Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June

< May 2011 Deletion review archives July 2011 >

30 June 2011

[edit]
  • User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse – Qualified endorse. This request is specifically about the userpsace draft of Falling in Reverse so the prior AfD and DRV are informative but not binding. However there do not appear to be enough reliable sources out there to warrant moving the article to mainspace--the likely immediate outcome were the page to be restored given the volume of past article creation attempts. If any user wishes to move the draft to AFC any admin may restore it (you can ask on WP:REFUND or ask me on my talk page and I'll do it). – Protonk (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Kygora/Falling In Reverse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is my personal page that i was working on until the band met the requirements of WP:BAND so that when they did meet the requirements i would not have to create and entirely new page and just move my Personal page to the mainsapce. Please restore it Immediately. --Kygora 16:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • it is not related to that, that one was one that i moved to that persons Userspace because they tried putting it on the Mainspace when it is currently not allowed. also, it is terribly cited and a complete and terrible version compared to my amazing cited and well done version(which came first) --Kygora 07:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • qualified restore- Unless I'm missing something, I'm just not seeing a reason why a userspace draft wouldn't be allowable for this band. in the DRV listed above, Tarc makes the case that while they don't meet any notability criteria now, there's a reasonable chance that they will in the not-so-distant future. I do add that my restore is qualified in the event that there's something I'm missing. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole discussion here is the wrong way around. We aren't the userspace police. It's not for Kygora to explain why his userspace article is justified. It's for Jayjg to explain why it was necessary to delete it.—S Marshall T/C 10:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming the G4 is a follow on to the MfD which deleted a user-space draft of the same name. I think that means the deleting admin followed the rules correctly. I'm not overly fond of the underlying MfD though (it's really not clear WP:FAKEARTICLE applies here if the band is likely to be notable shortly, and if Tarc thinks it might be, I'll tend to believe it). I'd suggest the content be restored as an IAR thing, but unless I'm missing something there was nothing technically wrong with the G4. Hobit (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore per S Marshall. Userspace is the right place for such drafts. Jclemens (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the deletion log comment "Recreated 16 times now?" accurate? Flatscan (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • negative... that admin is severely mistaken and blind to facts. There was a mainspace article that was recreate 15 times so he is somehow comparing my draft/userspace article as a recreation. --Kygora= —Preceding undated comment added 07:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • There have certainly been a lot of recreations. For the deletion logs, click on:
and I think there have been other variants. Jayjg gave his reasons in discussion with Kygora at User talk:Jayjg#My Personal Page,. The history of this article (and all the others listed at the MfD), with continual re-creation in defiance of AfDs and DRV, a string of SPAs including sockpuppetry, and repeated moving of userspace drafts back to mainspace, makes it seem that there is an orchestrated campaign going on, probably because their first album is coming out this month.
There is another userspace version at User:Vision07/Falling in reverse. Whatever happens we do not need multiple versions lying around. Suggestion: pick one of these two and delete the other, move the chosen one to the Incubator, move-protect it there to prevent any more attempts to slide it back into mainspace, and let its supporters develop it there until the band can really meet WP:BAND (which may be some way off as their first album is not out yet). Then they can come back to DRV, but they should understand that coming back every other week will not be looked on kindly.
I have notified Jayjg of this DRV. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by deleting admin. This article was first deleted in June 2009. Since then, it has been recreated 7 times as Falling in Reverse, 5 times as Falling in reverse, 5 times as Falling In Reverse (Band), 5 times as Falling In Reverse (band), once as Falling In Reverse (From Behind These Walls). So I stand corrected - it has actually been recreated 23 times in mainspace alone, not to mention all the personal copies, article incubators, etc. As JohnCD points out, there have been a long string of WP:SPA accounts determined to ensure that this article should exist, without addressing the underlying issue that it still fails WP:BAND. Most recently it was at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 13#Falling In Reverse, where it was determined that the sources in the article were just press releases/promotional material, and not sufficient to confer notability. On June 28 it was proposed to move it into mainspace again, despite the fact that the sourcing issue had not been addressed. The relentless promotion of this band on Wikipedia has been nearly unprecedented, in my experience. Furthermore, although User:Kygora has stated on my Talk: page that he is not a member of the band, but in the previous DRV he apparently was identified by others, and identified himself, as Mike Horiuchi, who plays bass guitar for the band. It is clear to me that him storing a copy of this article on Wikipedia is not a good thing. Jayjg (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that many people see that as an attempt to keep a WP:FAKEARTICLE alive.--v/r - TP 12:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the exceptional number of recreations and attempts to move into article space, a line should be drawn somewhere. Any of the following seems okay to me: restore and give Kygora (and anyone else) a last-last chance, move-protect a single working copy somewhere (as suggested by JohnCD), or keep deleted and email a copy to Kygora for work offline. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore: Restoration would seem to me the appropriate action with a user space being an entirely appropriate place for such a draft. Any problematic recreations or moves to main space would seem to me best dealt with by moves back to user spaces. Deletion of user space drafts seems to be extremely and unneccesarily harsh. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

How many user space copies are required? We already have User:Vision07/Falling in reverse and User:GroundZ3R0 002/Sandbox 3. Jayjg (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would there be a limit, Jayjg? — Personally, I have in my userspace a draft article about Marianne von Willemer. She's a shameful redlink on the English Wikipedia, even though she's been a good article on de.wiki for years. But I've been "working" on my draft article for over a year now (and by "working" on it, I mean, mostly ignoring it). Should the fact that I have a draft article about her prevent, say, Flatscan from working on an article about her in his userspace? Is there any reason why several editors can't work on the same thing, each in their own userspace?

If there is any such reason, then we should immediately begin removing all userspace drafts and placing them in the article incubator to prevent duplication.—S Marshall T/C 07:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason of policy but where, as here, three authors are all actively working on the same article, it would seem sensible and collegial for them to work together rather than compete; and having the draft in the incubator would help avoid any danger of ownership issues. A single draft would also be easier to keep an eye on and move-protect, in view of what seems an unusually persistent promotion campaign for a band which has yet to produce its first album. JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to JohnCD's cogent points above, I think that once an article has been re-created in mainspace 23 times, we have to evaluate whether the normal processes (e.g. allowing people to keep various copies in their userspace) are appropriate any more, particularly when the account arguing to keep the mainspace copy is a WP:SPA. Jayjg (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Because there seems to be no verifiable prospect of the band becoming notable any time soon, this looks like content moved to user space so as to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy, and thus deleteable per G4.  Sandstein  09:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You sir must not do any research. at all. this band is signed to a major record label, soon to release their first album. as soon as that album hits the charts, or a single from the album hits the charts, or they release a second album, than BAMN they aare notable enough to have a wikipedia page in the mainspace. so you're vote has been overruled. good luck in learning how to research. and you "G4" nonsense is overrulled by "G4" itself: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement." --Kygora 11:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I am not clear why User:Kygora's version has been deleted rather than User:Vision07's or User:GroundZ3R0_002s - is this on the grounds of the quality of the version? I think the suggestion (above by JohnCD ) of having one in the incubator is a good one but I can't see this should preclude userspace drafts and the restoration of Kyogora's. Should someone - should I - just start an incubator one and then ask the other editors to work on that? (As an aside it might be that the band are notable and that this has led to lots of people to want to write about it - a quick look indicates to me that this might be the case with, for example, them being played on Daniel P. Carter's show on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0128hcg) (Msrasnw (talk) 10:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Just thought I'd chime in. As for User:Vision07's version, it is regrettably not proper quality for wikipedia (first party sources, unreliable sources, bare url sources, poorly written, non-neutral POV, too focused on ETF). This means that this article should have no future on the mainspace. Having said that, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to delete a User sub page. Any user can have them and not even use them. That is their prerogative. As for mine (GroundZ3R0) and Kyorga's versions, I have not seen Kyorga's and therefore cannot attest to it's quality. I request to see some version of his article however that is possible. My article has every known source I can find on the internet for FIR (every reliable, third party source, that is), is well written, perfectly sourced, and perfectly formatted. I see no errors in mine whatsoever. Therefore, I propose that Kyorga and I (I've already gone through Vision07's for useful sources and info) collaborate and combine our articles to create a hopefully definitive version for when the band meets WP:BAND. If no reasonable combination is possible, we can work on our respective articles separately. GroundZ3R0 002 19:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I propose, that, you listen to ^^^this guy! he has a great Idea. for both our versions are of high quality but in need of tune up. I promise, and i believe that User:GroundZero 002 would as well, that we will not move it into the mainspace without it being approved by Wikipedian Admins. --Kygora 21:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely. We will get approval from Jayjg because he is the admin who has deleted most of the past renditions of this article. Is that agreeable? And is there another way to view your article Kygora? I haven't seen it yet since it was deleted before I could see it. GroundZ3R0 002 22:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually twelve times haha. But I see no reason why AltPress is unacceptable, and I disagree with the reasons presented in the deletion review. Perhaps a third opinion by a neutral admin? GroundZ3R0 002 05:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all users' drafts to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Falling in Reverse – In that way, we avoid any potential WP:OWN issues, and we have multiple editors who are able to work together (as opposed to against each other) to help bring the article up to appropriate standards for inclusion. –MuZemike 18:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move all users' drafts to the Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Falling in Reverse per MuZemike. Because the band is signed to a major label, it will likely become notable in the future. MuZemike's suggestion is a reasonable compromise to lessen the tension and to avoid duplication of work. It is better for the users to be working together on the same draft than on separate ones. Cunard (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sherman3D (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page is deleted and protected after I quoted from the Sherman3D company's page probably because of some previous spam posted by some other user. I tried to tell http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:PMDrive1061 that I will fix the quoted parts but he retired. I got Sherman3D and a few other RPG Maker companies to give me the license to write about their companies and games and I did extensive research with multiple references. Please move http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=User:Alphakimori/Sherman3D to Sherman3D if you think it is well written and does not infringe any copyright - I have rewritten all quotes in my own words. Sorry for the inconvenience as it was one of my first articles. I am just a big fan of RPG Maker games and I think these companies and games deserve to be on Wikipedia considering how prominent they are among the RPG gaming community. Thank you! Alphakimori (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have any problems unsalting/restoring (sans copyvio)/moving to mainspace? I'm not seeing any problems here content-wise AFAIK. Hence, I don't think we need a full-blown DRV here. –MuZemike 21:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the content. The userfied article is not promotional (it could use less words, though), and after a quick search I think it could manage to survive at AfD, in the event anyone's interested on taking it there - frankie (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the style is pretty poor and reads more like ad copy than an encyclopedia article. That said it is not so bad as to demand deletion (G11) as opposed to editing and has sources that would likely satisfy AfD. A move to mainspace is appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Does this mean that I can move the article to mainspace now or someone will move it for me? I just wrote in my own words what references I could find online but I will ask other fans to contribute to hopefully improve on the article once it is up. This is getting to be too much work for me alone and it seems that my article on Aldorlea Games have been updated nicely by others too so I can happily tell the developers that I did my part as a fan. Sorry for messing things up in the beginning as it is my first time. Thanks again for all the support! Alphakimori (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In another few days the discussion will be "closed" (by one of a small group of neutral administrators who have not taken part in this discussion). They will state the formal resolution of the review in a "closing statement" which will be visible on this page. If the resolution is to move it to mainspace, then the closer will either say that it's okay to move it in the closing statement, or else (possibly) move it for you. But please do wait for the formal closure. All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 June 2011

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

Deleted by User:Timotheus Canens. There was not consesus for deletion. When i tried to solve the matter on his user talk page i was liquidated with a vague Delete reasons seem strong to me when i clearly pointed out that one of those Delete reasons was a mere offensive statement towards Sabrina Deep and that two of the other Delete reasons were anachronistic since i had enriched the article with information and sources which rejected the objections. As soon as i enriched the article as per Wiki policy, the article was deleted 24 hours later not even giving others the chance to judge on the new information and sources.--Engenius (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request Can we get a history-only undeletion? Hobit (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second your request because a last extensive revision to the article, based on previous objections, was made just 24 hours before the article was deleted and a discussion on the revised article didn't take place.--Engenius (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - "A record gangbang such this satisfy criteria 3" (of WP:PORNBIO) was a fraudulent keep rationale that was rightly discarded, along with the others that cited it. Fans of the self-styled "Queen of Bukkake" will have to find another venue for free advertising, sorry. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Engenius's revisions to the article did nothing to resolve the BLP/RS problems, and the heart of his keep argument -- "About her world record claims, there is no such thing like an official adult records database: all records related to the adult industry are claims and are given for granted until otherwise questioned or proven untrue" [1] -- is so far removed from Wikipedia policy that the closer would have been justified in giving it zero weight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is my understanding that AVN and Xbiz are reputable news source for the pornographic industry. If this is not the case, it would be nice to have a discussion on which are considered reputable news sources. If AVN, just to talk of one of the two, is indeed a reputable news source, let me explain to you how it works with press releases versus articles. AVN features a section for press releases where every company can add theirs and a section for articles which are written by AVN editors based on noteworthy news. If you look at Sabrina Deep on AVN she has 3 press releases and 9 articles and 1 interview: i used most of these (and not the press releases) to source the revised article. A record claim, although there is not an official records-keeping institution in the adult industry, when widely accepted within the industry itself still satisfies WP:PORNBIO at number 3: has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre. Gangbang is indeed a specific pornographic genre and Sabrina Deep is considered within the adult industry the record holder. WP:PORNBIO at number 4 states: Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media and Sabrina Deep has been main guest on the Howard Stern in two different occasions. I would like to conclude saying that Sabrina Deep has been nominated for an XBiz award in 2011 and that such nominations are decided by adult industry insiders. You say my revisions did nothing, but you don't explain why, point by point. Wiki policy on WP:AfD says at 4: Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. Tell me why AVN is not a reputable adult news source. Tell me why the Howard Stern Show is not a notable mainstream media. Tell me why an aknowledged by the industry world record is not a unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre. My point on the Sabrina Deep article is mainly to understand the policy on pornography related articles. I read Tarc saying above that Keeps on the article were by Sabrina Deep fans, but i could argue that the Delete ones were by Sabrina Deep enemies and we wouldn't go anywhere. It would be nice to see detailed arguments rather than offenses and generalistic personal statements. There are many many articles on Wiki in the same situation and i see that all those related to the adult industry get that superficial treatment and rarely an explanation which goes beyond the personal feeling is brought into the discussion. WIki is not about personal feelings imo and as much as you should argument the creation of an article based on solid evidence, so you should argument a deletion with the same accuracy.--Engenius (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should review what you wrote three weeks ago, during an earlier stage of this discussion: Media coverage in the adult entertainment business works differently than in other fields: they all start from a press release; there is little or none independent coverage of news and characters especially by the two major players AVN and XBIZ. A piece of news covered by Gram Ponante at Fleshbot makes it today much more relevant and independent and therefore reliable than if it was covered by AVN. An "as is" press release is published only on the Companies Press Release section at AVN and XBIZ and it's never endorsed by an AVN or XBIZ writer, but a piece of news covered by XBIZ and AVN and endorsed by their editors still starts from a company press release (except for interviews) and it still follow the original press release draft for a good 90%.[2] That's about as strong an argument as I would make against using AVN/XBIZ sources generally. Wikipedia requires reliable, independent coverage of subjects to establish notability, particularly for biographies of living persons. Since, as you say, there's very little genuinely independent coverage -- and touched-up press releases, typically coming from advertising clients, certainly aren't independent -- it's very difficult to establish notability for these performers, and the WP:BURDEN rests with those who want to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You surprise me, honestly. When Apple launches Iphone they do it through a press release or a press conference by Steve Jobs, owner of the company, believe it or not. Is that marketing? Yes, but ultimately reputable news sources decide if it's noteworthy (they make an article on it) or not (they just or just not publish the press release). It is exactly my point above. And that is why AVN and XBiz have two sections: to divide the noteworthy news from the self publicity. Even The Financial Times and all the major daily newspapers have a section for press releases. Those that i cited are not press releases, they are articles, noteworthy news in the adult industry. Per your statement there are no reliable and reputable news sources in any category of human life and you should delete almost the entire Wiki. News different from a natural happening all start from a press release or a press conference. If a media uses one of their employees' time to write an article it means that they considered that piece of news noteworthy. A press release is nothing else than a news communication which then the media will judge or judge not noteworthy.--Engenius (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Including the nom, we have five delete and four keep !votes, which seems close until you realise that only one of the keeps (morbidthoughts) makes a reasonable attempt at a policy-based argument - and even that was strongly refuted by others. A proper closing rationale would have been nice, but I can't see a reason to overturn this. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that you agree with me that a Delete request stating Just a publicity page for a prostitute-on-the-road who's made a handful of porn films and seems to be marketing video of her own sessions with her clients has not much weight. Actually it shows how Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) request is just based on personal feelings, unless calling a person a prostitute on a Delete request is part of Wiki deletion policy, which i don't think. That's a mere personal and offensive judgement on the person which is the object of the article and i'm surprised that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is even allowed to decide the destiny of Wiki articles, with that attitude.--Engenius (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the wording of the deletion request is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy, and I'm surprised it was not acted on. It is not NPOV to consider a sex performer automatically and necessarily a prostitute, and this is the sort of statement for which unquestionably RSs are needed. The deleting admin explained fully on their talk p. at [3] why they did not consider the sources sufficiently reliable; I am not qualified to dispute that, and it seems a reasonable conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus The AVN and Howard Stern references (amongst all the other press releases) appear to have met the GNG, and a closing admin should have checked that at the time of closing. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm far from persuaded that AVN is a reliable independant source. Its got far too much form to reprinting press releases and publishing incorrect bio-data to meet my personal expectations for an trustworthy reliable source independent of the subject. The last couple of porno DRVs have tended to support this position and I'm actually wondering whether we are approaching the point where AVN will become depreciated as a source. Is Howard Stern a reliable source? Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I keep reading personal feelings. If you think AVN is not a reliable source you should seriously discuss that with solid arguments on WP:RSN because all and i mean all the articles involving WP:PORNBIO on wiki use AVN as a reliable source. Said this, the article in question cited also XBIZ. XBIZ company representatives are frequently cited in mainstream media articles about business trends and practices in the industry is written on Wiki. I have the feeling (yes, it's my turn to have one) that you will not aknowledge any source as reliable reguarding Sabrina Deep article, no matter what. Your prejudice is clear at the end of your comment, when you question Howard Stern as a reliable source: The Howard Stern show is not about sourcing, but about satisfying WP:PORNBIO at number 4 (Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media). Hopefully you won't deny that The Howard Stern Show is a notable mainstream media.--Engenius (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse per my comment on sourcing immediately below Jclemens' vote. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are endorsing based on personal feelings and not based on arguments; further, you endorse based ONLY on one aspect of the discussion, omitting the fact that the Sabrina Deep article meets WP:PORNBIO at number 3 and at number 4.--Engenius (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the prevailing opinion at DRV is that we ought to start deprecating AVN as a source, and I also think we ought to demote PORNBIO to essay. However, in these days when we have AVN specifically listed as a reliable source in a SNG, I'm having trouble deciding whether it would be better to endorse or to overturn in this specific case. We ought to do what our guidelines say we'll do, but equally, AVN is not a sufficient source for a BLP.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your balanced comment, here. As you say, all the articles involving WP:PORNBIO are sourced through AVN and XBIZ, on Wiki. Given that Wiki policy suggests to try to expand an article when there is no consesus on its deletion and given that AVN and XBIZ are widely used to source WP:PORNBIO articles on Wiki, the deletion should be overturned, especially considering that the article meets WP:PORNBIO at 3 and 4. Until a discussion is started in the appropriate Wiki sections about reliable sources for WP:PORNBIO and a decision is taken and new guidelines are given, i don't see how a massive articles deletion can be ignited based on three people concerns.--Engenius (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • policy is descriptive not prescriptive so if the prevailing view is that AVN is being depreciated then policy needs to reflect that, we certainly don't wait for the policy to catch up with practise before we continue what we are already doing. Spartaz Humbug! 09:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is not a prevailing view. There is a three people's view which are the same people who voted for deletion. The prevailing view is that AVN and XBIZ are reliable sources and this is proven by the thousands of articles relying on WP:PORNBIO existing on Wiki and sourced through AVN and XBIZ. I would also like to point out that those sources are listed as reliable at WP:PORN and that the final revision of Sabrina Deep article can be easily sourced through many more among the listed sources. I used AVN and XBIZ because they are the most widely used sources for WP:PORNBIO articles on Wiki and i didn't surely expect hostility on that.--Engenius (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The depreciation relates to more then just this one discussion. There is an organic process as our policies and guidelines shift where community expectations move and the policies slowly follow them. From my view, this is pretty much an extension of the wider acceptance of BLP where the community now expects a much stronger application of our sourcing rules then hitherto for BLPs. Spartaz Humbug! 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You keep talking about community expectations while i have brought in existing and black on white wiki policies. Your opinion, believe it or not, counts for me, but it remains an opinion and it does neither speak for the whole community nor it should overturn existing wiki policies. AVN and XBIZ are widely used as reliable sources reguarding the adult industry, on wiki, and they are listed as such at WP:PORN. Sabrina Deep meets WP:PORNBIO at 3 and 4. Last, but not least, i offered to add additional sources, as listed in WP:PORN, to the Sabrina Deep article. Please explain why we should go against policies only for this article; please explain why The Howard Stern Show is not a notable mainstream media; please explain why being recognized by the adult industry as a gangbang world record holder does not fit into having made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; please explain why the opinion by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who started the AfD process, if i'm not wrong, should be considered as balanced and impartial given that his reason to start the AfD process was: Just a publicity page for a prostitute-on-the-road who's made a handful of porn films and seems to be marketing video of her own sessions with her clients; ; please tell me why Tarc vandalized my motivated critics to User:Timotheus Canens on his Administrator Review discussion page; please, tell me how can you sustain that there was consensus in deleting the article. Let's not get personal. Let's evaluate things based on existing policies, please. I have brought in arguments based on existing policies and facts to support my DR request; i keep reading objections by the same people who motivate their agreement to delete the article solely based on smokey and generalistic personal feelings and assumptions as well as on futuristic policy changes. Again, don't forget that if you let pass the idea that there are no reliable news sources within the adult industry, you create a very dangerous precedent which will lead to question the whole lot of PORNBIO articles and i can bet you that that naive idea will be promptly objected and discarded.--Engenius (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • (EC)I don't want to patronise you but your responding to every opinion in such a hectoring manner doesn't really leave much alternative. You currently have 20 undeleted edits. By any description that means you are an inexperienced editor who has not been deeply engaged in how wikipedia's (admittedly Byzantine) polices and guidelines interact. Please don't presume to lecture experienced editors about how we should interpret or apply wikipedia policy because while we may not agree with you in your interpretation it doesn't mean that we are wrong, or even that you are because there is always wriggle room. You should also try applying some assumptions of good faith in the motivations and intentions of other editors. It is entirely possible for two equally good intentioned editors to be 180 degrees apart in how they approach a discussion. That doesn't mean a fight it means a discussion. Please don't apply a battleground mentality because it disturbs the tranquillity round here. As recently as 21 May DRV endorsed the deletion of a porn related article at least in part because of concerns raised about AVN as a source - It clearly is becoming depreciated to an extent. I closed that AFD and I also participated in the DRV and have been a regular participant at DRV since the middle of 2006. During that time I have opined on many deletion discussions and closed a fair few as well. Opinion does change, I have seen it. I can clearly see the BLP requirements hardening and that this is having a noticeable knock on for BLPs as they are now much more likely to be deleted for inadequate sourcing then every before and we are, as a community, becoming much harder about what sources we will accept for a BLP. You can disagree with my analysis but please don't ascribe petty motivations to my actions and comments because that's just a massive failure to assume good faith on your part. Spartaz Humbug! 17:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't feel patronised and i have never ever used any offensive word torwards you or any other editor/admin. I disagree with your analysis, but i respect it. Especially reguarding this last comment of yours, which certainly goes to the point of the matter like no other comments by you on the matter did before. This discussion seems to turn into a sources matter, while it wasn't exactly like that when the article went into AFD. I might be an inexperienced editor in relation to the vast universe of Wiki technicalities (and yet that should not lighten the weight of my arguments), while i surely see that you are an experienced editor reguarding those things. And i'm not being sarcastic. But going back to the point, i'm still not convinced of your arguments. If i'm not wrong, you are resting your case more and more based on AVN not being a reliable source. Although i don't agree with that (and i have explained above why - EVERY mainstream or not very reputable media rely on press releases to pick the noteworthy news and writing articles about), i have offered to enrich the article with added/different sources, if the source is the problem like it seems it is for some of you Wiki editors/administrators. Now, i have no problems to re-create the article with added info and sources, but i wanted first to get a final and officially agreed point on why the article was deleted. Since the article met PORNBIO at point 3 and 4, it seems that the only reason which justifies its deletion is the reliability of its sources. Since there was clearly no consensus about its deletion, even if you wanted to consider reasons for Delete such as Just a publicity page for a prostitute-on-the-road who's made a handful of porn films and seems to be marketing video of her own sessions with her clients and A claim to Wikipedia notability of being a bukake record holder? Ummmm, I don't think so reliable, and since it appears that the problem is a sourcing one because some of you start questioning AVN reliability, given the notability of Sabrina Deep according to PORNBIO 3 and 4 and given the existance of many different sources related to the article and given your proven experience as a Wiki editor, i just don't understand your hostility towards enriching the article as per wiki standards and policy.--Engenius (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The core problem is that the article did not contain references to any reliable sources about this living person, and this WP:BLP issue overrides all notability-based "keep" opinions.  Sandstein  17:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:PORN those news sources are reliable; according to thousands of established articles on Wiki those sources are reliable; i have numerous times said that if more sources are needed, the number of sources can be extended because they are indeed available reguarding that article and that is exactly what Wiki policy suggests at WP:BEFORE: Some pages should be improved rather than deleted and Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. But this was never done on first instance because a destructive and superficial attitude took over a constructive one. When proposed for deletion the main reason given was lack of notability. Now that that objection has been proven wrong according to PORNBIO the reason in lack of sourcing. Of course nobody has even tried to look for more sources when that was still possible, but now those same people use the sources reliability here. I repeat myself: it is very dangerous to deny the credibility of sources based on an alleged incoming discussions and revisions about their reliability and doing so ignoring current and existing standards and policy. A precedent will stand and a huge chunk of valuable existing information risks to disappear before alternative policies are decided.--Engenius (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wiki-projects don't get to determine their own notability standards, so WP:PORN is out the window as far as I'm concerned. If all that can be found out there about this...actress...are press blurbs from porn industry sources, then no, she isn't article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And again you don't explain why AVN and XBIZ would be press blurbs only in relation to the Sabrina Deep article, while they are clearly reliable sources in relation to other thousands of wiki PORNBIO-related articles. And again you avoid to aknowledge the fact that i offered to enrich the article with added sources.--Engenius (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure for now. We hold biographies of living persons, including those covering performers in pornography, to a higher standard of sourcing. There are significant doubts about the reliability of AVN as a source, so overturning this deletion based on the existence of AVN articles alone would be inappropriate. Engenius, would you mind linking to the XBIZ articles you believe establish the notability of the individual in question? Also, it is presently unclear to me whether there are other non-AVN sources with which you have repeatedly "offered to enrich the article," but, if there are, please link to them. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Admin counted votes to a strange "No Consensus", failing do dismiss votes that show a mistaken understanding of the police, or that fail to even adress it. User:Andy Dingley pushed the wrong idea that it's justified to use non-free images for "documentation of a fact that is central to that article". The fact in question is that the FARC used child soldiers, and we should document that fact with reliable sources, and not with a non-free picture of children dressed as soldiers. User:DGG claimed this is a "well-known image used to indicate the subject". Even if this was proven truth (which he didn't bother to do), this does not means the image is usable in Wikipedia. Many photojournalistic pictures are widely used by the press and books but that in no way means its use passes NFCC - We have our own rules. The nomination dealt with NFCC#8, but both keep votes failed to even try do address how the removal of this image would be detrimental for the understanding of the article. The closing admin was asked to review the this and other equally objectionable closings (two of them already overtrhown) but he stood by his mistake. damiens.rf 14:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless a proper, non-dead link image source is added by the time this DRV is up, I'm going to delete this per WP:CSD#G10 no matter what the outcome of the NFCC matter is. NW (Talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certain I'm missing something important. Could you explain for the slow among us how having a non-dead link is relevant to being an attack page? Are you worried that the image might be something other than a FARC thing? (I see this is explained below, striking) In any case: [10], [11] are among sites that use the image if that's helpful. [12] lists some 65 sites that appear to use this image. Not sure if any of those are a link to the "image source" (or what an image source is in this context--do you mean the original photographer or publisher?) Hobit (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [EC with NuclearWarfare, who seems to have seen the same issues I am seeing.] Question: In attempting to evaluate the arguments presented in the XfD, I am hitting a dead-end -- I think the discussion participants and the closer may have had some information that I don't have. The fair use justification states that the "image is being used for non-profit educational purposes" and "is already widely used under fair use on dozens of web sites, and it's use on Wikipedia will in no way interfere with ability to profit from image in the future" and it was stated in the deletion discussion that it is a "historic well-known image." That all may be true, but I can't find any information trail identifying who made the image nor where else it has been used. The source link on the File page is 404 and the URL listed there does not take me to the image. Can someone provide some backup for the assertions made in the deletion discussion and fair use rationale? --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • support the no-consensus decison, which judged correctly the consensus. The delete argument was adds to relevant information,: but that's such a vague phrase that it 's applicability in any particular case has to be judged by consensus. It adds an understanding of the nature of the ASRC role in the conflict more clearly than words can convey. fixing the image trail is necessary, but I am assuming it will be completed. That a link as gone dead is no reason to remove a reference, just to indicate the problem & try to fix it, and the same goes for anything else that becomes inaccessible. We can AGF that the information was previously present. As links go dead, do we remove items that were previous accepted? That makes Wikipedia a web guide, not an encyclopedia Nothing is presented to dispute the other parts of the rationale. As for G10, it does not apply; this are participants in a conflict, young people or not, who are clearly proud of their roles--neither they nor anyone else is being disparaged. If the objection is valid, I do not see that a source will help. So an admin starting off discussion promising to ignore the finding and delete the item anyway does not speak well for their neutrality. As this problem was not raised during the IfD, it could and should simply have been presented here as an additional rationale for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG: Your comment in the XfD suggested that you had some outside knowledge of this image, so you may be able to address its sourcing. The source attribution is a bare URL that apparently no longer points to the same website, much less the specific content. From the Internet Archive, I've determined that the source was a website called Panorama Mundial. Can you help track down the source? --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These children are being accused of participating in a guerrilla war against their government. Armed revolution is treason. We have no right to insinuate that someone is committing such an act without a valid source. For all we know, this could be a screenshot from a movie.

