Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October

Template:Db-movedab (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is a speedy deletion template that was deleted by Fastily under the T3 criterion as unused and redundant (although it is not specified to what it is redundant), and it is used and recommended at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Malplaced disambiguation pages for non-admins who cannot move over redirects to malplaced disambiguation pages. Note also that the T3 criterion includes a seven-day grace period, and I am pretty sure that it wasn't tagged with {{db-t3}} for seven days before deletion. Fastily was not contacted before this DRV because it says on his talk page that he will be away until late November. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I speedily restored it. It was tagged for seven days, but I don't see the harm it would do to discuss this at TFD if it is indeed used often for that Wikiproject. NW (Talk) 23:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Front (Digital Performance Group) /Second Front (Second Life Performance Art Group) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was created for an assignment for Univversity and was deleted under speedy deletion regulations, and we never got the chance to contest the deletion. Also, we found our sandbox had been deleted which we believe is a violation of our rights as wikipedians. RuthyRainbow (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted article is Second_Front_(Digital_Performance_Group) this was moved from User:TimoWardX21/Second Front (Second Life Performance Art Group) - the act of moving this to main space removed it from your sandbox. I cannot see the content which was deleted so can't really comment much on the validity of the deletion, but assuming that it's not fundamentally inappropriate content for the encyclopedia, I doubt there should be any issue with restoring it to your sandbox for further work/guidance on meeting the criteria. Have you discussed this with the admin who did the deletion? (Usually the fastest way to get it restored)
  Rights on wikipedia are limited, certainly merely signing up for an account doesn't entitle you to have put whatever you want on wikipedia, in a sandbox or otherwise. Now of course we want to encourage new users to be active participants in the project and so offer some leeway, however I guess if there is no way it's likely to meet the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia we wouldn't be doing you any favours to encourage you to keep on at something which will never make it into main space or will be deleted by a full community discussion. As above I can't see the article to make such a judgement, but this is the hardnosed view of it. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've undeleted the article and moved it back to User:TimoWardX21/Second Front (Second Life Performance Art Group). --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you very much. --RuthyRainbow (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Oliva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Briefly: Notability has been the issue. It was fixed. Then deleted for recreation of older version. In Detail: I am a student at FIU and need some help with one of my recent projects; to create a wikipage for Bert Oliva(motivational speaker, etc.). "Bert Oliva" was deleted because they said it was a recreation of an older version. I worked with other people including screwball23, c.fred, and others on creating new material, verbiage and references. To be honest "recreation of an older version" is actually a recent issue, we usually get the notability problem. However when we thought that we gave it enough support it was taken down in 2 weeks. How can I get this turned around? I think this wasn't a valid deletion and I am just in need of some help putting it back up. Also I'm not sure if helps the situation further but Fastily, the deleter, is on a month long break, conveniently right after the deletion, and it does say on his talk page this: Admins, in my absence, you do not need to ask for my permission or input to reverse one of my administrative actions. Hope that helps. Thank you very much for your time and help, it is greatly appreciated! Michaelparks (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article temporarily restored for visibility at DRV. The most recent version is here and the version deleted at AfD is here. JohnCD (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. One could argue about whether the new version is "sufficiently identical" with the one deleted at AfD, but it still does not establish notability, so does not address the reason for deletion. There seems to be something of a campaign to get this guy into Wikipedia - pages about him had already been deleted six times before the AfD and salted, the history is full of SPAs, and I note the phrase "we usually get the notability problem" above - but still I see nothing to suggest that he is more than a run-of-the mill "motivational speaker". The El Nuevo Herald references are behind a paywall, but none of the results produced by a search for his name mentions him in the first few lines, still less seems to be primarily about him; the South Florida Business Journal just gives his name as one in a list of 60 winners of an "Up and comers" award six years ago; in the Charlotte Observer he is one of three people who give brief quotes; the three Youtube references are his own shows. This is not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If this is the best his supporters can do, it is time to face the fact that he is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. I think relisting at AFD would be a waste of time. JohnCD (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I fail to see notability any more now than apparently he had before. And the use of YouTube fails to impress either. Sorry - to overturn the deletion requires far better than this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse inclusion I have never heard of him before the wikipedia notice a few weeks back. I have seen several motivational speakers with wikipedia pages and I do not see any reason to believe that there is a standard of "run of the mill" versus multimillion-dollar Tony Robbins-types that makes the difference for notability. If there was such a standard, it would certainly be worthy to look into it. I see a lot of "run of the mill" politicians and musicians on wikipedia that would be easy targets if this standard was applied. I also am against the elitist attitude that a page can be shooed away because of the WP:SPA accounts involved. I've had this argument with Collect before, but I believe you might be open-minded to hear this : yes, Michaelparks is probably a zealous supporter who has strong promotional tendencies. However, many people on wikipedia will edit articles that they have interest in. Doesn't it make sense? It's natural, and I can't understand how someone like Collect could supposedly claim that he has no bias, no political views, and believes every editor should be barred from editing a single article because it displays "too much interest". I know, I'm venting, but he never reached full sanity after a battle we had on Linda McMahon :-) . Anyway, I would argue that many potential contributors are being pushed away and hard-bitten for writing about their interests, and in this situation, that's exactly what's happening. Now, Michaelparks is placing a legitimate interest in our hands and allowing us to make the changes necessary to remove cruft and in-perspective info. Why waste that and go for sniper-fast deletions when the article could easily be salvaged? All that needs to be done is a reduction of the photo so it doesn't look like a fan's poster, and the opinionated information can be taken down, which I've been doing all along. I took down the marketing information and the list of products that this page started with, and I am confident that the info on the page is encyclopedic and can be made even more so with minor changes. I understand the fact that he has a lot of youtube links that don't really help, but the truth is, with the huge transition of media from TV to the internet, he gains notability in the same way that Kassem G or other internet personalities do.--Screwball23 talk 06:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack Collect because you disagree with him. All he has said here is that the article does not show notability. The fact that the author may be a supporter is not a reason for deletion, nor is the presence of SPA accounts, nor the fact that the article has previously been deleted so many times; but they are reasons to look hard at the evidence for notability. Michaelparks has made a neatly-presented article, but the way to encourage him is not to bend the notability standard for him, but to explain it clearly so that he can choose a better subject for his next article. The only question here is, does the article show evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is far from his only personal attack on me, nor is it the worst (see WP:WQA for prior reports, inter alia) . He has been reported multiple times, and not been blocked once for this sort of stuff -- and I am getting very tired of it. Will someone actually deal with him? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screwball23 also seems to have a bone to pick with Fastily [1]. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - AfD was right the first time, and nothing has changed in the attempted rewrite. Subject is quoted in a syndicated column about staying positive in the recession, and another is just a listing of his name and an award won. The youtube links count for squat, while the El Nueva Herald is just a link to search results and not an article. But judging by what it is sourcing, the content would just be about a photo website his team created, and not be about the subject himself. Tarc (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: No question close was correct based on discussion. As for whether the subject merits an article, I am not seeing sufficient sourcing out there.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: My comment is pointing out that the original AfD close was correct. As for the recreated version, I haven't looked to see if it was substantially the same or not -- if there's an argument for notability, we could send new article to AfD, but I did not see one.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion I do not think there was any case for notability before, or at present. I was a little earlier asked on my talk p. to restore this, and gave the same response. I was then asked whether a Youtube channel of testimonials to him would help the sourcing, and that pretty much indicates the state of things. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse inclusion Okay so I didn't post this here for you guys to tell me the same thing I've been told. Thats counter-productive... I'm just looking for someone to help me out. From my POV, not knowing of him before this college project, and not really knowing this industry too well, I've found out most of what he does through videos. That's just the way his stuff gets out. It shows him speaking at very large events, with Trump, he has surprisingly branded a band of reality shows pretty well, testimonials, there are different videos for each breakthrough he talks about... So from my POV with no restrictions of resources I can see what this guy does, who he's been with, and how long he's been doing it. But unfortunately this stuff is all in videos. It was already spoken of earlier that there are people that are in wikipedia solely because of videos on YouTube. It's the 2nd largest search engine in the world, only behind GOOGLE. I mean seriously? When is Wikipedia going to modernize or at least not play favorites with who can use videos as sources. And on top of that being their sources, NONE of them are 3rd party. My brother in California used to work for one of these guys and they al know each other. They run ad campaigns for each other for more hits! So the issue being "notability because videos aren't a reliable source" is unacceptable. I asked for help, not a "let's deny so we can move on". --Michaelparks (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

let me try again to explain

his own videos talking about himself, or anything else he wrote, or anything derived from a press release by him, or any interview with him that essentially consists of him talking about himself, are not sources that show his importance. What is needed to show his importance is references to 3rd parties, independent of him, talking about him in a substantial way. Are there such sources? If not, there is no point in trying an article. I do not ordinarily oppose incubation, but in this case I would. If there are other people with equally poor sourcing, please let me know, and I will nominate them for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of All My Children (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

History of All My Children (1970-1979) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

History of All My Children (1980-1989) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

History of All My Children (1990-1999) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

History of All My Children (2000-present) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The essay, WP:AADD, is not followed, although it is not a policy. The closer nominator was banned for sockpuppetry. I don't know why the AfD's decision should be overturned, but many people voted delete for similar reasons in AfD, and the articles were deleted four years ago. However, the arguments may not meet current administrators' standards of judgments from administrators, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Guiding Light and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of As the World Turns may result either keep or no consensus. I will withhold my vote until I see majority of endorse. To be honest, these articles may have been very messy without proper citations and notability before deletion. I would recommend userfication or similar before these articles are officially recovered by consensus. —Gh87 (talk) 05:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)—Gh87 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse last time I checked wp:PLOT was still policy, so the argument for deletion in this AFD has not changed a bit. Thank you for pointing out those AFDs. The first As the world turns one is heading towards merge, but the second one is a problem. Yoenit (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I went there to teach people about wp:PLOT and ended up voting keep all in the guiding light AFD. Still pondering the implications of that, but I might change my vote later on. Struck some parts of my earlier comment at least. Yoenit (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until we see the result of the two AfDs mentioned. I agree consistency is a virtue, and the decision on those is likely to show whether consensus has changed. I certainly hope it has: WP:PLOT remains policy, but only because stonewalling has prevented sufficient agreement of a consensus wording to replace it. But it is best interpreted by considering that it refers only to the total Wikipedia coverage of a fictional topic; since the fiction is covered in considerable detail in other respects, a split of the plot from the general article can be justified for a sufficiently complicated fiction. Clarity will benefit from having them merged into one article, however, and I hope the current AfDs lead to that result. If, as Yoenit says, they result in merge, than a reversal of the decision toa restore and merge would be the best result here. DGG ( talk ) 07:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You mean the nominator, don't you? Mailer diablo (talk · contribs) is a current arbitrator. T. Canens (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies: I have corrected my error. --Gh87 (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Closing admin did not abuse discretion here. Neutrality^talk 06:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not accused closing admin for abusing discretion. For your information, I have recently corrected my grammar, so I hope for no further misleading interpretations. --Gh87 (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new New World Order (politics) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I remember of a page on this topic about six months ago which I consulted after a talk discussing the notion of post-New World Order at a University in Taiwan. I have now found a mirror of the original article new New World Order (politics) . I am no expert but it seems very well put to me. Does this very aggregation constitues Original Research? Actually if the article had been published elsewhere we could not reproduce it per copyright infringement. I see only five people discussed the deletion of this entry and most where coming from the French discussion where the article was legitimitaly closed as the term has no notability or third-party coverage in the French language... I do not have the time to review the Frech discussion but as for the English article, I submit emotional snowballing has biased its discussion into an unfair assessment. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 12:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Deletion Review is not for cases of "I disagree". If you want to request a copy of the article be placed in your user-space to attempt to work out the problems (though in my opinion the very nature of the article is inherently problematic with WP:SYNTH concerns raised at the AfD, and an article that tries to make hay out of an "Obama bowing controversy" is a non-starter), any admin can do that. There was nothing remotely wrong with closing an AfD as delete that ran 5-0. Tarc (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean that: the article needs to be wikified rather than dismissed as a whole. I am ready to do that. Also, as a journalist, I had heard a lot and covered the "bowing controversy" although I did not know it had a name. It was quite famous as a discussion in East Asia. Here are a few references from the web at large and from the googles news archive with clear citations from Fox News, MSNBC and others. If this section must be deleted then, why not do it in the wikifying? Besides, although it is in the norm to give five people the right to deny an entry it is neither morally fair nor scientifically legitimate: truth is not democratic. GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please ask the deleting admin to place the article in your userspace so that you can improve it in the WP:INCUBATOR. Dualus (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• before I do that I need a wikibuddy to give her/his opinion on what is original and what is not. To me there is no OR in this article, and the ips voting in the French review have gone as far as saying the deletion was a cognitive bias of Lock-in namely one primer gives hs opinion with emotional intensifiers and others follow. I am not sure it is that, but I cannot see any original conclusion being made out of the synthesis: namely I cannot see anything being said in this article that has not been said by a third-party before, which means to me it passes the OR test. If you move it to my user page I'll do my best to improve it thoughGrandPhilliesFan (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Restore, improve, and possibly have another AfD. DR can reverse for any reason that has consensus. Wikipedia is NOT BURO. That consensus may have changed, that there were factors overlooked in the discussion, and t=people judged without thinking it through, are all good reasons for reversal. Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following Deletion process. A close that does not fairly evaluate the topic is an eror in everyone's judgement, and can be reversed. It's only equitable: if people can bring repeated AfDs of a keep decision they dislike, there has to be some equivalent way to challenge a delete decision. Whether this is true in the present case, however, is the question. It would appear to me from the recovered article that the phrase is sufficiently used to justify an article, and that the people at the AfD may have been overhasty in judging it OR. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG, I see you are a librarian, would you help me objectively find out whatever this article has said that may not have been said by any third party source? After a thorough reading of the entry I see that the only possible OR may come from the first paragraph entitled "scholarly overview" in which the editor(s) have hastily asserted that the Obama discourse pursued the Brzezinski doctrine without sourcing this statement. There is also a parenthesis comment which could be suppressed. Apart from that, tha article totally passes the OR test to me: namely I fail to see any assertion made in this article that has not been fully made by third party sources, even in its synthesis. Cheers GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (yes, if you spam Jimbo Wales, you catch his fleas as well, in a rather mixed metaphor). Original discussion was unanimous and correct (linking e.g. the Obama bow controversy with the new new world order is WP:OR or at best something that doesn't appear in reliable sources: [2] and the same search in News, News Archive, Scholar, and regular Google). Userfy and turn into a completely different article if you think you can make something good out of it: but don't put this into the mainspace. Fram (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• well I'm happy to meet you Mr/Ms Flea. I don't consider it a spam but merely " being bold". As per the bowing section why don't we just cut it out of the article then? My argument is that no assertion claiming something that has not been written by a third party source has ever been singled out. This means the article passes OR. Cheers to you Mr. Flea --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I actually find it very rude of yours to call it a spam when it has a legitimate goal, is a short and clear edit and is even recommended by the user... but you are free to call a request a spam --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I just singled out a whole section, so claiming that "no assertion claiming something that has not been written by a third party source has ever been singled out" is a bit strange as a reply. I haven't checked whether the other sections are or contain OR, nor whether the whole article is OR synthesis: the people in the original AfD did this, and they were unanimous. You disputed their correctness (and indeed, unanimity doesn't mean correctness), but your claim to do so, "I fail to see any assertion made in this article that has not been fully made by third party sources, even in its synthesis." is clearly incorrect, so overturning an unanimous decision based on your incorrect reasons is not something I can support, and I have to endorse the original decision. Why don't you want to userfy and thoroughly rewrite the article? Fram (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Your canvassing belongs on Jimbo's user talk page, not on his user page. Fram (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok calm down, relax and take a deep breathe. I wanted to do just that. But I want others' opinions before starting it. Your opinion leads me to think I should absolutely not for example. And I value it. And you may be right. And forgive me for the straightforward editing of the Master's page. Do you want me to delete the edit?GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: what do you mean "canvassing"GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite calm, thank you. No idea where you got a different impression. When you invite a user to participate in a deletion discussion or DRV where they have no relation with, and when that invitation is not neutral but clearly biased towerds the opinion of the poster, then that is often considered canvassing (also known as internal spamming). Singling out Jimbo also gives the impression that you are looking for an argument from authority, even though he has no more authority in these discussions than other editors. Fram (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• that was your opinion. Assume good faith. I meant no harm, nor was I looking for an argument of authority. Cheers --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You meant no harm, but meanwhile you have posted[3] a similar biased request for involvement in the DRV to User:Mike Cline, self-declared inclusionist. Please read and follow WP:CANVASSING. Fram (talk) 13:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very few people presently active in Wikipedia are inclusionists on everything. Mike is a respected and even-handed administrator. Just as people who ask me to discussions are not necessarily please by my comments; I think this is also true about him. Unless you have solid information otherwise, you should in all fairness rephrase your comment here. I look forward to seeing his views; I have no idea what they will be, but perhaps they will clarify things here. DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no comment about or judgment on Mike Cline, but it is from the perspective of the canvasser perhaps not surprising that they invite a self-declared inclusionist to this DRV. That doesn't mean that the canvassing would have the desired result, canvassing often doesn't work, but that doesn't make it any better. Fram (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much too humbling if the community declared me an inclusionist, so I did it myself to save on the embarrassment. By the tenor of the comment, one must assume such a label (self-declared or not) carries with it great power. Unfortunately such power eludes me at the moment. Fram, thanks for giving visibility to my views, us inclusionists need all the support we can muster.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Visibility <> support (nor necessarily the opposite). I personally loathe both labels, inclusionist and deletionist, as being divisive and usually not representative of the actual views of people (except some of the most extreme ones), but everyone is free to label themselves however they like. Fram (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The AfD was perfectly clear, not to say unanimous, and the reasons presented (OR, SYNTH, and the fact that searches did not suggest any established consistent use of the term) were in accordance with policy. It could not have been closed any other way, and the fact that only five people took part and a theory about "emotional snowballing" are not reasons to overturn its result. No objection to userfying, if GrandPhilliesFan thinks s/he can make something of it, though it seems to me a case of "If I wanted to go there (an acceptable article) I wouldn't start from here (this version)." JohnCD (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There was nothing wrong with the close, despite the fact that the debate was pitiful. But that deletion does not in any way have to be viewed as permanent. New, New World Order is factually a phrase that has and is appearing in international political discourse. However, global doctrines sometimes take years to mature into something tangible in the media and in academia, so on this the jury may still be out. I have no idea why GrandPhilliesFan reached out to me (probably my association with ARS), but all that did was bring accusations of WP:CANVASS with little or no mentoring explanation as to what that means. Shame on the community, here we have a new editor (< 200 edits) asking legitimate questions about WP:OR and WP:SYN in the context of a deleted article. Although DRV was probably the wrong place to ask, as those of us in the community that routinely participate in DRV (I don’t because it’s a broken process) should have immediately recognized the Newbi nature of the questions and behavior of this editor and begun mentoring that editor on their talk page about the best way to handle these kinds of questions. Clearly GrandPhilliesFan’s questions would have been better addressed at an OR noticeboard, but I doubt a new editor--GrandPhilliesFan for example-- even knows that board exists. I know I didn't when I had 200 edits. Instead GrandPhilliesFan got chastised for CANVASSING and curt recommendations to do something different, even when it’s evident the editor didn’t even understand what people were talking about. We have to start behaving better toward new editors. It’s not just civility, as there is nothing (so far) uncivil in this discussion so far. It is about recognizing that new editors are going to do things that are perfectly normal in collaborative environments outside the walls of WP. Inside those walls, we have many norms that are inconsistent with good collaborative behavior (WP:CANVASS for one) that take a while to learn, understand and apply productively. We are Building an encyclopedia here. Our workforce are our volunteers, our editors, and if we don’t mentor the newbies with vigor and conviction, our building will suffer in the long term. I will discuss options with GrandPhilliesFan later.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I had no idea there was an OR noticeboard yes. And I may underline Ignore all rules I wanted to improve wikipedia in good faith, and I do not like being patronized or fustigated rather than plainly informed for my initiatives. Newbies (oh and by the way : Don't bite the newbies) are here to help wikipedia evolve. If you are merely dismissing this input of new blood with the back of your hand you become responsible for the overall damage inflicted on WP. WP is the "Free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" not "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit according to her rank in the WP hierarchy and given her navigation knowledge of the elaborate bureaucracy " or maybe I had the motto wrong when I registered? Thus may I userfy the page or not? --GrandPhilliesFan (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been userfied for GrandPhillieFan here: User:GrandPhilliesFan/Drafts/New New World Order (politics) --Mike Cline (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while I indicated the error of canvssing and the errors in his expressed views regarding the lack of OR in the article, I also indicated in that first reply here that he could have the article userfied. I don't mind explaining the positive possibilities to editors, but that doesn't mean that we have to ignore the errors they make. And canvassing is not "good collaborative behaviour" at all, quite the contrary. Fram (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The debate was anemic, but the debate doesn't exactly need to be very lively when everyone agrees with each other. That alone is a pretty good reason to judge the outcome as consensus. Also, I have seen it done probably dozens upon dozens of times and invoking WP:IAR as an end-run around notability in an AfD or deletion review has a success rate of exactly zero percent. Trusilver 16:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PunBB (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

PunBB is well known open source software with 8 years history. 1) the software is used by millions of people and thousands of sites around the world, hence deeming it popular; 2) Google search returns a lot of websites when you search “Powered by PunBB” - discussion boards and sites with extensions developed for PunBB. If it wasn't a significant project, then Google would not return as many results; 3) Facebook Developers were using PunBB engine for a long time, therefore it aided in creation and advancement of Facebook as we know it, pretty significant; 4) There is still an article on FluxBB on Wiki that wasn't deleted after a deletion discussion, hence it is only logical that the project that was foundation of FluxBB should be described as well; 5) there are many books in Google Books about PunBB, nearly 119 items are returned, with at least 6 solid books that can be quoted and referenced. Last 3 month we try explain this to moderator who deleted page, but no results. Its strange and looks like personal interests or double standards. Dimkalinux (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dimkalinux, please retract your speculations with regards to the administrators motivations. User:Jayjg responded to your concerns on his talkpage, but nothing happened because you did not reply back. Had you done so this could have been sorted 3 months ago. Yoenit (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• relist a Google book search shows a few sources with coverage ([4] being the best, just a couple of paragraphs). A number of academic papers use it as a standard workload [5] for example. I'd say given the very limited discussion and the wide number of RSes that discuss this software at least briefly (I found about 40 RSes total just in books and scholar) that a new/better discussion is warranted. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my speculations. I`m have not much time for discussion in last month because of personal issues. Im just not understand why on deleted PunBB page keeping redirect on page for software with less sources and less well known (its not making its bad). We try get answer to this simple question 3 month. Anyway, our primary goal is restoring page. Many PunBB users waiting for it. What we can do for make possible restore PunBB page?

