the article justified, therefore no deletion review is necessary. Please get on with the article. However, I sense some COIs and this article may need some watching. Polargeo (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I do see lots of Conflicts of Intrest, not sure this is reason to keep it deleted though. But maybe at least modifying the start to "Bitcoin is a experimental peer-to-peer e-cash system" and removing some of the bolder statements. Bitcoin can be looked upon as a Pyramid scheme/Multilevel marketing[46], I'm having a hard time explaining that problem with the system on Wikipedia in a senseable way. Emj (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bitcoin is nothing like a pyramid scheme. If you think that the Bitcoin network per se is a pyramid scheme you have misunderstood how Bitcoin works. Please read the white paper on bitcoin.org. A pyramid scheme is unsustainable by design, the Bitcoin economy is deflationary but not unsustainable by design. The internal workings of Bitcoin are a little confusing for someone not familiar with cryptography, which is why this is a common misconception. Yes, Bitcoin could theoretically be used in a pyramid scheme, but that is true for any e-currency. --Cambrasa confab 12:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Bitcoin has now independently been reviewed by LWN.net and PCWorld, two influential publications on internet topics. The EFF, an influential charity, now accepts Bitcoin donations. Bitcoin has grown considerably since the last deletion review. At the time of writing, there is no virtual currency in circulation remotely comparable to Bitcoin, and it serves as a good example to illustrate the concept of a p2p cryptocurrency. --Cambrasa confab 12:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restore There are now close to 5 million bitcoins[47], and at the current exchange rate of ~$0.22 USD/bitcoin[48], that means approx $1,100,000 USD worth of bitcoins exist in the bitcoin economy. This is significant. --Em3rgent0rdr confab 12:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My uncle has a house worth more than that. Do you think his house should have a page on wikipedia? Polargeo (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on socks what is with all the puppets and conflict of interest users this topic has recieved? Any admin watching please move the page from the incubator to mainspace so we don't have to listen to people talking this marginally notable subject up any more. And whist we are at it I think an investigation is necessary as it seriously appears that dormant accounts have been compromised or bought in some way to promote this subject. Polargeo (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me clarify a few things: Yes, I have been inactive on Wikipedia for a while. Yes, I have been following the Bitcoin project for several months now. Yes, I came back here to voice my opinion on Bitcoin. But I did this of my own accord. I was not canvassed by anyone. If this is considered a breach of policy, then I wasn't aware of that and I'm sorry. But I can assure you that this account has not been compromised. --Cambrasa confab 15:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not making reference to you specifically, there are several suspicious dealings with regard to accounts commenting on Bitcoin. If you have a general interest in the subject that is not influenced by other contributors asking you to come and express an opinion then that is fine. Polargeo (talk) 15:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't making a comment about me either. I don't think this is properly something that should be attributed to sock puppets at all, but rather to a convergence of people who are comfortable with using computers and aren't intimidated with a wiki editing interface, even if they may be new to Wikipedia. That such people are rare to come into Wikipedia anymore in large groups is more of a sad statement about Wikipedia than the people who are commenting here. You can look at my edit history on Wikipedia yourself if you think I came here just to edit this article. If anything, this is generating a whole bunch of ill will toward Wikipedia and gives rise to concerns about a "cabal of deletionists", even if it isn't necessarily true. There certainly was no canvassing saying "come here to get this decision overturned", and in fact I made the exact opposite plea: I suggested that those in the Bitcoin community to sit on their hands and let this go through the AfD/DR sausage mill and don't worry about the article until after a decisions has been made by "uninvolved editors". I do think this was a wasted promotional event for Wikipedia, and is an example for why the Wikipedia community is in decline at the moment. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, please list the suspicious accounts. KLP (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-if restored, protect immediately from new users-this one is a crapmagnet.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The incubated article is ready for the mainspace. And, new and returning users are to be made welcome on Wikipedia. Okay?—S Marshall T/C 15:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, this article has received a lot of very very suspicious coordinated effort from allied off wiki contributors, this is a separate issue from the existence of the article. Polargeo (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bitcoin community effectively runs a PR group to promote itself on the forums. There isn't a problem with sockpuppets, just lots of people who deeply care about bitcoin and get genuinely angry when its wikipedia article is deleted. This can cause chaos, but can equally be channeled for good (where do you think all this improvement has come from). We don't need to semi-protect bitcoin, just explain to a lot of people about wikipedia's rules, in helps . Expect violations of WP:PROMOTION. The canvassing (its not explicit canvassing, but has a similar effect) has been largely organized from here. Ultra two (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. the trouble has been that the "PR Group to promote itself on the forums" has rather too obviously regarded Wikipedia as a vehicle for that campaign. If members of the Bitcoin community who understand Wikipedia can gently explain to the rest that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, and that attempts to use it as one are almost always counter-productive because the Wikipedia community is very sensitive to that issue, we shall all get along much better. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly, people have explained this on the forums and the improvements are largely a result of members of the community coming to their senses and working to get the article undeleted. Ultra two (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has Wikipedia thought to accept bitcoin donations as the Electronic Frontier Foundation does? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.2.118 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining - at least so far as leaving it up to others who are more neutral about the topic. Yes, there is a group of relatively inexperienced Wikipedia users that have been visiting this page and adding contributions. I have also been very patient about trying to explain Wikipedia guidelines on those other forums and to explain why this was deleted originally and to suggest ways to engage in promotion that didn't involve Wikipedia. I've also been trying to be patient on the talk page. BTW, the reason this has to go to deletion review is because it needs an admin to clean up the mess that has happened from the previous page moves and some other problems. I'd like to request that if this gets moved back, that the admin also undelete the older talk page, or at least move that to an "archive" sub-page as there was some content discussion which was deleted and was not restored with the userfication. It is going to require some experienced admin TLC here and not some drive-by push buttoning to clean up this mess. Note here that three substantive sources of at least the popular journalistic variety have been written about this topic since the last deletion review, which is why I suggested it get put here in the first place. --97.117.75.152 (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:Malcolm Schosha – Overtaken by events but the consensus was to overturn and undelete – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jpgordon (talk · contribs) deleted this user talk page of a banned sockpuppeteer (renamed to Kwork2 (talk · contribs)) per WP:CSD#U1, which however explicitly excludes user talk pages. No other speedy deletion criteria apply.

In particular, WP:RTV is not a valid reason for deletion by Jpgordon. A recent RFC concluded (and WP:RTV#Deletion of user talk pages confirms) that user talk pages of vanishing users may only exceptionally be deleted by decision of the renaming bureaucrat. Jpgordon is not a bureaucrat. Moreover, the page was already deleted once in 2008 per WP:RTV and then restored because the user subsequently reappeared, which indicates that this user's vanishings tend not to be permanent. Finally, the user continues to make much personal information public at commons:User:Malcolm Schosha and meta:User:Malcolm Schosha, which also makes any claims that he wants to disassociate himself from his Wikipedia activity less credible.

The speedy deletion was therefore procedurally flawed and should be overturned. The page may then either be listed at WP:MFD so that the community can discuss whether there are any good reasons to delete it, or the renaming bureaucrat can make that decision per RTV. (There are reasonable arguments for deletion, which do not convince me fully, but in any case it is not Jpgordon's job to make that decision.)

Relevant discussion is at WP:ANI#User:Malcolm Schosha and User:Kwork and at User talk:Jpgordon#User talk:Malcolm_Schosha. The most recent deletion by JzG (talk · contribs) was merely a redirect to the renamed user talk page. Sandstein 23:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support restoration, and note that even in 2008, when the first deletion under RTV was done, RTV did not include deletion of talk pages. MfD is the proper venue for user talk page deletions, speedy does not apply. If there are specific problem diffs then they should be submitted for oversight. DuncanHill (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support restoration. We had an RfC on this last month at Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish (see here), and the consensus was clear that user talk pages should not be deleted, unless the circumstances are in some way compelling. In addition, this user exercised the right to vanish before, with User:Kwork, and didn't vanish, so that right has been forfeited anyway. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore per my commentary at the RFC.—S Marshall T/C 00:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support restoration -- i like the compromise designed by User:Sandstein at the wwp:anithread. User:Smith Jones 00:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore per nom. Gaming the system should not be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - One admin's views doesn't override consensus reached at the RFC and the guideline in question, and not the type of case IAR is appropriate for IMO. VegaDark (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - Banned users don't get to determine the content of Wikipedia pages, and in particular, talk pages are not supposed to be deleted. At most, it can be blanked but the history needs to be left intact. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - Per recent RFC. Besides, user is still active under the same name on Commons. Garion96 (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore it can be placed at Kwork2 talk, with the appropriate redirects from MS.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore to User talk:Kwork2. Insufficient evidence has been given that this deletion was necessary and proper.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the unanimous consensus so far, and Jpgordon's comment "don't care", I have undeleted the page. In the event of a different outcome of this discussion (which remains a theoretical possibility) it can be re-deleted. This or another discussion can determine whether the page should also be moved or redirected to User talk:Kwork2. Sandstein 00:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Elliot McGucken – Speedily sent to AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elliot McGucken (2nd nomination) – Courcelles 11:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus: Nominated for deletion for failing notability guidelines and possessing few notable sources. Subject interfered with AFD discussion by abusing sockpuppets, making a valid decision impossible. The page has remained an orphan for nearly 2 years and the few reputable sources cited mention subject only in passing. 161.253.51.49 (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that the debate was over 18 months ago I can't imagine DRV is going to overturn the outcome, particularly since the outcome was no-consensus, so there isn't much of a bar to you just starting a new AFD debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rappelz – Restore and relist at AFD – Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus. The article was nominated for deletion on grounds of failing notability guidelines. Since then, the notability of the subject has been established with several independent sources listed on the AFD page. This has been acknowledged even by the editor who originally listed the article for deletion. [49] 78.131.80.59 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and improve, or just Relist. Whilst I couldn't really see any other way of closing the AfD given that there were no actual !votes other than delete, there does appear to be a possibility that the article could be improved to meet WP:N. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - A lousy article being poorly written is not grounds for deletion, and that many of the sources are not in English is also not grounds to dismiss the notability. While I think the game is being operated by a slimy operator with annoying ads to bring people into the game, my political opinion of the game should not be the basis for its deletion in terms of notability and certainly needs somebody to address the sources which were presented at the end of the AfD to at least assert they are unreliable. As far as I can tell, this topic certainly fits the definition of notability with "two or more reliable sources" with no dispute over the reliability of those sources presented. I've seen other sources at least in terms of noting it is one of the "minor" MMORPGs that at least give this game some acknowledgement from time to time. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete - I saw this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion. User:194.160.173.224 linked to multiple reliable sources covering the subject 3 hours before its deletion, which closed before anyone else had time to comment on them. Undelete the article, and allow time for editors to improve it before revisiting. - hahnch e n 00:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - as the nominator I would like additional time to go through the new sources. Marasmusine (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Immigration and crime – clearly endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colonel Warden's links / reason, which the administrator Sandstein preferred over to the majority's given opposite statements, lead to books of two non-reliable authors. And I'm strongly disagree with Sandstein's opinion that no convincing reasons for deletion were provided, they were provided by several users there. And I'm raising article's authors politcal views because it's an ISSUE here, usual people wouldn't try to blame the entire group of people but instead focus on individuals that do it without labeling others for their attitudes / crimes. We already have similar and a highly controversial article here, do we really need another one which undoubtedly was made to make bias against immigrants, here's an example from this article "and counting on the amount of money criminal immigrants cost the society has been banned with the explanation that "...you cannot calculate the value of human lives"." Note the tone it was made of. It's a clear pushing of views. And as administrator sees these books as convincing for keeping, so what now if some authors wrote about crimes by giving their books almost identical titles - that should be enough to create an article here under this title? No, there are many other aspects which should be taken into account when approaching this debate. And users from first discussion for deletion and the second gave reasonable statements why this article shouldn't be under its currently given title and that it can't be neutral as the title itself prohibits it by its own title and how it puts the question, don't disregard them so fast like the admin Sandstein who found them all unconvincing. Userpd (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or relist, though on simpler grounds than the nominator puts forward. The politics are irrelevant to our purposes, but what is relevant is that the books linked in the discussion, cited by the closer, are not from reliable academic presses. Chick Bowen 02:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Most of the delete opinions assume that the subject is inherently POV, which it isn't. The intersection between these two topics in politcs is very notable and there is frequent discussion of the issue in reliable sources. I think a well-written and encyclopedic article can be built off of this topic; one that summarizes the debate and literature that is currently out there and doesn't give way to misleading statistics or other political pandering. This was a tough close to make but apropos of the misreadings of our NPOV policy (ones that assume politically controversial subjects inevitably lead to POV articles) I think Sandstein made the right call. Them From Space 05:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as sources go, 10 minutes on a library web catalogue gave
  - Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000. by Tim Wadsworth, University of Colorado Boulder
  - Higher Immigration, Lower Crime. by Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute
  - Mexican Immigration: Insiders' Views on Crime, Risks, and Victimization. from the Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice
  - CRIME AND IMMIGRATION by Gino Speranza, in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology
  - Latino Employment and Black Violence: The Unintended Consequence of U.S. Immigration Policy. by Edward Shihadeh and Raymond Barranco, LSU
  - IMMIGRATION AND CRIME IN AN ERA OF TRANSFORMATION: A LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS OF HOMICIDES IN SAN DIEGO NEIGHBORHOODS by Ramiro Martinez, Jacob Stowell, and Matthew Lee - Criminology
- and I'm sure there's tons more literature on the subject than that. Them From Space 05:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget:
  - Lee, Matthew T.; Martinez, Ramiro (2009). "Immigration reduces crime: an emerging scholarly consensus". In McDonald, William Frank (ed.). Immigration, Crime and Justice. Sociology of Crime Law and Deviance. Vol. 13. Emerald Group Publishing. pp. 3–16. doi:10.1108/S1521-6136(2009)0000013004. ISBN 9781848554382. ISSN 1521-6136. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
  - Rumbaut, Rubén G.; Ewing, Walter A. (2007). "The Myth of Immigrant Criminality and the Paradox of Assimilation: Incarceration Rates among Native and Foreign-Born Men". Immigration Policy Center. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
- Ironically for all of these claims about POV-pushing, the first chapter of McDonald2009, one of the very books cited in the AFD discussion, is Lee & Martinez 2009 arguing that immigration reduces crime based upon a review of the scholarly literature on the subject. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first book is by Jacob I. Stowell assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Massachusetts Lowell and published by academic publishing house LFB Scholarly Publishing, and the second book is edited by William Frank McDonald professor and co-director of the Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure at Georgetown University, published by Emerald Group Publishing, and containing articles written by people such as Matthew T. Lee associate professor of Sociology at the University of Akron and Ramiro Martinez Jr, associate professor of Criminal Justice at Florida International University.
Are you, Userpd and Chick Bowen, seriously trying to sell the idea that these are not credentialled experts writing in their fields of expertise? Or did you simply not check things out at all? You certainly didn't see that it was Trigaranus who first cited McDonald2009, not Colonel Warden. Nor, clearly, did you look at the table of contents of McDonald2009, or its list of contributors on pages xi–xiii. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- look, there are more books which are pretty much of the same reliability (the University of Michigan, Oxford University Press US) with titles that draw an assumption between ethnicities and crime, should we create an article for this too? Ethnicity and crime? So, like I said, there are other aspects which should we take into account, most of crimes which are done by immigrants not being implied in the article by its current title. And makes it look as their immigration status is the reason for more crimes. Userpd (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's expert scholarship on the subject that analyses such a relationship, then yes, obviously. Have you misunderstood what we are doing in this project? Expert scholarship documenting an area of human knowledge is something that people can only wish for in some subjects, and certainly provides the best foundation for an encyclopaedia that is intended to provide a systematization and summary of such knowledge. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse. This isn't exactly a difficult verdict to reach. How can it possibly have been a good idea to turn "immigration and crime" into a redlink? If there's a link between immigration and crime, then that's definitely to be explained on Wikipedia--and if there's no link between them, then that too definitely needs to be said.—S Marshall T/C 13:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: The current article isn't about "immigration and crime". It's about "immigrants as perpetrators of crime". It either needs to explore the subject of immigrants as victims of crime as well, or change its name. An article called "immigration and crime" would need to mention issues like human trafficking.—S Marshall T/C 13:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - - You're forgetting that separate contents of article can be better fit into other articles e.g. if there are mexican cartels in America, then it to be put in the article "Crime in the U.S.". So if you think it's about to get rid of information then you're wrong, it's just about how it being put. Userpd (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I'm not forgetting that at all. I'm disregarding it, because it's wrong.—S Marshall T/C 00:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Since it doesn't look like this article is being deleted, I'd advise those who are concerned to get busy adding important information, like the human trafficking, and cites of statistics showing where it's a problem and where it isn't. Also, any historical info on US history of immigration where there was a very free immigration policy for a few hundred years (to the Native Americans dismay, of course) is relevant. In fact, in that case the colonialists were a bunch of land grabbing murderers. Hmmm, and then there's Israel's colonialists and lots of others (Albanians in Kosovo, for example, and they were supported by US; another interesting case.) When do people stop being immigrants and start being colonialists anyway? (Properly signed this time) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is, in fact, already covered by the sources cited as potential sources for expansion in the AFD discussion. Immigrants as victims of crime are tackled by chapters 5—9 of McDonald2009, with articles written by people such as professor Toni Makkai and Natalie Taylor (of the AIC). It has proven difficult to get people to even look at chapter 1 of the source cited in the AFD discussion, or even just its table of contents (q.v.). Uncle G (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse sure there are potential problems with NPOV here and maybe more obviously so than other articles, but that's not a reason to delete. From a social sciences and political view point there is plenty written on the subject, provide the article sticks to these sources then there should be no problem, remebering the N in NPOV is Neutral, not No. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there's no reason to delete an article because it's sensitive to certain groups. However the article does need to become more NPOV. Immigration affects on the crime level is an oft-spoken topic to warrant an article. That article is extremely poor quality though... Genjix (talk) 01:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Fortunately there are better sources than books published by LFB— a minor academic publisher, and Emerald — probably the least important of the ones that might make claim to that title. True, it is very difficult here to write about some topics, but that means we have to be careful, not avoid the subject. NPOV is intended fir difficult situations such as that; NPOV in combination with NOTCENSORED means that no topic is too controversial or sensitive to be appropriate for the encyclopedic . This article is not expected to make a conclusion about the presence or nature of the link; it is supposed to (and does) present the arguments and data published on the subject, and the readers will make up their own mind about the conclusions. As all agree, the article needs very considerable expansion. (As a note, publications by such excellent publishers as U Michigan Press, & OUP would certainly justify an article on "ethnicity and crime" — I cannot see why it is cited as a self-evidently inappropriate subject.) DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 December 2010

WIRIS – Deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article contains valid information for a software widely used in many European countries and references to the pages of the several ministries of education who are using it. It has been deleted by user Lectonar twice for being publicity, but he never replied to any of my two requests of reasons for deletion, and he blocked recreation now. Wirismath (talk) 11:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wirismath, I'm afraid a deletion review will not restore this page for you. Deletion review will conclude that Lectonar was correct. There are two main reasons why.
First, the deleted version of the article did not have any reliable sources. (Reliable sources are sources with a reputation for fact-checking that are independent of the subject. Because all of the references were to the Wirismath website or Wirismath's publisher's website, none of them were independent.) This means that our policies on verifiability and notability require the page to be removed.
Second, your username ("Wirismath") makes it clear that you are a representative of the article's subject. This means you have a conflict of interest and should not be writing an article on the subject; anything written by username "Wirismath" about the WIRIS math software is clearly promotional in intent. I'm afraid that you can probably expect this username to be blocked as well.
A different article about WIRIS, based on independent reliable sources by a user without a conflict of interest, might be acceptable--if significant coverage in reliable sources was shown to exist. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news but this particular content is gone for good. Endorse and snow close.—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually, it just might be notable -Google Scholar [50] shows a number of presentations of it at academic conferences, presentations that have been cited by third parties; it also shows a substantial amount of mention elsewhere. I'd suggest looking carefully at the sources and using it as the base for an acceptably sourced article in your user space, and then coming here again. . This is one of the problems about COI--editors with COI tend not to focus sufficiently on finding such third party sources even when they actually do exist. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but Spartaz has correctly blocked this username as representing a real world organisation or interest on Wikipedia and invited the user to re-register as an individual person. And while I think this content needs to remain gone, I was careful to say that a different article about WIRIS that's based on the reliable sources might be acceptable.—S Marshall T/C 13:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear admins S Marshall and DGG, thank you for the explanations and for the advice, everything seems to me reasonable and you made the effort to explain things at length and to seek sources. I have to say that everything would have been simpler if admin Lectonar had replied to any of my messages seeking this sort of information. However, grateful of the advice, not only enciclopedias, but also users get better with time... 12:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wirismath (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

10 December 2010

Mr. Monk Goes to the Dentist – Close endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The three "keep" arguments presented in the AFD are clearly not based in policy. #1 is from someone who said "I believe every episode should have an article," which is in violation of WP:GNG as well as a longstanding precedent that only specific episodes warrant articles; #2 was a weak WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument saying "But other series have episode articles!"; and #3 argued that the episode was "memorable", a clearly subjective argument if there ever were one and a definite WP:ILIKEIT. The "delete" !voter and the nom are the only two people who acknowledge the article's actual shortcomings — namely, that it's merely a plot summary and trivia, and that no secondary sources could be found. I tried to AFD this a second time but decided a DRV would be better. I would suggest that this AFD be overturned and relisted to gather more arguments that are actually rooted in policy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: I can't say Cirt was required to relist instead of closing, and there was no other close to be had except to keep. Episode articles have amazing staying power, at least for selected series on the project. But a likely result of this DrV, i bet, will be that there is no prejudice to a relisting and by doing a DRV you won't be assailed with "we just did this" complaints.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that Cirt closed it according to the consensus but the discussion itself was inadequate. The result that both sides should have explored, but didn't, was a redirect to Monk (season 4). But it's not necessary to overturn Cirt in order to achieve that outcome; such a discussion belongs on the article's talk page.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse An AFD discussion doesn't have to be huge to come to consensus, it looks like a reasonable closing to me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but S Marshall's comment bears repeating: Why try and delete it, when a merge or redirect is an editorial option which doesn't need the drama or overhead of an AfD? Every episode of anything in Wikipedia belongs at least to its show article, most popular shows have well-developed season/series articles that are also good merge or redirect targets, too. In such cases, WP:ATD would seem to preclude deletion of episode articles, and the outcome here is not too surprising in light of that. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Consensus was accurately read, and with no other pressing reason to delete such as copyvio or blp issues, the only possible result was keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse, could have been relisted. Unfortunately, these episode discussions – at the articles' Talk pages, AfD, or the relevant WikiProject – sometimes fail to address the issues. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of DGG's comment, I clarify my recommendation to endorse do not delete, without any decision on keeping separate, merging, or redirecting. Flatscan (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I fail to see how this can have gone any other way. Even a "no consensus" close would have the same end result and there's clearly no consensus for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I understand the nominator's position, but there is no consensus for deletion. Also, in general, plot-based content has a relatively "easy in" to be included within Wikipedia since Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries alone gets you about 80-90% of the way past WP:GNG. A few window dressing secondary source citings and the plot-based content passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Allowing kids to include articles on their favoriate television shows by writing what they remember about the show's plot helps keep interest in Wikipedia growing. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, preferably after a suitable policy discussion This is almost certainly not what people would expect me to have said, but i think some consistency would help for articles of this type; as far as I can tell our decisions are essentially random, depending on the degree to which particular individuals participate in the discussion. Of all possible solutions, I consider that the worst. I did not participate in the this AfD, but what I would have said, and what I usually say at AfDs of this type, is that it would be better to merge, but that in the absence of any ability to keep the merge from degenerating into a mere line in a listing or into a teaser, it is necessary to have a separate article. (In the series article for this show, as is the case with most series articles, the sections are essentially one line teasers, and violate both the policy NOT TV GUIDE and the more specific guideline WP:SPOILER that we do not use teasers in articles, by failing to describe what actually happens in the plot & merely giving the opening premise—an article or section limited to that is essentially the content of a TV guide, but an article or section that gives a summary of the entire episode is not. ) That would be the case here too if we merged a S Marshall suggested; a merge following a keep closure is permissible, but unless the closure specifically talks about a merge, it is completely against the intent of the closure to merge in such a way that does not preserve essentially the full content of the article; however, we have no practical way for preventing it. A redirect after such a close is now considered permissible, but should not be unless the redirect was actually discussed in the AfD and explained in the close-what it amounts to is a decision to keep the material in the edit history but not the article, and this is obviously almost opposite the intent of a keep close, which is to keep the material in the article, or even a merge, which is to keep it elsewhere. (IOf the hundreds of non-contributor users I have talked to, almost none are aware of edit histories, and I think not even that few would even guess it might be available behind a redirect; such a close is essentially a decision to preserve it for the sake of whichever experienced Wikipedian might want to expand it into an article--a very proper idea sometimes, but different from keep.

With regard to policy, almost any close is permissible, for we have no workable policy on what episodes of a show should be kept. The interpretation of WP:FICTION and NOT PLOT is disputed & the current wording of the policy itself survives, not because there is consensus to keep it, but only by default because there has been no consensus on what particular way to change it. The argument in the AfD and here that discussion has achieved consensus. The rule about requiring secondary sources for a particular episode is not followed; the rule about substantial non-plot content is ignored in both directions, and we have articles deleted even when they do have such content, and kept when they do not.

With regard to consensus, there was none.This is a very do not think the participation was representative. (As an aside, possibly because the usual participants on both sides were almost entirely occupied with a RfC/U trying to limit the activities of a particularly active defender of article content.) One keep argument was the idea that every episode of every show deserved an article, which is even by my standards a violation of INDISCRIMINATE and the basic pillar that we are an encyclopedia , not a place to find everything in the world regardless of importance. We could have such an site and I think an advertisement-free supplement to Wikipedia of that type that still adheres to NPOV and V might be a very good idea, but that is not the present Wikipedia. And even that argument admitted it was not present policy, but said that this particular episode was important because it influenced other episodes--such is true of almost all episodes of almost any any dramatic series, in contrast to those that are essentially variety shows. A second keep argument was only a keep because it explicitly was based upon the mistaken idea that the "policy" just mentioned was established policy. The only reasonable keep argument for keep was the view that this was a particularly important episode, and that such information might well be available--I agree that it might, but it needs to be found. If it's found before the relist closes, it would justify a keep. There was one explicit redirect, and another argument that amount to redirect but where no specific !vote was given. That's two extremely weak keeps, one conditional keep, and what I would consider as two redirect. I do not see how one could say that this could not have gone otherwise in a fuller discussion. (And I think this was the sort of AfD where the closer should have given more than a bare opinion).