    If you're worried about links going dead, there is many a way to fix that. But a source that is not verifiable has a worth of exactly 0. NW (Talk) 17:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It could be replaced with a different, reliably-sourced, picture of a Colombian child soldier. For example, the BBC have published one here. Would that resolve your concern, NW? (I ought to add that it's replaceable with other non-free content. It's not realistically replaceable with free content, because we can't send our volunteers with their cameras into a war zone.)—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that editors are fine with such an image meeting NFCC #8, I would be fine with that. It's a tricky matter, because while news agencies (like the Associated Press) are famously quite protective of their copyright, we need their backing to host images without violating our BLP/unwritten ethics policy. NW (Talk) 02:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm growing quite gravely concerned about what I see as the misinterpretation of NFCC#8 at DRV. Let's be clear here. NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion. Specifically, one user's opinion that it "doesn't significantly enhance readers' understanding of the subject" does not trump another user's opinion that it does. NFCC#8 is not a magic wand that makes an image deletion discussion default to delete!

    I'm sure that damiens.rf was motivated to raise this DRV by the surprising and unconventional outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 17, involving the same nominator and the same closer. With all due respect for Eluchil404, I found the outcome of that DRV completely bizarre. I think it's very important that DRV doesn't allow users to destroy our non-free content repository with just the allegation of failing NFCC#8. The principle must be NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion and it requires a supporting consensus before it can operate.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I had been waiting for someone to request an explanation of the close of the prior DRV but no one has so this is as good a place as any to go into more detail. The foundation has stated that we are to make only "minimal" use of non-free content.[13] Therefore NFCC#8 must not become the exception that swallows the rule. While it's exact operation is a matter for consensus, it is not simply an untrammeled vote count. Opinions that argue for massive, rather than minimal as dictated by the foundation resolution, amount of fair-use are properly given less weight. This is not anyone can claim an NFCC#8 violation and get an image deleted or even no-consensus defaults to delete, but rather a judgement that in some cases those arguing for an expansive interpretation of the criterion are making arguments in considerable tension with the foundation resolution and the spirit of the NFC criteria which countenance the use of non-free content in limited circumstances, and only there. Further discussion of the general principles of NFC policy is probable better left to the policy talk page or an RfC (which I think might be helpful) rather than this specific DRV which is concerned with the necessarily fact-specific case o a particular image. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That strikes me as poring over policy rather closely in the face of an obvious lack of consensus. But it wasn't my intention to rehash the June 17 DRV. A key difference in this specific case is that in the June 17 DRV, I felt the image did not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. In this case, I think it probably does: an image of what are clearly child soldiers in a significant conflict is a very different thing to a picture of a chess match.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that there's a level of subjectivity to something does not mean that our judgement of it has to come down to simple headcounting, and nor does it mean that all opinions are equally valid. Compare; there's clearly a level of subjectivity with regards to how good a painting is, yet art critics can still meaningfully debate the issue without it coming down to "well that's just your opinion". Same's true of books, video games and such, and, for some, a whole lot of other things. Something similar is true here here. Andy Dingley did not argue in favour of this image, he merely questioned Damiens about his view. That vote may as well have just been "Keep. [sig]". He does imply that he believes that the image is there "to provide clear documentation of a fact that is central to that article", but what precisely this means, I am not sure. Clear documentation should be provided by referenced text, it is in no ways clear why seeing this image significantly increases reader understanding of the topic. DGG makes a number of vague comments, asserting that the image is "well-known" (for which I see no evidence) that it is "used to indicate the subject" (well, yeah- why does this subject need to be "indicated"?) and that "[p]ictures usually are" "better than a verbal description" (how this view relates to this picture is not clear). He closes by saying that "we are justified in using [pictures] whenever they have a substantial contribution". I agree, but he has failed to establish that this picture in particular does have a substantial contribution, unless he hopes to argue that all pictures which are "used to indicate the subject" automatically "have a substantial contribution". Such a view would not be inline with our current non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our process is that it's for the participants in the XFD to form a rough consensus about whether the policies and guidelines are met. It's for the closer to implement that rough consensus. Where no rough consensus exists, the only available close is "no consensus." An FFD is not a sysop suggestion box, J Milburn. The closer is clerk to the discussion, not the chairman of it. And invoking NFCC#8 does not change the default to "delete".—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist While there is wide latitude for an administrator to interpret guideline and policies when closing, but here (as mentioned above) there was not sufficient reasons given by the participants for him to do so. The nomination was clear, the participants failed to rebut, but I can't bring myself to say "delete" as I agree we're often wrong in our over-strict NFC reading. Relist, get the sources sorted out, make a more consensual decision. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to S Marshall's comment of 16:49, 30 June 2011, this is what I was trying to say above. If the closer wants to highlight a policy argument that has not yet been raised, participate instead of closing. (With the caveat that the administrator may choose to expand on arguments presented. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's not the same as when they need to discard an opinion as not based on policy--they are obliged to say why, and there is no clear demarcation line between explaining that, and expressing their own super-opinion. But raising a new issue is alweays improper unless its explicitly a speedy that meets the speedy criteria. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - "Non consensus" was an accurate assessment of the discussion, which was posted for 3 weeks before it was closed. However, this DRV indicates the existence of a raft-full of topics deserving to be hashed out more fully. Relisting would be the best way to address those topics. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There's no question the image is replaceable fair use. The image's rationale is "Illustrate section of FARC-EP article related to child soldiers." Unless child soldiers are in the past, the image is replaceable in its purpose by a free license alternative. Total failure of WP:NFCC #1, and ignoring that serious issue in an FfD closure? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as no consensus - DRV is not XFD#2 even if I believe the image should have been deleted per NFCC#8. No prejudice to Relisting again to gain more input. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete – Notability doesn't override the non-free content criteria, which has not been addressed by those arguing for retention. I also have a hard time seeing the one reason for retention as nothing else than a personal attack. –MuZemike 17:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum – Isn't the FARC still around, and as such, isn't there a possibility to obtain a free version of such an image (which in this case, as the others mentioned above, imply that this image would fail WP:NFCC#1)? –MuZemike 18:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends how realistic you think it is to expect one of our volunteers armed with their personal digicam and their good intentions to go into a war zone so as to take a photo, I suppose.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close. What do we have in the FFD? A few good faith, well-founded opinions to the effect that the image significantly adds to reader understanding, and a few good faith, well-founded opinions that it does not. There is no policy basis whatsoever for ignoring any of those opinions on either side, and with NFCC#8, opinions are all you're going to get. Of course "no consensus" was the appropriate close. There was no consensus! Sometimes it really is that simple. Thparkth (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse given that the discussion did not establish the required consensus to delete, that is, no consensus that the image is not compatible with NFCC8.  Sandstein  17:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, per MuZemike. NFCC#8, as a Foundation-level policy, supersedes any local consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- There were good faith arguments on both sides, and the relevant policy is not a black and white one. Since neither prevailed, no consensus is correct. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per S Marshall. A) I think that NFCC#8 is met here and B) I think the AfD concluded the same thing. Also, I believe the sources I've provided above show that many RSes use/have used this image as a group of FARC child soldiers, so hopefully the G10 issue is dealt with. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would have been nice if you added the sources to the image description page, but no matter. I have added them myself, so that takes care of the G10 issue. I'll leave you all to be to discuss NFCC. NW (Talk) 03:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have, but I don't really understand image stuff very well (were those links enough, what if the exact image was slightly different resolution etc.) and I was loath to touch a BLP-related issue without being darn sure I was getting it right. Thanks for doing so! Hobit (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with leave for immediate relist. NFCC#8 is a wholly subjective criteria, and it's not not met just because Damiens says so. Given the fact it's not an open and shut case, and the arguments made during the XFD, I don't see how the closing admin could have closed it as anything other than no consensus. With that said, there are obviously further grounds for discussion raised here that are better discussed at IFD and not here at DRV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse closure as "no consensus," with the image retained as a result. As I wrote in the last DRV initiated by Damiens.rf, "I'm not willing to say that 'no consensus' should default to delete for non-free files, especially since NFCC#8 is so subjective and many debates over files' NFCC#8 compliance have solid arguments on both sides." This is an example of a debate where the "keep" and "delete" camps were numerically split, with both sides making valid points. In particular, DGG's argument that this is a "historic well-known image, generally used to indicate the subject and better than a verbal description," since supplemented with a statement that "it adds an understanding of the nature of the ASRC role in the conflict more clearly than words can convey," makes a reasonable case that WP:NFCC#8 is met here. The counterargument that "a non-free image of young soldiers marching is not necessary for a proper understanding of the article about the FARC and its allegations of using child soldiers" is also reasonable, although whether it is correct is simply a matter of opinion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 June 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing admin erred in not deleting this non-notable congregation. The keep !votes were not ones supported by any policy or guideline. Article needs to be deleted. Basket of Puppies 22:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural speedy close - the instructions are quite clear "Before listing a review request:
  1. discuss the matter with the deleting administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review."

No such discussion has taken place. TerriersFan (talk) 23:00, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, TerriersFan, but per longstanding consensus that isn't how it works. This was last discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 16#Proposal re: requirement to consult with closing admin in advance. Basket of Puppies is entitled to open a DRV without consulting you because the deleting administrator is not the gatekeeper for DRV. However, there is also a consensus that it is rude to open a DRV without conversing with the deleting administrator first, and Basket of Puppies is experienced enough to know what he shouldn't be doing, so you may wish to subject him to a gentle piscine caress.

    Moving on to the substantive question, I endorse the no consensus outcome, since there wasn't a consensus. I think Basket of Puppies' error here is in repeatedly quoting WP:ATA at people as if it mattered and expecting the closer to care. ATA is an essay which, as it clearly says right at the top of the page, editors are free to disregard if it suits them. It certainly isn't policy; it's basically just a big fat shopping list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say in deletion discussions, and its logic is in places distinctly shaky.—S Marshall T/C 23:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - my own close! In my view the nominator is in error in stating "The keep !votes were not ones supported by any policy or guideline." By quoting WP:GNG or stating that the citations are sufficient or that the topic is notable is basing their views on a guideline. In my view the stronger arguments of the deleters out-sways the keepers numerical majority. However you cut the discussion, though, there was no consensus for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Close rationale was reasonable, discussed policy as raised by !voters, and WP:DRV is not AfD2. Jayjg (talk) 00:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close I commented on the AfD in question but did not call for keeping or deleting because it seemed like a very borderline case. Given that, a close of no consensus defaulting to keep seems completely reasonable. The notability may be borderline and an admin could have reasonably closed this either way. But there's no compelling policy reason to overturn this close. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "no consensus" close. Although I am appalled that this nonnotable page was kept -- and concerned that its retention will encourage the creation of additional similar content by the users who believe all local religious organizations are notable (apparently because of their special relationship to God), TerriersFan evaluated this one correctly. --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If anything, the outcome was leaning towards the "keep" outcome. The nominator should really learn when to drop WP:STICK. Nsk92 (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not only was the close appropriate, the closer's rationale was thoughtful and helpful. I completely agree with Orlady that, at the time of the AfD nomination[14], the article did not assert notability and was relieved only by its Freudian error. Thincat (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dispute. I thank the closer for the detailed explanation, but the explanation is that the close was based on counting rather than strength-of-argument. Even further, it asserts that the arguments for deletion are highly in line with policies and guidelines (and not that any of the arguments for keep were guideline/policy-based). I don't see how "several more poor arguments" outweigh multiple strong arguments. It's not the closer's role to cast a supervote, but it is closer's role to follow the given arguments based on their merits (not disregard WP:ATA ones, but do consider each (both for and against) on its own guideline/policy basis). Disclosure: I participated in this one afd but had no other substantial involvement in the larger pool of which it was a part. DMacks (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Closing admin erred in not deleting this non-notable congregation." Oh, well, case closed then: BoP has it all sorted. Or—the majority of 'keep' !votes were not completely un-reliant on policy as has been suggested, hence the fact that the GNG was repeatedly mentioned in their arguments. I think the close of 'no consensus' was a perfectly valid reading of the situation, so it should be endorsed. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢
    I'm also having trouble finding where Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs) contacted the closing admin to discuss the issue before listing this DRV: according to Wikipedia:Deletion review, "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look," (bolding copied from original). I'd like BoP to link to where he did this, if that's OK. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 10:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already been told in no uncertain terms that this isn't necessary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for finding another of my comments to groundlessly criticise. I just won several small bets with myself. Well, I know it's not obligatory to ask the closing admin; however, I am interested to hear BoP's reason for not doing so voluntarily as a matter of courtesy. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 11:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting definition of "groundless" you have there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your objection to my initial comment was that admin-discussion is optional. However, since my initial comment never suggested otherwise, your objection was groundless, and the fact that you only made it because it involved criticising me doesn't help matters. ╟─TreasuryTag►Acting Returning Officer─╢ 13:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No doubt TT will soon accuse me of violating WP:POINT for not doing yet another thing that is not required. Shall we go back to ANI again? Basket of Puppies 17:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So what's your answer to the question: even though it wasn't required, why did you not attempt to discuss this issue with the closing admin first, voluntarily, of your own free will, as a polite and courteous member of the Wikipedia community? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikilawyering is not required, so why persist? --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking someone to voluntarily be polite is Wikilawyering? Oh no. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's not required. Basket of Puppies 17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If you had no reason not to do something polite, courteous and potentially preventing time-wasting drama, then you should have done it, obligatory or not. If your only reason not to discuss the issue with the closing admin was to make the point that it is not compulsory, then you are indeed guilty of a WP:POINT violation. If you want to take this to ANI, to waste even more time and get such a negligble response as your last thread of the sort mustered, feel free. Don't notify me on my talkpage though, because I don't plan to tarnish my mind with any more of your antics there. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 17:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I welcome your threats to take this to ANI and have no doubt it will be speedily closed just like your other complaints. Consider WP:BOOMERANG, will you?Basket of Puppies 19:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may have completely mis-read what I wrote. I said, "If you want to take this to ANI, to waste even more time and get such a negligble response as your last thread of the sort mustered, feel free," (bolding added). I have no intention of taking this to ANI, because it would be time-wasting and disruptive, and you've done enough of that sort of thing already. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 19:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a great evening, TT. :) Basket of Puppies 19:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse. The closer accurately noted community division over the basic principles to be applied and quite commendably refused to impose his view on the underlying policy in the absence of community consensus. This was an exemplary decision. I also note the irony of a nominator who simply declared "not notable" as a basis for deletion complaining about the thinness of opposing arguments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. because there was no consensus, and per reasons given by Jayjg. I also feel that TerriersFan was correct in his Procedural speedy close. The instructions are indeed very clear and no-one should be expected to know that the instructions were muddied "by consensus" in Archive 16! It just adds to the confusion. --Kenatipo speak! 18:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, the Instruction section cited by TerriersFan was written more strictly than the "Principal purpose" box and the beginning of the "Steps to list ..." section, so I added some language to soften it per the consensus in Archive 16 rightly pointed out by S Marshall. --Kenatipo speak! 23:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep or delete were both clearly wrong. Probably doesn't meet WP:N, but there was extremely strong support for the article and a (weak) basis for those arguments. It might even be a textbook close NC IMO (in the sense I'd put it in a textbook as a call a less experienced admin might get wrong). Hobit (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Closing admin is to be commended for creating a closing whose viewpoint is exposed to the force of reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The closing argument errs in stating, "...none of the independent sources address the subject directly and in detail."  This reference:

    Jordan, Ida Kay (June 20, 2004). "Temple Sinai Celebrating 50 Years of Worship". The Virginia-Pilot. republished by HighBeam Research. Retrieved June 23, 2011.

    is 131 words of an article where most of the remainder of the 1000 words is behind a paywall.  There are snippets available from the searches that show that the text goes on to discuss the founding of the PURS and the aging of the congregation. This article appears to be, based on the part that is visible, exactly what we are looking for in establishing notability.  If the closing argument intended to say that the remainder of the article somehow contradicts the part that is directly referenced, it should have mentioned this.  The Virginian-Pilot is a regional newspaper, and the reference satisfies the requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience that, "...at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary".  Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  The closing argument errs in citing an unreferenced viewpoint that there is a theory of unacceptable synthesis based on "putting together" "aspects" and "facts" for Wikipedia notability.  WP:GNG states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" meaning that there are minimally significant sources, and "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies..."  Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) indicates that "multiple" references are cumulative in determining notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bert Mizusawa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Bert Mizusawa was deleted pursuant to a deletion discussion last June. Missclark (talk · contribs) recently recreated it, and Fastily (talk · contribs) speedied it as a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion". Missclark attempted to file a DRV, but it was in its own page, and was deleted as malformed. I think it was sufficiently changed from the original that it should be considered on its own merits. I'll restore the history when I finish this so non-admins can review as well. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me that this page is both reliable and strongly indicative of notability. The "delete" recommendations at the AfD strike me as weak, consisting mostly of opinion statements about the current content, and not an assessment of the article's potential state. Neither COI nor promotional content are grounds for deletion. They're reasons to rewrite from an NPOV. Can anyone examine the Daily Press biography and check that its content are as represented? At the moment, I'm minded to overturn not just the speedy, but also the original AfD.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bio you mentioned is available online. Most of the Daily Press coverage is in relation to the subject's candidacy for the U. S. Congress last year. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. It's arguable whether or not the page that was speedied was truly a substantial recreation of the article that was AfDd. Regardless of that, however, as S Marshall points out, the AfD closure was flawed. I don't think it matters whether it's the speedy or the AfD that is procedurally identified as being overturned, but the page should be restored. --Orlady (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Looking at the cached version of the article, there appears to have been a reasonable effort made to address the problems cited in the original AFD. Given as well the problems with that AFD, as described by S Marshall and Orlady, the article should be restored. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. I've had my own pages prodded and marked with speedies because they were mistaken for re-creations and it's terrible! Wiwaxia (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: there's nothing manifestly incorrect about the AFD close; as far as I can tell the issue here is whether or not to allow recreation, I leave it to admins who can read the deleted page whether or not this addresses the weaknesses in the original version. However, I see no significant third party coverage in the new version. Hairhorn (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
M1 Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

JzG speedy deleted this in April with a rationale of "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: Also A7". I noticed this after a related article was discussed and restored at User talk:JzG/Archives/June 2011#Façonnable. When asked to review the deletion of M1 Group at User_talk:JzG#M1_Group, his response (afaics) indicates that he doesnt believe that this article was good faith contributions. The article was created in 2007 by Chadlupkes (talk · contribs), a consistent editor since 2004. Chadlupkes was not informed of the deletion. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Well, I cannot see this article and it has long gone from the Google cache. Searching shows me many things called "M1 Group" so I do not even know what was the subject of the article. It is intriguing to wonder what form of "unambiguous advertising or promotion" nevertheless gave "no indication of importance" (WP:CSD#A7). However, before taking the drastic step of temporarily undeleting such an article as this, I would ask administrators to consider carefully the adverse effects there might be on lesser folk when viewing such material. Thincat (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    M1 Group (fr:M1 Group) is the organisation which acquired Façonnable in 2007 for $210 million, and is owned by Najib Mikati and his brother Taha. see e.g. [15] for more recent news about the group. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that this deletion review is strictly necessary. The page does not appear to be salted. A previous G11 speedy deletion is no obstacle to a fresh article being created by a good faith user, and a previous A7 speedy deletion is no obstacle to a fresh article that does give a clear indication of importance. Even a quick glance at the fr.wiki article tells you there are sources on which to base the material, and indeed a straight translation of the french language version seems like an easy starting point. What, then, is the purpose of a deletion review? To investigate JzG's reasoning or behaviour? Surely not: deletion review is concerned with content. There are other places to deal with conduct.

    I have had occasion, in the past, to discuss similar matters with JzG and it has been my experience that JzG is commendably passionate in his determination to ensure that spammers do not achieve their objective. It seems to me that this is to be encouraged. It also seems to me that it's not necessary to review JzG's deletion here and it would be faster and more straightforward to start again. Personally, I would happily translate the fr.wiki version so as to offer a starting point.

    I suggest that this review can be closed without result.—S Marshall T/C 11:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    That a new page can be created is irrelevant. I believe the deletion process used was faulty, as I don't see how the CSD criteria can be justified by the content at the time of deletion. I thought it is DRV's purpose to allow the community to review deletion decisions. I'd hate to think that DRV is the wrong venue and we need an RFC/U before the community can review speedy deletions. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, the community certainly can review speedy deletions. I was questioning whether it's strictly necessary, or even a good idea, to review the speedy deletion in this case, in view of the other options available.—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but, unless the deletion is overturned, any appropriate material from the earlier version (I have now found it here) could not be used in a way which preserves attribution. Thincat (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this until someone has the time to research and build a new page someday. Chadlupkes (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but support recreation from scratch. Given the state of the article at the time of deletion I cannot support trouting JzG for deleting it under G11 which arguably applied. On the other hand, I can't see it as a valid A7 since it contained a New York Times report of a deal. The original version by Chadlupkes was a two sentence stub.
I also endorse S Marshall's call for withdrawing this review. While it is possible that a consensus at DRV will support overturning JzG's decision, the article will have to be rewritten regardless since the history contains no usable version. I.e. one that is both properly sourced and free from spam. Thus it would be better to simply rewite the article based on the French version and then ask for a history restoration if preservation of Chadlupkes' atribution is desired. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 June 2011

[edit]
  • Natami – Overturn to no consensus. This is a strange close for me to be making, because, on a philosophical level, I'm in the camp that says leave the call on the field as it is unless the evidence is clear that it was wrong. What we have here is actually a DRV that is much like the original AFD, an admin, acting in good faith, could close it either way. At the end of the day, this DRV stands between one camp that says the close was within discretion, and the side for overturning the close, that points out a few possible different interpretations of the debate. What we have, though, is several editors here, including the closing admin, willing to accept a merge; from an original AFD that only considered one at the eleventh hour. I'd suggest that as the best possible outcome of this situation. If anyone wants to start a 3rd AFD, I'd ask that you give time for a merge discussion on the talk page to run its natural course. All in all, I see a rough consensus here to put the article back, and tag it as a suggested merge. – Courcelles 09:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Natami (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Despite the closing statement, this AfD was apparently closed based on a headcount. The close also does not take into consideration that NatAmi has sufficient sources both for the purposes of our verifiability policy and the notability guideline. The very fact that the material is verifiable means the close was flawed since the material could have still been merged into another article as a last resort. Based on the sources which have been presented so far however, NatAmi certainly seems to meet the notability guideline, too.

In terms of sources, NatAmi has been covered in detail in this interview by the Amiga Future magazine (imprint), which is a reliable, published magazine with an editorial staff. While one !voter went so far as to make false claims that the magazine was "sponsored" by an Amiga hardware vendor, the only connection between the magazine and the hardware vendor is the vendor pays for some advertising in the magazine, just like you would see with Apple in Macworld or any other periodical.

NatAmi was also covered in this news article from nr2.ru, which while in Russian, is reliable (about) and we don't limit sources to English only. This interview by Retoage (in Polish but also translated to English) was also brought up during the AfD and further investigation seems to indicate that Retoage is indeed reliable for retrocomputing topics.

While many of these sources for NatAmi are currently non-English (including German, Russian, Polish, Italian, etc), we do not limit articles to English-only sources. The Amiga community is very diverse so it is no surprise that NatAmi is going to receive coverage in many non-English sources. Given that the material is verifiable and certainly appears to be notable, the deletion of this article is in direct conflict with both our Deletion policy and Editing policy.

When I attempted to bring up the fact that we do have reliable sources with the closing admin, he stated "Those sources were there before the previous close, and I, like the previous administrator, do not think they're strong enough." [17] This however is not the case, as sources such as nr2.ru were only brought up in this AfD. In addition, his argument that these sources were not "strong enough" is an argument to be made in a !vote and not a close, because it otherwise becomes a "supervote". --Tothwolf (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus, since there was none. A possible alternative would be relist, since I really don't think that debate achieved cloture.—S Marshall T/C 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the admin who closed the second nomination, two points: one, I didn't close based on a headcount (read my closing rationale for more insight) and two, I don't think discounting a source is a supervote when I'm only going off of consensus presented in the AfD. This whole 'administrator is neutral' thing can be hard to grasp, I know. I'll see what course the DRV takes, I guess. m.o.p 15:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus more or less per S. Marshall. I just don't see consensus being reached, even given the closer's discretion to discount canvassed votes etc. I'm also bothered by the closer's statement that "Sources with ties to the subject cannot be used as primaries", which seems to me to conflate several different principles in a way that doesn't accurately reflect policy." I'm also bothered by the argument that specialized coverage can't be used to establish notability, which was more prominent in the first AFD; at some point this argument crosses the line into arguing that coverage only in media which cover the general subject can't establish notability (far too broad an argument, or we'd lose about half our articles beyond the realm of popular culture). It's legitimate to discount coverage in media whose editorial content caters to their advertisers, but that's not the case here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a note, that's not my statement - that's what a few editors were debating on the page. m.o.p 16:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree they were debating it, but as there is no such policy/guideline (nor should there be) I'd claim their opinion should be discounted (though certainly not ignored).
        • I agree with Hobit's (imperfectly signed) comment above. By giving significant weight to an argument so clearly out of line with applicable policy, the closer erred. By presenting the argument in the closing statement, the error is clearly demonstrated. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I know m.o.p. closes a number of controversial AfDs. A) I've noticed they tend to be closed quite well and B) I have significant sympathy for those that choose to tackle them. That said, this close appears to be based on a novel reading of what makes for a reliable source. The delete arguments, IMO, were notably weaker than the keep arguments as the keep arguments were based on guidelines and policy ("look, here are sources that meet the sourcing requirements of WP:N") and the delete arguments were largely not ("the scope of the publication isn't mainstream enough"). If there was significant consensus for deletion at the AfD based on the arguments we treat it as an IAR issue and assume something special is going on here. But that wasn't found here. In any case, there was significant enough discussion of a merge that outright deletion was clearly in error. Merging might actually be the best outcome here though... Hobit (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (as the closing admin in the first AfD). M.O.P.'s "keep" and "delete" sections in the rationale are his paraphrasing of the discussion; and I believe they accurately reflect so. M.O.P.'s rationale said he spent 20 minutes reading and understanding the arguments presented and tied the outcome with what he felt was consensus. The suggestion to merge was late in the AfD and did not receive very much attention but might be a nice alternative or compromise.--v/r - TP 18:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The close was on the basis that the sources were insufficient, and that was clearly shown not to be the case, It was objected that some of the sources had ties with the subject , but at least "Amiga Future" did not have ties with the subject of the article, and are therefore totally usable. One of the arguments used, was that the source "Amiga Future" is too specialized; this is not just ridiculous but contrary to established practice--specialized sources are what provide information to specialized subjects. I couldn't care less about Amiga software, a subject in which I have neither interest nor experience, but I'm mainly here because of the need to clearly challenge that claim. As as example, almost every animal and plant species in Wikipedia is here on the basis of very specialized sources. The claim might make some sense if the magazine were specifically devoted to this program--but not even so--there are reliable sources specific to major computer programs. WP is intended to be a general encyclopedia of much wider scope than the print encyclopedias constrained by physical limitations. If we covered nothing but what was in general newspapers and the EB, we'd be at this point in time an abridged encyclopedia. Some people want it that way--I believe the German Wikipedia may have decided that it should be limited to its present article count, making the assumption that they have systematically already covered everything worth covering. I think that shows an astoundingly unrealistic degree of self-confidence, and I hope nobody here is as short-sighted. Additionally the closer has said here that he did not count heads, but in the AfD itself he said "consensus leans towards delete" expanding that he knew it would inevitably disappoint half the people--thus admitting that even by his standards of what arguments to accept, that there was and not consesus. Myself, I think that after discarding the bad arguments, there was consensus to keep. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I voted for deleting and merging verifiable content, so my endorsement is, I think, implied. Two AfDs on Natami have now been closed as Delete in the past two weeks. In the first case, the administrator who enacted the close overturned his own decision after additional conversation. In the second case, a DRV is now underway. Some delete voters have been accused of wanting to delete this article "at any cost," which seems slightly ironic given recent events. Anyway, I think the suggestion that the AfD was closed "on a headcount" doesn't hold up given a very lengthy and thoughtful closing rationale. There is no evidence that a "headcount" is what decided this. Also, I do not know where this issue of Wikipedia accepting non-English sources is coming from. There wasn't a single delete vote (none that I'm aware of, at least) that based any component of its argument on the language of the sources under dispute. Now, all that being said, I would really love to help effect a merge of the currently-deleted content into the Amiga article's section on hardware clones, because the information in the Natami article was plainly verifiable, and I note that even Tothwolf voted for a "Keep or merge" in this AfD. This does seem like the best compromise option. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- DRV is for overturning obvious errors. Having read the discussion and the closing rationale I cannot convince myself that the closing admin acted improperly. "No consensus" would have been acceptable too, but I think admins who actually reach a decision rather than taking that coward's way out should be encouraged rather than raked over the coals. Reyk YO! 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overtrun to keep per DGG, 'specialized sources are what provide information to specialized subjects.' Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Two admins have both reached the same conclusion I agree with Reyk that all to often admins who make these calls in good faith get "raked over the coals", this is a unreleased product, when it is released then it would likely get the third-party, independent, reliable sources that will show it pass WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If there's a serious question of whether sources are adequate or not, with a vocal group of editors arguing that they are, a delete outcome is unsustainable. No Consensus would have been appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Once again, DRV is not a venue for "I disagree" or "I would have closed it differently", it is for addressing errors or misjudgement in regards to the closing admin's actions. The close is well within the admin's discretion, given the AfD input. Nothing else to discuss here. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the basis for the DRV is that it was closed not just differently, but wrong, through the acceptance of blatantly non-policy criteria. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try re-reading Tothwolf's filing DGG, you might become enlightened. It begins with the typical ARS bad-faith "despite what the closer said..." screed, followed by "I disagree with how the closer interpreted WP:V". We're all well-familiar by now with how your crowd liberally interprets inclusion and retention guidelines. All this is is a simple wiki-philosophical divide that you are, once again, on the losing end of. Tarc (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved with ARS and I rarely participate in AfD these days, so while your lack of good faith is duly noted, your rationale itself is off-track. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This close does not strike me as wrong "with the force of a 5-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish"; or, in less colorful words, I'm not convinced that the close is clearly erroneous. T. Canens (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you feel that the basis for the close: that reliable sources weren't "mainstream" enough, was a reason to delete? Such a claim is not found in policy or notability guidelines. Or do you feel that wasn't an important aspect of this close? I guess what I'd like to hear is why this close doesn't strike you as being in "dead fish" land. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • A further thought on this... This would seem to indicate that the closing admin was in effect invoking WP:IAR, would it not? My other concern here is no consensus discussions don't default to delete, which seemed to be what he had done here. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not to split hairs (I hope that is not what I'm doing), but the closing admin didn't let what he felt to be a no-consensus discussion default to delete; he felt there was consensus to delete. There are perfectly plausible reasons to dispute this conclusion, as you do in the first portion of your statement here and elsewhere. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, when there is off-site canvassing, the closer's discretion is broader than normal. Second, as duffbeerforme pointed out below, there is a reasonable argument that the sources at issue are not "notability sources", so to speak. Not saying it's compelling to me. Third, what we are talking about is a guideline, not a policy, and so the closer has somewhat more latitude both ways. Together, these considerations make me unconvinced that the close was so clearly wrong as to warrant an overturn. T. Canens (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Despite the {{not a vote}} template (included during the nom), no "off-site canvassing" took place during the second AfD, which is what is being reviewed here. That said, both the first and second AfDs included "delete" !votes attributable to trolling from a few individuals who inhabit the forum where the first AfD was canvassed (I know, irony, right?). Given that there was no canvassing, I have to strongly disagree with your notion that "the closer's discretion is broader than normal". --Tothwolf (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you seriously claiming that the bunch of IPs and SPAs just came from nowhere? If there's off-site canvassing during the first AfD, then the second AfD, which took place a day after the first one, is clearly tainted by the canvassing as well. T. Canens (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Early in the first AfD, the AfD was discussed on the Amiga.org forum. The discussion on that forum had died down by the end of the first AfD, before the second AfD. The posts in these discussion threads [21] [22] took place over a three day period from June 11 to June 13, 2011 with a followup post to the second thread on June 26. So yes, the Amiga.org forum discussion was over with and done well before the relisting (and {{not a vote}} addition) on June 19, 2011. This means almost a full week had gone by between the forum discussion and the AfD relisting.

