Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December

Battle of the Line (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel this close on "keep" is incorrect. All of the "keep" arguments amont to merely claiming sources are sufficient instead of explaining why they'd be so (as it is stated in WP:AFDFORMAT: "explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy). Which is extremely weak considering it has been pointed out in the discussion that most sources are either primary or fundamentally trivial (ie one-sentence mentions only), thus failing our notability guideline, and the "keep" supporters chose to avoid adressing that issue (making them voters rathers than participants in a debate).
The closing admin, on his talk page, admitted to have given more weight to "the number of people who found the sources to be sufficient" than to the actual argument based on the primary and trivial nature of the sources (and the lack of answer from keep supporters). Which directly contradicts WP:NOTVOTE and WP:CLOSEAFD.
In my opinion, the closing admin should have acknowledged the strength of the "delete" arguments and the weakness of the "keep" side, one way or another, and failed to do so. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin While AFD is not a vote count, the magnitude of support for a reasonable interpretation of policy can include the number of people holding that interpretation. If several established editors found the sourcing to be sufficient and there is not a clearly wrong application of policy in their reasoning, that would and was grounds to retain the article. MBisanz ^talk 20:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, but that primary and trivial sources would be sufficient to make an article notable is a clearly wrong interpretation, since it's the very opposite of what WP:GNG states. I'm not saying that numbers shouldn't be taken into account, but that they are only one of the things to consider, the other being the pure strength of arguments (which has nothing to do with numbers) regarding the consensus stated in our policies and guidelines. If the keep side is obviously going against the notability criteria that have been decided by consensus, then it should also have been taken into account, one way or another.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: neither the article nor the deletion review discussion were tagged as recommended in steps 5 and 6 of the deletion review process; I have added the DELREV templates in both cases.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close is a supported consensus read, within discretion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse 7 people said to KEEP it, giving good rational why. An editor who was blocked for using sockpuppets in AFDs for fictional things, nominates this for deletion along with a horde of other things. Another editor says "Delete - WP:FANCRUFT" without saying anything more. So that's two editors who basically said "I don't like it". The third and final editor that wants this deleted is Folken de Fanel, who argues with everyone in the AFD, then brings it to deletion review when they don't get their way. Consensus was clear, Keep was the right close. Dream Focus 22:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds more like a personal rant as to why Dream Focus doesn't like me than a proper DRV comment. Please keep personal matters where they belong.Folken de Fanel (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and sanction nominator. Folken de Fanel has demonstrated a repeated inability to accept that his definitions of what level of sourcing is necessary to support the notability of fictional elements do not enjoy community support. This is not the first time he's brought such a frivolous complaint here. Thus, it would be reasonable to forbid Folken de Fanel from bringing additional DRVs on fictional element AfD closures he dislikes. The sourcing present before the item was nominated demonstrates that the fictional element is adequately covered in independent RS'es, and there was no actual justification for re-nominating it in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My rationale is sufficiently developed for anyone to see it is not "frivolous", and DRV is accessible to anyone considering an AfD close was incorrect, so I don't see why I should be "sanctionned" for starting a DRV that doesn't follow Jclemens's opinion. My definition of the level of sourcing required enjoyed community support many times against Jclemens's. Had we sanctionned Jclemens each time he said "keep" on an AfD that ended on "delete" or "merge", I don't think he'd have had much occasions to contribute, fortunately for him Wikipedia doesn't discriminate users according to their opinions. DRV is not the appropriate venue to sanction people or to make false accusation of bad behavior. The item nominated is not adequately covered in independent RSes and that's why it was nominated.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You still aren't understanding that the issue isn't you having different opinions than policy, it's that you refuse to accept when other editors make a decision that doesn't align with yours, that it's consensus. Please show me a single fictional element DRV that you have raised which has even equivocal support. As far as I am aware, you have never made any such DRV request which has achieved anything other than unanimous or near-unanimous endorsement of the original outcome. That is why I suggest you be prevented from wasting DRV's time and effort in the future. It probably won't happen this time, but unless you learn to graciously accept being overruled on your interpretations, it will probably come up sooner or later. Jclemens (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close Consensus was clear and within reasonable interpretation of policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the close reflected the consensus reached in the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse-ish - at least plausibly meets WP:N, headcount favours keep. Could conceivably been closed as no consensus (I might've done so), but it's six of one, a half dozen of the other. WilyD 10:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close- the discussion could not have ended any other way. But strongly denounce the attacks on the nominator by Dream Focus and Jclemens; the former is a personal attack and cheap shot, the latter is another example of Jclemens's intolerance for dissent. Reyk _YO! 00:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as a reasonable read of both the quantity and quality of arguments. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 06:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but i don't see the quality you seem to be refering to, since all the keep arguments boil down to "let's ignore WP:GNG because we don't like it".Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, both numerically and on our tidal criteria which has become significant mention in two independent sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 158 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel the close of this AfD as keep is wrong as the failed to correctly weigh policy based arguments vs those that did not articulate their Keep !votes.