I with some trepidation propose reopening a discussion of EWP:FICTION and the related sections of NOT. I think it might quite possibly achieve consensus this time, as some of the more uncompromising people on either side are no longer here. (I have asked Masem for his opinion on this, as he has been much involved in such discussions) DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mims–Pianka controversy – close endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

With the significantly diverging opinions presented at the AfD, and the discussion not being extended, I requested of the closing admin that the the article be relisted rather than merged, and as this was turned down I would like to formally request a DRV. meco (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, consensus against standalone article. The lists of sources were analyzed and rebutted. If any content was copied to another article, this page cannot be deleted (WP:Copying within Wikipedia), but it may be redirected or moved out of article space (WP:Merge and delete) if necessary. The merge outcome may be challenged at Talk:Mims–Pianka controversy as described in WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions. Flatscan (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: The essay WP:Non-deleting deletion discussions. Merging is a policy supported XfD outcome. Challenging an admin closed, central XfD discussion likely having a number of neutral editors by using a localized article talk page discussion likely to only draw editors with a self-interest in the topic doesn't seem to be a good direction. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - DRV is the proper place to review whether merge is the correct outcome of the AfD. The AfD should not be reargued here. The result should be respected unless/until an overriding consensus can be demonstrated. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I disagree with the second AfD discussion (and even the first AfD discussion), but the merge part of the close reflected the consensus discussion. The discussion addressed whether there was enough reliable source material to maintain the article. That missed the missed the mark. Of course there are enough reliable sources. While that ends the discussion in most cases, Wikipedia has a host of other policies that existed even way back in 2007. Times haven't changed as asserted by the AfD closer:"The first AFD was during the time when we accepted 'lots of coverage', i.e. lots of Google hits, as sufficient proof of notability, but times have indeed change." "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view" - major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article - and severing this one point of view on a certain subject from others creates a POV fork. "Neutrality in article titles" - the article title "Mims–Pianka controversy" is judgemental, is not neutral, and there's no evidence that it is the comment name. Something like "March 3, 2006 talk given by Pianka" or "Mims–Pianka interaction" wasn't used because it wasn't sensentational enough and wouldn't being people in to stand before the guy on the soapbox. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" - that goes along with severing this view from a broader content. By doing that, you additionally engage in scandal mongering. Articles should not be written to shine an out of larger context light on an aspect of a person or persons (as in this case) to disparage the reputation of one or two of those people. "Biographies of living persons" - OK, perhaps that has gotten stronger over time, but that doesn't mean that the bar for WP:GNG has moved up (the point I'm trying to soapbox here). For the above reasons and others, the stand-alone article doesn't pass BLP. The target merge: This event is not owned by either Mims or Pianka or both of them. In view of their overall lives, adding such material to either biography would not stay focused on the main topic and would go into details that are trivial when compared to the other aspects of their lives. The target merge for this material should be the Texas Academy of Science as the event took place there and the later in time reliable sources anchor their stories context by noting that. The target spinoff article from Texas Academy of Science should be Distinguished Texas Scientist. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think there was indeed general consensus to merge. I agree with the closer that the proper merge target should be the person, Planka, whose speech was the focus of the controversy. It's more closely related to him than any other individual. The place it was held at is wholly peripheral--if placed there, it wouldrequire extensive context if placed in Planks, the context is already present. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the AfD's finding was quite clearly that it was not necessary to delete the article, and the closer ended the debate without deleting it, we can only endorse.—S Marshall T/C 22:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, valid reading of the debate. Guy (Help!) 10:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Zishan Engineers – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Uzairsyedahmed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The initial article was deleted on the pretext that there wasnt much notability in even the primary sources of the company listed, and also that the article which claimed to present a little history of how design engineering evolved in Pakistan didnot provide references to substantiate the statements. The said article was being made inline with wikipedia project Pakistan, but since the website didn't reflect the exact quantum of work and magnitude of impact and foreign assignments, the article was deleted, in successive attempts enough secondary references or notability could not be established. One of the administrators mentioned that the primary source doesnot show notability enough. It should be mentioned here that the website on which this article was initially based was updated till 2004 and current website (www.zishanengineers.com) has just been launched which includes latest update. The said entity went into major expansion following 2005 . Also the article , currently displayed on User:Uzairsyedahmed provides a very insightful description of "Design engineering consultancy" in Pakistan with the impact Pakistan's changing energy needs has had on it. It would be pointed out that secondary references for points that were mentioned at deletion are all covered here with reliable references. It is requested to allow this project now since it the conditions for deletion have changed and all the [citians needed] have been provided with references. -- Uzairsyedahmed (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2010 (—Missing signature added per refactor)

Rabia Jalal ( talk ) 07:08, 9 December 2010. The website for the company has been updated which is quite exhaustive compared to the cached version of the site at google. This has better primary sourcing and the draft at users own page did contain some secondary referencing on the article. I feel that it merits to be endorsed since the conditions have changed from the time it was deleted. -- 20:29, 9 December 2010 (—Correct signature time and date added per refactor)

Hi and welcome to wikipedia Rabia!, I am curious though (to encourage discussion), What source on the wiki user page (which is not a buisness directory) indicates a secondary reference indicating the companies notability? Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ottawa4ever . I appreciate your comments on the article. I agree some of the directory listings that were present in the first article are still there and I thought of not removing them.If you feel the need, I can remove them but I think they dont do much damage. For secondary references. Please refer to reference 12) Lotte PPTA (Lotte group)Lotte (conglomerate) acknowledges ZEL as one of the major consultancy firms in Pakistan and honoring their work in the complete designing of their CRU Project, to reference 10) enlisting ZEL as one of the four registered users of Wind Pro WindPRO which is one of highly regarded softwares for wind energy technology, two of these four are government agencies so only the second consultancy that does this. I can look for more secondary references but I think these show notability esp inline with wikiproject pakistan.I feel that the article does carry weight giving historical background of how an engineering design firm grew to this stature. It also shows impact pakistan's policies have had on this sector which isnt the case with companies in the first world. There arent any good articles on this topic and the ones that are rarely provide such an insight and any secondary references at all. Do give me ur input on other references. I can remove the listings if you want Uzairsyedahmed (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC). -- 15:27, 10 December 2010 (—Correct signature time and date added per refactor)[reply]

Business directories can still be there, but the article in general needs to show that it has a secondary referencing indicating the Notability. I feel ref 12 does this to an extent.I think the article is in much better shape than in the past. Mentioned before Im not opposed to putting it in the main space for others to work on the article as well, were not aiming for a good article right now, just something that establishes the company as notable, which I think were pretty much there.....(Any comments/opinions by others?)Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Since you were the one who suggested its removal the first time around, it means a great deal of appreciation to the hard work put into it having read ur views on it now. Yeah, point no 10) establishes notability to some extent too. I would look for more such references but based on the current references i think the article should be restored. I am hoping many other engineers with knowledge on Pakistan's changing demand and about this company also contribute to the article. -- Uzairsyedahmed (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia Jalal (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)"References numbered 10 and 12 like mentioned above; are the ones I was referring to. These do establish notability." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.17.223 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being one of the past opposers to this article Ill mention what i think of it in its current form. I acknowledge a great deal of work has gone into the article. I also acknowledge that the article is in much better shape. But i still find secondary sourcing to be somewhat weak; most sources present comprise either of the companies main website, or buisness directories, or other companies directories of buisnesses associated to them (which in my opinion still makes it a directory source). That in itself merely makes the article weak (certaintly not bad). I didnt get a huge impression reading through that it was overly promotional. As the primary worker on the article mentions theres alot of context of the pakistani industry sector. The article still needs work in my opinion, But i do feel wider input would probably help the article progress and take care of the issues present in the article currently, So ill leave it up to others if they feel the article is ready or not (primarily wether the sources present would constitute as secondary establishing notability), Im not opposed to re-creation but very neutral on it and could go either way with re-creation. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the deletion. - The article initially was AfD1 deleted on 29 April 2009. The article then was AfD2 deleted on 7 February 2010 and WP:CSD G4 speedy deleted on 6 September 2010. The AfD2 deletion now before DRV had no participants other than the nominator. Significant new information has not come to light since the AfD1 deletion on 29 April 2009, which supports the AfD2 deletion on 7 February 2010. In other words, the reasons for the AfD1 deletion have not been sufficiently addressed. The problem is that the article is built from websites. The DRV nominator even notes "The website on which this article was initially based was updated till 2004 and current website (www.zishanengineers.com) has just been launched which includes latest update." If the article already is in zishanengineers.com, then why does Wikipedia need to republish a rewrite of the zishanengineers.com article? The article on the nominator's home page, User:Uzairsyedahmed, shows an impressive knowledge of how to format an article, including the use of footnotes. However, in view of the lack of addressing the reasons for deletions in AfD1, the acceptance of basing the content of the article on primary sources, and the lack of significant new information since the AfD1 deletion, I do not think re-creation is warranted at this time and endorse the deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These were the concerns highlighted in both the deletions
  " doing a quick check on the web, I can find primary sources establishing interantional nobility in their projects, but aside from job postings and business directories I cant find anything (yet) to suggest notability in secondary sources" by Ottawa4ever. "quick check did not provide enough notability to be listed in en.wiki" by Neozoon
  "The article was previously nominated for deletion here and shortly after the article was deleted it was re-created. That would be fine if the reasons for deletion were addressed, which they appear not to be. A company is considered notable if there is significant coverage in secondary sources, which this appears not to be the case. Company listings as in buisness directories which appear to be the bulk of the referencing and secondary sources are considered trivial coverage at best. Without significant coverage in secondary sources the article appears to be failing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)"
  If you can retrieve the cached version of the article, other pointers were asking for "citations" on the points. The reason why this was being discussed was that no secondary source was mentioned in the article and only primary source of the company's website was mentioned (which was true).
  1) The first new change is that the primary sources has been updated. Alot more new projects and work the said organization has done can be found at their website. If you want to see their older version of the website you can still access it at http://zishanengineers.com/old/index.htm.
  2) Regarding secondary sources, you may find three secondary sources in the article in reference nos 10), 12) and 13). I have not deleted the business directory listings as references that were there in the article earlier as I felt that they didnt do any harm and the fact that secondary sources (like mentioned above) do establish notability. If you read above, Ottawwa4ever, who was the principal opposers does agree that the article now provides secondary references which do establish notablity.
  Uzma, I invite you to read the article again and tell me what portions of the article you see that are copied verbatim from the website? I can safely say that the major portion of the article is encyclopedic in nature and invite you to check that out of the 45 line article, over 40 are related to information not found on the website. This is in no way a reproduction of the website. My mentioning of the article "was based" meant the article was discussing the organization in view of the projects is has done and the impact it has had gets substantiated more when they have updated to include latest projects. The latest projects reflect more on governmental policies. It didnt imply that it was like a newspaper publicity of the organization which I can say it wasnt.
  Let me summarize. The new informations are as follows: primary sources reflect better the point the article was discussing. References 10), 12) and 13) establish secondary sources (which werent there before)which is "not a business directory". This was a concern highlighted in the first deletion review and seeing that now it has been addressed , I think the deletion should be revoked. The main concern for deletion has been address and the deletion should be revoked. The person who suggested the deletion in the first place thinks so too. The article has room for improvement, to cover design engineering in pakistan in more depth .
  --Uzairsyedahmed (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re Uzairsyedahmed post on my talk page "primary sources reflect better the point the article was discussing". Wikipedia's purpose generally is to summarize secondary source content, not be a step up to give publicity to primary source content or to their underlying topic. Wikipedia is a follower, not a leader. The failure of secondary sources to print such information shows that such information has a low importance in the scheme of the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re Uzma, would you please consider references 10), 12) and 13) as secondary resources listed in the article. You have not addressed these points which the initial opposer who deleted the first article has endorsed as secondary sources. I implore you to not quote me out of context without having read the discussions on the articles for deletion. The discussion did mention no secondary source for notability (which has been addressed too) and also that the primary source seemedly barely sufficient.My mentioning of the website upgrading was to reflect that the primary source discussed earlier on the first articles has been improved too, I did not mean to overshadow the fact that secondary references to establish notability has been done on the article now and citations for points has been provided too. I may repeat this for clarity if my summary was misleading. The article now includes secondary sources which are NOT business directory listings (as objected earlier), the article includes citations (as objected earlier) and the primary source which the discussions established to be the only item presented in the first article has improved too. I hope this has gotten clear now. -- Uzairsyedahmed (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - You are missing what Wikipedia is about. If Wikipedia were built on primary sources -- which Zishan Engineers is -- then there would be no difference between Wikipedia and the rest of the Internet. Adding material from three references to get over what you perceive to be a minimum WP:GNG threshold so that content from twenty nine primary sources can be pigged back onto those three references shows that the flood gates are open for the Zishan Engineers topic. An extreme undue mount of primary source information now is used in the article and the lack of recognition of this plus the almost two year, single purpose of the Uzairsyedahmed account (getting Zishan Engineers into English Wikipedia) shows that an endless amount of primary source information will be added to the Zishan Engineers article in the future were it placed in article space. Claims in an article need to be verifiable against high-quality reliable sources. That is the goal you need to be working towards. For whatever reason, the efforts to develop the Zishan Engineers topic is working away from that goal. A look at your talk page shows that effort to work against Wikipedia has been ongoing since 7 February 2009. Uzairsyedahmed, you will have been with English Wikipedia two years coming this February 2011. In those two years, you haven't learned how to format your post to engage in a discussion such as at this DRV (I keep having to refactor your post), you haven't learned to restrict your deletion comments to the deletion discussion (you posted on my talk page what should have been posted in this thread), and you haven't learned what English Wikipedia is about (as evidence by the state of the Zishan Engineers draft article). In sum of all this, it means the draft article is long-term problematic and those interested in the topic do not have the skills at this time needed to move it out of being problematic. Even if the topic met WP:GNG with secondary sources, the draft article is not ready to be moved to article space. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Uzma, I will write my views pointwise and would request you to answer them that way, this way ensures that points are left in the open or they are not misunderstood.

I do know that wikipedia is not like the rest of the internet and the information presented in an article has certain rules. Please note that my article is discussing one of the largest engineering consultancies in Pakistan and focusing on how government's fluctuating policies effected them.The content I have listed is not taken verbatim from the internet, only references are taken. 1)First things first. You mentioned that an "undue amount of primary sources" are mentioned in the article. I stated that I kept the references stated in the first article which were perceived as primary references and added citations and thee secondary references. If you are still bother by all the "primary references" I can remove them and leave just the relevant references. Would that make the article better? I was under the impression that the primary references do not do much damage since secondary referencing as mentioned in the first review has been addressed. Please note that of the 29, over 14 references are cititations related to the article. 2) I had checked the GNG linked you mentioned and I can tell that the three secondary references I added, qualify to these categories. Reference no 12) infact satisfies most of the points. I hope you have had the chance to open it and read it. In any case, I will mention what the reference is. Lotte is a big Korean comglomerate which has openly acknowledged the said companies expertise and capabilities and what the nature of the project done was. This constitutes as secondary referencing and does establish notablity. Other than the three references, there are other references too like that of PEC, and IRL. Please help me understand if mentioning of minor sources negates the fact that a major reference has been made. My asking is, if I have 20 minor references/primary references does that negate the effect of the three secondary reference which would establish notablity?

3)Please stop speculating about more primary references will be added to the article if it is allowed to bring to the main space. I find this to be accusatory. I havent added any primary references, have just retained the current ones from the initial version of the article that was deleted and added ONLY secondary references to show notablity (which was the major objection). I again say, that if the unnecessary primary references are bothering the reader enough to not give weightage to the secondary references I would remove all primary references and keep the secondary ones. If you want, I can remove them right now, but please look past them and be rest assured that none of the primary references was "added" in the new article. The ones from before have only being retained. Just for the record, NONE of the primary sources had been added in this article on my page, so I hope that alleviates your fears of "endless amount of primary source information will be added to the Zishan Engineers article in the future were it placed in article space". Rest assured it wont be. I again say, I can remove all the primary references so that it helps the reader focus on the secondary sources.

4) This was my first article and I wanted to rectify it and do intend to write more articles. Please dont issue statements like "single purpose of Uzairsyedahmed was to get a Zishan Engineers article on wikipedia". My main intent was along the lines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan which is to promote topics related to pakistan. There are a few articles on Design Engineering companies in Pakistan Nespak, KAM Engineering (Pvt.)Ltd. both of which provide any idea about the history of the company in view with the Governmental policies which unlike the western world are very fickle in Pakistan.

5) Also note, FYI, none of these articles, Nespak, KAM Engineering (Pvt.)Ltd. provide any secondary references to establish notablity. In the nespak article the sole reference is a primary reference. I can assure you that the article I wrote DOES provide secondary referencing and IS encyclopedic and DOES fall under the premise of Project Pakistan. The above two articles on Design Engineerign companies dont do any of this. I did point this thing earlier but I was told that "such a thing exists" isnt a criteria for new ones and efforts should be made to improve the Nespak, KAM Engineering (Pvt.)Ltd. articles. I dont understand why should we "improve" those articles with all the deficiencies pointed out and exclude the much better and notable article that meets ur requirements of citations and secondary sources for notablity. I again say that secondary sources are present to establish notability and I can remove the primary references if they irk you. But just to deny the article a space in wikipedia because " an endless amount of primary source information will be added to the Zishan Engineers article in the future were it placed in article space" is really ridiculous. Apparently articles with just a sole primary source do not have that objection. IF primary sources negate the effect of NEW secondary source and deter the notability the try to establish, I can remove the old primary references (again no new one was added for you to conclude that "endless primary references would be added now"

6) My apologies for posting the messages twice on your talk page. I intended to do that for your convenience and sincerely apologize for any inconvenience caused. I would post future discussions here only.

7) I feel the article is in much better shape than it was before, and if you want to have the primary references removed to put the secondary ones in limelight, I can do that. The article does cover important aspects of a quite notable organization in Pakistan and this is really inline with ProjectPakistan. In does establish notability and does it better than most articles I have seen for reference done for wikiProject Pakistan.

Yes , there are certain things that I am still learning, but I have researched on article requirements quite well and to my conclusion, I have done it reasonably right and I believe it does warrant a place in wikipedia. I apologize for anything that may have seemed a bit sharp or offensive. That was not and will never be my intention. Uzairsyedahmed (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.147.164 (talk) [reply]

'Endorse, the article was pretty obviously here primarily for promotional purposes. Guy (Help!) 10:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 December 2010

Litton Industries bombing – A10 overturned, consensus is unanimous that this is not a proper usage of A10. – Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted out of process, just minutes after it was created despite a notice that the article was being worked on by two active contributors. An attempt to speak to the administrator who deleted it resulted in unprofessional "take it to DRV" when I pointed out he was acting out of process and simply "voting with the delete button". LikeJudasOfOld (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, he deleted it based on A10, which says "A recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect. This does not include split pages."

Clearly this article, a split page with a substantial page history considering it was created only 20 minutes earlier and had 20 improvements by two authors, and substantially expanded on the small paragaraph in the Squamish Five article by writing an entire article on the bombing...did not qualify for Speedy. DRV does not need to decide whether or not it deserves to live, it just needs to restore the page and let any user who wants it deleted find a valid reason to propose their idea. But deleting out-of-process without reason is not what WP is about. LikeJudasOfOld (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just an idea; could you work on the draft version of the article, at your own leisure, at a subpage in your userspace, and when it is relatively ready-to-go move it to the mainspace? Just a thought. --Jayron32 05:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn/ An A10 at the start of an article split justifies the doubts that I and others had when the criterion was suggested, that it would be used for BITE. At the time of the deletion, the split article already contained more detail about the reaction to the bombing than was in the main article. It is perfectly permissible to work on developing an article in mainspace, and except for recreation after repeated deletions, nobody should fell obliged to do otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn without seeing the article. I'll agree with DGG to a point on this criteria. The tools admins have tend to be rather blunt, so require interaction and care when used. I'm quite happy with the idea of A10, but it's one of those where if it's challenged and discussion should occur poiting out the other article, if the author still wants to persist (even if it seems to be heading the POV fork way or whatever) then speedy is probably not the best way to take things forward. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG and nomination. The speedy criterion used, A10, specifically does not apply to split pages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Speedy deletion has been contested by people other than the original creator of the article, and that is enough to revert the deletion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per DGG's very sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've undeleted the history so everyone can evaluate what was there before the deletion. Courcelles 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This was a completely incorrect use of A10. First, this was an attempt to split a subtopic out of a parent article, and A10 does not apply to page splits. Second, the Litton Industries bombing article had additional sourced, relevant information beyond what was in the Squamish Five article, and A10 does not apply to articles that expand on the coverage of a topic beyond what is in existing articles. Third, the new article was a plausible redirect (the deleting admin even redirected it himself), and A10 does not apply to articles that are plausible redirects. With so many provisions of the A10 criteria not followed, it really seems like the deleting admin has no idea what A10 is for and how it is supposed to work. Calathan (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow overturn per, er, absolutely everyone, but I want to note that RHaworth's words did not seem "unprofessional" to me at all. RHaworth was reasonably polite and approachable.—S Marshall T/C 22:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - per everyone. Rather than pile on, I was hoping for an apology from admin RHaworth as in "Sorry guys. I'm doing so much work in this area that I'm bound to make a mistake. Overturn as well." WP:A10 excludes "A recently created article ... where the title is not a plausible redirect." At 23:50, 8 December 2010, RHaworth A10 deleted Litton Industries bombing.[51] A minute later at 23:51, RHaworth redirected Litton Industries bombing to Squamish Five.[52] At the time of the A10 deletion, RHaworth believe that the title of the recently created Litton Industries bombing was a plausible redirect. By his own actions, RHaworth knew that Litton Industries bombing did not qualify for A10. On RHaworth's talk page, he quickly accused LikeJudasOfOld of being a sock puppet. Even if LikeJudasOfOld is a sock puppet as RHaworth inappropriately was quick to accuse, knowingly or recklessly misusing A10 to handle the situation was not the Wiki way. The failure to recognize this even after all the above discussion is problematic as well. Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others. I suggest working in a different admin area for a while to re-embrace administrator aspirations. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 December 2010

Ronen Altman Kaydar – Please nominate this again for a fresh discussion – Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

Matthew Hoh – Closed until such time the nominator is capable of participating in a civil manner without attacking other participants. – T. Canens (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article was restored after a previous DRV only to be speedily deleted by JzG who claims, falseley, that the article was the recreation of something previously deleted. This is patently untrue since Hoh received the Ridenhour Truthtelling prize after the initial deletion and that sourced content was added to the article. I leave it to the that admin to explain why they deleted the article and protected it from being recreated despite ample sourcing and well established notability for a prize-winner who continues to be covered by the media [53] for his role in the Afghan War opposition movement. FredoMurphy (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was moved to the user space of Freakshownerd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a now-blocked sockpuppet of a banned user, and reintroduced to mainspace with no significant change from the AfD other than the addition of a criticism section that only made it worse. Requester has remarkably few contributions to Wikipedia. WP:OTRS Ticket:2010120610015879 also applies. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Ridenhour Prize noted in the deleted article? Why did you disregard the DRV outcome and unilaterally delete? Why did you protect the article from being recreated? Are you suggesting that Matthew Hoh is not notable? FredoMurphy (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as I said, the article was deleted by AfD, undeleted to the user space of an undeclared sockpuppet banned user and moved back by that banned user without significant change, so meets WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#G5. Also fails WP:BLP1E per the AfD, and is a problem per WP:CSD#G10 and WP:SYN - all of which I'd have told you had you followed Ste 1 above and asked me before coming here. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a single comment supporting deletion at the DRV [54] and the close suggested recreation. Why are you misrepresenting the article's history? You still haven't answered whether the subject is notable or whether the Ridenhour Prize was in the deleted article. If that content, about a major award, was added after it was deleted, how can you are thargue it wasn't improved? I try to assume good faith,m but your actions are truly disturbing. Why have you protected th page from being recreated? FredoMurphy (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the frustrating things for non-OTRS volunteers in these cases is that you are unable to see the whole picture because the foundation privacy policy prevents disclose of correspondance to any non-volunteer. This requires editors to show a grest deal of good faith and forebareance when OTRS volunteers do take actions like this. The best review is to ask othe rmembers of the team to review the action as we are quick to self correct if there are issues with an action taken by a volunteer. I have reviewed the deletion and Guy acted correctly but the maddening thing for you is that I cannot explain to you in any detail why this is the case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Firstly I should declare that as an OTRS volunteer I have read the ticket Guy refers to above and based on the content I concur with the actions that Guy took. My take from the previous DRV and reading the AFD is that there is no reason why we should not host an article but that any article should be carefully rewritten from only impeccable sources and restricted to items that are unambigously correct. Without detailing the content of the correspondance as that would be a breach of the foundation privacy policy, there was no doubt that the restored content had serious accuracy issues and that it effectively disparaged the subject through factual mistakes. This is therefore a textbook example of a valid ORTS A10 before we even look at the G5 and G4 issues. The solution is to write a new draft in your userspace using accurate and inpeccable sources and ask Guy to move it to the locked location when it is ready. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Someone can work on a userspace version first and go from there, 2 testimonies from OTRS people as to why the mainspace version had to be canned is sufficient reason. Would have to say that my spidey sense is tingling over a 'new' user trying to pull a politically-charged article out of Freakshow/CoM's userspace though. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the solution to articles that get distorted by partisans is to delete them entirely, I think that should be noted in policy somewhere. Looking at the Google cached version it is obvious that someone has distorted the article using blogs. It's troubling to me that Guy then steps in with dishonest representations of the article history (instead of restoring a proper version) and deletes it entirely unilaterally. There is no dispute that the subject is notable, that he won a major prize, or that his views and opinions have been covered in reliable sources. This content is now lost to the encyclopedia because of these abusive actions and the failure to fix the harm that was done instead of compounding it. Discouraging. FredoMurphy (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about you reply to my message on your talk page instead of this. Behaviourally this isn't the most helpful response you could have provided. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The only behavior that has been problematic is Guy's deception regarding the article history and his failure to restore a clean version of it minus improperly sourced smears. No one has disputed th subject's notability or that sources establishing his winning of a major prize were added after the initial deletion. FredoMurphy (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much? Read through the above posts regarding the OTRS issues, please. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of: THERE IS NO DISPUTE HE'S NOTABLE, RESTORE THE ARTICLE TO A VERSION PRIOR TO SMEARS BEING ADDED INSTEAD OF DELETING IT (AND LYING ABOUT REASONING) IN VIOLATION OF UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS AT PREVIOUS DRV, are you confused about? FredoMurphy (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Helgoland Radio Tower – Userspace draft moved to Helgoland radio tower. If all-caps is correct please move. – Chick Bowen 05:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was (I think) deleted for two reasons:

being a non-notable mast, which is wrong for various reasons. The main reason is of course that it is not a mast but a tower (rendering that argument invalid all by itself). The second reason is that it's a major landmark on the island, and visible from afar, and surely that is something remarkable about any man-made object.
lack of content, I wrote a new article in the userspace which is no longer a stub. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That AfD was over 3 years ago and refered to a stub, not your draft in your userspace - why not just create the article? --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know how the current consensus is about these towers and masts at the English Wikipedia. Neither do I know how permissible it is to just recreate the article. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a clear consensus. Certainly you can recreate the article as it is different from the one that got deleted. If you do, I would make a suggestion that you try and demonstrate how it meets the general notability guideline - do you have a source supporting your statement that it is "a major landmark on the island, and plays a major role in maintaining connections to the mainland." ? --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The main question this raises is whether database / directory sources confer notability. I would say not. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not their point. I just added them so people wouldn't ask about where the data comes from. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC) (addendum: and there are only two of them anyway.)[reply]
- No, actually, that's an AfD question. The original AfD was almost four years ago, the new article looks substantially better than the old one. By all means it should go back in mainspace, and if someone wants a new discussion on it, it can be nominated for AfD and be considered on the merits of the current article. Jclemens (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically correct, however part of DRV in cases like this surely is to be "helpful", doubts can be highlighted so further work can be done if required, merely saying "go for it" which is then promptly followed up by an AFD and deletion isn't necessarily constructive. Of course though we should be differentiating here between broad comments/questions and actual opinions against restoration --82.7.40.7 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The userspace draft is sufficiently improved to go back to the mainspace. But notability is very questionable so I recommend it go straight to AfD where notability questions are (apparently) best dealt with. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some other article this userspace draft can be merged into? Reyk _YO! 00:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation per Jclemens - The AfD ended 5 January 2007. The references cited in the draft are all post-5 January 2007. I'd say that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion" (see Item #3 at Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions). Permit recreation. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 December 2010

