Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 October

Tarpaulin (fish) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleting a page because you don't like my handle or don't know basic biology is not really reasonable. Or perhaps you can visit the Australian Museum and warn them of their "hoax" display. Sock Q. Faunce (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Blatant hoax, utter nonsense, waste of time. Acroterion _(talk) 03:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Been to the Australian Museum lately? I think they may have some news for you. Sock Q. Faunce (talk) 04:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could someone block this account for the really obvious username violation? This is either a reincarnation or (more likely) an impersonation of a banned user, User:Cy Q. Faunce. This has languished for hours at UAA, and needs to be dealt with. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I resent the implication that I am impersonating anyone. I am not sure what to think about reincarnation. I do not really believe in it, but my sister says I said the same thing in my previous life. Sock Q. Faunce (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I find that to be an amazing coincidence, then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if you read my comment above with a very literal mind, you may discover its true meaning. I am not am impersonator, and I stand by that. Sock Q. Faunce (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Scott (actor) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page was deleted as per WP:A7. Admin User:Toddst1 tagged it for speedy deletion, but I removed the template on the grounds that the article did assert the subject's importance, and I brought the matter up on the admin's talk page. Instead of trying to reach an agreement, however, the admin went ahead and deleted the article without consensus. Attempts at negotiation have been fruitless (see the talk page link above). Guoguo12--Talk--  00:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we see the article under consideration, please? It strikes me that A7's not a difficult criterion to comply with and the deleting admin's talk page responses don't appear to demonstrate approachability or a willingness to discuss.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. Even though its a BLP, it is not at all negative or controversial DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and send to afdIt is almost always not a good idea to speedy delete an article after the tag was removed by an established editor, such as Guoguo12 certainly is. Speedy is for articles that can not be reasonably disputed; if an established editor disputes it, the assumption is that it was reasonable, and AfD is the place to decide. Unfortunately, it will almost certainly be deleted there unless additional information is added and sourced. todd is right that it is wholly inadequate, but if challenged in a case like this I let the community decide. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted Todd evidently applied WP:IAR here - there isn't a cat's chance in hell of this article surviving AfD. Jon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.136.174 (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least there's a chance. In my opinion, the admin was not justified in going ahead with the delete without further discussion. Should the article be restored, at least we (whoever "we" are, since it's probably just me) might have a few days to gather reliable sources for verification. Is it okay if I copy the deleted material onto a temporary construction page in my userspace, or is that not allowed? Guoguo12--Talk--  03:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey guys, I understand that the content wasn't complete, however it didn't seem to stand a chance of further edit as it was deleted mere hours after it went up. I AM the actor concerned and hoped to complete the page now... I do understand I should have completed it in my sandbox first, however I am new to this. Well I guess I shall wait for someone else to create an (incorrect) page of me. For those interested you can see some of my credits at IMDb. Bluefreesia (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Bluefressia please read WP:COI. With regard to the article I am not seeing any claim to notability there and its an unsourced BLP. Guoguo12. exactly how did this assert notability? I can't see how this is an unreasonable decision and we certainly do not need to spend 7 days on process on a page that self evidently does not meet our inclusion criteria. If there are sources the page can be immediately recreated with sources. There are sources are there not? Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, my point is that, according to WP:A7, "the criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The deletion was done as if the article had already been through AfD. Wikipedia is a work in progress, right? Had the article not been deleted by the admnin and simply tagged for AfD deletion, I could have at least tried to fix any problems. However, the COI is a major problem, a problem that probably certifies a rewrite. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still haven't explained what the assertion of notability was. I'm not seeing it myself. Please can you clarify this point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being in several movies and hosting a TV program. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not an assertion of notability that I recognise and, in the absence of any reliable sources whatsoever this clearly isn't worth listing at AFD as it can be restored instantly sources come up. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agreed. Hence, I am working on sourcing here. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I suggest the appellant simply pick up the article, fix it such that it has a claim of notability such that A7 clearly does not apply, and continue editing it. DRV is not needed to recreate a version of an article which no longer meets the reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, what chance does it stand of further edit and inclusion of sources if it is deleted hours after it is put up? Perhaps it should be made explicit to new users that it is not acceptable to post information with a view to providing sources a few hours later - or else all information will be deleted in haste. I wish I had completed the article in its entirety before leaving the house to run errands. Exactly how did the article prove to be a COI? It provided information that is similar to all other actors bios (ie Personal Life background, Acting Career) and would have contained more had it been allowed to stand. Further information on Chris Scott can be found at www.chris-scott.info Bluefreesia (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoever claimed that the article was the result of a COI was right; most of the article was WP:OR. However, it still should not have been deleted via speedy deletion. It should have been tagged with {{or1}}, or at most sent to AfD. Speedy deletion should be used with caution for articles recently created. Guoguo12--Talk--  14:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Action taken: I have userfied this article per Guoguo12's request so that the article can be either gotten into shape or left deleted. The article can be found at User:Guoguo12/Chris Scott (actor). I apologize for my lack of process knowledge here, but I'll leave it to someone who knows DRV closing procedures better than I to tidy this up. Toddst1 (talk) 06:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but I think I'll rewrite the article completely to eliminate the COI problem. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for giving me a chance to tidy things up. I have edited and taken a minimalist approach and only included info found on the website as noted in my post above. Not sure if this is the place to notify you I have done this. If this edit is still deemed inappropriate for inclusion here then so be it. It is heartening to know that Wikipedia is tightly controlled. As it should be. Bluefreesia (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What you need now is a reliable source that is independent of the subject and covers the topic in reasonable depth.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion From CSD to DRV in 1 step? Nobody looked at WP:REFUND? Nothing at all notable about the individual was asserted, and ref's show they do not meet WP:ACTOR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in question was controversially deleted, so I came here. Anyway, like I said above, speedy deletion is not for articles that don't meet notability inclusion criteria like WP:NACTOR (assuming that's what you meant); that's what AfD and Prod are for. If you read WP:A7, you'll find that significance/importance is a lower standard than notability. Being an actor in more than one significant movie (like The Matrix) is notability enough, in my opinion, to meet the guidelines at WP:NACTOR; however, that's something that should be discussed at AfD. Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  13:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Being an actor in" and "having a significant role in" are 2 different things. Cops were not important in the Matrix - and almost every movie has a few of them. Kinda like the expendable crew member on any given Star Trek episode. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, this is a notability issue, which is different from significance, and should be dealt with in an AfD discussion or tagged with {{Notable}}. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted but I'll stop short of endorsing. I just had a look at the version that was deleted and I can't fault the deleting admin much. Aside from a blurb at the end about the minor matrix role, the article looks like one of the typical "Joe Shmoe" vanity articles we get firehosed with and regularly delete under CSD A7. This is also one of the reasons we discourage autobiographies. Someone writing about themselves will understandably write about what they know about themselves whether or not there are sources while a third party will be more likely to build the article from already available sources. Also, an informal indication that a subject might be notable is if a third party who doesn't know the subject personally elects to write an article.

At this point I would suggest allowing the current userspace draft to develope and if/when it's moved to article space, we can discuss it at AFD if there is still doubt about the subject's notability. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, this actually sounds fair because the userspace draft I am working on (here) is just about completely different from the originally deleted article. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion, the original article didn't assert notability, and I also don't see any substantive sources in the userspace draft specified. Name drops, such as credits, are not sources that demonstrate any notability, nor is having a minor film role. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Molitor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed as no consensus, default to delete, which appears to be a misinterpretation of consensus. I refer to the following points below, as well as the discussion with the closing administrator.

The closing administrator discounts the three keep arguments as merely being guideline based, but relies on the two delete arguments which cite no guidelines/policies and only use phrases such as "common sense" and "foolishness". To wit, the guideline cited is WP:ATHLETE, which is consensus based, whereas the deletion arguments revolve around nothing indicated in policy or guidelines. In his expanded rationale, the closing administrator states "Deleters made a case for ignoring the guideline in question, and the Keepers didn't demonstrate that we should follow it in this instance." However, because the notability of the subject was agreed upon by most participants (even those arguing to delete agree that notability exists, albeit possibly marginally) and WP:V was met (through the addition of sources), the burden of proof should be on those recommending deletion to clearly state (i.e., through guideline/policy) why the established consensus guidelines/policies should be ignored. To say that an unjustified argument of "common sense"/WP:IAR trumps one that is based in other policy/guidelines is questionable and leads to a misinterpreted closure; given the lack of such justification, the closing administrator appears to have given undue weight to those arguments.

The closing administrator also states that BLP issues existed in the article and pushed the closure toward a deletion, and concurred with delete voters stating that the article is a magnet for vandalism. WP:BLPDEL indicates that [b]iographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed and that [p]age deletion is normally a last resort. While AfD is not cleanup, the WP:BLP concerns were appropriately addressed during the course of the discussion through cleanup of the article, addition of reliable sources, and oversighting of necessary diffs, meeting this aspect of the policy and not necessitating the given last resort. It appears that closure ignored the fact that the BLP issues were cleared up, albeit not in the most efficient way possible. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and to remove ostensibly legitimate content because of previous BLP issues and the hypothetical fear of future BLP issues is unjustifiable and is a slippery slope that could theoretically apply to all BLPs, and seems to contravene WP:BLPDEL. Further, while vandalism is a cited reason for deletion at WP:DEL, it is also clearly stated that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page. Given this, the weight given to the "magnet for vandalism" argument and its citation in closure appears to be unjustifiable.

While a closure as no consensus could still be justified, albeit weakly, per WP:NOCONSENSUS, [i]n any XfD (WP:AfD, WP:TfD, etc.), "no consensus" defaults to keep. There is no precedent for a no consensus closure to default to delete, even in a WP:BLP setting. The closing administrator states that "the article had BLP issues, there is a precedent for defaulting to delete in the absence of a clear consensus" in his extended rationale. However, as indicated above, the BLP issues were taken care of, invalidating this clause of the rationale. Likewise, he attempts to cite precedent by indicating a previous case and its DRV in the extended rationale on his talk page; however, that case (due to its subject/nature) had significantly different issues than an article with a few diffs that had to be oversighted for hit-and-run vandalism, and appears irrelevant here.

-- Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I'm glad this has come to DRV because it is certainly a DRV-worthy case. Regarding WP:ATH, I don't think the delete !votes (I was one) should be in any way discounted because of their conscious disregard of the guideline. The fact is that less people probably had input into the basketball element of WP:ATH than had input into this AfD. It was a borderline case on WP:ATH so the delete !voters were entitled to set aside the presumption (not guarantee) of notability created by the guideline (not policy). Admittedly, I could have done that in more comprehensive language. I endorse the "no consensus defaults to delete". It was a bold call that doesn't get explicit support in current policy, but the current policy should be changed to reflect it. It was the right call because it was a perfect example of us having no adequate mechanisms to prevent serious vandalism on marginally notable articles. Our protection policy doesn't allow us to deal with it properly. The BLP issues here were not "taken care of" - the problems were edited out, but there was no guarantee of an ongoing solution other than volunteering to watchlist the article. I think if there is firm evidence to suspect serious harm to a living person being caused by an article - as there was here - the default in a no consensus case should be to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you clarify as to why you feel the delete !voters were "entitled" (as you put it) to ignore the guideline? The fact that the notability was "marginal" appears irrelevant to that line of thought. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said "set aside" not "ignore". Anyone is entitled to argue with reason that a presumption of notability (or a presumption against notability) created by a guideline should be set aside; doing so is merely giving effect to the meaning of presumption (as opposed to guarantee). My reason was that the subject's appearances in the league were so brief, and the league - as compared with the other basketball leagues mentioned in NSPORT - is failing and not really professional any more. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • To see that the league "is failing and not really professional any more" is an opinion that is better addressed (with evidence) in an overhaul of the criteria to satisfy WP:ATHLETE, not in its application/choice to ignore ("set it aside"... semantics). --Kinu ^t/_c 20:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, "if there is firm evidence to suspect serious harm to a living person being caused by an article... the default in a no consensus case should be to delete". However, this is purely hypothetical (and is an opinion unsupported by policy), especially when the vandalism looked to be a case of hit-and-run. As indicated above, merely being vandalized once, even if it did warrant oversighting, in no way justifies paranoia as to possible future BLP vandalism as a reason for outright deletion. I'm sure there are many more popular BLPs that have been oversighted in their day... just because more editors tend to watchlist those doesn't mean they should be more protected from outright deletion. We may more easily revert/oversight that vandalism by virtue of the articles' popularity/visibility, and thus certain niche BLPs might be more prone, but the popularity/visibility of an article should in no way influence whether a previously-vandalized BLP should be kept or deleted. Similarly, you say the BLP issues were not "taken care of"... to have them oversight them removes them from public (and even private) viewing, and for the sake of the article's history it is as if they never existed. What else is there beyond that? Deletion accomplishes nothing that has already been implemented, hence it has been "taken care of." --Kinu ^t/_c 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It is completely evident that WP:ATHLETE needs a major overhaul. I would go into further detail, but it would be a waste of server space to simply duplicate what Mkativerata says. Endorse for the exact same reason. NW (Talk) 20:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While WP:ATHLETE may need a major overhaul, WP:DRV isn't the place to proselytize about what WP:ATHLETE or any other notability guideline should be, which as indicated is precisely the problem that occurred at the AfD and its closure. It may be far from perfect, but as it exists in its current form should be the way that it is applied, and to ignore it without proper justification seems to be grossly negligent and subjective. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the policies have failed us for providing quality articles that follow content policy, we are perfectly entitled to set them aside. This instance has shown us a clear case where the notability policies have failed. NW (Talk) 21:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not see it as being a "clear" failure, as you indicate. WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV are met in the article. WP:BLP was met through correction of the issues. WP:ATHLETE is supported. To say that policies or guidelines do not apply in this case without further elaboration is quite vague, as has been the problem with this AfD situation in general. Please elaborate. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we cannot assert that our biographies of living, breathing persons will be fine with a fair degree of certainty, then somewhere along the line we have failed. And we have failed in this regard, as a hundred thousand different things over the past several years have shown. Therefore, despite the fact that it does not provide us with a standard set of specific notability criteria to follow as we blindly have for far too long, we must learn to reembrace WP:IAR, something that I think has been forgotten for far too long. My two cents. NW (Talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm aware of a couple of occasions in the past where admins have decided that a no consensus outcome with a BLP defaults to delete. It's always a blatant act of sysop fiat. There's been no discussion that led to a consensus that such a close is permissible. And admins are elected to enforce the community's rules. Not their personal rules—those of the community. A good closer is one who can suppress their own opinion and implement the outcome of a discussion. If they personally disagree with that outcome, then the proper thing to do is to !vote.

  The closer justifies himself in the talk page discussion by pointing out that the article has been vandalised in the past, and I'm not impressed with that as a reason for deletion. I'm open to further discussion on this if there's some aspect that I've missed, but for the moment my position is very strongly and definitely overturn to "no consensus, defaulting to keep".—S Marshall T/C 20:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't so much past vandalism, but BLP violations so bad they had to be oversighted (unfortunately I can't remember what they were). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, Mkativerata, I accept that there are oversighted revisions. There are such revisions in other articles as well, many of which haven't been deleted. I also agree that there's a general problem with articles that aren't on anyone's watchlist, in that someone might slip a dubious revision past the new pages patrollers. (BLPs are hardly special cases in this respect, by the way; the worst problem I ever saw was in an article about a school. Someone had accused a teacher of being a paedophile and posted his name and the location of his house in the article. My point is that it doesn't have to be a BLP to have a risk of harm to living people.)

  But although I accept that there's a problem, I don't accept that the answer is for admins to go about inventing novel closes. The fact is that while our admins are by and large entirely well-meaning, there are children and self-confessed drug users among our admin corps; admins definitely don't have a monopoly on good judgment. That's why they don't get a free pass to disregard the community consensus.