              Second, you can't judge a SPA because an editor is contributing anonymously as an IP or has a red-link username. Quite a number of "IP" and "red-link" editors contributed good points and material to the discussions. On the other side of the coin, at least one Amiga.org forum member who was trolling both the Amiga community and Wikipedia in both AfDs has had an account here for years (although rarely used; 29 edits and mainly used to !vote in a total of three deletion discussions) and has something on his userpage to turn the link blue. Based on his forum posts, he has a personal dislike of Amiga "clones". You simply cannot blanket discount all discussion and comments made by "new" or "anonymous" editors nor can you trust that someone has a neutral position simply because they don't have a red-linked username. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

              • No, the point is that people canvassed for the first AfD by the forum post are likely to participate in the second AfD as well. Fruit of the poisonous tree. T. Canens (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Except that in this case your hypothetical scenario did not come to fruition. In fact, from what I've seen of past AfDs elsewhere, a week or so is generally sufficient for the purposes of counteracting any biased off-wiki canvassing anyway (although occasional exceptions exist). --Tothwolf (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The statement specialized sources are what provide information to specialized subjects. is at odds with WP:CORP which states attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability (bolding mine). duffbeerforme (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Article didn't properly meet notability requirements and ended in delete twice. Koft (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of deletions and AFDs aren't any argument against the article content. A topic can gain more notability by time and that happened here. And thus: bring back the topic!' mabdul 10:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC There doesn't seem to be a definitive consensus. Admins should reflect a consensus, or a lack of one...Smallman12q (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to "no consensus." Although I appreciate that MoP took the time to carefully consider and weigh the arguments presented by each side in this contentious deletion discussion, I think his conclusion that "stronger sources are needed to support a stand-alone article" did not reflect a consensus reached in the discussion. In fact, I rather think that there was nothing approaching a broad agreement on that point. Now, one of the main arguments for deletion, as summarized by MoP in his closing statement, was that "sources with ties to the subject cannot be used as primaries." But as Tothwolf has noted above, the sources presented as evidence of notability (Amiga Future, nr2.ru, and Retoage) are reliable and independent. What needs to be considered with respect to the argument over quality of sources, then, is not the sources' independence but whether they are too specialized to contribute to notability. Duffbeerforme has pointed out that the relevant guideline, WP:CORP, states that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Strict adherence to that guideline leads us to the conclusion that having an article on Natami is inappropriate. However, it is our policy that we can elect to ignore our subject-specific notability guidelines on a case-by-case basis. For very very specialized subjects like this one, specialized sources are often the primary or only place we can find significant coverage of (and verifiable information about) the subject in question. There are many specialized subjects in different fields which may only be covered by specialized sources but are nevertheless suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. There was a substantial sentiment in this AfD that Natami is one such topic. Of course, there were also plenty of people arguing the opposite position, and that's fair; as such, no consensus was reached in this debate. As a result, this article should be restored, and anyone hoping for a merger should be welcome to propose one on the talk page. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Had I seen this debate, I would have !voted to merge this, because I don't think the sources are strong enough. But I have to agree with A Stop at Willoughby's line of reasoning above. There seems to have been a high level of legitimate disagreement between two opposing viewpoints, both well supported, both reasonable interpretations of the relevant guidelines. The sources that caused the disagreement are indeed reliable and independent, so that can't really be used to swing it either way. It doesn't seem to me that any clear or even rough consensus was reached in this particular debate. Discuss a merge on the talk page - we might even manage an outcome we can all agree on. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 June 2011

[edit]
  • [redacted] – This page was suppressed for privacy concerns, which apply also to its page title, so I have redacted it. To appeal the suppression, please write to oversight-l@lists.wikimedia.org rather than using public venues like this. – Dominic·t 14:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

There have been so many complaints against the user/ admin:DragonflySixtyseven. I unfortunately have now fallen victim to this user. This user deleted the skeleton I had created on my user page for an article I created with Article Wizard. I was in the process of working on this article. Without any prior notification, tags or inquiries my user page was deleted by DragonflySixtyseven. The only reason given was after the fact that said "the usual." Clearly this user had no right, need, or justification to delete my user page. I request that it be un-deleted as soon as possible. I hope that I can find a way to block this user from vandalizing my user page again. Booth088 (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: you posted here only ten minutes after asking DF67 about it - you should have given him time to answer, and come here only if you were then not satisfied. Accusing him of vandalism will not help your case - please assume good faith. The page appears to have been rev-deleted so that the deleted version is not accessible - DF67 will have to tell us what is going on here. JohnCD (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 June 2011

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

Improved Page 5minutes (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC) The original page was deleted by Black Kite. The original question was whether Mr. Crowder was notable enough and whether there were enough independent references to his career. I had suggested to the user who recommended the deletion that the article be tagged for improvement. He strongly disagreed. At the end of the discussion, the users who'd commented supported keeping the page by a margin of 6-2. Black Kite deleted the page. I recreated the page (I now know this was improper, and that I should have come here first - my apologies), adding links to improve the references and removing some of the more unverifiable data. I informed Black Kite. Shortly thereafter, the page was tagged for speedy deletion due to it having been a previously deleted page, and Fastily deleted the page. Based on the improvements that addressed the concerns that the original deletion requester had and based on the overwhelming opinion of the users on the original page's Talk page, I would like to request that the page that Fastily deleted should be restored. 5minutes (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm not suprised the original deletion closed as delete, it's not a vote so saying 6-2 is somewhat misleading. It's about quality of argument relative to the required policy. Most for keeping were very weak - bald assertions of notability, promises that the sources were out there somewhere, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS etc. If the cached version is anything to go by I'm not seeing the non-trivialcoverage in third party independant reliable sources. Youtube videos aren't generally reliable sources, IMDB is not a reliable source, Official bios fail to be independent and will generally be trying to portray a certain image so need to be taken with a pinch of salt for anything other than basic facts. Their own works also doesn't demonstrate much, I can demonstrate I've done a load of work it doesn't make me notable, if anything the reverse - I've a load of work out there in public, but no one is actually interested in me to write about me (which is what is required by the GNG, writing about me directly and in detail). What appears to me to be the most comprehensive piece is on a blog which doesn't appear to meet the requirement of being a reliable source either. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Both Afd Close and re-delete, let it remain as a user page then when the third-party, independent, reliable sources come to light add them, then come back here. Mtking (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize that the mere mention of Fox News can rile folks on both sides of the political aisle, but as it is an independent, third party (and arguably reliable) source, would using Fox News as a reference (and Breitbart) not qualify the user page version? 5minutes (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with Fox News, but as a contributor to the company, it is not a third-party and not sufficiently independent to use to judge notability. Mtking (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's needed is evidence that people independent of him and his employers have thought him important enough to write about. JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement from the WP:GNG is multiple independent reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage. Non-trivial is listed as writing about the subject directly and in detail, showing a list of the articles they've written for fox is not addressing the subject directly and in detail. As he writes for Fox any bio they show is likely to be skewed to present him in the manner suitable for their purposes - it's not independent. It's also not showing they believe the world has a more general interest in him, since they'll do such bios as matter of course for contributors. The same is true for the other bio's you referenced. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this is why I hesitated to bring up Fox. I could care less about the links to his articles (although a single link to them is reasonable, but not as a reference), but his biography at any of those sites is, IMO, a worthwhile source, barring the discovery of his birth certificate. 5minutes (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As sources they may certainly be useful for certain things, basic facts etc. For other things you would have to consider the nature of the sources and as to if they are going to be reliable. What they aren't useful for is notability and that's the principal issue here, there aren't sources which show the world in general are interested in knowing about this person. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as AfD closer - this wasn't even a difficult decision, actually. Every single Keep is either "X has a wiki page, so why can't he" or "he's notable and there are sources" whilst providing only primary and non-independent ones. Crowder may well be notable, but there's nothing in the AfD pointing out why. The proliferation of SPAs and IPs are suspicious - probably some off-wiki canvassing there - but in the end make no difference either. The repeated claims that the page was being AfD'd for political reasons were pretty unimpressive as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to steer the conversation away from the political (although, we have to admit that human beings are going to be political when it comes to political subjects), although I admittedly got sarcastic with the AfD proposer by the time it was over with. Certainly, though, asking for the community to improve an article on a community-driven encyclopedia is preferable to deleting an article because someone's opinion doesn't take its time. As for off-wiki canvassing, I'm not aware of any. I have asked folks at his fan sites to provide me with independent, third-party sources for verifiable data, however, so I can't guarantee that they wouldn't come in to voice their opinions. 5minutes (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse Black Kite's close of the AfD. I don't endorse Fastily's speedy deletion, because I don't see it as strictly within criteria; the new version wasn't substantially identical to the deleted version. But, notwithstanding that, I don't see the userspace version as being ready for the mainspace quite yet. This is a biography of a living person, so our rules require that we be quite strict about the need for independent, reliable sources. So my overall position is keep deleted.—S Marshall T/C 13:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the AfD nominator, I stand by my argument that no independent published secondary sources exist. All the sources added to the userspace version are blog posts which aren't presented in the slightest journalistic or non-trivial fashion. This subject is not notable enough for an article in the mainspace. comment An article on Fox News's website would qualify under the notability criteria if it had an author, gave non-trivial coverage, and was published in a journalistic format. The link provided did not have an author listed and it was written in the promoting manner described above. Rogerthat94 (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion. I was one of the delete !voters on the AFD, and nothing has changed enough to show that the standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what we're getting so far is that the 3-4 people involved in the deletion think it should remain deleted? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you! 5minutes (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Black Kite assessed the discussion correctly in that those who argued to keep did so based on secondary sources (at best), and no proper sources have been presented to justify moving the userfied version to mainspace - frankie (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 June 2011

[edit]

23 June 2011

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

I do not believe consensus was reached at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sierra McCormick for it to be deleted. I tried discussing this with the closing admin (User:Wizardman) here and here, but he stands by his judgment. The AfD had two keep !votes, one neutral !vote, one delete !vote, and one delete !vote from the nominator. Wizardman discounted one of the keep !votes as an ILIKEIT rationale, but I argue that the one delete !vote should be discounted as well for citing the many previous deletions of the article via CSD as a reason to delete it once more. If these two !votes are discounted, there is no consensus to delete, and I believe the article should be restored. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The compelling argument to keep was based on presumed notability through WP:ENT, while the strongest argument to delete specifically refuted that by detailing exactly what those appearances were and making a case for them being trivial (a bit-part appearance on a quiz show, a bit-part appearance on a sitcom that lasted four episodes, and tenth billing in a film). As AfD isn't a head count (would that "!vote" were banished forever), this looks to be a comprehensive logical argument for deletion. The closing admin was therefore perfectly correct in his assessment of the AfD, and what with the actress being a minor (and this evidently being recreated every time Hannah Montana gets re-run on Disney) user:Ged UK was right to subsequently salt the title. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 14:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beg pardon, but the first-run date for that show reads June 17, 2011 to my weary eyes. DRV is supposed to be a review of whether the admin acted appropriately in weighing up what was stated in the AfD, rather than a do-over. If it turns out in six weeks (months, years, what have you) that enough reliable sources have written about A.N.T. Farm that the case for passing WP:ENT is stronger then so be it, but the closing admin could hardly be said to have acted improperly in not considering a part in an ensemble cast for a show which first aired three days before the AfD closed as cast-iron satisfaction of notability. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome, but . . . This was a very unsatisfactory AFD discussion. There were only six contributors: Cindamuse, whose nomination and supporting arguments were cogent and well-thought-out; Curb Chain, whose delete argument simply recited the long history of past speedys; Smeazel, who ended up being neutral because the WP:ENT keep argument hadn't been properly established; Jusdafax, whose comment was just ITSNOTABLE; Quasyboy, who argued that the upcoming TV series would establish notability; and Schmidt, who argued tautologies tendentiously and at great length, insisting that others had the responsibility to disprove his unsupported premises, which otherwise had to be taken as gospel (yes, we have a history). Under these circumstances, with divided sentiment, poor discussion (Cindamuse and Smeazel aside), the article history, and the only soundly-based-in-policy arguments supporting deletion, the close was clearly within the closer's discretion. Particularly since none of the article's proponents came up with a lick of coverage that really went beyond cast listings. That said, Eagles247 is probably accurate in saying that the newest role will likely be sufficient to establish notability, but rather than arguing the point in theory it would be better to simply find and cite the relevant coverage in a rewritten article. If that coverage takes a couple weeks to see print or pixel, so be it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An overriding consideration here is that this was a BLP of a child. If BLPs require very strict compliance with policies and guidelines, then how much stricter must we be when the subject is a minor? Because that was a BLP of a child, the closer can justifiably err on the side of caution. This means I think there were two outcomes within admin discretion, based on that discussion: "delete" and "no consensus". I think it would be wrong of us to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but I agree that the A.N.T. Farm role may be enough to meet the notability criteria (although as yet, there doesn't appear to be much coverage online at reliable independent sources). As HW mentions, the first episode (excluding the "series preview" episode aired in May) only aired a few days before the AfD was closed. Even now, the 2nd episode has (as I type, assuming my calculations are correct!) not been broadcast. Rewriting the article might be justified, but the close was correct based on the arguments and the minor roles she had had up to that point (as argued by those wanting to delete the article) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion None of the sources seem to present anything other than her existence and presence in some of the shows in question. Recreate when there are enough sources. I could reasonably have seen someone closing the AfD as no-consensus, but given the BLP concerns and the absolute paucity of sources this seems sensible. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admins have some discretion in this sort of context. This AfD could reasonably have been closed as an outright delete or a no-consensus. When an AfD lacks consensus, and there are strong, compelling, policy reasons for one result, that's a valid reason for an admin to close accordingly, especially when the strength of the arguments are clearly on one side. I'm one of the editors who thinks that admins shouldn't have much discretion, so if I think this was close enough, then... yeah. Wait until you have more sources and have it be recreated then. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Eagles 24/7 is absolutely right, a consensus was not reached, so the AFD outcome should have been "no consensus" plain and simple. In my opinion the article should never been AFD'd in the first place. A cleanup tag or unreferenced BLP tag would have been much more justified. But there some editors on this site that are so ready to cry deletion and do not believe adding cleanup tags for BLP's anymore. I was one of one users that took part in that AFD and just as I suspected, someone was going to try to re-create the page, less than a week after the AFD outcome no less, which is why it is currently salted. The actress has a regular role in a television series now and appeared in a notable film (Ramona and Beezus), seems like WP:ENTERTAINER is met to me. QuasyBoy 14:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Rough consensus is all that is required to reach a decision, and this is based on strength of argument. In my opinion rough consensus to delete was achieved. The keep !votes were weak, and effectively refuted in terms of our policies and guidelines. Reyk YO! 22:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I'm loathe to defer to the usual admin discretion when no reasoning is given for the close. In the absence of strong reasoning (yes there is one junk keep !vote but there is also one very weak delete !vote), I can't see how a the debate led to a delete outcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Overturn The discussion had no consensus but a delete may have been within discretion. Normally if I'm unsure I just don't comment, but there is a what I think is a new source:[23] ). I don't follow celebrity anything so it might be flawed for some reason, but on first pass it looks to be enough when combined with the older sources. WP:ENT is probably passed anyways given her role in the new show. Eh. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, but agree that the discussusion could have been better. I'd have liked to have seen the closer make up for this weakness by giving a longer close rational, though. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, weakly. I think this was the right outcome, based on the substance of the AfD discussion. Cindamuse and Smeazel each did a good job of analyzing this article's notability issues in detail. The latter editor originally voted "weak keep," but retreated to a neutral position on the grounds that he didn't "know enough about the shows in question to judge whether her parts in them are notable or not (though even if they are, it would still be only a borderline keep anyway)." The other "keep" and "delete" arguments were relatively weak. The exception, some have said, is the opinion provided by Michael Q. Schmidt. He argued, at length, that the subject met WP:ENT because of her 22-episode run as a "student" on the Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader? game show. Having seen that show in the past, I personally find Michael's argument (in this particular case) quite weak. Jeff Foxworthy's work on Fifth Grader is a "significant role." The "student" roles on Fifth Grader are just about as "significant" as the roles of the briefcase-toting models on Deal or No Deal – I'm firmly of the opinion that they're not. Although I think this was the proper outcome, the closing admin should have provided a statement.

    So, how to proceed? As others have noted, the subject of this article is likely to become clearly notable under WP:ENT in the very near future. Perhaps this should now be userfied, sent to the article incubator, or simply restored to mainspace upon request once multiple independent, reliable sources are identified. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 June 2011

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

This page was deleted first because of NPOV but that was resolved later it was deleted because of lack of third party references which can be clearly seen on the new version I have created in my user space at User:Rudyryan/Sigma Chi Omega. I have requested the undeletion and unslating of the page however the reviewing admin prefer that I make a request here instead. Thank you. Rudyryan (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you clarify which references to independent reliable sources the article contains? I had a look at the links given in both the external links and references sections of your draft, but I saw nothing that would meet our definition of the term. Yoenit (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mind the afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigma Chi Omega, Multicultural Fraternity, Inc. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorase the deletion at AfD. This is a puff piece on a fraternity at a single campus. The content is devoted to lists of the multiple current officers, and a description of projects at the local charities it works with. Not a single one of the references is usable for notability--they are either mere mentions or local write=ups of local events, , and some of them, like a user posting on a blog, would not be a reliable source for any purpose. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at the reference nakanocompanies.com where they have a page dedicated to Sigma Chi Omega. Also to DGG it is not a puff piece the fraternity is chartered for national expansion and is currently doing so. It is extremely significant seeing as it is the first multicultural fraternity and is leading the way for multiple multicultural fraternities and sororities that are being born all over the nation. it is not devoted to lists of current officers it merely shows the structure that the fraternity is based upon and the officers which hold office in the fraternity but no where does it show any names or redirects to members who hold office and it is only a small portion of the article. Rudyryan (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a look a nakanocompanies. A user submitted picture gallery. It's not a reliable source and shows nothing about notability. It's also pretty unclear why they happen to be hosting that, it's an island sat on it's own within the domain for some real estate companies. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Being chartered for national expansion and is currently doing so" means that it is not yet notable but hopes to become so. A national fraternity is one that has already expanded into multiple universities and states. DGG ( talk ) 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion There's not enough sourcing yet. That may change in time, but right now there's no enough WP:RS compliant sourcing to make an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The lack of reliable, independent sourcing means that this organisation does not appear to currently meet the criteria for inclusion. As for the Nakano Companies page, I fail to see how that is reliable or independent. I see at Nakano Realty that Kevin Nakano has spoken to the fraternity - and more importantly is a fraternity brother - so definitely not independent. I also note that there is a Rudy Ryan on that page with the Alpha Mu Class - I'm assuming that is the same Rudy Ryan as the user above arguing for restoring this article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis – Refer to CfD. The category was deleted as empty (C1), while an RfC about the merits of the category on its talk page remains unclosed (and does not seem to have an evident consensus). There is an active disagreement between Chesdovi and Debresser about this category, who have been edit-warring about its addition or removal on several articles. Consensus below seems to be that, under these circumstances, the decision to delete or to retain should be made on the basis of a CfD discussion rather than on a technicality, so I'm referring the matter to CfD for a decision on the merits. –  Sandstein  17:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The rfc was not conclusive to warrant deletion of the category. Chesdovi (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? You requested that the category be deleted in April. NW (Talk) 13:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. Chesdovi (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"(del/undel) 23:50, 4 April 2011 Kingpin13 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "16th-century Palestinian rabbis" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (view/restore)", and you were the only contributor. NW (Talk) 14:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is about Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis, not 16th-century Palestinian rabbis, and I have amended the header accordingly. See long discussion at WP:ANI#Debresser nominates Palestinian rabbis for category for deletion, which I suggest should be resolved and closed rather than re-hashing the issue here. JohnCD (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking there hasn't been a CfD at all?—S Marshall T/C 15:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the talk page under CSD: G8 after the category had already been deleted. Since this was purely procedural I consider myself uninvolved. The history of this as I understand it is that there was some dispute over the category. The RFC was inconclusive on its own. Because sources could not be found for any articles to be included in the category, they were all removed. Once this happened, someone tagged it for CSD: C1 (empty category) and seven days later it was deleted. While there was no CfD, I don't think anything improper happened. It's possible I missed something in the history, but I haven't seen anything to merit un-deleting it. -- Selket Talk 22:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to JohnCD for revealing the RFC. On first read through, my reaction is that although the discussion should have taken place at CFD, that doesn't seem like a fatal flaw in the deletion process to me. That RFC could indeed be treated as a CFD. But before it can be treated as a CFD that leads to a "delete" outcome, it needs to be closed by a human sysop. The fact that it was closed by a bot seems like a serious flaw in the deletion process. Also, after just the one read through, my impression is that the consensus was not to delete, but to rename the category. And there's another flaw in the deletion process as well, which is that an editor depopulated the category and then tagged it for speedy deletion. I don't see how DRV can possibly endorse that outcome. At the moment I'm leaning towards overturn bot closure and re-close by a human.—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the discussion on the talkpage and the WP:ANI discussion opened by Chesdovi point to the fact that there are severe objections to this category which Chesdovi created. The WP:ANI discussion also asked the question of whether there was a flaw in the deletion process, and came to the conclusion that there wasn't. The only "flaw" is that Chesdovi is pushing it against consensus with all his might, clasping every possible straw. Debresser (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ANI discussion hasn't even remotely reached a conclusion, and even if it had, ANI doesn't decide whether there's a flaw in the deletion process. And I don't see any so-called "consensus" to delete this category at the RFC either. What I see is a consensus to rename it. And RFC isn't where we normally decide what to do with a category, either; that belongs at CfD. In fact, there's hardly any sense at all in which the normal deletion process was followed here.—S Marshall T/C 07:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will add that the reason why the category had remained empty is because its nominator for deletion, Debresser, forcibly depopulated the category and similar others [24], even when RS had been provided, myself not being able to re-add under rules of the the WP:ARBPIA 1RR clause. Indeed, Debresser’s strong unwillingness to discuss first, instead of starting edit-wars, led to us both being topic banned for 72 hrs [25]. I have just added my summary at the rfc page. I do not see agreement to rename the category. Chesdovi (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, a consensus to rename? You seem to misunderstand. Please do not forget that the category was only recently created by Chesdovi. And as soon as its creation was noted, editors started protesting its existence.
In addition, it was speedily deleted because it was empty for over a month. And it was empty, because editors do not agree with having this category. Debresser (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even a superficial look at Chesdovi's talkpage shows that he has a history of aggressive pushing of Palestinian related subjects, including some five blocks/bans. Debresser (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gentlemen, accusing each other of bad faith is not going to be helpful here. If you have a problem with each other, take it to dispute resolution. What we do here is to decide whether the deletion process was correctly followed, and if it was not, we remedy it.—S Marshall T/C 13:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser with his royal "we". "It was empty, because editors do not agree with having this category." "Editors", read Editor - i.e. Debresser. Stop pulling the wool over people eyes. It was only you ever removing the cats, aside from two socks. Debresser should have been blocked for his mass depopulation of over 150 pages after a month of existence. Chesdovi (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, it is precisely this procedural aspect which I addressed in the second paraпraph. My first paragraph was in response to your first commentary here, where you yourself seem to address the issue rather than the procedure... Debresser (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall, the question of whether I was right to nominate a category for speedy deletion after I had depopulated it before, was amply addressed in the WP:ANI discussion. My decision was deemed correct on the grounds that 1. discussion has shown that the category is not wanted 2. the category had remained empty for over a month.
Notice btw that Chesdovi has today embarked on another bout of disruptive edits to repopulate the category. I hope that fact will be ignored when the time comes to delete it finally. Debresser (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're going off on lots of tangents here, and trying to solve more problems than are really suited for this forum. At the core, a C1 is a technical deletion that an admin pulls the trigger on, but, shouldn't take anything significant to overturn -- seeing one at DRV really surprises me. If we have a challenge to a C1, the correct course of action should always be list at CFD. Whether the category should exist is a matter for that venue in the first instance. Yes, this is a good deal more complex than your average C1, but CFD is still the competent venue here. Courcelles 07:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"2. the category had remained empty for over a month." I wonder why that was Debresser? Your latest de-population of the cat may provide an indicator as to why these cat were indeed empty. I really just can't get my head round it. Why was the cat empty? Please tell us Debresser. Pelase tell us. Chesdovi (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either treat the RfC as a CfD discussion (with a person closing it) or restore and send to CfD. I'd prefer the first. This seemed to simply slip into deletion even in the face of a large discussion (which by very quick overview of made me suspect should probably have been a no consensus and maybe a keep) Hobit (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can we make some progress on this? I have added new evidence supporting my position of the validity of creating Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis‎. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That "evidence" has already been shown to prove quite the opposite. In addition, please stop pushing your non-consensus revisions and edits. Debresser (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prove quite the opposite.. that what? Chesdovi (talk) 11:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may need to wait for the DrV to close... Hobit (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well please can someone get a move on with it. How much longer should it take? Chesdovi (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion reviews stay open for at least a week. It's eligible for closure any time after 11:07 UTC on 29 June.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Template:Empty section – Overturned to no consensus. Comments from both sides agree that "no consensus" would have been an acceptable close for this TfD. The question at hand is whether the closing admin's actual close of "delete" was a reasonable interpretation or exercise of admin discretion based on the quality of the arguments, or was it not. The 2-to-1 majority view (yeah, I counted) is that it was not. (Lest I be accused of casting a supervote of my own here, let me note that if I had seen the original discussion, I would have supported deleting this template as redundant.) – RL0919 (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Empty section (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