What you are doing right now. The community will have 7 days to evaluate whether the PunBB page should be restored. It will help if you can find sources (books, newspapers, scholarly articles) which discuss PunBB such as the link Hobit gives above. The more of these sources you find, the stronger the case for restoring the article. Yoenit (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn, relist if desired The AFD atracted minimal attention and the claims that no mentions in reliable sources could be found for the software is obviously false, as demonstrated by the sources that Hobit found. A quick search did not reveal any other sources with significant coverage besides the two Hobit identified, but I agree with his assesment a new discussion is waranted. Yoenit (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If no article is re-created, I hope that it can stay as a redirect without being deleted again. It is mentioned in FluxBB and the redirect would have helped me searching. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 00:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Relist. Without even considering the sources that Hobit found, I think it's clear that there was insufficient discussion to warrant deletion of this article. Two deletes and a keep are not enough to establish consensus on anything. Trusilver 06:58, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romsey Town Rollerbillies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria, the deleted article clearly includes multiple published, non-trivial, reliable, intellectually and otherwise independent secondary sources.[6][7][8] Therefore I believe at least five editors on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romsey Town Rollerbillies are mistaken and this deletion should be overturned. Dualus (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First source is good, though their independence can be debated. The second one is hardly a reliable quality source ("Brighton’s honour is at stake, so make sure you come on down to support your local derby team."), and the third is purely local coverage, which is usually dismissed, certainly for sports teams. Fram (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, which reflected the consensus of the discussion (even the recommendation to keep from Nemonoman seems sensible to the argument that the available coverage is insufficient at the moment). There is also consensus that this may be revisited once a ranking system is established, but the discussion was closed just a few days ago so the circumstances remain the same. In the meantime, a redirect should be placed to United Kingdom Roller Derby Association, as suggested by The Bushranger (I didn't want to create it now in case the article is restored for review) — frankie (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Dualus (talk · contribs) has asked me to userfy the article, which I've done at User:Dualus/Romsey Town Rollerbillies. causa sui (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Romsey Town Rollerbillies. Dualus (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative request Given the comments from Fram and frankie, I also request undeletion so that a rescue tag can be added for a three month trial. Dualus (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, what? An article is deleted, so you want to restore it for three months with a "rescue tag", which is only supposed to be on the article during an AfD? Why would we start keeping articles around for three months instead of the 7 days of normal AfDs? Bring it to the incubator and ask for help at a Wikiproject of your choice, but assuming this DRV doesn't overturn the deletion, it should not be brought back into the mainspace without serious improvements (meaning a lot more authoritative sources or other clear claims of notability; and for the record, if there would come a championship with only one or even two divisions, being one of the "top division" clubs still wouldn't count for me: highest level appearance only counts when there are a sufficient number of other levels, otherwise "highest" becomes meaningless). Fram (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your evaluation of the sources is generally good, but the extent to which it shows that this is a borderline case reinforces my belief that it deserves a rescue tag with a three month trial per WP:NOTPAPER and [9] and I would be interested to learn if there are any reasons to the contrary. I was unfamiliar with WP:INCUBATOR#Incubation vs rescue and I have moved the article to the incubator and will alert the correct Wikiprojects, while still arguing that deletion should be overturned based on the fact that the deficiencies of the second and third sources cancel each other out. Thank you! Dualus (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative request withdrawn while request to overturn the deletion stands: BBC News source mentions team. Dualus (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that would be the best example of a trivial mention I have seen this year. Yoenit (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The BBC announces a match, and it's trivial? Why, because the team name is in parentheses? Because it's in a sidebar? The BBC is the national news authority in the team's country. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't matter if it is scripture divined from the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it is a mere namedrop with no substantial information provided about the team. The example at the bottom of the notability policy might help in understanding the difference between a trivial mention and substantial coverage. Yoenit (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have never read such deletionist drivel in my life. Are we honestly discouraged from sourcing the name of Bill Clinton's high school band simply because his biographer only gives mention of it one sentence? You may submit your definition of what is and is not trivial to the desperate vagaries of deletionists' attempts at policy footnotes, but I maintain that an announcement by the BBC, or any local news authority, is not trivial, even if it is only one sentence. Dualus (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • We can source Clinton's biography for the name of his high school band, but you can't use it alone to justify notability, as the notability guideline requires significant coverage. You really can't argue with a straight face that the BBC mention is "significant coverage". Sceptre ^(talk) 20:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The consensus in the AFD was a clear delete, although several participants expressed they would support recreation if additional sources could be found. The only source added to the article since the deletion is a trivial mention BBC News, which does not establish notability in any form. Yoenit (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubated and ready for WP:GRADUATION. I added another news source mention and their facebook, blog, myspace page, forum, and team email. There's plenty more on Google so I'll just keep adding stuff until someone moves it to mainspace. Dualus (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the team would like to avoid spam on their email adress, so I removed it from the article. Also only a single official link should be used (see WP:ELOFFICIAL), so if the article is ever restored to mainspace all those links will be removed. Yoenit (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was a gmail address. Please move any further material you delete to the talk page for discussion. Dualus (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore & list as desired No real discussion of sources at all in that discussion and discussion of GNG was highly limited. Two good sources [10] and [11] that are reliable sources with solid coverage (and I can't see how Stars and Stripes (newspaper) isn't reliable.) Hobit (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have added four sources, reworked all three paragraphs, identified their current practice location and schedule, added seven external links including three videos, and now I think I'll check out their Facebook. Dualus (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- close adequately reflected the discussion. DRV nominator should remember that DRV is not AfD Round 2, and that calling people names is unhelpful. Reyk _YO! 23:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are suggesting that I have called someone names, it would be helpful if you would please specify who so that I might consider a retraction. Dualus (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Another source Official UK government source. Dualus (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, no good reason to overturn. I would note that this is being undeleted by stealth, with a redirect in mainspace that's been added to multiple articles and mainspace categories added to the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the redirect because it is used in a template. There are plenty of bluelinks that went red when it was deleted. Dualus (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I deleted that redirect since cross-namespace redirects are not allowed. Please don't try to disrupt the deletion process again. Fram (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closing admin's decision properly reflected the consensus at the AfD. AfD review is here to determine if the discussion was closed correctly, it's not AfD round 2 for you to continue arguing the merits of the article. Trusilver 03:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing the merits of the deleted article, I'm arguing the merits of the incubator version which now has thirteen sources (seven more than when it was deleted -- all secondary), a new logo, seven additional external links, and a complete re-work of all the prose and reference formatting. It's a completely different article. I just added a half hour Affinity Radio Cambridge program from a noted sports broadcaster. The incubated article is now so far within the inclusion criteria I see no need to prolong this absurd DRV. Dualus (talk) 04:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apart from the fact that none of the sources you added seem to meet the standards for sources from WP:N. Note that your BBC source, or the Newark source, are truly extremely passing mentions, that your "government source" is an ad for another roller derby team on their community website, mentioning again this team in passing only, that the wereallneighbours source is clearly not an independent reliable source but an advert, and so on. While the page now has a lot more sources, it still isn't any nearer our guidelines than the deleted one, and isn't ready to be brought back to the mainspace at all. Oh, and please don't reactivate the categories, Lifebaka helpfully deactivated them but you just turned them back on. I have deactivated them again. Please stop your efforts to get this page as it stands listed in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "None?" You completely ignore their coverage in the regional match reporting authority, the half hour radio interview, and other sources I've added. And you deleted the redlink from the United Kingdom Roller Derby Association leagues' template -- a completely Orwellian attempt to erase mention of them from other editors' work. I most certainly will not stop any efforts to get the page listed in the mainspace, and I intend to raise issues pertaining to your conduct with other administrators. Dualus (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Feel free to do so. Deleted articles are routinely removed from navigational templates, because, well, you can't use them to navigate anymore... Euroderby.org is passing mentions, not significant coverage, leaving only affinitydab. This "noted sports broadcaster" (in your words) is a local digital radio station from the city of the league itself, which started on April 8 2011. While it is indepth coverage, it hardly is the kind of reliable source we are looking for. See e.g. the guideline WP:ORG: "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". An interview on a local, recent, digital radio station doesn't meet the standards of our notability guidelines. If any of the other new sources are better, please indicate which ones you mean. Fram (talk) 12:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you point to another example of a deleted article from a well documented set (of leagues in this case, or teams, or any set where the membership is not in dispute) being removed from a navbox instead of being left as a redlink or unlinked? The word you are overlooking in the guideline you quote is "solely." Roller derby has been identified on the Wikimedia Foundation's Gendergap mailing list as a frequent subject of systemic gender bias, and I urge you to reconsider your decision before it is necessary to scrutinize it further. Dualus (talk) 14:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Modern Athletic Derby Endeavor is an example. There were several red links to the article after it was deleted that were removed: one and two. --LauraHale (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, you got me there. I removed a redlink to this article in a navigational template because I'm a misogynist. No need to scrutinize this any further, I confess. I'll think I'll stop discussing this with you if that is the level we have reached... Fram (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not being sarcastic. You speedily deleted the article, then nominated it for deletion less than an hour after it was recreated, and subsequently have heavily involved yourself in both the AfD and DRV. Do you think sarcasm is appropriate when you are asked for an example which would show that your actions are not out of the ordinary? The article now has 17 sources and I again urge you to reconsider your decision. Dualus (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Original AfD was fine, clearly reflecting the consensus to delete. The incubated version still does not pass the general notability threholds, and is typical of what you see when a fan of the subject matter scrapes the google searches for any and all name-drops of said subject. Primary sources, calendar entries at the local government webpage, and so on. An encyclopedia is not a platform from which to advertise one's favorite Parks & Rec activities. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I am not now, and nor have I ever been a fan of roller derby. I have never attended a roller derby match and I have no desire to do so. I have never been to Cambridgeshire or anywhere closer to it than Heathrow airport once in 2000. I have not seen the movie which recently sparked interest in the sport. My sole source of information about this topic before I started editing the article was the Wikimedia Foundation's gendergap mailing list. Dualus (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In response to the original deletion request for this article, we worked to hammer out a set of notability requirements for roller derby leagues that can be found at Wikipedia:NSPORTS#Roller_derby. Most of the notability requirements that appear in the criteria were reasons why this article was originally deleted. I'd argue the league is now notable because of July 2009, they participated in the first European roller derby tourney, "'Roll Britannia, at Earls Court.". That said, I would like to see the article expanded to include more information on tournaments of this type they participated in. It is on the margins of being notable by these standards but could use more help getting there. (Almost, not quite.) --LauraHale (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proliferation of yet another so-called WP:SNG (single notability guideline) would be precisely the way I would not want to proceed here. The ones we have lying around the project at present are thin enough as it is, but crafting one specifically for roller derby of all things, just to squeeze in articles that are an otherwise notability failure is an awful idea. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roller derby is one of the fastest growing women's participation sports in the Australia.[12] and possibly the world. [13][14][15][16][17][18] So yes, there is a need for such a guideline to distinguish between what leagues are notable and what ones are not. --LauraHale (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because disk space is too expensive? Because readers will somehow be confused if we have an article for every Podunk team? I hate how much attention sports get on Wikipedia, but I see no reason for these ridiculously exclusionary notability criteria. What are the actual reasons for them? Dualus (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines as they were proposed were intended to help demonstrate who would pass WP:GNG and protect those on the margins. I'm all for being inclusive, but unless it can be shown in general that almost every roller derby league that exists would pass WP:GNG, then we'd be opening a can of worms that I'd rather not see open and having to fight. --LauraHale (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at WT:NSPORTS citing WP:CREEP after the roller derby section break. Dualus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Overturn The use of a specialized notability guideline is exactly the way we ought to proceed here, and according to the evidence just represented, the league can meet it. I would certainly be much happier if the sport did have a ranking system we could instead refer to, but in the absence of one we have the right to do whatever is reasonable. My view is the opposite of Tarc's, which will surprise nobody: special guidelines usually more often correspond to the facts of the matter, and lead to more rational choices. The GNG has its place, but its not for specialized topics for which there are rational subject-based criteria. And I consider this to holds in both directions: if a specialized guideline were more restrictive the the GNG, it will usually still be the better choice. I think of myself as wanting to make subject based decisions--if that leads to a tendency to include more articles in some fields than the GNG would do, it shows merely the lack of real-world applicability of the GNG. It equally in some fields will lead to fewer articles, similarly showing the inadequacies of the GNG. The only thing which would show its adequacy is if it led to generally the same result. DGG ( talk ) 07:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I have to agree, SNGs are the best way to keep articles that otherwise wouldn't meet our GNG. Let's lower the bar for our pet articles if keping them otherwise would be impossible! Your circular reasoning is that the GNG is incorrect, because the SNG will lead to mroe articles, and the fact that these articles would be deleted under the GNG shows how incorrect it is... Claiming that this are "rational" subject-based criteria is irrelevant, the GNG is also a set of rational criteria, and it has global consensus, while you are suggesting to overturn a deletion on the basis of a not accepted local SNG... Fram (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The purpose wasn't to be more inclusive but rather to make it easier to delete ones that clearly weren't going to pass WP:GNG. Melbourne Men's Roller Derby League is not going to pass WP:GNG and the guidelines work to exclude them. Light City Derby is not going to pass WP:GNG and the guidelines again keep them out. (So we have some one suggesting that the guidelines are too exclusionary, and another person arguing that the guidelines allow everyone. Isn't this jolly good fun?) --LauraHale (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: people have taking into consideration tha the league supposedly "participated in the first European roller derby tourney". However, the team did not particiapte, some members of the team were part of a mixed team of people from different leagues... Fram (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are conflicting sources on that. Dualus (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

? Please tell us which reliable, independent sources disagree with my note. Fram (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Closing admin's decision properly reflected consensus. Proposed revisions are an improvement but remain insufficient to establish notability. Neutrality^talk 06:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review WP:NSPORTS. Dualus (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Disruption. Can someone else please explain that misusing the mainspace to defend this article is rather severely discouraged. Edits like this one are not helpful at all (and violate our WP:NFCC as well). The worst thing you can do when you are disagreeing with the deletion of an article is making such a mess that you get blocked in the end. Fram (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry I'm not up to date on cross-namespace links. What do you think has been disruptive? That action was to save the logo, which a bot is threatening to delete because nobody has yet assessed the article. Dualus (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First cross-namespace links should never be used in articles as except as normal part of some process such as AfD, RM, or a link to guidance in a cleanup template. Second Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and so should never be used as a reference. That together with the text and actual link could definitely be seen as disruptive as yet another attempt to circumvent the deletion process. If you want to save the logo use your hard drive.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Do any of these secondary sources have trivial coverage?
  • http://www.newarkadvertiser.co.uk/articles/news/Getting-skates-on-for-a-new-sport
  • http://www.stripes.com/military-life/rockin-rollers-1.102453
  • http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Health-and-Beauty/Get-your-skates-on-girl.htm
  • http://www.affinitydab.com/2011/07/06/yoursport-roller-derby/
  • http://www.skateinfo.org/roller-derby.html
  • http://rollinnews.com/2011/07/brighton-6th-august-quadrophobia/
  • http://www.euroderby.org/scores (I think the last three are borderline but still substantial.) Dualus (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Smith (minister) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was speedily deleted under A7. This is a total misuse of the CSD. The subject is the Principal of the Presbyterian Theological Centre. This is certainly an assertion of notability, and probably passes Criterion 6 of WP:PROF - "has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution". The deleting admin referred to WP:NOTINHERITED, which clearly does not apply here. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn clear assertion of notability. Admin's comments on his talk page imply he might be well served to review WP:N and WP:CSD#A7. An article need only assert notability, it need not document it. And it something that may meet one of our SNGs is also generally not a good A7 candidate. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn  Based on the credible explanation from the nom.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeusM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Not appropriate for speedy deletion. Admin Phantomsteve supported speedy deletion because "The first two references appear to be press releases - so not independent. I can see nothing to indicate their significance..." Notability (if this what is meant) is a non-criterion for speedy deletion unless the article gives no "reasonable indication" of notability. In fact, the article -- which was newly created -- was supported by references to articles in two national journals, complete with link, date of publication and byline. Phantomsteve first claimed that the articles were "press releases". Since on examination this was unsupportable, Phantomsteve claimed they might be based on press releases: this is speculative OR and -- even if correct -- overlooks that use of press releases by journalists is standard practice; it's why press releases exist. Speedy deletion is for articles which are unambiguously inappropriate and have no chance of being made encyclopedic. In this case it was premature, and the reasons given are inoperative. WebHorizon (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

• In the talk page discussion, Phantomsteve was out of line. Administrators are elected to delete material (a) where there's a community consensus for deletion, (b) where there's an expired prod, or (c) where certain narrowly-defined speedy deletion criteria are precisely and exactly met. If none of those criteria obtain, then the administrator should seek consensus, not just impose their personal opinion about what should happen. Administrators should not set their own judgment higher than that of other editors, and neither should they be intransigent or obstructive.