  I mean, if the closer can ignore the discussion, or invent his own interpretation of it, then why do we bother bringing BLPs to AfD at all? We might as well move BLPs onto a new board called BLPfD, where a random admin looks at the article and decides what to do with it without any community input. No?—S Marshall T/C 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I take your point but I'm not sure this an "admin judgment" case. It merely shifts the default to "delete" if serious BLP violations have not been addressed. The only way in which the admin can be said to have gone against the community's consensus here is that there is no clear policy to support "default to delete" in these cases. But such policy shifts come best from being bold in individual cases like this and testing the community's views at DRV, not proposing changes on deletion policy talk pages.--Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First, don't we normally prefer to fix things than to delete them? Second, how is it not a case of admin judgment if the admin is the one deciding what the default for "no consensus" is? And third, aren't admins elected by the community on the basis that they can be trusted with the tools?—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) Our protection policies don't allow for this problem to be fixed through protection; (2) what I mean is that the admin didn't supervote - it was a no consensus and he/she called it as such; (3) well, yes. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) The closer's already decided to disregard the normal rules. But, stipulating for a moment that the normal rules could reasonably have been suspended, protection would be less extreme than deletion, wouldn't it? (2) With respect, a close as "no consensus, defaulting to delete" seems to me to be a very clear supervote; and (3) Wouldn't you agree that "trusted with the tools" means only using them in ways the community expects?—S Marshall T/C 22:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You say "policy shifts come best from being bold in individual cases like this and testing the community's views"... does this not violate WP:POINT? Administrators are entrusted to read consensus at AfDs based on what policy/guidelines are, not to use a closure to put forth an argument about what policy/guidelines should be. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. "No consensus, default to delete" is not only contrary to policy; it represents a position that has repeatedly failed to garner community support despite prolonged and extensive efforts. Administrative authority is used only to implement community and Foundation decisions, not to enforce what an administrator believes the decision should have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious overturn No consensus might be right, default to delete isn't. That's against policy. It's been discussed many times and it's clear there is a clear and overwhelming consensus that such closes should not be made. Finally, the reason for going against policy is bogus. Yes, there was a significant BLP issue for a long time. But having people add it to their watchlist solves the problem. Deletion is not needed, so violating policy in this way doesn't even serve a useful purpose. Hobit (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse In the case of barely or non-notable BLPs no consensus should always default to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you'd agree that isn't supported by policy or guideline yes? Hobit (talk) 04:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy is descriptive not proscriptive so I'm sure that at some point in the near future practise and written policy will reflect this point of view. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah. While I'm sure that the usual suspects will be along shortly to support you in this, the fact is that there's fundamentally no consensus on this issue. This means the "BLPs default to delete" camp won't manage to push through the necessary RFC, so it won't be a valid decision by the rules. However, DRV is set up so that a "no consensus" outcome protects the closing admin's out-of-policy decision, as you will see from the many times this has been discussed before. It's annoying that a minority group persists in getting away with this, but they're admins with tenure, so what can you do?—S Marshall T/C 13:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This comment reeks of bad faith S,Marshall. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But I'm not wrong, am I?—S Marshall T/C 17:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • S Marshall, you know better than this. Despite the fact that we often disagree, I respect your editing. You know just as well as I that one cannot just make implications of canvassing or whatever else without something to back the statement up. NW (Talk) 03:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'd thought it was established a closed site had been set up for people to discuss the BLP issue? I could go back and hunt down those discussions from a while back, but I didn't think the people involved had denied it. The URL was even posted a few times. Am I misremembering? Hobit (talk) 08:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I must say that, while what I said is my genuine opinion and has been for a long time now, and I do stand by it, I put it less delicately than I usually would. There were unrelated reasons why I was in a very bad temper yesterday.

                  For the avoidance of doubt, I did not suggest canvassing. I did imply (and I'm now saying outright) that there is a substantial pressure group of established editors who have strong opinions about BLPs, who regularly say that BLPs should default to delete at AfD, who usually show up at DRVs on the subject, and who can often be found talking about the subject on- and off-wiki.

                  I view these editors as resembling the article rescue squadron in that they genuinely believe in what they're doing, but they're attempting to work in ways that aren't the community norm and in ways that I occasionally find irritating (as in this case).—S Marshall T/C 10:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

                  • • I'm sorry but I want to be very clear whether S Marshall is accusing me of off-wiki collusion without evidence? Please can you clarify this? Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I said "there is a substantial pressure group". I didn't say "Spartaz is doing this". My remarks were in response to yours but not aimed at you personally, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't think Spartaz is active on the BLP noticeboard on the Wikipedia Review. However, it's easy to identify others who are, including quite a few with mops.—S Marshall T/C 12:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep- This shouldn't even be an issue. Notability was established, and several editors pointed this out in the AFD. There is no way that should have been deleted on notability grounds. Also, it has been long established that no consensus=default to keep, BLP or not. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Marginal BLP, a finding of delete is within admin discretion. I would also note that an admin Kinu (talk · contribs) who participated in the AfD to keep also restored the article pending this DRV. That seems highly improper, not only as a deletion discussion participant...and one on the other side of the final finding...but also if it was deleted then it should stay deleted pending this DRV. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is hardly anything improper about temporarily restoring the content and history of the article so that DRV participants can make a judgment about whether the concerns leading to deletion were properly addressed and weighed by the closing administrator during the course of the AfD. Likewise, my keep !vote at the AfD and choice to DRV are not related, per se; anyone can see that the former was based on my interpretation of policy/guidelines regarding article content, and the latter is based on my interpretation of policy/guidelines regarding AfD closures. I have no investment in this article beyond that. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh, I don't see the issue with it. It's standard practice to restore the article while it is at DRV, and someone would have done it. Better sooner than later. NW (Talk) 03:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as original AfD nom) - opinions at the AfD clearly show that notability is marginal at best, and the taking into account of long standing damaging material and closing as delete is easily within the closing admin's discretion. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn If anything consensus supports notability. The fact that there have been BLP problems that have since been corrected doesn't mean that this article as it stands has any BLP problem so arguing that it should somehow be pushed over to delete simply doesn't hold water. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep consensus was for retention and directly addressed the issue of notability. Deletion by the closing admin is contrary to community consensus on handling "no consensus" cases, even if there was indeed justification to close as "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus defaulting to keep. I would support "no consensus" defaulting to "delete" in rare situations such as the subject requesting deletion through OTRS but not in this case. The issue is WP:NSPORT which applies whether or not the subject is alive or dead. Also, on S Marshal's semi-sarcastic mention of WP:BLPFD, I suggested something very similar to that a few years ago on the Wikien mailing list (BLPs for discussion). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (keep/no consensus). There was no consensus to delete. "No consensus defaults to delete" has been proposed before and soundly rejected. The finality of a deletion decision requires a consensus. If it should be deleted, you should be able to convince the community. There were no serious BLP concerns. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, default to keep. No consensus, default to delete has never had community support. The article as it stands isn't a BLP violation. Nowhere in BLP policy does it say that past vandalism is a valid reason to delete a BLP-compliant article. The Keep arguments make valid guideline-based arguments regarding notability; the delete arguments fail to explain why [{WP:NSPORT]] should be ignored in this case. The AfD was relisted a week before closure and the only opinion since then was Keep, so why is the consensus to delete stronger now than it was then? This looks like an obvious overturn. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, default to keep. It is DRV decisions that ultimately refine and change deletion policy. When there are sufficient consistent decisions, these should lead to any required changes in policy and guideline statements. It seems to me me that community consensus remains that "no consensus" leads to "keep" even for BLPs. The present discussion (and my own personal view) supports that. The closure was contrary to policy. Thincat (talk) 22:14, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, it's long past time to get past the idea that "passing ATHLETE" (or any subguideline) excuses an article from actually having sufficient sourcing to sustain it. Subguidelines only can note where substantive sourcing is more likely. They may never supplant the requirement that it actually exist. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:32, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: we have three separate issue here: 1) Should BLPs default to delete; 2) Is WP:ATHLETE or WP:NSPORT still a "brightline" rules 3) should vandalism in an article have any impact on AfD decisions. I think that generally BLPs should default to delete, but WP:ATHLETE should be followed and vandalism is not a case for deletion. I actually saw the vandalism before it was oversighted (was unable to edit it out myself at the time, and it was oversighted before I got back to it, but remember thinking "Why didn't Kevin, the defender of all things BLP, delete the vandalism when he nominated it for deletion?"). It also wasn't subtle, hard to detect, easy to believe, defamatory vandalism, it was mindless drive-by obvious vandalism, by a single post user (who, incidently hasn't edited since, but also hasn't been blocked, so could return and edit/vandalise more). The thinking behind the WP:ATHLETE guideline is that if you've played professional sport, even only 4 games, there is probably, somewhere, online or offline, some significant coverage. We just haven't found it yet. The long-term vandalism indicates that it probably wasn't on many watchlists, something that is being worked on by some people - see User_talk:Scott_MacDonald/Pragmatic_BLP. So all up, there is nothing special about this case that shouldn't be covered by the WP:ATHLETE guideline and an improvement in BLP watching. The-Pope (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coy Stewart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Coy Stewart is in American child actor who currently co-stars in the TBS sitcom Are We There Yet?. The series was renewed for 90 additional episodes in August [1] [2] and is currently on hiatus. I know the reason for the deletion fell under under WP:TOOSOON at the time, but I am requesting that I have permission to re-create this page with a few of this references that I found: [3] [4] [5] QuasyBoy 17:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation without prejudice to a future AfD. The 2nd and 3rd sources listed are enough to believe . Please be aware that you need to be very careful with the BLP of a minor. Also, you might want to notify the folks from the AfD of this DrV as I think their input would be especially useful here. Do note though that if you notify any of them, you need to notify all of them (See WP:CANVAS) Hobit (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding I will notify the nominator now. :) QuasyBoy 19:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation as the primary reasons for deletion appear to have been addressed due to the show being aired and the providing of at least a few reliable sources. Per Hobit, WP:BLP applies, and no prejudice to a future AfD if appropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Massey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Laura Massey is a major part of the Microsoft's Xbox "public face". Her deleted Wikipedia article is more of a paragraph, which is badly written and sources no content I don't blame anyone for deleting this article. However we need to move past that and look at Laura's history of accomplishments as she does deserve to be fully documented on Wikipedia.

On January 13, 2010 Laura Massey created a new Engineering Blog for Microsoft "Xbox Engineering Blog" http://www.xbox.com/en-US/live/engineeringblog and she wrote the very first article "Welcome to the New Blog Post" http://www.xbox.com/en-US/Live/EngineeringBlog/011310-Welcome which was then later sourced on news site CVG in their article "MS launches Xbox Engineering Blog" http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=231769?cid=OTC-RSS&attr=CVG-News-RSS

On March 27th, 2010 Laura Massey was mentioned on gaming news site joystiq in their article "PAX East: Tour Microsoft's N.E.R.D. Cambridge office with us" http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/27/pax-east-tour-microsofts-n-e-r-d-cambridge-office-with-us/ showing the Microsoft's New England Research & Development Center at Cambridge

On April 30th, 2010 Laura Massey was mentioned on news site Platform Nation in their article "Free Code Friday: Are You Missing Out?" http://www.platformnation.com/2010/04/30/free-code-friday-are-you-missing-out/ describing the challenging giveaways that Laura Massey does over her twitter account http://twitter.com/lauralollipop on select Fridays

On June 14th, 2010 Laura Massey was the keynote speaker at the 2010 E3 Xbox 360 Media Briefing for Microsoft Electronic Entertainment Expo 2010 debuting a revolutionary motion controlled video chat system named Kinect chat. Kinect Laura appears in this video at 02:03 http://cnettv.cnet.com/e3-2010-microsoft-kinect-xbox-360/9742-1_53-50088986.htmln This is one of if not the most significant gaming events to happen every year and Laura was live onstage being broadcasted over the internet and television (G4TV coverage). Laura is an inspiration to many other girls in the technology industry, as noted in this aspiring student's blog "My sickness and “fanboy” moment" http://blogs.utexas.edu/cs/2010/09/23/my-sickness-and-fangirl-moment/

Many news outlets picked up Laura's E3 2010 coverage and wrote their own articles about her, which I will list below.

• "Microsoft E3 Press Conference Details" http://www.worldofmeh.com/2010/06/microsoft-e3-press-conference-details/
• "E3 2010: Microsoft Press Conference" http://www.slowdown.vg/2010/06/17/e3-2010-microsoft-press-conference/
• "Microsoft Kinects with Dallas from E3" http://www.leadershell.com/2010/06/14/microsoft-kinects-with-dallas-from-e3/
• "Avatar: The Last Airbender – The Burning Earth" http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Avatar:_The_Burning_Earth
• "PsEG's E3 Ramblings: June 14th, 2010" http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/pseg/psegs-e3-ramblings-june-14th-2010/30-52998/

On September 5th, 2010 Laura Massey was on the first Podcast to ever record a show in the famous Benaroya Hall Benaroya Hall Major Nelsons Podcast entitled "PAX Prime 2010 LIVE Show" http://majornelson.com/archive/2010/09/05/pax-prime-2010-live-show.aspx On this podcast Laura was also the first ever to perform at Benaroya Hall using a Livescribe pen http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002DJV83Y/amazon0b53-20/ as a musical instrument (piano). As such Laura Massey joins the long list of musician's to preform at Benaroya Hall in front of a large live audience.

On October 7th, 2010 Laura Massey was mentioned in the famous Wired UK magazine by her first name Laura as "Kinect engineer" http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2010/11/features/the-game-changer

On October 8th, 2010 Laura Massey was coined in a definition at urban dictionary "Codist" http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=codist
Bawitdaba1337 (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Analysing each of those sources in turn against the actual criteria of WP:N to see if they really are reliable independent sources that provide in-depth coverage, I see that the hit rate isn't very good.

  1) The xbox.com material is by Laura herself, hence is not independent.

  2) The computerandvideogames.com material is not an independent analysis, it simply reports what she said.

  3) The joystiq.com material is a passing mention of Laura's name, not in-depth coverage.

  4) The platformnation.com material is a passing mention of Laura's name.

  5) Twitter is user-submitted content, hence not a reliable source.

  6) Wikipedia is user-submitted content, hence not a reliable source.

  7) The cnet.tv source can't immediately be ruled out.

  8) The blogs.utexas.edu is a blog, hence user-submitted content, hence not a reliable source.

  9) The worldofmeh.com source analyses the content on the cnet.tv, and also can't immediately be ruled out.

  10) The slowdown.vg source disparages the cnet.tv material, but that actually enhances the case for notability (because it implies it's receiving attention from sources not associated with the subject).

  11) The leadershell.vg source is in exactly the same category as 9.

  12) The giantbomb.com source destroys its own credibility with the words: I wonder if Laura's presenting this as part of (Hi I'm Larry Hryb, Xbox Live's) Major Nelson's attempt to get her Wikipedia article back from the pits of deletion and can safely be ignored.

  13) The amazon.com source doesn't mention Laura Massey.

  14) Wired.com would be an excellent source if it had anything substantial to say about Laura Massey, but unfortunately it's only a passing mention of her name.

  15) Urbandictionary.com is user-submitted content and hence not a reliable source.