OK. This is the first time I do this and I generally trust JPG-GR as a good closer. But I think this close doesn't reflect the consensus. First some stats. During the discussion we had

  • 18 delete for we should not have empty sections or we should comment them out (the skeleton should not be visible)
  • 1 strong delete (if necessary add an "empty sections" tag on the top)
  • 2 delete and use expand section instead (including nominator)
  • 2 weak delete (same argument)
  • 17 keep as usefull
  • 1 keep with no explanation
  • 5 strong keep
  • 1 keep but change the wording
  • 1 reword to "meaningless"

This means that during the discussion the main discussion was whether to have empty sections or not. The editors were divided on that. Only 1 editor, apart from the nominator, really suggested to use "Expand section" instead. Moreover, the last suggestion (to reword to "meaningless") was provocative and I tried to answer to this but I didn't have the chance because the discussion closed. Instead of just merging two templates because they populate the same tracking category we could change the tracking category of the one of the two for instance. Most of the half of the participants think we should have skeleton sections visible and work on them. Most of those that were in favour of deleting think we should not use skeleton articles because the pages look ugly, nobody is obliged to use a specific structure (this is partially true depending on the nature of the page). The big problem with "Expand" tags was that there were not specific of what is has to be done and I bet soon someone will propose deletion of "Expand section" too. Tracking a page with no content and adding some content is easy. Tracking a age that needs expansion, adding some data and deciding whether to keep the expand tag or not is not that easy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Magioladitis (talk) 10:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD is not a head count. With the exception of your own comments, the majority of the arguments to keep were of low quality ("somebody might find this useful", "don't go deleting templates") or didn't adequately address the predominant deletion rationale (that while empty headers are not forbidden, and can still be used to structure articles, having a template for that purpose goes too far in encouraging people to work that way). Indeed, very few of the comments to keep did anything to address the deletion rationale. The close was an adequate reflection of the debate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not a head count. I did the calculations to show that the discussion was not exactly on your initial argument but on skeleton articles in general. I understand the problem you describe and my response was the we could just delete the empty section from the Hyacinthe Rigaud page. Articles on painters don't follow a strong pattern that would explain these empty sections. But, I am thinking the following: If I see that Hyacinthe Rigaud has empty sections I might take a look to check if the empty section are really needed or not. IF the page was tagged with "Expand section" I won't bother because I don't know much stuff on painters. I can work with making pages look nicer and constructed but I am not very good in adding real text. Till now I 've seen using "What transcludes here" to detect pages with empty sections that's why I haven't noticed it shares a tracking category with "Expand section". Moreover, if 20k pages in a category is chaos we could just divide them to get better results. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, that looks like it might be a close that should have been a !vote. The closing statement doesn't analyse or summarise the debate in any way, it merely analyses and agrees with the nomination, which is often the smoking gun for a supervote. I'll wait to see if JPG-GR elaborates on his thought processes in making this close, but my first inclination is to consider overturning to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 11:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus per S Marshall. In my view, there did not appear to be clear consensus for deletion, even if the rationale given for doing so was somewhat logical. The fact that the closer made a thinly veiled swipe at {{expand section}} reinforces the perception of a supervote, whether that perception is accurate or not. —WFC— 15:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • sustain overturn to no-consensus on the basis of that being a common sense decisions. Too many of the arguments were based on whether we should permit empty sections. But the tag serves to indicate them, so they can be filled in, which is usually better than deleting them---or, if it seems they are very unlikely or impossible to ever be filled in, to delete them. Indicating a potential problem is a useful things to do. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)![reply]
  • My close was based half on the fact that the keep votes didn't do a very convincing job (as thumperward said) and half as a common sense close, in that another template exists which already does this job. Before I even considered analyzing the discussion, I counted the !votes out of sheer curiosity and found a fair portion on each side of the debate. After analysis, as mentioned, the keeps were short and unconvincing. As I mentioned to Magioladitis on my talkpage, one does not close XfDs like this without expecting to see the yellow talkpage notice. If consensus here changes the decision, by all means. JPG-GR (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it was a difficult decision. That's why I never close TfDs with long debates and I leave them to you. Then I can complain freely :P -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I think "no consensus" would have been acceptable too, but DRV is for overturning obvious blunders and misreadings of consensus. This was not a blatantly wrong close. Reyk YO! 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - Definitely a supervote, there is no clear consensus. Consensus should be pretty clear for deleting relatively high-use templates. Had I voted in the TfD, I would have advocated merging/redirecting the two templates into one. —SW— chatter 21:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closing admin correctly figured out that the keeps were talking balls and weighted their votes accordingly. None of the keeps explained adequately why the template wasn't redundant to {{expand section}}, nor was there sufficient explanation of why you need a template to point out the blindingly obvious ("hey, did you notice that this empty section is empty?"). A DRV was a tedious inevitability, but the closing admin should be congratulated for sticking his neck out and deleting it anyway. All too often, admins chicken out on what should be open-and-shut deletion decisions and just decide by comment headcount. "No clear consensus" is not an excuse to keep a worthless template and won't be until someone can explain why we need a template to point out that an empty section is empty. The keeps were mostly WP:ILIKEIT anyway. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a TfD discussion so not the correct place to state that you think the template is "worthless". The closing admin evaluates the discussion and doesn't cats a supervote. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JPG-GR didn't cast a supervote. He pointed out that the keeps' arguments were worthless, just like their template, and weighted them accordingly. Having done so, the conclusion was to "delete" the worthless template. (Did I mention that the template is still totally and utterly worthless?) Miracle Pen (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with the deletion (register as "endorse" if you will). Apart from the ridiculously superficial (e.g. "I see no good reasons to delete this template."), most of the arguments for keeping were based on them being useful for sections which are empty. However, only a few people argued for why there should be empty sections in the first place, and why it wouldn't be better to put the proposed article skeleton in the comments. None of them take into account that empty sections are very annoying for the regular readers, and make the article look unprofessional. (Also, I strongly doubt that empty sections are as helpful for article development as the proponents claim, compared to starting from scratch with a blank section, I find it easier to expand a stub section since it may contain a few pegs and references to help a would-be expander get going. I feel that an empty section with an {{empty section}} template is no better than a a blank page with a {{stub}} template on it.) The main debate concerned the usefulness of empty sections as such, and not whether the template was redundant with {{expand section}}, and so the closing rationale should have addressed the arguments which concerned that. However, I feel the ultimate result is in line with the arguments, so I endorse the outcome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you endorse the outcome but the outcome says we go and replace empty section with expand section. There is already a proposal to make a redirect instead so the tags will remain in position. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that Tfd someone proposed that users who create empty sections should be blocked. Nobody rejected that position. Does that mean it should be implemented right away? Most of the participants chose to address only the question whether the template should be deleted or not, and chose not to reply to every other proposal, silly or not, tangentially made in that discussion. Their choice to focus solely on the main question certainly does not invalidate their opinion on the main question. FuFoFuEd (talk) 07:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, closed by supervote. In the absence of substantive policy guidance, it is not appropriate for the closing admin to disregard expressed community sentiment. Without policy standards, it's not the place of the closers to judge the wisdom of the community, dubious as it might seem to them. There probably is a line of sbsurdity that could be crossed, where community sentiment reaches a ridiculous conclusion that conflicts with encyclopedic purposes despite not infringing policy/guideline, but I have yet to see that happen, and this by no means approaches that limit, even remotely. I think the best thing to do with empty sections (assuming we're not dealing with an article in the process of being written/expanded) is to delete them or comment them out, making this template useless, but my opinion apparently doesn't enjoy consensus (even though I believe it's more logical and better thought out than the community's), so I have no business asking that it nevertheless be imposed on the community. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn This seems like a textbook no-consensus, default to keeping. Admins can override that when there's a compelling policy argument. In this case, no such argument was raised. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I saw this on an article marked as being deleted. The discussion was already closed, but I was surprised by the closure rationale. As DGG put it in the other discussion below, being useful is a reason to keep a template. About half the participants though it was useful, the other half thought it was not. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Largely because I concur with Chris's analysis, and because I believe JPG-GR when he says that it wasn't a "supervote" decision. I think that it's important to consider the effects of a delete decision here as well, especially since the deletion rational used this as a reason. Deleting this template may actually get many instances completely removed from articles (which isn't a bad thing at all, in my opinion. Note that I was a partisan during the TFD.), but it'll simply be replaced with the existing template in most cases. 1 template that does the same thing as 2 is better for the encyclopedia, in the long run. It also looks as though the "overturn" votes here are just as weak as the "keep" votes were during the TFD... some of y'all may want to work on that.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if the template is, as the closer maintains, redundant with "Expand section" (it is not, since removing an empty section is more likely to be a valid edit than removing a section needing expansion), then this would mean a template redirect. Redirect is a keep. Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus Whether the template should be deleted or not is not relevant here, as this is deletion review, not a new discussion. There was no clear consensus, so it should have been closed as such. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A reasonable reading of the discussion, and the keep arguments were especially weak. In no way was this an obvious error, though no consensus would also have been a reasonable read. Courcelles 01:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result will affect thousands of pages so "When in doubt, don't delete." applies perfectly here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It will positively affect thousands of pages. And the relative doubtfulness of the close is very much a matter of debate; I and several others don't believe that the close was inappropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I left some notes in Template_talk:Empty_section#Empty_section_vs._Expand_section. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 June 2011

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

I disagree with the "no consensus" listing. Almost none of the "keep" !votes are based in policy: I see several WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:NOTAGAIN, "this TFD is ridiculous" and "but I've never seen it abused", despite the constant evidence provided that it is abused as much as {{expand}} was. Also, it seems some people think that just because it's an "old" template that it gets a grandfather clause, but that wasn't the case with "expand", now was it? Partway through the TFD, the template was amended so that the "reason" field is now mandatory, but that's like fixing a flood with sponges — it's not going to fix the eleventy bazillion drive-by transclusions. I have presented repeated evidence that the template is tag-bombed almost 100% of the time, and I feel that many of my counterarguments have been ignored — particularly, some people think that {{Cleanup}} is useful to new editors who can't find a more specific template, but I feel that if a new editor can find {{cleanup}}, they can also find something more suitable like {{wikify}}, {{copyedit}}, etc. Also, I didn't see any editor present a case where {{cleanup}} was not used in a tag-bombing situation. Finally, I feel that the closing admin just figured that very long TFD = no consensus, which is almost never the case.

I think that, once the arguments to avoid are weeded out, a consensus to keep but deprecate becomes more obvious. Therefore, I propose that this be overturned to deprecate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question. What would be the practical consequence of "overturn to deprecate?" I can see two sides of the argument as to whether the template should be kept or not, and agree that users are too timid to remove them. But expanding the template with text that it should no longer be used is going to do nothing to improve the many, relatively untravelled pages to which it has been added, and will in fact make it even a bigger aesthetic nuisance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, TPH, that ATA is an essay, which means editors are free to disregard it. There is no policy basis on which the closer can "weed out" the arguments to avoid. I mean, all that ATA really boils down to is a list of things that some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say, and in places its logic is very shaky. Wouldn't you agree?—S Marshall T/C 19:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you're saying is, anyone can !vote keep or delete just because they like or dislike something. In that case, I think Green Day sucks, let's delete their article. On the other hand, I think it's "useful" to have a whole article consisting of every Little Caesars in Michigan because I like their pizza. I think I'll get on that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, more or less per SMarshall. WP:ATA deals primarily with article content. As that essay points out with regard to navboxes, ITSUSEFUL can be (often should be) an appropriate argument for other types of deletion discussions. Without substantive policy guidance, a closing admin usually shouldn't stray from a headcount outcome. I'd hate to see a discussion over which of two images should be used in an article infobox with a rationale like "the proponents of image 1, although fewer in number, generally have better taste, so they prevail." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to the closing statement. When a wide range of users, whose views started anywhere from strong keep to delete and salt, find a common opinion that is increasingly widely held as the discussion progresses, there is a strong indication of consensus. However, DRV is only concerned with whether an admin has done the wiki-equivalent of murder, which Jayron hasn't. It was in his discretion to ignore this trend if he didn't feel it was obvious enough. I would therefore suggest as a compromise that if the decision is kept, that Jayron returns to his closing statement, to add his judgement on the depriciation-related discussion. By at the very least acknowledging it, he would be acknowledging the progress made in the discussion. Acknowledging that, through robust but generally civil discussion from editors with what originally seemed irreconcilable positions, an idea has emerged that could be a workable way forward. By not acknowledging it, I fear that the inevitable fourth TfD will be dominated by the fact that it is a fourth TfD, rather than focus on the issues themselves. —WFC— 11:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse which results in a keep. For cleanup templates, "useful" is a good argument. They are not articles. They're there for practical use, and whether or not they are of potential use is the criterion. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I don't read that there was clear consensus to deprecate, or how best to do so. (Although I think that starting a new talk page discussion on how to go about that would be good.) Also, DGG, this is a delrev, not the actual TfD ;) /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the comparison to {{expand}} is quite an important one, actually. Look over the TfD for that template and you'll see that much of the support for keeping the template was made with poor (or nonexistent) arguments, whereas there were many compelling arguments given for deletion. It was a long and difficult TfD, and even at the end it only really scraped by. Without that sort of weight behind the movement for change, TfDs for massively popular cleanup tags are going to be unlikely to generate consensus to delete. I don't believe the closing admin's failure to find consensus to do so in this case was due to error in judging how the discussion went. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, regretfully, given that I supported deprecation/deletion of the tag. There just wasn't any consensus there, at least not now. –MuZemike 01:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per DGG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deleting "Expand" was a big enough error and there was at least some support for that, although the arguments were faulty at best. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice against relisting at TfD PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd very much like to see this deleted/depreciated, but I don't quite see consensus for that. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse though I think that we should revisit this at TfD sometime. I personally do think the arguments for deprecation were stronger here, and would probably endorse the opposite outcome as well, if the administrator had gone that way. Gigs (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AFD was closed to early. Consensus was not allowed to develop. This is the second early close by an administrator for this attack page KoshVorlon' Naluboutes Aeria Gloris 12:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. I'm personally uncomfortable about the article. Then again, I think it is a valid topic based on Wikipedia's non-censorship and notability guidelines. I therefore simply avoided the discussions, because opinions mean nothing in deletion discussions unless they lick up to Wikilaw. But the admin was definitely right here. Given that the consensus was clearly keep eight days ago, and therefore likely to be a clear keep in this discussion, closing the discussion early was if nothing else a courtesy to the subject. Prolonging the drama when the result is inevitable is only going to result in wasted time on all side, heated arguments, and possibly further harm to the subject (on the assumption that harm has been caused so far). Maybe, over time, the tide will turn. —WFC— 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This request is forum-shopping. The AfD was correctly closed early, per WP:SNOWBALL; there was no consensus to delete, it was obvious there wasn't going to be one, and the previous AfD for exactly the same content -- the fourth successive failed AfD for this article -- had finished only days before. -- The Anome (talk) 12:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ineffective - As we have seen through much discussion and AfDs and such, this is a topic that shows the glaring failure of Wikipedia's crowd-sourced approach to editing; "anyone can edit" sometimes means the mob with the bigger pitchforks and the brighter torches can carry the day. Unless someone wishes to contact the senator's people and have them file an official complaint, this article is too well-protected to be taken down by anything short of an office action. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. An RfC that ran from 4th to 16th June on a proposal to rename and merge this article, which attracted 148 comments and a very thorough discussion, did not endorse the merge. An AfD has no prospect of passing at this time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, for crying out loud This article has survived four AfD requests, with three of them ending in clear consensuses to keep (the fourth was closed with no consensus.) It has been reviewed several times with regards to biography of living persons and found sufficiently neutral. The content is notable: there are currently 123 citations; the ongoing efforts to censor the Wikipedia by -- and the media attention these attempts are attracting -- only gives weight to its notability. The fourth AfD request was closed early because the recent third AfD was very clearly a consensus to keep. I would provide links, but the recent change in name -- done in an effort to satisfy editors who thought that Santorum (neologism) was too confusing -- seems to have gummed up the internal search engine. The current round of censorship started one week before Santorum announced his bid for President and has been unrelenting since: the latest attempt at purging Santorum's santorum "problem" having failed, partisans are now demanding that the whole article be censored. Because these attempts started a week before Santorum announced his bid for President, it is extremely difficult to believe that these are good faith efforts. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please strike that personal attack. — Coren (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have pointed out the very convenient timing between Rick Santorum's official announcement as a candidate for president, and the sudden, very intense interest in the article in question. That is not a personal attack. However, Tarc, just below, is attacking me. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I should apologize for creating this distraction - I made this point at the ArbCom case, but the problem was, it turns out that Rick Santorum announced he was going to announce his candidacy on May 26. I just never imagined it would still be a big news item to "announce" candidacy after it's already been declared in that way, so I never even looked for an earlier announcement until I was called on the facts. Wnt (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point to the part of the comment you feel was a personal attack. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Techbear, you do recall that most everyone who has voiced opposition to this ridiculous page on a fake neologism has at one point or another prefaced their comments with a "...as much as I dislike Rick Santorum's politics" or a "while I agree with Dan Savage's opinion...", right? Those who oppose this subject matter are not paid staff members of the election campaign, so I cordially invite you to take that accusation and get stuffed. Tarc (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A "fake" neologism that has been recognized as such by several reliable and notable sources, according to the citations. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A nice strawman that ignores your "these attempts started a week before Santorum announced his bid for President" commentary. Lulz, how pathetic. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, since you insist. Let us look at the revision history for Campaign for "santorum" neologism. You will note that the article was pretty stable until May 10, when Cirt begain to improve it by expanding the text and adding many supporting citations. Starting on May 25, an organized effort begins to "clean up" the santorum article and to remove Santorum (neologism) from both the Sexual Slang template and the now deleted Political Neologisms template. These efforts stepped into high gear on May 29, eight days before Santorum's formal announcement of his candidacy on June 6. Like I said, an extremely convenient coincidence. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, upon hearing the gossip that Santorum was preparing a presidential bid, Cirt got to work to head him off at the pass. If we're going to idly speculate about coincidences, we might as well look down both sides of the street. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, but at least he was working to make sure the article was well written, well cited and as neutral as was possible, given the topic. He was not attempting to censor unflattering material. That is a significant difference. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, he was puffing up a non-issue with inflated and redundant sources to further attack a politician he does not like. Perhaps Dan Savage cut him a check to do so. Perhaps he cut you a check to do write this mealy-mouthed defense. See the fun we can have with this sort of tangent? Everyone's on the take! BTW, the first one to cry "CENSOR!" in a debate is the sure loser. Congrats. :) Tarc (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    "Puffing up a non-issue" with over a hundred citations from sources including the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, the San Francisco Chronicle, ABC News, the Boston Herald and the National Catholic Reporter. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again with the focusing one one aspect of an argument and ignoring the rest? Perhaps if you keep it up, we can coin a "techbear" as "a frothy mix of straw and bitter tears" ? :) Tarc (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Those grapes must be pretty sour. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; there is clearly consensus to document the attack itself, even though an article that was titled by the faux-neologism was improper. Given that it has since been renamed to something saner, there is no good reason to rehash its existence again. — Coren (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: clearly a snow keep given the recent RfC. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. KoshVorlon, will you quit forum shopping? By my estimation this is your seventh attempt to get this page deleted this month. Wikipedia's deletion process isn't shoot-till-you-win, and your constant refusal to admit that other people disagree with you is well over the line into disruption. – iridescent 14:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is nothing but a sleazy attempt to permanently keep the wording at the top of the article's page. Please block KoshVorlon until he recovers. The rest of us are trying to play by the rules, and this sort of game-playing is counter-productive and unWikipedian. Flatterworld (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per the RFC that was closed 4 days before KoshVorlon opened the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Two AfDs over the past 30 days, an RFC, have all resulted in this page's being kept. Give it a rest. - 15:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Endorse and close Snuff out this vilification campaign once and for all. The white stuff seems to have fallen in abundance on the lawn ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I would have preferred to see the AfD go to completion. Gacurr (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per 100+ participant RfC that closed the week before and concluded that the article should be kept. KoshVorlon's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is getting absurd. No reason to take a revote on this every day. Khazar (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, .... absurd. KoshVorlon - You are not helpfull at all! Instead of helping to minimize the BLP (your goal), you are just creating new and new inbound links to the article and helping it to rank even higher (I hope that You just did not realise ...), that all in situation of Zero chance to succeed. Snowball in hell chance. Help with the article, look at discussion, lok up at SlimVirgin's draft - she tried well - to rewrite it, discussion is ongoing. Don't try to do impossible, all are just tired to bring the arguments again and again. or, just read WP:SNOW. --Reo + 16:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Previous AFDs and RFC have shown there is consensus to keep the article. Captain panda 16:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and admonish KoshVorlon for disruption. Binksternet (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow endorse and speedy close this disruptive nomination.—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Per WP:FOREGONECONCLUSION aside from all the sound arguments. The RFC discussion and followups makes clear how pointless the AFD was. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The topic is obviously notable, and it is not our job to censor things just because we think they are repulsive. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The creation of articles in support of contemporary political campaigning is blatantly contrary to policy. The Keep voters seem to be just trying to shout down such valid policy-based objections and the specified 7 days should be allowed for debate so that a claque cannot trump our general policy. Warden (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The creation of articles that neutrally report on contemporary political campaigning is clearly consistent with policy. JamesMLane t c 23:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It was already at AfD three times and there was an extremely well-attended RfC about what exactly to do with the article. I'd honestly have no objection to a relist at AfD at this time (the last AfD was closed as no consensus so it's generally acceptable to open a new AfD), but I'd expect to see a keep or even a SNOW keep at this point. The rename has addressed most of the issues. Hobit (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This article should not be nominated for deletion until a consensus title and focus is determined and implemented. At such point, a new AfD could be reasonably (though almost certainly pointless given the well-established community view on the matter). Bongomatic 01:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Five AFDs with consensus to keep the article and an RfC with feedback from over a hundred editors with consensus to keep the article clearly shows consensus to keep the article. Continuing to beat this horse is a clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop this nonsense. elektrikSHOOS 02:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Close was so obvious that I am shocked someone would bring a DrV.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and trout the nominator. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 June 2011

[edit]
  • Sydcon – Really, no result. As per common practice on speedy deletions, anyone is free to create a page compliant with policy. Those without accounts are directed towards WP:AFC for the creation of articles. 2006 version, however, remains in the deleted bin. – Courcelles 04:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sydcon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

For some reason, the page created for the roleplaying convention Sydcon was deleted. User Lucky 6.9 deemed that the content was: {{db-spam}}. This is despite the fact that comparable conventions (Arcanacon; Conquest etc) have their own pages. Lucky 6.9 is no longer available to contact so am writing here as I would like this page restored so it can be updated. Sydcon is a major event in Sydney for the roleplaying and gaming community and is one of the largest annual gaming conventions in Australia. If necessary, you can check our website at http://www.sydcon.info/ to confirm we are real 124.169.23.219 (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted via wp:speedy deletion, apparently because it was highly promotional. As with all speedy deletions: anybody is allowed to start a new article about the convention, although it is strongly discouraged for people who are affiliated with the organization. The best advice is to wait until somebody else starts an article about the convention, which will happen eventually if it truly is a convention important enough to be included. If you wish to go ahead and create the article yourself be sure to include references to independent reliable sources, write in a neutral tone and only include information which can be verified by readers. Failure to do so will just mean the article gets deleted again. Yoenit (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:Signature of Amitabh Bachchan.svg – No consensus. The underlying question of when it is appropriate to use images of the signatures of living people is one that deserves a robust discussion, but neither the original FFD nor this DRV seems to have attracted that, and the comments that are present don't push to any strong conclusion. – RL0919 (talk) 05:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Signature of Amitabh Bachchan.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Hi there! I see Fastily deleted the signatues I uploaded. I have a question. Why did Fastily delete the files when the consensus was to mark them with the {{Do not move to Commons}} template. First off, Zakir Hussain is dead. Second. The deletion proposition was on WP:BLPSIGN, a proposed policy, not a policy in effect. Third, there was no discussion after VW said that they can still be uploaded at WP so long as they are appropriately tagged {{Do not move to Commons}}. Now, unless Fastily is strongly in favour of deleting files, Fastily could have marked them as {{Do not move to Commons}} and kept them. And yes, I wasn't the only one who wanted the files to be kept. A better way was to mark them with the {{Do not move to Commons}} template. So Fastily does not care about Wikipedia. Fastily just sees the Delete:Keep ratio and decide your action. Also Yoenit said that he supported deletions only if his two conditions were not met. But unfortunately they were met. So now, Yoenit's proposition turns 180, in favour of keeping all files. Sven Manguard said that all files should be deleted as copyvios as common law countries have low bars for what constitutes originality. But VW nullified his proposition saying that they should be marked with the {{Do not move to Commons}} template. So even Sven's proposition turns in favour of keeping all files. Therefore now the Delete:Keep ratio is 1:4. What does Fastily have to say now? GaneshBhakt (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me that there are two substantive questions that this DRV will need to examine. The first is Who owns the copyright in a signature? and the second is What is the potential risk of harm to a living person if we publish their signature on the internet? At first glance, the risks in terms of identity theft, fraud, etc. would appear to be substantial. Irrespective of whether Fastily closed the debate correctly, we will not wish to restore the deleted signatures unless these questions can be answered.—S Marshall T/C 11:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll echo S Marshall. You put both the 2 signatures I checked up as pd and own work as if you owned the license of the signature. Is that right? Unfree content requires an accurate license, a proper source and a rationale for its use. If its free licensed then you need to demonstrate how this is the case. The website you took the signature from has a copyright notice so do they own the license? Do you have their permission to use it? Spartaz Humbug! 11:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was never demonstrated that Indianautographs is a reliable source, so I was still in favour of deleting them. Yoenit (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree and apologise for marking the files I uploaded as CC-SA and OWN, but that was because I was an amature back then, and was not completely familiar with the copyright policy. Also, @Yoenit, I uploaded files from Indian Autographs only after seeing many files being uploaded from there, as you can see over here & here. And @Spartaz, Indian Autographs does not hold the copyright because by default, signatures are in the public domain and the original authorship remains with the author. To S Marshall, the answer to your second question lies at WP:BLPSIGN, but it will be unfair to delete sig files I uploaded if sigs remain at articles like Obama, Angela Merkel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ban Ki-moon, Beatrix of the Netherlands, Beyoncé, Bhumibol Adulyadej, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Condoleezza Rice, David Letterman etc. All I ask for is the sigs to be restored and two weeks time so that I can properly add the license, source etc. of the sigs. Thanking You. GaneshBhakt (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You uploaded the signatures with incorrect licenses? In that case speedy endorse. We are not going to restore incorrectly attributed and dubious;y licensed files so this should be closed. Moreover, before you upload any further signatures you need to find a reliable secondary source for them. I think random signature websites don't count. See WP:RS for more. Spartaz Humbug! 16:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's perfect Spartaz, and if a [then] newbie uploaded files with wrong licenses, the community should have been helpful in correcting the licenses, rather than deleting them. And yes, if you think IndianAutographs is a random signature website, please contact Admin Connormah, because it is only from files he uploaded that I came to know that such a website existed. GaneshBhakt (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not accept that a "proposed guideline", WP:BLPSIGN, which has not yet achieved consensus, is sufficient to address all questions around the potential harm to a living person of posting their signature on the internet. I'm also not at all satisfied that someone's signature is necessarily in the public domain for the purposes of US copyright. It strikes me that the nature of a signature is that it is a distinctive flourish of a pen, unique to the person who produces it. I think it may well constitute artistic expression. (The copyright status of a signature in Indian law is a separate issue. Wikipedia is subject to US law and the US law prevails here.)—S Marshall T/C 23:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmm. The Barack Obama signature referred to above is now on Commons[26] where (again as a proposal) they seem willing to host at least US signatures, see Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-signature_tag. That tends to shift the ethical and policy debate over to Commons a bit. The potential harm argument seems rather strong to me but a debate (elsewhere) on any benefit would be of interest. Thincat (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A relevant Commons discussion is here. Thincat (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the above discussion, I do believe we can still upload the files to WP keeping the {{Do not move to commons}} template. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Which seems a pain after all this time at DRV but after reviewing the discussion on Commons and the FfD, I can't see another alternative. Some of the licensing issues have been sorted out and so the primary questions are whether they are taken from a reliable source and of signatures can be considered public domain in the United States, even though they may not be in India. I don't see enough discussion of those issues in the FfD to establish consensus. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 June 2011

[edit]

18 June 2011

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

I listed this article for speedy deletion as the subject of the article Hugh aka 'Hamish' Howitt is not a significant or important figure and does not warrant a WP article. I live in Blackpool and he is simply a local pub landlord who launched a silly and pointless campaign against the introduction of the smoking ban. I have attempted twice to have this article deleted but a user Phillip Bridger contests it everytime claiming the references prove the significance. He has not justified his contests on the article talk page he simply just removes them. I feel this article should be deleted and I would appreciate an independent opinion, thank you. Christian1985 (talk) 19:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a DRV issue if Prod's are contested or no CSDs apply, list it for a deletion dicussion at afd --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 June 2011