6 December 2010

List of Jewish actors – overturn to no consensus, relisting at editorial discretion. One of the cliches about DRV is that "it is not AFD round 2", which means that while AFD takes into account arguments concerning the article, DRV only considers the process and the AFD debate itself. However, one of the facts about AFD is that DRV participants are heavily influenced by how they voted on the original AFD, it is not surprising therefore that the "keep"ers from AFD want to "overturn", while the "delete"ers want to "endorse". Numerically speaking, I find a rough balance on the DRV here, pretty much as was the case on the AFD as well. I am closing this as overturn based on two factors: 1) Reasonable arguments were presented by the keep voters, arguments which I presume are endorsed by other people who voted keep but presented less convincing arguments instead. (Generally, decisions to delete in spite of a "numerical count" can happen since AFD is not a vote decided by head counting, but usually this occurs because the keep side doesn't present any reasonable arguments at all for keeping, in this case several of the keep arguments were, at the very least, reasonable) 2) The fact that the deletion decision is mainly being endorsed by people who voted to "delete" originally, and only a few outsiders have chimed in to endorse the decision, indicates that the decision does not really enjoy consensus support, and that much of the endorsement stems from an approval of the deletion outcome. Other people who did not contribute to the original AFD, such as Postdlf and Jim Miller have provided cogent arguments for overturning. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The majority of the argument for closing as a delete was lack of notability, had the closer investigated the sources provided by those requesting a keep deeper I feel that grounds for notability would have been established. In the closing statement the closer dismisses sources such as The Jew in American Cinema and Acting Jewish: Negotiating Ethnicity on the American Stage and Screen as being about Jewish characters and productions , however both sources go on at length about the persecution of Jewish Actors in the early part of the 20th century (both in totalitarian regimes across Eurasia and in Hollywood as well)- why some Jewish Actors were forced to change names and even resorted to Plastic Surgery to hide their Jewishness , and why those actors who opted to remain in Jewish Roles developed the stereotypical "Jewish Character" to promote their Jewishness. In the late 1940s and early 1950s this turned nasty with the "Outing" of several Jewish Actors (pg 40 Acting Jewish). Whilst during the later part of the 20th century, ethnicity and particularly Jewish culture became a thing of pride, it also became a time when Method acting came up with a formula for non-Jewish actors to play stereotypical Jewish; as a result Jewish Actors moved away from playing stereotypical Jewish characters and a much broader range of Jewish culture was exemplified by Jewish Actors whilst Non-Jews tended to play closer to the stereotype (or Jews played as non-jews). A lot of these (and other sources) confirm the assertion that "The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles." but this could be widened; that "the majority have acted in roles associated with Jewishness or significant Jewish history and/or culture." The article Secular Jewish culture acts as a head article for this, though it is in need of expansion in the Film section, though there is enough material and sources that a spinout into Secular Jewish acting could be considered. The list can be considered a list of notable proponents. I would also challenge the assertion by the closer that The large number of references to the article demonstrating notability "was pointed out to be misleading because the sources merely confirm the Judaism of individual entrants on the list; they do not cover the actual intersection between Judaism and acting" a number of the links already assert or question how the Actor's Jewishness has a notable effect on roles they have portrayed. I did suggest in the AFD that this should be held to a higher inclusion criteria limiting sources to those that show the person is notable for being a "Jewish Actor" but this does not seem to have been considered in the close. The existence of this notability already establishes that WP:NOTDIR does not apply because it is a Culturally Significant Phenomenon so whilst it was not specifically addressed by those asking for a keep we felt we were addressing it in our notability sourcing. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I rarely participate in deletion reviews so I'm not sure of the form. I think that relevant arguments and sources weren't raised at this AfD, which may have resulted in a Keep if raised, but on the basis of the arguments that were actually made the result of Delete was the appropriate decision by the closing admin. How does that translate here? Is deletion review concerned with process, or result? - DustFormsWords (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sources were raised on the above basis (with less detail) but they weren't challenged when I raised them, and I missed them when Wikidemon and Colonel Warden re-raised them and Bulldog made the claim that they were only about characters and not about the actors. Had I been aware I would have challenged that claim as I did above, however I was not aware until the close was made. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They were... for the most part... only about characters and "cinema." Anyone can skim the books content and see for themselves. Bulldog123 00:33, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part does not mean completely and your skimming clearly missed the relevant sections. Pages 36 to 40 of Acting Jewish cover explicitly the notability of Jewish actors playing Jewish roles as well as the hurdles faced by these actors in the early part of the 20th century. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're intentionally being misleading or if I'm looking at the wrong book here, but... I just looked at Pages 36-40 here, and all I can find is a lengthy discussion about the characters of Green and Goldberg in the film Gentleman's Agreement. Page 39 then - in one brief paragraph - mentions how several Jewish actors changed their names to hide from Jewish-sounding surnames to more neutral ones. Please explain to me what that has to do with List of Jewish actors and and all the different individuals listed there? Bulldog123 06:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The I suggest you go back and look at it again, although that chapter is substantially about the characters in gentleman's agreement, from page 36 onwards it becomes notably about the actor John Garfield the persecution he suffered as a Jewish Actor, how his Jewish upbringing resonated in the role of Goldman (it's notable there is no character of Goldberg so clearly you did not read it that deeply) it then covers more generally the persecution of Jewish actors on pages 39 and 40. Other chapters also document the notability of Jewishness of actors in different time frames highlighting even the notability of Allen and Streisand as Jewish actors in the 1970s and so on. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fresh. Instead of merely correcting me and saying, "His name was Goldman, not Goldberg" (a simple mix-up I made because there's a chapter entitled "The Goldbergs" on Page 40), you use it as evidence to suggest "I didn't read it carefully." It's the type of non sequitur we'd use in grade school debate class. Now, if you want list of Jewish actors to include John Garfield because of that one source, and to include Barbara Streisand because of Yentl (film) and that source... that's great. However, that's certainly not the list you're asking to be returned. There's nothing preventing you from starting Judaism in cinema and including a list of those people in that article based on those sources. That's totally fine and I don't think anybody would object to that. However... using it all as an excuse to bring back the "hundreds" of people who have no relationship to anything you are presenting makes no sense whatsoever. If you're saying, "It's a notable intersection... but only for a specific group of actors, and only based on this and this and this"... Fine. You don't need this giant list of questionably-sourced "irrelevantly-intersected" individuals for that. Bulldog123 05:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're just proving how your representation differs from presented facts. I never said you "didn't read it carefully." Is said "Deeply" and this mirrors your previous statement "Anyone can skim the books content" Skimming is not reading deeply. I note that DustforWords is having the same problem with your re-imagining of sources in a current AfD. The source uses case studies to cover the subjects of both Jewish Actors and Jewish characterisation. John Garfield is a case study but the source gives clear indication that his challenges applied to a majority of Jewish actors at the time - BTW the source covers the Streisand as part of how Jewish Actors were able to portray Jewish culture in a more even and less stereotypical way and covers her performance in "The way we were" to show that not "Yentl". You seem to keep limiting sources to Cinema or theatre to distract from the fact that a notale intersection occurs on all forms of Acting, Theatre, Cinema, and Television. Again as I've said before the list needs a significant clean with up to 50% of entries cleared out and only re-added once they have a higher quality source that ideally would identify the notability of their Jewishness in regard to their acting - which doesn't have to mean a Jewish Role or Jewish Production - Dianna Agron was sourced with a document that asserted how her Jewish upbringing was notable in her playing a WASP in Glee - The same source also covered the notability of the also Jewish Lea Michele playing a Jewish Character in the same series. Requiring a clean out and a higher quality of sourcing is preferable to losing the article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I say "skim" because I'm not going to say "deeply read" when there's a limitation on Google books. If you're trying to tell me that you went to the local library (or bought the book from a store) and read it all within the time of this DR... I'm sorry, I don't believe you. In the related AfD, DustformsWords didn't even read the brief BBC article he linked to. I highly doubt he went to the library and read the entirety of the books he linked to. So that remark you made about the other AfD was just another passive credibility attack - not even an accurate one. However, from what I have read in the book, I can say you are grossly exaggerating the amount of words spent on the connection between Jewish actors and Jewish characterizations. Regarding your other points, I responded to them under your most recent comment below. Bulldog123 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the difficulty I faced - the keep side did themselves no favours in this debate (completely failing to analyse the sources) but it wasn't my job to help them. However I think DRV should be more focused on outcomes and less on process, so if it's the view here that the AfD came to the "wrong" result even if I interpreted the debate correctly (eg because the keep side just didn't address the points they needed to), we should think about overturning the close. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the "Is deletion review concerned with process, or result?" primarily it's if the process was followed correctly. If the reasons for deletion were overcome then anyone is free to recreate the article at any time without DRVs approval, so no need to review. In some instances where significant' new information that wasn't bought up at xFD in which case DRV can look at it to see if restoration or reslisting maybe warranted, but it would have to be significant and not just an extension or continuation of the xFD line of discussion. Realisitically what DRV is trying to do is avoid being a "superior court" substituing the DRV participants viewpoint as somehow better than that of those at xFD. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Think it's worth noting that one of your comments in the AFD was: "Not all Jewish Actors are notable for being Jewish Actors, however those that are should be listed." How exactly do you suggest we implement this? Bulldog123 11:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this were to be implemented, it would be implemented by Better sourcing, I even advocated a 50-75% clear out of the list and repopulation only on the basis that better sources considering the individual's notability as a Jewish Actor was established. Generally reliable news sources do not lightly label an actor as Jewish unless it is notable to their performance, or they are notably Jewish for other reasons. Less reliable sources such as Jweekly need to be weighed up on their individual merits, asking the question "Do they establish that the individual is notable as a Jewish Actor, or are they simply applying a label of Jewishness that may be at best tenuous?" For older actors the sourcing is far easier as they are more likely to have established their Jewishness as notable. Of ocurse this should be established in the lead as clear inclusion criteria. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... Lea Michelle's father was a Sephardic Jew and because she plays a Jew (probably not even Sephardic) on Glee... that makes her Judaism notable. Is this what you're implying is a valid piece of information connecting the actresses's Jewish heritage with her acting career? Do you consider that alone enough to add her to your re-vamped list? Bulldog123 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. Everything the RFD nominator mentioned (the discrimination, the success, etc.) may belong in a prose article called something like "History of Jews in Acting". I tried really hard, but I just cannot see how a List of Jewish (and half-Jewish, and quarter-Jewish) actors has anything to do with what was just said. The list contained names, and dates of birth, and nothing else. Also, some of the people on there aren't even real actors (like Bar Refaeli, and Esti Ginzburg are mainly models). I also fail to see how the story of American Jewish actors has anything to do with actors from other countries (many of whom have never even been to the US.) If you want to write something about the "Jewish characters/stereotypes", or what Jewish actors have been through, go ahead, but the list has absolutely no relation to those issues. Which is why I voted delete in the first place.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit like asking "what does a list of Elvis Presley songs have to do with a biography of his life?" the list contains the proponents of a notable intersection, yes we should have an article covering that notable intersection and in a way we do under Secular Jewish culture however there could a specific article under Secular Jewish acting. It doesn't change the fact that these proponents exist and have their own stories that may be relevant to the larger notable intersection but not within the scope an article on the intersection. Having a list tied into such an article allows readers to explore those individual stories. On some of the other points I agree, but they were not justification for deletion of the list, for instance: Bar Refaeli, and Esti Ginzburg may need to be removed as should the likes of Paula Abdul and possibly Eddie Fisher who were notable singers but not significantly notable for their acting. If reliable sources are identifying Quarter and Half Jewish people as notably Jewish actors then I don't have any concerns about the fact that other editors may consider them Quarter or Half only that reliable sources assert that they are. As I said to all hallows wraith, I am not concerned with Jewish Characters and we already have a list of them. I am concerned with listing Actors who are notable for being Jewish because I believe that that is a notable intersection confirmed by reliable sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart, do you support List of left-handed actors given the wealth of material suggesting it is a "notable intersection:" [55]. And don't say "This is not about left-handed actors. This is about Jewish actors." If your view cannot be applied to all such lists, regardless of their content, it's not a view that's going to mesh well with Wikipedia's policy. Bulldog123 02:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm vacillating about whether it's a good idea to pigeonhole people by ethnicity on Wikipedia. Up until yesterday I was pretty anti, but DustFormsWords is in the process of persuading me round for some cases. We have a Category:Jewish actors, so per WP:CLN we could have a list. Alternatively, if this list is kept deleted at DRV, then we need to raise a CfD for Category:Jewish actors.—S Marshall T/C 13:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The category is flagrant WP:OCAT anyway (by both religion and ethnicity). It should have been nominated to begin with. Bulldog123 11:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as the deletion arguments were in no way stronger, and because this result is contrary to the broader consensus on such lists. Unless, that is, we're going to completely delete Lists of Jews and all of its other sublists. That's where the comments about the difficulty of defining who is a Jew aim; such complaints are in no way specific to this list and so long as we have any lists of Jews the difficulty with defining who is or isn't should not be applied to one sublist out of context. And that's a better argument for deleting a category, given that a list can provide sourcing and explanation for each entry to justify its inclusion. This capability of lists obviates any need for alarm from the fact that there may be varying inclusion criteria. On the issue of whether it's a non-notable intersection (many sources say not) is really irrelevant as long as it's a sensible way to index articles, and splitting the lists of Jews by occupation is a sensible way to divide the topic. Requiring the intersection to be significant for most or all members is a proper standard for categories, not lists, and I see no reason to expand that to lists, which aim to be comprehensive indexes of articles. And claiming this is a WP:NOTDIR "violation" (really the last resort for those who want to delete a list but can't come up with a more specific, better reason) as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization is a stretch; comparing this to [ethnic group] employed by [organization], the generic example of a bad list, is a really poor analogy because that third step of who employed them as actors is not included. Simply asserting that opinion certainly does not counter the general utility of dividing an index of people by occupation. It's simply a proper and reasonable sublist. Many of the deletion votes in fact seem to implicitly recognize that it's encyclopedic, such as one commenter saying it would make a better category than list because of its breadth, and another similarly saying it would make more sense if it were narrower, such as Jewish American actors; both such comments point towards making sublists of this list by country as a way to improve it, rather than offering any basis for deletion.
If, instead, the end result should be that no lists of people by ethnicity are kept on Wikipedia, then that should occur following a larger discussion rather than a haphazard targeting. I simply see no valid reason offered to delete this list but not all such lists. postdlf (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, but I am sure you know that just because there are many other problematic articles/lists, it does not mean that this one should be kept (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Especially, since you acknowledge that there are issues with other similar lists. If you see a similar problem with other articles/lists, by all means put them up for deletion, and I will support it (if they suffer from the same problems.)
- In relation to sourcing, many similar lists base their membership information on objective factors, such as citizenship. For example, "List of French Scientists" contains all people who were born in France, or who hold/held French citizenship (regardless of their religion/ethnicity). The main problems are caused by ethnic/religious lists where inclusion criteria is disputed, and the notability of intersection is not established. In fact, there are not that many Lists of Notable X, that are not based on citizenhip/place of birth. As it seems you would be okay with deleting all other problematic lists, I would like to know how would you go about doing that? --Therexbanner (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't seem like I would be okay with that. If you thought I was agreeing that this list was problematic, you've mistaken me for someone else, and you'll have to ask them why they think all lists of people by ethnicity should be deleted and how they should go about doing that. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but when I read: "If, instead, the end result should be that no lists of people by ethnicity are kept on Wikipedia, then that should occur following a larger discussion rather than a haphazard targeting. I simply see no valid reason offered to delete this list but not all such lists." I came to that conclusion. I now see that I was mistaken. On a side note, why would you think I was referring to someone else, when I was clearly replying to you?--Therexbanner (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, weakly Upon examining the AfD, I think that the delete opinions were stronger in their basis. I don't really have the heart to explain more because my head hurts every time I try to read the discussion again, but I don't really think there was a strong consensus. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The closing admin gave a very clear rationale for their analysis of the consensus. The same sources that Stuart.Jamieson brings up here were discussed at the AfD and were found to not satisfactorily show that the intersection of being an actor while simultaneously being a Jew was notable or significant. Attempting to discuss the same sources at DRV is only an attempt to continue the AfD at DRV, which is not what DRV is for. SnottyWong ^speak 19:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reread the AFD and the Closing Admin's statement above. In the Afd you will find that Bulldog made the dismiss on two occasions neither time did he qualify it. In the closing Admin's statement above he is clear that I made no analysis of the sources identifying the relevant sections which underlined the notable intersection - This is true as I did not see Bulldog's dismiss at the time and did not realise that further analysis was required. If you wish further new sources, consider the following:

America on film: representing race, class, gender, and sexuality at the movies By Harry M. Benshoff, Sean Griffin - Covers how early Jewish Actors such as Al Jolson and Eddie Cantor found it more acceptable to act in blackface than be accepted in a white non Jewish role, also covers the Antisemitism against Jewish Actors up until the 1950s and the re-emergence of the Jewish character as played by Jewish actors from the late 1960's onward.
Acting: an International encyclopedia By Beth Osnes - Covers Hitler's Expulsion of all Jewish Actors from German theatres in 1933 followed by legislation allowing Jewish Actors to only perform in Jewish written plays for Jewish Patrons.
Jewish identities in German popular entertainment, 1890-1933 By Marline Otte - Covers Jewish Actors attempts to shed the stereotype of the Jewish character in German theatre at that time.
Jewish Culture and Identity in the Soviet Union By Yaacov Ro'i, Avi Beker - Covers the persecution of Jewish actors including execution and exile. Plus the restoration of the remaining actors shortly before the fall of communism.

You can also throw in sections of

Between two worlds: the Jewish presence in German and Austrian film, 1910-1933 By S. S. Prawer
Theatre in the Third Reich, the prewar years: essays on theatre in Nazi Germany By Glen W. Gadberry

And there are lots more on the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A great argument for an artcle but not for this list. Yworo (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a great argument for a article, then WP:N for that article means it's anotable intersection then, thanks for stating that since it wasn't proven when the AFD was closed. As I've said previously, some of this is already covered under Secular Jewish culture and an article with a list of proponents is accepted WP policy, there is a question of whether that article should be expanded in relation to acting or whether the acting elements could or should be spun off into another article linked to this list but that's another debate not for here. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I did not participate in the AfD, nor had I read it until now. In reviewing the arguments presented, it is clear to me that the fact that there were so many sources to verify the ethnicity of the people on the list was a clear indication of the notability of the intersection itself. If the intersection were not notable, as it is with most actors, there wouldn't be sources saying "this actor is Jewish" from which to build an article at all. The NOTDIR arguments should have been discounted in their entirety ~~(as a non-admin without access to the list in question)~~ per arguments stating that only actors with established notability with existing WP articles were included. If every entry on the list is notable with an article, NOTDIR does not apply, and is not a valid argument for deletion. Argumrnts attempting to impose BLPCAT on a list are also clearly non-arguments. BLPCAT applies only to living people, and only to categories which have no ability for citations and referencing. Categories are appropriately held to a higher standard. Arguments that the list was unmanagable also have no basis in policy. Deletion is not an alternative to editing. With so many of the delete arguments clearly falling outside of policy, had they been appropriately weighted, this should have been a Keep, or at best, a No Consensus close. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having now reviewed the list itself, there was exactly one listing of a non-notable on it at the time of deletion. As such, any NOTDIR argument should have been counted as no argument at all, and appropriately ignored. Thanks to Mkativerata for the restore for the review. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re NOTDIR: the NOTDIR delete !votes explicitly pointed to #6, which is about non-encyclopaedic intersections rather than lists of non-notable subjects. Just to be clear - it was for that reason that the NOTDIR arguments were given some weight. To illustrate, List of European Parliament members who wear contact lenses would be full of bluelinks but hopelessly fail NOTDIR. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, there were multiple, reliable sources with significant coverage of members of parliament who wear contacts. Afterall, notable is the inclusion criteria. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here is a plethora of reliable source coverage on left-handed actors: Left-Handed History by Ed Wright, The Expressive Body: Physical Characterization of the Actor by David Alberts, Celebrated Left-Handers by Leigh W. Rutledge, Famous Left-Handed Actors, Being Left-Handed. We're good for List of left-handed actors, right? If not. Why not? Bulldog123 02:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, if those were better sources you'd found, yes, start the list. However, BeingLeftHanded.com offers neither significant discussion nor a reliable source. "NALHP.org" is an expired domain with no content. "Celebrated Left Handers" does not contain the phrase "left-handed actor". "The Expressive Body" contains only a one-sentence mention of "left-handed actor" and is therefore not significant discussion. And "Left-Handed History" only provides a list of left-handed actors in 8 point font without discussing them in any way. So yes, theoretically, if you found significant discussion in reliable independent sources, you could start the list. This isn't it, is all. But you have convinced me that such coverage MIGHT exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the argument then that Lists of Jews should instead just be List of Jews, without any subdivision into sublists by occupation? I didn't see anyone who shouted "WP:NOTDIR!" arguing that clearly, or showing that they understood the consequences of that. Or is the argument that there should be neither Lists of Jews or List of Jews? If that's the case, then how such lists are subdivided is really beside the point, and the arguments need to focus on why lists of people by ethnicity in the first place are unencyclopedic. postdlf (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Closing admin did a good job of summarizing the many arguments and evaluated them properly. Yworo (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've restored the article so that non-admins can see it. My apologies to wikipedia's servers. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Because the closer says they will avoid process in favor of substance, I won't go into detail about the outcome being contrary to consensus. I do note that a number of sources were provided. Normally it is enough to point to a few reliable sources on the topic at hand, say they establish notability, and let people figure it out from there. I'm not used to being asked to prove that entire scholarly books on a well-known subject establish that the subject is worth noting. Yes, there are a number of books, lectures, museum exhibits, websites, documentaries, you name it, on the subject of Jews in the profession of acting. It is getting tedious to have to defend the legitimacy of Jewish identity at every turn, but give us a few days and I'm sure we can turn up some specific examples and read them aloud here. Pointing to sources should be enough. Do we really have to justify why serious people would choose to write about the subject too? Jewish secular culture, like any other ethnicity, carries a history to it, some shared values and experiences. The sources can probably explain it better than I, but as a marginalized minority culture nearly everywhere it landed, with a storytelling tradition in both literary and oral forms, Jews throughout history have turned to plays, shows, theater as a means of expression. This landed in America, where a complex interplay of immigrant culture, economic ambition and entrepreneurship, the rise of the film and television industries, and lots of other things mixed together to produce significant groups of Jewish-American actors. They even had a union, with a similar union in Europe. Though these were for Hebrew and Yiddish productions, the transition from Yiddish theater to mainstream culture -- from Borscht Belt to Vaudeville to Broadway -- is a major part of the story). Every actor has a different life path, and the many strains of secular Jewishness have played out differently in different times, nations, and occupations. And there are hundreds of ethnicities and other ways to group people in the world. A few are notable, most are not. Acting and other forms of entertainment is one of the significant places where Jewishness resonated across time and place, and we have plenty of sources on which to build list and prose articles about that. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How does this list deal with Jewish influence on actors and cinema in America and the world? You keep mentioning that Jews are important to Hollywood and acting in general. OK, make an article that deals with that issue. You can even add some example names, but there's no reason to list every single person (the list would never be exhaustive anyways).

I still do not see how a simple list of names and birthdates explains Jewish (or any other ethnic/religious) impact on anything. Write a normal (prose) article on the subject. What the list is now is a catalogue of Jewish actors and their dates of birth, with huge variance in notability.