  It follows that of the many links in the nomination, the four worth following up are cnet.tv, worldofmeh.com, slowdown.vg and leadershell.vg. I'll leave it to others to make a detailed analysis of those sources.—S Marshall T/C 17:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say the cnet.tv source can be directly ruled out. The requirement is that the source is non-trivial coverage, to qutoe the WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. The cnet.tv source is not about Massey, it does not address the subject of Laura Massey. The sources analysing that fall into the same category, the coverage is not because or about Massey, it's about the event, it could have been anyone doing the presentation on kinect and they would have written the same commentary--82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and speedy close. The nominator concedes that the deletion was appropriate and in-process, and provides no reliable sources with nontrivial content. This article was being recreated ad nauseam, despite the clear consensus at the original AFD and the first DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and salting. The DRV rationale concedes that consensus to delete was appropriately ascertained. None of the sources above indicate any significant coverage beyond trivial mentions that would have swung the AfD consensus in the other direction or warrant recreation. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. We're told above that Laura Massey is a major part of the Microsoft's Xbox "public face". I don't know what this means. As I read on, I learn that she created a blog and that she was the keynote speaker at the 2010 E3 Xbox 360 Media Briefing for Microsoft. Now, being the keynote speaker at an academic conference is something at which my ears would prick up. But at a PR event by one company for one of its products? No. My own requirements for "notability" have sunk over the years here -- and I'll accept that she is a genuine human (in contrast to all the ingredients of fictional "universes" that get articles hereabouts) -- but I see nothing. Quite aside from the quality or quantity of the evidence proffered for it. -- Hoary (talk) 09:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review so the non admins can see it DGG ( talk ) 12:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion Having the article restored only provides confirmation that the subject is not notable. While the close could have been a "no consensus", the close was justifiable. Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Biega (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was referred here by the deleting editor (see here). The article was originally deleted after a discussion (I was not involved in) on 15 December 2009, however that discussion did not consider that the subject had been selected as a member of the 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team, thereby meeting the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY of achieving preeminent honours. I created from scratch a new article (different from the deleted version), but this was speedy deleted by Jayjg (as both nominator and executioner) without discussion as a “G4 Speedy Delete”. I think that G4 does not apply because the page deleted is not "substantially identical to the deleted version" and further, "the reason for the deletion no longer applies" because the article now highlights that the subject meets the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. I request that my version of the Alex Biega article be restored. If a deletion discussion is again warranted it can then be brought to a new AfD where the notability of 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team selection can be discussed. Dolovis (talk) 14:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• G4 reads: A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version (emphasis mine). Jayjg has misapplied G4. Overturn and restore without prejudice to a subsequent AfD.—S Marshall T/C 17:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The content of the two articles are substantially the same, the wording might be different but there is no additional content (other than listing some acheivments) that wasn't on the original for the most part which is what the G4 wording in my opinion is intending to convey. G4 most certainly applies here. The fact that he won the 2007 ECAC all-rookie team was known at the time of his articles deletion. Remember that WP:NHOCKEY does not guarantee an article, it is only a guideline as to when sources are likely to exist. -DJSasso (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may have been "known", but it wasn't in the version which was considered and deleted.
  • I'm not seeing a mention of it in the AfD or the article. It may have existed, but it's not clear it was taken into account. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not substantially identical, AfD discussion is warranted, and a year may have provided more coverage. The propriety of an original AfD closing administrator subsequently G4'ing a recreation (on other than obvious copyvio, hoax, or defamation grounds) is problematic--one suspects Jayjg might be too close to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it not common for a closing admin to watch to ensure discussions they closed aren't recreated? I thought that was expected of a closing admin. I have no problem with it going to Afd if thats where consensus is. But I don't think Jayjg acted in bad faith as your comment suggests. -DJSasso (talk) 19:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Your understanding of the role of the closing admin accords with my own, Djsasso. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I watch plenty of things I've deleted, too. But when G4 does not apply, as it did not here, I don't go about deleted things myself without tagging them. Administrators should always seek a second opinion in cases where they might appear to be biased, and deleting an article as G4 which had not been tagged by any other user smacks of acting as judge, jury, and executioner. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that G4 does apply here, which is why I deleted it in the first place, and G4s aren't a special class of speedies that must be tagged before being deleted. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I'm simply the closing admin here, and there's no rational claim of "bias". Jayjg ^(talk) 13:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I get that you think it applies--but you are wrong. It's not the same article, and "same claims of notability", even if it were correct (it's not), isn't grounds for a G4. Really, the best thing for you to do is admit that most of the people commenting here agree that it wasn't a G4 and that your deletion was out of policy, and agree not to do it again. Furthermore, WP:INVOLVED doesn't require actual bias, just the appearance of bias, as I know well from personal experience. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I would hardly say most people here have said it doesn't apply. 5 out of 12 have agreed with his deletion, so nearly half. So nowhere near what I would call most have said he was wrong. -DJSasso (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: I would think so as well. As the original author of the WP:NHOCKEY guideline, I'm not remotely sold on Dolovis' premise - there was no intent then, and has been no consensus subsequently, to consider an All-Rookie citation a "preeminent" honor in the same breath as "all-time top ten career scorer, won a major award given by the league, first team all-star, All-American," the examples given. Rather than overturn for an article bound straight for AfD out of process worship, perhaps Dolovis should consider going to the hockey project talk page and test his premise that such a citation would be so regarded.  Ravenswing  19:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn for the reason it is not a G4. Besides the All-Rookie honor (among others) some things have changed since 2009 and it's probably worthy of another look. Biega is out of college and really impressed the Sabres at Camp a few months ago. I believe he's considered one of their top D prospects. Also he's signed a 2-way contract with the Sabres and currently playing on their AHL affiliate now. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is relevant to WP:NHOCKEY, which states he should have played at least 100 games with in the AHL before being considered notable. So far he's played 1 game. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth an AfD not a speedy deletion being that it is different from past versions. Oh and btw, he's played 7 AHL games, so just 93 more, lol. A more useful fact than the awards and honors is that he's not just a college hockey player that's drafted (Afd in Dec 2009). He's a pro hockey player signed by the Sabres currently assigned to the AHL affiliate (speedy in Oct 2010). Bhockey10 (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORTS was created a few months ago for the specific purpose of helping to weed out players like this who have barely played pro. It is no longer good enough to just be a pro. That stopped being the case months ago. -DJSasso (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I rarely participate on the rare occasions my deletions go to DRV, but I'll make an exception here. The new article was a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" because it contained nothing new in it that overcame the unanimous objections of the editors involved in the original AfD, specifically that the individual failed WP:ATHLETE and WP:NHOCKEY. As for being "a member of the 2007 ECAC All-Rookie Team", that happened two years before the AfD, so it wasn't something new that happened to the individual since the time of the AfD. In addition, as pointed out by the original author of WP:NHOCKEY, it's not a "preeminent honor" anyway. Jayjg^(talk) 21:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a recent Afd on another player who was an all-rookie team member himself who had it mentioned in the afd itself and it was said that wasn't preeminent. As such nothing substantial has changed. -DJSasso (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is not even close to being comparable to the current situation: [Frank Pallotta] played a grand total of 49 games in the OPJHL, which is several steps below the USHL. Dolovis (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that his All Rookie came from college hockey not the OPJHL, and the OPJHL is the same level as the USHL anyways. I would also note that the hockeydb is missing a number of years of his stats. hockeydb is very often not updated as well as it could be for junior and minor league seasons because the information is harder for the site owner to find. -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: By Jayjg's above logic, once a unanimous AfD discussion has concluded, then it must never again be revisted. That is (hopefully) not true. My argument is that this article should be discussed at a new AfD, and not unilaterally 'Speedy Deleted' under G4 (which does not apply). At the next AfD, these other "awards and honours" (which were not discussed in 2009) will also be considered when determining notability:

2006-07: Won the George Percy Award as the Crimson's top rookie (shared with Doug Rogers)[6]

2006-07: Named to ECAC Hockey League All-Rookie team[7][8][9]

2008-09: Awarded the John Tudor Memorial Cup as the Crimson's most valuable player[10]

2008-09: Selected to the New England All-Star team and All-Ivy League first team[11]

2009-10: Named the 116th captain of Harvard men's hockey[12] Dolovis (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teams and conferences generally dole out honors and awards, and most teams do indeed elect captains. There is a reason I used the term preeminent honor. Biega was not an All-American, he did not win the ECAC scoring title, he is not in the NCAA's all-time top ten scorers, and the direct intent from the start - supported by consensus thereafter - was for the bar for low minor leagues, junior hockey and college hockey to be exactly that high. Once again, if you want to change consensus and water down the standards, this isn't the place for it.  Ravenswing  23:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may make that argument at the next AfD. the point of this discussion is whether or not the article was a candidate for G4 Speedy delete, and if the nominating editor should also be the deleting editor. Dolovis (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think DRV is addressing speedies recently in an entirely wrong-headed manner: unless there's clear harm for restoring an article, (G10, G11, G12) any contested speedy should simply be restored and listed at AfD. Dragging out notability arguments here that belong in an AfD is unhelpful. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it has never been the case that contested speedy's go to AFD. Feel free to gain some consensus beyond your own view to change this long standing position, but this DRV isn't the right place. Given the vast quantity of crap which is created and deleted which doesn't fall into your limited list I can't imagine stuffing AFD with them is going to be useful. PROD was designed to fit the gap, those things which aren't by consensus immediately deletable and those things where AFD is possibly too heavyweight. FWIW I'll agree that going too far off no a notability isn't relevant for DRV, but I'd expect whoever closes it to ignore the irrelevant discussion.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dolovis, it's not at all "my logic" that "once a unanimous AfD discussion has concluded, then it must never again be revisted." - that's just some odd straw man you've invented. My logic is, once an AfD discussion has concluded with a delete decision, a new article on the topic should not be created unless it addresses in some substantial way the reasons for the deletion - i.e. the article is no longer "substantially identical to the deleted version" and further, "the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Also, we can't really "discuss" whether "the nominating editor should also be the deleting editor", since I'm not the "nominating editor", I'm just the "deleting administrator". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and speedy deletes do not all need to be "nominated" before they are deleted. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Not a G4 unless I'm missing something about the awards in the article or AfD. Certainly think this should go to AfD (again) though where I suspect it won't make it. Hobit (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this rate by the time we get consensus if it should be recreated and go back to AfD he'll have played an NHL game and that'll solve the issue (which likely will come in the next few months anyway). Bhockey10 (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. On balance, given the passage of time, it is not an obvious G4. It'll probably get deleted at AfD again, but that's a discussion for there, not here. QU ^TalkQu 09:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Tacking on another award or two is not substantively different IMO, this is still a notability failure. If this kid is such a hot prospect, just wait a few months until he laces up for an NHL game. Tarc (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing an AfD would be good for is that since he signed with the Sabres there looks to be quite a bit of independent, reliable sources written so it's worth an AfD look because he might pass GNG without playing his first NHL game yet. The whole point of this discussion is that it's not a speedy deletion candidate, and esp for the reason given. Bhockey10 (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, clearly not a G4, if for no other reason than that the original AFD (and in particular the original close) stressed that the subject had zero professional experience, while the article version that was supposedly identical discusses his (so far brief) post-AFD professional career. The article might not survive another AFD, but that's the process called for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as there is still no provision of substantive sources capable of sustaining the article. Subguidelines on notability never override that requirement, only note where it is more likely to be met. Subjects which do not in fact meet it still must go. If he's really that good, maybe he'll have sufficient coverage for an article someday. We can write it after that happens. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

More specifically I'm requesting the reinstatement of

• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Fixed
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Radial Ultra Cross
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Radial
• Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/Ultra Game
• and all other pages linked from Template:Word Association

The word association subpages were not nominated, tagged nor discussed in the linked MfD discussion, nor were regular contributors notified. Several precedents have shown support for keeping the word association games. See:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandbox/Word Association (speedy keep, August 2005)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (3rd nomination) (keep, March 2007)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (2nd nomination) (no consensus November 2006)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Games (Word Association kept, January 2007)
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 4 (keep undeleted)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (4th nomination) (no consensus, July 2007)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association (5th nomination) (speedy keep, August 2007)

I can't find the other, more recent, discussions I know that I have resulted in "keep" outcomes, nor the 2nd nomination at MfD the outcome of which I presume was "keep" or "non consensus"), nor at least one other DRV that I remember commenting on.

Given that no discussion to date has resulted in a consensus to delete the word association games, to delete them with no discussion seems wrong to me. To be clear, although I favour keeping these pages I have no prejudice against anyone who wishes to discuss their deletion again, but only if all parties are informed about the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Sandbox/test was relisted. It lasted longer than usual MFD discussions. But it was still unanimous consensus to delete. This is also as per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is for writing encyclopedia articles, not playing silly games like this. -- Cirt (talk) 13:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominated page was actually Wikipedia:Sandbox/Test, which was not the word association game or any of its variants. The users of the Word Association pages were not notified of the discussion (none of the pages were tagged, none of the regular players were notified), and if you read the above linked discussions (and others I'm still searching for) there has never been consensus that WP:NOTWEBHOST applies to community pages and other such pages have been regularly kept at MfD and other discussions that included reasons advanced for why they beneift Wikipedia. See for example the third comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun (3rd nomination) (several of the deletion discussions about the Department for Fun, that have all ended in Keep outcomes, mention Word Association specifically. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun (4th nomination) for links to them all). Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to restore Word Association games only to be honest, I wasn't aware that anything useful was hosted under Wikipedia:Sandbox/ subpages when I commented on the MfD. The few pages I glanced at looked like test pages. Games that have an encyclopedic purpose are acceptable. Gigs (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the encyclopedic purpose for these pages? -- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the page, helping people learn how to make blue links and find articles they are interested in editing. I admit it's not earth shattering, but there's a fundamental difference between an encyclopedic game and someone hosting fantasy football or a collaborative vampire story in userspace. The focus here is on the encyclopedia itself. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at MfD - Despite the fact that these pages are utterly silly and clearly not useful in any way towards building an encyclopedia, the nominator has a point that they were technically not deleted correctly (although in Cirt's defense, I would have done the exact same thing if I were closing the MfD). The MfD started out with a nomination only for Wikipedia:Sandbox/test. The !voters noticed that there were other useless subpages and suggested that they also be deleted, and everyone agreed. However, the subpages were never tagged for deletion, so editors who are watching those pages would have never known about the discussion and didn't have the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. It truly would be a complete waste of everyone's time if these were relisted, but if we're going to do this right, then let's do it right. In my opinion, these should all be deleted per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:UP#GAMES, the latter of which I realize is not technically applicable in this case, but the spirit of the policy is clear. If this page were in userspace, it would be deleted per WP:UP#GAMES, but it certainly has no place in the WP namespace either. SnottyWong ^spout 14:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per WP:IAR. I changed my mind, this is too stupid. It's just not worth wasting everyone's time with another MfD just to be able to say, "We followed the rules." SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 14:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse game deletion - If we need to get a little IAR'ish to finally overcome the "keep, its a fun harmless game" nonsense that infests these sorts of attachments, then so be it. This sort of thing is stripped out of userspace routinely; there's no reason to keep one under the Sandbox of all places. Admin discretion here is correct. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the location, yes the sandbox is not ideal. If I'd have thought of it before the out of process deletions today I'd have proposed moving them to subpages of the Department of Fun (and will do if they're reinstated). Given that they've been discussed as part of the endless attempts to delete the dept of fun, and formed part of the repeated conensus to keep, it would make sense. Just because something is not in the correct location though does not mean it's ok to delete it without discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The location is a minor point, and moving it elsewhere would not alter my opinion. If you want to play games, login to facebook and join Farmville. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which unlike the word association games does nothing to promote or develop the encyclopaedia and does nothing to facilitate the Wikimedia community that makes Wikipedia what it is and has been valued time and time again in every discussion that touches on it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose learning new articles means nothing? And also stress-relief? Simply south (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what you mean "learning new articles", if you mean finding new stuff Special:Random is pretty good, WP:THERAPY, if people are stressed because of wikipedia the best relief is to go elsewhere for the relief. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learning about different articles and learning some links between articles. As for doctor's prescription, that is a bit extreme and i'm meaning a place to unwind but still be encyclopaedic. Simply south (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• RESTORE. Why was nothing posted on the Word Association page? I was on there just a couple of days ago and no notice was on the page. I believe a notice on discussion is required on the relevant page. Squad51 (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment If consensus here is to keep the pages deleted, then Category:Wikipedia Word Association and Template:Word Association (both currently nominated for deletion, but both discussions not unlikely to be closed pending the outcome of this DRV) can probably be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G8 (pages dependent on a deleted page). Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and move per the lack of notice to the involved parties, the history of previous retention, and the fact that these games aren't anywhere near as stupid as "secret pages". Language games aren't the same as Farmville. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of these games per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Wikipedia is not a game server for pages that do not contribute to building the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Per the MfD process, pages nominated for deletion should be notified of their impending doom. This was not done, so process was not followed. Most of the arguments above could then, properly, be aired when the pages are listed for deletion in the correct way. Bigger digger (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• List at MfD I shall probably to delete these in the end, but they have not yet had a proper discussion. I agree with Jclemens that more can be said for them than for some of the game pages that have recently been deleted. There has not been a consensus to delete all games automatically, and the XfD cited was not sufficient warrant to do so. They need individual or related-group specific discussions--however, the keeps of all such games several years ago are unlikely to represent the present consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. The affected pages weren't tagged, and there was minimal participation in the vote, accordingly. Whether or not you are in favor of keeping the pages, you shouldn't deny them the process any other page would get. —Kymacpherson (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, apparently out of process, but list at MFD where I would be minded to delete. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at MfD for further discussion, as is clearly desired. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
• Restore with no prejudice against listing at MfD. I see no reason why it was necessary to ignore the rules in this case, so the process ought to be followed.—S Marshall T/C 17:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist IAR is not an end-run-around discussion and process. There appears to be enough controversy that a (real) discussion is warranted. The original decision was flawed because it did not consider renaming as a possibility and deleted because of the name/location, not the content. --NYKevin @915, i.e. 20:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per S Marshall. I see no reason to ignore process here. This isn't a good case for IAR. Hobit (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at MfD. This shouldn't have been bundled with the other deletions; in fact, it wasn't but somehow happened anyway. If the pages need deleting, there's no harm in waiting a week or two for them to go through the process normally. --ais523 13:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore Word Association games only. Out of process deletion. These games are a great way for readers to navigate Wikipedia and find interesting articles. -- œ^™ 01:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore Word Association pages. Proper notification and procedure was not followed under the guidelines for MfD. <edit> Also, there are more than a dozen other similar activities still valid under "Games" at WP:FUN — Michael J 03:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore III (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An editor recreated the same content as the deleted version, and said on the talk page that he was unable to use DRV for some reason. So this is a nomination on his behalf.   Will Beback  talk  03:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - This editor has not actually articulated a reason to overturn the last AfD, nor evidence provided that this person's notability issues have changed since then. Simply "I think it's time it is reconsidered" is not a valid reason. Tarc (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to userspace Prior consensus was that the article as it existed should be deleted and nothing appears to have been added to the article to better support a claim of notability. Article should be expanded in userspace with additional reliable and verifiable sources establishing notability and a move to mainspace should be considered based on any expansion. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse & Salt We have a clear consensus and the recreated article is not that of someone notable enough for their own article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My view is that we should actually delete the article and redirect, which was never done (it was just redirected). If there is information that the subject has done something new to increase his notability then that would be an appropriate time to revisit the issue.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I'm not seeing any recent news or links which move this BLP forward. If the only events we have documented are traffic citations and personal injuries, there's just not enough material to justify its own article. BusterD (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schooley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• Overturn

Ms. Schooley has a significant fanbase, as can be demonstrated by her Twitter and Facebook followers:

• http://www.facebook.com/EmilySchooley
• https://twitter.com/the_emi

Note that her Facebook page has more fans than that of fellow Canadian actress, Kate Hewlett, who has an established niche fanbase for her work in sci-fi shows.

• http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kate-Hewlett/11899401858

Ms Schooley's page was submitted for deletion by someone from Frozen North Productions as a spiteful move. She is a Toronto actress with a rising film career chronicled in WP:N sites like Fangoria, as well as reputable newspapers such as the Kitchener-Waterloo Record (see: http://news.therecord.com/printArticle/225554). She is a featured speaker and guest at known conventions such as Polaris (formerly Toronto Trek) and Notacon, and several of her films have screened internationally (Orange Girl, a short film has screened in Canada, the USA, and Britain, for example.)

Her article should not have been deleted in the first place, and myself and other fans are willing to lobby to have it kept.