[edit]
  • File:FilipAndTal.jpg – Overturn and Delete. Though the numbers are close in this discussion as they were in the original FfD, I believe that a rough consensus has been reached that this image does not satisfy the NFC criteria (in particular criterion 8). The NFC criteria are policy that can only be altered or set aside (within the limits imposed by the Foundation) on the basis of a clear consensus. There is no such clear consensus here. Though numerically numerous, the arguments that the image meets the policy as it currently is are generally quite poor and insufficient to block the consensus that is does not. – Eluchil404 (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:FilipAndTal.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The closing admin [incorrectly]incompetently counted votes and set for a "no consensus", giving no weight to the fact that keep voters were in pure [disregard]ignorance of criterion #8 our non-free content police, and asked for we to keep a non-free image of two man playing chess just because that was an important chess game (or because it was a "functional image"). It's the closing admin's duty do identify unsustainable arguments in such discussions, since it's much more likely for an average Wikipedian to be completely clueless about our non-free content polices than otherwise. Also, since non-free content is supposed to be the exception here, we need to achieve consensus in order to keep it, deleting being the default option for no-consensus. And even if cases where the closing admin is incompetent enough to know about it all, and decides to blindly count votes, he is supposed to at least know how to count properly, and understand that 1 nominator plus 3 deletes is more than just 3 keeps. The closing admin was asked to review the this (and some other equally [objectionable]obnoxious) closings but he stood by his mistake. damiens.rf 20:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've redacted the vicious and unnecessary personal attacks made by this editor. Anyone wishing to put them back is welcome to meet me at AN/I, RFC or ArbCom. Dreadstar ☥ 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Damiens, take your insistence on including personal attacks to AN/I, RFC or RFARB, I'm eager to see what others think. I don't think you know how wrong your actions are. Dreadstar ☥ 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undid it, again. Don't touch my words. I do not share your interpretation that those words you removed are personal attacks. I won't be discussing this here. --damiens.rf 05:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only three words in the nomination could be called personal attacks by any stretch of the imagination. I have removed those three words. Dreadstar was wrong to remove more than those three—and particularly wrong to add his own words above Damiens’ signature; Damiens was justified in reverting the changes. Damiens’ nomination may have been unnecessarily strong, but not nearly so over-the-top as Dreadstar’s characterization of it as “vicious.” —teb728 t c 06:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Damiens, please see WP:NPA. Disparaging comments on an editor rather than his content, even relatively light ones like yours, can be counted as personal attacks. I urge you to accept my proposed neutral synonyms. —teb728 t c 06:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There was no consensus either to delete or on the reasoning for keep/delete. Personally attacking the admin who did the right thing is a really smart thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment contrary to Damiens.rf's comment, no consensus defaults to keep even in NFCC FFDs. There has never been a consensus to change this principle. Thparkth (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The only substantive "delete" argument was from Jhlead, who stated that in his opinion the image did not "significantly add to understanding". Both FPaS and J Milburn incorrectly argued that an image must be essential to understanding the topic, which is in fact not required by WP:NFCC which merely requires that the image's presence would "significantly increase" the reader's understanding. J Milburn also argued that there was no "entitlement" to use the image, but in doing so did not seem to address any policy issues. The "delete" !voters might have argued, but did not, that the content of the image could be adequately conveyed using text only per WP:NFCC#1, but in any case, DGG effectively demonstrated that it could not. The nominator's own argument, simply stating that the image was "unnecessary", carries no weight since it states no basis for this opinion. On the other hand, the arguments on the "keep" side, with the possible exception of one underdeveloped argument, were policy-based and directly addressed the requirements of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI, demonstrating that the image illustrates a historic event and cannot be adequately described in text alone. I would personally have read this as a "keep" but I find the "no consensus" close quite reasonable and understandable. Thparkth (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than "endorse" (i.e. "delete"), I think you meant to say "keep". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You attack my argument that there is no kind of "entitlement" for an image of this sort, but that serves as adequate opposition to the arguments of DGG and Bubba, who argued only for the significance of the event, and seemingly used this as evidence that, therefore, there was some kind of entitlement for the image (if I am wrong in this assumption, then, so be it, they didn't actually mention the image at all, and should be ignored with even more ferocity). You are utterly and completely wrong that the arguments forwarded by DGG and Bubba "were policy-based and directly addressed the requirements of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI"- to repeat, they served only to argue for the significance of the event, not the image, and that the event "cannot be adequately described in text alone". Neither of them addressed the issue of whether the image significantly adds to reader understanding (as is required by NFCC#8) which is one of the two things what was challenged in the nomination. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, this should clearly have been deleted. Even if we were simply vote-counting, we have four in favour of deletion and three in favour of keeping. None of the arguments in support are based on policy- Bubba73 (the uploader) and DGG argue for the significance of the event (irrelevant for the use of non-free content) while the other keep argument is meaningless. No one has challenged the importance of the event, but the mere fact that an event is important does not mean that a non-free image showing it is necessary. Instead, our question has to be the value of the image itself. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy does not require that showing the image be "necessary" in order for it to be used, only that it "significantly increase understanding". Thparkth (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, or, to put it another way, "necessary". If something "significantly increases understanding", it is "necessary". If you want to argue semantics, we can... J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's very obvious to anyone reading this that "significantly increases understanding" does not imply "necessary". I don't think further discussion on this point will be productive as long as you believe that the two terms are equivalent. Thparkth (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete (Updated from Comment). Per both guidance and practice, "no consensus" defaults to "do not delete". The most extensive discussion of this was in 2009 at WT:FFD (See Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_deletion/Archive_6#No_consensus). One admin subsequently gave the following assessment of the discussion, closing a DRV in August 2009: "Guidance to this question is provided in the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no consensus regarding potential changes to this rule allowing no consensus discussions at Files for Deletion to be closed as delete." That has been endorsed at DRVs in for example August 2009, May 2010, July 2010, and May 2011.

    On the other hand, we clearly direct closing admins to consider whether arguments are strong or weak; and the requirement to make a case is placed on those who seek to keep the image, to argue why it is compatible with policy. (The implications of which I have recently discussed at greater length here). It is only if a decent argument has been made as to why the image is compatible with policy (an intentionally high bar) that a closure of "no consensus" can be contemplated. At the very least, I would like to see an explanation from the closing admin as to where in their view that argument was made; because on the face of it I don't clearly see what it is about this image that is being claimed to "significantly improve" a reader's understanding of the topic (NFCC #8). Jheald (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • Update I've updated my stance to "Overturn to delete". It will be fairly clear that that is the direction I was leaning towards anyway, but I wanted to hear what Fastily (and others) had to say first. Overturning someone with Fastily's commendable experience and dedication is not something that should lightly, and I wanted to know whether there was something he had seen in the "keep" !votes that I hadn't; but it seems there wasn't. DGG and S.Marshall make eloquent arguments that we have to trust the mood of the discussion; any closing admin here should also be aware that the whole issue of historical images and NFCC#8, and what actually is our policy stance, is and has been the subject of a currently ongoing discussion at WT:NFC. But I am not convinced. The central point here, I believe, is that if an image is to be kept, then implicitly or explicitly a rationale has to be forthcoming as to how the image satisfies NFCC#8, i.e. how it adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic. I have yet to see an argument, either in the original FFD or here, that really even tries to set out a case for this. DGG suggests here that if any event is sufficiently notable, then seeing an image of it advances reader understanding. If one accepts that argument, then I think a "no consensus" close would be sustainable. But I don't think that that is our policy stance, I think we deliberately seek our use of images that we do not have a copyright clearance for to be more spare and more restricted than that. Finally, to those who say that this is just a re-run of arguments presented at FFD I disagree. The primary purpose of FFD is to seek out the facts and argumentation particular to a given image; but what is happening here is primarily a discussion on whether the policy framework to evaluate those facts and argumentation has been correctly applied, which is exactly the intended focus for a review venue like DRV. I hope the admin closing this discussion will consider very closely the argument made by DGG, on the value of actually seeing any particular event, if it is sufficiently notable; and will give a reasoned assessment of that argument, rather than just counting heads here. But for myself, I do not think that is our policy stance; and therefore, with regret, I have to conclude that I do not think Fastily properly took policy into account when closing this FFD. Jheald (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The OP's personal attacks against the admin should result in (1) throwing out this bad-faith request for deletion; and (2) putting the OP on ice for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Despite the rather intemperate comments made in the OP's initial comment, I believe he's right on policy, at least with regard to the use in this article. (I'd probably have a different opinion if it were illustrating on article on the tournament or game itself, a distinction that's lost in the FFD discussion.) There's already a perfectly suitable individual image in the article infobox. There's no division in the community over the underlying policy issue; it's simply a question of applying the policy to an individual photo. In that context, I think the burden must fall on those wishing to retain the image, and I don't see that it's been met in the FFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Closing admin gave no rationale despite a contested discussion on fair use issues. In these circumstances I am not inclined to defer to the usual "within admin discretion" approach. The "keep" !voters in the discussion failed to demonstrate the satisfaction of the NFCC. The delete !votes -- particularly those of Fut Perf and J Milburn -- were policy fluent, convincing, and unrefuted. How would the omission of this picture decrease the readers' understanding of the subject? NFCC8 requires that question to be answered. It wasn't. In FFD debates that concern fair use issues, the arguments/numbers balance should be more weighted towards the former than is normally the case. Here, not only is it impossible to discern how the closing admin weighed those arguments, when they are actually examined, a delete outcome is clear. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Obviously correct closure. Arguments here are XfD arguments, not DR arguments. Nominate it again if you feel there is now a consensus to delete. Deletion review is not the forum for this. Bongomatic 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is at question is the strength of the arguments used at the XfD discussion; myself and others are of the opinion that the discussion was improperly closed. Is that not the whole point of DRV? The image should have been deleted (or otherwise) based on the strength of the arguments used. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close. NFCC #8 is not to be a crypto-IDONTLIKEIT: when consensus is split, a minority interpretation of NFCC #8's applicability should not trump the fact that the community is clearly divided on its presence, hence no consensus and hence not deleted. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not people are "clearly divided on its presence" (which I consider an odd claim...), NFCC#8 is policy, and those arguing to keep the image did not address it, despite the fact that the image was challenged on those grounds. This is exactly the same as, for instance, someone nominating an article for deletion, claiming that the subject is not notable, and someone arguing it should be kept because "it's not a hoax". J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - there's no rational argument that this meets our non-free content policy. This isn't like AFD where different people have different legitimate opinions about what subjects an encyclopedia should cover. Rather, this is a cut and dry policy and just because a bunch of people who don't like the policy get together and !vote keep doesn't mean that an admin should ignore the policy. --B (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse when there is no consensus there is no consensus, and admins are suppose to recognize that; if they take a non-consensus situation and then close according to what side they agree with, they should not be doing the closing. They should be joining in the discussion--where their arguments might well make a true consensus in favor of their position, in a more direct fashion. I don't think admins who close according to the side they prefer are usually intending to cheat by using what amounts to a supervote--they are merely expressing the human tendency to think the side of the argument they support to be the stronger. Myself, I never close a seriously divided discussion except against my general position. If even the closer think the way they want to look at things was not supported, it undoubtedly wasn't. If they think their way of looking at things was, they might or might not be right. Closing against one view is the only way to be sure to be honest. Frankly, I would make it a requirement. Myself, I think the image meets NFCC and I said so at the time. A match at this level is probably an historic event, and an historic event can always give a proper sense of the significance in pictures. That's why people take pictures of them in the first place: understanding is both abstract and emotional. The only question, & I am not an expert in the subject so I need to leave it open, is whether a match at this level is indeed a sufficiently historic event. Others in the community will have to judge that part--if it is not very highly important, the picture should not be used, and I think there would definitely be consensus there. The community clearly does not support NFCC 8 to justify including a fair use picture of everything. Would my view open the use of NFCC to support a photograph of any truly historic event? Yes; that's how I think the policy should be interpreted. At present, I think there is in fact a divided consensus about this--the virtue of closing non-consensus is that we can revisit it in 6 months and see which way the opinion is turning. (why 6 months--because it takes at least that long to shift consensus.) I think consensus was against my position a year ago, but it's changed. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "an historic event can always give a proper sense of the significance in pictures." You cannot just declare something a "historic event" and claim that, therefore, we need an image of it. We use an image when the image adds significantly to reader understanding, not when we have made a certain judgement about the event. That's what policy requires (NFCC#8 is about judging the image, not the subject). If you disagree with policy, that's fine, but you should not be forcing what you think policy should be on others, and you certainly should not be spouting it in discussions like this. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not aware I'm forcing policy on anyone. I don't do admin work on files, so how can I possibly force anything. My arguments have results only if people agree with me. Discussions like this are a very good place to remind people that policy can change--and in fact to see if there is increasing consensus for one interpretation or another. What we do here is one of the ways we make policy. I agree that if i fought every FFD to the bitter end it would be unconstructive, but I've never even brought one here of my own accord. When someone does bring something to discuss, I sometimes discuss it. As for what I did say, I said very clearly that the question is whether the item is sufficiently historic, and I specifically said I do not support such a non-free illustration for everything that can be claimed to be historic. We disagree about where to draw the line, & there's no need for either of us to get nasty about it. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete: The closer failed to follow the guideline for determining if rough consensus was reached. The guideline requires “looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy”. The “delete” arguments made a strong case that the use was in violation of policy, and none of the “keep” arguments countered those arguments. —teb728 t c 06:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own decision. I carefully evaluated the deletion discussion thrice, on separate occasions, to determine consensus. I found none. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will you say which if any of those !voting to keep, in your judgement, gave a plausible argument as to how what a reader sees in the image should be considered to significantly add to contextual understanding about the topic of the article? What is it they said that seeing this image adds, that you considered to be substantive and at least plausible? Jheald (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had taken part in the discussion, I would have !voted "delete", on the basis that while the image in question is not replaceable, it also does not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic, when used in context. But this is not FfD round 2, and JClemens' point is excellent. It seems to me that the central question of this DRV is: How should a FfD closer decide whether NFCC#8 is passed or failed? And it seems to me that the answer is: On the basis of the consensus at the discussion. We elect admins to implement the consensus. Admins' power to make unilateral deletion decisions is limited to the speedy deletion criteria and to PRODs. Fastily may well have had his own opinion, but what he did was to implement the consensus and we can only endorse. But a "no consensus" close allows for an early renomination for deletion, and in this case I would suggest that the file in question is renominated in early course.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But see WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. In judging an XfD, a closer has to judge the strength of the arguments, in the context of what is required by policy. And policy requires that those arguing keep in an FfD have to provide a rationale for why an image passes NFCC#8. Fastily had to judge whether a substantive rationale had been provided, and that is the specific point where I hope he will give us more clarification as to how he came to the judgement he did. Jheald (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On what basis would you have wanted Fastily to disregard the good faith opinion of an established editor? Should every !vote include the phrase "I think this passes NFCC8 because..." or be discounted? Are we to ignore any view that doesn't contain a bluelink to a policy? I think the view that you express here, Jheald, would require Fastily to enforce a rule that we don't actually have.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "good faith opinion of an established editor" is worth little without decent supporting arguments. If ten people pile on and say "delete, nn" in an AfD, that counts for little if the five support the retention of the article have unearthed a number of reliable sources and expanded the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason why that's an entirely different matter, J Milburn, is that "non-notable" is an opinion statement that is capable of being decisively refuted. If our hypothetical five people unearth reliable sources and cite them, then those people have countered an opinion with evidence. In Wikipedia, as in law and the scientific method, evidence trumps opinion. But here the point of contention is about NFCC#8: the opinion that this material does not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic -v- the opinion that it does. Those opinions roughly balance one other out, hence the rough consensus is hung between the two views.—S Marshall T/C 12:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're misrepresenting the nature of the debate. Ok, maybe there was not evidence, as "evidence" is harder to come by in these discussions than in the example I gave, but we do have reasonable arguments. In this case, there were no reasonable arguments supporting "the opinion that it does"; only assertions about the significance of the event. This isn't just a case of "opinions [which] roughly balance one other out", as not everyone there was just saying "well this is my opinion". You're just falling into the trap of vote counting; "well, there is not chance of evidence, so we'll just count the votes and see which opinion wins out". J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, that's largely true. I am throwing up my hands and saying, "there's no evidence, just opinions, and the opinions balance out." And it's also true that I see no reasonable basis on which to prefer the one over the other. I don't agree that I'm vote counting and I don't see where you got that idea from. I also don't agree that there were "no reasonable arguments" on the "passes NFCC#8" side. A neutral closer might well infer users' positions on that, on the basis of WP:AGF, without needing the arguments to be spelled out, and this is indeed what Fastily seems to have done.—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One problem with that guideline, and the above argument, is that policy is supposed to describe practice, not restrict it. If a bunch of people say "IAR keep" giving an encyclopedia-building reason that isn't covered by the letter of current guidelines, and one person argues to delete looking at the letter of the current guidelines, what happens? If policy is only changed in advance by discussion, then the minority of one would win. In the Wiki-way, however, IAR is a core policy, and coherent arguments based on the pillars should be accorded appropriate weight, which is more than that of simple guideline-based wikilawyering. This isn't relevant to many debates where the arguments on one side are things we know we don't care about, of course, but when multiple editors are each citing conflicting interpretations of policy, (IAR included) then extreme caution should be applied in seeking to overrule the community's numerical voice. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree entirely, when reasonable arguments are given. In this case, the "argument" appears to be "the event is important, so we should be allowed to use non-free content to show it off, no matter how useful or otherwise the picture actually is". That makes a mockery of our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, when closing this debate, I found:

  • The strongest reason(s) to delete: failure to satisfy WP:NFCC#8 [both implied and supported explicitly by delete !votes]
  • The strongest reason(s) to keep: notable historic event and while not explicitly stated, file meets WP:NFCC#8. [heavily implied by keep !votes]

Taking into account the loose wording of WP:NFCC#8 (which is frequently open to highly opinionated interpretation), and seeing how the number of rational !votes to keep and delete were almost split equally down the middle (4:3), I logically defaulted to close the debate as no consensus. -FASTILY (TALK) 20:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the keep side how does notable historic event imply meeting NFCC#8 ? Every article on wikipedia is supposed to meet the notability guideline so clearly NFCC#8 requires more than the subject merely being notable, if it doesn't it's a pretty meaningless criteria. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, per Fastily, the loose wording of WP:NFCC#8 is frequently open to highly opinionated interpretation, and he number of rational !votes to keep and delete were almost split equally down the middle (4:3), it was only logical to close the debate as no consensus. The personal attacks and obnoxious remarks by the editor asking for review of the close don't help anyone and are detremental to the project. Completely unacceptable. Dreadstar ☥ 18:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, with some reluctance. I think it's troubling that rigorous enforcement of NFCC#8 often detracts from the quality of Wikipedia articles, and I think that it's a shame that unique non-free photographs of notable historical events are being removed because they don't meet the letter of the non-free content policy. However, despite my personal distaste for these sorts of deletions, I think that Fastily should have deleted the file in question when he closed the relevant FfD discussion. The arguments for deletion were strongly rooted in the NFC policy, with Future Perfect at Sunrise and J Milburn providing solid reasons why NFCC#8 was not met in this case. DGG and Bubba73 gave good explanations of the importance of the chess game photographed, but they did not successfully show that the image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding," as required by criterion #8. DGG wrote that "individuals cannot be adequately described in words," and (in this DRV) that "a match at this level is probably an historic event, and an historic event can always give a proper sense of the significance in pictures. That's why people take pictures of them in the first place: understanding is both abstract and emotional." While DGG makes a case for NFCC#8 being met in this instance, and while I am sympathetic to his position, I'm afraid that DGG simply did not show that the letter of policy was met – that is, he didn't show that the image significantly increased reader understanding. While I would prefer it if non-free photographs of important historic events could be included, I don't think there's a consensus for that at this juncture. In the meantime, we have to follow the NFCC policy as it stands today, keeping in mind that it was handed down from high as a WMF edict. As such, I think those seeking deletion had the stronger arguments in this FfD. I'm not willing to say that "no consensus" should default to delete for non-free files, especially since NFCC#8 is so subjective and many debates over files' NFCC#8 compliance have solid arguments on both sides (for example). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
the term "significantly increase understanding" is not something with precise definition; it's the sort of "reasonableness" test which can only be decided by opinion. -- There is an alternative: treating it as a question in social science, deciding what actual measurable quality to measure, finding a validated way to measure it, determining the statistical level of significance to apply, and running an experiment with a properly stratified and adequate sample of actual readers. Probably there are a few people here who could do this, and if we found one who would work full time at it, we could decide scientifically on a half-dozen images a year. After all, what we cannot measure, we do not know. But if we cannot measure scientifically, all we can do is collect unscientifically the available grab sample of global opinions here--and that is a good definition of "consensus." When its a matter of pure opinion on something a nebulous as one's understanding, nobody here is an authority & no admin has a better way of telling than anyone else. Unless we know an opinion is given in bad faith, That is why I think the NFCC criterion 8 is worthless: it has no definable meaning. I say the increase in understanding is significant to me, you say it is not significant to you. Both opinions are equally valid, and neither of us has any rational way to prove the other to be wrong, DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not just about opinion counting; it's not that some people think it increases reader understanding, some don't, it's about arguing how useful it is. If convincing arguments are put forward, whether or not I personally get anything from an image, I will support its retention, and vice versa. So, I am not looking to prove that you do not consider the image increases your understanding, I'm looking to argue that the image is not needed in the article as it is not likely to increase understanding significantly. For instance, perhaps your increase in understanding came from the fact the image drew your attention to a significant part of text; it will have served to significantly increase understanding, but this is not a legitimate use of non-free content. Again, all you argued for is the significance of the event. At no point did you argue for how this picture significantly increases reader understanding, subjective or not. There's a wonderful habit among some to equate "subjective" or "unscientific" with "everything's as good as everything else". They're not as closely linked as some would like to believe... J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DGG – if only it was as simple as, say, running a chi-square test to decide whether there's a significant relationship between two variables. Unfortunately, there aren't any variables here, and there aren't any numbers to crunch. All we've got are the policy interpretations provided by whoever happens to have showed up during a given week at FfD. In this case, you personally have voted to keep an image based on a quite loose interpretation of NFCC#8; I suspect that the word "significant" was specifically included in the policy to prevent the use of loose interpretations like yours. Once again, however, I personally dislike the policy as it stands, and I hope that it will be changed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and if there is any change then keep. This is a powerful image whose presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It is an unrepeatable historic photograph. TerriersFan (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, TerriersFan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Please note however that a deletion review is not AFD round 2. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process, and your argument should revolve around whether the debate was correctly interpreted by the closing admin. Never thought I would have to explain this to an administrator, but if you act like a newbie you get treated as one Yoenit (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Endorse A Stop at Willoughby has it exactly right. I reach the opposite conclusion he does though. The harm caused by our historically extremely narrow reading of NFCC#8 is too great for far too little benefit. The picture doesn't, and can't, significantly impact the understanding of the topic. It's two guys playing chess. But the picture really should be in the article as it provides an illustration of the subject engaged in one of the more important, and historical, moments of his life. Of course any article on a person should include such an image. It makes it much easier for the reader to relate to the subject and truly understand them. But by rule and historical precedent this should have been deleted. I invoke IAR and say the rule is wrong. This is effectively a protest !vote :-) Hobit (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn/delete. Of the three keep votes, one completely failed to address the issue of NFCC#8, talking only about the perceived importance of the event and persons pictured, but not about the importance of the image for understanding the event; it was therefore not policy-compliant. The second had no substance whatsoever. The third was based on the mistaken notion that there was a parallel practice of a general allowance of non-free images of important sports events, which is simply wrong. All three keep votes should therefore have been discounted or assigned significantly less weight than the delete votes, which were visibly based in policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete – notability does not override the non-free content criteria, which was nowhere close to being addressed by those arguing for retention. Moreover, local consensus cannot set aside the official policy on non-free content. –MuZemike 17:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion noted at WT:NFC, here Jheald (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I would agree that this should be deleted under failure to provide any reason to use under NFCC#8 (and that "two men playing chess" is a free text replacement for the image, per NFCC#1), I have to go on the policy approach that DRV is not AFD#2 and to endorse the closure as Fastily's interpretation of the results. I don't agree with his conclusion, but a "no consensus" is a legitimately possible read off the few !votes and ensuing discussion that occured, taking into account how NFCC#8 is highly subjective. Because of this, closing admins should not be making subjective judgement calls when appropriateness is split. Those that believe this should be deleted should consider a second AFD in a few weeks with stronger arguments based on why the image was failed to be deleted before. To us at NFCC, this may be the type of case that we can used to narrow what is are appropriate historical images, (with believing that as this image is used now, it is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete; The Miroslav Filip article contains no mention of the image in any respect. The match is referred to of course, but the discourse between the opponents after the match isn't discussed at all, nevermind there's no discussion of the image itself. The article readers perfectly fine without the image. It's not connected to the text in anyway. I also note the rationale's stated purpose is "illustration of article's subject". If that's all it takes to include non-free content, then there's absolutely no limit to the amount of non-free imagery we can have here. In sum; exceptionally weak rationale, no connection to the text, no sourced discussion of the image. Blatant failure of WP:NFCC #8 and #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 June 2011

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

It was my understanding that redirects from User space to article space were deprecated. The MfD was closed as redirect. That doesn't appear to be the correct result. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 June 2011

[edit]

14 June 2011

[edit]

13 June 2011

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

Please Restore this Page, it has met all the Requirements as set forth by WP:MUSIC:A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria: Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. - [Has Been Met.] Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. - [Has Been Met.] Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles. - Has Been Met - See Ronnie Radke and Mika Horiuchi. Kygora 00:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is more press [Kerrang] and it is Mika Horiuchi, kygora is my Screen Name, Also here is their Official page on Epitaph Records: [Epitaph Records] and also, the Alt Press Coverage is Official ALt Press, where do you find that they are Reprints from Questionable sources? and why would Alt Press Reprint is if it is Questionable? Your Criteria for Keeping it Deleted is Flawed more than My criteria for restoration. Ronnie Radke may not have a Wikipedia page, but he was in the well known band Escape the Fate like their page even states. Kygora 14:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue with Alt Press and by the looks the Kerrang piece you list, is they look like they are press releases. Press releases are fairly easy to get published far and wide, are not intellectually independent and don't show that those publishing have expressed any real interest in the band, such that they invest time in creating fact checked in depth articles. As such they don't demonstrate notability. Similarly the official site doesn't prove much, I can set up more own official site for my band... Your comment on Ronnie Radke shows the problem, the criteria was "two or more independently notable musicians", as Radke doesn't have an article that fails, there isn't independent notability, or "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles", where you've listed one so misses that one as well. Have you also read or conflict of interest guidelines? If you are of general note, why do you need to pursue this yourself? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - The reason for this article to be requested for undeletion is because the article was of a notible band WP:BAND the article was put into the Article Incubator were contributors worked on the article the article passed because it cited enough infomation regarding the notible band Falling In Reverse. The article was moved from the incubator on the 12th June 2011 and the article title/name was renamed from Falling In Reverse (Band) to Falling In Reverse to resemble the notible band on Wikipedia. Although there has been previous version on this article which where deleted through AfD the article was recreated and passed the WP:BAND dated above to only have been deleted again by user User:Jayjg who is believed to be a Moderator on wikipedia. Although he has deleted severeal times he has not put valid reason why he had deleted and locked article Falling In Reverse without researching why the article was moved from the article incubator to wikipedia the article met WP:BAND there was no valid reason to the deletion but G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling In Reverse) even though a discussion was created for multiple articles of the band these article kept moving around and swapped, blanked and destory by guest edits. Therefore a request was made that the article was made semi protected and that only members could edit parts of article Falling In Reverse this faild the conclution in the discussion and there was no contribution by any moderator is regards of the article's that had been put up for AfD & MfD. I believe that the article Falling In Reverse should be undeleted and that the article to remain the main wikipedia article for Falling In Reverse to avoid the confussion of the article beiong deleted the article should be semi - protected to avoid page blanks or any kind of article destruction.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikeyy (talk • contribs)
  • Comment the only real question I can see which needs answering at this time is was the restored article substantially the same as the original deleted article, if it wasn't then it probably wasn't eligible for speedy deletion and should be relisted for a fuller deletion discussion (That's where arguments about notability are best had, DRV is about the deletion process being followed). If it was substantially the same then moving it back to the incubator for further work maybe a reasonable option. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it wasn't, The Only thing the 2 articles in question had in common were who it was about, the newer one was more thorough and had Better citing and more information. Kygora 18:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my final conclution from what it looks like the article for this band has been created to many time and they were all AfD but from what the article looks like I think it should be un deleted and put back onto wikipedia the only reason being is that once this article has been what Ithink stupidly deleted for a article that shows citedsources notible band the article will only be created over and over again. From what it look like there has been some quite good contribution and some good sources cited.
  • Comment. I believe members of this band or avid fans have restored it fifteen separate times following its deletion. The only thing they've actually failed to do is address the issues that got it deleted in the first place; that is, the fact that it still doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:BAND. Jayjg (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your Entire Basis on Deleting this Bands article is based on a Deletion Discussion from nearly 2 years Ago before the band was even complete, and didn't have any actual music. and because you are Biased to this Aritcle for Deletion you are blind to the fact that they do in Fact meet the requirements. Which people used this biased Information to turn down the evidence that is there, that proves this band meets the requirements. So i ask you, and everyone else, to actually look into this bands notabillity. --Kygora 01:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state its been remade Fifteen Times well, i have been watching these recreations and none have been as Full, Well-Cited and Completely within Wikipedian Rules as this last one was. --Kygora 01:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - Does not meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC that I can see, original AfD result is therefore still valid. They have one release on Epitaph Records though so if that charts it will meet MUSIC criteria #2, sells well and hit #3, or they' do a 2nd release with that label then it will hit #5. Seems like only a matter of time but as for right now, just short. Tarc (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you ever look into Criteria #4 Has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. Their Coverage and Tour dates with [Warped Tour]/[Warped Tour Band Page] From August 10 - August 14 2011 Meets this Criteria. --Kygora 17:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Adamah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to request history-only undeletion of this article. I have created a well sourced article about the concept of Adamah, and the previous revisions of the article could be of use to me (the AFD debate is very uninformative apart from stating that there were no references). Anthem 20:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn per request. While the previous versions were understandably deleted, since they contained original research and cabbalistic musings, it probably never should have been deleted at all; there was an original good version that was a stub from Easton's Bible Dictionary. Nothing in there that requires erasure from history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 June 2011

[edit]

11 June 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
FreeOrion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
AfD1 17 November 2008 (delete); AfD2 4 March 2009 (speedy delete. G4); AfD3 30 April 2009 (delete).