  In my opinion, when it became clear that there was a discussion to be had about whether the article was really sourced to a press release or not, Phantomsteve should have deferred to the AfD process.—S Marshall T/C 16:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and send to AfDas a reasonable contest of an A7 by an editor in good standing. If the newcomer wants a discussion,let him have it. The purpose of speedy criteria is not to prevent discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and send to AfD, as above. It smells speediable, if not by letter of the law. I don't much fancy its chances in AfD, however. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, and send to AfD In the discussion at [19], the admin said "Firstly, the "significance" I mentioned above was not referring to the amount of coverage in the individual references, but to the significance of the company itself." The discussion on the references can be seen as a side issue, which will of course be relevant at AfD. The article as I see it claims 3 industry awards which is an indication of notability if the prizes are even possibly significant in good faith (obviously claiming bogus awards or self-awards is not an indication of significance. I see no reason to think they're not genuine and on that rationale, I would not have deleted, However, I interpret the admins other discussion as giving advice of whether the page will stand at AfD, or discussing the fact that a decent reference for a 3rd party source sometimes is seen as an reason against speedy deletion, though there is no rule to that effect. In giving advice, I will usually in addition to explaining why i deleted or choose not to delete, give some reasons why the article would probably not pass AfD in any case, but it's necessary to very carefully separate this from discussing whether the speedy was justified. DGG ( talk ) 12:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If restored, more references can be added. It was a new article and there wasn't a chance between nomination for speedy deletion and deletion to add anything of substance.WebHorizon (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

I guess someone will close this eventually?WebHorizon (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

This is an image taken by me from my book स्वाधीनता संग्राम के क्रान्तिकारी साहित्य का इतिहास Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas(Part-III) ISBN 8177831224(Set) page no 863. I am the author of this book and also hold its copyright. This image is freely released by me in the public domain. You can see this image in wikimedia commons. This is a historical document which should not be deleted.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma ^{(talk•Email)} Krantmlverma (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Because this image is on our sister project Wikimedia Commons, it's a waste of file space to have it on Wikipedia as well. If you want to link to the image on Wikipedia, you need only type [[File:Accused of Kakori Case 1925.jpg]] into the article, and your picture will appear.—S Marshall T/C 11:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (Later) I have fixed the page Hindustan Socialist Republican Association so that your image appears. The problem was one missing space.—S Marshall T/C 12:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as moot. The discussion this refers to is at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 October 9#File:Accused of Kakori Case1925.jpg. But as mentioned above the image is (also) available via Commons. The PD release resolves the copyright issue; given that the photos date to the 1920s it's probably not worth the bother examining whether their repoduction in the book violates any copyright. The image is of very poor quality and might be considered for deletion on these grounds, but that's for Commons to determine.  Sandstein  20:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as moot, as above. S Marshall's restore was successful and, for what it's worth, I think it does improve the article and should be retained in the Commons, unless a clearer copy becomes available. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image taken by me from a book सरफरोशाने वतन Sarfaroshane Vatan published in 1999 by Swaraj Bhawan Bhopal (India). This book does not have any copyright. This image is freely released by me in the public domain. You can see this image in wikimedia commons. This is also a historical document which should not be deleted.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma ^{(talk•Email)} Krantmlverma (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Same reply as above. It's unnecessary to store this file on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, one or the other will suffice.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This file hasn't ever existed. I assume you're instead referring to File:LalaHarDayal294.GIF. I'm only going to reply to one of these because the issue is the same on both. If a picture appears in a book, the assumption is that whoever wrote the book owns the copyright of the picture. If you take a photograph of the picture in the book, that is a derivative work, which you do not own exclusive copyright on. In order for you to publish those pictures under the license you did, the book would also have to be available under a compatible license, which we highly doubt (for some reason, publishers like to actually own their books). Now, copyright law might work massively differently in India, but this is how things work where most Western Wikipedians are, so we tend to assume this is also how things work elsewhere; if I'm wrong about the law, please do correct me. Oh, and endorse the deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Lifebaka, are you under the impression that the copyright in a book normally belongs to the publisher? Because if so, I'm afraid you've been misinformed. The copyright in a book's text normally belongs to the author and in its images belongs to the photographer or illustrator. There are exceptions where the author is an employee or operates under a work-for-hire agreement of some kind, but these are not normal.—S Marshall T/C 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think either of you are exactly right. It's not a question of copyright law, but of contract, and depends on the individual case. At least for US , it is normal for the author of a trade book to own the copyright but assign the publisher an license, which may or may not be exclusive for a period of time. If exclusive, they cannot give it to us also. If the author asserts they hold the copyright, and asserts they are free to license it, and there is no information otherwise, we accept that statement. On the other hand, the publisher almost always obtains only a non-exclusive license from the photographer, who will normally hope to sell he photograph elsewhere also, in which case the photographer can indeed give us a free license as well. If a person asserts themselves to be the photographer as says he has the right to the photograph , and there is no information otherwise, we accept that statement. DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DGG: the publisher typically licences, for example, First North American Serial Rights, or First Indian Print Rights.—S Marshall T/C 15:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, doesn't change the substance of the argument, but I will keep it in mind. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion for this article was closed on 25 November 2009 by Jayjg (talk) and re-deleted by Jayjg on 23 October 2011, with the decision that may not have reflected the significant new information that has come to light since the deletion. There were four delete and one redirect on 25 November 2009. Beside it being deleted on 25 November 2009 by Jayjg. I would like to know the reason for the deletion of Tinchy Stryder's song "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)", by Jayjg once again on 23 October 2011, after 4 years and 7 months of the song being released as the first official single from Tinchy Stryder's debut studio album Star in the Hood on 9 April 2007?. I have left Jayjg a message on their user talk page, but I have yet to receive a reply to the explanation of the article being re-deleted. The reason given for deletion on 25 November 2009 by Jayjg was that the song lacked notability to Tinchy Stryder. But here in 2011, I have collected this Twitter status from Tinchy Stryder from 18 October 2011, clearly confirming that the "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" is a notable song to Tinchy Stryder after 4 years and 7 months. Here is the Twitter status of the song confirmation, just click on this link ----> http://twitter.com/#!/TinchyStryder/status/126257795321430016, so what I'm trying to get at is that if Wikipedia administrators such as Jayjg are deleting articles or not including songs that a notable artist clearly states as one of their notable songs especially one that is the first single from their debut studio albums, then what good does it do to the artist work throughout their music career and for people using Wikipedia as a verifiable and correct information website or encyclopedia on peoples. I find it amusing that the website http://www.grimepedia.co.ukview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Breakaway and http://www.grimepedia.co.ukview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Star_In_The_Hood gets the information about Tinchy Stryder and his 2007 single "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder song)" and 2007 debut studio album Star in the Hood more accurate than that of Wikipedia. I would possibly go as far as to say perhaps people should visit that website for a verifiable biography of Tinchy Stryder. Please if you can possibly now un-delete the "Breakaway (Tinchy Stryder)" Wikipedia article that I have recently re-created for this reason I have stated above. Thank you.
MarkMysoe (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason Jayg redeleted the article was given in the deletion log: "Recreation of a page that was deleted via a deletion discussion." With regards to the notability of the song, that is determined according to our guideline. Whether the artist twittered about the song is irrelevant and does not show notability in any way. As I see no evidence that this song has become notable since 2009 I am gonna Endorse the original deletion and Jayg's redeletion. Also, ROFL at this being a "verifiable biography". Yoenit (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• That title should be a redirect to Tinchy Stryder discography#As lead artist, or alternatively, to Star in the Hood (album). It should not be a separate article, but it should also not be a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Risky Business (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer, King of Hearts has closed The discussion has been closed with results that may not have reflected inadequacy or insufficiency of arguments and consensus. There were three delete and one redirect. Also, the closer has been under the administrative review which puts his duties into question. Gh87 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A) I'd strongly suggest you strike the "under administrative review" part. That's voluntary and certainly doesn't say anything negative about the admin (the opposite in fact). At DrV it's wise to not comment on the closer, but rather on the close. B) Redirect is the standard outcome in situations like this and it was suggested in the AfD. So endorse Hobit (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Hobit. I don't see even the hint of an argument here against redirection. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and suggest that other encouragement may be needed to get the nom here to actually read and understand the deletion policies. He's been on a campaign to delete--rather than just redirect--TV episodes. If an episode isn't notable, it should almost always redirected to the show or season article, regardless of the head-counting in the AfD, because of WP:ATD, which is policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This nomination is totally without merit and should be closed.—S Marshall T/C 09:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Fowler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Arguments from those who voted keep are based on knowledge of soap operas and their entities, NOT on establishing notability of this article's subject. However, it was a non-administrative closure by Rcsprinter123, and the arguments that favor merge have become less reliable in the wakes of recent events, such as removal of "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" under WP:G12. Honestly, the latest keep argument points out merely the reject proposed policy on fictional characters. I thought: arguments appear insufficient to conclude a discussion; I demand a relist, and I demand to add more of my arguments, if possible, can help. --Gh87 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Gh87's deletion rationale in the AFD was invalid, as it was entirely based on the current state of the article contra WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP, and failed to consider alternatives to deletion. Jfgslo's !vote was the same unelaborated boilerplate in every pop culture-related AFD he participates in (one part WP:VAGUEWAVE, one part "it's just not notable"), and the other deletion !vote was also just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which at a minimum leaves the deletion side without a compelling argument, just opinion, and at most means this could have been closed as "no consensus" given that the bare opinions in this AFD were split. However, DGG's comments were the most substantive and consistent with consensus, so together with the other keep !voters, it certainly wasn't unreasonable to close this as "keep" and that result is not contrary to any policy here.

  Re: the DRV rationale above, the deletion of a character list because it contained copyright infringements has absolutely no relevance to anything here. And Gh87 should take care not to "demand" anything. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you thought my arguments are invalid and other deletion !votes vague, what about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1? That resulted a delete: isn't it to you premature to conclude? --Gh87 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe yes, DGG's argument was "most substantive and consistent with consensus." Morever, it wasn't "unreasonable to close this as 'keep'." However, it was enough for the non-administrator, but what about administrator's judgment? I've read over and over DGG's argument, and I've conclude: the argument was a pledge to educate major fictional elements, notable or not, sourced or not, to readers; the notability of the "major" character and reliability of sources were absent from the argument. I've been thinking: would the administrator close it as "keep"? --Gh87 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is a defensible closing, the AfD was already relisted once, and this is not a BLP or other page where incorrectly keeping it creates any real-world problems or risks. As a point of etiquette, in suggesting the outcome of an XfD or any other discussion on Wikipedia, the phrase "I demand" comes off sounding extremely strident and should generally not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck it right now for your request. --Gh87 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the above. Nom has repeatedly demonstrated a basic failure to understand or abide by deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This nomination is totally without merit and should be closed.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this is an appropriate NAC, and I'm of the view that NACs, especially inappropriate NACs, are not entitled to the deference we usually accord to admin closes, and should be sustained only if there is no reasonable alternative close, which is not the case here. Overturn and reclose. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I doubt this'll be closed any other way, but as an NAC? I'm not convinced. Four keeps against three deletes, with very little discussion actually based on policy/guidelines... overtutn and reclose. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is the kind of discussion that I wanted to close as a non-admin but usually didn't because I was afraid of being bitten. It is on the border of "Keep" and "No Consensus" and so arguably not obvious enough for a NAC but equally clearly not closable as a "Delete". Since admins have no special ability to read consensus (as opposed to their special ability to delete) there is no reason to force a re-close with the same result. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in this case keep vs. no consensus is a judgment call. And there are practical differences between the two (a no consensus makes a subsequent AfD easier to bring) so it's not a purely semantic issue. At least in theory, the quality of judgment of an admin has been tested at RfA, but the same cannot be said for that of a non-admin (and the very fact that a non-admin decided to close this AfD when it's pretty clearly non-obvious arguably shows questionable judgment). T. Canens (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, administrators do not have a monopoly over decision-making functions on Wikipedia, and no, passing RFA is not test of your quality of judgment. Our admin corps is by and large well-meaning, but it contains children, self-confessed drug users, and a small percentage of complete and utter fools. Many who have the tools wouldn't have a snowball's chance of passing a modern RFA, and there are some who'll lose them when we eventually find a mechanism for community de-adminship.

      Anyone can close a discussion as "no consensus" or "keep", and that's as it should be. For DRV purposes, the only question that should matter is, was the close correct? The status of the closer would only be relevant if they were a sock for a blocked user.—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Though obviously I think the close correct, since I argued for keeping at the AfD, it should not have been a NAC. NAC's of disputed articles with relatively borderline consensus tend to come here; it would be better to avoid them in order to try to eliminate unnecessary further argumentation. Not that all admins necessarily do better closes than all non-admins, but at least an appeal of an admin close will need to focus on the actual issues. DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• wrongful speedy. not a recreation of deleted page, rather a new referenced list article based strictly on the model: Frink Medal.
• wrongful AfD. no before. list of notable scientists, who list on their CV's. in addition medal itself is listed in museums, [20] and auction houses.[21] Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I believe that the article, as it was, was fairly flawed (wrong list of winners for example). I don't think the article can meet WP:GNG, but I'd certainly be willing to see if you can get it there. I think you can perhaps turn this into a "list of" for the winners (assuming a fair number of them are notable). In any case, I'd suggest you withdraw the DRV and ask for the article be moved to your user space. You could then fix it up. I'd suggest you only move it to mainspace after A) finding two solid reliable sources or B) getting permission from DRV or the deleting admin (neither of which would prevent someone from sending it off to AfD). Hobit (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• RestoreIt was deleted primarily for not being correct. The new one is properly sourced and is not. The G4 was donewithout sufficient checking of the anAfDd the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, could we get a temp restore of both the AfDed page and the Speedied page? Hobit (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I undeleted the G4'd version and put the last edit of the AfD'd version in my userspace here, to avoid confusing the histories. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! Hobit (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and send to AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4 by an editor in good standing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• restore pretty much per smokeyJoe. It isn't the same article by any means, so not really a G4 in any case. Not clear that it will make it at AfD though... Hobit (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore: And send to AfD if necessary.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Palmquist (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm new as a Wikipedia editor. I registered a few days ago, soon after discovering that a valuable article that I had consulted previously had been deleted. The article is about a contemporary philosopher, Stephen Palmquist, who, in my opinion, is one of the leading experts on Kant’s philosophy. I located the deleted version, then read the Talk page that ended in the initial deletion decision. I then uploaded my significantly revised version, with numerous changes that I believe satisfy all the requirements of Wikipedia's Notability rules, as I understand them. To my surprise, it was deleted via speedy deletion, without any discussion of the merits of its significant revisions! Dao4Andrej (talk) 22:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Original Admin closure of AFD was as per policy, specifically that there is no proof of notability nor did he meet WP:PROF. Article was recreated and CSD'd accordingly. Above statement shows no policy-based reasoning for keeping. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My request is not to undelete the original page, deleted in August 2011. I agree that the original deletion decision did follow correct Wikipedia policy. I am asking to undelete the revised version I created on the 14th of October 2011, so that anyone participating in this discussion can have access to the new evidence to show that the subject now passes WP:PROF. On that "Notability (academics)" page, the first and I think most important criteria is: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I guess any living Kant scholar who now has a Wikipedia page would, if asked, say that Palmquist undoubtedly passes this test. As evidence of this, my revised page cites numerous independent reliable sources that were not on the original page but are now included in the footnotes of the revised version I created. These include: (1) several books by scholars who offer lengthy, detailed discussion of this philosopher’s influence and work, including books published by Indiana University Press (2009) and in the Stockholm Studies in Philosophy series (2004); (2) multiple books that contain explicit statements confirming that this person is one of the most influential living philosophers in the field of Kant studies and that go on to expand on this philosopher’s theories in various ways, including books published in Northwestern University’s Studies in Phenomenology & Existential Philosophy series (1997), and by Ashgate (2007); (3) one example of a journal article, published in a major philosophy of religion journal, that is entirely devoted to an analysis of one of this philosopher’s arguments; (4) references to translations of several of Palmquist’s books into both Chinese and Indonesian; and (5) a reference to a new translation of one of Kant’s major works, published by Hackett (2009), with the scholarly introduction written by Palmquist. All of these qualify as reliable sources as per WP:RS, and more could be cited. But these changes surely do provide significant proof that the criteria of WP:PROF have been met. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dao4Andrej (talk • contribs) 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we have the subject material temporarily restored for DRV purposes, please. I would like to see this for myself.—S Marshall T/C 11:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Clear Xfd. The nomination argument is that Palmquist is an author of sources for Kantianism. This is true, but does not speak to the wikipedia-notability of Palmquist. Email the deleted verion requested to User:Dao4Andrej for him to build a better article with the sources he mentions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Temp undeleted for review. On a side note, I'm not certain whether I am being reviewed here for the AFD or Fastily for the CSD, but if anyone needs a comment from me about the AFD, you can ping me on my talk page.--v/r - TP 12:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks, TParis. I should be clear that I endorse the August 2011 deletion as a correct reflection of the consensus at the AfD, but I also think that's uncontroversial, since the nominator isn't challenging it. The question is whether we'll allow a replacement article to be created.

  By convention, DRV will allow recreation of an article where the reasons for deletion are overcome. In this case, this is slightly complicated because the AfD's conclusion—"fails WP:PROF"—relates to a specific notability guideline, and DRV will not normally uphold a specific notability guideline. It will be in order to recreate this article based on evidence that the subject passes the general notability guideline.

  Has such evidence been provided? No. Stephen Palmquist's corpus of academic work is substantial, but that does not mean that Palmquist himself is notable. There are no independent sources about him. We have excellent sources by Palmquist, but no independent sources about him. The distinction is important. A topic is suitable for Wikipedia if, and only if, there are reliable independent sources, and the only information we have about basic biographical details comes from one of Palmquist's own publications.