Her films that we believe meet WP:NACTOR are:

• 'Black Eve' (principal role)
• http://www.fangoria.com/?option=com_content&view=article&id=187:first-comments-and-exclusive-pic-from-black-eve&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=167&reset-settings
• http://www.bigdaddyhorrorreviews.com/2010/09/interview-with-ryan-m-andrews-black-eve.html
• http://www.28dayslateranalysis.com/2010/03/black-eve-lives-in-your-nightmares.html

• 'One Week in Windchocombe' (lead role)
• http://horrornews.net/6994/one-week-in-windchocombe-new-indie-scare/
• http://www.fatally-yours.com/news/indie-haunted-house-tale-one-week-in-windchocombe-begins-shooting-directed-by-f-y-contributor-jeffery-j-timbrell/
• http://www.28dayslateranalysis.com/2010/08/indie-horror-alert-one-week-in.html

• '140' (principal role - segment)
• http://www.seattleweekly.com/movies/140-962899/
• http://www.denverfilm.org/filmcenter/detail.aspx?id=23209
• http://events.nbc13.com/movies/show/148765-140

• 'Small Town Murder Songs' (more minor role, but screened at Toronto International Film Festival)
• http://tiff.net/filmsandschedules/tiff/2010/smalltownmurdersongs

She has also been directly interviewed by independent film sites, such as:

• http://www.ferntv.ca/FERN_TV/Schooley_and_Jovey.html
• http://filmsnobbery.com/interviews/emily-schooley-interview/

These are sites that regularly cover notable independent film news.

As was said by another Canadian wikipedia user: The sad reality is that the current rules defining "notability" are strongly skewed against the Canadian entertainment industry. If Toronto was Los Angeles or New York, an actress of equal notability as Emily would have significantly more online references, put online by the promotional "machines" that exist within those cities. But it simply doesn't work that way on Canada (or most of the world, for that matter). Despite the fact that Emily is known for her film and (national) television appearances here in Canada as well for as her acting classes and workshops, those appearances and works aren't plastered all over the internet in the same way that similar work on New York or Los Angeles would be. This simple imbalance is, in my humble opinion, causing a mass extermination of articles about Canadian talent (actors, models, musicians,etc.) across wikipidia, not to mention articles about other aspects of the Canadian entertainment industry (e.g. awards such as The Constellation Awards having their articles deleted because of lack of "notability" internationally). This has got to stop. Wikipedia should be a balanced, INTERNATIONAL reference, and we as Canadians should be able to look up and research elements of our entertainment culture here as easily and readily as Americans. I therefore ask that we support a KEEP for this article, and furthermore consider ways that this imbalance around "notability" might be resolved so that we can put a stop to the slow disappearance of Canadian entertainment industry information from Wikipedia.

(As a side note, the simple fact that Emily has been a "notable guest" at events such as Polaris (http://www.tcon.ca/polaris/modules/content/index.php?id=291) should, imo, convey her notability in this country. But again, it appears that Wikipedia's guidelines do not give reasonable weight to local indicators such as being honoured in such a manner at major events outside of the USA, sadly). --guru (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There was NOT a general consensus to delete - many non-sis also came along and voted to keep. Bytemeh (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a reason that the Deletion Review instructions say to visit the talk page of the deleting administrator first, you know. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Worth noting that Kate Hewlett is an actual actress with roles in legitimate TV series like Kevin Hill (UPN), Psych (USA), Flashpoint (CBS), Stargate: Atlantis - what difference does it make how many facebook fans she has? I'll refrain from commenting any further since I feel like enough people's time is continuing to be wasted on this topic. Deepsix66 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Deepsix66[reply]

Comment: Ms. Schooley has also been on television - recently on This Movie Sucks! - as well as in films that some Wikipedia regular contributors felt were notable. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no comparison between what is essentially a cable access show on a Hamilton local station and shows that have aired on national US networks like UPN/CBS/USA etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepsix66 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not going to bother arguing the other specialty channels it screens on - you seem to have an unhealthy bias against anything to do with Emily and my efforts would be wasted. Bytemeh (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - You seem to misunderstand the purpose of Deletion review. First, you need to alert the closing administrator. Second, Deletion review is for pages you believe the administrator closed unfairly. It's clear that you're looking to restart the deletion discussion. Deletion review is not AfD round two, it's for when you believe an administrator misinterpreted the consensus. The deletion review page clearly states: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome. I'm endorsing because there was a consensus to delete. GorillaWarfare(talk) 17:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC) signature added by Bigger digger (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I feel differently - there was not a sweeping consensus to delete. Completely aside from SPAs, there were several strong arguments to keep that were posted by established Wikipedia users. I'm not trying to re-open the AfD debate, I'm saying that I do not think equal weight was given to the arguments to keep vs delete. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as noted above, DRV is not AFD round 2, specifically, in big bold letters at the top it states very clearly: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". The consensus was clear and the debate was flooded by sockpuppets/SPAs voting keep, which is never a good sign. Also, while not related to this DRV I did read the first few posts on your blog and every single one of them was an angry feud against people you've worked with, one of whom even took you to a collections agency! I know DRV isn't a good place to give anyone career advice but damn, it has to be said that it comes off as very unprofessional and may be a clue to why you haven't been able to find work significant enough to pass our guidelines for actors and entertainers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not Emily, sorry. She probably won't ever see your message. However, if you'd bothered to actually read rather than skim her blog, you'd see that she's taking the time to stand up to a man who scams and harasses artists, nevermind that she's also brave enough to speak out against harassment from a former employer, which is who submitted her article for deletion in the first place. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the above two. Deletion review is available where deletion process has been violated. When a deletion review relates to the outcome of a deletion discussion, I would apply the Wednesbury test to see whether deletion review should interfere — did the closing administrator give weight to something to which he should not have given weight, did he omit to give weight to something to which he should have given weight, or did he arrive at a decision at which no reasonable administrator could have arrived? Only if one of these three criteria applies is it appropriate for deletion review to substitute its judgment for that of the closer.
  For the purpose of clarity, this unreasonability test applies to deletions after a discussion — speedy deletions etc. should not be encompassed. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the closing admin did not give equal weight to the valid keep arguments by established Wikipedia users. Bytemeh (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see an unpleasant irregularity in the discussion that complicates this. I definitely do not approve of Jrtayloriv's re-organisation of the debate to filter new users' contributions to a separate section; there are good reasons why that's not okay. I suspect that whatever Jrtayloriv's intention might have been, his re-organisation had a chilling effect on the discussion and may well have stopped some users from contributing. I'm not thrilled: problems like this is why the number of active wikipedians is declining. I'm also of the view that whether or not Cirt's conclusion in this case was correct, what we've failed to do is show FairProcess. Further, I'm mindful that the discussion was disrupted by legal threats, personal attacks, implications of sockpuppetry and other implied insults in the text of the discussion, direct accusations of sockpuppetry in the edit summaries, and in fact a truly deplorable amount of sanctionable behaviour.

  I have not seen the text of the original article but at the moment I'm definitely leaning towards overturn and discuss it properly.—S Marshall T/C 21:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: The version that was deleted is substantially the same as the version currently userified at User:Misssinformative/Emily Schooley DGG ( talk )

Comment: When orginally submitted for deletion, the article was in this state: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Misssinformative/Emily_Schooley&oldid=379231342 Much work had been done between that version and the one that was deleted. I am only speculating, but it would seem the article's original creation, many subsequent edits, and deletion were a source of discouragement to the original creator, who wanted to contribute to getting the Toronto arts scene more recognition, something I am wholly in favour of. Many of the WP: NPA edits on the original AfD discussion took out some valid points, and edits to Delete votes were done much later than edits to Keep. The whole discussion, imo, was a mess and did fail FairProcess. Prior to deletion of said comment, Jrtayloriv posted a PA regarding Emily's demo reel. Aside from other judgments, his, Deepsix66, and several others' comments were not in line with WP:NPOV; Deepsix66 also failed to WP:AGF in his original PROD request, stating that the article was submitted by Emily herself when the user creating it had already stated otherwise. Addionne, who bothered to spend some time researching Schooley, changed his vote from delete to keep upon the discovery of additional information. That should be fairly telling. Bytemeh (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, we understand that. Particularly the part about "getting the Toronto arts scene more recognition"—and indeed getting more recognition for Emily herself. These were clearly the purposes of the article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It's not the case that you can add a Wikipedia article in the hope of becoming more notable. Instead, you must become notable in your own right before you get a Wikipedia article. The behaviour of the "keep" side in this, with the threats, the large number of new accounts, and the many attempted rebuttals that don't show an understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, is very familiar to us at DRV and I would normally disapprove. You will definitely not help your side by responding to every single remark at this DRV.

  In this case, however, the behaviour of the "keep" side has been counterbalanced by what I see as equally deplorable behaviour on the "delete" side. There were those who sank quite low in their attempts to see this article deleted and as a matter of principle, those people should not get what they want. Also, we need to show that our processes are transparent, intelligible and fair. Not only must justice be done, it must also be seen to be done.

  What will help you now is not further argument, but further reliable sources. One piece of evidence is worth a hundred wordy rebuttals.—S Marshall T/C 09:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The close was correct, I do not see how any other close was possible. There is no way she meets the usual guidelines, either those specifically for performers or the GNG. Nor does she meet a level of apparent importance, shown however informally, that one would be justified in keeping the article as an exception. The lack of understanding of our standards is shown by the fact that the lead sentence of even the currently revised userspace article continues to call her an " up-and-coming " actress. That this still needs to be said even by her most active proponents indicates the inevitable judgment of not yet notable. The reorganization of the article should not have been done: admins are not (usually) idiots and know how to discount !votes from spas. Speaking of which, I am quite aware that the user who initiated the AfD did so only to remove the article. That is irrelevant to the merits, and no reasonable admin such as Cirt would be influenced by it one way or another. though I must admit that the unreasonable animus expressed does see to put the equally unreasonable support in perspective.I suggest at the end of the discussion deleting the user space draft and blanking this discussion and the AfD, in order to protect the subject, by not making she and her fans look unnecessarily ridiculous on a very public site. That someone claiming to be her--and whom, based on the arguments, might well be--joined the discussion, is still no reason not to protect her, in the BLP spirit of doing no harm. Should she eventually become notable this need not be on her public record. I also note the exceptionally nasty done of the discussions, and some formal warnings -- at the least -- are in order once the matter is concluded here. Normally I would endorse S Marshall's suggestion of relisting a dispute as contaminated as this one, but I think it will just lead to the further embarrassment of all concerned. If it does take place, it would be best if none of the people contributing to the original debate took part, and I would be prepared to invoke IAR and topic-ban if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It be in good faith to contact her to confirm, and perhaps get more details about why this is all happening. Bytemeh (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have been trying to tell you that the question is whether the notability of the subject meets the standard, not why someone has proposed the article be deleted. Neither is it relevant to the question of meeting our standards whether the person commenting under her name is actually the subject. That would be relevant only if she herself were requesting deletion, which seems to be the opposite of the case--we give in some circumstances respect to a marginally notable subject's request not to have an article. We do not give any attention to a subject's request to have one. The proper way to deal with complaints that Wikipedia is being used for harassment is through WP:OTRS. DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd meant to ask that as a question, not a comment. And that is fair - I am trying to find additional sources that show she does meet WP:NACTOR, as well as point out some of the ways in which the original AfD could have been better-handled. Bytemeh (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - This was a good close that reflected consensus from a convoluted AfD. I agree with others that the "sorting" was unnecessarily polarizing. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The sorting was not a good idea, but any "chilling effect" is probably only for SPAs whose comments would have been discounted anyway. Thus I don't see a reasonable probability that, but for the sorting, the result would have been different. T. Canens (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. As per argument above listing notable projects, speaker credentials, and valid WP:RS sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.188.217 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To the person above: you might want to sign-in if your IP is shared. The IP has been used very recently for vandalism and personal attacks related to this situation. Your points might be better accepted if you are not associated with it. Puffinpencil (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: For pity's sake, DRV isn't "You should overturn it because I don't like the result." Leaving aside complete irrelevancies such as how many friends she has on Facebook (I've a 19 year old friend who has half again as many) or the fairness of the situation that obscure Toronto actresses don't gain as much press attention as prominent New York actresses, there are two premises I'd like to attack. To wit: the knee-jerk assumption that the only reason an editor would propose an article for deletion is out of malice, and that Wikipedia has some duty to promote a particular country's (city, school, region) people and institutions out of "balance" or "fairness." Neither are supported by Wikipedia policy or guideline, and both are nonsense.  Ravenswing  20:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Several film projects she has done are notable, as outlined above (140 was covered in Wired.com) - not to mention that she is an invited/notable guest at conventions. That should say something. Edfan77 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC) — Edfan77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: I've been an invited guest at conventions; that doesn't make me notable. In any event, notability is not inherited, and one doesn't pass WP:BIO through association with a film. Beyond that, consensus has already ruled on whether or not Ms. Schooley was notable, as Wikipedia guidelines define "notability." DRV is for judging whether the deletion debate was improperly closed. Do you have any valid policy grounds upon which to claim that it was?  Ravenswing  13:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion; allow restoration to userspace or incubator. While I do not consider the segregation of !votes from new editors to be good practice, neither do I consider it to have tainted the AfD. That said, I call out this quote from the editor who opened the review: "myself and other fans are willing to lobby to have [the article] kept." This is not AfD revisited. However, if the fans think the article can be improved to overcome the concerns raised at AfD, then working on the article in userspace or the WP:Article Incubator may be an appropriate next step. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:History short (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Administrative_disruption_at_Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FMediaWiki:History_short and the MfD. I think that the admin should not have protected the page so quickly; rather, he should have talked with other editors about it first. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, blatantly inconsistent with consensus. If wider participation is needed, the discussion could be listed at template:centralized discussion or wikipedia:village pump, but not simply closed against the wishes of every participant. Technical note: deletion of the page will restore the default setting, and will not break the site interface. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: On October 10, the closing admin, Ruslik0 (talk · contribs) wrote in the first close of the MfD:

  MfD is not a right place to propose MediaWiki pages for deletion. They are part of the software that runs this site and changes to them are cite-wide changes (which may have unintended consequences). If you think that a MediaPage should be edited or deleted go to a Village Pump.

  The closure was then undone by Gavia immer (talk · contribs) on the same day with the edit summary "With all due respect, please see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/MediaWiki:". On October 18, I relisted the debate to allow for more discussion, whereupon three editors opined to delete. On October 18, Ruslik0 closed the discussion and protected the page.

  I believe that the protection of the page is an acceptable use of the administrative tools to prevent edit warring over the close.