The article was deleted in 2008, citing lack of references, and notability. Since then, the project has gained more recognition, as shown by the media coverage listed here. Other reviews: [28]. There is probably more, but I think that this shows notability (coverage) and the potential of the article to be referenced. As such, I suggest we undelete the article, and simply add the above references to it (of course, some rewrite and expansion could be done, based on the state of the undeleted article). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure the situation has changed much since it was deleted. It would still need to explain why aqnd how it is notable and I think more references from well-known and independent sources would be needed. fr33kman -simpleWP- 03:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose undelete the sources provided do not on the whole appear to meet the criteria for reliable independent sources. Most of them accept submissions from developers and are in effect press releases. I will have another look for independent reliable sources later - if I find any, I'll change to supporting undeletion but a quick search didn't reveal any -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\[alternative account of Phantomsteve] 04:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love) (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted using speedy deletion and I contest this decision. The page was previously called Put Your Hands Up (If You Feel Love) and was deleted for reasons I don't agree with, and before I ever saw the article. The following days I worked to bring the article to an acceptable quality, size, and moreover added references for everything in it. My requests for help or publication for the article went ignored, and adding to the fact that I believe the page's deletion was contentious, I decided to create another page, because I believe this article has merit to stand on its own. It is a published single release by a major artist, and so far the only reason some users state it should be deleted is because it hasn't charted yet. That only I think is not a good excuse, because if this single goes nowhere on the charts it would be notable for being a rare single failure for the artist. Moreoever I had provided chart data but it was dismissed as being not acceptable because it was an iTunes chart, and so far the single had only been released on iTunes, so that rule should be ignored. More importantly, I have taken a look at the users who have campaigned against the article in question, and praticularly the people who have deleted it and they are self-professed fans of artists who are famously usually enemies of this artist (Kylie Minogue), as such I think the outcomes of the first deletion and this deletion today were really malicious, unfounded and against the rules of this website, whose purpose is to have articles so that people can come here and read about them. The content of this article cannot be crammed into the album page. Not least, I have had a look around and found several examples of cases that are 100% similar to this one, if not worst (http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Progressed_%28EP%29), and they are still standing and nobody complained. Once again, there is no reason to delete this page, or wait for it to chart. These pages for deletion and sandboxes etc are taking away space on the servers anyway, why not leave them published (they are referenced and correct) instead of putting on petty deletion pages and silly fan wars? Dollvalley (talk) 10:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not seeing any evidence in your contributions that you have sought to discuss the deletion with the deleting admin. Please can you explain why you have not done this. For that matter, it would help people evaluating the request to know exactly how this page meets NSONGS. Please also redact the personal abuse in your nomination. Its only because I closed the original AFD that I haven't closed down this DRV for being abusive. You need to do a lot better then this to make progress. Spartaz Humbug! 15:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You exactly are one of the people who are simply shut down the pages and ceased to reaply to any questions or thoughts, simply naming this stupid "charts" rule and name-dropping all these acronyms which I don't understand because I have a life. Also I assume why no few people have contributed to my cause, by hiding away the pages in remote locations and having to follow a ton of links to get anywhere, no wonder nobody's jumped in other than the anti-Minogue crusade. I have explained why this page should be active. On the other hand I see you haven't taken any steps agains page http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Progressed_%28EP%29 which proves my theories. Do you think you're being a good user on here? I'd really like to know why the double standard here!Dollvalley (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to rethink how you refer to those of us who don't "have a life," since you need our help to have this page restored. Please do not use personal attacks. You might also want to read this short essay about why referencing Progressed (EP) isn't going to sway us all that much. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 June 2011

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

I would like to make a disambiguation page for this name but I can't for some reason. This page has been deleted several times over the years and might be salted, preventing me from making a new page. The last admin to delete the page is taking a long wikibreak so I can't contact them about this issue. Schnurrbart (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of fastest-selling albums in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted from result of discussion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fastest selling albums worldwide. The discussion was ambiguous whether it was for the main AFD article to for these two related articles. There was not a strong consensus either way, and much of the delete discussion was based on what the time period for "fast selling" entailed (the context of both articles specified it was a single week), which could be solved by renaming to something similar to the existing List of biggest opening weekends. Musicbuff3643 (talk) 00:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to "no consensus" – There were some rather poor arguments on both sides of the discussion, and as a result I don't think anyone really out on top, even if those were completely discounted. –MuZemike 05:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The principal delete argument was NOT DIRECTORY. This reason does not apply here, and should have been rejected by the closing admin.(who, gave no explanation of his closure at the AfD, so I assume he agreed with the arguments raised) A list of the top anything is not a directory; a directory is indiscriminate, which means it includes everything with no rational criterion. There can be reasonable argument about where the cutoff should be, and whether it is possible to draw a cutoff objectively enough for there to be an article, but it is not indiscriminate and therefore p-asses NOT DIRECTORY. The only other argument was that the links were dead, which is also not sufficient reason unless it can be shown there are no alternative links available or other ways of reaching the information. DGG ( talk ) 15:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree there; that is tantamount to substituting the administrator's own view in the AFD close – something in which closing administrators are constantly being told to avoid doing. –MuZemike 22:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the deletion rationales were very good, but the keep rationales were rather weak too. I fail to see why we should overturn this discussion to keep when more discussion is need to determine consensus. --Anthem 09:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. As I wrote on the initial page, it's rather trivial; unlike opening box office receipts for films, this is not a well-recognized metric, and "fellest selling" is ambiguous as to time period. Second, it should be noted that two "keeps" were by new users (with 124 and 50 total edits, respectively), and neither gave a strong policy-based argument for keeping the article; it therefore makes sense to weigh these comments less in the decision making project. Neutralitytalk 05:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As I wrote on the initial page, this is taking issue with the article's name, not its content which specified it was based on a single week's sales, which even if that wasn't the case many reputable sources nearly universally refer to an album as fast selling based on single weeks.--Musicbuff3643 (talk) 08:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - the arguments were pretty poor on both sides. I can see consensus to delete the main list, but not these two. Analysis: noms' argument doesn't provide a policy based rational apart from the fact that they are unsourced, which shouldn't be a stand-alone rationale for deletion. Doomsdayer argued per the fact that Wikipedia is not a directory, which is a strong argument for the worldwide list. It doesn't necessarily apply to the country-specific lists, and I think Musicbuff3643 effectively rebutted most of the argument. N5iln's delete !vote was just pointing at policy, whereas Richard Arthur Norton provided no real justification for keeping at all, apart from contradicting the nominator's stance on the sources. Gabe 19 commented about the weakness of the sourcing, but didn't provide any policy based reason as to why the article was "unnecessary". Arxiloxos supported Musicbuff's arguments with a source which very vaguely supported the notability of the country-specific lists topics and (sensibly) argued that the US/UK lists should be renamed and kept. Jewish Princess simply claimed the article was encyclopaedic, and while Neutrality is correct that the period over which the albums were fast-selling needs to be specified in the lists, they did not justify their delete !vote based on policy. There seems to be an overriding consensus to delete the world list, but I can't see any reason why the closing administrator took the very weak arguments for deletion to be stronger than those for keeping the UK and US lists. A no consensus close would encourage further discussion about the future of these lists, either leading them to be sorted out or removed from the project if there is sufficient consensus to do so. Anthem 09:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - "I disagree" is not a valid reason to file a DRV, closer's finding is a reasonable reading of the debate. Tarc (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the decision was close but the right decision was made. fr33kman 03:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. I don't see that the discussion ever reached consensus on whether these were potentially resolvable content problems, or were unsalvageable. Because the discussion on this point was inadequate, and the central policy issues weren't clearly addressed in the discussion, it wasn't appropriate for the closer to force the issue -- list articles, assuming no argument compelling deletion, are a type where community sentiment carries heavier weight. The Lady Gaga/Amazon thing (which phrase ought to be a double entendre) may also mean that some more reliable sourcing on the general topic has become available since the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to no consensus per Anthem and Hullaballo. This almost seems to be a keep. And there's no compelling policy reason to make this a delete rather than a no consensus close. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, per Muzemike. It appears to be snowing.—S Marshall T/C 07:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- this could have been close as no consensus, but a delete is not unreasonable. The votes advocating deletion seemed well grounded in policy so I can't say this was a poor reading of consensus. Reyk YO! 20:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC per Anthem (yes, I know he's a blocked sock). Hobit (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus The articles aren't there now, and Google cache doesn't show them either. So no way to see what was sourced or not. If the news media gives it this topic coverage, its notable, and anything in the article not yet sourced could've been challenged with a [citation needed] tag and removed. Dream Focus 23:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The DRV nomination is essentially based on the notion that there was no "strong consensus" either way, which I think is a fair statement. It wasn't a slam dunk. However, AfD's don't require "strong consensus" in order to be closed in some way other than No Consensus. All they require is regular old consensus. The closer weighed the strength of the arguments (and the arguers), and in my opinion, made a completely reasonable close. If the DRV nominator thinks that he/she has a way to correct the perceived flaws with the article, they should be allowed to reconstruct the article in their userspace and gain approval here before moving it back to mainspace. —SW— spout 23:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to 'no consensus' due to the balance of opinions. Some of the 'keep' arguments were poor ("This looks like a standard Wikipedia article,") but there were enough half-way decent ones IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag►tortfeasor─╢ 09:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 June 2011

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

To whom it may concern, I humbly ask you to replace the following page content on the Fraser Committee page. The following information has been recently deleted from the 'Findings of the committee' section by user hranf. It is an Accurate summary of the committees findings. The page and all related pages have been locked. Seems very UN-Wiki. Thank you for your time.

The subcommittee findings regarding the Moon Organization may be summarized as follows: (1) The UC and numerous other religious and secular organizations headed by Sun Myung Moon constitute essentially one international organization. This organization depends heavily upon the interchangeability of its components and upon its ability to move personnel and financial assets freely across international boundaries and between businesses and nonprofit organizations. (2) The Moon Organization attempts to achieve goals outlined by Sun Myung Moon, who has substantial control over the economic, political, and spiritual activities undertaken by the organization in pursuit of those goals. (3) Among the goals of the Moon Organization is the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and which would be governed by Moon and his followers. (4) In pursuit of this and other goals, the Moon Organization has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to gain control over or establish business and other secular institutions in the United States and elsewhere, and has engaged in political activities in the United States. Some of these activities were undertaken to benefit the ROK Government or otherwise to influence U.S. foreign policy. (5) While pursuing its own goals, the Moon Organization promoted the interests of the ROK Government, and at times did so in cooperation with, or at the direction of, ROK agencies and officials. The Moon Organization maintained mutually beneficial ties with a number of Korean officials. (6) The Moon Organization established the KCFF ostensibly as a non- profit foundation to promote Korean-American relations, but used the KCFF to promote its own political and economic interests and those of the ROK Government. (7) The Moon Organization extensively used the names of Senators, Congressmen, U.S. Presidents, and other prominent Americans to raise funds and to create political influence for itself and the ROK Government. (8) A Moon Organization business is an important defense contractor in Korea. It is involved in the production of M-16 rifles, antiaircraft guns, and other weapons. (9) Moon Organization agents attempted to obtain permission from an American corporation to export M-16’s manufactured in Korea. The M-16’s are manufactured under a coproduction agreement approved by the U.S. Government, which puts M-16 production under the exclusive control of the Korean Government. Despite this, Moon Organization representatives appeared -- apparently on behalf of the Korean Government -- to negotiate an extension of the agreement. (10) The Moon Organization attempted to obtain a controlling interest in the Diplomat National Bank by disguising the source of funds used to purchase stock in the names of UC members. (12) The Moon Organization used church and other tax-exempt components in support of its political and economic activities. (13) Although many of the goals and activities of the Moon Organization were legitimate and lawful, there was evidence that it had systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency, and Foreign Agents Registration Act laws, as well as State and local laws related to charity fund, and that these violations were related to the organization’s overall goals of gaining temporal power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.46.58 (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google this text then call me a liar again. "The subcommittee findings regarding the Moon Organization may be summarized as follows: " If you are honest and care about the truth.
Above text added to my close by nominator. I've moved it here to avoid confusion. lifebaka++ 03:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jim Chapman (Canadian) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original problem was a lack of notability and secondary sources. Since the original article's deletion, I have found more secondary sources that show notability. The majority of the text is the same, since there was no issues mentioned about that, but many sources have been found. The majority of the sources are newspapers, and I have hard copies of all of them, but I cannot seem to find them online. Thanks in advance. Also, something seems to be askew with the formatting of this page. I'd fix it if I knew how. Sorry. Goodbucket (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting fixed. Anyway, it's a basic principle of Wikipedia, established both by WP:NMEDIA and by past AFDs on a variety of similar topics, that a radio or television personality of exclusively local notability, who cannot credibly claim some kind of fame or significance outside of a single market, is not notable enough to be included here, especially in a non-metropolitan midsize market — even if you can add sources demonstrating that they've been written about in the local newspaper, they're still not notable enough for inclusion here if you can't demonstrate that their notability extends in a meaningful way beyond that one local market.
Your new version of the article, for the record, did not make a stronger claim of notability than the original version did: by your own admission, the text was virtually identical to the previous version, with the only substantive difference being the "references" — and it's not true that "the majority of the new sources are newspaper articles", at least not the ones you actually cited. A few of them were newspaper articles, granted, but many more of them were YouTube videos, blog entries, WikiNews articles, CDUniverse and iTunes profiles and, I kid you not, "Letters from Anthony Wilson-Smith(Editor of Maclean's Magazine) and others, available upon request" — none of which are acceptable sources at all. There's no requirement that our sources be web-accessible, but there is a requirement that they've been actually published by real media — meaning that many of the sources were junk that I had to discount when evaluating whether the article was properly sourced or not. And when I evaluated the valid sources (i.e. the newspaper articles), they failed right across the board to demonstrate that he's actually notable for anything more than being a media personality in one single media market. The claim that he's a bestselling author is still entirely unsourced, and his "notability" as a musician boils down to "he was once in a non-notable band with some other guys who went on to form a new, notable band without him". There's still nothing that would make him encyclopedically notable besides hosting a local radio talk show in a minor media market.
So, in a nutshell, Version 2.0 did not make a more credible case for notability than Version 1.0 did, and did not genuinely resolve any of the original concerns expressed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Chapman (Canadian) — in fact, to be perfectly frank, the article was dancing perilously close to the edge of being an outright advertisement. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. For the record, the Youtube video was only included because I couldn't find anything else about the show (even though it seemed to have a fairly high budget, and was on the discovery channel), and the "bestselling" claim was taken out (it was derived from a misquote). Finally, it would have been nice to get a response three weeks ago when I posted on your talk page. Goodbucket (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out on WP:ANI, I never saw your first request in the first place, because two or three other people also posted to my talk page between your post and the next time I logged in. Bearcat (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I closed that window just before you posted that. My mistake Goodbucket (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the new sources:
  • The London Free Press April 26, 1966. Tom Rath "Dance Routines 'Something To Watch' When Sally and the Bluesmen Perform" Page 4-A
  • Scene October 7-20, 1999. Lianne George "The Canadian Celtic Choir Sings for Bethany's Hope" Pg. 14-15
  • London Free Press May 21, 1977. Pat Moauro "London Company Believes Things Go Better With A Jingle"
  • Scene July 15-28, 1993. Jeffrey Reed "The Only Talk In Town" Pg. 10
  • Alt London[29]
  • Scene July 15-28, 1993. Jeffrey Reed "The Only Talk In Town" Pg. 10
  • The London Free Press August 18, 1997. Natalia Williams "Radio that reaches out" C-1
  • Jim's show on Rogers TV[30]
  • Scene January 24, 2002. Barry Wells "Bonny Jim Chapman's Brush with death an eye-opener" Pg. 3
  • Scene November 15, 2001. Robert Pegg "Rogers and the invasion of the Radio Guys" Pg. 19
  • The London Free Press October 26, 1999.
  • Ki Mae Heussner, Scientists Study Out-of-Body Experiences, ABC News, September 30, 2008[31]
  • The London Free Press February 5, 2000. Jim Chapman "Back from the Brink" F-1
  • The London Free Press October 13, 1999. Joe Matyas "Chapman Cracking Jokes"
  • Business London January 2002. Mark Kearney "Booked In" Pg. 14-15
  • Near Death Experience Research Foundation review of "Heart and Soul" [32]
  • Goderich Signal-Star July 19, 2000. Rev. Phil Gandon "Broadcaster to discuss post-death experience"
  • Goderich Signal-Star July 26, 2000. Matt Shurrie "Chapman tells congregation of post-death experience"
  • The London Free Press May 3, 2006. Free Press Staff "Heart attack inspires book"
  • Youtube Video of the Conspiracy Test program[33]
  • X-Zone's Guest List[34]
  • Donna Seebo's Guest List[35]
  • Letters from Anthony Wilson-Smith(Editor of Maclean's Magazine) and others, available upon request
  • The Globe and Mail October 5, 2007. Roy MacGregor "At the doorstep, some voters rely on a method to sort out the political actors"
  • Business London January 2002. Mark Kearney "Booked In" Pg. 14-15
If you want to see all of those references in context, just see this page and look at the references list. Everything in the list above is formatted exactly as they are in the article. I derived the list by comparing the current state of the article against the previous state (just before the article was deleted after the AfD discussion), and omitting any references that were in the old one. I'll note that there was one more item marked as a "reference" in ref tags, The Voice of London, but didn't include it in the list because it existed in the previous article as an external link and so isn't really a "new reference". -- Atama頭 16:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's much more than I was looking for. I am confused about how you can then endorse the deletion with all the new (and many reliable) sources. Could you explain why you don't think they overcome the G4 issue? Hobit (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waffling. What really bothers me is that the text is almost word-for-word identical. I think there are 3 or 4 new paragraphs and that's it. But I'm considering a change to at least open up a new AfD on the article. The thing is, the volume of references is misleading, it's not the number of citations that matter, but the quality of them. Some of these sources are just flat-out unacceptable, like the Youtube video and the letters. But again, at least the G4 thing might not apply at the moment. -- Atama頭 18:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I'd argue that the AfD didn't return a result of "delete" because of the text, it was because of the sources. I think there are enough sources that, on their face, look acceptable, to overcome the bar of the G4. Not to say that it might not get deleted again at AfD (though I think it's strong enough now to make it), but it does appear to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy this would seem to potentially overcome the objections at the AfD, so G4 doesn't apply. The exact quality of the sources, many of which look to count for notability, can be debated at AfD if there is doubt about the value of the sources. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy - Per discussion above. I'm not convinced this article meets WP:N but I don't think G4 applies, and nor would any other criteria at WP:CSD. It's at least worth bringing to AfD another time. -- Atama頭 16:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy. Not clearly notable, and might well be deleted at AfD, but it did contain enough new sources to provide a significantly stronger assertion than last time round, thus meeting G4. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 June 2011

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

To whom it may concern, I humbly ask you to replace the following page content on the Fraser Committee page. The following information has been recently deleted from the, Findings of the committee section. It is an Accurate summary of the committees findings. Thank you for your time.

The subcommittee findings regarding the Moon Organization may be summarized as follows: (1) The UC and numerous other religious and secular organizations headed by Sun Myung Moon constitute essentially one international organization. This organization depends heavily upon the interchangeability of its components and upon its ability to move personnel and financial assets freely across international boundaries and between businesses and nonprofit organizations. (2) The Moon Organization attempts to achieve goals outlined by Sun Myung Moon, who has substantial control over the economic, political, and spiritual activities undertaken by the organization in pursuit of those goals. (3) Among the goals of the Moon Organization is the establishment of a worldwide government in which the separation of church and state would be abolished and which would be governed by Moon and his followers. (4) In pursuit of this and other goals, the Moon Organization has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to gain control over or establish business and other secular institutions in the United States and elsewhere, and has engaged in political activities in the United States. Some of these activities were undertaken to benefit the ROK Government or otherwise to influence U.S. foreign policy. (5) While pursuing its own goals, the Moon Organization promoted the interests of the ROK Government, and at times did so in cooperation with, or at the direction of, ROK agencies and officials. The Moon Organization maintained mutually beneficial ties with a number of Korean officials. (6) The Moon Organization established the KCFF ostensibly as a non- profit foundation to promote Korean-American relations, but used the KCFF to promote its own political and economic interests and those of the ROK Government. (7) The Moon Organization extensively used the names of Senators, Congressmen, U.S. Presidents, and other prominent Americans to raise funds and to create political influence for itself and the ROK Government. (8) A Moon Organization business is an important defense contractor in Korea. It is involved in the production of M-16 rifles, antiaircraft guns, and other weapons. (9) Moon Organization agents attempted to obtain permission from an American corporation to export M-16’s manufactured in Korea. The M-16’s are manufactured under a coproduction agreement approved by the U.S. Government, which puts M-16 production under the exclusive control of the Korean Government. Despite this, Moon Organization representatives appeared -- apparently on behalf of the Korean Government -- to negotiate an extension of the agreement. (10) The Moon Organization attempted to obtain a controlling interest in the Diplomat National Bank by disguising the source of funds used to purchase stock in the names of UC members. (12) The Moon Organization used church and other tax-exempt components in support of its political and economic activities. (13) Although many of the goals and activities of the Moon Organization were legitimate and lawful, there was evidence that it had systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency, and Foreign Agents Registration Act laws, as well as State and local laws related to charity fund, and that these violations were related to the organization’s overall goals of gaining temporal power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.5.104 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is actual text from the original page. I have brought my argument to the correct place and wikipedia does not require me to register to post. Thank you again for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.23.253 (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry, but this decision was based on factual error. Frankly, I can't understand what the nay-sayers were Googling? There are at least 2 places one can err when spelling his name and as noted in his intro on Never Mind the Buzzcocks, Seas 16, Ep 2, even the BBC messed up as he was on the credits of The Office as Ewan. I easily found info about him (found by typing the correct spelling as above) on the BBC-The Office page and an entry in IMDB that includes his DOB, extensive filmography, 2 reviews from reliable sources and even some trivia! IMO, all of the main ensemble characters in a series as important as The Office should have a character page and an actor page. Even if you don't agree, it's very odd that an actor with as extensive a filmography should not have his own Wiki page when many, more obscure, actors do. I offer to rewrite the page adding these references, and any more I can find, if they are deemed adequate. Yickbob (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've fixed the DRV links template above with the actual title of the deleted article. While it should have been at Ewen MacIntosh, it was not, and this will make it far easier for us to properly review the deleted page.
    I don't see the factual errors you mention. The two sources you found do not do terribly much to establish notability, for Wikipedia's purposes. The BBC-The Office page isn't third party, the IMDB is user-written and therefore not reliable, and the two reviews linked from it only mention Ewen in passing. Do you have anything else? lifebaka++ 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's bizarre that there isn't more coverage for this guy, but there really doesn't seem to be. Peculiar. I think we have to endorse. As a separate matter of editorial judgment I would suggest replacing the redlink with a redirect to Keith Bishop (The Office) for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say go ahead and do it. We might want to hist-merging the deleting content in under the redirect, to make it easier to recreate the article when some coverage surfaces, as well. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse but redirect Sourcing is below what would would expect for an article. I like the idea of the redirect and don't see any obvious problems, BLP or otherwise, with doing so. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse but I can absolutely understand why the deletion seems ridiculous. In the real world this guy is obviously important enough to be included in an encyclopedia with the coverage of WP. Although the XfD nomination said the actor is "not notable", that is just wikispeak for a mere gaggle of guidelines which depend on the policies that information must be attributable to reliable sources and not just matters we happen to know about. The nomination went on to refer to these aspects and much of the discussion was based on the policy of verifiability. It looks as if in this case, astonishingly, we do not at present have adequate suitable material to justify an article. Also, because the article is about a real person, we have to be especially sure we are not maligning them. This ends up treating the article and its authors very harshly. Thincat (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment - cases like this one illustrate why one can't have a predetermined position on discussions when closing. I recall thinking "I don't believe I'm going to delete this guy," but the sourcing truly did not appear to be there. Irrespective of the outcome here, I'd like to take up Yickbob (talk · contribs) on her kind offer to attempt to write an article on the subject in her user space, because if sourcing can be found to show notability I think we'd agree that it's preferable to have coverage. With respect to a redirect, as was noted by the initial proponent, this is a normal editing decision we're including in this discussion. I'm not crazy about redirecting a real person to a fictional role, but I guess it does make sense under the "rule of least astonishment." Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure It is understandable that editors abhor the idea of deleting articles on actors with whose work they are familiar. I've seen many WP:IKNOWIT "keep" opinions voiced in AfDs like this one; sometimes, a rough consensus forms that the article should be kept anyway. That didn't happen in this case, and there was instead a rough consensus that an article on the subject was inappropriate because notability was not established. Usually I would not favor a redirect from an actor to a character he's played, but this is clearly an unusual case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ActiTIME (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn and restore. No further discussion with admin, who offered me to try Deletion Review Alyadem (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reason: The page actiTIME was deleted with no chance to edit the article. Contacted the administrator Hu12, who referred to unambiguous advertising or promotion and did not want to continue further discussion providing the link to Deletion Review page.
  • Request: Could you please review the article and give me a chance to rewrite the article? I intend to add product and company background.
  • Arguments: I know other people were trying to create actiTIME article in wiki against its rules, however, in summer 2010 I created a new article in compliance with wiki rules, it was editied by other wiki admins and have been on wiki (with all necessary citation and links) over a year for now. When created last year actiTIME article was several time nominated for speedy deletion for different reasons and with the help of other wiki administrations, e.g., Bearcat, it stayed in Wiki. So I believe this is actiTIME case: “If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations.” Moreover, as Hu12 said “Wikipedia considers a topic to be notable if there exist multiple reliable sources of information on the topic, external to the subject itself.” actiTIME article complied with all these rules (including external links and citation).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alyadem (talk • contribs)
This marketing campain by Alyadem (talk · contribs) seems to also have spread to ru.wikipedia.org, which multiple articles have also been deleted;
Has only one "reference link" from makeuseof.com, however it seems to be a trivial, self published blog post whis is not sufficient to establish notability, nor survive another AFD.--Hu12 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Spam from yet another web based time tracking and "project management" software package. Article was referenced to brief comparison stories on bloglike tech websites with small audiences, and of course to internal pages. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review. Didn't know there is such a long history behind this article. I have 2 questions:
1) How can I get the copy of the article with all reference links?
2) If in the future there will be notable material about the software and I would like to post an improved article, where should I ask or who should I consult first?Alyadem (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) Ask one of the administrators listed in this category.
2) In such a case, you could write up a draft in your userspace and then bring it back to DRV for feedback, or else you could ask just the deleting administrator to review your draft. Alternatively, you could simply re-create the article. However, I strongly recommend seeking others' feedback first; that's because the page is far less likely to end up at WP:AfD again if it is scrutinized by others first, and also because you have a conflict of interest. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. I will follow your advice. Alyadem (talk) 07:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 June 2011

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

Cecilia Grace is a 16-year-old American singer who uploads to YouTube many pop-, Christian-, and country- genre songs. She is a fantastic vocalist and my BFF. Everyone who watches her videos are inspired to do great things and rate her videos five stars (★★★★★).

Cecilia has played the piano since seven and the guitar since twelve. She has sung at church and at musical theater productions. She won a contest for emerging artists in Sacramento, California. At the Grand Ole Opry in Nashville, Tennessee, she sang center-stage. Cecilia writes most of her music, but occasionally covers songs by Taylor Swift and Jimmy Eat World.