  I think it's important that we explain to the nominator here the reasons why Wikipedians are very careful, very conservative, and very rules-orientated, when it comes to biographies of living persons. The rules themselves are at WP:BLP, but the context and history that led to the rules is at Wikipedia biography controversy, which makes sobering reading.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no sign of meeting WP:N, no sign of meeting WP:PROF per the AfD. The discussion had strong support for deletion. I see no basis for undeletion at this time. Hobit (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Updated below based on new article. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit re-creation The original one was indeed unacceptable, and the combination of CV-like writing and the apparent advocacy of his views undoubtedly contributed to the discussion. Some of the views expressed in that AfD were very aberrant, including the view that h index has any relevance in the humanities. I did not participate in this one, but I would not have found it easy to argue for meeting WP:PROF on the basis of the material presented. In my opinion, the simplest way to go ahead is with WP:AUTHOR--the requirements for that are actually very easy to meet. Do you have available reviews of his books? Two substantial reviews for each of two books will normally meet it. If so, I will help you with the article Let's see them--and where is your proposed new version.? DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good thought. I'd suggest we hold off on restoration until two such reviews are found. I would think that given the number of books he's written that should be trivial, but I've not been able to locate any after a short search. Not my area though... Hobit (talk)
• Endorse deletion. But I have no prejudice against a new article on Palmquist that makes his notability clear. (By the way, Dao4Andrej, your article is styled a bit like a CV, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. That would have to change too. (Though it's not relevant to whether the article should exist or not.)) Ozob (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It might be relevant that palmquist started an organization in Hong Kong (I know as I used to live there) called the 'Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe" back in the 90's. It now has lots of branches and a yahoogroup mailing list with something like 700 members last I knew. plus there've been tons of articles in the local newspapers talking about how popular it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find an article (in any language) that lists him as the founder and discusses the group? It probably won't be enough by itself, but it would help. The more it discussed Palmquist the better! Hobit (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I remember there was a feature article in the South China Morning Post, back in the 90s. I think that's where he first announced to the public his idea of starting the philosophy cafe. The newspaper charges to download its articles, so I can't get a url for the original, but I found the article text on several other websites. Try this: http://geocities.ws/centersophon/press/newagesa.html. I tried to search for some of the other articles on the paper's website, but seems they only let subscribers do the searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talk • contribs) 08:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Assuming good faith that that is a copy of a real article, restore. That article is one RS with reasonable level of detail. The other sources added to that give us enough for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In his comment on 21 October 2011, S Marshall says "There are no independent sources about him. We have excellent sources by Palmquist, but no independent sources about him." I'm confused by this, as it is not true about my revised version, unless I'm wrong about what counts as an "independent source". In my above posting, I gave examples of five types of new sources (some with multiple examples) that are provided in my revised version, and these are all "independent" sources. That means that none of them are written by Palmquist, right? Also, they are all published in WP:RS venues. Why is something more than this necessary to confirm that WP:RS has been met? I admitted from the start that I imitated the format of the original version when recreating this page. So, if the problem is with the CV format of that original page, then maybe someone who has a clearer idea of what that means can help by revising the text so that appearance is no longer there. Dao4Andrej (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources also need to be independent of the topic. That means not written by him or in a work he controls (introduction to his book for example). Can you identify reliable sources in that article that have that property? Hobit (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please check the revised text, which is now available online. If you look at footnote 1, you'll see the reference to Quarfood's book published by Stockholm Studies in Philosophy. Likewise, footnote 3 has the reference to Cutrofello's book, published by Northwestern Univresity Press, though I now see that the publisher needs to be added for that one. Footnote 5 has the references to the Indiana University Press book (okay, that one was co-edited by Palmquist, so it doesn't count as fully independent) and the Ashgate book by Peter Byrne. Footnote 7 should have a reference to the entire article by Perovich, but I see now that it only refers to Palmquist's rejoinder, so the details of the original reply article should also be added, once the page is reinstated. The reference to Palmquist's scholarly introduction to Kant's book is in footnote 8; and by the way, I disagree with the claim that this isn't "independent". Perhaps I didn't make clear before: the book is a different scholar's (not Palmquist's) translation of Kant's book on religion, and a publisher will never invite someone other than the translator to write a scholarly introduction like that unless the person is among the most well-respected scholars in the field. Moreover, the author of such an introduction definitely is NOT in control of the book, as it is not his book; in this case, the book is (translated) by Pluhar. Finally, the details of the Chinese and Indonesian translations are given in footnote 15. If an academic has had substantial work translated into multiple languages, isn't that evidence of notoriety? I think one of his online CVs says his articles have been translated into something like seven language. If it is not already on WP:PROF, then perhaps someone should add "a substantial amount of the person's work has been translated into other major languages" to the criteria listed on that page, because surely this is one of the best proofs of notoriety! Dao4Andrej (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a new question; I haven't seen that discussed before. If I write a work, and someone else translates my work into a foreign language, is their translation of my work an independent source about me? My instinct says "probably not" but I have yet to think that through thoroughly, and at this stage I'm very willing to be convinced on the basis of reasoned debate that I'm wrong.—S Marshall T/C 23:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The things you are listing, from my reading of the article still aren't things about Palmquist. So your note 3 says "For example, Andrew Cutrofello cites Palmquist as the originator of this idea in his Imagining Otherwise" - that doesn't say he writes biographical information about Palmquist. The fact that he was invited to write an introduction, also isn't any actually about Palmquist. The idea his work has been translated into multiple languages also isn't anyone writing about the author. To me all this indicates that people are interested in his work and/or the subject matter of his work, but if no one is actually writing about him, then they aren't particularly interested in the person behind that work. And that's what notability is about for a biographical article, have people taken note of that person such that they write directly and in detail about that person? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where did this come from? WP:PROF lists nine criteria for academic notabiliy and none of them say that someone else must have already written a biography of the guy in order for a wikipedia biography to be allowable. Anyway, the link I provided before does fulfil this requirement, if it is a requirement. Much of that newspaper article is about "the person behind" his work. But if this decision is going to be based on WP:PROF, then this shouldnt be an issue. We should be looking at whether or not the article shows that "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talk • contribs) 02:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your first comment in this thread quotes S Marshall on exactly this subject : "...S Marshall says "There are no independent sources about him. We have excellent sources by Palmquist, but no independent sources about him.""
            The first sentence of your quote is exactly this, which is the bit you claim to be confused about. So it seems your confusion is further than that, read S Marshall's original comment in full rather than pulling a small piece out of context. Just prior to your quote he states "In this case, this is slightly complicated because the AfD's conclusion—"fails WP:PROF"—relates to a specific notability guideline, and DRV will not normally uphold a specific notability guideline. It will be in order to recreate this article based on evidence that the subject passes the general notability guideline". So there is your answer, it's a requirement of the WP:GNG that the subject receive coverage, directly and in detail, in multiple third party reliable sources. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Restore. We seem to be talking past each other here. I thought you were saying that someone has to have actual biographical information written about them in order to have qualify for WP:GNG. I don't see that requirement stated anywhere in WP:GNG or any other guidelines. If all your saying is that "the subject receive coverage, directly and in detail, in multiple third party reliable sources", hasn't Dao4Andrej given ample evidence of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adeledrop (talk • contribs) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Erm no, that's the point. There have been provided references to his work and other people referencing his work, but nothing about anyone writing about the person themselves. I'm not sure how else a third party source can write directly in detail about the person without it being at least partly biographical, so the GNG may not say that directly but it seems pretty much implicit to me. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't see how the view being promoted by 82.19.4.7 could be correct. Where is there anything on either WP:GNG or WP:PROF that even comes close to implying that the required independent sources must be "at least partly biographical" in order for a person to qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia? The vast majority of references to other persons in academic literature has no biographical content whatsoever. It's about the ideas. If independently published biographical material were an absolute requirement, most current Wikipedia articles on persons would need to be deleted. In any case, this is a moot point, because Adeledrop has provided such a source in this case. Dao4Andrej (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • WP:GNG '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail' - if you can show me material which address a person directly in detail which isn't a least biographical that's fine. You haven't produced any such sources biographical or otherwise. Believe it or not my saying I believe it's implied is not trying to trick you or change the rules, it's actually trying to help you understand why what you've produced so far is not convincing at least some of the people here. The material you've given addresses the persons ideas and works, not the person themself. I'm not going to keep on repeating myself, so if you haven't got it and just keep on waving towards the sources you've got then so be it. If the material references the persons ideas, then that's what people are interested in and that's what we should have an article on.--82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Once again, I repeat, the sources cited in the revised version do "address the subject directly in detail", as does the additional (biographical!) source provided by Adeledrop. The books I listed above are not just "other people referencing his work", as 82.19.4.7 claims; they are massive, detailed discussions extending in most cases to many pages of independently published works. Anyone familiar with philosophical literature will know that this is all you get when you do philosophy! You just don't get "the person", except in extremely rare cases. If we take this "implicit" rule that 82.19.4.7 is suggesting as a new norm, then the vast majority of pages about living philosophers that are currently on Wikipedia will need to be deleted. A quick review of random examples shows that hardly any living philosophers who currently have Wikipedia pages would pass this stringent test. Dao4Andrej (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UTC+01:30 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It is not covered in South African Standard Time, the deleter User:Jimfbleak didn't even bother to make a statement in the talk page, where it clearly says "Namibia is NOT covered in the article South African Standard Time.". TZ master (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Jim restored it. But User:Fastily did again delete under A10 - A violation of the rules since Namibia is mentioned in the article and is not covered by the other one. He even did so without tagging it first [22]. Fastily should be de-admined. TZ master (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From the logs, Fastily seems to have violated the sentence in bold in WP:WW, but I'm sure that was an accident. You're right to say that summary desysopping is technically possible for wheel warring, but that does not seem to be a reasonable or proportionate response in this case. I'm sure Fastily will restore the contested material as soon as he becomes aware of this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• From looking further into the revision logs, it appears that when Jimfbleak restored the article, he didn't remove the CSD template which put the article back into view of the CSD admins. No doubt it was an oversight that Fastily hadn't seen that it was recently restored. I cannot find a reason for the restore though. Jimfbleak didn't leave a edit notice in the restore, there is nothing on their talk page, and nothing at WP:REFUND giving us a hint what their rationale is. Either way, TZ master's request to desysop Fastily just isn't going to happen over a matter as small as this and it's a bit personal attackish.--v/r - TP 12:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Fastily did it twice to articles of mine within several hours, see Time in Portugal. If he is not following CSD A10 he should be stopped from the ability to delete under CSD A10. There is nothing specific to him as a person in my request, I would ask this to be enforced on every user. You may like to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment, this kind of new page deletion behavior seems to be a larger issue in WP. TZ master (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I now see that the 3rd A10 undeletion request on this review page, namely Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh was also deleted by User:Fastily. Big problem with that user. TZ master (talk) 15:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your turning this into a witch hunt against Fastily. He made a mistake so did the admin who restored It by not removing the tag. The issue involving Walsh is completly different. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Five pages are listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 20. Of them 3 deleted under CSD A10, all by Fastily. You can call that "a mistake", but counting brings it to "3 mistakes". At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/New pages experiment it is described what trouble these deletions cause. How many editors left WP due to deletions that violate CSD A10? TZ master (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're oversimplifying the WP:DRV process. DRV isn't a "Mistake or not" discussion. It discusses the merits of deletion discussions and rationals on a broader scope than what normal processes allow. It's more like a "Meta"-discussion. Getting overturned at DRV doesn't necessarily mean someone is wrong and likewise, getting endorsed at deletion doesn't mean someone was exactly accurate either.--v/r - TP 17:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the time wasted on this would have perhaps been better spent researching misapplication of CSD A10 as a whole and then considering a community wide RFC. We've already had RFCs on other forms of CSD in the past, and if there is a larger pattern of misapplication of A10, then a well written RFC with links to such cases would be of benefit to the community. This particular DRV here with jabs at Fastily does not benefit anyone, however. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

having been involved at new pages I agree that New users could be discouraged through speedy deletion. However in most cases it is the correct outcome if not a bit harsh initially. In this case a mistake was made by two admins which has been acknowledged. Please remember we are all volunteers and our admins do a job that is hard to please everyone. In at least one of the other cases on this page it could of been deleted under several codes. Although I am not an admin I feel that this should be lesson learn and moved on from I do not see how Fastily should have his admin powers removed over this. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)J[reply]

If Fastily applies CSD A10 with a lower error quota in the future and would show that he understood the mistake - I have no objection at all of him remaining an admin. TZ master (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm going to be frank. Your objections to Fastily's adminship are noted but irrelevant to this WP:DRV. WP:RFC/U is the proper location for such proposals.--v/r - TP 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close this nomination because TZ master is using it as a platform to attack Fastily.—S Marshall T/C 18:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That's your opinion, fact is I am revealing his mistakes and make suggestions how to avoid further such mistakes. What would you suggest how to avoid deletions by Fastily in the future that violate deletion rules? TZ master (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its fairly obvious you have an issue with Fastily you have been doing so here and on his talk page please stop attacking him. How many times. This is not the place you have been advised where to go if you want to take further. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, my opinion is that you're using this DRV as a platform to attack the deleter. Yes, that's a big no-no at DRV. DRV does not discipline administrators. We have no mandate to do that and we do not want one. DRV is about content, not conduct. If you think there's an issue with Fastily's conduct or judgment then the correct venue is supposed to be RFC/U, but the honest truth about that is that RFC/U will not avail you, because (1) there's no real problem with Fastily and (2) even if there was, it's still practically impossible to get someone desysopped unless they've done something completely egregious. For the vast majority, adminship on Wikipedia is for life.—S Marshall T/C 19:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close We don't really seem to need this DRV as the deletion was apparently a mistake and has since been turned into a disambiguation page. Any further discussion of where to locate the content itself and/or if UTC+01:30 should redirect somewhere can take place on one of the article talk pages. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close AND restore. It simply does not meet CSD A10. TZ master (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Braswell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First, I'm a novice at wikipedia and probably will not have the proper editing in this request I find working in Wikipedia very complicated and difficult. So I beg forgiveness in advance. That being said, please consider restoring this page (Donald Braswell). It was deleted with a speedy delete without any discussion. I requested it be restored and it was, but before I knew it was back, it was deleted again without discussion and I was not able to modify it. The info in the article is accurate and sanctioned by the talented gentleman I'm trying to honor, but he has been relatively unpublished. He authenticated the data in the article. Could it be put back at least with a brief mention of his achievements that any of these sources can help show that he did exist and was important in his day and enhances the information in wikipedia? Couldn't the pieces that people don't think are documented well enough just be deleted from the article, rather than deleting the entire piece? In my discussions with the admin who did the final deletion, he (politely) felt the additional sources were not enough to overturn the deletion and that there had to be more documentation than this. I'm hoping someone will help me get the page in acceptable format and restored with at least a minimal mention of his career on Broadway. (Without making it a full time job for me to do it.) I do hope those reviewing this deletions will read the original article (if they know how to find it, which I don't). Thank you.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001341/otherworks http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=96795 http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/ http://www.science24.org/show/Donald_Braswell http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/DonaldBraswellSr http://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Braswell-Sr/227932103885580 http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00498VEK4?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=digital-music&field-keywords=Donald%20Braswell%2C%20Sr http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Donald+Braswell,+Sr./a/albums.htm http://blog.mysanantonio.com/jackfishman/2011/03/whats-braswell-singing-this-weekend/ http://www.amazon.ca/American-Tenors-Patinkin-Stanley-Robinson/dp/1155841042 http://www.instantcast.com/AllStars/Donald_Braswell http://www.donaldbraswellfanclub.org/don_bra swell_sr.html http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_l/lil_abner.htm http://www.ibdb.com/production.php?id=2585 http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Li%27l_Abner_5574/ http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/people/Don_Braswell/ http://www.mindenmemories.org/Don%20Braswell.htm

These are the factual highlights of his career that I had in his wiki article, but there is little out there to source it.

1946 Singer/Entertainer At 17 years old Braswell, Sr opened the inaugural ball of newly elected governor of Louisiana, Earl Long 1952 Singer/Entertainer The Vic Dimone Show, Fort Bliss TX 1952 Singer/Entertainer El Paso Symphony Concert 1953 Touchstone Shakespeare's play "As You Like It" - A. A. Milne's play "The Fourth Wall" 6/1954-6/1955 Singer, dancer, & sailor The musical "Fanny" (on Broadway with Florence Henderson) 1955 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The musical "Li'l Abner" (On Broadway) 1956 Singer, dancer & Dogpatch Character The Ed Sulivan Show - episode with skits from Li'l Abner 1956 Filch The opera "The Beggar's Opera" (at the Met) 1956 The Soldier The opera "The Soldier" by Lehman Engel (At the Met) 1958 Finalist Competition with the Met

San Antonio Career: 1960-65 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Cantor High Holy Days 1960 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Handel's "Mesiah" 1961 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Verdi's "Requiem" 1962 Tenor Soloist The Liturgical Saint-Sans Christmas "Oratorio" 1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville" 1963 The Count The opera "Barber of Seville" 1963 Freddie The musical "My Fair Lady" 1965 Gangster, Guts Regan Ayn Rand's play "The Night of January 16th" 1968 Cocky The Texas-Mexico Border Tour with the San Antonio Symphony Concerts 1968 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Concert 1968 Singer/Entertainer Hemisfair concert with the San Antonio Symphony (World's Fair 1968) 1965 Balthazzar The opera "Amahl and the Nights Visitors" 1966-69 Singer/Entertainer San Antonio Symphony Children's Concerts 1972 Pertruchio The musical "Kiss Me Kate" 1974 Hajj The musical "Kismet" 1998 Singer/Entertainer Shreveport Symphony Concert (Louisiana) Wikiauthenticity (talk) 16:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin comments: This is a breakdown of the sources that I had left on my talk page:

• http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001341/otherworks - IMDB is not considered a reliable source, per WP:RS
• http://www.ibdb.com/person.php?id=96795 - This is a mere mention of him, not significant coverage per WP:GNG
• http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ - Another mere mention, not significant coverage per WP:GNG
• http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/ - Another mere mention, not significant coverage per WP:GNG
• http://www.science24.org/show/Donald_Braswell - This is a Wikipedia mirror and not a WP:RS
• http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/DonaldBraswellSr - Another mere mention, not significant coverage per WP:GNG
• http://www.facebook.com/pages/Donald-Braswell-Sr/227932103885580 - Facebook is not a WP:RS and besides that page is a Wikipedia mirror.
• http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_srch_drd_B00498VEK4?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=digital-music&field-keywords=Donald%20Braswell* %2C%20Sr. - List of songs that meets WP:V but does not meet WP:N.
• http://www.cduniverse.com/search/xx/music/artist/Donald+Braswell,+Sr./a/albums.htm - List of songs that meets WP:V but does not meet WP:N
• http://blog.mysanantonio.com/jackfishman/2011/03/whats-braswell-singing-this-weekend/ - This is a promotional piece and fails WP:SPAM and WP:RS
• http://www.amazon.ca/American-Tenors-Patinkin-Stanley-Robinson/dp/1155841042 - This isn't about the him and fails WP:GNG
• http://www.instantcast.com/AllStars/Donald_Braswell - This is a Wikipedia mirror and not a WP:RS
• http://www.donaldbraswellfanclub.org/don_braswell_sr.html - This is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and fails WP:RS
• http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Fanny_4457/ - This isn't about the him and fails WP:GNG
• http://www.guidetomusicaltheatre.com/shows_l/lil_abner.htm - This isn't about the him, has a mere mention, and fails WP:GNG
• http://www.ibdb.com/production.php?id=2585 - This isn't about the him, has a mere mention, and fails WP:GNG
• http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/productions/Li%27l_Abner_5574/ - This isn't about the him, has a mere mention, and fails WP:GNG
• http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/people/Don_Braswell/ - Barely more than a mention, only lists a few details. Does not have significant coverage per WP:GNG
• http://www.mindenmemories.org/Don%20Braswell.htm - This is largely a self-published source that appears to be done by a fan and does not go through an editorial process as required by WP:RS.

My opinion that the consensus in the AFD was to delete remains the same.--v/r - TP 17:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the whole question is made much more complicated by the fact that we have an article called Donald Braswell II, who I understand to be the subject's son. The AfD began to examine the question of whether to redirect Donald Braswell to Donald Braswell II, but that conversation was never finished, as perhaps it should have been. I think the AfD's finding, properly understood, was that Donald Braswell I should not have his own article. It does not preclude a redirect. Also, it's clearly unhelpful that Donald Braswell is a redlink when Donald Braswell II is an article, and would clearly be confusing if a redirect was not explained. All in all, although I think TParis' close was a reasonable interpretation of the consensus at the AfD, I also think there's a solution that makes more sense, so I'll go with endorse but as a separate matter of editorial judgment undelete and smerge to Donald Braswell II.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Donald Braswell II, where he is currently named. The brief description of the father's related occupation ("Donald Braswell, Snr, is a classical crossover and musical theater tenor") is suitable for mention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• since the article was deleted I wonder if those of you who are in this discussion can even see the article in question as it was before summerPHD removed all of the paragraphs in the article. SummerPHD claimed it was copyright infringement, which it was not. The wiki article was taken largely from Donald Braswell II's fan club site, which was written by me in conjunction with Donald Braswell (the senior) and with the approval and consultation of his son. The information was taken from the "horses mouth" so to speak. There is nothing untrue in the article and it has the blessing of the person being discussed. He is noteworthy having 1) sung for the inauguration of Governor Earl Long in Louisiana; 2) performed in a number of plays on Broadway (including "Fanny" and "L'il Abner") with people like Enio Pinza, Florence Henderson and Tina Louise; 3) appeared on the Ed Sullivan show; 4) performed in the opening ceremony of the 1968 World's Fair; and 5) performed in many Symphony concerts not to mention countless off-broadway shows. He has his own album. All of this was documented in the original article, but I don't know that you all can see that. I cannot. Isn't one of the goals of wikipedia to give the public the opportunity to learn about history they may not have known before? Is it right to get hung up on technicalities and throw the baby out with the bathwater?Wikiauthenticity (talk) 04:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question about visibility, as of today, the "Article" page has versions in the "View history" link.  The "Discussion" page is not currently visible to non-admins.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you unscintillating for this and for your other analysis below. I don't understand it much I'm afraid, but it sounds like your are trying to be even-handed. I hope someone will see the value in the history of the fifties entertainers. A lot of hard work went into researching and publishing the page a year ago and it is disheartening to have someone in one week toss it into the trash. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiauthenticity (talk • contribs) 02:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked this to you several times, but have you read WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.--v/r - TP 12:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Soft Delete 

• (1) Regarding one of the two !votes at the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just pointing at a policy or guideline states,

Examples:

• Keep Meets WP:NOR – Policylover 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc. – Pilingiton 01:01, 1 January 2001 (UTC)

While merely citing a policy or guideline may give other editors a clue as to what the reasoning is, it does not explain specifically how the policy applies to the discussion at hand. When asserting that an article should be deleted, it is important to explain why...