  As to whether this closure, should be overturned, I am unsure. Site-wide changes should have more discussion. Perhaps the MfD could be relisted and then listed at WP:CENT and/or the village pump to allow for further discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Protection alone, perhaps, but the fact that the admin closed the MfD again immediately after the protection makes it seem a little more authoritative and unilateral than it has to be. Since he tried to close it before, and it was controversial as someone objected to the decision and reverted him, the best way for him to deal with it would have been to ask another admin who hasn’t participated in the discussion to close it for him. Specifically speaking, closing the MfD right after he decided to protect it is basically the same as trying to revert to the version he considered right, when he himself has participated in the “edit war” per se. (By the way, thank you for notifying everyone who participated in the MfD; I forgot to do that.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I re-closed MfD before protection, not after it. Ruslik_Zero 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I see no reason that MediaWiki space pages can't be discussed at MfD. Since the deletion of this is particularly uncontroversial, this really is process for the sake of process. Gigs (talk) 07:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment of the closing admin. The initial change was made after a discussion on a Village pump. I believe it is not appropriate to use one process to undo results of another. In addition, none of participants of the earlier discussion were notified, including the administrator who made the change. So, I think the problem should be discussed on on the Village pump, where the initial change was made. Ruslik_Zero 08:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• IAR endorse it isn't clear to me if this is a good idea, bad idea or irrelevant. It also isn't clear if MfD is the right place for this "on paper" or not. But I agree with the closing admin that there is probably a better way forward than MfD and that's to discuss with those you disagree with per WP:BRD. If _that_ doesn't resolve it, maybe MfD is the right place to go, I'll leave it for people more policy-wonky than I. Hobit (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, of course. As Ruslik0 says, "I think" - he had an opinion on deletion - and he used administrative buttons to enforce it. As to whether MfD is the right place - it's been used before, and will be used again, for this sort of thing. In actual practice, it's a letter "h" that basically nobody will ever see. It should be G6, not Village Pump-MfD-DrV-Whatever. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I voted in the original thing. This MfD wasn't overturning Village Pump policy, as that had already happended in earlier MfD(s). This is simply completing a process that was already started and as such would have been appropriate for WP:G6. Failing that, MfD was the appropriate forum to complete the implementation of a policy already established by the earlier MfD(s). --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} via alternate account 03:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Closed completely against consensus. The protection only strengthens the argument against the closing admin. Plus, it says on the MfD page that MediaWiki is one of the namespaces usable with that process.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. There is no policy that I am aware of prohibiting nominating MediaWiki pages at MFD. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fitzgerald (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Many cites with in depth coverage from major sources UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You should probably try to address the arguments raised in the AFD concerning WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE, etc. (And make it clear if you are contesting the original deletion, or my more recent G4 deletion). –xeno^talk 15:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably try to address the fact that she is notable according to basic wiki policy on notability rather then linking to an editors essay which is considered to be "advice or opinion." Also, the undue claims could be dealt with through editing and is no means for deletion, it is a means for editing.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also it should be noted that in the original AFD, after what appeared to have been significant editing to the article by the Article Rescue Squadron, most editors voted to keep the article. Then, a few days later, after it was relisted the few who were still following the article voted to delete.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per User Frank this hearing is only about whether the AFD was flawed. Looking only at the AfD, it was a procedural nightmare, it was very unfair and seemed like a mild conspiracy. Could someone point me in the direction of wiki policy of what determines whether an AfD was flawed? --UhOhFeeling (talk) 07:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're already in the right place.  Frank  |  talk  17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Notability is a guideline too so matching N doesn't automatically mean an article if there are compelling arguments against the article. That appears to have been the overwhelming consensus of the AFD. The deleted article failed to address the "undue" & Coatrack issues identified in the discussion which clearly mandated that we do not carry a BLP as unbalanced as this. I'm tempted to add in a dash of BLP1E here as well but that is unnecessary. The nominator would be best served by writing a balanced article in userspace that addresses the material he wants to add in a balanced way in the context of the subjects entire life, works and achievements. This can then be brought here for review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to the policy that matches your agrument. Also, in addressing the undue issues, isn't that what editing is for? Concerning coatrack, actual policy overrides "opinion or advice." As Fitzgerald is clearly notable (I believe), coatrack is not a valid reason to delete. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS; WP:BLP; WP:IAR; WP:N; WP:GNG; WP:UNDUE & WP:COATRACK. We already know that you think we should host an article but the last time we discussed it, there was a very clear consensus on why we wouldn't host that particular version and your deleted version failed to address that consensus Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, consensus appeared to be leaning toward keep til it was relisted days later. Aren't most of the other policies you point to (other then notability obviously) concerned with the editing of the article rather then whether the article should be deleted or not? In other words point me to the policy that says because an article is poorly written it should be deleted even though the subject meets notability. Also, I can't see the earlier version so I don't really know what the problem was then. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per clear consensus to delete. Also noting that I think the consensus was to delete before the AfD was relisted, although less clear. -Atmoz (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn original afd to no consensus and restore the version deleted at that time. The AfD was very improperly closed, irrespective of the arguments. It was first closed as keep (probably should have been no-consensus), and was relisted by the closing admin after a discussion on his talk p. at [13]. There then followed 6 immediate delete !votes over the next 4 hours and it was then reclosed as delete without further discussion or a chance for rebuttal. Actually there were not 6 votes, since 4 of the people simply voted a second time. --there were only 2 new people. Of course it's OK to offer a comment after a relisting, but not a second !vote. No matter how long the debate goes on, every gets one !vote. However, the last version of the article that was G4'd was not really adequate, and omitted some of the better references. Another try might be appropriate. See the DailyKos version. It's CC_BY_SA, so it can just be copied over--it comes from one of our previous versions in any case. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per DGG. The original close (or at least its outcome) was probably sound enough, given the extensive improvements to the article while the AFD was pending, but the precipitous second close was clearly inappropriate -- it appears to take duplicate !votes into account, and failed to provide an adequate opportunity for participation by other !voters after the duplicate blitzkreig. The Google-cached version of the article does not reflect the state of the article at the time of deletion; the Daily Kos version appears to represent the text adequately, although it did not pick up the references Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse, noting solely that the reason of interest comes from rumours of an affair about living people, and of the subject it is written: "Fitzgerald has never spoken to the media. She has retired and lives a secluded life." Undelete when those involved are no longer living. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - within admin discretion. I agree the whole closing, re-opening and then closing again wasn't handled especially well, however the overall result reflected the consensus of the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't think we should assume the final close took into account "duplicate votes". Frequently when an AfD is re-listed, contributors come back to reverse, modify, or affirm their views. Here, a number of contributors affirmed their delete views. 3 new delete !votes came in with no keeps. The closer was thus more than entitled to close as delete.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not without allowing proponents of differing views to respond. As DGG points out, after having been closed as keep for nearly two days, the discussion was reopened and reclosed after less than 4 hours. That's inadequate on its face. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's the first close that was misconceived, as demonstrated by by the discussion on the deleting admin's talk page. Another admin comes along, finds a consensus in the re-listed debate, and acts upon it. I don't see a problem with that. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the first close was misconceived that does not excuse or justify the later open and close which is clearly inadequate per se.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- two key concerns were that the article relied heavily on stuff written by Kitty Kelley, who is not regarded as particularly reliable, and that the article was basically one big rumour regarding the subject's alleged relationship with a US president- not an actual biography. Those are pretty relevant concerns and the people advocating keep did not in any way address them from what I can see, so I think deletion is within the closing admin's discretion. Reyk _YO! 23:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• relist as the AfD was certainly flawed. We've got multiple !votes from the same people, a close, 4 hour reopen, and close again. And I think it's not unfair to suspect the some type of canvassing, legit or otherwise, was done to get those 6 !voters to all show up in the same 4 hour block and to get 4 of them to !vote for a second time. Net effect--a highly-flawed AfD and a new listing is the only reasonable way forward. The case isn't so clear that we should IAR delete this and the AfD is so flawed it cannot possibly be taken at face value.Hobit (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The arguments to overturn are little more than wiki-lawyering, honestly. Despite the closing and re-opening and whatnot, the consensus to delete was abundantly clear. Salve your wounded egos and move onto the next one. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you expand on your egos line? In any case, I personally see a highly flawed discussion (that I wasn't involved in so I don't see ego playing a role) that resulted in the deletion of an article that easily met WP:N. [14] is a very detailed source (in Time magazine) that covers her role as gatekeeper. [15] (People), [16] (newsmax) [17] (NYT) all touch on the rumors of an affair. That's some pretty serious coverage of what is generally agreed to be a person who wielded a lot of influence (main gatekeeper...) Hobit (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It is entirely within in policy to have an Afd to talk about an article about a person with marginal notability from off the record rumors about their relationship with a famous person and decades old gossip column style coverage of the person. The recent rewrite shows again that the interest is not about "her" but her relationship with Bush. Lack of significant coverage about her her work shows that "she" is not notable and the information belongs in Bush's article where it can be put into proper context of his life and his accomplishments. An article about her can not give a fair presentation of her life's work since no one thought it significant to write about her in detail. All of her true life accomplishments (not covered by the media) would be overshadowed by the allegations of an affair with Bush. Real people have the right to expect a Wikipedia article on them to give a fair representation of their life or not to exist at all. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is, even without the affair she's clearly notable, both in terms of WP:N and in terms of the common use of the word. Gatekeeper to the Vice-president of the US is a heck of an important job--more so than 99% of those we do have bios on. And there is plenty of coverage on her for that. The Time magazine article would be an obvious starting point. To _not_ have an article because there are rumors of an affair? Odd at best, insulting at worse. Hobit (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, do take a look at [18]. We've got sources from the NYT from 2009, etc. How can you consider her to be marginally notable when there are articles on her (or mostly on her) in the NYT, Time, People? Let alone the NYT (again) almost 2 decades later? There is nothing "marginal" here about her notability by any definition of the word. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Which NYT cite is from 2009? And which article is primarily about Fitzgerald, as opposed to being partially about a main Bush advisor (among several)?  Frank  |  talk  13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason that we need to have individual deletion discussions is to work out how to handle individual articles in specific situations. Her situation is unique in that the coverage about her is related to her alleged affair with Bush and not about her. So, after careful review of the sources, it was decided by many editors that the best way to present the available information would be in the Bush article since her coverage is all related to rumors related to him instead of her actual accomplishments. An article that does not cover her real accomplishments but instead dwells on how people writing about Bush see her, is not really a NPOV article about her. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If by "relationship" you mean "works for" certainly, that's what she's notable for. And please don't claim that the AfD was in any ways reasonable. The open, duplicate !vote, close in 4 hours routine certainly looks like an out-of-process railroad. If a discussion is the right way to handle this type of thing, let's have an in-process discussion. Of a certainly new sources exist so it's not outrageous to have that discussion yes? Hobit (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow userspace re-creation and review what really can be done on this. While this was a long time ago, the double !votes from editors who clearly should have known better poison the presumption of a good close. Having said that, I do not see a need to rush a bad bio back into mainspace. What else has gone on with her since the first article was deleted? If nothing, then maybe a footnote in another article is more than sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a user space with copies of Fitzgerald's page from the day of deletion and a copy of the article when it was at its largest.User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald--UhOhFeeling (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close The article was rewritten at the time with available sources and still violated undue weight since she is covered narrowly in the media in connection to "rumors" that she had a relationship with Bush. Sound close. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the version before it was deleted? It doesn't even mention the rumors of the affair.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point of deletion discussions is for people to make calls about where the best place is to present information if it is presented in wikipedia at all. In this instance since the published sources are overwhelmingly from sources discussing Bush, then her life is portrayed through a prism radiating from him making an unbiased biographical article impossible to write from the information available. And as your edits over the last few days show, the main reason that people have an interest in her is because of the rumors of an alleged affair with Bush. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Flo, UNDUE says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." If 100% of the articles cover the allegation of an affair, then we must focus a substantial amount of our coverage of her in such a manner. That may seem like UNDUE weight on the (hypothetical and unproven) affair, but the perverse outcome is that in such a case attempting to focus the article on other notable activities or events not nearly as covered in RSes is the actual UNDUE violation. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only coverage concerns the alleged affair, then the article is not about a person, but an alleged affair. Thus the material should be covered in a more appropriate place, like GHWB's article. –xeno^talk 15:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As repeatedly pointed out, the coverage concerns more then the alleged affair.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to the version right before deletion i.e. the first version here . . . User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald. It doesn't even mention the affair. I would love to know how this version violates BLP or Undue.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, DGG's reasoning would seem to require that the article is at least relisted out of concerns for impropriety and basic fairness.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, per DGG -- the way this one was closed was entirely improper (with double votes, etc), and even the cached version shows that she is notable. Concerns about undue weight are to be dealt with via normal editing -- problems w/rt undue are not grounds for deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, per the serious procedural flaws pointed out by DGG. Reading the pre-relist discussion, it is not one that any reasonable admin would have closed as delete, and hence the flaws cannot be presumed to be harmless. T. Canens (talk) 05:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as it accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion. I would be remiss if I didn't note a long-ish discussion (in which I am highly involved) here, an RfC at Talk:George H. W. Bush. The petitioner for this DRV is attempting to add material to the GHWB article about an alleged event, going so far as to claim that an excerpt from Kitty Kelley's book is a reliable source because it is reprinted in The Times. On the one hand, that should have nothing to to do with this DRV; on the other hand, I believe it provides a road map to how and why this article was re-created and, subsequently, why this DRV exists.  Frank  |  talk  13:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frank is cherry picking the weakest argument I made. There are several other arguments I made on GHWB's talk page which would seem to tend toward inclusion of Fitz in GHWB's page. Also, I'm not "attempting to add material to the GHWB article about an alleged event." In this Drv, I'm trying to make sure a noteworthy person gets their own wikipedia page. Two separate things. Not really sure why this matters though. I believe she is worthy of inclusion (in both spaces) independent of this "alleged event" anyways and have stated as such numerous times. In response to "on the other hand, I believe it provides a road map to how and why this article was re-created and, subsequently, why this DRV exists." Are we concerned here with procedural details or making the substantively correct decision? I would sure hope the greater concern lies in making the substantively correct decision. To respond to endorsing deletion as it "accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion." This "consensus" (if you can call it that) was clearly improper. I don't think this "consensus" reflected the discussion at all. I came to these conclusions with the everyday meanings of "reflect" and "improper" in mind though. --UhOhFeeling (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no cherry-picking going on here. The edits you made to George H. W. Bush, which I removed here, were completely outside policy and were solely for the purpose of mentioning an alleged relationship with no regard for the quality of the sources, policies around here, or anything other than the allegation. Once that didn't stick, you moved into arguing that Fitzgerald has some notability of her own...seemingly as a means of then mentioning the allegation in Bush's article. I noted immediately in this discussion that I am highly involved in that discussion; it's clear we disagree, but this is not about disagreeing so much as the fact that your edits to Bush were not within policy. Your next step was to try to recreate Fitzgerald; when that didn't work you are now trying to overturn that deletion. I don't need to cherry-pick; your edits speak for themselves. Furthermore, the Jennifer Fitzgerald article you re-created is nothing more than a re-hash of the diff I provided above; it is equally against policy. If this DRV somehow results in the article being re-created, that version cannot be the one that is restored; it would be against policy there just as it was in Bush's article. Admins commenting here: please compare the most-recently deleted version of Jennifer Fitzgerald with this reverted diff from Bush.  Frank  |  talk  18:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There is one thing I think we agree on Frank. My article on Fitzgerald pretty much sucked. I would posit though that the first version on this page User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald establishes notability without violating BLP (Although I would still argue that NPOV requires some mention of the alleged affair but I can live without it). I really don't seem to understand most of your arguments though. Seems like you're arguing mostly about procedure and ignoring the substantive arguments. Either way, the AfD was certainly flawed.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. The original AfD had some serious procedural problems and there are new sources to consider, so a new discussion has to be the way forward. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - This seems it was set up so that all the "keep" votes that appeared in the original AfD after improvements were made to the article were discounted. New sources further establishing notability of this exist too. --Oakshade (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. WP:RELIST confirms that a relisting need not be for a full seven days and a relisted debate may be closed once there is a clear consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the two additional (new) !votes were enough to create so clear a consensus after what had been a keep closure 4 hours earlier? Hobit (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion / move to userspace I think that consensus was clearly for deletion at AfD. I think that an article addressing the BLP issues could be created, but that should be done in userspace and reviewed there before another attempt at recreation. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alan, Do you think the top version on this page User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald adequately addresses the BLP issues?--UhOhFeeling (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take further conversation regarding that article to its talk page (xc) or elsewhere. As noted above in the collapsed box, this discussion is solely a deletion review regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Fitzgerald. It is not a forum for discussing a possible new article on the subject.  Frank  |  talk  16:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the nature of the close, I'd say it is the best place for such a discussion. A talk page in user space is unlikely to get any meaningful discussion. People often bring drafts here or are asked to produce one. Hobit (talk) 00:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what deletion review is about. It is for determining if the AfD was closed according to the consensus of the discussion. Otherwise it would become an extension of the AfD itself; this result is expressly frowned upon.  Frank  |  talk  11:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is traditional to bring a draft to DrV when desiring to recreate a deleted article. Given the speedy that just occurred, it's reasonable to DrV _that_ speedy on the basis of the new article actually addressing the issues of the old AfD. Such an argument requires a draft. That in addition the closure of the underlining AfD is clearly flawed just adds to the problem. Hobit (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thinking is exactly what turns a DRV discussion into a complicated mess. DRV exists to do one thing: review whether or not a deletion discussion accurately reflected consensus. It is not meant as an extension of an AfD. Your argument suggests opening a can of worms. Do we consider this sorely policy-violating version of the article, deleted under G4 but clearly not acceptable regardless of any previous deletion discussion? Do we consider User:UhOhFeeling/Jennifer_Fitzgerald, about which there is disagreement as to suitability for inclusion in the project? Do we consider WP:N and other policies, and if so, in regard to which article...deleted...restored...draft...another draft...? That has the additional complication that non-admins cannot see deleted revisions. Should we also be considering discussions about discussions, such as this and this? How about accusations on the article's talk page that its history contains BLP violations? How about a long list of peripheral items I haven't even listed? The answer in all these cases is a resounding no. What we are here to discuss is whether or not the deletion discussion was closed in a manner that accurately reflects the discussion that took place WRT the policies in place at the time. I don't think the policies have changed materially since then, but I'm just adding that bit since it was 18 months ago. Wikipedia:DRV#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review is pretty clear about this.  Frank  |  talk  08:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We try to do the right thing. When as much time has passed as this and things have changed (a new source) it is legit to create a new article. If it gets deleted as a recreation it comes to DrV. There is no other way to move forward at that point. And then the discussion must turn to the nature of that article. This DrV is a bit of a mess because there are two issues. The first is that the AfD was, frankly, a huge mess. The second is that the speedy probably wasn't valid. Does the existence of those two issues make the case for restoration weaker? Clearly not. But the confusion between the two has really messed up this DrV. To get back to the original point, both issues (AfD and speedy) can be addressed by a draft. The AfD was largely about there not being enough material to write an article not based on rumors--doing so shows that the problem has been fixed. The speedy was about the original problem not being fixed (and very much was about the draft of the article). Both require a draft to move forward. To say "no drafts allowed" is to say "we won't consider restoration no matter what" because nothing but a draft can address the issue. WP:N is clearly met by a mile. The question is if we should have the article anyways because the topic of the article is (argued to be) only notable for being part of a rumor. That's clearly false (1/4 of a Time magazine article about how she runs the office of the VP of the USA seems pretty clearly significant), but the only way to show it is to write a draft. Hobit (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Schooley (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was submitted for deletion by a user with an account created solely to harass and defame Ms Schooley. Though the user Deepsix66 claims no affiliation with Frozen North Productions, they did not make any negative comments about Frozen North, despite claiming on their userpage that they thought their Wikipedia article should be deleted. The request for deletion of Ms Schooley's page came not long after Ms Schooley posted an article on her blog outing Frozen North for poor business practices. Previously, the article existed for months on Wikipedia without any requests for deletion brought up. Additionally, myself and many others felt that the article on Ms Schooley should be kept, as she meets WP:NACTOR guidelines. Misssinformative (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Note that among Emily's notable movies are Black Eve and One Week in Windchocombe, both listed on imdb and both with significant press from sites such as Fangoria, which is a respected horror magazine and is used on Wikipedia for numerous citations. Schooley is a Canadian actress working mostly in horror, and her Facebook fan page has over 900 fans, which to me would indicate a "cult following." As well, she has been an invited guest of high-profile sci-fi conventions such as Polaris and arts/tech conferences such as Notacon, which suggest that not only are people aware of her work but that she is making contributions to the acting and filmmaking world. Misssinformative (talk) 09:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - DRV Nominator seems to be trying to turn this into AfD round 2. The closer successfully noted the consensus to delete from the debate about a lack of sources and no significant film roles to meet WP:NACTOR. Motivations of the AfD nom are ultimately irrelevant. Bigger digger (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse claims that the nominator was acting with ulterior motives are speculative at best and a severe WP:AGF violation at worst. The consensus was clear and the debate was flooded by sockpuppets/SPAs voting keep, which is never a good sign. Also, while not related to this DRV I did read the first few posts on your blog and every single one of them was an angry feud against people you've worked with, one of whom even took you to a collections agency! I know DRV isn't a good place to give anyone career advice but damn, it has to be said that it comes off as very unprofessional and may be a clue to why you haven't been able to find work significant enough to pass our guidelines for actors and entertainers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a Burning Body (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Album charted on Top Heatseekers at number 28[19], therefore causing the band and the album to meet criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC, which directly reads