For example, after reading the list, the reader will know that Natalie Portman (born in the 1980s), and Jeffrey Tambor (born in the 1930s) are Jewish. Ok, so what? Tons of other nationalities (Irish, Italian, English, Scottish, German, Russian, Chinese, etc.) have made a very significant impact on acting too, and can have similar lists. But why? What would those dull lists tell me and other readers about the history and impact of those cultures? That they have made an influence (which would depend on the actor/actress)? Well, welcome to the club, many other groups have too.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, Therexbanner hits the nail on the head. I have to stress again though. Deletion Review does not exist as "AfD part 2." There is not need to even reply to messages like this. Bulldog123 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may stress what you want, but this deletion review is a reexamination of whether the article should be deleted given the notability of the subject. So said Mkativerata above at 10:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC). If this were purely a procedural matter then it's a bad close. The closer substituted their own analysis of the topic for that of the community's, which was leaning in favor of keeping based on the sources provided. They glanced at the sources offered (but did not read in sufficient depth), declared them unconvincing, then made a decision to discard the community's opinion. As a practical matter, ignoring substance in favor of procedure would mean that anyone would be free to recreate the article with better sources - which they could and should given that the subject is notable - then we would have another AfD if anyone were so adamant about stamping this out. Going back to the substance, the list could indeed use significant improvement and change in focus, and I'm wondering if it might in fact be better to leave it deleted in favor of starting again from scratch. Of course there is a point in having a list article distinct from the subject article, for the same reason we have any list articles. But that's a different question and takes us beyond the scope of this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, deletion review is a time to review whether the procedure of an AfD was followed properly and if the close analysis of the discussion was accurate. It is not a time to rehash all the arguments of AfD. It is to analyze the close and determine whether it was made properly by the policies and guidelines of the Wiki. I would direct you to WP:DELREV Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know what deletion review is, and proclamation aside we are discussing the wisdom of the outcome. The closing administrator, after reaching a decision running against the majority of considered opinions, expressed some doubt at the outcome and says that further review would be helpful. That's a conscientious approach. This isn't a game of gotcha. As I said, if this were just about procedure the procedure failed because the close was based on the closing administrator's own analysis, not the reasoned opinions of the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, you're misrepresenting the actual AfD outcome. First of all the closure decision was not running against a "majority of considered opinions." [56] Subtract and replace some of the mis-reported !votes and you get just about 50/50. Sad fact of the matter is, the majority of !keep opinions were either WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or WP:N (except notability for the wrong article). Given the fact that this article was CANVASSed to 65 different individuals, and then surreptitiously CANVASSed to inclusionists by e-mail.... the fact that we still came out about 50/50 says a lot. Bulldog123 09:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please tone down a few notches here and try not to start throwing accusations . The keep opinions had a majority numerically both in an absolute sense, and after discounting all the invalid and off topic ones on both sides. That's including all the "per nom" and "me too" delete votes that didn't actually show whether the person had reasoned anything through. You don't get to throw out opinions just because you disagree with the conclusion, that's not what consensus is. Again, the closer substituted their own reasoning for that of the participants they disagreed with. That is not a proper close. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tone down what? You're making it seem like it was a vast majority when it wasn't. "Per nom" and "me too" was on both sides, and I don't consider those to be "throwaway" votes if the person they're "per-ing" has a legitimate position. Bulldog123 00:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Close Deletion Review is not for "re-discussing" the matter, but for determining whether the admin made a fair and balanced call in his closure. He did. Bulldog123 00:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly endorse close. The closing admin gave a well-reasoned explanation of his closure, which clearly took into account the arguments made on both sides. DRV is not "AfD, round 2"; we're not here to re-argue this AfD, as many editors here are doing. Also, I'm frankly baffled by Postdlf's argument, which, if followed, would make it impossible to delete any ethnicity-based list. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of arguing early and often, this is in fact AfD round 2. If not, then perhaps the closer should withdraw the offer to reconsider if the sourcing is improved or explained better, in which case their failure to acknowledge or understand the sourcing that was offered and accepted by the majority of participants in the AfD in the first place shows that it was a bad close. The finding of the close is that the intersection between Jewishness and acting is not notable, something that can easily be overcome with sources. We can figure that out now, or we can stick a fork in it now in favor of cooking a new article on the topic tomorrow... which I'm not sure is such a bad idea. One thing we do agree on is that the list in its old form was of poor quality, inadequately sourced, not organized well, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, DRV is not AfD round 2. It's just not. Second of all, what is the point in arguing to restore an article which you yourself admit was of poor quality, poorly sourced, and unorganized? This seems like a case of arguing for the sake of arguing. If I told you I had just written an article that was of poor quality, was inadequately sourced, and was hopelessly unorganized; would you argue endlessly to convince everyone to include this article on Wikipedia? SnottyWong ^confess 06:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question here is whether the subject is notable, as established by the sources. If not, there's no cause to overturn. If so, the closing administrator was wrong to substitute their own opinion on the subject when there was no consensus for that. You can call it round two if you want, but that's where we are in the discussion. The bad result may be useful in the way that a house burning down is useful so you can build a better one. Improvement is usually achieved around here through incremental edits to articles, not by nuking poor but notable content in hopes that someone cares enough about the subject to redo it. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the subject? According to the list, the subject should be "People with ethnic Jewish backgrounds and acting" (because that's the criteria for the list). Yet all the sources presented here seem to think the subject is Portrayal of Jews in cinema, movies about Judaism, and Yiddish theatre. Bulldog123 14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is "Jewish actors", plain and simple, and the article is a list of them. The sources establish that the subject is notable. Portrayals of Jews by Jews, ethnic theater, and early American cinema are important subtopics in any prose counterpart, for historical reasons. So are the popular acceptance and professional opportunities of the actors as a group in various nations, assimilation and identity, and and some other things. The Who is a Jew? issue is a red herring here that does not relate to notability. It's up to those who edit that article space to decide whether and how to address that question, which runs through nearly any treatment of things Jewish. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources establish that the subject is notable.

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much?

It's up to those who edit that article space to decide whether and how to address that question

Nope. That's OR. We are not here to make decisions like that - hence why we're called "editors" and not "creators." Over the years, it's been established that such a criteria is impossible to find. That alone is enough reason to get rid of this list, and was the main reason for its nomination. Bulldog123 21:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're flat wrong, for the fourth time or so please desist from the bombastic proclamations about other editors' abilities. You have no special entitlement to require other editors to agree with you, much less put them down when they don't. That's messing up the discussion here. Along with the majority of others, I find after review of the article and the sources that the subject of Jewish actors is a notable one. Thus, we weighed in that the article should not be deleted. I'm not going to engage you in a meta-argument about the meaning of Wikipedia policy because you have no business denigrating other editors' understanding of policy here. The notion that Jewishness should not be treated as an identity categorization because it is hard to define is offensive to some people, and they have said so here. We don't go around deleting articles about Jews or any other group simply because the inclusion criteria are complex. Wikidemon (talk) 00

27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

@Jayjg: I don't think any ethnicity-based list should be deleted for reasons that it is an ethnicity-based list, unless there is a broad, systemically-applied consensus that determines ethnicity-based lists should not exist, or at least that the particular ethnicity should not be documented in any lists. Probably an RFC would be the only way to accomplish that. In my view, it is irrational and unacceptably piecemeal to delete a single list of notable Jews subdivided by an occupation (a rather broad, encyclopedic one here) without that broader determination: that either Jews cannot be verifiably listed and so we should have no lists of Jews, or that people by ethnicity lists should not exist at all. "OTHERSTUFF!" is simply not an effective retort to that, because I'm not saying my buddy's band should have an article because U2 does. As OTHERSTUFF states, but everyone citing it here has ignored, "However 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." To provide an analogy, it would be senseless to single out for deletion List of people from Orange County, California on the basis that people by state lists should not exist. All that would accomplish is poking a hole in the CA by county lists, and in the short term, may well result in the entries in that list dumped back in the overly long state list, just as deleting the list of Jewish actors or other lists like it would just result in incomplete indexing or an overly long list of Jews. postdlf (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This list wasn't "deleted for reasons that it is an ethnicity-based list", though. Rather, the list was deleted because the intersection of "Jewish" and a "List of actors" was not notable. Thus your "overturn" argument does not actually address the deletion decision. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my original overturn comment, which does directly address the issue of the intersection. postdlf (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It mostly states that one shouldn't delete ethnicity based lists. It does mention the issue of the intersection, but only to claim that the notability of the intersection is "irrelevant" for articles (vs. categories) - which is an incorrect understanding of WP:GNG, and therefore of the validity of the deletion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We recently had a big fat RFC about how notability applies to lists, and particularly when it comes to lists that just index articles, it's certainly not well established that your understanding is the "correct" one (by which I assume you mean, the majority/consensus-supported understanding), let alone the best one. postdlf (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no-consensus. I have a definite opinion about this, and i wish there were clear consensus for my point of view about it--that such a list is appropriate in every respect, both with respect to the intersection, and to the nature of the criteria. I consider my opinion is supported my the ordinary use of the terms, by the general encyclopedic nature of the topic, by the practice of other references works, by the existence of excellent sources, and by the purposes of Wikipedia. I argued at some length why the provision that such intersections are not suitable is wrong, and must be ignored, because it is contrary to our core principles. (I surmise the motive for thinking otherwise is mainly to avoid long disputes over ethnic issues, but I think it is our obligation to accept their acceptance and to resolve them by compromise in the usual fashion, rather than avoid difficult topics--once we avoid some topics as being too charged to handle, we have surrendered the principle of NPOV.) I think similarly about the related AfDs also, all of which will no doubt be here shortly) I would very much like to have been able to convince those who think otherwise. Unfortunately, I was not able to do so. Nor did they convince me and those of the same general opinion. It would be denying the obvious to pretend there was consensus. Any admin who closed that there was consensus in either direction can only be imposing his own view of the issue. Admins do not have a casting vote in such sharply divided situations. If we did, there would be a problem as there are 700 of us, and we would each be in a race to close the way we wanted to close. The only way someone can decide for the community is when there is someone is a position of authority over the others. That's not the case here. Mkativerata made his own judgement of which side was the side he though was correct, as he has the right and obligation to do--what he did not have the right to do was impose it on the community, any more than I would have. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus The close disregarded the rather clear evidence provided that the practice of grouping actors by their religion in this manner is one that is backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources, including extensive books and scholarly works on the subject. When discussions are so close that microscopic analysis of the arguments on each side must be undertaken, we are far better off with a close of "no consensus" reflecting the fact that there was none reached. Alansohn (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your "multiple reliable and verifiable sources, including extensive books and scholarly works on the subject" undergird secular Jewish culture not List of all actors who have some Jewish ancestry or who practice the Jewish religion. Bulldog123 06:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no-consensus. Counting the !votes, I find two more in favor of keeping. That cannot be a basis for consensus to delete. A do agree that votes should not be crucial in AfD discussions, if arguments and sources cannot be presented in favor of a keep. The deciding argument here was that the intersection of being Jewish and being an actor is not notable. I strongly disagree, multiple reliable sources attest to the notability of the intersection. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse After reading the AfD and going back through the listed article, I would have to agree that the closer made an informed decision by cutting through to the procedural points and applying it at AfD. It appears to be a sticky subject and the keep votes do seem to have merits, but I think the keeps policy quotes were borderline. It would be very hard to source properly a list of jewish actors and create an overwhelming reason to have that intersection viable. A closer has to look at the strength of the discussion, pro and con, and see if there is a valid point of policy to apply. I can think of many Jewish actors who have, or should have, Wiki articles, but they were not notable for being Jewish, and in one case, may have been more notable for making fun of his fellow Jews mainly Mel Brooks. They wee notable as actors and should be listed and treated as such. The category appeals more to me than an article, but either way would be a good choice, IMO. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists are not restricted to facts that are the basis for their entries' notability. That's instead a typical standard applied to categories.
- "I can think of many Jewish actors who have, or should have, Wiki articles, but they were not notable for being Jewish, and in one case, may have been more notable for making fun of his fellow Jews mainly Mel Brooks." I think there is sense in what you are saying and in the AFD proposed stricter sourcing to show that the person is notable as a Jewish Actor. There are a substantial number of people already in the article that have sources that cover the person's notability as a Jewish actor - either covering how their Jewish background influences a Jewish role, asking how their Jewish upbringing translates to a non-Jewish role, etc, trying to improve the sources for all the others may be difficult but not impossible and was mentioned in the close as something that could be overcome. Regarding Mel Brooks, some of the sources given to try and prove this intersection as notable cover the development of a stereotypical "Jewish character" by Jewish actors, Mel Brooks take this to a level that would be offensive if performed by anyone other than Jewish Actor. There are also actors that are the converse of this such as Sacha Barron Cohen who regularly plays antisemitic characters for a similar reason, again part of the comedy comes from his being able to present these characters with little risk of being considered antisemitic themselves. Either way this enforces rather than diminishes the notability of them as Jewish actors. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point, it was and is obvious that " Blazing Saddles" could not have been made, produced and distributed without having Cleavon Little as the star, but that is more to the credit of Mel Brooks writing and directing than his actual acting ability, which was still considerable. As far as some other notable actors, who also happen to be Jewish, I could only thnk of a couple who were notable as being actors and Jewish, far too little to make worth being a list of, and they are notable enough to have stand-alone articles for them. IMO, I dont see why we should need the list when it would be just as constructive to research the individuals, not look at a list. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

endorse - Within admin discretino to gague consensus and overall strength and weakensses of the entries. "I don't like the result" or "I would have close dit differently" are not avalid reasons to overturn. Tarc (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - I wasn't a huge fan of the article, which is why I stayed out of this one, but i don't see how there was a consensus to delete to be derived from that mess. Its ultimate a supervote rationale that led to the deletion, which is not currently how AfD works.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin. did not close because there was a "consensus to delete." The list was closed because of the reasons mentioned in the closing statement. "supervote rationale"? The delete arguments were much stronger than the keep arguments, and that is what AfD is all about. You can vote "keep" as many times as you want, but if you can't counter the arguments successfully, it won't matter. It's about quality, not quantity.--Therexbanner (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus There should be an extremely high threshold for closing against a numerical superiority; that threshold was not met in this case. If an article is to be deleted it should have a clear and indisputable majority either on the basis of argumentation strength or headcount. If the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping the article--and nothing in my reasoning requires me to disagree with the closing admin that the arguments for deletion were stronger--yet the numerical vote differs, then a "no consensus" close is the only appropriate outcome. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, despite your reasonably long history on wikipedia, you still don't know that AfDs are not a vote. Also, one !vote is hardly a numeric majority. Bulldog123 20:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the notion that AfD's without a numerical majority can never be closed as the "minority" viewpoint. There is nothing at WP:DGFA which suggests that that is the case. Also, with this particular instance, we need to take into account the canvassing by Epeefleche which artificially inflated the quantity of votes (presumably to increase the chances of a "No consensus" close). In such cases, I think it is imperative to throw a headcount out the window from the start (especially if the headcount is relatively close), and focus on the substance of the main arguments that were made by both sides. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 20:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the view generally endorsed except by those who opposed him in the debate on the article, was that he notified widely but fairly. The fuss that was unreasonably made over this seems to have also brought out a considerable number of people who opposed & so to the extent the numbers were biased, it was probably in the other direction. But when feelings are approximately evenly divided, there is no point going by which side happened to have a few percent more votes--unless there is a reasonable extent of agreement, there is no consensus. DGG ( talk ) 21:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this so difficult? Epeefleche notified 65 edits neutrally AFTER engaging in a surreptitious email-based canvassing campaign that specifically targeted inclusionists (or rather, people that voted !keep in previous Jewish AfDs). Furthermore, he contacted you before the neutral notifications here. Then, trying to cover-up, he leaves the ridiculous comment: "Hi. I don't know where you will come out on this" -- as if anybody who participates in these AfDs doesn't already know where your stance is. You have been - one of the few - users to remain completely consistent in your opinion, that's why Epeefleche went after you first. You're a guaranteed !keep in his eyes. Whether Epeefleche swayed you - or whether you would have found the AfD by yourself - is irrelevant. In his mind, you were going to vote !keep... and you did. Bulldog123 21:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the matter at hand take it to RFC/U, however I will state yet again you are making bad faith comments about Epeefleche; his two emails were sent to a Delete voter and a voter who had equally voted once for keep and once for delete not to inclusionists. I should also point out that prior to Epeefleche's emails you canvassed at least NickCT to come to the Actors AFD so your own behaviour is not above reproach here. It was also a common theme among the Nobel Laureate AFD that exclusionist editors were pointed to the Actors one by Jayjg which is another form of canvassing. If you wish to take this line of defence it is just as likely to turn round and bite you. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I am no longer required to assume good faith regarding the neutrality of Epee's canvassing, as he has done it - in bad faith - numerous times before. Would you like the diffs? Regarding your own misreading of WP:CANVASS --- NickCT had recommended I nominate the list beforehand (which you could have easily found here), stating he would support it if I did. I didn't end up nominating it, but someone else did, so I informed him of that, simply out of courtesy. That's not canvassing, but nice try. Also, I still haven't received a reply regarding the validity of List of left-handed actors. If reliable secondary sources is all that's needed to make an indiscriminate list, why is that one not valid? Bulldog123 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the diffs, he canvassed once three years ago, that was not reason to assume bad faith in the present. The message to NickCT is not WP:COURTESY, it is WP:VOTESTACKING and it pointed him to two AfD's that were not raised in Nick's original message to you. You also Canvassed for the Chinese Nobel Laureates Afd several times in the Jewish one, which was not WP:Courtesey either. As for List of left-handed actors you would have to prove that this is a notable enough intersection for such a list. Could you write a section for Left-handedness covering acting? Jewish TV,Film and theatre Acting is already covered within Jewish secular culture, and though it needs expansion to better support the list of Jewish actors (or spinout) it is enough to demonstrate the notability of Jewish Actors. If you only have a small number of notably left handed actors, consider a list like Handedness of Presidents of the United States which is a mix of list and prose. Provided you source it well, I wouldn't challenge it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not once, but several times, and likely more times as a stealth canvasser. Secondly, I linked Nick to pages he participated in prior to the list's nominations... and List of Jewish American entertainers (had you bothered to look before slapping "!keep" in the AfD) encompassed a huge swatch of List of Jewish actors. I informed 1 user about discussions he wanted to know about, not 65 users to cover my tracks after targeting strangers who !vote my way by email. Needless to say, that's not vote-stacking. Thirdly, you're really starting to look desperate with statements like, "You also canvassed for the Chinese Nobel Laureates." If referencing other AfDs in a related AfD is canvassing, Jayjg must have canvassed on both AfDs for List of Jewish actors and List of Jewish American entertainers by including the link to List of Jewish Nobel laureates in the nomination rationale. Some reason you're not attacking him about that? Moral of the story: if you don't know how to use the term "canvass" properly, don't use it. Finally, regarding the actual discussion... If you consider Jewish theatre to be a basis for supporting a list of Jewish actors, what is your criteria for inclusion? Are you planning on participating in a RFC to discuss that criteria if the list were to be restored? Or do you think all actors with Jewish heritage somehow have a connection to Jewish theatre that they themselves don't even know of? And if you do, how is that not original research? tl;dr you're endlessly repeating "there are sources that support an intersection of Judaism and acting/theatre" - yet you're providing no basis for how this applies to all actors of Jewish heritage. Does it also apply to converts and non-theists? To people with a Jewish grandmother? To people with a Jewish father? To people who marry into Judaism? How do you expect users adding individuals to this list to maintain that criteria (when it hasn't been maintainable for four years)? None of the !keep votes addressed this issue, and that's one of the reasons why this outcome was a delete. It's not a maintainable list - and hence - is only a "magnet" for verifiability and BLP issues (which need to be addressed first and foremost). Bulldog123 09:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think your use of the term Canvassing means you're in the right, then feel free to take Epeefleche to an RfC/U knowing your own actions will be assessed - particularly since you seem to be making claims of Canvassing on the part of Epeefleche that have never been seen before. I have not spoken to Jayjg about his actions because he has cast no hypocrisy against Epeefleche but It's possible his actions could be questioned at any RfC/U as much as yours. As for the debate in hand, I'm quite happy to have an RFC on the criteria but I think they can be established without any sort of dispute resolution like Rfc until they've been debated on the Talk Page. My own personal opinion is that we require reliable sourcing identifying that the individual is notable because they are a Jewish Actor, This was not happening so we had sourced identifying someone's granny as Jewish as a basis for inclusion which is WP:OR if the sources don't specifically state the person is a)Jewish and b)Actor - ideally the sources should further cover the notability of the person's Jewish heritage or conversion on a role or roles or career but that would be decided in the debate. In the close statement it was made clear that issues of maintainability and BLP could be overcome but I guess you haven't read that, the reason for the close was purely that notability had not been answered (and as a consequqence NOTDIR#6 could also apply). Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your support of Epee's behavior merely because he !voted the same way you did comes off as absurd... is all I'm saying. It was an obvious bad faith move, which he's done before, and was temporarily banned for it. Now he's acting like it was all "a grand miscarriage of justice" on his talk page. Admittedly, there's no point in adding insult to injury unless he does it again - but he did do it and he did it with an agenda - that has to be taken into account here. Okay, end of that discussion. Back to your points. You say, ideally the sources should further cover the notability of the person's Jewish heritage or conversion on a role or roles or career. First of all, no "not ideally" but "necessarily." Secondly, yes, I agree with you there. I just hope you understand that would require a complete re-writing of the current list we have, pruning basically 70-80% of the current entries and making it more into a prose article than a list. You have read all of User:All Hallow's Wraith's comments in the AfD -- about how vague, WP:ORy, and unmaintainable those sort of requirements are. If that doesn't convince you there is no sane way to maintain this in list form... then I don't think anything is going to convince you. Bulldog123 00:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guys. This isn't the forum for accusations of canvassing. That forum is AN:I, and the matter has been raised there, debated by the community, and resolved. Given that the AfD we're talking about closed as delete at first instance, there can be no suggestion that alleged canvassing of Keep voters improperly influenced the result, so how about you move this to your talk pages and focus on the issue at hand? - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but many of the "overturn" people are complaining that there was a majority of keeps (barely), so that's why it's being brought up. Bulldog123 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not supporting Epeefleche's behaviour - I'm suggesting that if you want to discuss it take it to the appropriate place RfC/U not here. For the discussion, no not "necessarily" there may be individuals who would have to be judged on a case by case basis on the Talk Page if their Jewishness was significantly notable in some other way that wasn't directly career related. I'm less convinced that a 70-80% cull is necessary probably in the region of 50% at most because nearly all actors who were active in the early part of the 20th century are more likely to have struggled through the notable restrictions and or been limited to notable Jewish characters and there should be ample coverage of that in RS even if some of the sources need updated to show that. All Hallow's Wraith's comments were based on a misconception that these were hard and fast OR based criteria - in fact they were suggestions of the kind of thing that RS may consider makes a person notable as Jewish Actor, Just as "Who is a Jew?" was linked to show what criteria may cause a RS to consider the person Jewish. The editor adding the entry would still have to source it with a source that showed the person was notable as a Jewish Actor and that's the real criteria. Once All Hallow's was assured of that fact he stopped objecting to the criteria but appeared to believe my wording of them was wrong - with which I agree but was intending a debate once the article was kept to clarify the wording. As for Prose, Again I agree there should be a prose article to go with this, either an expanded Secular Jewish Culture or a new Secular Jewish Acting and this list should we a "See Also" hatnote from that article listing proponents of Jewish Acting. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Hallow's Wraith has no "misconception" as to OR-based criteria. He's been working on sourcing these types of lists far more often than you or I and has certainly been privy to the changes in criteria. Anyway, there isn't going to be any "Talk Page case-by-case discussion" about whether or not an actor's Jewishness was significant "in some other way," because that's exactly what original research is. It's not up for us to decide. We're not synthesizing new material for the encyclopedia, we're merely reporting what's already been reported elsewhere. If John Garfield is listed as only "one example of many" (as you suggest) - well, too bad. We don't know who the "many" are, so we can't report it. Statements like nearly all actors who were active in the early part of the 20th century are more likely to have struggled through the notable restrictions is straight-up original research. Unless sources exist for each individual actually saying this, you're can't add them "under an assumption." Needless to say, good luck finding all those sources. It's going to be a massive (ultimately impossible) undertaking. The final, and most important, point I want to make... is that you're not giving a very convincing reason for why this list (a list that you apparently agree is not appropriate) should be restored. You imply that the new article is better off with a more specific title - something like List of proponents of Jewish Acting (bad title, I know... but you get the point). You also imply that as much as 2/3rds of the list might be pruned and that each entry should also include why this person's Jewishness connects with his acting (ultimately making this an article, not a list). Basically, you're asking that a whole new article be made, yet... instead of just going and making that article, you send this to deletion review. Why? If you're doing it for the list contents... any admin would happily give them to you and you could keep them under User:Stuart.Jamieson/List of Jewish actors. This is pretty standard procedure for "bad articles." Bulldog123 15:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent me; I did not say "All Hallow's Wraith has" a "misconception as to OR-based criteria." I said he had a misconceived what I was proposing - That's a very different thing. Similarly "Talk Page case-by-case discussion" is based on WP:Source lists it is deciding whether inclusion is acceptable based on a source which asserts the individual is notable for being a Jewish Actor but makes no consideration of the effect on their acting - perhaps hypothetically a notable actor becomes a Rabbi - is inclusion still warranted would be a matter for discussion under WP:Sl - this is not a matter of synthesising sources to show that one source asserts notable actor and another asserts a notable Jew which would be WP:Synthesis.

Next you cut and paste my comments out of context - The Source given was one which asserts a notable intersection of Judaism and Acting - the fact that the part I identified primarily focuses on John Garfield is neither here nor there and one source would not be used in the article except for the individuals it mentions - again don't misquote me as saying it would. After saying nearly all actors who were active in the early part of the 20th century are more likely to have struggled through the notable restrictions, I go on to say there should be ample coverage of that in RS even if some of the sources need updated to show that. which is not straight-up original research, it's using sources that exist for each individual actually saying this about them. Again I did not claim the title should be changed, but I think that should be the core basis of the list's notability per WP:LISTNAME The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. so List of Jewish Actors covers that and allows any assertion by RS that outwith to be included if the community feel that individual it notable enough (by RS) as a Jewish Actor to need to be included -as above any entry of this type requires consensus that the sources provided support inclusion. I'm suggesting temporarily pruning up to 1/2 not 2/3 to avoid any BLP/WP:N issues and most of that 1/2 can be reinserted as soon as better sources can be found for them and I'm not expecting an explanation of why this persons Jewishness connects with their acting (that should be in their article) I am expecting a source for it though. Finally creating a broadly similar article without consensus would be liable to go straight under WP:CSD#G4 because the notability of the intersection would still be unproven. Deletion Review is the place to question the close statement that was based on an assertion on non-notable Intersection despite sources to the contrary. Finally yes, I have undeleted articles by that method before but it is not appropriate in this case both for the reasons outlined above. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're dwelling way too much on semantics. Your focus on John Garfield is important because it appears that's one of the few actors you pointed out that could potentially/maybe/sort-of be considered a "Jewish actor" by your one source. I didn't intentionally cut and paste your comments out of context and what I said about All Hallow's Wraith was in regards to the list. I don't think he misconstrued (whatever word you want to use) the criteria you wanted. I think your criteria still relies heavily on original research and you're just not seeing it (or ignoring it). I also think if you were to even attempt that list today, you'd be met with a barrage of resistant from the !keep voters who don't agree with you. They're not voting for the list you're proposing. They're !voting for the list that has existed for the last few years... the list of people who are Jewish and who are actors but who don't need a source proving that relationship notable, because, according to them, the list is inherently notable (for some unspecified reason). The fact is you're not requesting to return this list, so why are you even at DR? You're asking for a completely different list that by no means would be deleted per WP:CSD. Wikipedia:DELETE even states an article is allowed to be re-made if it's as different as you're proposing it to be. And your title would have to change because it is no longer clear to anyone who can and can't be included (All Hallow's Wraith gave you many examples of that). "Temporarily pruning" 2/3rds of the list runs under the assumption that 100% of the list can be sourced as to an actor's Jewishness and relationship to acting... which is absurd... unless your criteria is some type of magic criteria that hasn't been found in four years. If a person is a rabbi & an actor, isn't that List of people who are actors and who are Jews and not List of Jewish actors? You said (if) inclusion is acceptable based on a source which asserts the individual is notable for being a Jewish Actor but makes no consideration of the effect on their acting Okay, exactly what type of source is that? Are you suggesting that because Jewish journal describes Lea Michele as a "Jewish actress," that's enough to imply a connection between her Judaism and her acting? Simply because she plays a Jewish actress (like I said above, probably not even of her same heritage), that "makes her Jewishness notable?" Once again, there is no "consensus" on inclusion. Either the person has an explicit references that mentions the notability of their connection to, for example, "Jewish theatre," or they don't. There's no "discussion and consensus-finding" as to whether we can all interpret the source the same way. If it's ambiguous, it's ambiguous. That is original research... not even you can argue that point. Now, I just want to point out something... John Turturro is an actor who's pretty much "well known" for playing really authentic Jewish characters on the screen (i.e., Barton Fink and Herb Stempel from Quiz Show). His wife is Jewish... but he himself is not. Despite the fact that Turturro's connection to "Jewish acting" is probably way stronger than - say - Seth Rogen's (who makes a quip about "Jewfros" and is automatically considered a "Jewish actor" by places like Jewish journal), Turturro would not be included in the list... Am I wrong? The same could be said for many, many gentile actors. Now do it vice-versa. And so we open up a can of worms. As if your criteria is not already confusing as hell for the average wikipedia editor (who is simply not going to understand why he needs all these specific references before pointing out that Wentworth Miller has a Jewish great-grandmother), it also excludes people with strong relationships to "Jewish characters" or "Judaism in cinema" simply because they themselves are not of that heritage/religion. The list you want back is not the list at AfD. You should have opened up a WP:RFC and not a DR. Your agenda here is hazy at best... and it's beginning to look more like last-ditch attempts at winning an argument than actually re-defining the term "Jewish actor" for an entire encyclopedia. Bulldog123 23:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of left-handed actors - because (a) the topic must be a non-trivial intersection, as demonstrated through compliance with the general notability guideliens (you'd need significant discussion in reliable sources of the topic of "left-handed actors", rather than just actors who are left-handed), (b) the list must be of sufficiently compact scope to be useful, or be capable of being subdivided so as to be useful, and (c) each entry on the list must be notable per the list topic, so each entry would have to be notably an actor AND notably left-handed. I'd think the number of people who are notably-left handed would be quite low, and few of them actors. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I don't think Stuart.Jamieson really provides a policy based argument for overturning. Simple fact is, this list included a lot of names of people who's ethnicity/religion was not relevant to their notability. Hence, it was a violation of WP:BLPCAT. NickCT (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair that's a fairly weak argument,

BLPCAT does not cover Ethnicity, so claiming that it's not relevant to notability isn't showing a breach of BLPCAT.
Lists were only recently added to BLPCAT with no attempt to correct any of the existing LP Lists on the notability relevance basis.
That section of BLPCAT is a specific case of WP:OCAT - we should avoid over-categorisations by not using contentious categories except where notable. Over-categorisation is not a problem in lists so applying to lists is inappropriate.
If a source discusses the notability of their Jewishness in regard to their work (which was the case with a number of LP's) then it is relevant to their notability.
Even if all that were not the case the ideal situation is to remove all LP's and then re-add those where Jewishness is clearly shown by sources to contribute to their notability.

Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus, as the AfD shows that there was indeed no consensus to delete. At some point, when the closer asserts that the "(not-)vote" has been set aside and the arguments evaluated from an "objective standpoint", it becomes a matter of the closer making a decision on the basis of his/her own views, which is not how AfDs should be closed. Imposing one's own view is the only possible way one could get to "consensus to delete" in that AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "closer closed based on self view?" Where is there evidence of this? The !keep arguments in the original AfD were simply unconvincing and this deletion review is being used as "AfD version 2" (with all the !keep voters showing up from various recent Jewish AfDs and re-hashing the same tired arguments), instead of a real discussion about whether the closer made the right call at the time. Let's review why the !keep arguments were weak. Note: If I misrepresent what you typed at the time, then please change it. I'm trying to prove why this was an obvious and fair delete consensus when the closer read it, and therefore has no real basis to be brought to deletion review.

Keep - User:Stuart.Jamison - Admits the list has had problems but disagrees that it's a WP:BATTLEGROUND, pointing out most of the big issues with the list were solved in good faith. Explains that the list is notable because "the majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles". I later pointed out that's not true at all (which I still don't see any evidence to suggest I was wrong). Stuart also comments that the list is a much better alternative to a category.

Keep - User:Shadowjams - Says he's concerned about the "notability requirements" of this article (which sounds like a deletion argument) but then goes on to say he thinks it is still okay if given a specified criteria. Townlake asks if he can provide that criteria because the current one is proving to be unmaintainable. In the end, Shadowjams unconsciously provides one of the strongest reasons for deletion: The list cannot exist without a more specific criteria (because then it would be an indiscriminate list) but the criteria is almost impossible to specify without WP:OR and WP:POV problems.

Keep - User:Epeefleche - Says the notability of the list is already proven because there are 600-refs on the list. Of course, this argument made no sense whatsoever, as those refs only mentioned whether the person was Jewish, not whether their acting had anything to do with their Judaism.

Keep - User:JoshuaZ - Says the article should be kept per Stuart's mentioned improvements. "Improvements" meaning adjustment of the scope of the article and its inclusion criteria. Of course, no specified inclusion criteria was given yet, and as is suggested later by User:All Hallow's Wraith's - it's actually quite impossible to come up with an inclusion criteria that isn't going to open a giant can of worms, along with all the WP:BLP. WP:OR, and WP:V issues.

Keep - User:JackJud - Says keep per Stuart, presumably restating JoshuaZ's point. Note that this account appeared very much like a Single Purpose Account (with less than 100 edits at the time - almost all edits just adding Jewish categories or Jewish list links to the article space. i.e., [57]). It popped in, gave its two cents on a recent spat of Jewish AfDs, then disappeared again: [58].

Keep - User:Broccoli - Says keep per Epeefleche. Considering Epeefleche's keep vote made the least sense of anybody's - as anybody who read it would have seen - this was basically just a "throwaway" !vote.

Keep - User:Davshul - Says list should be kept because QUOTE "It is an interesting list to read" END QUOTE

Keep - User:Shooterwalker - Says the list should be kept because "an entire book was written about it" - Patricia Erens's book "The Jew in American Cinema." I pointed out that that is entirely misleading as 98% of the book is about Jewish characters and portrayals of Jews in Hollywood cinema. Anyone can take a look for themselves. Furthermore, the term "Jewish actor" appears only 10 times in the entire book, and each time is only used as an aside, referencing something ironic: Jewish actor playing a gentile or a gentile actor playing a Jew, etc...

Keep - User:Modernist - Says list should be kept because of the improvement to the inclusion criteria. Considering the giant discussion above him between Stuart and All Hallow's Wraith about how unmanageable (and WP:POV and WP:OR-prone) the criteria would actually become... this seemed like Modernist really wasn't paying much attention to the discussion.

Keep - User:DGG - Not really easy for me (or anyone else) to understand DGG's view on lists. it's a special one that basically supports any group + occupation list of any type as long as the individual parts can be verified. He states, "The principle should be that every defined binary ethnic or religious or national intersection with occupations or professions or prizes or anything else ought to be kept, both as a list and a category--the only ones that should require evidence of the intersection itself being significant are tertiary intersections, and the standard of proof for that should not be very onerous." I'll let people make of that what they will.

Keep - User:Eversman - Says the list should not be deleted because Jews are a nation (a controversial, WP:POVy view that is not generally accepted) and that if we were to delete this list, we should delete all American-ethnicity lists as well.

Keep - User:Schmidt - Says that "per established precedent" (not sure which) the list should be kept, and goes on to say that references to WP:DIR are a misinterpretation of policy. Seems to be referring to WP:DIR as a whole and not just Part #6.

Keep - User:StarBlueHeather - Says that the article being a "magnet for WP:BLP, WP:POV, and WP:V violations" is not reason enough to delete it (though that isn't the only reason given). Does not otherwise state why it should be kept. Requests a broader "Request for Comment" be made.

Keep - User:Wikidemon - Brings forth three references which he says substantiates the list (including [59]), I point out his references are mostly in support of secular Jewish culture and not an indiscriminate list of all people who happen to profess Jewish religion or ethnicity. (Also, not much reference to Jewish actors in particular). Brings forth some analogy about American chefs I have yet to fully understand.

Keep - User:ColonelWarden - Brings forth two references we've already seen, and that support secular Jewish culture more than a list. Goes on to say because of such references a list of actors is acceptable. User:Therexbanner points out that this is only of secondary concern, because the main problem is that the criteria for inclusion is unmaintainable and undefinable - as mentioned numerous times above.

Keep - User:Petri Krohn - His whole !keep vote said: QUOTE "cannot specify exactly who is Jewish" is not a valid criteria for deletion. END QUOTE Basically no point there.

Keep - User:Rangoon11 - Says the list should be kept because it's a QUOTE "Interesting and informative list" END QUOTE

Now, I'm not saying that all the delete !votes were Shakespeare. There were plenty of lame ones too, but the broader points were never disproved or fully addressed, and they reflected the urgency of needing to have this list removed (WP:BLP being one of those urgent concerns). Needless to say, this deletion review is starting to come off as an attempt to try to push this list into being kept via a "no consensus" close --- when the general consensus was pretty much indisputable in the original AfD. Bulldog123 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Closing admin accurately summarized policy-based discussion. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Why was it deleted and not the List of Italian American entertainers? or the List of Muslim writers and poets? or List of Irish American actors? Note that the Irish American actors list includes many actors whose ancestors immigrated to the U.S. before Ireland became a country.Wm.Pittman (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

— Wm.Pittman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Three-day-old user who seems to have perfect knowledge of AfD and Deletion Review process. I highly recommend somebody investigate this. Bulldog123 23:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPA account was blocked. Bulldog123 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second a check.

To Wm.Pittman: The list was deleted for the reasons stated by the closing administrator. A deletion review is not a re-examination of the arguments. It is about discussing closing procedures (which were implemented appropriately, IMHO).

Even when the closing administrator is clearly wrong and the decision smacks of racism? Wikipedia is earning itself quite a reputation for treating Jews differently form other ethnic groups.Wm.Pittman (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't jump to push the racism buttom. Racism is a very real and serious issue and calling upon it with anything less than the best of cause trivialises it. I can assure you that in the case of this debate and this admin it's a totally groundless accusation. It's not only possible but common for an admin to be wrong while still acting in good faith. Which, by the way, you're required to assume, where there's any doubt. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if you have any problems with the lists you mentioned, put them up for AfD. Otherwise, saying this list should remain (regardless of its quality and/or policy compliance) because there are others, is a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

I would also like to emphasize the fact that "consensus" comes from the strength of the arguments presented, and not the sheer number of votes. The reasoning behind that policy is that otherwise no decision (about anything) would ever be made. In every single discussion there are opposing views, and as far as I know, there hasn't been any controversial/sensitive deletion (non-speedy) where all/most editors agreed on an outcome.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have had changing views on this, and if you look at my comments over the last 2 or 3 years you can find them all. I have finally come to the conclusion that such intersections are always encyclopedic, and should always be given the broadest possible definition. (There may sometimes be a need for a narrower intersection also, e.g, Orthodox Jewish actors. My conclusion is based upon the realization that avoiding editing difficulties amounts to de facto self-censorship,pretending group identification does not really matter so it need not be talked about. Wikipedia has a tendency to avoid editing difficulties in this sort of way, and its time we grew up beyond it DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so... according to this epiphany... any list is valid as long as it's verifiable. Bulldog123 17:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good Suggestion Bulldog (even if DGG led you to it) that fits in perfectly with "Wikipedia incorporates elements of general and specialized almanacs." WP:FIVE. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about, but okay. Bulldog123 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus, per nom, Wikidemon, and others above. There was in fact no consensus to delete at the AfD. In addition to the headcount not being in favor of deletion, the arguments to keep were more policy-based and hued more closely to the facts. Multiple reliable sources attested to the notability of the intersection.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Keep close just now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Jewish entertainers may well prove of interest, as many of the same parties advanced many of the same arguments as here and at the AfD below.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own close. I was open to the prospect of seeing someone here question the way that I closed the debate to such a convincing extent that I would be open to having it overturned. That hasn't happened. This DRV is as partisan as the AfD: not a single keep !voter accepting that the close was within discretion; not a single delete !voter giving anything other than a ringing endorsement. Some editors (including, surprisingly, Jclemens) have referred to the majority for a keep outcome, suggesting a delete outcome was impossible in light of that. That approach obviously has no basis in policy. Admins have to look at arguments: we can't let wikipedia be beholden to whichever side of a partisan debate can rustle up more numbers. Bulldog's vote-by-vote analysis above shows (whether you agree with all his comments or not) that arguments have to be given more weight in such a partisan debate. No-one here has genuinely suggested that my interpretation of the debate was wrong (apart from DGG who in an unfortunate moment of apparent ABF suggests I imposed my own views on the community - I would have hoped DGG could understand the difference between preferring the side you agree with, versus objectively analysing the strength of both sides' arguments). So I'm going to argue it should be endorsed.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What you did was to substitute your own analysis of policy for that of the community. It should have been clear from the debate, and it is amply clear here now, that there is not a community consensus for deleting the list. A number of longstanding, respected members of the community have made policy-based arguments for keeping the list, and whether you agree with those arguments or not you chose sides based on your own reasoning, not that of the community's. Framing this as a "partisan" issue that requires an administrator weigh in as a tie-breaker or referee seems to undermine the goals of consensus and steps away from what I take to be the nature of deletion discussions. If the outcome was a matter of discounting arguments because of a presumption of partisanship, that is yet another flaw in the process. When you advance your own analysis as being the right one over that of other editors then it does become relevant whether or not your interpretation of policy is correct. Of course, people who have already reached their conclusions are probably not going to change their minds if asked a second time. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What you did was to substitute your own analysis of policy for that of the community With comments like that, I wonder if you know how AfDs actually work...
  - Of course, people who have already reached their conclusions are probably not going to change their minds if asked a second time. If you're referring to a handful of !keep voters from various Jewish AfDs who aggregated (or possibly were directed) here to engage in "AfD part 2" for an AfD they missed out on... then yes... you're right. We also have some !keep voter desperate enough to either be soliciting help from a friend or to have willfully created an SPA account: [60]. Whoever that is must surely be an immensely "respected" member of the community. Bulldog123 06:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have asked you once already to tone things down. Please stick to the subject of this page, and if you have any behavioral complaints about other editors take that to the appropriate forum. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So... I'm not allowed to make comments on an SPA account's bizarre behavior but... you are allowed to accuse Mkativerata of closing based on his own beliefs, with no evidence to support that? Bulldog123 10:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You got it. This page is for discussing the validity of the closing of the AfD, not for denigrating other participants' abilities, motivations, or good faith. I'd also appreciate not being misquoted. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        You and I must have very different definitions of "denigrating other participants' motivations/good faith." I'm talking about a certified, blocked troll (whose comments further solidified that classification). You're talking about an admin who appears to have acted in good faith. Also, quotation marks are not always used to imply verbatim cut-and-paste quoting. However, I see how it can be viewed that way here. I italicized it. Nonetheless, that appears to be your position. Bulldog123 11:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        My request stands, as does my first comment above. I prefer to stick to the topic, and have no desire to spar over it. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Last comment from me and mostly a response to the DR nomination rationale. The original research and synthesis needed to support this list would be massive, and the connection between Stuart's sources and each individual occupant on this list is non-existent. I'm especially baffled by the baseless claim: "The majority of people on the list have made some attempt to connect with Jewish Culture by playing Jewish roles." Really? Playing a Jewish role immediately makes someone a "Jewish actor" if they're Jewish by blood? Okay, for example, because Lea Michele's father was Sephardic Jewish, this somehow relates to the fact that she's playing a Jewish character on Glee, and it affects her enough to make that Jewish character... what?... more authentically Jewish? Is that what Stuart meant when he said this source connects Michele's Judaism to her acting? So John Turturro, who won critical acclaim for his depictions of "Jewish neurosis" with characters like Barton Fink and Herb Stempel, and Daniel Craig, who played righteous, passionate Jews in Munich and Defiance, would both be excluded because they're gentiles by blood? Does Ben Kingsley get added to the list because he played a Jew in Schindler's List and because he once said "I am not absolutely certain, but to the best of my knowledge, I am one-quarter Jewish on my mother's side," and then added "It gets a little ludicrous to quantify such things. It's like counting chromosomes or measuring the shapes of noses." (Basically announcing that he doesn't give a shit). How far can we milk this? In Two Lovers, Joaquin Phoenix plays a Jewish man trapped in a love triangle between the sultry gentile character played by Gwyneth Paltrow (who presents him with "adventure" and "a way out of tradition") and the caring, family-oriented, parent-approved Jewish counterpart played by Vinessa Shaw. Note, this seems to be a cultural phenomenon experienced by Jewish families in America today - so it's very relevant. Is Paltrow now eligible for the list because of the "irony" of her playing a gentile despite being half-Jewish? Is Shaw going to get added to the list too because she played a Jewish character and, although most of her family doesn't appear to be ethnically Jewish, her paternal grandfather's surname was "Schwartz?" Is Phoenix also now worthy of being added because he probably brought more "Jewishness" to the role by being half-Jewish? Are the religiously Jewish Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor going to be excluded because they're not ethnically Jewish, but the atheist Lewis Black included because he makes a couple of Jewish jokes here and there? tl;dr I think we all have way better things to do on wikipedia than maintain this type of mess under false pretenses - and yes, they are false pretenses - because all those tangentially-related sources being thrown around have nothing to do with any randomly selected person from this list. As Jayjg stated when he first brought this to AfD, the list is nothing but a magnet for BLP, V, and OR violations. I should also add - no related list exists on any other wikipedias. To gauge the "notability of this list", take into account its contents have been reproduced online almost exclusively to support Jewish conspiracy sites and Jewish pride forums (both very encyclopedic, I suppose). As it stands right now, it has no inherent "notable" value and is an indiscriminate "trivia" list, synthesizing an overreaching relationship where one doesn't exist. Bulldog123 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus per DGG. Consensus was that the intersection was notable, but the application of that intersection created editing difficulties. The closer points to editing difficulties such as (i) the article included some entries of non Jewish actors playing Jewish roles, (ii) the article included some entries of actors who were Jewish, but there was no support between the actual intersection between their "Judaism" (what ever that might be) and acting and (iii) the article included some entries of non Jewish actors playing Jewish roles (the closer essentially repeated this twice). These do not point to a lack of notability of the topic as concluded by the closer, these point to editing difficulties of the Wikipedia article. The close was wrong to use Wikipedia content to evaluate and conclude on WP:GNG. The close was wrong to assert that the article topic was require to be a culturally significant phenomenon because, per NOT Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, the intersection names of cross-categories in some way need to be a culturally significant phenomenon. The close sought to avoid editing difficulties by pretending group identification does not really matter so it need not be talked about. This amounts to de facto self-censorship. If Wikipedia continues to choose to solve its editing difficulties by deleting notable topics rather than make the hard editing choices, Wikipedia will continue to lose editors with the skills to make the hard editing choices. With less editors with the skills to make the hard editing choices, more notable content will be deleted from Wikipedia under justification similarly listed for this article. That is the wrong direction. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(i) No, the intersection present in this list was not deemed to be notable by consensus. Almost all the !keep voters are asking for content to be changed, removed, or added... basically completely changing the list. Also, content is not "lost" by deleting this list. (i) I don't believe it's been established anywhere that the name "Jewish actors" indicates a culturally significant phenomenon. "Actors in Yiddish theatre," yes. "People who are Jews and who are also actors," no. Bulldog123 11:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it so it doesn't seem like its just my opinion. Bulldog123 16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to break it down for you again, because you're not advancing your arguments, just repeating your opinions. This way if you actually see an invalid premise in what I write, we can deal with that specifically. First, this list could have been and should have been subdivided by nationality. Second, lists of people who have articles organized by their shared cultural/ethnic heritage are encyclopedic, because we include such information in their own articles, and it is standard practice to make lists of articles based on biographical information the subjects shared in common even if they have no other connection and even if that information is not the source of their notability. Third, unless we are going to have enormous, completely undifferentiated lists of people by ethnic heritage, these lists need to be subdivided in some way, and by occupation is a sensible and encyclopedic way to do that. Fourth, the fact that in many countries the interaction of this, and other ethnicities, with acting as an occupation, has been the subject of multiple reliable sources further proves that such a sublist is not only encyclopedic (and thus sufficiently valid) but based on a notable topic. Discuss. postdlf (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite your condescending intro there, this is the first time you have advanced the position that this particular list should be saved because it's just a subdivision of a larger ethnic list. Before you seem to have agreed with the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT crew, the two or three users vomiting out stuff like, "Backed by numerous reliable sources! Hence the intersection is notable! Blah blah blah!" So what do you mean by... again? Anyway...
First, this list could have been and should have been subdivided by nationality.

Okay, not really pertinent, but okay. This list - I believe - was originally List of Jewish American actors before it got moved.

Second, lists of people who have articles organized by their shared cultural/ethnic heritage are encyclopedic, because we include such information in their own articles, and it is standard practice to make lists of articles based on biographical information the subjects shared in common even if they have no other connection and even if that information is not the source of their notability.

This wasn't an AfD for the deletion of all ethnic lists. Nobody is advocating that... yet. (Some people are working towards it though on RfC pages)

Third, unless we are going to have enormous, completely undifferentiated lists of people by ethnic heritage, these lists need to be subdivided in some way, and by occupation is a sensible and encyclopedic way to do that.

The list is not designed to house all people. It's designed to house a few "good examples." Hence: List of Germans. I'd hate to see what your List of Germans would look like.

Fourth, the fact that in many countries the interaction of this, and other ethnicities, with acting as an occupation, has been the subject of multiple reliable sources further proves that such a sublist is not only encyclopedic (and thus sufficiently valid) but based on a notable topic.

Every "reliable source" presented here is great for something like Portrayal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Cinema or maybe even Judaism in cinema. I don't believe I need to repeat (for the trillionth time) why it doesn't apply to the list under AfD. Bulldog123 16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over? I don't think any more could be said. We're not even discussing whether this was a reasonable close or not (which is what DR is for). We're just re-hashing old AfD material. Bulldog123 16:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...this is the first time you had advanced the position that...it's just a subdivision of a larger ethnic list." Actually, my first comment here did that. I see nothing else worth further comment here. postdlf (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to your AfD comments but I was mistaken nonetheless. I didn't realize your other comments were on Jewish entertainers and not this list. Sorry about that. Bulldog123 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus as nom, over this weekend I've chosen not to comment until now, as any attempt would again see Bulldog barking out minutiae that have no real bearing on this debate and just lead in circles. If the question is, did the closing administrator close correctly then again I stand by my original argument that all the closing arguments could were addressed by the keep side but were dismissed by the closing Admin in favour of Bulldog's yet again unproven claim of irrelevance. Even Analysing the sources here Bulldog continues to dismiss them despite the fact they clearly show this as a notable intersection on the basis that they don't then list every actor - that's not the point, the point is that this is a notable intersection - individuals on the list have separate sources showing that their individual inclusion is justified. The debate also raises the question of whether the notable intersection applies to all the entires. I think Postdlf sums up the reasoning keeping best above, despite Bulldogs further claims that these sources only justify creating a prose article (BTW Bulldog, claiming that proves this is a notable intersection exists per WP:N), however that line debate is similar to asking if a non-notable song by a notable artist belongs in their discography, we try to be as complete as possible even even if songs are not notable as belonging to that artist. Good sourcing should ensure that all entries are covered, as being Jewish Actors and if the source asserts the person is a Jewish Actor then it is identifying this as a notable fact about the person. I think there are issues that need to be dealt with regarding sourcing but they are not insurmountable and arguments made on that basis were rightly dismissed by the closing admin. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... just so you know... bringing something to DR is asking for it to be overturned because of an unjust close. You don't bring something to DR to endorse the close. If anything, this just proves that your whole attempt here was to create AfD part 2, which is an inappropriate use of Deletion Review. And I'm not going to bark out what a vast misrepresentation of my position everything you typed up there is. But I will "bark" this:
BTW Bulldog, claiming that proves this is a notable intersection exists per WP:N Playing dumb won't work here. Portrayal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity in Cinema or Judaism in cinema is in no way the "prose article version" of this list. The prose article needed to prove this list a notable intersection per WP:N would be something like Jewish ethnicity and Acting or Ethnically Jewish actors (which BTW, you actually admitted is not a notable intersection because you're asking this list be completely changed -- so it baffles me why you're going back on that position now and acting like this list is already a notable intersection). Bulldog123 09:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did bring it here to overturn it, I just wasn't previously clear whether I wanted it overturned to Keep, or overturned to No-Consensus and since some other's contributing to the debate have stated "Overturn to no consensus per Stuart.Jamieson", I felt it appropriate I should make that clear before the debate ended. I did not raise this to be AFD pt2, I raised it because I believe the close was unjust and the recent close of Jewish British Entertainers is already showing that the intersection is notable and this AfD should not have been close on the basis of no notability. Secondly I'm not convinced by your Ethnicity argument, whilst one of the sources is about ethnicity and the connection between ethnically Jewish actors and their performances. I believe the list covers the wider intersection of Jewish Culture and Acting and have said so on several time - highlighting the fact that Secular Jewish culture should be the head article. I don't believe there should be any pigeonholing of who is or isn't ethnically, religiously Jewish (which would be OR and something that the article already needs cleaned of not adding more) and we should only look for an identification of "Jewish" from reliable sources whether or not the source identifies whether the individual is ethnically or religiously Jewish. I have never denied this list is a notable intersection - you are the one who has made that claim that I am "Looking for a different list" or something similar, this is the list I want - I do believe there should be debate about the inclusion criteria and about how many existing entries already meet that criteria and what to do with the rest but that is a debate for the talk page not for an DR, I have my opinion but if it has no consensus then it will not be put into place - you talk like I should already have another article and that it would automatically be accepted - that's not the case and a debate on the talk page needs to occur once the AFD is overturned. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

recent close of Jewish British Entertainers is already showing that the intersection is notable

Community consensus (or rather, "majority vote" from the same four or five AfD-hopping individuals) does not determine notability. That's original research 101. I'm shocked I even read that.

whilst one of the sources is about ethnicity and the connection between ethnically Jewish actors and their performances.

Link to that one again, please. And page numbers.

I have never denied this list is a notable intersection

Allow me to show one of the several places you have: Not all Jewish Actors are notable for being Jewish Actors, however those that are should be listed. This is a list of all Jewish actors. You just stated I have never denied this list is a notable intersection. That statement above contradicts this. You want a list that only includes individuals whose Judaism is relevant to their acting career. Your criteria for that is all over the place, with no direction whatsoever. You want us to have some sort of talk page discussion panel on finding a criteria - who to include and who not to include. We don't do that. That's original research. "Jewish actors" is just that. A list of "people who are Jewish and who are actors." For something else, you need a name change per WP:NOTDIR #6 because the name "Jewish actors" is not, by itself, a notable intersection -- as "being Jewish" and "being an actor" is not a culturally significant phenomenon. You, personally, may consider that to be a notable intersection, but there's nothing to support you in that. Also, I'm not the only who thinks this article doesn't work. Here and in the previous AfD, numerous people have suggested that this list right now (without improvements) does not maintain notability, including DustFormsWords, Yworo, SnottyWong, Wolfstorm, JN466, Therexbanner, All Hallow's Wraith, and the old Stuart.Jamison.

you talk like I should already have another article and that it would automatically be accepted

If it was based on sources that specifically say "This person's ethnic heritage influenced his acting because..." (not in those words, but in that general gist)... then yes, it would be automatically accepted. Wikipedia users do not create lists based on "community consensus"... but based on what multiple reliable sources state. If multiple reliable sources exist (which you seem to claim they do) to support that criteria, there's no valid reason a list wouldn't be "accepted."

...and we should only look for an identification of "Jewish" from reliable sources whether or not the source identifies whether the individual is ethnically or religiously Jewish.

Yet again, Synthesis 101. If you're building a list on the basis of the notability between Jewish ethnicity and acting. You cannot include individuals who are not ethnically Jewish. Therefore, merely using a link that says "Jewish" is improper if there exists another source that states they are converts. If, however, you're building a list based on the notability between Elements in Judaism as a religion with Acting (which is what some of the sources say - most notability the Jewish theatre ones), then you can't include merely ethnic, non-religious Jews.

I believe the list covers the wider intersection of Jewish Culture and Acting and have said so on several time...