Sources:

http://www.facebook.com/CeciliaGraceMusic?sk=info http://www.youtube.com/user/CeciliaGraceMusic

hello. Σ‎ deleted my page at http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Cecilia_grace. Cecilia Grace is famous and should have a wiki article. I don't know why Σ doesn't like her, but it doesn't seem right for him to delete people he doesn't like. Not only is she famous (wordwide!), she also sings really well- check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xvTrUGgB1Y - its realy good. So I think she deserves a wiki page. thanks . i bet you that most people on this wiki would know of her and are fans of her! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- hi, is anyone here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 20:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although I appreciate your desire to create an article about your friend, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for new artists to promote their work. The page WP:BIO explains our "notablity" criteria for creating articles about people. Your friend doesn't seem to meet those criteria, so I endorse the deletion of this article. --RL0919 (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO --RL0919 (talk) * Although I appreciate your desire to create an article about your friend, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for new artists to promote their work. The page WP:BIO explains our "notablity" criteria for creating articles about people. Your friend doesn't seem to meet those criteria, so I endorse the deletion of this article.

you don’t under stand though. I'm not trying to "promote" cecilia's work. She's an artist that already has A LOT of publicity and fame. If Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, why doesn't Cecilia deserve a space? oh and did you watch the video I recomended above? there's a lot that will amaze you- see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pVUtnOUsKQ. Also that page you linked said: "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." Who is to say that Cecilia is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"? Too subjective a criteria I would say! How can I show Cecilia to be "significant, interesting enough to deserve attention"? I’ve already pointed out to videos that are AMAZING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, the problem is that Wikipedia only covers material that has been covered by multiple reliable sources. I just listened to Ms. Grace's work and she is a very good singer, especially considering her age. But I'm afraid we need others to provide coverage before we'll have an article here. Sorry, Hobit (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO Hobit (talk) *Hi, the problem is that Wikipedia only covers material that has been covered by multiple reliable sources. I just listened to Ms. Grace's work and she is a very good singer, especially considering her age. But I'm afraid we need others to provide coverage before we'll have an article here. Sorry, BUT I AM THE "RELIABLE SOURCE". And you are too! Since you think shes a good singer for her age, you definitely believe she is "significant, interesting enough to deserve attention"! Pls bring the wiki article back. I BEG YOU! She’s famous and should have a article!

oh and if your looking for sources, here they are: http://www.facebook.com/CeciliaGraceMusic?sk=info http://www.youtube.com/user/CeciliaGraceMusic. Everything I put in the wiki article is in those pages! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've stated the problem "Who is to say that Cecilia is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"? Too subjective a criteria I would say" - or the other way around if you remove the "not" from your question. That is a subjective decision, so we remove that direct decision from wikipedia editors like you and me. As others here note we remove our decision by looking to what the third party independent reliable sources say. If those who would know about the subject area, are trusted to write about them in these reliable sources (who if you read up we expect things like fact checking etc) , and write about the subject in a reasonable level of detail then we assume the world has taken note, if they haven't we assume the world hasn't taken note (at least not yet). If you have references to third party sources like newspapers or magazines who have written about her, then post some details of where we can find those, to see if they are good sources. (Things like youtube, blogs, forums don't usually count, I can set up a blog and write any old nonsense, or spam forums etc.) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to have a less subjective method to get Cecilia onto this Wikipedia. You said that we need "third party independent reliable sources." Well I’m the third part y source (I’m definitely not her!) and the dude earlier is too! We both think that shes talented and thus she deserves a wiki article. "Things like youtube, blogs, forums don't usually count" how do they not count. their right from the source! Where else would you get information about somebodys life? Sure you can "set up a blog and write any old nonsense," but that’s not what cecilia youtube and facebook are!
I’m realy not enjoying the wiki experience. ☹ All these rules and they don’t even make sense. can somebody enlighten me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 17:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may be independent (I have no way of proving one way or other), but the reliable sources bit is lacking (have you read that link?) - does the world consider you to be a good authority on such matters? Are your writings fact checked?
    You say it's subjective so why should wikipedia editors decide, but you're now one of them, so the same rules apply to you, as a wikipedia editor you don't get to decide either, your subjective view is as good or bad as any other wikipedian. Regarding blogs etc. I say they don't count for establishing notability, for the idea that the world has taken note. If I wanted to promote something I could setup any number of them, it proves nothing about actual real world interest. They aren't great for other things either, we are trying to write from a neutral point of view most people directly involved, especially the subject of the article are hardly neutral, they having something to gain from being portrayed a certain way, or may not want certain other things included. They also generally aren't considered reliable, how can we be sure the person writing something is who they say they are, and that what they say is accurate? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"how can we be sure the person writing something is who they say they are, and that what they say is accurate" For that matter, how can we be sure ANYONE is writing accurately? Sure newspapers and magazines would be great, but we don't know either way if their telling the truth. And yeah I’ve perused the "reliable sources" link and its utterly impossible. how do you expect me to get a source from "The New York Times" on cecilia, a 16-year-old girl that the business guys over at The Times don't give a **** about?
I’m getting increasingly frustrated. no one is setting out lucid specifications of what is necessary to make a wiki article about Cecilia. please, i know shes "notable" but no one is helping me show it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No original research. And click that link. --The Σ talkcontribs 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've been told several times what you need, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That is wikipedia's term notable means. Newspapers and magazines write about things which they believe their audience will be interested in, so they can sell their product. If they aren't writing about them, because as you say they "don't give a **** about", then your conclusion should be that they don't believe the subject is of interest to their readers and won't help them sell their product. i.e. the person isn't notable. Your frustration is apparently born of your failure to reach the conclusion that they don't reach the standard. Instead you'd rather try naive argument, ignoring the standard, or merely repeatedly asking the question hoping to get a different answer. That's not the way it works, ask as many times as you want but without the coverage in reliable third party sources the article can't exist. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to note that 82.7.44.178's comments are right on the mark. We need coverage in places like newspapers, magazines, or the like. One can argue that the bar for an article is too high (and I'd agree in some cases) but that's the way Wikipedia works I'm afraid. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IF "that's the way Wikipedia works," THEN IT SHOULD BE CHANGED! ITS NOT AN EFFICIENT SYSTEM IF IT DOESN’T LET EVERYONE FAMOUS HAVE A WIKI ARTICLE. I’M SORY IF I’M RANTING TO MUCH BUT I’M FED UP. CAN SOMEONE HELP ME...FIND RELIABLE SOURCES FOR CECILIA GRACE BECUASE SHE REALY DESERVES AN WIKI ARTICLE AND I WANT TO HELP HER.
I UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA AND WHAT YOU WANT BUT I DON’T KNOW HOW TO DELIVER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs)
OK i get it now: "non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources" THAT;S THE KEY RIGHT? ... but i can’t find any NEWS SOURCES. they don’t cover musicians! I REALLY NEED SOME HELP HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs)
  • Endorse deletion - You can't deliver because coverage in reliable sources simply doesn't exist at this time. When/if actual newspapers, magazines, notable music websites, etc... discuss her in detail, then that is when people become article-worthy. It's a shame that someone with an actual voice and musical talent (I checked out some of the clips) gets zero coverage while talentless auto-tuned creations like Rebecca Black get everyone's attention, but sometimes life sucks. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    wow thank you sir ! your realy nice compared to the others here. ☺ ☺ ☺ i’m glad that you liked cecilia’s music. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia grace fan (talk • contribs) 17:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 June 2011

[edit]
  • List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons – No consensus to overturn. This debate has gone far beyond the normal reach of DRV - whether the deletion process was correctly followed - into a detailed examination of certain sources and whether the article should exist, something that is normally AFD's domain. Despite this, however, I can discern no consensus whatsoever from this discussion.

    No consensus at DRV generally leads to one of two outcomes: either the closure is endorsed by default, or the article is relisted for further debate. The choice between the two is committed to the discretion of the DRV closer. In this case, Sandstein, the closing admin, recommended a relist. While perhaps not absolute, DRV has traditionally recognized the prerogative of the closing admin to modify or withdraw their own closures. In this analogous situation, therefore, and especially given the abusive sockpuppetry, I will defer to Sandstein's recommendation, and relist this article at AfD for further discussion. – T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus to delete the article, in fact it was farily evenly split between deletes and keeps, and the reasons for deletion were mostly about cleanup issues. There is also the fact that at least 13 reliable, third-party sources were provided to demonstrated coverage of the whole. This has now increased to 19 articles among 9 different authors that have been found to day and we still haven't began checking into coverage of the model kits and toys by Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan. All of this combined is more than enough to counter any claims that the list lacked notability.

  1. Fargo, Paul (March 3, 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED". Anime News Network.
  2. Fargo, Paul (August 15, 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny DVD 1". Anime News Network.
  3. Kato, Hibekazu (April 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Peace at Last". Newtype USA. 4 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 8–15. (Features Freedom Gundam and Providence Gundam)
  4. Kimlinger, Carl (May 6, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny: Final Plus DVD". Anime News Network.
  5. Konoh, Arata (November 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: A Fighting Chance". Newtype USA. 3 (11). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29. (Features Strike Gundam and Skygrasper)
  6. Konoh, Arata (January 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Seeds of a New Age". Newtype USA. 4 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 18–21. (Features Freedom Gundam, Justice Gundam, and Eternal)
  7. Konoh, Arata (December 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Driven by Impulse". Newtype USA. 4 (12). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 22–29. (Overview of the new series including a two page spread on the mobile suits: Impulse Gundam, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Kaku Warrior and variants, Core Splendor, Minerva, and Girty Lue)
  8. Konoh, Arata (March 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Ready for Action". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29. (Another two page spread featuring 6 mobile suits: Zaku Warrior, Saviour Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, and Impulse Gundam)
  9. Konoh, Arata (April 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Start of War". Newtype USA. 5 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 32–39. (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam, and pull-outs for Zaku Warrior and variants, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Dagger L, GuAIZ, GAZuOOt, and Exass)
  10. Konoh, Arata (August 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Confrontation". Newtype USA. 5 (8). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 28–35. (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam in a conflict against an unnamed mobile armor, and the return of Freedom Gundam)
  11. Konoh, Arata (October 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny". Newtype USA. 5 (10). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 30–39. (Features Destiny Gundam)
  12. Konoh, Arata (January 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Destiny Calls". Newtype USA. 6 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–35. (Features Strike Freedom Gundam, Destiny Gundam, and Destroy Gundam and model kits for Destiny Gundam and Zaku Warrior)
  13. Martin, Theron (January 23, 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed X Astray Vol. 1". Anime News Network.
  14. Martin, Theron (September 30, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny TV Movie II". Anime News Network.
  15. Santos, Carlo (September 12, 2005). "Gundam Seed the Movie: The Empty Battlefield". Anime News Network.
  16. Smith, David F. (March 2006). "Gundam SEED Destiny: A Return to the Cosmic Era". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 146.
  17. Staff editor (May 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: The War That Never Ends". Newtype USA. 4 (5). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 166. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Attributes series popularity to the varied mecha designs)
  18. Staff editor (June 2005). "Gundam Trough the Years". Newtype USA. 4 (6). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 84–95. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Mentions an original Strike Gundam action feature being bundled with the March 2003 issue of Newtype Japan)
  19. Tucker, Derrick L. "Gundam Seed". T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews.

—Farix (t | c) 23:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, a bit reluctantly. We've really got no consensus about the extent to which information on fictional constructs requires sourcing that's entirely independent of the underlying fictional work(s), or even on just what "independent" means here. We've got bushels of articles on reality tv programs and their participants, and most of them are sourced to the programs themselves -- which means, in fact, that much of it is borderline OR/synthesis regarding living persons. But consensus seems to be that this is OK under policy, and I can't see how to argue that such sourcing shouldn't be allowed, under the same policies, in articles about animated cartoon fiction. Certainly this article was better sourced than the typical Wikipedian movie plot summary. Therefore, with the expressed community sentiment so closely divided, the closer had to impose his own policy interpretation to reach the close he did, and while it's an interpretation I'd support for across-the-board application, I don't think it represents the community interpretation in practice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no access to those magazines, but yes to other sources I have worked for other Gundam SEED articles such as an analysis book to work in that.Tintor2 (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - these sources are not true secondary sources because they essentially reformulate primary material while making few analytic or evaluate claims about it. This prevents the article ever becoming more than plot only coverage. Per what Wikipedia is not, indiscriminate lists of information on fictional works are inappropriate - this includes this list of fictional weapons, none of which have received coverage outside of niche publications targeted specifically at fans of the series. There is little evidence despite previous consensus that any of these sources have the same sort of editorial processes or control comparable, to, say, academic peer review, and I therefore believe the closing admin was justified in closing the debate as delete. Note that a debate on a similar list Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early Earth Federation mobile suits in the Gundam universe, was closed as redirect as opposed to delete only due to the fact TheFarix claimed to have used some of the content in other articles. I therefore stand that this is not a case of odd local consensus, but represents the consensus of the community. Anthem 03:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If you want analytic or evaluation, Great Mechanics is a fairly good reliable source. It is a magazine dedicated to analyzing and evaluating fictional mechanical units with reasoning and real-life aspects. Issue number 20 extensively talks about the Gundam SEED series. Otona no Gundam--Business & History+Character+Mechanic Perfect by Nikkei also contained such. For SEED mechas, it specifically analyzed the atheistic design and compared it with earlier designs of the same designer about the simple and functional tendency of the series. It also analyzed the sales of such series can be compared with the gunpla boom of first gundam, the sales tactics was also evaluated. On the issue of SEED-D, it evaluated it as getting away from the real robot genre curse, and evaluated its use of touch board concept in its model sales that made it easier to be snapped off for kids without using tools. Have fun denying Nikkei as a reliable source and claiming it primary. P.S. These are Mecha specific, the book got other sections dealing with the anime and characters and about their business models, so don't bother trying to say it only gives notability to the series, not the mobile weapons. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I see little in the sources provided to establish notability of the weapons, all they talk about is plot rehashes and repackaging the old series into new 90-minute formats. Seems like a list of nerd-lore was correctly deleted as failing notability guidelines. Tarc (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Farix those are reliable sources there (That isnt the problem) the problem is that it appears to be all WP:PLOT, I will change my input if something along the lines of backround character info (development, concept) or an award by fans as most liked character (Something along those lines) comes along. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Tarc; I've looked at the list of sources but there aren't any mainstream ones. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are mainstream sources a requirement here for some reason? Hobit (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no opinion on whether the list should be restored or not, but I think the suggestion that more mainstream sources are needed is certainly incorrect. Both Anime News Network and Newtype USA are reliable sources and among the most prominent English-language sources that cover anime (well, Newtype USA was, before it stopped publication). As long as the sources are reliable and independent, there is absolutely no reason why coverage from sources focused on a specific subject wouldn't be sufficient for articles within that subject. Calathan (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If no mainstream reliable sources are available for a subject that does mitigate against its inclusion. Most fringe theories have been covered to some small extent in reliable sources (even if it is only to say they are wrong). I strongly endorse S Marshall's message immediately below. I believe WP:OUT applies here. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stifle, fringe theories challenge mainstream believes, that is why you need mainstream RS to confirm its notability, not self publications of OR. Anime related topics should be sourced from experts of the field, thus anime related sources should be used, thus mainstream here means publications that are specialized and prominent in the field. This is exactly the same thing as a more publicly issued newspaper is less reliable on Science topics than the less published Scientific Journal, the same concept applies here, that the people experienced in the field are working in the Journal, and people that know only general news works for newspapers. As the same concept goes, that is why one doesn't cite Gundam publications(primary sources) for the notability test, since it is the same as fringe theorist citing their own theories as notable. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 09:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Put differently, Science isn't a mainstream publication, but inclusion in it is certainly a strong reliable source for a Science related issue. Hobit (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hobit, I very often agree with you and I have all due respect for what you say, but in this case I really am struggling to understand in what way Science—a scholarly, peer-reviewed, academic journal of international significance—is in any way comparable with the sources that have been presented for the list in question.—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The main concern here is that stifle required the sources to be mainstream, by which also excludes Science magazines as reliable sources, and of course is totally not based on any policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, and seems to be entirely made up by deletionists to deny all sources presented. You can change science magazines with any other fields, like movie, geography, economy, automobile, etc. It all works, if no mainstream source means no reliable source at all, Wikipedia can delete most articles with this very reasoning. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I don't think this constitutes a response to Stifle's position. I think it's a response to a misunderstanding of Stifle's position. I don't think Stifle would object to the use of sources like Newtype Magazine or the Anime News Network to detail an article about Gundam. I think that what Stifle objects to is the use of sources like Newtype Magazine and the Anime News Network to detail 374 separate articles in Category:Gundam and its subcategories. (374 may not be strictly accurate; I've just done a quick and dirty count.)

                    The basic point here is that the amount of coverage we have is completely and utterly disproportionate to the importance of the topic. Nobody is saying that you can't have Gundam-related articles. Nobody is saying that you can't use Newtype Magazine or the Anime News Network as sources. What the "deletionists", as you call them, want to achieve is a simple group of short articles that give you an introduction to the topic and a basic understand of it, and tell you where to look for more detailed information. Because that's what encyclopaedias do. Everything over and above that simple group of short articles belongs in an alternative outlet. See?—S Marshall T/C 19:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                    • Even if it is not the position of Stifle, there are still deletionist out there with this kind of position, see the AfD from Hell and some other Gundam related AfD, in which none provided any form of policy to support this not-mainstream-not-reliable claim but still denied every single sources, some even go as far as refusing mainstream sources, stating things that more or less means if it contains anime related contents, it must not be reliable and notable. I do not support the keep of all 374 separate articles, even for the other AfD Anthem listed, I only support 1 of them, and if possible, merge to this one. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 01:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • S Marshall, yes I was shooting for the fact that Science isn't a mainstream magazine but it non-the-less is extremely important for notability. I feel that Stifle's !vote isn't really meaningful here (and I'll note that I generally think quite highly of Stifle's opinions at DrV/AfD) and tried to show the silliness that would result if we did do things that way. That said, are there too many articles on this topic? Quite possibly. Is the deletion of this article the right way to address that problem? I've not seen any arguments that make that case. A wider discussion (perhaps an RfC) on how to organize the material would make sense. But randomly cutting articles that meet our inclusion guidelines (especially a list article where other articles might be best merged) isn't really the best way to do that IMO. If others feel AfD is the right way to handle this, I'd prefer that be the actual discussion (a point which you raised) rather than effectively justifying on really weak arguments (claiming their are no independent sources or claiming that because those sources aren't "mainstream" they don't count). I'd be interested in everyone opinion on how many articles we should have on Star Wars, Dr. Who, Gundam, and D&D. I've proposed in the past that we allocate a fixed number of pages (and max sizer per page) to each topic area and let folks do their best to cover the material as well as possible. I'm not sure how we pick the number of pages per topic (or what topic areas we should so limit), but it might take care of the "cruft" arguments while also greatly improving the quality of our coverage. You seem to be pushing for a limit here, I'm curious what you think would be a good limit on each of those example topics. (I'll bring that to your talk page). Hobit (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The limit would be WP:NOTINHERITED in this case (and that's a matter that was raised during the AfD!) The sources relate to Gundam SEED. They don't relate to mobile suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons, and I don't think the weapons constitute a useful separate topic. It's overly granular.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • There are currently articles on many of those suits/mobile units. This would be the ideal merge target. I'm not a Gundam person, but my understanding is that the "mobile weapons" are the vast majority of what the show is about and the coverage is therefore largely about this topic. Is that mistaken? Hobit (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I'm not exactly a Gundam person either, but it's my understanding that you're right: "mobile weapons" are the vast majority of what the show's about. But you see, nobody's arguing for deletion of List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons, which is the main list. The argument is about whether we need List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (and List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing mobile weapons) as separate flavours or forks off the main list. Does that make more sense now?—S Marshall T/C 11:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                            (Subsequently, after re-reading) I fear that I'm being unclear. My position is that it is appropriate to have an article on Gundam, and a separate article on Gundam SEED. It is also appropriate to have a List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. I draw the line at a separate List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons. I realise this is an arbitrary place to draw a line, but then, all lines are arbitrary. (If they weren't, then we wouldn't need to draw them.) And I think that with over 350 articles including over 50 lists all relating to one anime franchise, we have to draw a line somewhere.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                            • There is something you are overlooking about the Gundam franchise though. While there is some overlap between the various series and timelines, you can't really merge the material from one series into an article about another series and still be able to give it good coverage. If you were to look it from the perspective of a fan of the various Gundam series, this would be like trying to merge List of characters in The Simpsons and List of characters in Futurama because both are animated series which were created by Matt Groening. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • (edit conflict) I think you are a little mistaken there. List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons is only a list for the first show, Mobile Suit Gundam. What you are proposing is a new list that merges all the current lists of mobile weapons into one new list. I don't think the organization of the topic has much to do with this deletion review, since this is about whether the content is kept or deleted entirely, not where it is put if it is kept. However, I'm still going to say that I don't think your proposal makes sense. There are too many mobile suits in the franchise to merge into a single article, even if the article only covered the most prominent mobile suits from each show. It also just doesn't make sense to me to merge things from completely separate plot continuities, and which would have been produced and marketed separately, into a single article. Separating the list out by plot continuity, and by show within the main "Universal Century" universe (which would have too many mobile suits for a single article) just seems like the best way to organize it. Also, I think you are just underestimating the size of the Gundam franchise in general. There are over 100 anime and manga in the franchise (going by the list at Anime News Network), as well as dozens of video games and other related products. Not all of those pieces of the franchise are notable enough for there own articles, but at least a few dozen are. Since each major piece is a notable TV show, movie, or the like in and of itself, it seems reasonable to me that each would have a few related lists (e.g. characters, episodes, etc.). All those articles add up, to the point that if the shows and movies in the Gundam franchise are covered to the typical degree of other shows and movies, there probably should be a couple hundred articles for the overall franchise. I don't think this is in any way out of line with Wikipedia's coverage of other fictional works. Many popular U.S. shows have hundreds of articles despite having many less pieces to thier franchises and having run for many fewer years (yes, I know of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but what I'm saying is that you are arguing for significantly less coverage than is standard practice on Wikipedia). Calathan (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                            • You can talk all about how you think there are "too many Gundam related articles", but it does not hold a candle to American or British media franchises like Dr. Who, Lost, or Survivor. But that is neither here nor there as this discussion was whether the closing admin interpreted the results correctly and not about how many Gundam articles there should be. Sandstein has already stated that in hindsight he didn't make the correct call, and the sockpuppeting of a band editor is further proof that the outcome should be overturned as non-consensus. —Farix (t | c) 20:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farix, the fact that one endorsing editor is a blocked sockpuppet doesn't mean the rest of us are. And the fact that Sandstein has changed his mind doesn't mean that I should. Yes, there are a ludicrously, intolerably large number of articles about Lost and Star Trek and whatever, and yes, we have absolute nonsense like sexuality in Star Trek that's urgently in need of deletion, but the fact that there are other problematic articles that we haven't deleted yet doesn't excuse this one.

    Calathan, I'm not proposing a new list at all. I'm proposing that we have one list of "mobile weapons" that covers the whole franchise, and I'm proposing that we use the main list that already exists. Each entry on that list will need to be a lot briefer, which is no bad thing. Yes, I realise there are over 100 different anime and manga in the franchise, but I'm afraid I don't really care: we can cover them all using a whole lot less than our current ~350 articles, and for the sake of sanity we need to delete some. This one would be a good start.