• Is this the national music chart for the US? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that would be the Billboard Hot 100. Billboard does have lots of other charts, some of which definitely contribute to notability but I wouldn't say an appearance on the Heatseekers (especially one at #28) constitutes notability by itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Heatseekers isn't a bad chart per se, but it wouldn't contribute much to notability. Heatseekers is a chart of albums by bands that have never made the main chart, where this individual album is coming close. The purpose is to highlight bands and artists that may be successful in the future, but haven't been so yet. It's kind of a chart of uncharted things by bands that have never charted. I wouldn't think that this makes it pass WP:MUSIC.—Kww(talk) 14:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn only because this was a speedy deletion, the charting appears to be a sufficient claim of significance to survive A7, and both the pro and comments here focus on notability; deletion on notability grounds calls for the standard deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A7 may be inappropriate, but A9 would apply to the article as speedied.—Kww(talk) 23:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A9 applies only to recordings. How can it apply to an article about the band? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected.—Kww(talk) 00:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list Per HW and Kww this probably isn't a valid speedy. Though it's unlikely to make it at AfD we should have the discussion as someone might be able to fix it up. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, no longer eligible for CSD A7, and no compelling reason to keep it deleted anyway. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhism and violence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

page needs improving not deleting- deleted without discussionandycjp (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Remind the deleting admin of the opening paragraph of WP:CSD. Please cite the criterion used. The deleting admin should archive his talk page; it is much to big. It is also misformatted, at least on my screen. Incubate the deleted article. It is not unsalvageable, but it is true that the article, "Despite the widespread belief that Buddhism is wholly pacifistic, there is a long history of violence within the 2,500 years of Buddhist traditions" is written as an academic essay putting forward a synthesized view of the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incubation would be better than deletion but I would prefer the article to be fully restored to public view with an intro rewrite.andycjp (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave it deleted - there were sufficient problems with the article (in particular synth and copyvio) that I suspect it would need to be fundamentally rewritten. - Bilby (talk) 09:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Upon viewing the cached version available above, this article was pure WP:SYNTH. To quote an advocate from the article's talk page, "But if criticism about Christianity, such as: Christianity and violence is OK, so is this, Buddhism should not be exempt from criticism". That is the kind of tit-for-tat mindset that infests the Israel-Palestine topic area. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, deleted out of process, no CSD applied. Thereafter it should be AFDd or incubated. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is a credible/verifiable copyvio concern, then of course we should tread carefully. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I commented on the talk page prior to deletion that it was an essay advancing a position as opposed to an encyclopedic article. I was thinking of nominating at WP:AFD, and in all honesty wasn't considering a speedy. However, it certainly should have been deleted, and consider this to be a just about acceptable application of Ignore All the Rules. PhilKnight (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as above. andycjp (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withholding judgment until the deleting admin's comments. If G12, fine, but document the source. If G10... no, it wasn't G10. If OR/SYNTH, that's NEVER a speedy criterion. Jclemens (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The section I was concerned about was the portion on Japan, which is taken from OUP. I don't know what YellowMonkey saw as a problem. - Bilby (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not seeing a comment from the deleting admin, I went to his talk page, where it appears no one at all had asked him to come here and comment... so I just did. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per terrible rationale articulated below. OR and Essay are not speedy reasons; copyvio is, but only in cases otherwise irreparable; and "waste of time" shows an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude inconsistent with exercising administrative privileges over an article. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see where you're coming from, but, we should sometimes let common sense do its job (that's why we have IAR). Time is not unlimited and there is no sense in wasting it. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I look at it a lot like SNOW: if someone objects, then the expedited process wasn't proper in the first place. I wouldn't necessarily !vote to keep this in an AfD, but I'm certainly willing to give it a 7-day benefit of the doubt, AGFing that people who want to see it kept might just use that time to render it suitable for inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn but incubate. Since no copyright infringements were mentioned in the deletion summary, I don't see a valid criterion for speedy deletion. Based on Stifle's suggestion of overturning the deletion, I don't think a case can be made for deletion under the snowball clause—I don't think a deletion discussion would be open and shut. What I do see is an article with serious flaws, including large amounts of synthesis. The topic is reasonably encyclopedic, so I think there's hope for the article, but it will take a lot of work—that's why I recommend restoration to the incubator rather than the main encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Reasons for deletion based on WP:NOT such as original research or WP:SYNTH do not qualify for speedy deletion. Such decisions must be made by consensus as they are subjective in nature. This may very well be due for deletion, but not before proper public scrutiny. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the reason for this article deletion was G12, copyright infringment, then I endorse the deletion but caution the deleting admin to be very clear that such is the case when making the deletion. I see G12 being mentioned here, but I don't see it being used as the basis for deletion. If it is a copyright infringment then it should remain deleted. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, per process it should be AFDd or incubated.Kanatonian (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, since the article didn't meet any speedy deletion criterion is should not have been speedily deleted. I do think the article is largely synthesis, but that's a problem that needs to be discussed at AfD or elsewhere. The Japan section is a copyvio and should be removed but the rest looks OK. Hut 8.5 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Tarc and WP:IAR. Obviously not encyclopedic material. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted essay, OR, copyvio, waste of time YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to share evidence of copyright violation? Stifle (talk) 08:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. This is so completely SYNTH that I cannot see any reasonable probability that it would be kept after an AfD. Thus the procedural error is harmless. T. Canens (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The_Pendulum_-_Before_The_Duel_.28small.29.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Apologies for not logging on to Wikipedia to point this out during the original review, as I had no computer access. I am the sole owner of the reproduction rights of this production photograph of the play 'The Pendulum' (as producer of the play.) They were purchased in their entirety from the official production photographer Matt Jamie. Similarly for *File:Alexander Fiske-Harrison headshot1.JPG · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]: the reproduction rights for this acting headshot are solely owned by me, the subject (actor), having been purchased from the photographer who took them, Marco Windham. As for *File:Miura family.JPG · ( talk | logs | links | watch ) · [revisions]: this photo is mine. It was taken on my camera by a farmhand (name unknown) - hence I am in the photo - at Zahariche, the ranch of the Miura family. It is also unique as the only photo in existence of the two Miura brothers together on their ranch (alongside their matador nephew, Maestro Dávila Miura.) Fiskeharrison (talk) 04:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll need to submit a permission form (blank version available at WP:CONSENT) to [email protected]. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I have done this for all three images (using a separate email for each). --Fiskeharrison (talk) 11:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. The emails will be processed, and the images replaced, in due course. Please monitor your email in case there is a reply requesting further information. I think this DRV can be closed. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bathrooms (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no clear consensus here. Keeps and deletes were about even. Some of the deletes did suggest a replacement template. But this can be done through editorial changes. Should have been closed as a 'no consensus' and a suggestion to make such a change. Tatterfly (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per TfD arguments, but I'm not at all opposed to the recreation of this template in a useful form, like that suggested by User:213.246.126.56 in the TfD. SnottyWong ^converse 22:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A reasonable close, and there's no reason not to create a better functioning template from scratch. AniMate 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The discussion favored mostly making changes to this template, and this can be done without its deletion. Deleting it kills the edit history, which is useful in making changes. Moving it preserves the edit history, which can be used as a future reference. The best changes in a move can be held through a discussion. Linda Olive (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template was moved instead of deleted. It's now here Template:Toilets. Yoenit (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do nothing - the close of the discussion was ok, and the template has been renamed. If deemed necessary, a new WP:TfD could be opened. PhilKnight (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Red Dead Redemption (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was nominated for deletion by me with two major concerns: First, the only character in the list to receive any specific significant coverage was the game's protagonist. I had no opposition for article creation on that specific character as there is plenty to support it, but also felt that one notable character can't support a laundry list of them. Second, (in regards to this being an extension of Red Dead Redemption) the secondary characters are adequately covered in Red Dead Redemption#Plot, where it gives sufficient details without falling into WP:TRIVIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teancum (talk • contribs)

• Endorse no consensus close. The arguments you raise were addressed and disagreed with. Taking your second point first, whether the plot section is adequate to cover the characters, and/or whether it also makes sense to list the characters in this form, is an editorial judgment specific to the article topic, and there was definitely not a consensus that the plot section was sufficient. As for your first point, regarding the "significant coverage" aspect of the notability guideline, WP practice indicates that's largely moot when we're dealing with a subtopic of a notable topic, and the decision of whether the subtopic is too large to fit into the main article or should be split off. The overriding question is whether that level of detail of the subtopic furthers understanding of the notable topic. Again, this is an editorial judgment, and there definitely was not a consensus that this level of detail was not appropriate. So there was no consensus in the AFD for either argument presented above for deletion, nor is there any policy that would compel a deletion result here even in the absence of consensus for it. As always with these fiction-related articles and lists, I wish people would spend more time trying to improve them and write them from an out-of-universe perspective (which is possible even when descriptions are only sourced to the primary work of fiction) rather than waste time on deletion discussions. The problem is typically with how such subjects are covered, not whether. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as accurate reading of AFD discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a reasonable and accurate reading of consensus, or lack thereof, for this AfD. AniMate 22:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, could not reasonably have been closed any other way, sadly. Stifle (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you make a page redirection link to point from Alan Brewer to Alan West Brewer. When I try to create it, it is locked and tells me to raise the matter here. Many thanks. Scil100 (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since we have no other Alan Brewers, I moved the article there. That work? Jclemens (talk) 14:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Scil100 (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of doping allegations against Lance Armstrong (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

BACKGROUND: The topic in question is a list of ten serious and well sourced doping allegations, documented in reliable secondary sources, about Lance Armstrong. This list was originally a section of the main Lance Armstrong article, but was made into a separate spinout article because it was determined by consensus to be too much content for the main article, per CFORK. At the time the spinout article was created, most of the content was removed from the relevant section in the main article, and summarized there.

According to WP:BLP#Public figures, each and every one (not just some) of these "notable, relevant, and well-documented [allegations]" about a public person belong in the article ("If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article")., but according to CFORK spinout that much material belongs in a separate spinout article. Since each of the ten allegations are serious and properly sourced, I don't see any justification for not including any one of them in either the main article or a spinout. I'm not sure how to reconcile this conflict (about whether the content belongs in main article or spinout), except I'm sure the solution is not to omit from Wikipedia any of the content which is all supposed to be included per WP:BLP. So the only solution I can envision is undeleting this spinout article.

Besides, there was no consensus to delete among those participating (9 keep votes; 8 delete votes), so isn't the default to keep? Born2cycle (talk) 05:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Most editors advocating retention missed the point entirely, arguing simply that the material was notable and "well-sourced". Being "well-sourced" is not and never has been a sufficient condition for inclusion; in fact, some of the worst attack-pages that I have seen have been rigorously sourced. Only Jclemens adequately addressed the neutrality issue and hedged his view with caveats and concern. CIreland (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. The criteria for inclusion of allegations about public figures is explicitly and clearly stated at WP:BLP#Public figures: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.". Please note that this means that allegations that meet this criteria not only may be included, but it "belongs in the article". This is not an attack page by any stretch; I don't understand that point at all. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry if I was unclear - my point was simply that being well-sourced does not ensure neutrality and I used the extreme example of well-sourced attack pages to illustrate that. I did not say that this article was an attack page. CIreland (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then why are you endorsing the decision to delete? How is removal of any of this content not a violation of WP:BLP#Public figures? And what about the point about there being a lack of consensus to delete? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm endorsing the closure based on the quality of the arguments presented - the function of DRV, not re-arguing the AfD. That being said, the BLP policy says much more than that single quotation, as does WP:NPOV. The chief issue at AfD was the weight that a separate article gives to unproven allegations. CIreland (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, and I've read BLP. And NPOV. What I'm curious about is what specifically in any of that or in any policy supports deletion of this material and effectively overrides the section which specifically addresses this exact situation... well-sourced allegations about public figures (an argument I did present in the Afd).

            When I presented this argument at the AfD, the response was that that applies only to content in the main article, which strikes me as bureaucratic technicality and brings us to the question I asked above. So the context is supposed to be in the main article per WP:BLP#Public figures but in a spinout article per the spinout rule. How do we resolve that? By removing it entirely from Wikipedia? How does that make any sense? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (BTW, thanks for the compliment. I really think this sort of a decision needs a non-boolean discussion, and I appreciate that you and some others are noting that as well, even if we disagree on the outcome.) Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own close, and suggest Born2Cycle stops making claims that aren't true. The fact I used "if", rather than "since" in a sentence on my talk page doesn't mean I didn't look at the history of the article - I obviously did. No-one is suggesting "censoring" the material; I clearly stated that the material may (even should) belong elsewhere. Also, the claim that he "refuted" every argument for deletion is just that; an opinion. Another opinion might be that he merely wikilawyered every opposing argument to death, as appeared to be happening here as well. Born2Cycle might do well to let the DRV run; people don't tend to change their minds when they're being badgered. Black Kite (t)
  • Sorry for misunderstanding, Black Kite. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)(c) 06:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's OK, but I hope you take the point. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So, this is an interesting and problematic problem in Wikipedia, where a confluence of factors can be combined to end up with an improper result. While I don't think the page was ever an attack page, let us assume for the sake of discussion that it was. It remains well sourced, and it remains quite large relative to the rest of Armstrong's own article. By forcing a merge (which is what this amounts to, a de-merge), the net effect is to force the truncation of the well-sourced allegations... or is it? UNDUE actually says that material about a topic should be covered in proportion to the associated coverage in reliable sources. Can the entire allegations article simply be added, wholesale, into the main article? If not, why not? UNDUE? It becomes less tenable once we focus off of the "what makes a nice looking balanced article" and properly re-focus on "how do reliable sources cover this topic", which in the case of Lance Armstrong is about a cyclist without peer beset by doping allegations for years. As always, when we have sourced content, the question should be less about "should this article be deleted or kept?" and more on "What is the best way to represent this topic for this encyclopedia's readers?" Jclemens (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; to be honest if the article title had been something like "Lance Armstrong controversies" rather than the slightly dubious one that it was, I may well have just merged and redirected. Having said that, the material is still in the history of the main article prior to it being spun out, so it's not as if it's been lost or there will be any attribution issues. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't you saying that instead of deleting this article it should have been nominated at WP:RM? I would be happy to do that if you would undelete. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All I can find about how to treat material in a spinout relative to the main article is here: "However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. " In other words, unless I'm missing something, to argue that a spinout is a POV fork you have to show that the content would not be admissible if it were in the main article; the criteria for inclusion of content in spinouts does not appear to be any different from the criteria for inclusion within the main article. And the consensus of the AfD (including the admin closer) was that none of the content in particular did not belong in the main article per the inclusion rules, therefore it did belong in the spinout. Hope this helps. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - back to basics: Like all debates on Wikipedia, a conclusion or a consensus is not based on a simple tally of !votes, especially when that tally is a tie or extremely close run. The tie breaker here was the quality of the arguments that outweighed the one-majority 'keep' !votes.--Kudpung (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just happened to stumble on another thread (15 October) where User:Born2Cycle stated quite unambiguously "consensus is more than the votes of the participants". --Kudpung (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, in a WP:RM discussion "consensus is more than the votes of the participants". There is no default at WP:RM. We close entirely based on consensus, but consensus as determined by looking not only at the votes, but the strength of the arguments, and the consensus of the overall community as expressed via policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

  The reason I asked about a default at AfD is I noticed that in the 2010 Ryder Cup photograph discussion yesterday User:SmokeyJoe stated, "Closer did the right thing, although it was not a consensus to keep, but in the absence of a consensus to delete, defaults to keep.", and nobody challenged that assertion. If someone said something like that in WP:RM discussion, I suspect it would be challenged. So, apparently, the default is to keep? Or is that just a rationalization used when it conveniently supports the outcome that happens to be preferred in a given discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two more comments of yours in various discussions were also: "consensus is determined not just by raw count, but by merits of the arguments/reasons." and "Closers are supposed to weigh the persuasiveness of the arguments, not just do a raw count..." Irrespective of the kind of debate and what the recommended outcomes should default to, the Wikipedia debate policy, which you apparently appear to endorse elsewhere, was accurately applied here by the closer. --Kudpung (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, Kudpung, those comments are consistent what I just said above. What's your point?