As noted above, deletion discussions are not "votes". They are discussions with the goal of determining consensus....Providing specific reasons why the subject may be original research or improperly sourced gives other editors an opportunity to supply sources that better underpin the claims made in the article.

• (2) Given that only the nominator and one !vote gave reasons for deletion, and that nominator acknowledged not preparing the community by reviewing the WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion in the nomination, WP:Deletion process#No quorum states,

If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment. Common options include, but are not limited to:

• relisting the discussion (see the section 'Relisting discussions');
• closing as "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR); and
• closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal. Soft deletion is the closing of an AfD with minimal participation as "delete" with the understanding that anyone who wishes to contest the deletion at a later date may request restoration for any reason at WP:REFUND. This achieves an effect similar to WP:PROD.

Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  Regarding analysis above by administrator TP:

• (a) One of the statements is:

  http://broadwayworld.com/people/Don_Braswell/ - Another mere mention, not significant coverage per WP:GNG

  But WP:GNG does not use the term "mere mention".  Here is a quote from WP:N#General notability guideline:

  * "Significant coverage" is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

• (b) IMO, the analysis shows a pattern indicating a lack of impartiality, for example, the statement,

  "Barely more than a mention, only lists a few details. Does not have significant coverage per WP:GNG"

  could have been written, "More than a trivial mention, lists a few details, by itself lacks sufficiently significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG."

Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that he deserves an article because of the references that wikauthenticity mentioned --alireza5166 02:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wrong to speedy since reason given, "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jackson Walsh", does not apply because the criteria for A10 deletion were not met. Article was also speedied a very short time after creation without a chance to discuss. Deleting admin has so far refused to discuss his rationale, other than to say he endorses another editor's remarks. I initially recreated the article, but have re-deleted it to request deletion review. Please see also discussion on the deleting admin's page. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is nothing that can be said in the article that isn't said in the stand alone articles. All reception that exists or development info can be placed at Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh - The storyline information already exists in both of those articles, and has been edited and condensed down. What we do not need is yet another article documenting the fictional lives of these two characters - and basically saying the same development information, just reworded by you. Another thing is that this couple have not been documented in reliable sources as a "Supercouple" - they have been relatively popular with viewers of Emmerdale alone, there is no evidence to support a following outside of the serial. So there isn't enough weight behind this topic to jusify a split-off article. Your choice in sources was bad, episode summaries are not saying a thing to do with why these two are notable and why we should grant them an extra article. In US Soaps during the 80s-90s ratings boom there was a real phenomena around supercouples - ratings declined and there haven't really been the same following since - do not think that some fans of forums and the net is sufficient representation of societys whole view. The sourcing for this article relies heavily on DS, youtube videos which are copyvios, blocks of quotes which are copy vios and two non free images where there fair use is only applicable to there stand alone articles.RaintheOne ^BAM 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete' would clearly be duplicated information from Aaron Livesy and Jackson Walsh. No more can be added as one character has left the soap and i do not feel sources merit this additional page. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably doesn't merit, but also probably doesn't meet WP:CSD#A10. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• <ec>overturn I really can't imagine this will be allowed to stay, but I've been known to have a limited imagination. In any case, A10 is designed to be extremely narrow and I don't think this meets the criteria. Hobit (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just in response to comments above, the article's structure was based on the article John Paul McQueen and Craig Dean, which survived a deletion attempt although both characters have their own stand-alone articles as well. Like those two characters, Aaron and Jackson are a highly popular couple whose story was central to the programme for about 18 months, and generated some of the show's highest ratings. In general, it's better to merge duplicate information into a different article. The Jackson character is gone, and his article probably can't be expanded much further, but Aaron is a long-running and continuing character and his article inevitably will be expanded. The two characters are inextricably linked by the nature of their storyline. We currently have much the same information in both the characters' articles; since only having it in one of their articles wouldn't work, because they're inextricably linked, it seems far better to place it in its own article, which is why I created it. There is also ample evidence to support a following outside the serial, plus a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to speedy delete an hours-old article. Additionally, for A10 to apply the article must duplicate an existing topic and not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article on the subject, and have a title that is not a plausible redirect. Also articles that expand or reorganise existing ones or that contain referenced, mergeable material should not be deleted under A10. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If it was recreated it would have to be straight to an AFD. You may have a point about the code used on the speedy delete however i doubt it will survive an AFD without you greatly expanding sources and proving they are a supercouple. Without that it is basicly a complete duplicate of the original articles. Also you really shouldnt of recreated it without coming here first when you did it was full of copy vios which mean you cant do that. If article stays will you be able to adequately source it without those copyvios. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a new article, and as I've already said, the intention was to merge information from two other articles into it, but it was deleted before I had a chance. If there were copyvios, which I wasn't aware of, they came directly from the original articles, which I didn't write. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ExplodingBoy - you say Aaron and Jackson gave Emmerdale some of its highest ratings? Only I know of two time periods the serials ratings were much higher off the top of my head - compare Aaron and Jackson's 8 million era with the 1990's Emmerdale plane crash 18 million and the 2005-06 when it hit 10 million again - it has not since. Not sure you should be citing WP:OTHERSTUFF either - I've already explained that the obvious difference is that JP/Craig described in media as a super couple - these are not. So there is no real weight behind having a seperate article. Jackson's whole Storyline was built around Aaron - from begining to end - so everything you could say would be already placed in his article. Most of Aaron's notability came of the fact he was a gay characters, thew sources support my claim - as there are more on that subject that any other - Jackson was the main story arcs for that storyline - so why have an off-shoot article taking away what simply can be said in the stand alone. Also Wikipedia is not a fansite, so a group of fans in a forum doesn't prove anything - there are hundreds of things that gain a niche following that we wouldn't dream of including here. However the characters themselves have enough weight behind them to establish notability. The whole point of a super couple article is to prove they are one, discuss the hype in the media, the fan following etc - it is minimal here - with the usual old rags, entertainment websites and expectedly lgbt websites reporting on them.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The copyvio is your fault then - you just copied information from Aaron Livesy - and you claim it wasn't a copy of another article? LOL If you were familiar with any policy on here you wouldn't have done it in the first place. Just like you recreating the article before coming here first.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. First, as you say Jackson's whole storyline was built around Aaron. But the same information about their shared storyline is now still in both the Jackson Walsh article and the Aaron Livesy article. I've already explained this twice before. Second, whether or not Aaron and Jackson are a supercouple is actually irrelevant to this deletion discussion: the supercouple question is a minor content issue, separate from both the speedy deletion issue and the question of whether the article should exist. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "expectedly lgbt websites," as though it's somehow strange or less valid for LGBT media to report on a same-sex couple. Third, since when is it a copyvio to copy information from one WP article to another? It's one thing if the original information is a copyvio (which nobody has thus far actually demonstrated), but it's quite another thing if you're talking about information merely merged from 2 source articles into a third article. This article was deleted before I had a chance to finish what I was doing anyway, so it's hardly fair to criticize it (or me) on those grounds: this article was not sitting around for months, it was no more than a couple of hours old when it was deleted. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sources proving notability is a reason for an article to be deleted as it does not sufficiently indicate why the subject is notable. Anyway thats not the issue it is if its recreated can you establish notability. I personally would vote overturn if you agree to it going straight to an AFD.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any question of notability: if there were, then we wouldn't have the two stand-alone articles either. And yet again, a lack of sources isn't a valid reason to delete a brand-new article. Frankly, I don't see why my agreeing to send the article to AFD should be a consideration in the discussion here either, because anyone's free to nominate an article for deletion if they think it should be deleted, but for what it's worth I've already said that AFD, not speedy deletion, is how this should have been dealt with in the first place. And if it does get AFDd then I'll make the same arguments in favour of keeping it, it will get input from the wider community, and it can stand on its own merits. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Clearly an unnecessary WP:FORK and deleted as per policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain what policy you are referring to here? Is there something other than A10 that allows for a speedy of a fork? Are you saying A10 reaches this far or that clear forks should be speedied per policy? Thanks Hobit (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe Bwilkins was referring to a WP:Content fork. But as that guideline states, "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject . . . editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material . . . This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure. The new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article." Exploding Boy (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, I'd just like to remind everyone that what we should be discussing here is whether it was valid to cite A10 as the criterion for speedying the article. A10 is to be used when a new article simply recreates an existing one, which this one clearly does not. A10 explicitly does not apply to content forks, and it does not apply to articles that have a title that is a plausible redirect or that contain referenced, mergeable material. If people feel strongly that the article shouldn't exist because the characters aren't important enough or because there's not enough information to justify it, those are separate issues and they can discussed in context of an AFD. Exploding Boy (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it does not expand or improve upon what is already there so is a dupliacate so a10 applys. If you could prove with good sourcing they are a super couple then maybe but as expressed above by another editor I don't think you can. It could of been deleted for copy vios as well. The deleting admins opinion would be helpful though. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all those issues EW. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Does not meet "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Jackson Walsh", topic is broader. TZ master (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD. The nominator's argument is plainly of sufficient quality to merit a full airing at AfD. T. Canens (talk) 05:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A10. The wording of A10 does allow deletion of articles that duplicate more than one topic, which many people clearly feel this does, but there's enough disagreement to suggest that discussing this at AfD would be fairer. (I'll be arguing for deletion btw.) Alzarian16 (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD which is the default action we should be pursuing in cases of disputed speedies. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD per Jclemens and T. Canens.—S Marshall T/C 09:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Take to AfD. Per Alzarian16 really. I don't feel the article should have been deleted under A10 and think AfD would be a better place to discuss this. - JuneGloom Talk 20:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore if anyone wants to take it to AFD then of course they are able to. I'm of the general view that the ill A10 is trying to address is generally moot when dealing with an experienced editor once it's been drawn to their attention it apparently meets the criteria and they still have a reasonable wish to pursue it (if that's by deletion then probably restoration should be on request) - I'm sure I can wrap lots of nuance around that view and leave definition of "experienced" vague. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD This would be the best course of action given debate on whether a10 is valid or whether the article is merited. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time in Portugal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Grossly wrong to delete it since "A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Time_zones)" is not met. TZ master (talk) 01:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. I think that this is more duplicative of List of time zones by country rather than Time zones but in neither case does it seem to be a valid A10 since this is a reasonable way to present the material with some precedent behind it. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • But only partial duplicative, since it contains other content. Or partial duplicative of zone.tab. In the end both are lists with limited scope, while Time in Portugal gives an overview of several aspects of timekeeping in Portugal. Initial speedy deletion proposer recently also supported undeletion [23]. TZ master (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion does not suitably expand on original topic - deletion of this and all similar articles was as per policy (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that there's a {{Europe topic|Time in}} template (which doesn't transclude properly here for some reason, although it's fine in article space) having an entry for each country, one would assume that these articles are not all redundant to some tz database. I didn't look at them in any detail, but it seems to me this may be a haphazard deletion when a centralized discussion on the suitability of this type of article may be needed. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problems there are (a) TZ master is working on a LOT of articles that are linked - this means many will be redlinked or have templates that don't properly transclude, and (b) (which created a situation where I proposed other 5 speedies), he's not using the underconstruction template or completing work on one particular item before moving on.

I do not think the articles and potential for additional Wikipedia content should suffer due to that - I think instead that some help for him and his efforts would be a better solution. If one were to look at some of his contributions, I am sure you will come to the conclusion that they are A10 worthy, as they are copy/pastes of existing information. I did that same thing. BUT, if you dig deeper into his contribution history, you'll see previous other articles that, for the same reasons, were A10 worthy, that are now articles with a lot more depth and with no word-for-word duplication in the main article. I thus suggest patience and help instead of further A10s. And the discussion suggested above by "Have m..." Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. I don't see how this duplicates either time zones or zone.tab or List of time zones by country or any other article. Asking readers to peruse three huge lists to find all this information about a given country is absurd. The is some material in common between the article and those lists. But this is not a straightforward duplication so CSD A10 is quite inappropriate. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A10 is narrow, as are most speedy criteria. This kind of thing is what people worried about when A10 was proposed. It's a reasonable way to present the material that has a history here. It's not someone recreating an existing article in a clueless or malign way. Hobit (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• RESTORE - *I* proposed this for speedy deletion because duplicate information existed in the two time zone pages in MAP form. In (a) giving it further thought and (b) in seeing the expansion TZ master has been working on for all such articles, and (c) in rethinking things and realizing the text information provided by TZ on the page, though duplicative to the maps, is actually accurate on a "scientific"/mapping level and provides the information in a different type of context that's more suited to certain audiences (namely an entire class of viewers interested in such coordinate precision). Thus, as the speedy tagger I strongly support restoration. I've also already asked the deleting admin to do so. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 18:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarify: The maps at time zones do not show the three tz database zones. TZ master (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore If we can have 1000s of articles about every known genus and species of plant and animal then there is no reason we can't have articles about various time zones. If it later turns out some of the information in these time zone articles would be better organized into larger articles, they can always be merged and redirected at a later date. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This type of article is not even about a timezone. It's about the timezones and related timekeeping information (e.g. daylight saving) in a country. It's precisely the stuff that the average reader would look for. The geek/technical lists by a particular subtopic (e.g. which countries are in the timezone UTC+1) are fine too, but they address a different audience. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps I was generalising a little, but I wanted to keep it simple ;) --Tothwolf (talk) 16:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore per Hobit. This is not what A10 is for, any editor should be free to AfD it appropriately if desired. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rose (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This close by SilkTork gives too much weight to the keeps and is very biased. Mabixiyi (talk • contribs) 23:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC) shes an autotune singer and isnt notable. SlickTork is a good writer but to biased in close Mabixiyi (talk • contribs) 23:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• — Mabixiyi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• I'd prefer this as an NC close, but frankly the majority of the deletion arguments were WP:JNN or "sources suck" comments with no real explanation as to what was wrong with them. I certainly can see discounting those by enough to reach a keep outcome. weak endorse Hobit (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. While acknowledging a concern when an hours-old account, has as his very first edit ever the initiation of a DRV, a newb has the same right to seek overturning an AFD close as anyone else. And while I am amazed that a brand new editor knew immediately what to do and where to do it as his very first-ever edit, I am not suggesting sock. While his user page shows a personal dislike for the article topic which is mirrored in his statement above, a personal disagreement does not equate to a case against the closer or his closing rationale. There was no flaw in the closer's careful rationale and AFD is not a count of heads. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural endorse - The closing rationale is a pile of horse puckey, to be honest. Blogs don't establish notability, and the scant sources that remain focus more on the fad of "yet another Rebecca Black" than on this Rose person herself. But a bad-faith DRV filing should not be endorsed or encouraged, for this or any other XfD. Legitimate users do not make their very first wiki-foray into DRV; this is either a block-evading or an identity-hiding user, and they should not be rewarded for these antics. Tarc (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse about as weakly as Hobit. While I supported deletion, the numbers of voters on each side were roughly equal and the closing Admin offered a thoughtful analysis of the strength of argument on each side. He didn't introduce anything of his own opinion that hadn't come up in the discussion, and his evaluation of the arguments did not blatantly contradict any established guidelines. So I'd say the closing is within the acceptable amount of Admin discretion for a closing. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Endorse - What Tarc says is correct re this DRV being illegitimate, don't waste our time. On the merits, the close was within the admin's discretion. The AfD was open for days just awaiting an admin willing to make the decision.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse, though I would have preferred a "no consensus" close, as I probably would have closed it. Otherwise, there was no consensus for deletion at least here. –MuZemike 06:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy procedural endorse per Mark Arsten and Tarc. I supported "keep" & worked on the article during the AfD. Re this DRV nom, I am boldly suggesting WP:DUCK. (Tarc, in my opinion, no blatantly unreliable blogs were cited, only those under the auspices of an organization, or a well-known notable person deemed to be reliable about his opinion, were cited. The article is light on primary sources.) Two questions: do DRVs normally happen often when keeps occur? And if this DRV closes unendorsed, can we expect another DRV, or is there a natural stop to the deletion choochoo train? Links are welcome in lieu of discussion, or reply on my talk page to avoid a digression. --Lexein (talk) 06:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, DRV can be an appropriate way to challenge a keep close. There is always the easier option of simply challenging a keep by another AfD, but since it is strongly discouraged to do it immediately after, if someone is in good faith convinced a serious mistake has been made it's not inappropriate. One of the purposes of Del Rev is to improve the quality of admin decisions by discussing possible errors. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse outcome. Might have been better closed as no consensus, but clkearly no consensus for deletion. Whack Mabixiyi for the "SlickTork" comment and propel them back into the sock drawer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I would have gone "no consensus" as well, and on my reading of the closing statement, the closing admin arguably crossed that admittedly very blurry boundary between assessing the objective merits of the arguments (ok) and preferring the arguments of one side to those of the other, by doing things like forming their own view of the sufficiency of the sources (not ok). But "keep" vs. "no consensus" is usually an inconseqential distinction not meriting DRV intervention. Oh, and sometimes the bad faith/sock/nutbars get their noms up. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well not completely, because when we get to inevitable 4th AfD on this fairly terrible article, you'll get the usual suspects yelling "But it was a Keep last time, and notability isn't temporary!". (Yeah, I know WP:CCC, but you get the drift). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. A terribly explained close with hints of supervote that should clearly have been No Consensus, but sometimes you have to fight the battles you can actually win round here. Edit: mind you, I've just noticed the below DRV, where the same admin closes a clear NC as Keep based on his own opinion... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, educate me, by linking to an example of a high-quality AfD 'keep' close of a long, contentious discussion which could arguably have been NC. (Is there a Hall of Fame for excellent AfD closes for hard cases?) For some reason I don't see the hints of supervote you saw. To avoid cluttering this, feel free to reply on my Talk. --Lexein (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Although Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Gerry Ryan was not a "long, contentious discussion", I consider it to be one of the best "keep" closures that seemed to be a supervote based on a vote count. The AfD could also have been closed as "no consensus" as was noted at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 20#Death of Gerry Ryan by the deletion review closer. Cunard (talk) 23:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so you're saying it AfD/D of GR was a high-quality close, but it still smelled a bit of supervote? Will every assessment of discussion points and closing based on them therefore smell like a supervote? (by supervote I presume you mean either overriding against consensus, or putting a thumb on the scale to push !votes one way). --Lexein (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Supervote for the common definition of the term at deletion review.

  I wrote that NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs)'s closure seemed to be a supervote based on the vote count. But when the arguments of the "keep" and "delete" sides were considered, the community endorsed the closure at the deletion review, affirming that it was not a supervote.

  It is difficult to determine whether the close of a numerically close debate is a supervote when the closing admin chooses either "keep" or "delete". The closing admin's rationale must be analyzed. Some questions to consider:

  Is the rationale an unbiased assessment of the opposing sides in a debate?
  Has the rationale relied solely on the arguments advanced in the discussion, or has the closing admin introduced new arguments?
  Has the closing admin relied on his/her own interpretations of the relevant policies and guidelines or the community's?