You can believe that all you want, but your belief doesn't support the existence of a list. Not every actor with ethnically Jewish blood has a connection to "Jewish culture" and "Jewish culture" does not directly have a connection to "acting" -- and not a single source presented has stated otherwise (though that's obvious).

...highlighting the fact that Secular Jewish culture should be the head article.

Secular Jewish culture has one section on Yiddish theatre which is totally irrelevant for everyone on this list except Boris Thomashefsky. Its section on "Film" is three paragraphs long. One paragraph is about films in Yiddish. Relevant for maybe three or four people on this list at most. The second paragraph is about Jews founding the studio system. Not relevant to this list. The third (and frankly, ridiculous) paragraph is just a list of Jewish film composers. The section on "Radio and television" briefly mentions The Goldbergs - a Jewish sitcom - and then goes on to provide a contentless list of some Jewish comedians and Jewish show-starters. It's basically "Look who's Jewish!" trivia, providing no content on why it's relevant. How on earth does any of that provide a head article for this list?

Summary Despite what you're saying now, you originally wanted this list to only include actors whose Judaism somehow influences their acting. You want people to "create" a criteria for this list. Considering the title of the list is "Jewish actors," we can't do that without resorting to some kind of OR. Even if we could, Townlake and Span, in the previous AfD, both make the same point that finding a neutral criteria for this list is impossible. All Hallow's Wraith gave examples of that in the AfD. I gave plenty of examples of that above. There might be a source somewhere that says a few Jewish actors were persecuted or pigeonholed into playing only Jewish roles. Okay, for those actors - if you can find their names - create a list. For the other 200+ actors, you have nothing. Bulldog123 17:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really can't help yourself can you - you simply have to try and argue even when your arguments resemble nothing I've said to you and ignore our previous discussions on the subject - Feel free to keep going...

You disagree with the closing admin on List of British Entertainers, take it to another Deletion Review or submit it for an AfD at the moment it stands as not trivial or arbitrary,
I've listed the sources and if you can't tell which one has the word "ethnicity" in the title then I can't help you I'm afraid - You have failed to provide any sources that claim that Jewish Actors are an Arbitrary grouping, all you can do is try and discredit the wealth of sources that suggest otherwise - unfortunately picking holes in 1 or 2 does not stop them being reliable nor deal with the wealth of other texts on the subject.
That is not a claim that this is not a notable intersection, it is a claim that some entries are not notable as Jewish Actors, I've stated before that I disagree with the inclusion of Singers or Models who may have some screen time (either as themselves or in character) but it is only a tiny part of their career and hardly makes them notable as an Actor (Jewish or Otherwise). It is also a statement that if there is no coverage in sources of either their being Jewish and being an Actor they don't get included.
Again you bring in the word ethnicity, this is your word not mine - This is a list of "Jewish Actors" it is not a list of "Actors who practise Judaism" or a list of "Actors with some Jewish ethnicity" sources have to explicitly state that the person is Jewish - This was Jayjg's interpretation of BLP policy and I see no reason to change from that.
I'll say again, all but one of the sources give failed to distinguish between Ethnic Jewishness and others are very clear that they are about Jewish culture so putting it down to "My belief" is again dismissing the notable intersection that is proven by sources.
The sources given should either be used to improve Secular Jewish Culture as a head article, or another head article should be written based on this notable intersection. Your attempt to dismiss this as an argument seems to be based around some belief that WP is complete and that the head article should be a reliable source justifying the existence of the list - per:WP:IRS this is not the case and in fact List and category policy are based on the principal that the head article *could* be written not that it already has been. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you flip-flop between positions and intentionally ignore the major points (those being: impossibility of finding criteria that will establish notability between an actor's Judaism and their acting/sources do not substantiate this list), yes, I'll keep going. I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm consistent in my position and always have been.

I don't take things to DR just because I disagree with the outcome. That seems more like something you'd do.
If you're referring to Acting Jewish: Negotiating Ethnicity on the American Stage and Screen, we've long ago established what that has to offer. For God's sake, the title alone tells you what the book is about. An hour of skimming the limited preview and it's exactly what it says it is.
You have failed to provide any sources that claim that Jewish Actors are an Arbitrary grouping - Yeah... I'm sorry... there is no book in existence called "Jewish Actors: It's an Irrelevant Intersection! by J.J. Marks". That remark was a little desperate. All you can do is try and discredit the wealth of sources that suggest otherwise - That's what we do on Wikipedia. We try to find sources that are relevant. Unfortunately, you haven't found any. You found a sentence here and there that's "kind of/barely" related to the subject... and that's about it. Anyone who has a "neutral" position on this can tell you that. That books exist with the words "Jewish" and "Acting" in the title isn't helping prove that "being Jewish" and "being an actor" creates fairy-dust magic that makes everyone deemed Jewish by some source share an otherwise unrealized cultural bond.
The sources given should either be used to improve Secular Jewish Culture as a head article, or another head article should be written based on this notable intersection. - Yes, that would be nice. And no, that the head article isn't complete (or even very good) isn't my point. My point is the head article has not even the slightest bit of content supporting this list. And judging from the sources you've given, probably will never have relevant content. So how is it even considered a head article? That's like saying Lesbians is enough of a head article for List of LGBT physicists.
Yes, that BLP requires us to shut our minds off and only report when someone is "Jewish" is the whole reason this list is such a mess and should be deleted and is part of the reason why this intersection is such a huge synthesis of unrelated material. It's also what All Hallow's Wraith and I are talking about when we're showing you why there is no possible criteria for inclusion without it being out-right OR.
Since you're just going to plow forward with this "Sources prove notable intersection!" ridiculousness... I'll go through the provided sources one-by-one:

The Jew in American Cinema (Jewish Literature and Culture) by Patricia Erens

Here is the synopsis on Amazon:

Placing cinematic representations of the "Jew" within their historical context, Bartov demonstrates the powerful political, social, and cultural impact of these images on popular attitudes. He argues that these representations generally fall into four categories: the "Jew" as perpetrator, as victim, as hero, and as anti-hero. Examples range from film's early days to the present, from Europe, Israel, and the United States.

Could it be any more clear? Because the book occasionally (about 7 times) mentions a Jewish actor was befittingly chosen for a Jewish role, does not justify a giant list of all actors who are Jewish nor does it make "being Jewish" and "being an actor" any more notably connected.

Jewish identities in German popular entertainment, 1890-1933 By Marline Otte

Book doesn't seem to talk about Jewish actors at all, with the exception of mentioning that Jewish actors at the Metropol Theatre rejected typecasting. Okay. Also mentions that Jewish actors didn't like to make their Jewishness apparent in the theatre, preferring to keep their personal lives private. Yeah... the same can be said for basically all actors of any background - especially "ethnic" actors. Assimilation because of zenophobia and racism isn't a specifically Jewish phenomenon and by no means justifies this list (where 90% of the occupants never faced racism, zenophobia, or anti-semitism in their career-lives).

Jewish Culture and Identity in the Soviet Union By Yaacov Ro'i, Avi Beker

Doesn't talk about "Jewish actors" in the sense this list describes at all. Does mention "Yiddish actors" and a theatre with Mountain Jews. Great for History of the Jews in Russia.

America on film: representing race, class, gender, and sexuality at the movies By Harry M. Benshoff, Sean Griffin

Talks about Jewish actors hiding their ethnicity and Christianizing themselves by Americanizing their names. Something the book suggests is by no means a "Jewish phenomenon," but a phenomenon within every single ethnic/religious group of actors. If you want to make a list called List of actors forced to hide their ethnicity by changing their names... okay...

Acting: an International encyclopedia by Beth Osnes

Like you already said, talks about the expulsion of Jews from German theatres. Who on this list does that apply to exactly?

Honestly... are we done here? You can promulgate that these sources "establishes universal notability of this intersection" but anyone can see for themselves that all you have here are tangentially-related informational tidbits that do nothing of the sort. Bulldog123 20:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fine load of Hyperbole there. Outwith these sources, the article is full of reliable sources about individuals where having Jewishness as an Actor or Entertainer(pertaining to acting) is identified as notable[61][62] [63][64]your attempts to suggest otherwise with the above links whilst repeating off events and experiences that simply highlight rather than diminish that notability. As for flip-floping, I have never flip-floped, otherwise I would not have campaigned for this list in it's current format to be kept. I have however tried to show a willingness to make concessions to those suggesting it should be deleted on the grounds of missing inclusion criteria or general notable intersection in an attempt to ensure that a core notable intersection with criteria might survive if nothing else. You pick and choose which arguments you wished to make against me and if you have chosen ones which represent those concessions then that was your choice and not an identification that I have flipped positions. If anyone has made this an AfD2 look at your own position which regularly disagrees with the closing Admin who stated that managability of the list was not a reasonable excuse to delete, yet still you raise this as a reason the list should be deleted. This deletion review is on whether the admin closed properly, and on that I still disagree as the sources presented by the keeps were dismissed out of hand on the basis of a broad "no they don't" by the deletes - giving no more analysis of the sources than the keeps did. Had these sources not been critical, or had the deletes done more analysis as you have tried to do at the review then perhaps a delete might have been warranted but they were not an no-consensus was the outcome that should have been the closing decision. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I didn't participate in the discussion, and I don't know much about the topic itself, but to me this seems like a close that was well within the discretion of the closer to make. Overall, this seems like a pretty partisan discussion, with no one giving anyone else they disagree with the benefit of the doubt. I don't agree with a lot of what those in favour of deletion have said or how they have said it, but I do think the keep arguments were far weaker and as I said I think the closer was justified in closing this as was done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I really haven't figured out if I think we should or shouldn't have such articles, but there is no consensus in that discussion and I found the deletion arguments weaker than the keep arguments. Non-notable intersection seems unlikely given that we have quality sources that describe the intersection. That exactly who is Jewish can lead to problems is true, but I don't think the inclusion criteria for the list is so fuzzy as to make the list meaningless. That said, this also fell short of being a clear keep as there are issues here. So... Hobit (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable intersection seems unlikely given that we have quality sources that describe the intersection.

Where are these "quality sources that describe the intersection"? Scroll up and look through the provided Google Book links and show me just one book that has more than a handful of sentences academically discussing the overreaching cultural, biologically, psychological, or whatever-have-you connection between the subject of "People who are described as Jewish" and "People who are actors." ...not Yiddish theatre, not Jewish film characters, not Jewish-based cinema, not conspiracy theories about Jews running Hollywood, not antisemitism in Germany, and not antisemitism in Russia. I want to see where the secondary source information is for Jewish Acting (not actors acting Jewish but Jewish Acting) in the same way as I can show you this source for this article. Bulldog123 10:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus - Having followed this discussion for the past week, and seen the result of recent similar AfDs (here and here, for example), there is clearly no consensus to delete articles of this kind, or this article in particular. I think the perception that there is a strong wish to delete is largely illusory, manufactured through the deletion enthusiasm of Bulldog123 and the weakness of the Keep arguments at the original discussion. Now that a wider section of the Wikipedia has had time to consider the matter and contribute, it seems clear that if an identical article were created today and immediately taken to AfD it would be not be deleted, and therefore the AfD closure should be overturned to "no consensus". - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs with under 13 votes, where the majority of participants are the same batch of roaming partisan delete and keep voters... do not automatically set community consensus precedent. However, if that's the way you view things, I might point out that you neglected to mention these recent related-AfDs ([65], [66], [67]) which closed in the opposite way. Or related debates that actually ended with overall consensus ([68], [69]). So... what you're doing is a lot of cherry-picking. I'd also like to point out there's no negative connotation to "deletion enthusiasm" anymore than there is with the "keep enthusiasm" exhibited by Stuart.Jamison... and it's interesting you call out my name in particular. Furthermore, that you readily admit weakness of the Keep arguments at the original discussion means you should be endorsing the close at this DR. This isn't supposed to be AfD Round 2 - even though all these overturn arguments are making it like that. Bulldog123 10:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Rationales admin cited for deletion were sound, and decision to delete was not clear error. Large-scale relitigation of the AFD here is amusing given the significant canvassing issues that colored the original AFD. Townlake (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Extrasolar Dwarf Planet – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here is what I wrote on CSD G4 speedy delete admin Spartaz's home page:

"You listen here! I have made articles about extrasolar dwarf planets on Wikipedia and I have not cared about the name. I had been told that there is a problem with Exodwarf Planet as a name so fine Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is the same idea. Frankly while Exodwarf is not a real word. Exodwarf planet is! I was told that Extrasolar Dwarf Planet is acceptable and peer reviewed, a real word. You have expanded Wikipedia rules beyond what they are here. You are hereby challenged."[70]

Frankly on the article PSR B1257+12 D it speaks of extrasolar dwarf planets. I had said this before, MY ARTICLE WAS ABOUT A CONCEPT. THE NAME DOES AND DID NOT MATTER! I know enough to know that something that is not a word should not be declared one. I'm not interested in an exact name. I never was! Enough with this overzealous inquisition and literalness! The page was said to be there during the debate about exodwarf planet. All I did was add content. -- Yisraelasper ( talk ) 05:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- I don't think the debate could have been closed any other way, and reposting the exact same article under a slightly different name doesn't help. The article was deleted because it liked to the creator's blog and user comments on other sites in order to promote a neologism. Under the new name it is arguably no longer a neologism but the extremely poor sourcing is still an issue. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Seems like the proper close. FWIW if you want something undeleted its best not to disparge the deleting admin. This nomination is exactly how not to get a deletion overturned. Them From Space 08:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Don't Endorse Let's get something straight here. There is no neologism. There is only promotion of the topic, the concept. By now the word exodwarf planet/extrasolar dwarf planet is a real word. Saying exodwarf by itself without adding the words dwarf planet is not a real word at least not yet and I do not care what they call an extra/exo/(solar)/dwarf (planet). I have never cared. It is the concept that is important to me. As for supposedly disparaging the deleting commitee I wasn't being insulting. The Spanish Inquisition was not meant. It is however frustrating when you are being judged without the taking into account on the part of at least some of the judges the evidence and arguments you give on your own behalf. Also rather than be focused on the article you concentrate on the motivation. Who brings an article they don't care about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisraelasper (talk • contribs) 12:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have featured articles on both Dwarf planet and Extrasolar planet. Only one (1) extrasolar dwarf planet is known to exist (PSR B1257+12 A which has its own article), so this material could only be about extrasolar dwarf planets as a group. I don't think we need any coverage of the group until some others are found.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- are you saying you think it a real possibility that there is only one such, & that we fortunately happen to have already found it? DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I rather imagine that there are more! I'm actually fairly interested in the subject. (I wrote, and maintain, the not entirely unrelated article on HIP 56948.) It's just that there isn't anything factual to say about extrasolar dwarf planets that isn't already covered in dwarf planet, extrasolar planet or PSR B1257+12 A. Such content could only be speculative and I don't believe there's enough speculation in reliable sources to justify a separate article on extrasolar dwarf planets as a group.—S Marshall T/C 09:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I did at User talk:James McBride#Planet of the dwarfs, I call your attention to This and this. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Deletion discussion read correctly, no wrongdoing noted. The virtual slapping of Spartaz with a gauntlet ("You are hereby challenged" ? Are you the Black Knight ?) was fairly lulzy though. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This group of people seem to think "Extrasolar Dwarf Planet" it is a word [71], second from the last paragraph. Arguing with them about it might not be wise. Warrior777--Warrior777 14:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC) (I'm going to sign this post but it doesn't seem to be functioning correctly)[reply]
- It's a phrase. If it was a word, we could send it to wiktionary. What it isn't is a viable separate article.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reminds me of the time someone posted cert. granted sub nom. as an "article", when it's two separate legal terms that happened to be in a string in a particular instance, and the terms don't get any different or additional meaning by their combination. Next will be "distant planet", "large asteroid", and "fuzzy puppy", because hey, those are "words" in use, huh? postdlf (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Comment - In February 2009, Bernard Asper "invented the slowly catching on word exodwarf and wrote an article about planet definition on my blog that I am fixing to allow comments on. ... I came up with the word because the IAU reserves the term dwarf planet for our solar system and yet they mixed everybody up by their debating that some have been using the term for outside the solar system as well. So if the word dwarf planet can't be officially used for outside our solar system I decided to invent a new term for such dwarf planets, namely Exodwarf Planets or exodwarfs for cool shortness."[72] AfD Exodwarf planet 25 November 2010 resulted in deleting the Exodwarf planet article. The topic was renamed Extrasolar Dwarf Planet and reposted. Extrasolar Dwarf Planet was wp:CSD G4 speedy deleted on 6 December 2010. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion - Initially using Bernard Asper's coined term "Exodwarf" to name the article dominated the AfD delete discussion as most delete position rightfully didn't like using Wikipedia to promote a personal agenda (promoting Bernard Asper's coined term "Exodwarf"). In view of that AfD, renaming the article with "Extrasolar" is substantial new information that at least overcomes a G4 speedy deletion. Extrasolar is a term that has wide usage within Wikipedia.[73]. The topic deserves consensus evaluation without the blinding promotion provided by the term exodwarf. Yisraelasper, as an alternate approach, you might first try to add the content to a new subsection of extrasolar planet entitled "Extrasolar dwarf planet" and then develop a WP:SPINOUT article if enough info for a stand alone article is developed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 December 2010

Category:Music, mind and body – Deletion endorsed. – T. Canens (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deleted by vote, not consensus. Vote misinterpreted. Proposer gave "kill OR RENAME". Seconder later modified opinion to "rename". I and another editor backed "rename". Two further editors backed "recategorise under top level" (ie Category:Music, although the top-level category is otherwise fully diffused). Two editors backed "delete" but did not respond to further discussion so not "consensual". Request for notice of deletion by me ignored. Result - many articles (eg Category:Music therapy) currently no longer categorised under "Music", which is absurd and counter-productive. Reasons given for deletion cannot be identified among possible reasons given on page. Restoration may, if necessary, be temporary. Redheylin (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've notified the closer for you. I'll await his reply before !voting, in the hope that he'll clarify his reasoning. A better closing statement would certainly have been helpful.—S Marshall T/C 17:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Close as moot~~ Comment. I've gone through the articles and categories that were removed when the category was deleted and I've ensured that each one is appropriately categorized in either Category:Music or an subcategory of Category:Music. All but 3 articles were already appropriately categorized. Many of them are in subcategories, e.g., Category:Musicology or Category:Music therapy, which is why they don't currently appear in the main category Category:Music. Other articles, like Psychology of art, are probably not appropriately placed in Category:Music or a subcategory at all, but rather reside is more broad categories such as Category:Creativity. (The example the nominator gives, of Category:Music therapy not being in Category:Music, is incorrect. The closer put Category:Music therapy back into Category:Music after the discussion was closed.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator says the consensus was to rename, but the category was deleted. What's moot about that?—S Marshall T/C 21:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought that's why he said "Restoration may, if necessary, be temporary."—because he wanted the articles categorized in Category:Music. If that's not what he meant, why did he say restoration only need be temporary? His nomination here is not too clear with respect to what exactly he is seeking. I read the nomination's central complaint as being the fact that the deletion left certain articles not within the Category:Music tree. That is a moot issue. If that's not what his nomination is focused on, I'm willing to offer an alternate opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear some work done. Not glad respondents have failed to notify me, since I have done considerable work on categorising performance arts, particularly music, and notified my concerns before nominating here. As I previously explained to respondent; the thousands of such edits I have contributed includes entire diffusion of the head categories as well as work towards coherent and seamless interfaces with related disciplines, e.g. I have spent some time interfacing with electronics, acoustics, geography, anthropology, and I still cannot find a reason to object to a category that aids improvement of wiki's account of physiological and psychological aspects of music, such as the voice and the ear, perception, movement, which remains shaky. And I simply do not see a consensus to delete - objections seemed to be to some common negative private associations with the phrase "mind and body". I do not see how this perception, which I do not share or recognise, falls within the stated remit of the CfD process as a reason for deletion, and more editors supported renaming than supported simple deletion.Redheylin (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Not glad respondents have failed to notify me". If you started this DRV, it is to be assumed that you are watching the discussion and will be notified of any comments here made. In any case, no one is required to notify you when they add categories to an article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Seems pretty clear to me. --Kbdank71 16:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation "Restoration may be temporary if necessary" - until a satisfactory means of categorising articles on psychology and physiology of music can be decided. This is at present not the case - some articles in this category have indeed been restored to the top category, which is otherwise fully diffused. The relevant physiology articles, however, have not been restored. As stated, it is not possible to distinguish mind and body when dealing with perception and CfD has no remit to decide what articles will and will not appear under any category. No valid reason has yet been given for deletion of category which is clearly defined and useful. Redheylin (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "CfD has no remit to decide what articles will and will not appear under any category." I'm not sure that I agree with that. When a category is deleted or merged to another via CfD, it is essentially a decision that the articles in the category "will not appear under" that particular category any longer. It's also possible that the CfD decision could be read as saying that no category is needed to group what you are aiming to group. I know that's not satisfactory to you, but from my reading of the discussion it was fine with most other users. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas." Still looking for your own reason for deletion; "reminds an editor of Oprah Winfrey". I am sure that it is clear to what my comment above referred: "The relevant physiology articles, however, have not been restored." I am not able to find any discussion on CfD of the utility of grouping articles on the psychology and physicology of music - a matter upon which much material exists. In fact, I am not able to discover the slightest acknowledgement that this is actually the category's purpose. I dispute the capacity of CfD to pronounce upon musical matters. I dispute that consensus was reached. I dispute that a majority voted for deletion. Redheylin (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not really a forum to rehash arguments from CFD, but if you read carefully you can find my reasons. My comments about Oprah were to highlight what I think is the nonsense or catch-all nature of the category. Then I added: "If not nonsense, then it's at least excessively overbroad. It can be interpreted in multiple ways, and as such is not a satisfactory means of categorization. There is no need to move most of these categories out of Category:Music." I would place this under the header of a "generally bad idea", if you're looking for it to be slotted into one of those you mention from the instructions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Psychology/music: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=psychology+music+bibliography&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
    Physiology http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=physiology+music+bibliography&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=1
    Note, under the latter, Guthrie's comment (Guthrie 1938): "Anatomy, physiology, phonetics, physics, music, psychology are only a few of the sciences involved in a study of voice. Naturally enough, the literature of the subject is widely scattered. It is not easy to find a synopsis of present-day knowledge of the mechanics of voice." You have just destroyed such a synopsis. Why? -- Redheylin (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, are you saying that the creation of this category was essentially original research which added a synopsis of a particular topic when no such synopsis was easy to find before? If so, that seems to constitute another good reason it was deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I am not - the article itself is such a "synthesis" (which I am sure you meant, as I have added no articles or research myself) and it was published in 1938. Now, if you'd be good enough to stop leaping here and there in search of an argument and simply explain your deletion in terms of stated CfD policy? No Oprah Winfrey. No allegations of bad faith. No appeals to a non-existent consensus. No "Close as moot". Just; why do you believe ONLY articles about the psychology of music should be in the top-level Category:Music, why are only some of them there and under what policy have you deleted articles on the physiology of music from Category:Music? Redheylin (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        See my comment above, where I restate my own deletion rationale and expand on it. (Incidentals: No, I meant "synopsis"; I was repeating your use of the term. I have never made an allegation of bad faith against you. Nor do I believe what you have stated I believe, starting at "why do you believe". I have not removed any articles from Category:Music. They are all present in the category or one of its subcategories.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I see - you have inserted an answer further up the page. You have said; "There is no need to move most of these categories out of Category:Music." However, not just categories are involved; some articles on music and psychology are dumped in the main category - where they are indeed the only class of article. So I am asking you "why do you believe these articles alone, out of the whole field of music, should appear only in the main category?" If you do not believe this, it is difficult to see why you have insisted upon it. Meanwhile other articles on the same subject, such as Eye movement in music reading do not appear there. That article notes correctly "the phenomenon has been studied by researchers from a range of backgrounds, including cognitive psychology and music education" - but it is not categorised under either, nor even under Category:Eye. It is categorised under "Music notation", which is inadequate. I found that article last week: I have since found further related articles - there is nowhere to bring them together, to keep track of them and cross-reference them.
        The insinuation of sockpuppetry you left on my talk page is indeed an allegation of bad faith - you then appear to suggest that I am "bitter". I fear your view of things may have distorted your perception of a "consensus to delete" which is simply not there - there is not even a majority vote to delete.
        Articles on the ear and the human voice no longer appear under Category:Music. Please try to be accurate and to take account of the complex job with which you are interfering.
        You did not use the word "synopsis" but "original research" - and, as I pointed out, I have added nothing, just brought related articles together. This would be "original synthesis" - except that, as long ago as 1938, the "synthesis" was performed by Guthrie in the cited article, as is perfectly obvious from the quote.
        I explained that "Music, mind and body" is intended to receive only articles that are classifiable under "Music" and also under "Mind/Psychology" and "Human Body/Physiology". I note you have not taken any notice of this: I apologise if it is too difficult to understand, but in no case has anyone included any other article there. You say that the phrase "can be interpreted in other ways" - you have not given any other way and nobody has misinterpreted. In any case, this is an argument for renaming, not deletion. But please feel free to explain how "music, mind and body" may be understood to concern articles other than those concerned with music, mind and body. Perhaps you could cite an article that might have been mistakenly categorised there, but hasn't been? Then we will all understand why it is such a "bad idea" to gather together articles on the subject. -- [User:Redheylin|Redheylin]] (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I can see this is devolving into CFD round #2, which DRV is not supposed to be, so I'm going to cease participation in it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        This was a senseless, destructive, incivil and arbitrary deletion without consensus and far beyond the remit of CfD. Redheylin (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (!) It probably also had something to do with the death of the last unicorn. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the closer five days to explain his close, and he hasn't. All I've got to work with is his closing statement which is inadequate. There's a whole bunch of "delete" !votes and no "keep" !votes, but all of the !votes are followed up by statements of opinion, some of which are unbecomingly contemptuous and discourteous. What the debate participants should have provided, and didn't, are politely-worded, policy-based reasons to delete.
The actual objection seems to be that this category is thought to be ambiguous, nebulous and overly broad. In order to analyse this deletion, it's necessary to decide whether there's actually any rule that such a category violates.
Well, this category doesn't involve living people. Categories are inherently unreferenceable, so verifiability can't reasonably apply, and this one is NPOV and not a copyright violation. Conclusion: No policy is violated. We're down to guidelines. I find the guidelines for categories (which are WP:CAT, WP:CLN and WP:OC) extremely subjective and hard to parse. There don't seem to be objective yes-or-no tests of the kind we have at AfD, MfD or FfD. I've just manually gone through WP:CAT, WP:OC, and WP:CLN looking for any guideline that says "delete ambiguous or overly-broad categories" and as of the time of typing there is not.
So as far as I can see there are no rules against this category at all. What that discussion boils down to is "delete because I don't like it." In short, I can't condone this deletion at all; if there's a de facto guideline about this that hasn't been written down anywhere, then those who believe in it need to document the standards they believe should exist, so that editors can read and understand the rules, and discuss them if necessary, before they become active in the field of catgories. Overturn to keep.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep - Per S Marshall. This matter had my head spinning until I found a purpose of the category: Category:Music, mind and body includes any musical topic that might also be filed under both "psychology" and "physiology". I'm taking Redheylin's word that sets of related articles for the topic exist as Redheylin seems to have an understanding of the area and what he is trying to accomplish (we should give it time to develop). Of course, Wikipedia doesn't call physiology "body" or call psychology "head" and the category should be renamed to something like Category:Music that affects both psychology and physiology. A subcategory might be Category:Music therapy since a therapists can use music that affects both psychology and physiology in his/her work. A parent category might be Category:Musicology and/or Category:Physiological psychology. In any event, the delete reactions to the category were because they did not like the category name, which is not a basis to close the CfD as delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (changed from above). I misinterpreted what the nominator was seeking. I was initially under the impression that the nominator wanted to ensure that a merge actually took place as opposed to a full restoration of the category, so after I ensured that all the articles were appropriately categorized in Category:Music and its subcategories, I thought the proposal was moot. If the nominator is actually seeking for reversal of the decision to delete the category, I have to say I endorse the action that was taken, and I can't see a consensus in the discussion for keeping the category. There were six votes for deletion and two for keeping or renaming, and one of those was from a single-purpose account. I don't see how this could be closed in any other way than how it was. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus is not "I created the category and made the biggest argument while everyone else by comparsion was WP:JUSTAVOTE". Consensus is what is considered and argued to be be best for Wikipedia, and a category such as this, with its catch-all and 'new-agey' title, isn't in Wikipedia's best interest. Category:Music and the human body or Category:Music and psychology would be good, meaningful categories; Category:Music, mind and body is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Bushranger. The category's name and focus are far too vague and in retrospect, no rename could've worked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Threaten to slap the unbecomingly contemptuous and discourteous !voters, but cannot fault the closer. The category inclusion criteria are not obviously defined, and a parent article would definitely be needed first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOFIXIT, uh, Endorse I don't see this "consensus", only a bit of side discussion about renaming which was inconclusive. If another category can be formed that makes some sense, then go create it. I think the legalism of insisting this category be recreated and then renamed (thereby requiring another discussion) is not worth all the typing. Mangoe (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 December 2010

Making Pumpkin Pie – Endorsed, someone is playing silly games. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC) – Guy (Help!) 19:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was deleted immediately. The deletion was not under any deletion policies. The deleter supposedly thought that the page was a hoax but I assure you it was not. I think the problem is that I didn't have any sources for it. I have found sources now. Mwywy (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What was the context of the article? Is this something other than a pie recipe? Tarc (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseIt was speedy deleted as a blatant hoax, and it is not exactly that, but close enough. It is apparently intended to be a humorous description of what is claimed to be the large-scale industrial production of the product, and for all I know might have some small parts that are correct. I have been unable to find a reference on the actual industrial technique on the scale depicted, though of course there are hundreds of sources for small-scale production. FWIW, as it is relatively harmless, I have temporarily restored it. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - a perfectly proper speedy per WP:CSD#G3 hoax: the author cannot have supposed it to be literally true. Mwywy, you are new here: you should read Wikipedia:Verifiability. There are sites like Uncyclopedia that would like this jokey sort of thing, but here we are trying to be serious. If you can show a reliable source for these statements, I shall - be extremely surprised:
- "Making Pumpkin Pie is a relatively tricky procedure that was first developed in England in 1744"
- "Many a yeoman farmer and their appretinces have spent countless hours refining their knowlege of the culling of the pumpkins. In England, a farmer that specialises in pumpkin culling for pie purposes is known by several technical names and usually comes from lands that once made up the ancient Kingdom of Mercia."
- "After the process of the twelve-hour mashing, the pulp is then heremetically sealed in a copper basin, to which several chemical agents are added in increments over the course of six weeks in the fall."
- "The fierce competition amongst pumpkinmasters in all stages of the complex making pumpkin pie process spurred innovation and development in several agricultural and industrial processes."