  I ask the 3rd time... is the default at AfD to keep as User:SmokeyJoe stated and to which no one objected? Or is that just a rationalization used when it conveniently supports the outcome that happens to be preferred in a given discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Born2cycle. I answered on my talk page, and above, before I saw this. An article that can do harm is very different. Closers are much less likely to allow a default to keep where there is a potential for harm. "no consensus defaults to keep" is not so simple where there is a BLP concern. Black Kite made a fair close, but you are right in that he deleted material that is suitable. It was the organisation and presentation that is unacceptable. If that can be fixed, (see my comments above), I read that Black Kite is more than willing to give you access to the deleted content to allow something different to be written under a different title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Any AfD where DGG recommends deletion, usually means the article should be deleted. That having been said, I've looked at the deleted article and the AfD. The concerns raised there were valid and the conclusion reached by Black Kite was absolutely reasonable. I would also note that since many of the participants believed this to be a BLP violation, so perhaps User talk:Born2cycle/armstrong-allegations should not be hosted on Wikipedia. AniMate 09:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I NOINDEXed the page for the time being. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please not do that? There has been no consensus whatsoever about the material not belonging in Wikipedia at all. I'm trying to fix the only problem noted about the article; some deadlinks. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse. I question the basic competence of anyone who advocates for this sort of article to be retained. Either by weighing the arguments to delete (which he did) or by simply invoking WP:BLP and be done with it (which he didn't, but I would have supported that if necessary), there was no recourse other than to delete this drivel. It deserves mention, neutrally and rationally-worded, in the main Armstrong article certainly, but what amounts to a a standalone "Criticism of..." article is simply horrid. Tarc (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with these two above opinions is that they don't match what BLP actually says. 1) The article didn't "serve no other purpose" than to attack Armstrong, as I explained in my AfD rationale, 2) the allegations are indisputably well sourced, 3) Armstrong is absolutely a public figure, and 4) this is not an isolated incident--coverage has been ongoing for years. All participants need to keep in mind that BLP is not a license to whitewash or avoid controversy: it's a mandate to avoid unsourced controversy that may harm real people. Accusations against Armstrong are already more than public. Jclemens (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it does, as I do not accept your explanation for criteria #1. We don't need a bulleted laundry list of of each and every accusation. The text at Lance Armstrong#Allegations of drug use is more than enough. Tarc (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Each and every one of the ten "accusations" is a separate notable event or incident that is well sourced. Omitting any one of them from Wikipedia is censoring content that, according to BLP#Public figures, "belongs" in. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Don't break out the "OMG TEH CENSORSHIP" battlecry for something like this, it is absolutely pathetic. They are not separate, notable, or individual events. They are unproven allegations, nothing more. Put a bit more effort into writing content fit for an encyclopedia, rather than material fit for TMZ. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why does the censorship battlecry not apply here? What part of WP:BLP#Public figures do you not understand or not agree with? It clearly states, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Why does this not apply to each and every allegation separately? If it "belongs in the article", but editors are not allowing it, how is that not censorship?

            There is no question about removing content that violates WP:BLP. But WP:BLP (specifically WP:BLP#Public figures ) addresses this exact situation, and clearly states this content belongs. Not WP:BLP nor any other policy supports removal of this content, therefore, removal is censorship, by definition. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

            • Your bucket might carry water here if this were about trying to remove the information from the Armstrong article itself, but the allegations are given a paragraph or so of treatment there. I find it to be more encyclopedic and less tabloid-ish to discuss the allegations as a broad topic. A list of every "on this date this was alleged", "on this date that was alleged", to me, gives to much of a spotlight onto something that is only a part of the man's biography. Tarc (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Now we're getting somewhere. Please look at the September 13, 2010 version of the Lance Armstrong article. Note that the content in question was then in the Armstrong article itself, just a little over a month ago, and that it was well established, having started back in 2004 with this edit (of course it evolved since then as the list of allegations grew since then). Therefore, the net effect of 1) removing that material from the main article and putting into a new spinout, and 2) the subsequent deletion of that spinout per the AfD in question, is censorship of that well-established content, right?

                As to the import and relevance of this list, these allegations go to the root of why this particular figure is notable in the first place. The U.S. federal government is currently spending months investigating these allegations. This is not something that is "only a part of the man's biography"; it questions the legitimacy of what makes him notable in the first place. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This kind of thing is annoying. It's undue weight to have too much of this in the LA article, but it's also undue weight and maybe an attack to have it in an article by itself. At the same time Wikipedia isn't censored, and information that is well sourced and clearly notable should rarely be deleted. Apparently the sources were largely deadlinks, which is troubling for an article like this and an issue that was raised in the AfD quite a bit. I'd say endorse deletion but allow recreation under a better name if every single issue can be documented in a live RS. I also believe that we can probably write the material (and sources) densely enough that the information can go in the main article without too much in the way of UNDUE issues (perhaps undue number of sources in that section, but I think that's acceptable) Hobit (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've started a broader discussion here. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Arguments for deletion significantly outweigh the reasons for retention given, which merely amount to "well-sourced" and "it's notable" without bearing anything else in mind. As an aside (not having participated in the AFD), this is another example of what happens when WP:V and WP:RS are blindly followed without taking anything else into consideration or following any other common sense. –MuZemike 14:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Really? That's all you can muster in a case like this? The comment may be pithy, but ignores the nuances of the case, the article, and how BLP is written vs. applied. Jclemens (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah. Really. –MuZemike 18:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I'm more and more baffled. Can someone who endorses the deletion please identify specific wording in WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, or any other policy, that supports either complete removal of the content in question, or the argument that this content should not be in a separate WP:SPINOUT, ideally something that clearly overrides WP:BLP#Public figures according to which each and every one of these notable and well-sourced allegations about a public figure belongs in Wikipedia? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the same tone and tenor of the type of truth-seekers that pester the Barack Obama topic area from time to time, with "IT'S RELIABLY SOURCED!" their motto. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Tarc, you can snark all you want within reason, but Born2cycle asked a reasonable question that you responded to with a non-answer. Can you or someone else please answer it, rather than dismissing it? Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Tarc, thank you. If one thinks that these allegations about Armstrong's doping are similar to "truth-seeker" allegations about Obama, I can begin to understand the objection. If you can cite a specific example of pestering about Obama, I would be happy to explain the difference. My questions stands. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I rarely entertain pedantic questions, sorry. Though DRV invariably strays that way, we're really not here to re-argue the original AfD, only to review the closing admin's actions. This is simple, editorial judgment of whether or not a list of allegations or accusations of a crime against a living person is encyclopedia material; editors made the better argument that it was not. Tarc (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. Can you then at least explain how you determine what is a "better argument" here? Will you acknowledge nothing in the supposed "better argument" cited anything about what any policy or guideline had to say about this whatsoever? And that the supposedly "[not] better argument" made specific reference to relevant specific guidance in WP:BLP, WP:SPINOUT and WP:CFORK? I'm just curious as to how you determined the pro-deletion argument was "better". Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take a shot at it. WP:ATTACK is pretty clear that we should delete any "... Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that was created primarily to disparage its subject.". If that page does primarily disparage its subject then it is to be deleted. The issues are A) does it do so and B) does that mean we can't ever have a "controversies" or "legal problems" spinout article? I'd say A) is a reasonable thing to claim but B) seems like a bad idea and stands starkly different than WP:BLP or other related policies which instead insist on quality sourcing. Thus I started a discussion at WP:ATTACK. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Unless I missed it, no one arguing for deletion in the AfD (or arguing for endorsement here) referenced WP:ATTACK, much less quoted from it, until now. I see the problem. A section within a BLP addressing well-sourced allegations about the person is fine, even encouraged at WP:BLP#Public figures. But if the allegations grow, the section gets too big, and so the content is apt to be moved to a separate article, per WP:SPINOUT. But then the resulting spinout article could be easily misconstrued (misconstrued because the purpose of a spinout of a section that is too big is not to disparage which is the defining characteristic of an attack) to be an attack article. Yes, I think this needs to be addressed at WP:ATTACK; good call.

  Is it fair to say that the supposedly "better argument" (for deletion) many refer to here implicitly relied on WP:ATTACK. I don't see how such implicit reliance on policy makes for a quality argument, but whatever. That makes a little more sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Born2cycle, I see the problem with the article stemming from Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position. The title, and the listing of allegations, implies that there is a long list of allegations. As this is negative, it immediately fires BLP alarms. The implication is also not one of a Neutral point of view. Looking at the cached version, I see a list of sourced allegations, but no source for a list of allegations. Just because there are a lot of them, it doesn't mean that they should be grouped. For there to be a separate article on all the allegations, there needs to be sources of independent, reputable, secondary source material about the allegations collectively. Even then, due to the subject being a living person, great care needs to be taken to ensure that the Wikipedia article doesn't even imply anything not explicitly stated in independent reputable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There's probably enough legitimate sourcing out there to write a neutrally framed article on the general controversy, but this one was just awful, particularly for the bloating of the number of "allegations" by treating related, repetitious charges as independent and by giving lengthy, detailed treatment to charges that appear to have been convincingly debunked. The notion of presenting this material as a list was inconsistent with the sort of responsible editing that WP:BLP requires. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, that's a good, valid and persuasive point, finally, though even so, I don't think that any of the allegations have been been debunked at all, much less convincingly. As far as I know, no reliable sources treat any of these allegations as being debunked (though of course Armstrong's lawyers and associates do). I am curious about what you think debunked any of them, though of course that's off topic here. Anyway, thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. The first sentence of the article starts "Although Lance Armstrong has never been found guilty...". Obviously a BLP nightmare will follow. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So seriously... which part of the article was an intractable BLP violation? You're reaching beyond what Black Kite said in his closing, and I'd really like to see some of the "it's obviously a BLP problem" camp actually substantiate their opinion by demonstrating how specific parts of the article run afoul of the actual BLP policy. Obviously, it's a violation of many people's notional BLP policies, but that's a separate matter. Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Our policy on BLP requires us to cover negative aspects. The foundation, in their statement regarding BLPs, put overly positive BLPs right next to libel in the list of serious problems facing BLP. That said, I believe that the closure was proper. The excessive detail present in this article represented an undue weight of coverage when the coverage of Armstrong was taken as a whole. I do think that !votes claiming that this mostly well-sourced article could be deleted solely on BLP grounds should be discounted, as well as some of the fanciful claims like the person who cited WP:COATRACK. But even discounting those arguments, I think there was a compelling argument for deletion or merge. Since the closer explicitly left the possibility of merge open, and only chose deletion due to the lack of utility of the redirect, I think this was an appropriate decision. Gigs (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the above discussion, there seems to be quite a lot of support, even among those who do not support the individual article as a spinout, for de-merging the content. After all, it was there in the first place, uncontested by the editors of that article. Jclemens (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. The AFD closure is not one that no reasonable closing admin could have made, and I think that is enough. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Numerically this could reasonably be regarded as no consensus, but the main point madeby the closing admin - that "the arguments for not having this as a separate article are clearly made and I do not see that they are refuted by those supporting the article's retention" - appears to be backed up by the debate. Taking the BLP problems into account, this seems like a reasonable close. Just put some of it in the main article without violating WP:UNDUE and everyone should be happy. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The reason given for deletion was undue weight given to unsubstantiated claims about Lance Armstrong, with the implications this has on WP:BLP. The reasons given to keep did not address this at all, and instead pointed at how well the article was sourced. If notability were the issue, those would have been good arguments, but that was not what the debate was about. I can see no fault in Black Kite's closure of this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as valid process). I personally would have decided the opposite but it's a close call, and anyway I'm not an admin. It's a plausible position, to say the least, that articles like this are not encyclopedic in conception, and in so being are BLP violations, even if most of pieces of information are, on their own terms, well sourced and relevant to the subject. This information can be added (in part) back to the main article, or form the basis of a better-conceived article focused more narrowly around the Armstrong doping scandal. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Ryder Cup photograph (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To quote from our policies and guidelines "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability..." (from WP:NOT) and "Routine kinds of news events (including ... viral phenomena) - whether or not ... widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance" (from (WP:EVENT). This was as clear cut a textbook case of a viral phenomenon that there is. It received a huge amount of media coverage in the short term, but there was absolutely no evidence of any enduing significance – certainly none of the keep !voters were able to provide any.

The closing admin was vague in his closing statement, deciding to keep while having a no consensus rationale. When challenged, he has stated his view that the consensus of the AfD discussion was to "wait and see" (when in doubt don't delete) which in my view completely contradicts policy. _wjemather^bigissue 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (no consensus). Closer did the right thing, although it was not a consensus to keep, but in the absence of a consensus to delete, defaults to keep. RE-nominate in two months if you wish. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No consensus defults to keep, that's why it exists as a closing option. Closing as 'keep', if as you say, "it was not a consensus to keep", is not an example of doing the 'right thing'. Quite the opposite infact. "RE-nominate in two months if you wish." Based on what policy exactly? What would anybody who nominated this in 2 months be able to say in answer to someone who votes in that second Afd, "procedural keep, WP:NTEMP, kept at prior Afd."? MickMacNee (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Closure reflected the consensus. As as aside word of advice, never nominate an article based on NOTNEWS while the story is ongoing. It will most likely not result in a consensus for deletion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - per SmokeyJoe there was no consensus to delete. This article has more than enough citations and references to assert notability, leave it be. Glen 22:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. Also endorse brewcrewer's comment that, cynically, the best way to axe a silly news article (and this article should be axed) is to wait until the coverage dies down and everyone realises it's a silly news article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Light vs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellie Light (2nd nomination). --Mkativerata (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sadly endorse; per Mkativerata/brewcrewer the best action is to wait six months for the matter to die down. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There were some strong arguments to delete, but they weren't even close to being supported by consensus. Renominate later and the result could well be different. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Consensus is not a head count, which is most definitely what appears to have happened here. Consensus at AfD should be based on established practice as formalised in policies and guidelines, which are to be ignored according to the voices here, and not some perception of what the wider community actually thinks. In all seriousness, what is the point of having these basic principles if we are to blindly ignore them to pacify those who wish to make and keep articles for every trivial news story there is? It should not be necessary to accommodate this kind of thing for a few weeks, let alone six months, in order for some people to finally see sense. The closer should see through the flimsy keep arguments to the substantial policy based delete ones and do the right thing. _wjemather^bigissue 15:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this may require some attention to our notability guideline. Flash-in-the-pan news "stories" such as this transparently meet the qualifications of the GNG and so gain the "presumption" of notability. That is, as the guideline states, not absolute, but quoting the section at issue: "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article" (emphasis mine). As written, community consensus is the method that overrules the GNG to discard fluff. For better or worse, that consensus tends to form six or so months after these types of articles are created, but rarely forms at the time they are first brought to AFD. Without comment on the merits of this practice or the article at hand, I don't see any likely change in the process for future articles of this nature absent a revision of WP:N to provide something closer to a bright-line method of determining when the GNG is inadequate. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there seems to be a misconception about GNG – it is after all only meant as a starting point, a (very) rough guideline, which should be applied using common sense. It also defers to WP:NOT, a policy which should generally be adhered to, not frivolously disregarded. NOT in turn refers to WP:EVENT which specifically deals with this very subject. All of this seems to be being ignored. _wjemather^bigissue