  I have read SilkTork's closure but do not intend to read the AfD, which has too much acrimony for my taste. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much. All duly noted, and I won't make you go read the AfD. . --Lexein (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• A pox on both your houses- Obvious sockpuppet objects obnoxiously to a bad close on a terrible article by an admin who doesn't understand that keep !votes go underneath all the other votes and not in the closing statement. Reyk _YO! 00:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The SPA's timing,[24] ability to navigate Wikipedia, and laughable imitation of poor spelling and grammer, leads me to believe that there was an entirey different motive to his DRV than what is found in his initial statement and its accompanying insult. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  It was almost 24 hours between close and account creation, then 7 minutes until DRV creation. What I wanna know is, what was he doing for those 7 minutes? We can only guess at that, and at what sort of sock was involved. I'm guessing, a gray gym sock. --Lexein (talk) 11:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. While I know the practical result is the same in the sense of not deleting the article, the implications are quite different, and there was clearly no consensus here to keep. The closing admin says that keep arguments were stronger but gives no indication why that is the case, or why the delete arguments were of less value.Griswaldo (talk) 18:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  While he does not offer a point-by-point rehash or analysis of the discussion, he wrote "a number of the keeps are better argued", a comment that essentially invites us to those arguments. He also wrote "some delete votes don’t fully support their 'not notable' assertions, or are hesitant – suggesting that the article can be reinstated later", by which I infer 1) he had analyzed the discussion and 2) he is inviting editors to themselves re-read what was said by others. Though a no-consensus is a consideration, his close statement seems a calm and reasoned rationale which addresses the discussion as a whole and acknowledges the strengths or weaknesses of the arguments of all who commented. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Calm" has nothing to do with it. He mentions the discussion but does not actually "address" its key points. That's the problem. It doesn't matter if he offers vague opinions like "those are better argued." Why are they better argued? That's the question, and I see no answer to it. When you make a close that goes against the vote count, you have to be specific in your rationale. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Calm and reasoned does have merit, specially as discussion on Silk Tork's talk page[25] indicated he is always willing to go and expand on a summary and/or change to no-consensus. What also has merit is that this DRV was sneak-attack filed by a SPA/SOCK without his having notified Silk Torc or even discussed it with him... and quite suspiciously only minutes after the DRV below was initiated. Tarc stated it best above: "a bad-faith DRV filing should not be endorsed or encouraged" and I agree with him. We do not reward socks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Socking has nothing to do with the merits of his close, and to argue that we ought to disregard basic procedure to punish a sock is completely unacceptable. If this DRV was closed as soon as it was opened on procedural grounds because it was started by a sock I would not have complained. But if the question is going to be discussed then we we ignore who started it and evaluate the question on its merits. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already commented above and pointed out that ST had already showed willingness to change his close to no-consensus and expand further on his closing summary. The actions of a sock in ignoring WP:DELREVD and bringing this out of process DRV acted to prevent the nominator responding and addressing before the DRV was initiated. Any DRV, specially one insigated by a sock, where the initiiator purposely does not attempt a discussion with the closer beforehand runs contrary to WP:DRV#Instructions and should always be seen is bad form. Toward Silk Tork, I do not see him as being anything but agreeable and willing to discuss. As the DRv was a sneak attack and out of process, why not simply close this one and alow ST to act as he has indicated he would on his talk page. This DRV promotes totally unneccessary drama and angst. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. The closing statement is essentially an explanation of why the closing administrator personally feels the subject is notable. I am slightly disturbed by the statement that the article is soberly and carefully written, firmly sourced, and avoids any dubious scandal, because it is possible for something to be a BLP violation even if it is all of these things. It's true that some of the Delete opinions didn't support an assertion that the subject wasn't notable, but many of the Keep opinions were little better ("Keep and LOL Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (2nd nomination), is the nominator has problem with this person or what?", for instance). There were two opposing arguments at the AfD: that the article should be kept because the available sources showed the subject met the general notability guideline, and that the article should be deleted because the sources are mainly from local news and focus on a single song combined with the potential BLP issues of having an article on a 12 year old. Both opinions are reasonable interpretations of the subject and I don't see a consensus to put one viewpoint above the other. Hut 8.5 15:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• SilkTork has already said on his talk page that he'd be "quite prepared to change the outcome to "no consensus" if that is seen to be appropriate". Since nobody is arguing that this should have been closed as delete (not even the SPA nominator), can't we just let him do that and close this now? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not adverse to this, or even to the article being incubated for a while, the previous no-consensus was seen by its recent nominator as tacit permission to renominate just 20-days-later when, with a no consesnsus, it would haved seemed more prudent to me to follow guideline instruction for such and have allowed it a reasonable amount of time for possible improvements to be made, rather than arbitrarily decide that 20 days was enough time. That was the initial point made in my own original keep in this last AFD. If changed to no consesnsus as a result of this DRV, let's actually give this one a reasonable amount of time before its predicted AFD #4. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't oppose SilkTork's suggestion to change the close to no consensus, that is what I thought would happen to the discussion (and how I would have closed it myself). Frankly, if this gets overturned to no consensus, it will be a great precedent for overturning 'delete' outcomes in similar debates.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Would that that were true. I've never seen precedent matter before; if it did, that really would be a precedent. AFAIK precedent has always been dismissed as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But seriously, with no firm rules, there can't really be rulings, and hence no precedent. --Lexein (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really talking about the concept of precedent on substantive subject matters (e.g., should every high school have an article), but procedurally about how AfDs are handled on closing. And although wikipedia "precedent" has no binding force, it can have persuasive force. Its no secret that its difficult to get a consensus in contentious AfDs, but there is some temptation to brush that under the rug to get the "right" result in an AfD. The "right" result, however, is no consensus. The system is intended to be biased in favor of keeping content, over and above single subjective judgments of unworthiness. If SilkTork had closed this as delete, would we have as many editors suggesting the proper result was no consensus? I think not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see your point. But if we know (and closers know) that "no consensus" always results in repeated result-shopping AfDs (which are train wrecks, and go against WP:NOTAGAIN by not bringing up unaddressed reasons and not allowing time for improvements), what then is the "right" result at AfD? IMHO, unless strict no-renom quiet periods (NRQP) for article development are really enforced, closers must take that into consideration. If that NRQP really existed as policy, I'd agree with "overturn to no consensus" right now.

Tangentially, I see that of the two examples of DRVs endorsing deletion you mention, the second was recreated anyways. So AfD, DRV - 50% effort seemingly just wasted (more, for multiple AfDs!). The only upside is that hopefully article improvement occurred.--Lexein (talk) 08:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that quite a number of the usual suspects have shown up and voted "delete, JNN" and I'm pleased to see a closer who's had the bottle given their nonsense absolutely no weight whatsoever. (I said "vote" not "!vote" there, and that was deliberate.) I'm not thrilled to see a long DRV discussion arise from a sockpuppet's nomination. But equally, many of the keep !votes were also weak, and it seems quite obvious to me that there was no consensus in that debate.—S Marshall T/C 09:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close The closing administrator did properly explain their rational. There was significant coverage found in this AFD, which happened just a month after the previous one closed. The majority of those wanting delete did not comment on the sources, simply stated they didn't like it or didn't think she was notable. Dream Focus 22:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First of all, there were 18 deletes to 15 keeps and most of the keeps were not policy-based, but instead explicitly said they liked it because it promoted their POV. There are several policy-backed arguments for deletion, which the closing admin does not appear to have read or understood given the discussion on his talk page - he seems to be ignorant of WP:POVFORK, for instance, claiming that content is never a reason to delete. Further, the closing admin, instead of judging the consensus, made new (non-policy-backed) arguments not found in the discussion as the reason for this decision, meaning this doesn't seem to have been an actual review of the consensus, but a new keep vote masquerading as a closure.

So, I don't think the closure can be trusted, so let's review the arguments actually made.

This is a WP:POVFORK of the main articles, which we have three other ones of. Compare this article to Global warming controversy#The mainstream scientific position, and challenges to it, where all the arguments in the quotations in this so-called "list" are discussed, the major climate contrariansd are namedd and discussed, and all that you could say, in an NPOV wand sourced way about this subject is put in context in the debate, instead of only presenting one side. Putting a half-arsed explanation of the mainstrream position in (without giving the evidence FOR that position) does not balance the article, or make it anything but a WP:POVPUSHing WP:COATRACK.

There were sources given on the "keep" side, but none of them was a list of this sort, and all they showed was that global warming denial arguments were notable. However, that's why these arguments are covered in great detail in global warming controversy, including naming the notable scientists. NONE of the sources provided was a list of this sort, NONE of the sources provided went into this much detail about the number of specific contrarians, and all the arguments the sources covered are covered in global warming controversy. Insofar this isn't WP:Original research, making a type of list that has not been assembled anywhere else but Wikipedia, this is a WP:POVFORK. Further, such lists are a long-standing tactic in fringe circles, see A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism (and I believe similar ones have been made for things like smoking supposedly not causing cancer), so we're actually fostering a WP:POVFORK that takes the form of a known type of propoganda, but one which doesn't even have a notable example in this field off-Wikipedia.

After six years, it's time we said enough already 86.** IP (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Declare AfD closure as improper, and therefore null and void (See below - ATG): Further to the above, consider Wikipedia:Afd#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed: "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept". I consider the statement in the closing summary that the closing admin used the featured status of the Global warming article as grounds for a 'keep' decision as tantamount to an admission that he/she based the closure not on a "judgement of the consensus of the discussion", but instead on his/her own judgement of the appropriateness of the article - this would clearly contravene the accepted closure policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The main point of the close was that, while the article had issues, they could and should be dealt with by ordinary editing such as RfC, which is now happening. So, the points made against the article were respected and a constructive way forward has been recommended. Whether this is called a Keep or No consensus is just nitpicking - the practical effect is much the same. Also, the DRV nomination above talks of "explicitly said they liked it because it promoted their POV". I'm not seeing where that's coming from. Some editors such as NewsAndEventsGuy and Q Science indicated that they personally disagreed with the scientists but felt that their views should still be recorded. Warden (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is some related discussion on my talkpage: User_talk:SilkTork#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn- I'm not usually a fan of playing the "supervote" card, but this here is a textbook example. The closing administrator made the existence of a related featured article, and his own opinion on MOS:LIST, rationales for keeping when neither of those things had been mentioned in the debate. Those are things you mention in a keep !vote, not in a closing statement. I also feel that SilkTork's reading of the debate was highly one-sided; it does not appear that he has read or properly understood the delete side of the debate. According to SilkTork, one editor who provided some sources was enough to answer the concerns of the other side. But if you actually go and read the debate you'll see that that argument is strongly debated and refuted, on the grounds that it misses the point. I did not participate in the debate and I don't know how I would have voted in it, but it is unacceptable to ignore one side with such disdain. Reyk _YO! 22:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn closer seems to have substituted their own opinion for an accurate reading of the discussion. The main thrust of their closing statement is that The main concerns about this article are that it is original research and is not neutral. These are editing issues. However the people arguing that the article should be deleted repeatedly stated that the existence of any article on this topic would be non-neutral and that the OR issues were sufficiently serious that deletion was warranted. The closer should not have substituted their opinion for that of the people commenting in the discussion. The fact that the material under question mostly concerns living people should also have been taken into consideration, but there's no sign that it was. On SilkTork's talk page s/he states that The more I looked into the discussion the more I felt that this was a content issue that should be resolved via other channels. The function of an AfD closer is not to have a "feeling" about something but to judge consensus, the two do not overlap.

  The closing statement also mentions several other factors which were either not brought up in the discussion or which were frankly irrelevant. SilkTork notes that the list appears to meet MOS:LIST, and provides both information and navigation. This issue was not mentioned in the discussion and the fact that a list passes MOS:LIST does not make it encyclopedic. The closing statement also said that The parent article, Global warming, has also been a major cause of concern, but through careful editing (and ArbCom sanctions) is now a Featured Article. (which again was not mentioned in the discussion and is totally irrelevant), that the article is prose linked in related articles on Wikipedia (not just templated) (why is the fact that this article is mentioned in another article relevant?), that Lists by their nature sometimes fly close to OR as there are sometimes no sources available which group items together the way that Wikipedia lists do (which, again was not mentioned in the discussion, and was the personal opinion of the closer).

  86 is not correct to say that debates should not be closed against majority viewpoint, however it is true that several arguments in favour of keeping the article merely stated that the nomination was an attempt to censor critics of global warming. These arguments should have been ignored entirely, however the closing statement implicitly agreed with them: This article has caused concern for some years, though that appears to be due to the controversial nature of the subject matter rather than that it specifically meets deletion criteria. This debate should have been closed as No Consensus or Delete, and a Keep closure cannot be justified on these grounds. Hut 8.5 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Arguments about censorship have validity because it is our policy that Wikipedia should not be censored. Such arguments are therefore policy-based and so cannot be dismissed on procedural grounds. Warden (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither the AfD nominator nor any of the participants in the discussion wanted to remove the article in order to suppress the anti-AGW viewpoint. If someone disputes a point nobody has made and assumes bad faith in doing it, then that opinion ought to hold little to no weight. Reyk _YO! 23:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) No. Nobody tried to argue that the article should be deleted because its contents could be considered offensive, the arguments for deletion were based on WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP. A mere assertion that the nominator is trying to censor Wikipedia is not addressing any of those arguments and is little more than a personal attack. Hut 8.5 23:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination specifically argued that the list should be deleted because it was referred to by other sceptics. In the discussion, the nominator stated, "I think I have made it entirely clear why I think it should be deleted; it's horrible." It seems that the list offended him and he wished to suppress it for ideological and political reasons. That's censorship. Warden (talk) 08:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• That wasn't what the nominator was saying. Their argument was that the existence of such a list is inherently non-neutral. The fact that climate sceptics cite it was offered in support of that (with the obvious reasoning being that they cite it because they think it supports their position). "It's horrible" just means "the article is a horrible violation of our policies and guidelines", not "I am personally offended by the existence of this article". Removing NPOV violations is not censorship (or, at least, it's not what WP:CENSOR is talking about), even though it involves removing material because of the position it advocates. Hut 8.5 11:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Censors usually claim that they are acting in the public interest — protecting weaker minds from corruption and heresy, &c. It's clear from cases such as WP:SPOILER and Rorschach test that we are not in the business of suppressing information which some editors would prefer to remain hidden. Our guideline is notability - if other publications write about it then we can too. Warden (talk) 11:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If removing NPOV violations is "censorship", then censorship is essential to enforce one of our core content policies. You're also confusing necessary and sufficient conditions: it is necessary for the subjects of articles to be notable, but that doesn't mean articles can't be deleted on other grounds or that a topic which is notable must be included. Pages can be (and frequently are) deleted on other grounds such as WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:BLP etc. Hut 8.5 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. No flaw in the closer's careful rationale and AFD is not a count of heads. From the article's history, yes, it is a controversial topic, but agreeing or disagreeing with the topic does not equate to non-notability, and disagreeing with the truth or not of a demonstrably notable topic does equate to "delete at all costs". Wikipedia strives for balance, and as long as opposing topics are covered in enough detail in reliable sources, we worry less about the "truth" of either side, and more about each side having verifiability. The nominator made a careful and well-reasoned close that granted the controversial nature of the article's topic and suggested it be better dealt with through regular editing and encouraged those with concerns toward validity of the topic or its coverage to hold an RFC. The closer's actions seems quite reasonable, and not POV-pushing of some personal agenda. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC not that that actually changes anything significant. If anything can be said with certainly about that discussion, it is that there was no consensus. Is it a valid topic for a list? Perhaps. Is it really poorly written and a POV problem? Almost certainly. Is it so bad we should just start over? There is no consensus. I do think the keep close has elements of a supervote, but I also don't see how a deletion result can be reached. I think an RfC on the format is called for, per the closer. Hobit (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Troika proposal. Because this is such a controversial list, perhaps the technique used in other cases, where three administrators make a call should be used here as well. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn and delete – At the very least, "keep" was not a proper decision by the closing admin. A good amount of the arguments for retention were significantly weak or did not address the concerns of the deletion side. I would be fine with a "no consensus" close as a 2nd choice, if only to leave the door open for further discussion down the road, but a "keep" close and the accompanying rationale serves to shut that door. –MuZemike 00:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an excellent point. The article clearly has a lot of serious issues that need to be addressed but that will be more difficult now. A keep result is effectively a seal of approval on the article in its current state, and editors anxious that the article should remain an anti-AGW soapbox will just point to the AfD result if anyone tries to fix it and claim that any concerns are not relevant. Unfortunately, that claim has much more strength when the closing statement says pretty much the same thing. Reyk _YO! 03:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think by Wikipedia offering a sourced balance by showing both the con and pro sides of the GW issue acts to serve our readers understanding of a topic. Additionally, I do not believe any of the four "keeps" for this article since 2007 acted as a seal of approval, as it continued to be edited after each and every one. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, no. We don't provide balanced coverage of a topic by setting up two equal and opposite soapboxes. And one of the things brought up in the AfD was the determined resistance by the POV-pushers to any and all attempts by anyone else to fix the problems. Reyk _YO! 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, basically. (Although I think No Consensus would have been a better close). The numerical quantity of voters was roughly equal, and in that situation admins are permitted to weigh the strength of the arguments involved rather than counting votes. In this close, ST gave less weight to votes that advocated deletion due to fixable problems, which I think is a basically acceptable way of judging the discussion. (I didn't vote in the discussion). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that's precisely what they didn't do - the closure discusses things never brought up in the discussion, instead of trying to evaluate the consensus of others. 86.** IP (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The closure does not attempt to determine consensus on the basis of the opinions that have been submitted, but imposes the opinion of the closer as the outcome of the discussion. This is disruptive. The discussion should instead be closed as "delete" on the basis of the strength of the arguments, for the reasons I advanced in the discussion.  Sandstein  06:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to the stats, 255 people watch that page, the talk page has been viewed 704 times in the last 30 days, and the main page has been viewed 12,528 times in the last 30 days. The page obviously serves a purpose. If the users want it, why should a few editors be trying so hard to delete it? If you want to build a house, and the zoning forbids it, you go for a variance. Once. This page has been granted a effective variance 4 times. Enough already. Q Science (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a second round of AfD, apart from the fact that WP:USEFUL is a bad argument. Hut 8.5 08:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Is this a joke? You don't get the result you like, after four nominations, ten days of vigorous debate in the most recent nomination, and you immediately appeal? "No consensus" would probably have been more accurate, but I certainly can't see any reason to overturn the decision. It shouldn't be allowed to try again, and again, and again, forum shopping if necessary, until you get the result you want. The rest of us are now concentrating on improving the article on its Talk page; I suggest that's the most useful use of people's energies at this stage. --Merlinme (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC) Change to Overturn to No Consensus (see below after discussion with Hut 8.5. --Merlinme (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't forum shopping, DRV is the right venue (and the only right venue) for contesting the closure of AfDs. The most recent AfD was over two years ago (consensus can change) and even that was closed as "no consensus", so you can't argue that there was a standing consensus that the article was acceptable. Hut 8.5 08:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At best, that's an argument for changing the result to No Consensus. How you can change it to an Overturn and delete, essentially ignoring ten days of finely balanced discussion, is beyond me. --Merlinme (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous discussions the article went through aren't an argument for closing this discussion as anything at all. The only thing that is relevant to closing this discussion the comments put forward in it. Hut 8.5 10:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can see a case for asking three administrators to decide whether the request was correctly closed, and whether the result should stand; I can see a case for changing the result to "No Consensus"; if for some reason procedures were not followed, I can see a case for re-opening the deletion nomination, although that seems rather pointless as it is very hard to see why it would get anything other than the previous result. I cannot see a case for ignoring the deletion debate and saying "we'll ignore everyone else and delete the article because we know better". --Merlinme (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't said that, nor has anyone else. The problem here is the other way round: the closer imposed their own opinion on the discussion when closing as Keep. Hut 8.5 13:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be curious to know if there are any other cases of reviews with an 18-15 split which after review were closed as "Delete". In any other debate I've ever seen on Wikipedia, an 18-15 split is "no consensus". To overturn the close as "Delete" is a travesty of the whole AfD process. --Merlinme (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD discussions are not closed based on counting heads. Hut 8.5 14:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And that is a sufficient reason to delete the article? --Merlinme (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not by itself, no, but it does invalidate your reasoning that we have to close as no consensus simply because the count was close. Hut 8.5 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But then that surely brings us back to my previous point, which is that you are essentially saying that you ignore the 15 Wikipedians who voted Keep, because You Know Better. I repeat, I have never seen a Wikipedia debate as close as this decided as anything other than No Consensus. I find it difficult to see how it could be seen as consensus, unless perhaps there were signs of sock puppeting or canvassing. --Merlinme (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For a start you're misrepresenting my position. I think No Consensus would have been a reasonable reading of the debate, and if it had been closed that way I would not be complaining. Secondly if the debate had been closed as Delete then that would not have meant the people arguing the article should be kept were being "ignored". The deletion guidelines permit (indeed they require) the closing administrator to take account of the strength of arguments. Raw headcount is nothing more than a very vague expression of consensus in cases like this, and deletion discussions can be (and are) closed in favour of a position most participants argued against. Hut 8.5 15:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologise if I've misunderstood your position- I'm not quite sure how we got into such a debate when I hope it was fairly clear that I thought No Consensus was probably the correct closure. Suggest we leave it there. --Merlinme (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you change to "overturn" if you don't agree the closure was proper ("overturn" in this context doesn't necessarily mean "delete it"). I still don't agree with your reasoning for taking that position though. Hut 8.5 15:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus I still strongly object to an immediate attempt to overturn the decision of the 5th nomination without notifying the interested parties. (That's fifth, not fourth, by the way, for some reason the third nomination in the article milestones was not marked as such.) I also don't think comments in this review which essentially boil down to "Delete for the reasons I advanced in the discussion" are very helpful, and certainly not without notifying the people who were arguing the other side. However. My more considered view is that the close as "Keep" was inappropriate. In general I think that people should be very wary of discounting clearly taken positions by experienced Wikipedia editors "because they don't fit with policy". I'd argue that there has to be a very clear failure with very clear policies for this to be a reasonable thing to do, because apart from anything else, who is to judge which policy has been violated? I disagree with the whole principle of "super votes"; where on earth is that laid down as policy? Copyright violations, defamation, ok fair enough, but not normal content. If you cannot get community consensus that policies have been clearly violated and the article should be deleted, but you cannot get community consensus that the article is clearly a worthy Wikipedia article, then I don't see how you can argue that the result of the discussion was anything other than "No consensus". For example, in this case one side thinks BLP is violated; the other side disagrees and thinks that as long as quotes are clearly sourced, challengable, etc., then BLP is not violated. One side thinks that the article is Synthesis; the other side disagrees and thinks that as long as the scientist has clearly taken a position disagreeing with the consensus position (as advanced by the IPCC) it is not synthesis. One side thinks that the article breaks the rules on Due Weight; the other side disagrees and points to the lengthy lead presenting the consensus position and the graphic and caption showing the small number of scientists disagreeing with the consensus. One side complains that the article is a Quote Farm; the other disagrees as the quotes are pertinent and serve a useful purpose. So in other words as far as I can see the two sides presented fairly evenly matched arguments for ten days, and there are few or no votes which I think should be completely discounted. With that in mind, an 18-15 split with a result of "No Consensus" seems to me a very accurate reflection of the debate. There may well be areas in which the use of the quotes can be improved, or the means used to identify the scientists changed (for example, using third party reporting in addition to the quotes), and these are being discussed on the Talk page; but these are content disputes, and have no part in a deletion discussion. The vote in favour (18-15) of deleting the article was actually weaker than in the previous deletion nomination (which was 45-31); the earlier "No Consensus" decision was reviewed and found to be a reasonable decision. The !vote this time round has apparently been more closely balanced despite a large number of climate change editors having since been banned or topic banned as a result of various ArbCom decisions. I sincerely wish that people would accept that "No Consensus" to delete is a proper reflection of the current community feelings on the matter, and that those arguing in favour of deletion have not been able to achieve anything like consensus among the community to delete, despite five attempts; in the light of that, we should be returning to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, i.e. improving the article's content. --Merlinme (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse With all due respect to the folks who are seasoned Wikipedia contributors that have been contributing to this discussion, I'm a user/Wikipedia fan putting in her two cents for keeping the page. I have visited this particular page periodically for research purposes and do not see it as an illegitimate WP:POVFORK. Instead, I would say that it is an example of a legitimate WP:SPINOFF. I agree that Wikipedia has good pages discussing the controversy surrounding global warming; however, it should be noted that users who visit this particular list are not looking to sift through the content of scientific arguments. Users like me are specifically looking for the names of sources of these arguments. For this purpose, this list is an excellent summary and is presented in a NPOV. VS 78 (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems to me that this discussion has been sidetracked into becoming another discussion on the merits of the article. This however is irrelevant. The AfD was improperly closed by an admin who chose to base his decision on his own opinion of the article, and on factors that nobody else has had a chance to respond to: effectively appointing himself 'Judge, Jury, and Executioner'. This is a gross distortion of the AfD process, and frankly, I have to question whether the person involved is fit to remain an admin. I have asked him to clarify whether he considers references to other articles, and to evidence not previously discussed, as normal behaviour in the process of AfD, but so far I have had no response. If this actually is normal (I sincerely hope not), then we clearly need to make this explicit in policy, rather than giving a misleading impression of the process. It seems to me to be dishonest to tell participants in a debate that their opinions will be considered, and then have decisions made by fiat. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think rather we are getting sidetracked from saying "the Keep closure was incorrect" to saying "the Keep closure was incorrect therefore the article should be deleted", which is a non-sequitur if ever I saw one. I've seen sensible arguments why the closure as Keep was incorrect; I've yet to see sensible arguments why such an evenly split AfD process should now be closed as "Delete" rather than "No consensus". --Merlinme (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - the correct procedure at this point would be to declare the AfD closure as null and void - though how we proceed from then on is unclear. I have therefore revised my previous 'Overturn', above. For the record, I do not accept that there is 'no consensus' for deletion (if the AfD is properly closed) - but this is irrelevant at this juncture. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Declaring interest as I argued to keep. The point made by the admin who closed the debate was that the reasons originally given by the nominator were not valid deletion criteria WP:DEL#REASON but editing issues. I was expecting "no consensus", but I can see the admin's point. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, leaning to overturn. SilkTork said in hir closing rationale that AfD was not cleanup, but many of the delete voters were clear, and some explicitly stated, that they did not believe the OR, NPOV and BLP problems were fixable through cleanup. Closing admin's own belief that they are fixable can't override, so hir dismissal of these users was improper. Many of the "keep" votes were irrelevant or flawed (eg. "it keeps denialists out of other articles," "global warming controversy is notable," "I agree with these scientists," "censorship!", justavote), but the problems with these don't seem to have been taken into account, while imagined problems with "delete" votes were cited. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, since even Ray Charles could see that there was no consensus in that debate.—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article (not previously counted), and endorse the closure. I particularly object to the statement "they liked it because it promoted their POV", which misstates the arguments. That this issue has been raised repeatedly suggests an attempt to win by exhaustion, and that itself should be a point against. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close (declaring prior interest, as I argued to keep), per J. Johnson, Tigerboy and others. I think the closing admin carefully considered all arguments presented; he has defended his closing arguments at User_talk:SilkTork#List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, SilkTork has yet to respond to my questions regarding what seems to me to be clearly an abuse of process, in that he considered 'arguments' (his own) that weren't presented in the AfD discussion at all. This is the fundamental issue here.