JohnCD (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by author of the article. I was not trying to joke around or be "funny." I posted that article yesterday in a half-finished form because I had to get off the computer at a certain time. When I logged back on to finish up the article, it had already been deleted. I do have several sources for the article. I had some copy editing and other improvements to make to it as well. If I may, can I continue to work on the article and properly polish it and source it, and then perhaps we can put the article up for a full deletion discussion if the outcome of this discussion is unfavorable to the article?

I could probably start working on the article again on Monday, adding sources, and have the version I had planned up and running by Thursday perhaps. This weekend is not good for me to work on Wikipedia because I have a shit load of school work to finish up today and tomorrow. Mwywy (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Mwywy (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article could maybe be "userfied" into your user space for you to work on, but before considering that, here is a test: Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source." What is your source for the first statement listed above, about "first developed in England in 1744"? Our article Pumpkin pie#History says it was introduced to Tudor England, and went to America "with the Pilgrim Fathers", i.e. early 17th century. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Response. Well, since when is a wikipedia article either "reliable" or a "published source"? The article on pumpkin pie's history is inaccurate, just the mere phrase "The pilgrim fathers" reeks of political and social bias as well. Whose "fathers" were they? Certainly not mine, sir. Mwywy (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article cites a source. The question is, can you? JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting, did you check the source? It's from the OPINION column in a NEWSPAPER. Not exactly the most reliable basis for knowledge for seventeenth-century culinary history, no? So that "source" is not all it seems. Furthermore, that opinion piece itself had no sources nor any indication that the author of the opinion column had any idea what they were talking about. Don't believe everything you read on the op-ed page of the paper. And check the source of the source. Epic fail. Mwywy (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, for the third time of asking, what is your source for 1744? JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, for the third time, are you going to address my concerns about YOUR source? Mwywy (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Load of total rhubarb. From Pumpkin pie: "The Pilgrims brought the pumpkin pie back to New England, but it subsequently died out in England itself.". Referenced statement. You didn't get crofters in the Midlands. Yeomen yes, but not growing vast fields of pumpkins. Like JohnCD, I would like to see references for those statements. And I would suggest concentrating on your schoolwork and not on creating what I can best describe as a hoax. If those statements can be reliable referenced, I am prepared to apologise. I'm not expecting to have to. Peridon (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pumpkin pie's been around for over three hundred years (source) so it couldn't have been invented in 1744. I believe the pumpkin plant itself is native to Mexico. The tradition of scooping out a bulbous plant to make a Jack O'Lantern at Halloween is originally Irish, but started out using turnips rather than pumpkins (source). No doubt the Irish made pies out of their turnips, but then (from the source above), the French invented a recipe using pumpkin in a pie. In short, what the sources I can find suggest is that we've got a New World plant being grafted onto an Irish tradition according to a French recipe in Tudor England.—S Marshall T/C 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Well within the deleting administrator's discretion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- clearly this was the right call by the deleting administrator. Reyk _YO! 00:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clearly fails core policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Political scandals of the United States – Overturned A detailed vote review demonstrates that the !votes to overturn (outright) equal those for overturning to no consensus and those for endorsing combined. Reviewing the AfD, I further note that a !vote from an "obvious sock" was struck even though the most damning of two checkuser results was "possible". While the BLP issues raised indeed seem meritorious, the less disruptive option seems to be to patrol the article and limit its scope to combat recentism. I find this DRV troubling, in that an AfD was neglected and limited discussion of poor quality resulted in a decision DRV was so ready to overturn; more AfD participation might well have prevented the churn – Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just closed this as delete based on giving less value to ILIKEIT keep votes vs well founded concerns about scope and propensity for BLP vios but the page had more then 5000 revisions which gives me pause as it needs a dev to delete this and would not be easy for an admin to undelete it should the deletion be challenged at a later date. I would appreciate review of my close prior to seeking deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Not at all casting aspersions on this editor, some ppl just have this style, but the bulk of that is due to the micro-edits of Richrakh (talk · contribs), who according to the wikichecker accounts for 1,958 of them. So, a heavily-edited page, yes, technically-speaking. But that doesn't mean the same thing as other pages in the 5k edit range. Apart from that, the close is fine, weak "its notable/interesting" keeps as usual. What exactly is a "scandal" anyways is highly subjective, and no ideal for a list criteria. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I see no consensus in the debate. Numerically, it's 7:5:X (where X is a random comment on oral sex or similar). I think the BLP complaints are without merit. The article is not inherently a BLP violation. If there are entries that are, the answer is to fix these particular entries, not to delete the whole article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or Relist There was not consensus to delete. The citing of the article was the main problem;It was however fully cited during the discussion--and essentially every one of the Delete opinions came before that was done. When an article is improved to the extent that it answers the main stated objection, the earlier opinion have no validity. I think the admin did realize that, for he quite correctly did not give this as a reason for his decision. Rather, his reasons were , "propensity for BLP" --but that is a criterion that could apply to half on Wikipedia, and "concerns about scope" -- the article very carefully defines the scope, and the application to any particular case is a question for the talk p. It seems obvious that almost all the entries fall very clearly within any reasonable view of the scope--there are one or two that I think do not fall within the scope, such as Joe Wilson, but that is no reason to condemn the entire article. I point out, as I pointed out at the AfD, that public political figures are a partial exception to many BLP concerns, as any criminal or even disreputable matter is relevant to their political role and this article is limited to such people. (Other BLP concerns, such as sourcing are of course relevant to them also) I would not support an article on "Scandals in the United States", regardless of excellent sourcing, because for most of the instances, it would not be relevant material. . With respect to the actual article, everything there is sourced, and the few entries that do not have a Wikipedia article are obvious qualified for them. Most of the ones that were not convicted or resigned under fire, are instances where the notability of the charges is so great (e.g. Preston Brooks) that they should be included. I recognize that the question of how to handle scandals where the people were truly exonerated and not just acquitted on technicalities is a bit of a problem--the inclusion of a few here among a great majority of the truly guilty gives erroneous implications; we might want to cover these is a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, (this applies to both of the above) "I think...", "I see...", etc...are not valid reasons to overturn an AfD. A difference of opinion is just that; you don't get to substitute your own judgment call over another's. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. If you want me to reformulate, I could: There was no consensus to delete.[...] The BLP concerns are without merit. [...]. I prefer, however, not to assume my or anybodies judgement is absolutely correct and final, hence I tend to use more nuanced phrasing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

overturn There was no consensus to delete. The article is completely cited, which means that the deletion arguments now have no merit. Complaints about BLP here are a canard: the same cited information in the underlying biographical articles do not receive BLP attention. Now we have the odd situation in which policial scandals regularly occur in the the US (as proven by the citations), but WP is not allowed to list them together for easy reference look up. By their definition, WP lists are the ideal place for such information collections-- explanatory notes can be added as well as citations. Hmains (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Per Tarc. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus with detailed analysis.—S Marshall T/C 21:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete !vote #1: — Extremely low weight to this !vote. Contributor is concerned with the current state of the article, when he should be concerned with its potential state. "Way too long" is fixable. "Probably uncompleteable" is fixable by giving better criteria for inclusion.
Delete !vote #2: — Disregard entirely, contributor is directly contradicting WP:CLN which he apparently hasn't read.
Delete !vote #3: — Disregard entirely, exactly per delete !vote 2.
Keep !vote #1: — Explicitly refutes delete !votes 1, 2 and 3.
Delete !vote #4: — Plays the "OMG WTF BLP nightmare!" card (henceforth to be known as deletionist debating tactic #1). Unfortunately, there's some justice to it so this has to be given full weight.
Keep !vote #2: — Asserts that the material is notable. So what? Nobody's saying it's not. Disregard entirely.
Keep !vote #3: — Asserts that the material is notable and encyclopaedic. So what? Nobody's saying it's not, disregard entirely.
Keep !vote #4: — Shows a genuine commitment to address the concerns that led to the nomination. Give full weight.
Keep !vote #5: — I see some passing editor has taken it upon himself to strike this out and replace it with an insulting note (diff). That was unfortunate, but the argument didn't add anything to the debate, so whichever way, disregard entirely.
Delete !vote # 5: — Lots of things wrong with this. First sentence is wrongly focused on the article's current content, not its potential state, so fixable. Second sentence is later refuted (Collect says "much is unsourced" but by the end of the AfD everything in the article was sourced). Third sentence is fixable. ("POV" doesn't mean "delete". It means "rewrite to NPOV".) Also plays the "BLP violations" card which is reasonable but had already been mentioned and given weight under delete !vote 4.
Keep !vote #6: — A patient and nuanced explanation of the policy-based reasons to keep this article. Give full weight, and also note that it explicitly refutes the original nomination.
Delete !vote #6: — Duplicates the mistake in delete !vote #1. Extremely low weight to this !vote accordingly.
Delete !vote #7: — Duplicates the mistakes in delete !votes #1 and #6, and also those of #2 and #3. Extremely low weight.
Commentary: None of this adds any weight to the arguments already presented.

Overall outcome was correctly to be read as "no consensus".

PS: Kudos to Spartaz for starting the DRV at this stage instead of later. Good call.—S Marshall T/C 21:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There were seven delete !votes, and your (otherwise strong) summary lists only six. One seems to have been left out. Was it mine by any chance? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, actually according to the statistics listed on the AfD there 8 delete votes versus 5 keeps. And several comments added that were answers to points brought up, both for and con. And no one that I have seen has yet to answer, why do we need a seperate list when this "scandals" belong with the peole commiting, unless they are large enough in scope to merit their own article? Wolfstorm000 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the eighth was the nomination itself, which also doesn't appear in the analysis. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does: I note under keep !vote 6 that the nomination was explicitly refuted. The delete !vote I missed was Collect's. I've now amended my summary to include it.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn due to the reasoning provided by S. Marshall above. While we are on the topic, what about doing a deletion review in all AFD before closing, just like this one. Mwywy (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The discussion was generally of poor quality with little reference to relevant policies such as WP:CLN or the abundant sourcing which is both out there and within the article. The discussion should either be closed as no consensus or relisted for further discussion. And frankly, it seems absurd that we shouldn't have an article which lists well known historical scandals like Teapot Dome and Watergate. These are standard history now and all the recentism should not get in the way of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus- based on my reading of the afd, I find it extremely hard to argue with S Marshall's arguments. I just really do not see anything remotely resembling a consensus in that afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus as there was none reached by the participants of the AfD under discussion. Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As way stated earlier, how do we define a "scandal"? One persons notoriety may be anothers normal life. An article such as this would be way to hard to keep WP:NPOV when the very definition would change from person to person. If there are significant issues with a person of politics, who is a major player, then they would have an article already and the "scandal" could be attached to that persons article. Like I said with the Monica Lewinsky case, there are so many rivers running through that forest you could devote an article just to that one scandal. There were multiple true scandals over the course of history and all had a major player involved whos article should show that. IMO it should be attached to the person, not listed somewhere. If someone is going to look up the scandal, then they would be looking for key players and should be directed to that persons article. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone explain how a 8 delete to 5 keep vote equals no consensus? Even if you follow S Marshall detailed analysis, half of the delete votes were automatically thrown out the door. However, half of the keep votes were also, so that would still leave a clear consensus of 4 to 2.5. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 16:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can 4:2.5 possibly be a consensus? Even a WP:CONSENSUS? It's barely a majority. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if I would consider 62% as barely a majority. 75% might be better, but it would still be a majority vote. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't count votes. Closers aren't supposed to, so vote counting doesn't properly form part of the DRV process. Counting votes (a) is an incentive to sockpuppetry and (b) disregards the strength of the arguments. What you're looking for is the arguments made during the debate and the extent to which they were refuted by subsequent posts.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely extending exactly what you and others did by itemizing the votes, not the discussions.Wolfstorm000 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're now degenerating into headcounting? Anyway, S Marshall's analysis - which does go examining the debate itself which is what should be done - doesn't really hold for me. One important delete !vote has been missed, but in any case, I don't think a one-by-one vote weight analysis is a particularly helpful approach for a closing admin, it leads to mistaking the forest for the trees. The closing admin should look at the debate as a whole, consider the main arguments raised and the extent to which they have policy and consensus support (try the vote-by-vote analysis on a TLDR AfD and you'll see what I mean). Also, Alzarian and Collect's arguments about scope looked sound to me. The concerns they raised cannot be dismissed as being "fixable". Of course, the BLP problems are fixable. I really don't know what to do about this one. --Mkativerata (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with scope are the same with any Wikipedia article, and can be solved the same way - use WP:RS to determine candidate and talk page discussion to find which facts to include and which not. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, Mkativerata: how do you parse how much weight to give each !vote without analysing each in turn?—S Marshall T/C 17:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually from what Ive read, I agree sourcing could be a fixable issue. Ive stated from the beginning that it could be possible, just very hard to keep up on. My opinion is and has been, why would this benefit anyone trying to research a person involved in a scandal? How do we neutrally define "scandal" and how would you keep it from violating WP:TLDR? Where would a list be justified when the players involved in the scandal should have their own page and, if notable enough, the scandal itself may have its own page. Seems a waste of time and resources to continually update something like this instead of just keeping up on the articles. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You read each !vote of course, but you don't engage in a vote-by-vote parsing. After reading each !vote, you'll have a good idea of each of the core arguments and the extent of their support. And on that basis you can judge consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't expect it done at every single AfD, but at some DRVs a !vote-by!-vote analysis strikes me as a potentially useful approach. Certainly other DRV contributors have appreciated it, and it seems inadequate just to say, "I think a lot of the !votes can be set aside for various reasons"; I felt the need to say which of the arguments deserved what weight, and why. But maybe a less process-based approach would appeal more to you. Do you think it's right that Political scandals of the United States should be a redlink?—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on that - I saw this AfD while it was still running and didn't have any views either way. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have any particular opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted; however, I felt I should add a clarification note here. In its current form as a blanked article whose only content is the deletion review notice, the page was getting listed as an uncategorized article. Every page in articlespace must be either categorized or tagged as an {{uncat}}, so if a page shows up on that list the categorization project has an absolute, non-negotiable requirement to get it off the list by any means necessary — there can never, ever, ever, be any type of "this page is a special case that gets to stay on the list with no action taken to clear it off" exception for any reason whatsoever. Accordingly, I've temporarily moved the page to User:Spartaz/Political scandals of the United States, so that it's outside of article space and doesn't require categorization. If this discussion overturns the deletion, then the page can be moved back into article space and reinstated in its old form — but it cannot be left in article space in its current uncategorizable form. Bearcat (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously, the Main Page is an exception here. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page isn't an article, and doesn't get counted as such by the uncategorized articles list. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: Where does this absolute requirement come from? And why does WP:IAR not apply? It's been uncategorized for days, and the Wiki still works... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR is not a license to just do any old thing without regard for the overall structure of the encyclopedia; it's strictly an acknowledgement that there will occasionally be situations where you need to do something that hasn't already been accounted for by pre-existing rules. This isn't one of those situations, as the existing rules already provide solutions (like keeping intentionally uncategorized and/or uncategorizable pages out of articlespace, or creating project categories for them). And categorization of all pages in articlespace is both (a) basic categorization policy, and (b) necessary to ensure that the categorization project's tools aren't getting cluttered up by pages we're not allowed to deal with. While it's true that the list doesn't actually get dealt with promptly each and every day, in principle the rule is that the list has to be cleared to absolute zero each and every day. While sometimes it ends up taking three or four days for someone to actually run through it, when it does get dealt with it has to be absolutely 100% cleared with no pages left behind, if only because that's the project's job. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that seems to indicate that either your processes or your tools need to become more flexible, not that everything in article space has to be categorised. I agree that that good categorisation is a worthy goal, but it's not an absolute necessity, and it should not interfere with other, similarly important processes. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then find a way to ensure that pages of this type which are left in articlespace don't get counted as uncategorized articles in the first place. Neither the categorization project's processes nor its tools need to change, because there isn't a problem with them; if they're in conflict with your needs here, then find a solution at this end that keeps the pages in question from showing up in our tools and processes at all. After all, this solution merely required a minor adjustment that in no way interfered with delrev processes, and won't require any complicated solution to fix if and when the discussion is over — so it's hardly worth fighting about. But if you'd prefer another solution instead, then by all means do whatever you want as long as it doesn't result in the page showing up on the uncat list again tomorrow morning — because then I'll have to do whatever I have to do to clear it off that list again. And not because one project takes precedence over the other, but because all of our projects and processes need to work in tandem and find solutions that work for everyone. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was more blowback over this than I was expecting, I've moved the page back to its original articlespace title and added it to Category:Candidates for undeletion instead. I hope that's more acceptable to people here. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better solution. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Rich Farmbrough has tagged the MP as uncat with AWB before, accidentally. There was a plan before to add the MP to its own category, to avoid this again, but it never really amounted to anything. /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was briefly a coding error in the uncat bot which caused Main Page to sometimes show up in the AWB-formatted version of the uncat list even though it never appeared on the main Toolserver versions of the list (and didn't always appear in the text file, either). That's since been repaired, because it was never intended to be counted as an uncategorized article. Bearcat (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist/overturn to no consensus I think a relist would have been a better idea than just going ahead and closing it. Closing it as "keep" would have been wrong as the I found the keep arguments to be quite weak, but the delete arguments were centered around "should be a category instead", "BLP problems" (which I didn't find to be a major issue here actually), and "poorly organized/defined". I don't think that these necessarily warrant deletion, but I would definitely lean more toward delete if someone had brought up WP:BLPCAT/WP:LISTPEOPLE, which I would have found to be applicable here if the BLP problem was more serious for this list. All in all, there isn't really solid consensus to delete this article. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to No consensus. The BLP issues were addressed appropriately. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, possibly refocus to just federal-level scandals. I am probably generally considered one of those Crazy Deletionist BLP Fanatics™, but even I don't see consensus or overriding reason to delete here. NW (Talk) 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus to delete. S Marshall's above analysis shows that there were some well thought out keep positions and I don't think a close should have been blinded to those valued views by the glare of the I LIKE IT positions. The article may have problems, but they are not so great as to have to reset years of work. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn All of the reasons originally listed for deletion have been met. There are no unreferenced citations and the article has been split to make it more manageable. It's a big subject.

Yes, over the years, I have made a lot of edits. Almost all of them references. Yes, my typing sucks. My research is much better.
Tarc and Burpelson AFB ask what IS a scandal? May I point out there is also no definition of gravity. And yet scandals and gravity are certainly both notable.
Wolfstorm000's comment about "too many rivers run through the trees" (Clinton and Lewinsky) only shows he hasn't tried to reference them all. I have. www.snopes.com has a good article on it.
Wolfstorm's000's comment that scandals are mentioned within an individual's article is only partially correct. The articles of many politicians are kept sanitized by the individual's supporters. Further, his position precludes the use of this article for the general study of history, by era, by decade, by administration, by war, etc. Richrakh (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 December 2010

Valeri Lilov – Decision endorsed – T. Canens (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am a chess fan and small contibutor to Wikipedia. A few months ago I made a major update to an article about a chess master and teacher who is very famous in my country, but because of different reasons, his Wikipedia page didn't exist and it has been deleted repeteadly. I was provided with a copy of the article in question which I reformatted and submitted for review. After that, the article was approved by Wikipedia contributors and put live on Wikipedia. Now, a few months later I received a message saying that since the article was previously deleted, it has been deleted again. My request is this article to be reviewed and if possible to go Live again. Here is the link for the improved article in question - http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Valeri_%22Tiger%22_Lilov. Thank you for your assistance! Chesszorro (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the version at User:Chesszorro/Valeri_Lilov the one you restored? And I assume your request for review is this? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To note the request for feedback isn't approval by wikipedia, no one person can do that. As noted in the second AFD lots of references at first appears to be impressive but a closer look shows they are all from the same handful of sites, most of which he apparently works so don't have any real independance. I can't see how this version of the article overcomes the outcome of the AFD, can you point out which of the sources there are Independant, reliable and address the subject of Valerio Lilov diectly and in detail? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been notified or asked to participate in this DRV, as the editor participating in the RFF of an earlier version of the article in question. A bit confusing. The editor is requesting a review of the AfD from July. However, the noted article was a November 30, 2010, G4 speedy delete of Valeri "Tiger" Lilov. I don't recall ever seeing this article and have no record as a contributor.

As the IP editor stated, RFF is not article approval. Volunteer editors working at Request for Feedback review the article to determine if the article is written from a neutral perspective, supported by reliable sources. I also gave a quick copyedit and formatted the available references. I am not aware of written guidelines determining notability of ranked chess players outside of WP:GNG. Of the article that I reviewed in September, many references were indeed written by organizations with whom the subject states he works, and are therefore not independent of the subject. However, nine of the references are from organizations that he is not connected with through employment. I would consider these three sources to be independent of the subject. [74][75][76] Determining significance in this manner is subjective. Neither one of us (myself and the IP editor) can help with this DRV without the ability to review the article in question. An appropriate action would be to address this article with the editor who deleted on November 30, according to the G4 criteria. Cindamuse (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page which I have updated with new sources, information, etc. can be found at http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Chesszorro/Valeri_Lilov. Since the article was updated and sources are found, what should be the procedure to get this article back Live? --Chesszorro (talk) 09:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient, other people will comment here if it looks a sufficient enough change to permit recreation, that process is 7 days long. It also isn't an approval of the article, we are interested the in latest deletion and if it met the correct process,so even if we decide that the deletion was invalid since you've overcome the initial reasons for deletion, it could still be listed for a full discussion at AFD by someone and deleted in the future. It could also be subject to editing, since even if it shows that the subject is suitable for inclusion, it may need editing for other reasons. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Save for the single-purpose accounts and IPs, none of whom have continued editing Wikipedia after July 2010, I have notified all the participants at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination) about this DRV. Cunard (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, Cunard! Glenfarclas (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I voted to delete on the last AFD due to the article being an advertisement. This version is considerably better than the one I voted to delete, but there still are things which bother me. For example: "Lilov made a record by achieving 32 wins in a row, all from national championships, which included two victories in simultaneous exhibitions..." makes no sense at all, a simultaneous exhibition game cannot be a national championship game. The list of tournament wins looks impressive, but they are largely in age restricted tournaments which don't grant nearly the same level of notability as the top flight international tournaments. Still, I stand by what I said on that AFD that I was willing to consider a neutrally worded article on Mr. Lilov, and the proposed article is certainly a step in the right direction. I don't really oppose an undeletion, but the concerns I have listed mean I can't really support undeletion at this point either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think I was involved in the AFD but I can see why it was deleted. The article doesn't claim the subject meets WP:ATHLETE except perhaps for a school chess competing that I'm ignoring. On the WP:GNG side the references look poor. I will check them later when I can(currently on mobile), but my impression is they are promotional in nature, often WP:SPS. A book by an author is not independent, likewise all the things this person produces are not sources for general notability. Even the photo is a chessbase promotion. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As far as I can see, all of the references are still advertisements for this person, not neutral articles about him. I do not see any significant improvement between the sourcing on the article I voted to delete and this article; this one seems to have the same lack of independent sources that the earlier version did. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse well, to me this chessplayer is just not strong enough to be notable. SyG (talk) 13:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a bit hard to remember the previous version without having the powers of an admin, but this may be a bit more neutral (except for 'renowned'...). I still don't think the references comply with WP:RS sufficiently, and his status in chess terms is still not high enough to give notability of itself. He's young yet, and I have no doubts that there will be an article on him before many years have passed. If he's as good a teacher as is claimed, the reliable sources should be forthcoming before long too. (He is definitely more notable already than one chap who put an article up about himself recently - a chap who played in the third level league in his town club and was going in for a competition...) Peridon (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Generally chess Grandmasters are considered notable. The next lower level is International Master, and they are not considered notable unless they are also a well-known chess author, coach, composer, arbiter, etc. This person is at the next level below that. After the original article was deleted, Valeri Lilov was barred from being recreated so it was Valeri "Tiger" Lilov to get around the ban. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I originally PRODded Valeri Lilov and voted to delete in both AFDs. Looking at the article that's now offered, I remain of the view that, despite its polished appearance, it is still primarily an advertisement for a non-notable chess player's online lessons. References are to his own websites, along with chess databases and the like; the photo is the one from his official website (obvious autobio concerns), and I just don't see any evidence that he has received significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. However, I think the article was updated precisely and placed as a project at http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Chesszorro/Valeri_Lilov. It has updated information, sources, etc. We can consider that there are at least three sources to be independent of the subject. [77][78][79]. Please, let me know what else important requires to be updated.--Chesszorro (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I believe that Courcelles made a reasoned decision based on the AfD. I remind Chesszorro that the purpose of DRV is simply to verify that due process was followed at the time of the AfD. This has absolutely no bearing on the potential validity of a future article. Please remember, closing admins have tough choices to make, and can only do so based on assessment of the comments made within the AfD; here - DRV - is absolutely not "AfD round 2". Your nomination for DRV seems to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of this process. Chzz ► 23:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Worst Actor Golden Raspberry Award winners – Deletion endorsed – Courcelles 04:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion.