• Endorse as accurate reading of AFD discussion. I expect that there will be "whatever happened to Cigar Guy" type coverage at every Ryder Cup cycle, so there's a legitimate reason to anticipate notability will be durable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually came here thinking that the decision would be reviewed based on policy. Seems I was mistaken. Still, it's good to know that crystal balls work just as well at DRV as they do at AfD. _wjemather^bigissue 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL, which you cite, refers only to article content "about anticipated events"; it's common practice in discussions focused on "enduring notability" for editors to state their opinions on that issue, in no small part because it's the only way to address the policy/guideline issues involved. It's a bad sign for someone who insists his policy interpretation is correct to botch interpretation of another related policy so clearly and so snidely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether that particular page is technically applicable or not, "expect[ing] that there will be "whatever happened to Cigar Guy" type coverage at every Ryder Cup cycle" is certainly the essence of what is discouraged by WP:CRYSTAL. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, the concept of CRYSTAL can equally be, and very often is, applied away from article content. I consider the suggestion that I am being malicious in my reading of policy to be an unwarranted personal attack and request retraction. _wjemather^bigissue 21:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one implied "malicious" intent; you're imagining that. And neither response addresses the central point: that you simply can't have a discussion about the "enduring notability" of recent events without some mode of speculation about future coverage. Policy about article content doesn't apply to such discussions. While some editors might misapply CRYSTAL, I doubt I've ever seen it applied to discount an argument of no enduring notability, although logically it should cut both ways. "This is the sort of event which generally receives long-term coverage" (or its negation) is an appropriate argument in this context; we couldn't have a meaningful discussion if it weren't.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in future you could choose your words more carefully if that was not your intent – to me, in the context you used it, snidely implies underhanded, devious, malicious. _wjemather^bigissue 22:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, but.... The controlling notability guideline here would seem to be WP:EVENT. A debate can be made about whether this photograph and its resultant internet meme satisfies the two-pronged test presented by that guideline, sufficient to overcome the firm assertion that "viral phenomena," even if "widely reported at the time ... are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." However, DRV is explicitly not AFD2. Some of the Keep arguments at AFD asserted a belief that the event and coverage were sufficient to pass the two-pronged test. Others cited the competing guideline at WP:NTEMP as a counterargument to the "lasting effect" verbiage in the relevant notability guidelines. The closing admin weighed these decisions, and made a determination that I do not think can be found facially defective, even though I do not agree with it as a matter of course. However, I suggest that this is in fact ripe for the application of WP:ATD. On the event notability guideline, it notes that: "If the notability of an event is in question but it is primarily associated with a particular person, company or organization, or can be covered as part of a wider topic, it may preferable to describe the event within a preexisting article, by merging content." Although not by any means a scheduled or official part of the 2010 Ryder Cup, there is ample precedent for unusual sub-events to receive coverage in the article of the parent. A merge to that article (in pared form, naturally), preserves the key aspects of the content and the ample citations for it, while eliminating the contentious status of the article. A mention and wikilink from List of internet memes is probably also warranted. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as there was no consensus for deletion and keep votes were backed by policy. Alansohn (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please give some examples of these good arguments then, so that we can actually assess how good they were, and whether they outweighed any counter arguments that were made, and whether their proponents adequately rebutted any challenges. MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I don't see how this closure is safe at all. There are obvious mistakes in Afd closing policy made by the original closer here - a 'keep' is not the same as a 'no consensus', and does not allow renomination of the article in 6 months on the same grounds. If it is a keep now, it means it meets our inclusion criteria now. Admin discretion is for the finer issues of content policy interpretation, not for Afd procedural basics like that. And on the issue of admin discretion on content issues, despite numerous requests to do so, the closer has totally failed to give any sort of breakdown or analysis of the opinions in the Afd and how he weighed them, so that me might be able to take his discretional interpretation of the content policies and guidelines in play here, on anything but blind trust, rather than with some confidence that the deleters were somehow mistaken, and did not properly counter the keep arguments made (and vice versa). In that regard, this closure is not good enough, not by a long shot. I don't mind it being over-turned to a no consensus, I don't even mind another admin closing it as a keep as long as he properly explains how that is possible based on the actual debate and our actual policies, but I absolutely object to this poor and unexplained closure being allowed to stand as is on blind trust, particularly if people quite wrongly think it allows it to be renonminated in 6 months. MickMacNee (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – to say the least, there was no consensus for deletion here. I also find it hard-pressed to see how one can get a "delete" close out of that one. In either case, there is nothing against re-nominating for AFD in the future should consensus shift direction. –MuZemike 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NTEMP is what stops renomination. This is just Wikipedia/Afd 101 - any such renomination would just be met with a bucket load of WP:NOTAGAIN pointlessness. I don't know why anyone here is even pretending that the idea of relisting a 'keep' in 6 months time with no new reason, is anything other than just a total piss take. And if you don't see a delete consensus there, then by all means please give me an example of a valid keep vote in there that went unchallenged, and not only that, was completely triumphant. Because that is what a KEEP outcome says, not 'no consensus', try again later, but KEEP - this content is valid now and forever (because let's all try not to be completely naive and n00bish here, unless the NOT policy itself actually changes, which I don't see happening any time soon, then there is no argument at all that could be made at a future Afd that defeats a keep judgement made right now w.r.t. NOT#NEWS). Infact, Jesus H Titty Christ, I just realised that to even get a basic 60% support for a keep outcome in that Afd, you have to do a basic dumb vote count! There are at most, 2 immediately discountable votes on the delete side, whereas on the keep side, being completely generous and playing devil's advocate, there are still 4 votes that any competent closer puts in the bin straight away, before he even starts trying to weigh arguments, and I've included in the 'valid' keep side even the votes that are really merge opinions, and such obviously lightweight opinions like 'it made CNN', which is not particularly insightful for a NOT#NEWS deletion debate. It is pretty clear from even that basic analysis, that closing this Afd properly was very much going to be an issue of strength of argument. To even get close to justifiably calling it a keep, in the normal sense of the term and not this odd idea that keep also means no consensus, then there should already be some explanation from the closer, or anyone else here wanting to endorse, as to just how you got to a keep here wrt to actual examples of actual votes and actual policy, instead of at the very least, it being a no consenus outcome, which is the only outcome which does allow renomination later on the same grounds. (If this is not just a basic fact, I invite the closer of the DRV to prove me wrong in his closing statement.) MickMacNee (talk) 03:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, too late, User:Cirt has closed it as I typed that, giving zero explanation as to wtf just went on in here, and how the hell any of this BS makes any sense in policy except the usual nonsense. What a surprise. MickMacNee (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rubashkin crime family (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD closed after 3 hours as "speedy". John Nagle (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page involved was deleted under CSD G10, closing an AfD which had been open for only three hours. The page was well-cited, the content was not controversial, the page had been edited by three editors, and had been up for three weeks. So there was no urgency for deletion. However, the title, "Rubashkin crime family", was viewed by some as overly hostile, even though the article documented the five family members who had been convicted and one is out on bail pending trial.

Worth noting is that there is a paid PR operation devoted to improving the image of this group[21], and that effort has spilled over onto Wikipedia on several occasions (see Talk:Sholom Rubashkin#Requested semi-protection). At present, there is a lobbying effort underway to "Free Sholom". So an attempt to delete the article in the middle of the night deserves close scrutiny.

I'd like the article restored and the AfD allowed to run to completion. The article may need a rename, but the content is solid, properly cited to sources like the New York Times. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. BLP attack page. "properly cited to sources like the New York Times" is bullshit, as its well documented on the (now deleted) article talk apge. The NYT may have discussed different Rubashkin family members committing crimes, but the NYT, nor any reliable source, has ever discussed a "Rubashkin crime family", which is a family dedicated to crime, like say the Colombo crime family. This has been explained on numerous occasions to the nominator, but there is lots of WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT going on. My WP:AGF has run its course, and I am afraid that User: John Nagle knows what is wrong but wants to "discuss" this in as many fora as possible as to atleast publicize his nonsense as much as possible. I support a block for perpetuating this BLP-violative disruption.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, this was not an obvious attack page, as is quite evident from the fact that a number of people are disagreeing about it, with extended discussions, etc. As such, speedy deletion was inappropriate in light of the fact that there was an on-going AfD. Nom is entirely correct in asserting that the AfD should be allowed to run its course, with editors having access to the article so that they can make an informed decision. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum ad populum.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Not an obvious attack page"? Er ... the title, the very first sentence? And it might be a good idea not to claim there was an ongoing AfD - it was AfD'd AFTER the speedy tag. Why on earth would we allow an article which may be frankly libellous to exist any longer than it needs to? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Brewcrewer. The idea that examples such as non-payment of union dues add up to the description of a 'crime family' is original research and a BLP violation. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There may have been valid content that can be incorporated elsewhere. There may have been a source that would be useful in another context. But this page was, based on its title if nothing else, an attack page against living people and so demands deletion under G10 and the BLP guidelines. The NYT has never referred to the people involved as a "crime family". Nor has any other newspaper, magazine, or published book. The only currency the term has is in blogs and polemics that are not reliable and demonstrably not neutral. And adding a source (that does not support the article title) does not serve as an affirmative defense to G10/BLP. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, the deletions don't stop here, the intention is obviously to create a brand new Rubashkin family with quote: “One person owned one company and was involved in one court case.” [22]. No family left at all, see also the deletions here [23]. And of course, we Europeans had no possibility to say anything about the deletion. Personaly I would have opted for moving the article to “Rubashkin family”, which the New York Times calls “the Rubashkin kosher meat dynasty”, [24] no less. ajnem (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the family is notable, then a new article could be created, however given the BLP concerns, I don't believe the deleted article should be restored. PhilKnight (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict, Phil beat me to it. Without any regard to notability or viability independent of the individual biographies, the deletion of this scurrilously named article does not prejudice creation of articles under other names. Calling a family a "crime family" without extraordinary establishing sources, on the other hand, is a BLP violation, and should surprise no one when it is summarily removed. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had misgivings about the name myself. That's the big issue here. Can someone suggest an alternative? "List of criminal members of Rubashkin family" seemed too much like listcruft. "Rubashkin family" mixes up the criminal and non criminal members, which creates WP:BLP problems. The Forward article does conclude that the family and their various businesses and crimes should be viewed as a unit, and the Village Voice had a long article, "The Fall of the House of Rubashkin". [25], so there are reliable sources that support talking about them as a group. But how? That's the problem. Any ideas? --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything inclusion worthy can probably be placed in Rubashkin.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a disambig page. --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) The family is notable, that's just the point, unfortunatly also for things, that are not so great, and that's why this campaigne (see also here and here) is trying not only to deny the family's notability, but its existence as a family. ajnem (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I makes IMO no difference what the article is called, to my knowledge there are no Rubashkins of the Aaron Rubashkin family, who are notable and not involved in businesses that have gone wrong, but there are other Rubashkins, that are not related to them, that have to be protected. ajnem (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Brewcrewer. Jclemens (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Rubashkin family I suggest this as a way out of this mess. The title is neutral. We may then have arguments over content, but that's a normal part of the process. --John Nagle (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No other option but endorse, regardless of the article title, the article is a BLP violation throughout all of its revisions. No problem with creating Rubashkin family as a new article, of course. If you're !voting "Overturn" here, you're requesting a violation of WP:BLP - end of story. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Please put up a temporary restore somewhere so the content can be copied to Rubashkin family, and we go on from there. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't happen. As I just said "the article is a BLP violation throughout all of its revisions". It needs to be started afresh - no part of the history is viable. I suppose that technically the uncontentious part of the text could be ported elsewhere without any history, but that probably needs discussion regarding attribution. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has expressed any valid objection to the referenced content, only to the title. Again, I'd like the content retrieved for reuse, into some sandbox name. Retyping all the citations to the New York Times is a pain. --John Nagle (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even restoring it and moving it to a new name would leave the old title in the history of the new article, though. The content is a separate issue; the last version of the article was purely a list of members of the family who happened to have committed a crime - I'm not entirely sure how encyclopedic that is anyway. Anyone else who can see the deleted history want to chime in? Black Kite (t) (c) 18:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my honest opinion, the article can't be restored in its entirety without violating the BLP policy. However, if someone was to start a new article, some of the citations from the deleted article could be recycled. PhilKnight (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - How long the AFD was open is really irrelevant, because this wasn't deleted as an AFD. It was a clear-cut, indisputable G10 attack page. Quoting from the G10 criterion: "Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack." Actually, this survived a speedy request for a remarkably long time, since attack pages are usually deleted within minutes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Having only glanced at the content of the article, I didn't see anything in it that was clearly against policy, and would have no objection to the content being recreated in someone's user space without the title. However, I have serious doubts that the notability of the family can be established. For that we need RSes that write about the family, not just members of it. We do have Bush family, Kennedy family and some others, but those are obviously a lot more notable. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the sources were specifically about the family, and these were noted in the AfD. As for "indisputable" -- I do not think that word means what you think it means (as they say), it's plainly the wrong word as is evident from the way people are disputing it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A cursory review of the available literature was not determinative. There are a lot of uses of the phrase "Rubashkin family" but quite a few of them are coatracks for the criminal actions of the best known members. There are a few sources that look potentially useful, but I'm not certain that there's anything that can be said about the family as a whole that isn't actually about the activities of those members who have their own articles. Not that any of this is necessarily germane to this DRV -- as noted, title choice was fatal for the deleted article. Regardless, anyone wishing to build an article on the topic is probably well-advised to begin de novo and source impeccably. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough, but let me have a copy of the deleted article, so I can extract the citation templates, and I'll have a go at it. There are background articles on the family.[26][27][28]. The family is releasing an "in depth documentary" about themselves [29], so favorable material will be available. --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've started Rubashkin family, starting from the refs in the old article. We can now go ahead with this deletion. Please try to flesh out the family article with their positive contributions. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are the citations that were in the article. Endorse own deletion as the article was a BLP violation in every iteration. Courcelles 21:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: It's a clear-cut attack page. --Carnildo (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Clearly an attack page which is only going to cause trouble. Restoring this is a non-starter, especially with the far more neutral Rubashkin family already created. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Nagle. There is probably enough general comment on the Rubashkin's as a family to justify an article on them, which would have some positive things to include as well, but an article title like this is just plain impossible. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Gambino crime family. Lucchese crime family, Rubashkin crime family? No. There might well be room for an article that covers the Rubashkins on a collective basis, but this isn't the title with which to get that article started. Nor can I find any sources that use the term "Rubashkin crime family" in a Google News / Archive search. G10 is justified here. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and move to Rubashkin family. The family has been known mostly for crime in the past decade, but they were known simply for running the business before. Dropping "crime" out of the title preserves the neutrality. The article can still describe their crimes. Linda Olive (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rucka Rucka Ali (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A. I have no clue how to request for undeletion, Wikipedia is too damn big and whoever wrote theses instructions doesn't know what "simple" means. B. Where do we request for undeletion C. Why can't this page be undeleted? Sure there are noobs who don't know how to make an article, but IHDC! I wish to create it, and I bet tons of people come on here for Rucka, yet Wikipedia has the page deleted for people creating bad articles on it. Arilegolego (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The page is locked because it was recreated multiple times and none of the recreations indicated notability. If you want to create an article about this person, you should do so in your own user space and then come back here to request a review of it for references and notability. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • what does that mean? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilegolego (talk • contribs) 07:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presently, no article can use that title because the articles that used it in the past did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. If you'd like to create an article on the subject, the best way to do it is to use the WP:Article Wizard. --Bsherr (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Walpin v. Corporation for National and Community Service, et al. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was speedily deleted with no discussion. Subject is notable, and has received substantiual coverage from reliable sources for more than a year. 71.182.216.165 (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - it was deleted as created by a banned editor, in this case a sock of User:Grundle2600. Deletion was correct under that catefgory, no reason to undelete. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment Such is our policy, and I understand why it is, for it's the only way to enforce a ban-- though it continues to seem to me absurd to discard good material. Someone else should quickly rewrite it, since it is clearly notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Per WP:IAR I think you can sometimes make an exception to WP:CSD#G5 if keeping the article deleted would obviously deprive the encyclopedia of a worthy article. That is not the case here. I have done a search and I simply cannot find sources sufficient to justify an article on this topic. I don't think if it had been started by a good-faith editor it could survive an AfD. Reyk _YO! 02:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse WP:CSD explicitly allows for deletions to be refused even when the criteria are met - it says deletion is at an admin's discretion. So an admin has the discretion to refuse deletion of good content even if one of the criteria (eg G5 or G7) apply. In this case, it seems the creator was banned for content-related policy violations. The content he/she has create therefore has to be considered unsafe and deletion under G5 is warranted. On the other hand, if a user was banned for just being a dick on talk pages or something but created unimpeachable FA-worthy content, it would be proper to exercise the discretion not to delete. IAR isn't needed - the discretion is explicitly provided for by the relevant rule (WP:CSD).--Mkativerata (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. Further, regardless of who posted it, the article itself probably would not have survived an AFD. Much of it seemed like an excuse to collect criticism of the Obama administration, and the lawsuit itself was dismissed at an early stage and does not appear to have generated any appellate-level decisions (at least not yet) that would make it notable as case law. The Gerald Walpin biography seems more than capable of summarizing any relevant information. postdlf (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrators may care to notice that this is a re-creation of Gerald Walpin firing (AfD discussion), notice that 71.182.216.165 is in the IP address ranges mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grundle2600, and put two and two together. Uncle G (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close this as a bad-faith DRV filing. The IP is definitely one of Grundle's, and anything to do with the Obama or political topic area is off-limits via community consensus. Tarc (talk) 14:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Freedom International (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two of the keep recommendations completely missed the point regarding the lack of reliable sources available and only counted the number of sources. Another keep recommendation was a random personal attack, and another was a weak argument for an exception to the guidelines. See below for a more detailed analysis regarding the sources available for this article, a problem apparently plaguing it since the article's creation. Oore (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding available sources: Of the 10 sources currently in the article, only [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40473 #1] and #9 can be said to have any depth of information regarding the website. However, both sources publish articles advocating a narrow point of view and have no reputation for reliability. Among the other sources, all are examples of either trivial coverage or no coverage. #2 like the preceding sources publishes articles of a particular view, and only has one sentence on the website. Reference #3, a book, contains only the title and URL in the appendix. Reference #4 contains no in-depth coverage. Reference #5 is a list of about 1500 banned websites. References #6 and #7 are rankings of websites, where data of practically all domains can be found. Reference #8 contains about 2 sentences on the website. Finally, reference #10 is just a blog entry. Thus, the website does not satisfy any of the three criteria at WP:WEB. Oore (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- but with no prejudice against renominating in a month or two. Even discounting the personal attack I simply cannot see anything in the discussion that could justify a consensus to delete. Reyk _YO! 04:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]