Andy, that's not quite a fair comment, imo: Silk Tork has explained that he will be offline for a few days, and he is being cooperative and civil in discussing his close. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I made it, it was entirely reasonable: check the timestamps. SilkTork had made a substantial number of edits after I posted my question, without any response - he had apparently chosen not to respond until I asked the same question again. That he has responded since I posted the above is no indication of any unfairness at the time it was posted. And yes, have had a civil discussion - can I suggest that you not suggest otherwise by implying unfairness on my part? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree your discussion with Silk Tork was/is civil, but I don't think an out-of-date comment should be left hanging here. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this appeal, by the editor proposing the 4th AfD, hasn't yet been posted at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (UPDATE: now posted by a 3rd party, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)), and the arguments to overturn appear to be a reprise of his prior arguments for deletion. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the comments by the person initially calling for review (and by others arguing one way or another about the merits of the article), there is a more fundamental issue, which must be addressed - is it legitimate to close an AfD based not on the discussion, but on WP:OTHERGOODSTUFFEXISTS and on other matters not even raised? I don't believe for one moment it is, and until this issue is addressed, any further discussion on the article are moot. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the OP, 86*** helps his case by remarking "Oh, come the HELL on" and "That's bullshit" over at Silk Tork's talk page. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so either - though I can understand his/her frustration. Now how about actually responding to my concerns? (For the record, SilkTork has now replied to my questions on his talk page, though I'm unconvinced that his answers actually address the real problem). AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that SilkTork now regrets mentioning the parent article, but I found his explanations for this, and for his closing statement, reasonable and convincing. Other editors (and the closing admin for this review) should read them at his talk page, and judge for themselves. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but it wasn't SilkTork mentioning the 'parent article' that was the problem - it was that he considered it relevant in the first place. He clearly based his decision on factors not discussed in the AfD - factors, moreover that are of no relevance to a proper AfD closure. Yes, others should read SilkTorks comments - though I can't help wondering if he might have been better off responding here - or is that not appropriate in a deletion review? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to No Consensus or at least Relist (which is going to happen to this article anyway, because it's clearly not tenable), the close doesn't reflect the discussion at all. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and have it re-closed, perhaps by a triumvurate which would reduce the risk of error and give the final decision some legitimacy after 4 AFDs. This close trespassed way past the blurry line I referred to in the DRV above. Maybe "keep" was the right outcome; maybe not. On my reading of the closing statement, the statement discloses that the admin preferred one side of the argument and applied the admin's own view of applicable policies to the admin's own view of the facts (eg the sources). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This closure was shockingly horrible. At best there is non consensus here, and there is no way that the strength of argument leaned towards "keep." Add to that the fact that the closing admin made novel arguments in the close, and used the existence of another article in his rationale. Andy is right, this was an abuse of process. Now we find out that the closing admin also made this controversial closure just before a planned hiatus from Wikipedia, which boggles my mind.Griswaldo (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small clarification: SilkTork indicated that he will be away over the weekend (running a marathon) - not a major hiatus as I see it, though inconvenient. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have already made some comments on my talkpage regarding this close, and I'm not sure how much I can add here which will be of benefit. It is possible that regardless of the outcome of the AfD there would have been people who would have been dissatisfied, and a DRV would have been called. In the circumstances, given that nobody is going to be satisfied, a no consensus close would have been less contentious and more diplomatic. I would have liked the chance to consider altering the close to no consensus, however, within 45 minutes of first contact on my talkpage, and while I was still engaged in discussion, and was making an offer to look again at the close, this DRV was opened, and shortly after that the DRV above which also names me was opened by a SPA which may be seen by some as an attempt to suggest that my judgement is generally poor. Of course it is possible that my judgement was poor in this case, which is why I was willing to look again, and which is why I am comfortable that we have the DRV process to check if a decision that was made did overlook something. Closers are human and are fallable, and even though closing in good faith and with care may err. I do agree that my closing statement had the potential to misdirect people. The mention of the Global warming article was to illustrate my opening point that an article with contentious subject matter and/or other problems is not neccessarily grounds for deletion, but grounds for improving through discussion and editing. That opening viewpoint was separate and additional to an assessment of consensus in the AfD. It can be struck as it makes no difference to the close. I would say though, looking again, that I over-emphasized the strength of opinion that the article could be cleaned up, there are a significant number of people in this AfD who feel that the issues are not resolvable through editing. I don't think I made clear enough that I had looked at the arguments for deletion, which are mainly based on concerns of original research and biased point of view, and felt those concerns were addressed in the discussion and by relevant policies and guidelines. Warden's evidence that there are reliable publications which talk about the "The Scientist Deniers" (that is a group of "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", the specific topic of the article under question) was compelling, and fitted in with our inclusion guidelines and policies. We summarise the ideas and knowledge that are published by reliable sources. That reliable sources feel compelled to write not just about the debate itself, but about the group of scientists who do not agree with the mainstream view, indicate that we should have an article on them. From reading the views in the discussion and consulting the policies and guidelines I concluded that the topic was viable, and a keep close was appropriate. That the article we have is a poor quality one has clearly caused people concern, and that is why I felt it appropriate to offer not just a close summary, but a suggestion that editing and discussion was an appropriate solution to the problems. I accept that in the circumstances it would have been better if I had stuck to the deletion debate, and offered suggestions on opening a RFC on the article talkpage afterwards. I have found the comments on my close to be instructive, and will take on board what I have learned. I will in future consider more closely the option of closing as no consensus, and will clearly separate or even withhold any extraneous comments. Should my close be changed to no consensus? Possibly - though is that because the issue needs discussing further or because it is a bordeline issue which cannot be resolved? I wouldn't like to see this matter drag on - this is the seventh discussion (five AfDs and two DRVs) - and it would be good to draw a line under it and get on with editing to see if that will resolve the matter. But if people feel that more discussion would be worthwhile, then perhaps a relisting would be worth considering. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would consider rewriting your closing statement and posting it here for discussion? I'd hate to see your standing, and/or motivation for taking on difficult closes, suffer as a result of this review. I'm impressed with the amount of thought and effort you put into the close (caveat: I agree with your decision), and with your cordiality and civility when your decision was attacked. You've clearly learned not to stick in extraneous stuff, like the comment on the parent FA. Wikipedia needs more admins like you! Hope the race goes well, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, as has been said repeatedly, we do have an article on global warming deniers - it's called global warming controversy. This article serves as a WP:POVFORK of that one. No references - not one - has been offered to show that such lists of people have ever been made before, or that such large numbers of people are notable on the denier side. 86.** IP (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm concerned that if the sentence, "The parent article, Global warming, has also been a major cause of concern, but through careful editing (and ArbCom sanctions) is now a Featured Article", is part of the logic leading to a keep, it may be worth researching if it contains a factual error. The wording implies that careful editing and ArbCom sanctions led to FA status for Global warming. That article was promoted to FA on May 17, 2006, according to the 'Article milestones' on its talkpage. I don't know of any ArbCom sanctions that could have led to improvements in that article prior to that date (although I don't know how to reliably search all ArbCom sanctions prior to that date to confirm this). I'm just worried that the implication, from the preceding sentence, about the article causing "concern" due to the "controversial nature of the subject matter" rather than due to policy-based reasoning, may be that the editors of these climate change articles are such a rowdy bunch that unless they are given very strict policing, they can't get anything much done. I do not think that is a good basis for an admin decision, I do not think it is true, and I do not think it can be verified from the actual facts as stated. --Nigelj (talk) 20:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  There were two arbitration proceedings on the general topic area of climate change that occurred during 2005. Climate change dispute 1 and Climate change dispute 2. The sanctions imposed narrowly addressed a few individuals, and I don't want to speculate what the impact was towards FA promotion, but climate change related work and editors have been in and out of arbitration for a long time. However, many of the cases focus on specific individuals rather than the entire topic area, and it is only relatively recently that broad sanctions have been placed across the entire topic area. Dragons flight (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the links. Yes, I don't see any direct evidence there that the sanctions imposed contributed to the parent article, Global warming, becoming FA. --Nigelj (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  They didn't. There has been no Arbcom case that directly influenced the global warming article. All of the Arbcom cases have been about periphery articles, user conduct and in one case about changes in reference style. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete - I'm actually scratching my head as to how that was closed "keep". Sandstein above is right that the closure was done on the basis of wrong-headed "vote counting" rather than consideration of policy and, specifically, the policy-related reasons that were or were not given by the participants in that discussion. Volunteer Marek  03:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it had been done on the basis of "vote counting" it would have gone the other way. In any case, given that SilkTork has conceded that his 'keep' decision was questionable, I cannot see any alternative here to declaring the result null and void: or as 'no consensus', in which case another AfD will undoubtedly be started soon, given the issues raised. Either way, this AfD has achieved little beyond illustrating that controversial AfDs need careful closing, with all significant comments actually addressed, and with no suggestion that the closing admin is bringing in issues not discussed at the AfD. Basically, if there are issues which should have been raised, the prospective 'closing' admin should instead raise them in the AfD itself, and leave the closure to another - I note that this is precisely what admin Sandstein did: [26] - If Sandstein had taken SilkTork's attitude to the closure, it would have been closed as a delete. Actually, I'd like to see SilkTork's response to Sandstein on this. How can it be possible to read Sandstein, and then ignore the fundamental point about 'supervotes'? I think that, yet again, this illustrates that SilkTork's decision was not based on a proper assessment of the arguments presented at the AfD, and therefore cannot be allowed to stand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and re-list. Or at the very least, overturn to no-consensus (I won't repeat the arguments already given above). If the article has seen improvements, then a new round of AfD should show a stronger consensus in one direction or the other. Cutting the laundry-list of quotations and merging the result into a parent controversy article would be a good choice too. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The close was essentially an administrator !voting rather than a proper procedural close. It would be a good idea to get a wider swathe of the community to review what happened and get more input at the very least. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my close. Having had a chance to revisit the AfD, I can see I followed procedure and assessed the arguments raised in the discussion against our policies and guidelines. The topic is sourced and notable as pointed out in the discussion. It meets our inclusion criteria. The main concerns in the AfD discussion were that the article violated some aspect of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and/or Wikipedia:No original research. I did examine those concerns, and found the arguments against these concerns were quite compelling - particularly that the article was linked from within related articles in an appropriate manner, and that there are reliable sources which discuss the "global warming deniers". A reading of WP:UNDUE, which was cited as a concern, shows that the way to treat "fringe theories" is to have a standalone article which discusses the matter - which is what this one is doing. A concern that there are other articles which already treat the topic is also addressed in the discussion by pointing out that this article is part of a set which deals with different aspects of the topic.

This DRV was brought as it was felt that I hadn't given enough consideration to all the deletion arguments, and that I introduced new arguments in the manner of a supervote. I agree that I gave a general comment on the need to clean up the article, and gave a suggestion as to a way forward on that, and I also gave the view that the main problem with the article was that the subject matter was contentious rather than it fitted our deletion guidelines. At the time I was thinking that it would be helpful to put the discussion in some form of context and suggest a way forward. Given that this is a contentious subject, and that the outcome of the AfD would likely lead to a DRV regardless of the outcome, that was unwise of me, though was not part of a supervote. I've looked again at the deletion arguments and I agree that I did not give enough weight to those who felt that the article was not editable - however, a belief that a contentious topic is not editable is not grounds for deletion, and is countered by examples of excellent articles on contentious subjects. On Wikipedia we do not avoid notable topics because they are difficult. There are no BLP issues as the statements are all sourced as being said by the people concerned.

I have looked again to see if "no consensus" is the more appropriate close, as there were more !deletes than !keeps; however, the arguments put forward by those saying "keep" were more in line with our policies and guidelines, and arguments for "delete" were adequately addressed within the discussion. The wider consensus of our policies and guidelines over-rules any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, unless the local discussion provides a convincing argument for why the policies and guidelines do not apply in that instance. This AfD discussion did not provide that convincing argument. I can see a political and social sense in which a "no consensus" close would be fitting, and would be quite comfortable with the close being changed to "no consensus", though I feel my close of "keep" was within due process. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are making yet more of your own arguments for keeping the page, and for opposing the delete arguments. You are exemplifying the supervote you made in the first place right here, right now. You are not to refute delete arguments in your close, or in the reasoning of your close as you do above -- which is not the same as showing how "keep" arguments made by others adequately answered "delete" concerns. I think you acted in good faith, but I'm beginning to believe there is a competence issue here when it comes to the difference between a supervote and a proper close. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide an example of an argument that I used in the AfD close that is a supervote argument. It would be helpful for me to look at it carefully - at the moment I seem to be missing it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andy already pointed out above that your suggestion about the "parent article" and its status as a FA amounts to this, but here's another one:

• Lists by their nature sometimes fly close to OR as there are sometimes no sources available which group items together the way that Wikipedia lists do. However, the list appears to meet MOS:LIST, and provides both information and navigation.