As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WT:DRV. lifebaka++ 01:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note This is not the same as the categories discussed below on the 1 December DRV. Cirt has specifically requested that this be kept separate; please discuss this as a separate issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The keep !votes are mostly not based in policy/guidelines, and therefore carry less weight than the guideline-based delete !votes. Please remember that XfD is not a vote and that !votes have rationales for a reason. Counting votes is not consensus. If the results seem predetermined, that's because policy determines the outcome, for the most part. Of course, policy can change. --N Y Kevin @751, i.e. 17:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. What kind of consensus is that? As NYKevin states, it is a consensus that is based on an acceptance and implementation of the established guidelines as opposed to a "vote count". This seems to me to be a pretty solid case of a closer accepting guideline-based arguments as opposed to those based solely on subjective preferences. The awards categories guideline in WP:OC is long-standing and quite clear, and there is no consensus to change it. (Inevitably, a user will claim that this guideline does not reflect consensus, and to that I say "bollocks". I can point to literally hundreds of examples where the guideline has been discussed, accepted, and implemented by consensus. I can only think of 1 or 2 users who have opposed the guideline--there is certainly nothing to indicate that there is consensus to change it or that it no longer reflects consensus.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per WP:OC. This isn't the kind of award that warrants the creation of a category for its recipients. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Good Ol'factory. Much of the nomination is about XfD in general, rather than this particular CfD.
As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. - "Microscopic few"? I probably could do with a bit more muscle-mass, but... :) We have so many individual deletion discussions per day, it is inevitable that few will attract much attention or participation. I can't think of any viable solution except to encourage editors to support WikiProject Deletion sorting.
[I]t always seems like the result is predetermined. - I doubt you will find any editor who could not point to several discussions that ended with outcomes with which they completely disagree. If everyone can't be happy all of the time, and it's unfair for some people to be happy and the rest unhappy all of the time, the the next-best thing is for everyone to be happy some of the time and unhappy the rest of the time. My point is: if results were predetermined, then deletion decisions would show much more consistency than they do now.
I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options. - See Wikipedia:Deletion process#Consensus: "Consensus is formed through the careful consideration, dissection and eventual synthesis of each side's arguments, and should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes." Also, "listify and delete" is one option, not two different ones.
In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. - Which is more likely: that someone behind the curtain sent out a call to arms and only managed to attract three editors or that three editors who are, in general, fairly active at CfD saw a 10-day-old discussion and decided to offer their opinion?
-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 December 2010

Łagisza Power Station – Article recreated substantially different from original (that satisfies original speedy deletion concerns), so now moot. – VegaDark (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why was this article on a Polish power station speedy deleted? A power station with 600 MW generation power is surely not a candidate for a speedy deletion and has a great importance for the electricity supply of a country. There are many entries of comparable power stations in the Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zonk43 (talk • contribs)

Overturn (but moot) Power stations are not eligible for CSD-A7, but it doesn't matter anyways because the author recreated the article, and it looks substantially better (and referenced) now, so the likelihood it will face an A7 again is pretty low. Jclemens (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Capri Anderson – Nomination withdrawn the outcome is pretty clear – Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn to Keep. She clearly passes WP:PORNBIO with multible nominations. As you can see on AVN Awards nominees she was nominated 3 times in 2011. In the deletion disscusion the result should be no consensus, but the admin denied that. So I see no reason not to Keep the article now and I see an admin mistake in deleting this article and so I call deletion review. --Hixteilchen (talk) 11:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit your comments after they've been replied to or too long after they've been posted, it makes it difficult to keep track of what has been said and when and can alter the context of replies. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not AFD round 2, merely disagreeing with the result is not a DRV matter. PORNBIO is disputed and even that has a standard of "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years", i.e. not multiple nominations in the same year (which I understand is pretty common). --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PORNBIO is a guideline to exclude Extra (actor). In general porn actors (see WP:Notability) are also notable as scientists and politicians. And with 3 nominations in 1 year she has proven that she is well-known in the industry. --Hixteilchen (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no generally as notable as anyone else, some scientists are notable some aren't, some politicians are notable, some aren't etc. Merely asserting that she is well-known in the industry doesn't make it so, and even if so doesn't make her meet the guidelines. The debate was closed in line with the policy and guideline based arguments, so no error in process. Your introduction of new material here doesn't meet the guideline you say it does and even that guideline is disputed. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should I take you IP serious? No. Post with your real account or make some articles, but don´t interfer in this deletion review. I have made my point and I have written that I see big admin mistake. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement for me to register for an account, as to if you want to take me seriously, that's your choice. If what I am saying makes sense (i.e. that the guidline doesn't support your position) then I would think you'd want to address that, but frankly it makes no difference to me if you want to ignore that and just cross your fingers. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you'll also not be taking seriously the IP addresses posting the keep opinions in the AFD for this? That makes it a unanimous delete opinion... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I proved in other deletion reviews like Rachel Roxxx or Crissy Moran, there can be admin mistakes even if the actresses clearly pass the guidelines. The same case is here.--Hixteilchen (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating where have I said admins never make mistakes? You still don't address the basic problem that the guideline says "in multiple years", yet you have only given a single year i.e. your new evidence doesn't meet the guideline you say it does. Additionally that was never mentioned in the deletion discussion, so no the admin didn't make a mistake regarding that, the admin can't go off and decide for themselves, they have to go by the discussion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don´t you understand it doesn´t matter for me what you say. --Hixteilchen (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HUMAN. Stop arguing; the closing admin for the DRV will decide. /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - WP:PORNBIO is disputed at the moment, and I certainly do not give weight to the "nominee in multiple years" years pseudo-criteria. That is far too low of a bar for inclusion. The close was correct, consensus was measured properly for a marginal pornstar and a WP:BLP1E otherwise via the Sheen mess. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus as there was none reached at the AfD in question. The lack of any explanation to justify the close as deletion only makes this all the more difficult to understand why deletion was favored over retention. Alansohn (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closing admin. PORNBIO is disputed; I wouldn't give it too much weight atm. If you look at the first keep comment, it goes to two unusable sources: a wiki and a list of newspapers irrelevant to the article. The second keep comment does not give any verifiable RSs to show she is "well-known". The last keep comment is not policy-based; just because someone is looking on WP for information does not mean she is notable. Definitely not "no consensus", as the Sheen incident was clearly her claim to fame per the sources presented. (In any case, no consensus for BLPs should not usually end up as "keep".) /ƒETCH COMMS / 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- from what I can see the delete votes are stronger and more grounded in policy than the keep ones. The only way this could be overturned is if we suddenly agreed that wikis and aggregations of unrelated information are reliable sources and treated AfD purely as a head count. Neither is the case, therefore I cannot see that Fetchcomms has made an administrative mistake that needs overturning. Reyk _YO! 22:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so you think AVN doesn´t post the right nominees? It is the host of the AVN Awards so it should be a reliable source...--Hixteilchen (talk) 00:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that's a disputed guideline and the guidline is nominations in multiple years, whereas you are pointing to nominations in a single year. So it doesn't meet the disputed guideline. Yes I know you'd rather stick your fingers in your ears and say "I'm not listening", so no need to reply to tell me that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as the correct result. None of the Keeps are based in policy, and the deletes most certainly are. Would have been better if the closing admin had explained his/her reasoning in the close though. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 December 2010

Category:User css-N – Deletion endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The category has over 49 pages that link to it. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:20am • 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Unfortunately, consensus was rather clear at CfD that the categories should be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to merely be disagreement with the outcome of the original discussion, not a process issue etc. so not something for DRV. I'll note it has 49 members primarily thanks to this edit of a few weeks ago, which presumably led to the redeletion of the category via CSD:G4. Changing that template back would remove the problem. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - N-level ("native speaker") categories for programming languages traditionally have been merged to the next-highest level for the reason that a "native speaker" category for a programming language is nonsensical. I have edited {{User css-N}} to reflect this, and the incoming links should disappear soon. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my G4 deletion. Would have been nice to be notified as well, instead of stumbling upon this on my own. N-level programming language categories have a long standing precedent for deletion as joke categories that don't help the encyclopedia, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. VegaDark (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Consensus was clear. --Kbdank71 19:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Worst Picture Golden Raspberry Award winners – As to Category:People who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards, deletion is endorsed. For the other four categories, the result is restore and relist. The distinctions between people and works are important enough to have the discussion again, whereas the general consensus is that the deletion of the category of people who have accepted such an award is valid. – Courcelles 04:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Requesting undeletion of these five categories:

CFD was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_22#Category:Worst_Actor_Golden_Raspberry_Award_winners. The deletion discussion focused primarily on "person" categories, not general categories relating to the subject matter itself, such as screenplays, films, etc. In addition, there is one category of people who specifically do not object to the award and even attended the ceremony in order to accept it. These categories should have been discussed separately and not part of the above deletion discussion. As I had thought that an admin would have closed the discussion as no consensus due to the equal amount of Keep comments, I did not request mid-deletion-discussion to have part of it separated regarding these five categories. I had thought the discussion would have been closed as no consensus, with the categories kept. At the very least, these five categories should have been discussed separately, as they are an entirely separate issue than the "person" issue of the other categories from the deletion discussion. Note that I attempted to raise the issue first with the admin that relisted, and later closed, the same deletion discussion, the admin refused to restore these particular five categories for a separate deletion discussion [80]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt (talk)[reply]

Overturn and Restore the above five-listed-categories in the deletion review request, and keep deleted the other seven "person" related categories discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_22#Category:Worst_Actor_Golden_Raspberry_Award_winners. (Just to make it clear this is my position, not advocating for restoring those other ones.) Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see an explanation from the closing admin why this was closed as delete in the first place (none was given in the CfD). I count 8-7 to keep (one delete !voter !voted twice, which no-one seemed to notice). A close as delete in these circumstances requires an explanation why the delete arguments were stronger. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mkativerata. A close as "no consensus" would have been much more sensible - especially for those categories where "persons" were not impacted. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted on my talk page - the reason I didn't close as no consensus was that in my opinion the delete votes were more closely tied with policy than the keep votes. For instance, one keep vote gave no rationale and seemed more concerned with the talk page tags, while another seemed more concerned with the notability of the award itself, rather than the ability to define an actor/movie through the award, which is the bar for a category. I have to admit that I missed the fact that one person voted twice, and for that I apologize. I do, however, stand by my closure, although I won't argue if this discussion decides to reverse it. Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment fails to take into account that the bulk of the discussion focused only on the "person" categories, that an 8/7 in favor of "Keep" consensus was ignored and closed instead as delete, and that the closing comments by the admin were unsatisfactory with respect to a closure against consensus of the community to keep. -- Cirt (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and re-close. I feel compelled towards this result because of the absence of contemporaneous reasons for an against-the-numbers close. I am about to write WP:Show your working. A delete close may well have been justified, and justified for the reasons later given by the closing admin. But that, combined with the double-voting, suggests the project will be improved by another admin closing this debate with reasons. This might be a little bureaucratic and I'm not normally one to put process over substance, but I think in this case, with respect to Dana boomer, the eight contributors who wanted to retain these categories deserve a better close. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mkativerata, you are correct, I should have provided a better closing rationale (or really one at all, since I think my comment was basically "closed as delete"). I will be more mindful of this in the future. Dana boomer (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore. Spotted this discussion mentioned on Cirts page. just read through the discussion and by my read there is no clear consensus on if the raspberry awards are notable or definable...even when you read just the keep votes or the delete votes. without that consensus on at least one side, I don't see how you can close with the argument that the delete arguments were closer to policy.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "in accordance with policy" aspect to this CfD at all. WP:OC is a guideline, and what the relevant section actually says is that while most awards don't get their own category, some do. I don't see any reason why people !voting delete on the basis of OC#Awards should be given any greater weight.—S Marshall T/C 23:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore No consensus existed at CfD for deletion and the existence of corresponding lists is never a valid justification for deletion of a category. Alansohn (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. I wrote this elsewhere before I discovered this had already been taken to review:

I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion.

As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus for relisting abuse. There was a clear keep trend, then a relist after which 1:3 opinions favored deletion, nearing parity. That smacks too much of a "relist until we get the result we want". If the numerical superiority is enough for a delete after the relist, then the original numerical superiority was sufficient for an initial keep without that relist. Jclemens (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Xfd isn't a vote count, as many of you should know. In re-reading the CFD discussion, I agree with the closer's explanation above. The people who wanted to delete on average gave better reasoned and closer to policy explanations than the ones who wanted to keep. --Kbdank71 19:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no-consensus The deletion was based on the guideline in [[81]] "in general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." But this guideline is unreasonable and should be ignored as One no longer the general consensus at Wikipedia, as shown by the equally divided work here. it is Wikipedia editors who make consensus about how to interpret and enforce guidelines. Two the reason given for it is only "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. " which does not seem a relevant reason to the conclusion. I think it is time to have a centralized discussion of WP:OC, for I think much of it no longer reflects the general consensus. Several other sections, including WP:OC#CATGRS have been repeatedly challenged, and most of the restrictions there are routinely ignored. Personally, I think categorization, as a useful navigational device, should be applied whenever not totally unreasonable, with a very narrow interpretation of "unreasonable." DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your statement that the guideline no longer reflects the general consensus in Wikipedia. If you would review the last 100 discussions that have taken place on awards categories, I think you would find that the consensus remains quite robust. The only user I have seen who consistently argues against the general guideline is you. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore The bizarre closing comments of "Listify and delete. As all of the categories already have lists, they can just be deleted" completly ignores WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems clear to me that the closer meant that 1) her reading of the consensus was to convert the categories to lists to preserve the information and then delete them; 2) as lists already existed the only thing left to do was to delete the categories. I don't think that is contrary to CLN, as it's not a call to delete the category only because a list exists. postdlf (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then you suggest that the closer did not read or follow WP:CLN? That's the guideline here. It clearly states in the second paragraph: "Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." How much clearer does it have to be? Trackinfo (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you read on it also says, "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia." Awards categories are one of these circumstances, and previous and long-standing consensus is reflected in the WP:OC guideline. You can't just take isolated phrases from guidelines without reading them in context with the entire guideline and other guidelines. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - So what was the consensus in this case regarding that guideline?Coffeepusher (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That it applies in this case with respect to the people categories. But at the end of the day, it may not matter much in an isolated case: see Wikipedia:CONLIMITED. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a separate DRV (linked to from the CfD) going on for one of the person categories. As Cirt has explicitly stated that this DRV is only for the film categories, this DRV should not affect the outcome of the entire discussion (overturning to "no consensus", for example, would only affect the Film categories). If anyone wants the person categories no-consensus'ed (or whatnot) as well, please go !vote for it at the other DRV. --N Y Kevin @757, i.e. 17:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore The deletion !votes were only aimed at person categories. --N Y Kevin @772, i.e. 17:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist the 4 works categories covered by this nomination (there is no need to restore them at this time—here is the list of articles which were removed). The whole discussion was aimed at the person categories, and I think it could be worthwhile to hold a separate discussion for the works categories.
Endorse Category:People who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards. This is one of the person categories, and should (if restoration is desired)be discussed at a separate DRV. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist the first 4 for the reasons discussed--the focus of the argument was on the categories for people, and we need to focus the argument on these non-person categories. Endorse the deletion of Category:People who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards, since the focus of the arguments were on the categories for people, and this is a category for people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning? . . . Please try that again in english. Articulate the differences, perhaps using different words to describe the difference. Trackinfo (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can get clearer or more Englishy than a "person" and "non-person" distinction, but here goes an attempt to dumb down. The first 4 categories are categories that apply to articles about non-persons--they apply to films. The last category is a category that applies to articles about people. The focus of the votes for deletion were based on a guideline, found at Wikipedia:OC#Award_recipients, that specifically applies to people. I endorse the discussion as it applies to the categories that apply to people--it was a correct application of a long-standing guideline that is well-supported by consensus. However, I think since the delete votes focused on a guideline that solely applies to people, we need to relist the categories that are not categories for articles about people. They seem to have gotten a bit lost in the shuffle of the discussion and probably should have been listed separately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Narang night raid.jpg – Keep closure endorsed. – -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image is not uniquely historical, as there has been no critical commentary of the image. Falls under unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails non-free content criterion #8. Although three users !voted keep, none of their reasonings were based in non-free content policy, nor did they answer to the nomination. The first "keep" was the nominator essentially accusing me of bad faith, just like he posted on dozens of other images that were later deleted. The second only argues that the image depicts the casualties mentioned in the article. Depicting something mentioned in an article is not a valid reason to use a non-free image, per WP:NFCC. The third supported the second argument, and went on to say that because the organization RAWA looks for museums and art galleries to host photo exhibitions, it's okay to use their photos. Copyrighted art may be displayed in a gallery, that doesn't mean we can automatically include it on Wikipedia. And this isn't copyrighted art, it's a photo from a press agency (RAWA News), which is deemed unacceptable, it depicts a war, which is deemed unacceptable, and its omission isn't detrimental to the understanding of the article. The deletion discussion produced illegitimate reasons to keep non-free content. Consensus doesn't trump non-free image policy or copyright. Swarm ^X 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions suggest your discuss any issues with the closing admin first, I can't see any such discussion having occurred, you also need to inform them of this discussion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only reason for not doing so was that it wasn't their close that I'm disputing, I'm appealing the final decision - I didn't see how they could have helped at all. I'll let them know, FWIW. Swarm ^X 15:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it sounds to me you are disputing their close, you are essentially saying they gave undue weight to arguments not in line with policy whilst your policy based arguments (and images have to meet all NFCC) weren't addressed by the keeps. If on the other hand you are merely trying to rerun the debate, then DRV isn't the place for that, DRV only considers the process, not xFD round 2. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just nominate something again; per WP:DELREV "this includes...appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion". That's why I'm here. Swarm ^X 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No you can't, it's not useful to have people continually having another bite of the cherry, that's either at xFD or here. You've read just the intro and not the main details here - "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate.". As I said I do think you are challenging the closers reading of the debate so this isn't really a big issue. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist The discussion itself does seem faulty, the arguments given for keeping being rather weak - argument by assertion, talk of copyright law when that's not relevant - wikipedia's standards differ to copyright law, strange assertion regarding what the image depicts and a rather vague argument about commercial value. Your listing however wasn't the greatest either with basic assertion which could have done with being expanded upon. This looks like a discussion which needed more input rather than being closed one way or the other. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin - I did in fact consider the arguments of the nominator. In short, I'll respond to each point the nominator pulls up:

It violates NFC#UUI-5. First off, NFC#UUI is a list of both broad statements to be enforced (e.g., #12), and specific statements only meant to serve as examples (e.g., #8). NFC#UUI-5 seems to fall into the latter category, not the former, IMHO. I find it implausible that it means to bar any war related non-free photographs; in fact, precedence indicates the opposite. Rather this criterion seems to be simply providing an example of a failure for WP:NFCC#1 (i.e., for most war-related material, it's easy to find images). However, this is an exception to that, as there are no known replacements.
It violates NFC#UUI-7 - this clause of the of NFC#UUI illustrates WP:NFCC#2. However, my research showed RAWA to be only marginally a press agency, and far more of an advocacy group. Their goal would thus be less to gain profit than spread a message. As such, the "harms profits" is a bit of a stretch to me, when the goal of the agency in the first place is not to gain profits but to spread its content; this would actually help such a cause, not hurt it.
It violates NFCC#8 - precedent indicates a non-free photograph for a deceased person is acceptable, as it adds to the reader's understanding. This seems reasonably similar - an article about an event which a non-free image is illustrating should be quite within the realm of NFCC#8. The community's input in this FFD enhanced my perception as thus.
Iqinn's response attacking the nominator - I ignored the majority of this person's argument, which had nothing to do with the image at hand. However, there were relevant snipets in his post: Highly important images that are not replaceable (as I showed above, this indirectly addresses the nominator's rationale for NFCUUI-5); the nominator should not forget the greater goal we have (seemingly an indirect reference to NFCC#8... our goal being to impart knowledge to the reader); none of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance (an overall statement).
TCNSV's response directly addressed NFCC#8, and Rwendland's response (less directly) addressed NFCUUI-7.

I really don't particularly care either way if the nomination is relisted, but I wanted to illustrate how I came to the decision in light of the comments from the community. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- On you point about NFCC#8 - precedent - wikipedia doesn't do precedent, if the community agreed and wanted the policy to say that there was a general exemption for dead people it would be quite welcome to do so, it hasn't and I doubt will. Regardless people often accept for a specific dead person that the image won't be replaceable since the person is now dead, for a set of "nameless" dead people this is no where near the same case. I can't imagine that people accept NFCC#8 for an image more so if the person is dead, being dead won't affect the signifcance of the image and impact on understanding. I really can't see how TCNSV's response directly addressed NFCC#8. Merely staging the content of the photo does nothing to address significance and how omission would be detrimental to understanding. (I fully understand that my father and grandfather died of heart attacks, I've never seen a picture of them dead). If merely stating the picture is relevant/related to and article were sufficient, then NFCC#8 would be meaningless. This looks to me that you've applied a huge amount of interpretation over the debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my job, to interpret the community's consensus. And the community was saying the critical commentary was sufficient. It looks completely legit to me. As for the dead part, I only inserted that to distinguish it from violations of NFCC1 - which almost universally disallows images of living persons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree you've gone beyond what was said and applied *your own* interpretation. Saying that "Depicts the ten civilian casualties mentioned in the article." directly addresses "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.". The opiners statement says nothing about significance of understanding the topic, nor how ommission would be detrimental to understanding. You've added a "precdent" into the arguments which wasn't present (and as far as I can see doesn't exist).
The dead part again shows that, a picture doesn't become more siginficant or more important to understanding just because they are dead. I think you are confusing this with NFCC#1, if people believe an image of the person is important for understanding (something which seems to be generally the case), NFCC#8 is passed regardless of there person being dead or alive), however NFCC#1 will usually prevent usage when they are still alive. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be interpreting WP:NFC#UUI rather loosely; they are all examples of images that are prohibited. Photos from a press agency are specifically referred to as unacceptable, with exceptions such as critical commentary (that would make the image itself notable, and thus necessary to include in an article).
Whether you want to view RAWA News as a press agency is up for debate, I suppose, I personally think it fits the category but I can see how someone can disagree.
I strongly agree that NFCC#8 wasn't addressed. #8 is quoted above by 82. The image depicts the victims of the subject of the article: obviously an image is going to relate to or depict the article, that's doesn't mean its omission is detrimental to the article.
In response to what you took from Iqinn's statements: I didn't dispute replacability nor importance (both a separate debate altogether); on "the greater goal" I don't see how that references #8, it's just a vague use of rhetoric. And, most notably, "none of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion..." Ironic, since it's widely held that image policy is generally one of the most important, if not the most important issues on the whole project because of its potential legal ramifications. We shouldn't forget that we only allow free content by default and non-free content is the exception only when it's necessary. Swarm ^X 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps it would have helped in the closer had gone into some more detail in the close itself, rather than saying merely "keep". this might have avoided the need for this review, or at least gone some way towards clarifying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

It would have, but frankly that takes forever and is a pain in the ass to do with all the closes. But you're right, at the time I was thinking "If anyone ends up caring, keep is probably too vague." Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, if I had learned of your explanation before this review, I certainly still would have brought it up here. If this were some article, I would gladly let it go with an admin's explanation. This regards non-free content, however, so I feel the issue is important enough to appeal for a relist here (I explain more above). Swarm ^X 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - DR is not mend to re-discuss the arguments of an Afd because someone might not be happy with the consensus of an Afd. The nominator himself admits that the closing admin did not make errors. I also do not see errors and endorse the closing admins decision. IQinn (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. WP:DELREV Swarm ^X 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also an ironic thing, after the closer explained the closing rationale, I now dispute the close itself. Swarm ^X 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You dispute the close itself? What do you mean by that? IQinn (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

closing rationale Swarm ^X 07:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

closing rationale? What's wrong with that? IQinn (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my own decision. I will not concede that this is a bad nomination - if a particular discussion doesn't get enough comments or doesn't properly address the issue, the consensus at that time may not reflect the community's overall opinion. However, as I explained above, I believe that I, the administrator, took into proper account the comments, which were properly grounded in policy/guidelines, even if the editors did not specifically wikilink to the guidelines themselves. And I do not see that they were poorly enough rationalized out for us to overrule that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if one takes the narrow view that only errors by the closer are appropriate here, it is an error by the closer if he fails to weigh properly the various arguments, or fails to evaluate the consensus, or misjudges whose arguments should be taken into account. This essentially opens the entire discussion, because one can not evaluate whether he has properly weighed the arguments without discussing the validity of the arguments in question, nor can one evaluate his judgement about which arguments should be ignored as not being policy-based without discussing whether they were in fact policy-based. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the whole discussion should be opened up. That is my point. Swarm ^X 00:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I think the decision was the right one, and I basically agree with the closer's explanation, though I think the points about press agency and dead people only peripheral; I think consensus interprets a fairly broad interpretation for war photographs, though I would not go anywhere near as far as they did and say that NFCC permits all war-related photographs, nor do I think consensus would support such an extremely broad interpretation. Doing so would essentially reverse most of the present policy, since essentially any photograph of anything helps in the interpretation and understanding of the subject. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More broadly, the ultimate question in a close is whether the close is in fact representative of the community opinion--everything else is a subsidiary question of how this is in practice to be determined without polling the entire user base. We necessarily use a process where we rely on limited participation and individual judgment to avoid gross errors. If in a wider discussion the wider consensus is different, the wider consensus must hold--again, I do not see how we could reasonably do otherwise. The rules at DRV have the intent of limiting such broader discussions to ones where there is a reasonable chance that the consensus will in fact be otherwise. To what degree they do this well is another matter, but I see no practical solution except encouraging wider participation. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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