    Tothwolf, I'm not "overlooking" it. The in-universe continuity or lack thereof is simply not relevant. We can have, and should have, collective articles about the Gundam franchise as a whole, not individual articles about individual particles within it.—S Marshall T/C 13:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • To my amazement, I see that Category:Gundam has fourteen subcategories. We have a total of 56 lists related to Gundam, and restoring the present one would give us 57. Our coverage of Gundam appears to be more extensive and thorough than our coverage of, say, Switzerland; we definitely don't need any more material about it. And the so-called sources for this list look absolutely desperate to me.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Seems a reasonable close based on a sensible reading of the discussion. Reyk YO! 20:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Those sources discuss this list of technology in context of plot and the series, without establishing any independent notability for each of the devices, which is what we'd need. Reason for closure is reasonable and well within policy. — chro • man • cer  21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Closing decision was done within policy and the sources, which amount only to three different publishers, do not seem to provide anything different from plot rehashes for the fictional weapons. Jfgslo (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, I think 3 publishers is fine, WP:N doesn't really require more than 1 as far as I know. Secondly, does more than a "plot rehash" exist in, say, Magic in Harry Potter? (yes, that's an "other things" argument, but I'm curious if you think that too should be deleted). Finally, please recall this isn't an AfD2--this is supposed to review the close, not argue a close anew. I realize I'm addressing your AfD arguments which I probably shouldn't be, but I'm a bit surprised by the overall AfD2 nature of this DrV. Hobit (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, it's all nerdcruft, and whether it is kept or deleted is more dependent on how active the local nerds are in saving their preferred content rather than any grounding in a uniform/fair application of notability guidelines. Try to delete any of the Trekkie or Pokemon cruft and the resistance will be stiff, but a soft target like List of Firefly planets and moons might be able to slip by the Whedonites. Tarc (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it turns out, being "nerdcruft" isn't a reason for deletion. There does however seem to be pretty massive coverage (including a large chunk of an independent magazine) on the topic. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 00:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturnPlenty of independent reliable sources. There's no policy that requires larges amounts of analysis in that material. What matters is that there are third party, independent reliable sources. There is in fact no WP:OR issue either. Comparisons that we don't have as much material as on more important topics is not reasonable- the solution there is to write more about Switzerland now remove this content. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC Jfgslo made reasonable arguments that WP:N wasn't met. I feel he got the worse of that discussion, but his !vote is policy/guideline based and certainly quite reasonable. Shooterwalker simply waves at WP:N and cites a proposed guideline, which while on point, has no weight. Knowledgekid87's comments relate to the current state of the article, and a manual of style. Anthem of joy's nomination statement effectively cites NOT:PLOT and he later complains that there is no scholarly work in the area. NOTPLOT is clearly relevant and his comments on scholarly work, could, it the best light, be read as there being no works "discussing the reception and significance" of the work. On the keep side, Farix provided cites which he provided some reviews which he says discussed the topic. 184.144.163.181 provided a "OTHERSTUFF" argument, Kraftlos commented on the central nature of the topic to the larger series (with no cites to show this) but also commented that he felt the sources provided by Farix were enough for inclusion. The closer apparently felt that there were no reliable third-party sources. I'd be fine with a !vote to that effect, but I don't think there was consensous in that discussion that that was the case (and I'd say it's factually incorrect--only the depth of the sources was in debate). Hobit (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse closure The closure was based not on the number of !votes but the quality of the arguments, and was entirely proper. Most of the purported sources are little more than directories. HominidMachinae (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to non-consensus. The references are sufficiently independent. The sources given my Mythsearcher in particular allow for more than a plot description. I sharply disagree with to Stifle's argument that sources must be mainstream. Almost by definition, we could write about few specialist subjects were to have such a rule, I challenge anyone to show that such a rule exists in Wikipedia, or has every been accepted as a criterion (except in contrast to fringe sources, when dealing with fringe science). I also disagree with Tarc's argument that we need to show notability of the individual weapons -- if we could he would be able to write an article about each of them, but this is a list article about the group entirely, and notability criteria do not apply to article content. (In fact, the sources given by Mythsearcher might indicate we could meet WP:N for individual weapons, not that I would personally advocate such an article myself as the preferred way of dealing with the topic, but regardless of what happens here, it might be interesting to try.) DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW Nikkei business publication IS a mainstream publisher, so at least 1 source is mainstream by their standards. I notice the fundamental !vote process that most of them simply stop replying after their !vote, some people just simply don't bother building consensus, and simply here to cast their !vote, I would like to remind closing admin to consider those that have no signs of trying to communicate are highly likely just deletionists with POV of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and showed no signs of listening to counter arguments. Those who at least replied specifically to deny and refuse all sources albeit making up rules like mainstream seemed to be a better game than those. (Those who actually follow policies are even better) —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The issue seemed to be the quality of sources. The closer asserted that the Keep side did not address this issue but they did, in fact, present such sources and disputed them at length with the delete side. There was no consensus on this essential matter of fact and so the close was invalid in claiming that there was. Warden (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There appear to be plenty of sources which give the subject coverage, however there are likely far more non-English sources available which have not been mentioned here because this is a Japanese franchise (and an extremely popular one at that). At the time the AfD itself was closed however, there appears to be no consensus either way and the close should have reflected that. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Lacks significant coverage in independent and reliable sources. Edison (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: What's wrong with the sources? In addition to the massive number of sources listed there is a special issue of a magazine focused on this topic that is independent . Do you find that magazine's coverage not significant, not reliable, or not independent? What about the other sources? Based on your !vote I'm assuming you've examined them, could you share your thoughts? Hobit (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The sources are certainly independent and reliable, so suggestions that that they aren't should have been given no weight in the deletion discussion (and also shouldn't be given any weight in this deletion review). While I don't think all the links provided by Farix are in depth coverage, with the sources given by MythSearcher, there is enough here to support this article. The claims that too many articles are being supported by the sources or that Gundam series have a disproportunate amount of coverage compared to other topics is irrelevant to this deletion review, as we are only considering whether this one particular article should exist. Furthermore, I think that the people who are saying there are too many Gundam articles are making an WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement, as there is no reason not to expect a major franchise that has been around for over 30 years to have enough notable topics to support many articles. Calathan (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notice to closing admin I would like to address the closing admin that I did NOT cast my !vote intentionally as a protest to the !vote process and to adhere to the policy of not democracy. Please do not count me in if you are counting votes to close this, even if you think this one single vote is going to make the significant difference. According to the policy, the closing admin should be reading the rationale of both sides, and consider the consensus, so I refuse to take part in such vote counting process, even if it means the result will be endorse. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 16:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I'm saying this as the admin whose closure is contested here. I was about to do so myself after I was contacted about the closure on my talk page, but was eventually unsure about whether a relist would help find a clearer consensus. But since many here are of the opinion that the list of magazine sources that has been provided warrants closer inspection, I recommend that the discussion be relisted to allow a clearer consensus to be sought.  Sandstein  18:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note we also have a bunch of articles at AfD that are ideal merge targets to this one [37]. In general lists are a good way of dealing with material like this. I think keeping this one and merging the rest to it would be an ideal outcome. Hobit (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't really "ideal merge targets". They've got very little cited coverage which would be suitable to merge. We already have a list of mobile suits in Gundam at List of Mobile Weapons in Gundam, and I don't see why we should have independent one for each series. Anthem 13:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because only including their names in that article will exceed 32kB? Come on, the sources for each series are much more then you think, independent, analytical and evaluational sources that deletionist requested and tried their best to ignore but non the less meets wikipedia's standards exist for at least the larger compilation series like Universal Century, Cosmic Era and 00. Guess what, Gundam had been quoted as the Asia equivalent of Star Wars and Star Trek in different mainstream Asian newspapers, probably in some Western sources as well, and remote terms for you guys like mobile suit, funnels, bits, newtype(no, not the magazine, the newtype in Universal Century sense) and even Guntank appear in their news article. The director of First Gundam was invited to academic seminars/conferences to talk about space elevators, when they think about solar energy in space, they link it to Gundam. I don't even hear Lucas being invited to academic seminars, yes, Gundam is THIS prominent in Japan, think that mainstream sources will not talk about the mecha as a whole in each series, if not individual mechas? Think again. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of the mechas seem to have any notability at all. Those which have some limited coverage in reliable sources can be covered in the general list, or like the Pokemon, we could even have one really big list spread over multiple articles alphabetically. There's no significant coverage of the mobile suits in SEED as opposed to them generally in Gundam, and I'm not buying that this is an encyclopaedic way of splitting them up. If you were to produce a high quality list of mecha in Gundam, you would simply only write about the ones with important roles within the series and not virtually unknown ones which appear in one episode. You haven't dealt with my argument that the quality of the content is so poor that the best editorial decision in any case would be to remove it and start again, with proper sourcing and appropriate style. --Anthem 16:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know this user was blocked, and I am SURE s/he does&did NOT read any replies, I have specifically answered these particular questions, except maybe one. Gundam is a metaseries, and the number of mecha is way more than Pokemon, see [www.mahq.net mahq]'s Gundam list, my comment above stated clearly that even by JUST listing their names will exceed 32kB, which would cut off in some browsers, and wikipedia try its best to prevent such case. I have also listed individual sources for the series particularly for THIS DrV, your claim of no significant coverage is blatantly lies and showed very well why you have been blocked, being as disruptive as possible and denies all sources, without addressing ANY reason why they are not significant coverage. Multiple people have addressed multiple times that the AfD process is about if the topic is notable enough for inclusion, I have said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger another AfD you started, I don't think we need all of these articles as well, especially all these articles even if notable, need some major rewrite/revamp anyway, possibly meaning removing over 90% of the current contents and adding contents with reliable sources. That is why I did not cast my !vote on any stance yet, at least as of now and am only giving comments and asking essential questions to your comments. You disruptively denied a very common sense enough source. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 00:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With a statement like that, we now know you are being completely disingenuous. There has been plenty of evidence that the mecha has received coverage by reliable, third-party sources, yet you continue to deny that such coverage exists, even going as far as to declaring any source as "unreliable" and "not independent" because they are anime sources and not "mainstream" (which is a very subjective term itself). —Farix (t | c) 17:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Anthem of joy who initiated this and other Gundam related AfDs has been indefinitely blocked by MuZemike as a sockpuppet of Claritas,[38] who was indefinitely blocked after creating a series of disruptive AfDs in the Transformers franchise. —Farix (t | c) 17:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The proposed sources are merely plot rehashes in short reviews. No hope for the article to be anything else than a massive plot dump. I think the closure justification is correct in that the issue of sourcing was not satisfyingly addressed by those wanting to keep.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe YOU should address why the issue was not satisfying, with ACTUAL policies. An in fact VERY long list was listed up there with previous unoverturned consensus that they are reliable, and I have personally listed sources that are NOT plot dump. Your comment is no different from every other deletionist that completely ignore all anime related sources, even if mainstream news sources are included in the list. This shows the complete ABF just like Anthem, or I should say the sock puppeteer up there that never actually talk about the issue of the sources and only deny their existence. Your user page stating you interest yet your complete contribution history of overwhelmingly involvement in AfDs and a little in talk pages and very little in contributing to actual articles from 2010 make it very hard to believe. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 03:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one cares about your psychoanalysis of other editors and what you perceive as their intentions, Dr. Freud. Stick to the argument alone and leave the aspersions aside. "Just plot rehashes" is a pretty apt summation of the sources provided, as I noted early on in this discussion. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did not read my posts, do you? I have listed and specifically stated sources otherwise, do you want me to list them for you again? Obviously Folken de Fanel did not read those as well, so this also serves as a reply to the next reply by Folken:
  • Otona no Gundam by Nikkei Business Publications, analyzing the business model and methods used by different series.
  • 7, Great Mechanics 9, 11 specials on Gundam SEED mecha;
  • 16 special on SEED-D, featuring Zaku Warrior, an elite Mook;
  • 17, 18 specials on SEED-D;
  • 12 special on SEED MSV(mobile suit variations),
  • 14 Cosmic Era MS Style.(Cosmic Era is the fictional timeline in SEED series);
  • Analyzing all up to date Gundam designs and strategy including SEED ones,
  • Other related issues: section "Atmospheric reentry, from First to SEED, SF setting and strategy;
  • I already skipped the less analytical plot summary 8, 10, 13 and 15. search for same sources up there for details. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 00:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, between all your personal attacks, and your obvious unwillingness to understand what "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator" means, this discussion is definitely not going anywhere. All your links are officially sanctionned promotional publications (that are even advertised on the official Gundam JP website ([39]), thus not independent, thus not acceptable to assess notability. Mega endorsement of deletion as far as I'm concerned.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You obviously made a very bold claim on this reply. Your reply down there did not mention any of these sources, and it is a fact that you did not, you said out of the 19 sources, which I can count the 19 up at the very top, but all the ones I listed were not mentioned, so I don't see why stating that considered as personal attack. Other than that, you made some point down there saying Kadokawa publishes official manga for Gundam, and might not be that independent, but your reply here is very backwards. Firstly, the official site of course would like to do their best to promote articles that are related to it, and anything related would be used as a promotion. However, this does not mean that the publication is not independent. Also, DX 8 is not even in the list up there, the official web site got no results for the non-DX issues I am talking about, if you search for "Great Mechanics" or "グレートメカニック". Also, I can tell you that publishers obviously will publish for different people, this does not mean that they themselves are not dependent. If you claim any publishers that publish for many companies and individuals dependent, you basically get no independent sources. Scientific magazines are all backed by academics, sports magazines have to make a living out from, well, sports events, they are very likely to sponsor quite a lot of them as well. All movie companies are very likely to also have some degree of share holdings of major publishers as well. Bandai got their own publication department that publishes guidebooks, I can, to some degree agree with you on Kadokawa being dependent since they also publish a majority of guidebooks and manga for Gundam, but I have to stress that it is a rather huge company, so you might be saying things like "Since Mcgraw-Hill publishes text books, all broadcasting stations under it are dependent to it and everything academic related cannot be sourced by those for notability, so be careful of what you use your analyzing on. However, extending it to advertisements by the official company on a related magazine have no basis at all. It is quite likely that when an individual have a scientific article published in a scientific journal, or his/her work made the news, s/he will talk about it, or list it in his/her own website, does that immediately make the journal and/or newspaper dependent? No, or I would have to shut up on getting on interviews from the radio/newspaper/magazines if I ever want to make Wikipedia, because if I talk about it, the source that interviewed me immediately became dependent to me, and all other news that went on it will be unreliable. This makes no sense at all. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 15:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:GNG says "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". Again I don't see why we should make exceptions for Gundam. Futabasha (GM publisher) edited a magazine offering a Gunpla model([40]): officially-sanctionned commercial publication. The aim of WP:GNG is to insure that the publications are serious, because as you say, any copyright holder can pay a third-party editor to publish on a specific topic, and any editor can pay a copyright holder to have the right to make money on a specific topic. The problem is, when there is a contractual link, the publication loses its independence, thus makes it less important than if a third party journalist/scholar/etc decided on his own that a given topic is important enough to be included in a paper.
      Now, don't get me wrong...Of course, on its own, Great Mechanics (or Newtype) is a reliable source, but when assessing notability, we have to make sure a wide range of people deemed the subject notable, and not only officially-sanctionned publications...Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mythsearcher wants me to mention "actual policies", but as we are reviewing a deletion rationale (and a whole AfD) that relied on WP:GNG issues, I think what I was talking about is pretty clear. But since Mythsearcher insists...WP:GNG states that the threshold for inclusion is the existence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "Significant coverage" means that "sources address the subject directly in detail" and with "more than a trivial mention". I've looked at all the reviews from ANN and they only contain trivial mentions (if any) of "mobile weapons in SEED", because they're just reviews, with 2 or 3 paragraphs rehashing plot and 2 or 3 comments about "XXX designed this", "XXX looks great", "XXX appears there"...Sorry but I see no "significant coverage" there, no section specifically dedicated to critical analyses of "mobile weapons in SEED", absolutely nothing that would warrant a stand-alone article.
          Then there is the little part (that many fans in AfDs tend to "conveniently" forget) about "sources that are independent of the subject", which "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator". So in case Mythsearcher is not aware of it, Newtype USA is a publication directly affiliated with Kadokawa Shoten, one of the Gundam franchise producers. So of course they're going to publish promotional content about the products they are trying to sell, and they cannot be used to establish notability.
          Out of the 19 sources presented, 7 are insignificant reviews and 12 are not independent of the subject. Thus, the deletion rationale was correct, AfDs are not votes and "valid arguments will be given more weight than unsupported statements", so despite the evenly split between deletes and keeps, supporters of the article failed to provide enough sources to assert notability (even during this review), hence the deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I feel very strongly that you are wrong and that Newtype USA is independent from Gundam. Merely being published by the same company that also publishes some Gundam manga and light novels doesn't mean that it is not an independent source, especially considering that I don't think Kadokawa Shoten had much involvement with the Gundam anime series, which is the main part of the franchise. Furthermore, Newtype USA was published by A.D. Vision, a direct competitor of the U.S. licensor for Gundam SEED, which was Bandai Entertainment. The editors of Newtype USA were intended to be independant from A.D. Vision or any other company, and whether or not that was actually true, I certainly think they would be considered independent when covering a competitor's property. I also don't think that the editors working on Newtype USA would have had their salaries paid by Kadokawa Shoten or anything like that. Calathan (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Merely being published by the same company that also publishes some Gundam manga and light novels doesn't mean that it is not an independent source"...well, yes, it does. If WP:GNG says "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", I think it's quite clear and I don't see why we should make an exception. You can't deny that Kadokawa is affiliated with Gundam, you've just stated yourself that they publish Gundam manga, and that's exactly why I insist there's no editorial independence here. They've published tons of Gundam books,from manga series to novels ([[41]]) and also a manga magazine, Gundam Ace. They even have a dedicated Gundam website. They're an official sponsor/producer and the Newtype magazine is one way to advertise the franchise they're part of, just face it (seriously, where do you think the name comes from ?).
              As for Newtype USA, it is (well, was) mostly a translation of the original japanese articles, and Kadokawa remains one of the copyright holders even for the US publication. That ADV printed the translations doesn't change anything, the articles listed here are still originally from Kadokawa.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • <ec>Could you comment on [42]? I don't know enough about Gundam for the franchise to evaluate it. It looks very strong indeed, but I don't know about independent etc. Hobit (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Red link (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't really see a reason as to why red link should remain a red link. The deletion rationale for the latest version is "Not a good idea"...which requires some elaboration. It doesn't seem the article was ever listed at afd. Smallman12q (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 June 2011

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:24.177.120.138/Don't_create_an_account (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was moved into another user's userspace and then {{db-g7}}ed without so much as a by your leave. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to recreate the redirect any time you like, but then the page can't be moved back to the same title. You'll have to pick one or the other - either the move or the creation of a redirect. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect can simply be created if that's all that's desired. -- Ed (Edgar181) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Timeshift9 – Several commentators have felt that this fell within the discretionary zone and while opinions vary about where the closing admin should have applied their discretion there is a slight majority in favour of the deletion. I wouldn't call it a ringing endorsement but endorsed it is. – Spartaz Humbug! 01:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Timeshift9 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Several users have questioned my close of this MfD, so I might as well bring it here for review. T. Canens (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and restore I think (as someone who voted to keep the page) that the status of this discussion at the time it was closed was 'no consensus' rather than a consensus to delete. What's acceptable on user pages is a grey area, and this was reflected by the comments in the discussion - the editors who commented (most of whom are long-established editors) made different interpretations of the relevant guidelines (notably WP:BLP and WP:USERPAGE). At the time of closing the comments were weighted towards deletion, but I don't think that this was by a sufficient margin to indicate that it was a consensus view, particularly as two editors had indicated that editing the user page to remove the political statements was an acceptable alternative to deletion. As noted on my talk page, I commend T. Canens for asking for a review of his closure here, and hope that I'm as courteous when other editors question my actions as an admin. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be related to the recent edit history of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter and Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Admin_action_or_consensus.3F. As per my !vote at AfD, I agree that the close was the right decision, but it is true that the close was a close wp:rough consensus call, and I welcome this review. Another admin might have called it differently, and this impacts the amount of leeway that editors are given in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore my view at the AfD was to keep. In terms of this review I am persuaded by the comments of Nick-D that at best the AfD should have been closed as no consensus. I should add that I am here because the closing admin contacted me on my talkpage inviting me to participate in this DRV. He is to be commended for inviting review of his decision. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Within discretion. If we accept that these are grey areas, which I do, then we also have to accept that closing these MfDs are grey areas for admins and allow discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's a consensus that, while the encyclopaedia must be strictly NPOV, a degree of soapboxing is permitted in userspace. There's no consensus about how much soapboxing constitutes "a degree", although custom and practice shows wide latitude is given to userboxes or essays in userspace. To me, the substantive question is about the alleged BLP violations: per policy, it's clear that BLP violations are not permitted in userspace. This leads me to wonder exactly how egregious these alleged BLP violations really were, and whether it would be reasonable for them to have been addressed via revision deletion; but I'm unwilling to ask for a BLP-violating page to be temp-restored so that I can see for myself.

    So, while I can't come to a definite opinion on this, my view is that the discussion does not justify deletion on consensus grounds alone, but BLP concerns may or may not be sufficient to tip this over into "delete".—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much of it was given to links to stories in the news media which were unfavourable to the Liberal Party (Australia's conservative party), and his comments on them. While one was left in no doubt as to his personally held political opinions, and might take offence if one was a particularly strong Liberal supporter, and the selection of articles was manifestly one-sided, I think calling it "BLP violating" would be a real stretch. Ironically, it was better sourced than some of our articles. Orderinchaos 17:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of this user page remains in the Yahoo! cache. An example of a BLP violation in the cache:

    lol @ [name redacted], opposition immigration spokesman, showing true Liberal Party colours with his exploit muslims for electoral effect comments. You sir, just show and confirm that your party's plans and policies for the future are anti-intellectual non-merit 1950s claptrap.

    Cunard (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user quitting the project was always a major risk. Deleting someone's actual userpage is a very personal thing and the chances that they will subsequently leave the project seem very high to me. I'm certain that if mine got deleted, I'd pause only to raise my middle finger at the Wikipedia community before scuppering my account.—S Marshall T/C 13:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer misread the consensus that had (or, in my view, had not) developed at the MfD. Broadly speaking I share Surturz's and Nick-D's views. The user had removed the alleged BLP violations before, or around the time that, the MfD started, so that wasn't the issue here. Orderinchaos 15:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that one can reasonably read a consensus to delete out of that MfD. That said, if the BLP problems listed in the MfD were the worst of them I'd likely have !voted to keep.In any case, the right way forward was for Thimeshift9 to clean up their page, which they _sounded_ willing to do. So basically while closer made a reasonable close given the discussion, I can't agree with the outcome based on what I can see. Hobit (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The people advising deletion are correct that WP:SOAP, however ill-considered I think it is, would seem to affect some parts of that user page. (WP:BLOG seems like more of a stretch to me - it was not a personal narrative but a description of some news stories as I recall.) But is deletion a viable solution to this policy issue? After all, the page exists right now, and anyone can edit it. If Timeshift9 --- or someone else --- puts back some of the material that was on it before, will there be another AfD? Notice that AfD here is being used in the opposite way of how it is supposed to work. In a normal AfD, you (should) delete an article because it consists entirely of dreck, and contains nothing of value. But in this or any future AfD on this user page, you'd delete the page because it contains something you don't like. I don't think that's something we should be doing.
The fact is, any of the people proposing or voting for deletion was free to scratch out the stuff they think violated policy with a simple edit. They could discuss their position on the talk page (Timeshift9's), go to dispute resolution, make an RfC or whatever, like people do for any other content dispute. Eventually they might impose their consensus on the page. But no part of that requires deletion, and nothing about this deletion prevents future disputes. So why are we here with a deletion? Are you afraid he might mention the history version to someone? Does that mean that even if he had changed the page back, or if someone added the old version and then he reverted it, you'd delete the page again, or insist on RevDeling the history just to make sure that there is no way to see an unauthorized political opinion? Because that's the message you seem to send by making a deletion rather than simply editing the page like anyone else.
Now I see that they have WP:DELETE referencing WP:USER which asserts that WP:CENSOR applies only to "mainspace articles and images" while WP:SOAP applies to every page on Wikipedia. Cute. You have to almost admire how, no matter how clearly a project or nation is founded with a policy against censorship, those looking to prohibit things always manage to finagle a way to make their chosen vehicle more important than everything else in the cosmos. Even though WP:BURO would claim that we don't enforce policies just to make a point, when there is no possible benefit to be had from the attempt. The problem we have here is that there are simply bad policies joining together, pushing aside their less bullyish rivals and by themselves disrupting Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Although some political commentary may be appropriate on a userpage this was excessive. The user can request that the former contents of the page be e-mailed to him if he wishes to use it elsewhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. the consensus was not so much to delete as to reduce the antiliberal blog. This cannot be called a BLP issue, everything is clearly referenced. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Pretty innocuous userpage, was a poor call that even got it this far. Rebecca (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - my preference is that bloggy material is published on blogs. Also if an editor is thin skinned about their userpage, perhaps less drama is warranted and rewarded by self exile? Shot info (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Reasonable reading of the consensus, and per Newyorkbrad. There was a majority for deletion, and many of the "keep" votes were either vague or gave irrelevant rationales while the "delete" votes were grounded in the userpage policy. "I am becoming increasingly concerned that BLP has become a euphemism for political censorship" and "Too many important contributers have been driven out of Wikipedia by debates like this already" don't address the issue that the content on the userpage was blog material. It is perfectly acceptable to declare political preferences, but extended political and news commentary should be done on an external site; it is then acceptable to link to that site from the userpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Most keep comments were not based on WP:UP and some had defects: (1) includes "should be strongly encouraged to move the commentary to an off-WP blog site" (that's in a keep); (2) is based on "NPOV is for articles, bias is better declared"; (3) has the author undertake to address any BLP vios that are brought up; (4) relies on "considerable latitude with what they do with their user page, and while I wouldn't highlight Timeshift's user page as being good practice, it's not particularly bad either"; (5) suggests issue is a content dispute and expresses a concern "that BLP has become a euphemism for political censorship"; (6) asserts that "many important contributers have been driven out of Wikipedia by debates like this already" and, when asked, proposed as an example a user who was not driven away by a user page deletion; (7) expresses a reasonable opinion, but one not based on WP:UP. The delete comments were largely based on WP:UP and pointed out that the user page violated WP:NOTBLOG and WP:SOAP. Johnuniq (talk) 08:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Weak keep calls were weighted less, leaving a consensus to delete. No problems here. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It is a matter for the closing admin to balance policy with consensus. There is no indication that did not occur. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the intent may not be to drive away productive editors, but that is the result. this editor made a good faith effort to cleanup his talk page, but because he was not obsequious enough, it's "delete is all"; it's not as if the only thing he did was edit in user space. this my way or the highway attitude is profoundly distructive to the wiki. i've heard this before: 'if they can't take a joke, or are too thin skinned, good riddance'. look around you, the drama will not decrease, because the drama queens are all here. how many among you have created as many articles as this user? how many prefer to enforce rules? how do you expect to improve the wiki without editing in article space? when will you realize the steering wheel isn't connected to the tires? this is a volunteer organization, and we need to accomodate productive editors. we need a profound change in attitude, and until that change instituted by leadership, the drama will continue.Slowking4 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Timeshift9 created 285 articles, excluding redirects, during his editing tenure. They were mostly related to Australian politics. I rather object to the phrase, "the drama queens are all here"—we try to keep DRV as a drama-free zone—but it's true, and rather ironic, that many of those calling for the deletion of Timeshift9's userpage are hardly productive content contributors. Our system values productive people and unproductive people equally, and there are administrators with less than a dozen page creations to their credit. They would no doubt say that they contribute to the Wiki in ways that don't involve content.—S Marshall T/C 15:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are right, i take it back, i over reacted to the comment: "perhaps less drama is warranted and rewarded by self exile?" which i would say refutes itself: more drama is created, since less drama is warranted. let's create some more drama here in order to stomp on a recalcitrant editor. and i agree article creation is not the end all criteria. i would say to you the things you reward, you shall have: if you reward productive content in article space you will get it; if you reward voting in talk space you will get it; if you reward drama seeking admins you will get it. Slowking4 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but urge him/her to remain in the project - the irony is that if I were an Australian and the userpage was a blog, I'd probably be watching it, as I often agreed with Timeshift's opinions; but that doesn't excuse the clearcut violation of WP:NOTBLOG. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the only reasonable assessment of the consensus in the debate. Had the page contained merely content that violated WP:SOAP, then redacting the violations may have sufficed. However, because the user page and its revision history contained what MfD nominator GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs) termed "egregious BLP issues", retaining it would be untenable.

    On the whole, both the number and strength of the arguments rested with the "delete" side. As Sjakkalle (talk · contribs), Tarc (talk · contribs), and Johnuniq (talk · contribs) note above, several of the "keep" opinions failed to address the arguments for deletions and were therefore accorded less weight. The "delete" side persuasively argued that the violations of WP:UP, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTBLOG, and WP:BLP meant that the page's content was unacceptable. Cunard (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree, the keep opinions (including mine) directly addressed the arguments for deletion. They only did so in a manner that the delete voters didn't like and conveniently dismissed with policies which don't quite apply. WP:BLP & WP:SOAP apply to articles, WP:NOTBLOG allows for opinion so long as it relates to article content and WP:UP works based on individual analysis and consensus, not absolutes. Therefore, it was the stated opinion of the keep votes that the userpage did not go far enough as to violate policy (aside from BLP issues, which were dealt with). This is a common pattern on Wikipedia where editors dismiss any opinion not littered with [[WP:]] links and refuse to address the actual logical basis for rendered opinions.
  • All of that said, I endorse the deletion as per Mkativerata: the delete closure was well within the closing admin's discretion. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned earlier, the BLP issues were dealt with before the conclusion of that discussion. As for WP:SOAP, it applies primarily to articles and is designed to keep advocacy and opinions out of article content. While it suggests that the policy be broadened to encompass every other userspace on the wiki, that's not at all realistic and does not reflect the truth of what happens. Opinions, advocacy, etc. almost inevitably appear in any and all forums -- they are necessary for these forums to function. You could use an all-encompassing view to arbitrarily censor anything said behind the scenes at the wiki, so the policy is not only unrealistic but potentially harmful. Note for instance, that I'm on a soapbox right now. Does that mean that this discussion should also be deleted according to WP:WTFOMGBBBQ? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 June 2011

[edit]

3 June 2011

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

2nd nomination was closed by non-admin as "speedy keep" without leaving others (like me) a chance to say a word. Reason for "speedy keep" was that it was re-nominated, but situation did change since last discussion; in particular, I was one of those opposing deletion in 1st nomination, and I would support it now. I feel that "speedy keep" was in error, and would like to see discussion re-opened so interested parties get a chance to discuss deletion (I see reasonable chances for rough consensus on deletion now). Ipsign (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As somebody has been bold and replaced System bus model with a redirect while DRV was in progress, I don't feel the need to continue discussion within this DRV. If there are no objections to redirect which has been made, I would like to withdraw this DRV. Ipsign (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse as a debate participant, but I would like to point out that the article's was up for deletion for three weeks, from 30 April to 22 May. A user opened a fresh AfD on 1 June, only eight days later. That nomination did not present any new evidence or arguments. Interested parties have had absolutely every chance to express their opinion. At some point, a discussion has to turn into a decision, so that everyone can move on.—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were significant changes since previous discussion; new article System bus has been created, with most of the content moved there, and now System bus model is IMHO a hopeless duplicate. It caused me (and I think at least one other editor) to change their opinion on System bus model. Given the result of 1st AfD, it makes chances of rough consensus pro deletion significant now, and means that new discussion is necessary, with new time allotted for all interested parties to comment on new situation. Also: 1. strictly speaking, speedy close criteria didn't apply, so close was done in violation of policies (except for vague IAR, but this I can invoke easily too - please let me know if it is necessary), it alone should be enough to re-open discussion. 2. The whole argument of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED doesn't fly in this case ("An article that was kept in a past deletion discussion may still be deleted if deletion is supported by strong reasons that were not adequately addressed in the previous deletion discussion; after all, consensus can change.") - there are certainly such reasons (as I've described above), and I think it is a clear potential case for WP:CCC. Ipsign (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but I feel that discussion "what exactly to do with it" doesn't belong to DRV, and that in belongs to AfD. Let's drop this "non-admin speedy close" and allow AfD to take its course, where we can argue if there should be a 'Redirect' or 'Delete' or whatever else. Ipsign (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really don't think there's anything "maybe" about the need to preserve attribution. There's nothing the matter with non-admin closes, Ipsign; you don't need a mandate from RFA to close an AfD, and the wisdom of Solomon isn't one of the administrative tools.—S Marshall T/C 13:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This speedy close was done in violation of the policies, therefore it should be reverted. The rest (including attribution) doesn't belong to DRV, but belongs to AfD which should be re-opened exactly to discuss these other issues. And BTW, there is a complaint exactly about (other) speedy closes on closing editor page, so him being non-admin is indeed somewhat relevant. Ipsign (talk) 06:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't think which policy was violated. Certainly it was closed in violation of guidelines. But that's balanced by the fact that the nomination was in violation of guidelines in the first place:- it was renominated much too fast after the last discussion, so this particular speedy close seems quite justified to me. If this editor has performed other speedy closes to which other users object, then any other closures should be examined separately on their individual merits.—S Marshall T/C 21:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I would have closed as speedy keep--and the closer admitted it did not fall into the speedy keep guideline. If I were going to use iar, I might have chosen "speedy non-consensus", though that's not provided for in the rules, it does seem to fit the situation better than a keep. There was an active merge discussion in progress, which probably would have solved the problem of what to do with the article with satisfactory consensus. I thin pursuing that would be more productive than discussing this here at the present time. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the renom, given the on-going merge discussion, is questionable. As an actual expert in the field, I've got serious doubts about the term being common enough to justify an article. The speedy keep wasn't unreasonable per IAR and that on-going discussion, but it also didn't meet any speedy criteria. So... I'll say keep AfD closed for now with leave to re-AfD if there is no consensous on the talk page in the next couple of weeks, which is pretty much what the closer was going for. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure with leave to appeal here While there is no hard and fast rule on when a new AfD may be started subsequent to a closed discussion, community consensus is clear that a week and a day is not enough time. That is, DrV should have been sought for the original discussion, were there some defect with it, and not the subsequent closure. However, it doesn't appear that any substantially novel arguments were raised, making this moot. I suggest revisiting the topic in 3-6 months. Jclemens (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Novel arguments do not need to be raised given amount of changes in this article and in closely related System bus which happened since 1st AfD. De-facto merge with recently created System bus has already happened, and actually 2nd AfD was not necessary, there was (and technically still is) an option to replace System bus model with REDIRECT to System bus as a part of merging process. But after 2nd AfD has already happened, I think that going ahead with completing the merge would be dangerously close to an attempt to WP:GAME. BTW, as I see it - there is a rough consensus on merge with System bus on talk page despite long discussions there; there is an agreement now that the article as such doesn't belong to Wikipedia, the only disagreement there is a question if it should be AfD'd or merged, but what is clear is that no one of participating editors wants System bus model as a separate page in the Wikipedia. If it is ok to go ahead with completing the merge after this 2nd AfD - I will be equally happy (it will reflect consensus and will lead to the very same result, with the only differences being page history, and potential further discussion on redirects). Ipsign (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, as I tried to say in the talk page, I thought the diagram had some flaws but was useful, so I redid it in svg without the errors. I also cited the two sources very briefly in the system bus article, but since the content in system bus model was dubious, I did not copy any of the content. I did contact the original author User:Chrislk02 but that editor does not seem active in the past month. I am fine with either a delete or redirect. Much other work to do. Still trying to delete the old (bad) copy of the diagram by the way, File:Systembusmodel.png W Nowicki (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 June 2011

[edit]

1 June 2011

[edit]