You made your own interpretation of how lists do and/or do not fit with the original research policy here. This was done through a claim that I can't find made by anyone in the discussion that the list meets MOS:LIST and that the original research arguments made by "delete" voters are contravened by that part of the manual of style. I happen to disagree with your assessment here, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that you are making these arguments on your own, not repeating them because they were a major part of the arguments made by others. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned by the amount of comments saying that they feel my close was a supervote. I am called upon on occasion to close tricky discussions, to help out at disputes and look into POV issues in articles. This is because I am seen to strive to be balanced and neutral, and to be quite firm on following policies and guidelines. I would like to closely examine this, as it does have implications for my future involvement in closing tyricky discussions. I am aware that my general comments which included mention of another article did have potential to be misread. I have taken that onboard and am comfortable that the existence of another article did not impact on my close decision, but that mentioning it was unwise and misleading. I am unclear, however, how mentioning a relevant policy or guideline can be considered a supervote. This is a concern to me, as my understanding is that any closer should be taking policies into account especially if they have not been raised in the discussion. How is referring to the wider consensus outlined in policies and guidelines somehow inappropriate? Any closer who is looking purely at the local discussion and disregarding wider consensus is surely not appropriately applying consensus? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies...These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus. A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies. (WP:DGFA). However that's not applicable to the situation you describe, partly because it is talking about core content policies such as verifiability, NPOV and BLP (MOS:LIST is a style guideline) and partly because it is talking about situations where the closing administrator can overrule local consensus and delete something, not keep it. MOS:LIST wasn't mentioned in the discussion, and for good reason. It describes what the purposes of lists are, and if a list doesn't fulfil one of those purposes then that would be an argument for deleting it. This doesn't mean that a list should be kept if it passes MOS:LIST because there could be other things wrong with it. Hut 8.5 10:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to what Hut wrote, your personal interpretations here do not amount to clear cut policy enforcement, which is what you're implying. Where do you get the idea that a style guideline contravenes concerns with BLP and OR policies? As I pointed out already that argument was never made in the discussion, and as Hut adds it wasn't made for good reason. You claim to be appealing to a broader consensus outside the discussion but I don't see it anywhere. If you are going to make such an appeal you better have some good evidence at hand, like prior community wide RfCs, or other discussions which clearly support your interpretation (and yes it is an interpretation and not a clear cut policy matter as I already stated). Another point Hut made also bares repeating. The relevant portion of WP:DGFA is about cases where articles need to be deleted because they are in violation of policy. Whereas policy might dictate the need to delete an article there is no policy imperative to keep any article. There never is. The editors who behave as if there is are a very well known minority here on Wikipedia (I think we all know who they are). If you allow their minority opinion to form a basis for making controversial closes you are not, in my opinion, fit to make such closes. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DGFA says, in bold in the original: 4.When in doubt, don't delete. That sounds to me like a pretty clear-cut policy basis for not deleting articles unless there is clear consensus or clear core policy violation, neither of which I believe to be the case here. --Merlinme (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely different argument, and not one that either SilkTork has made, nor one that addresses the current criticism of his close either. If there isn't a clear consensus and there isn't a clear core policy violation the correct close is "no consensus" which, as you must realize, also amounts to not deleting the entry (also fulfills "don't delete"). Had SilkTork closed in that manner we would not be here right now. SilkTork's argument is that he closed as keep (which is beyond not deleting) based on what he claims is an obvious reading of policy/guidelines about lists. He ignored the lack of consensus, in other words, for his own reading of policy. If you don't see the difference here I'm not sure I can help you, but it is pretty huge. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to your statement that "there is no policy imperative to keep any article", which seemed to me to be being used as an argument that the article should be deleted, as several people in this discussion have been arguing (and which I can see little or no basis for). I've already argued in favour of an overturn to No consensus. I apologise if I misunderstood your position.--Merlinme (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked again at my closing statement. It is a poor piece of writing, and certainly the worse close I've written. If I subtract the additional comments all that is left is this: "The main concerns about this article are that it is original research and is not neutral. Arguments of fringe and undue are well countered both by the sources provided by Warden, and by awareness, as pointed out by NewsAndEventsGuy, that the article is prose linked in related articles on Wikipedia (not just templated)." The additional views, not essential to the close, are very misleading, and - as I have agreed earlier - I do not adequately deal with the delete views. I have accepted from the first query that the statement wasn't clear, but as I understood my own close, and the thinking that led to it, I felt that the close was acceptable. What I was looking at was: 1) Does this article meet our inclusion criteria? The answer is yes - and the arguments and evidence for that are found in the discussion. 2) Does this article meet our deletion criteria? The concerns were OR and POV, and I found those concerns addressed within the discussion in the article, so the answer is no. Having found those two main questions answered I found that there was no consensus to delete, and that as the concerns had been appropriately addressed, the outcome was keep. I then made additional comments that have clouded the issue. The main discussion about my close is that I made a supervote by including those additional comments; my argument has been that those additional comments were not essential to the close, and so - while unwise - did not impact the close. As an extension of that discussion, there is the question regarding how much a closer should not consult or make reference to relevant guidelines and policies. My understanding is that a closer should be aware of the relevant guidelines and policies. The sticking point here, perhaps, is if the advice of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists consists of sufficient Wikipedia consensus, and/or is relevant enough to be consulted in an AfD discussion - it is a MoS guideline after all, rather than an inclusion guideline. I did not use that guideline as part of my keep assessment, but used it as part of the contentious additional comments; however, be that as it may, mentioning it has added to the confusion here, and I fully accept that.

Where I am now with this, is thinking that I did not fully take into account the delete concerns, and apply the third question: 3) Are there arguments here that allow special considerations to apply? My feeling at the time was that the arguments that the article was POV and OR were adequately addressed within the discussion, and so a keep was the right outcome; however, looking again I can see that there are sufficient genuine concerns that the article is and will remain problematic to allow a "no consensus" close. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no BLP issues as the statements are all sourced as being said by the people concerned". Really? To quote admin Sandstein: "In the light of WP:BLP, a list of living people selected on the basis of having taken a controversial position should only be compiled if the person is explicitly stated by a reliable source to have taken the controversial position. But in this case, editors have applied their own judgment as to whether the quoted statements constitute "opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming", which is inadmissible original research". I would like to see a proper response from SilkTork on Sandstein,s comments at the AfD [27]. SilkTork and Sandstein have evidently reached entirely contrary conclusions regarding the article, but whereas Sandstein was prepared to make arguments in the debate, SilkTork took it upon himself to impose a decision by fiat, apparently disregarding fundamental tenets of Wikipedia policy regarding BLP's and OR. Is it really acceptable to have an Arbitrary list of people we've decided have a particular opinion about something controversial on Wikipedia? I hope not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually think that it's not possible for something to be a BLP violation if it has a citation? That position is seriously at odds with consensus on the issue, to put it mildly. Hut 8.5 16:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been discussed before (and is being discussed again) the best way to present the citations, and whether the quotes should be additionally supported by secondary sources describing them as sceptics. I don't see this, in itself, as a reason to delete the article, as it's a content question which could be resolved by changing the format of the article.

Clearly something can be a BLP violation even if it has a citation; most obviously, the citation could be wrong. For example journalistic reporting of a person's beliefs could be incorrect. However we ascribe positions in biographical articles to people all the time based on material they've published themselves, and/ or third party reporting of their beliefs; for example no-one would question whether Richard Dawkins is an atheist, and I don't see why anyone would question whether Richard Lindzen is a consensus sceptic. Richard Lindzen is described in the lead of that article as "a well known skeptic of global warming". --Merlinme (talk) 16:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a degree of not making points clear, and for that I apologise. The principle that you cannot have a list of global warming deniers is refuted by evidence brought up in the discussion that there is a group of such people, and there will not be a BLP issue if a statement has a reliable source, such as the sources that are in the article or were raised in the AfD discussion. Sources such as this show that such a list is well within our policies. That is not to say, of course, that the article at some point now, in the past, or in the future will not have problems because some people are inappropriately included or inappropriately sourced - but such problems are common to many articles and are not grounds for deletion of the whole article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

respectfully, that's one part of the problems, and you've never yet responded to any of the other ones. The list, in structure and function, exists to push a POV. It's a type of list known to be used as a propaganda tool. Noone else has ever constructed such a lits that can be found. It serves as a WP:COATRACK to push a pov, and fundamentally, in its construction, violates WP:UNDUE. Editing will not fix any of these problems, short of cutting the list down to nothing but a list of names, which the WP:POVPUSHers will not allow under any circumstances, particularly not when you close it as "Keep", thus giving them all the justificatoin they need to keep violating core policy. . 86.** IP (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O, I fully accept that people have concerns that the article is a POV vehicle. I also accept that the article is problematic. What I looked at were the relevant policies and guidelines and what people said in the discussion to address or refute those concerns. What I found convincing, and which I mentioned in my close, and which I keep restating, but which is perhaps not being given due credit, is that Warden put forward arguments and evidence that reliable sources are dealing with the topic of the global warming deniers, and as such the topic becomes appropriate for Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even LOOK at Warden's references? They mention a couple people, yes. They dio not mention the dozens of names seen here. 86.** IP (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Those sources list more than "a couple of people". Per WP:LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.". The sources present these people as a group or set. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you banging on about notability? That's not the issue here. Hut 8.5 19:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone wonders aboout Warden's sources

I looked at them. They don't justify the list at all.

• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8Z85BOS90GkC&pg=PA401#v=onepage&q&f=false lists 8 names, doesn't discuss their arguments.
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Es1AqDejza0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Doesn't appear, on a quick lookover, to have any significant discussion of particular denialists. It's a historic overview starting in the enlightenment. Page number?
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=gDcUQgAACAAJ Buggered if I know, book isn't searchable. I don't doubt it discusses a few people who oppose climate change, but it'd need to be a very large number to be relevant to this debate. It also appears dubious in its ability to stand as a WP:RS.
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YKaOOcWyNywC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false - Again, have to do a quick look, since it's a several-hundred page book. It discusses a few climate change deniers in context, but doesn't do anything like this list of POV-pushing quotes, since, you know, it provides actual context and discussion of their claims.
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RsYr_iQUs6QC&pg=PA151#v=onepage&q&f=false Mentions three climate change deniers in the section that link directs you to. A rather pitiful attempt to justify a gigantic list.

These sources do not show that such a list is viable, encyclopedic, nor do they justify making the list a giant WP:COATRACK of denialist claims. 86.** IP (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you even understand the argument in favour of deleting the page. Even if the article was impeccably sourced to third-party references that directly supported the material quoted in the article and there are abundant lists of global warming deniers out there in reliable sources that is completely and totally irrelevant to the question of whether the existence of this article is neutral and thus does not refute the arguments in favour of deletion. It's true that there is abundant coverage of people who don't think global warming exists (or who don't think it's manmade) and that it is in principle possible to write a neutral article on them, which is why we have an article at Global warming controversy. It doesn't mean that it is possible to have a neutral article at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Hut 8.5 17:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, SilkTork seems to be trying to assert the validity of his 'supervote', while dismissing the reasoned concerns of those who point out the BLP and OR concerns in an arbitrary list compiled by Wikipedia editors on a controversial subject. Searching out individuals who meet Wikipedia's own self-generated criteria, with the express intention of including them on a list, is original research. This is self-evident. If SilkTork considers such behaviour to be appropriate to Wikipedia, he should call for policy to be revised. As of now, it is totally contrary to norms, and a violation of not only WP:OR but WP:BLP policy. The opinions of the individuals listed is diverse (or at least appears to be, from the material concerned - it cannot be presented as evidence for current beliefs), and the suggestion that there is a singe 'group' of 'global warming deniers' is itself therefore highly questionable - they often appear to have nothing in common in their criticisms, and have been lumped together to imply that the scientific consensus on the matter is weaker than it is. That other sources may have attempted the same POV stunt is rather beside the point - it is still material gathered to push a POV - in Wikipedia terms, a POV-fork. It stinks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn -- the close as written appears to be a supervote on the merits instead of an evaluation of the arguments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as per several others who are concerned about the super-vote appearance of the closing rationale; Griswaldo's remarks are very persuasive. I'd prefer to see it deleted because of the coatrack and OR potential, but no consensus is not an unreasonable close based on the arguments provided in the AfD. Horologium (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close AFD is not about counting numbers. Its about judging what was said. Many sources were given providing the subject notable. The article list people who have their own Wikipedia articles, and list the quote of what they have said about this. Their comments have all gotten news coverage. Rather encyclopedic article, since you can easily see what notable people covered in the media as being experts on this subject have stated about this subject. Dream Focus 22:49, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, really. Show me proof that these have been covered in the media as experts on the subject. Because that's never once been mentioned in connection to this list. 86.** IP (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I search for the first name on the list, and the word "global warming" and Google news archive search shows 189 results. [28] Here is a New York Times article about his belief concerning global warming [29]. So references aren't really an issue here. If the mass of references already in the article aren't enough, you can easily use Google news archive search to find more. Dream Focus 00:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being covered in the news is not one of the list's criteria, and you'd need to demonstrate that was true for all (or at least a majority) of the names in the list before your argument was at all valid. Also, the media actually sometimes presents, you know, actual climate scientists as experts as well, so it's not like "who the media consider experts" is limited only to climate change denialists, or a unique grouping. 86.** IP (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Those who believe in global warming can have their own list then. No need to try to put them together, that not making any sense at all. Do you sincerely doubt that any of the names on the list won't have media coverage for their belief about global warming? This is something they get coverage for, therefor the list is valid. Dream Focus 02:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Do you sincerely doubt that any of the names on the list won't have media coverage for their belief about global warming?" Yes. until you provide the evidence, I do. Incidentally, that is 'beliefs', not 'belief' as the list makes clear - they don't all have even approximately the same views, all they have in common is that Wikipedia contributors think they belong on this arbitrary list. And no, we don't allow differing opinions to have their own articles - that is a POV fork, and clearly against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Those who believe in global warming can have their own list then." I've said earlier in this discussion that the way to provide balanced coverage of a topic on Wikipedia is not to set up two soapboxes pushing opposite POVs. Reyk _YO! 03:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The closing admin made a decision (to introduce their arguments into their closing statement, as explained above), and is now sticking with their decision. While an understandable human reaction, it is not reasonable for a close on a topic like this to be based on a supervote. I might have missed it, but I see no explanation for how the close responded to the sound reasoning in the deletion discussion that a list of "scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream assessment of global warming" can never be satisfactorily based on reliable secondary sources—such a list is the definition of cherry picking synthesis, a problem compounded by the need for editors to interpret most statements (as pointed out in the discussion, but not responded to in the close with more than a "These are editing issues" comment). Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is pointless. Whatever happens here the article will be up for deletion again soon and we will go through the whole process again and again and again. And there is no prospect of a consensus to delete. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't be so sure of that Tigerboy. Many of us are new to this discussion. I'm of the firm belief that if the next AfD has wider input from the community this OR quotefarm will be swimming with the fishes. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep trying until you get the results you want? Tragically, that does happen quite often. If they don't get their way, one of those who wanted to delete it before, will just nominate it again in a month or so, several times in a single year even, determined to game the system. Dream Focus 14:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There does seem to be some gaming going on. The nominator of the AFD ostensibly started editing this month. They started their objections to this article with their first post, not at its talk page, but at the Fringe Noticeboard and here they are, just a few days later, posting up a storm at DRV. How is that they are so expert in Wikipedia processes so quickly? My impression is that they are a banned editor, such as ScienceApologist, or one of the editors who was involved in the Arbcom case about Global warming articles. Warden (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are correct it has no bearing on the actual issue being discussed. For the record I had concerns myself when I first saw this editor post about the article at the FT/N, but that's really neither here nor there. If you think this is sock then file an SPI, but don't suggest that somehow the rest of us should be discounted based on that. That, Warden, would be gaming the system. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• You do realise, Warden, that 86 found out about the existence of DRV after I told them here (this is the proper forum for contesting closures of deletion discussions, after all)? And that, according to their user page, the user in question usually edits while logged out, so evidently they have other editing experience? Assume good faith please. Hut 8.5 15:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Campaigning about this matter over at the Fringe noticeboard was not good faith action — it was WP:CANVASSING, as I observed during the AFD. It maybe that 86 is just naive but he's something of a bull in a china shop. Even an innocuous list like List of vegetable oils sets him off and he starts making wild claims like there being no such thing as tomato seed oil. If he wants to be treated as a good faith editor then he should calm down and not treat everyone else like a wild-eyed fanatic. User:SilkTork seems to have handled the matter with some thought and care and he deserves better than all this second-guessing. Warden (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So the fact that he posted a link to the AfD at the fringe theories noticeboard means it's OK to accuse him of sockpuppetry? Seriously? Hut 8.5 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If Colonel Warden has legitimate reasons for suspecting 86.** is a sock of a banned user, he can take it to SPI. Making unfounded accusations on an unrelated discussion seems like mud-smearing to me. Reyk _YO! 20:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Warden, the FT/N discussion was prior to the AfD so it was not canvassing. Also you must have missed the fact that SilkTork has not agreed with all the people who think this should have been a "no consensus." So I'm not sure what you are trying to say regarding that. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The canvassing post was this: "Hmm. Becoming a POV-fest. Lots of people claiming global warming denial isn't fringe, because... they hold the belief, so it's fine to have a huge POV push.". This was made during the discussion, not before it. Warden (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. The concerns about the additional comments have sidetracked me somewhat. I have spent most of my time since closing the AfD, thinking about and discussing those additional comments. The comments were poor and unwise and have distracted people, however, they were not part of the close decision. The area, however, where I have more seriously erred is in the assessment of the delete comments. I have three questions I consider in an AfD - 1) Does this article meet our inclusion criteria? 2) Does this article meet our deletion criteria? and 3) Are there arguments here that allow special considerations to apply? I did not look closely enough at question 3. There are sufficient concerns raised about the potential POV of the article to allow a "no consensus" close to be made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse reasonable close based on strength of arguments. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close - there is nothing new under the sun, lets stop wasting our time on this William M. Connolley (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There is plenty new under the sun. Indeed the climate on our planet is constantly new under the sun, and not in a good way. Do you have an argument supporting this close or just resignation?Griswaldo (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - This article is clearly not going to get deleted at AfD. Overturning this to no consensus is useless, it will still not be deleted, and it will only encourage editors to start 19 more AfD's. —SW— ^converse 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect you don't appear to be actually endorsing the close as the right decision, but commenting on the futility of trying to have the article deleted. The right decision on this AfD remains the right decision on this AfD regardless of how futile trying to delete the article is in the future. Griswaldo (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in biology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Such a topic exists and is notable as references do exist, for example:

• [30]
• [31]

(Closing admin had been contacted)Curb Chain (talk) 09:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in sociology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Such a topic exists and is notable as references do exist, for example:

• [32]
• [33]

Article was deleted because there were no references but this is not a reason for deletion but for fixing. Closing admin was contacted per Step1. Curb Chain (talk) 09:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: The article was deleted because the selection of "important works" it contained was original research. As I noted on my talk page, the two sources that are now being supplied do not draw this assessment into question, because the works mentioned in these sources appear to be mostly or wholly different from the ones previously mentioned in the article. These sources, therefore, do not justify the restoration of a original research list that is not based on these sources. At most, they justify the recreation of the article in a form that is based on these sources. Even so, I doubt that a university's English-language-only reading list and a selection of publications in Canadian sociology are sufficient to be the basis of a list of the most important publications in all of sociology, from all countries and of all time, but that is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  09:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Inherent OR and subjective calls of what is "important". --Crusio (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (or just overturn - added 19:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)) as incompatible with the later closes in most of the other afds. Though we don't go by precedent, some degree of consistency is important in an encyclopedia. As for the actual merits,, it was fully shown in the afds in general that that these are suitable topics, as documentation of what is considered particularly important is available in all fields. What will be supported by the documentation is a question for the editors of the restored article. We accept selected further reading in articles, and this is really just a break-out. Alternatively, just go ahead with the new list--since the content is admitted to be different, the objections do not apply, and it does not need agreement here--it would require another afd. I think the closer agrees on that--his opinion on the quality of it would be relevant as an argument in such an afd. Nobody is saying the new list is complete, so I don't see how its wrong to make a start & subsequently expand & discuss. DGG ( talk ) 15:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - As the list in the original article differed from the list provided in the sources, a recreated article using the sources would be a completely different article. Therefore, I think we need to be able to reconsider the new list, in light of the sources provided. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a recreated article using the sources would be a completely different article. But nothing prevents editors from writing that new article. That new article could in turn be made subject to a new AfD, as DGG says above, but I do not see how relisting the discussion about the old article, which is not based on these sources, could help here.  Sandstein  20:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the list needs to be sourced, and importance of each entry made clear. But it's easier to start with the existing material. Please move this list to the incubator as it was done with the biology one. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this helps. We seem to agree that entries on such lists must be sourced. It is better to find sources first and to rewrite the article based on these sources, than to try to find sources for already existing entries. When this article was briefly restored via copy-paste, the DRV submitter simply appended his new sources to the list and called them "references", even though they have nothing to do with the list content. This sort of intellectual dishonesty should not be made too easy. Instead, the list needs to be rewritten from the ground up.  Sandstein  06:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]