Specifically :

• Willdawg111's argument is not based on policy or guideline;
• 192.249.47.202 argument is not based on policy or guideline;
• 176.254.114.25 argument is not based on policy or guideline;
• JonnyBonesJones makes a claim to lasting significance, but offers no evidence for his assertion;
• Killswitch Engage also makes a claim to lasting significance, but offers no evidence for his assertion;
• Mkdw addresses WP:FUTURE but does not address the lack of routine sourcing;
• The only !vote for keep that provided any sourcing was AutomaticStrikeout, here, however they are exactly the type of routine news reports that WP:NOT says are not sufficient for a stand alone article :

  msn.foxsports.com News report following the press announcement of the event

  sports.yahoo.com News report more focused on prior meets between two that never were.

  www.sbnation.com Two lines saying when and where the event will happen

  espn.go.com another news report following the press announcement of the event.

The article it's self has nothing on the significance of the event a point picked up on by TreyGeek and his comment.

Addressing the claims that a UFC title fight somehow makes the event have lasting significance, this is the very definition of what is routine for a sequentially numbered UFC event, every one has one, it is how they sell tickets, by last count they had about 154 in 2012.

I therefore believe a result of consensus keep is wrong and not based on policy. ✍ Mtking ✉ 00:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The guidelines for future events that will probably be notable when they happen are so subject to interpretation that any results can be justified by our guidelines, as is true with most guidelines that depend on interpreting "lasting significance" or "substantial coverage" (my preference for dealing with this would be fixed but arbitrary compromises for each type of articles) The results won't be any the worse than at present and it will save time and trouble. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• Please note that this DRV has been inappropriately canvassed. In the event that *I* close this DRV (and I have closed most DRVs recently) I will explicitly discard any vote that fails to address policy directly or is in any way prejudicial to any other user. Keep it clean guys and girls if you want your vote to be counted. Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Lankiveil has made 23 contributions since MtKing posted User_talk:Lankiveil#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_158.  If the closer is either unwilling or unable to explain the closing, then the AfD should be reclosed, and there is no need for further comment here.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mtking states that every UFC event has a title match (not true, not even close). He is aggressively trying to affect MMA notability policy without demonstrating any knowledge of the sport. --SubSeven (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC) - note votes that amount to ad homs and/or personal attacks will not be counted when this review is closed. Please consider removing your comment and trying for a policy-based argument that might carry some weight... Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If pages are getting put into an omnibus right now, why is this article of all of them being kept? It's 2 1/2 months out and reasonably likely to be effected by injuries. Why are the standards for this stuff so haphazard and why are they implemented so inconsistently? Byuusetsu (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Closing admins are expected to at least respond to inquiries about closes even if there is an eventual stalemate or impasse with the person questioning the close. If that has not occurred here, the AFD should be open to reclosure without prejudice to the existing close. MBisanz ^talk 20:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin did make two responses to my questions (see User Talk:Mtking#UFC 158) the first one claiming no editor other than myself had an issue with sourcing, I then replied on his talk page and he replied again on mine and after receiving no further replies after I posted for a third time on his talk felt I should come here. ✍ Mtking ✉ 21:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC):[reply]

Thanks. In that case, I have no particular opinion on the DRV. MBisanz ^talk 21:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AfD was well participated, and couldn't have been closed any other way. Mtking's nomination here is an attempt to restart the deletion discussion. However, as the article is not actually offensive in any way, and as a clear AfD result should be given some respect, I don't think there is nearly a good reason to relist. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion for advice on renominating after an appropriate delay. The discussion should be much simpler in June 2013.

  Alternatively, Mtking might be well-advised to seek a non-deletion solution. There never were good reasons to delete over merge&redirect anyway, and so it never belonged at AfD. Start a talk page about a merge and redirect to 2013 in UFC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closer. Before I start, I want to point out how disappointed I am with the bad faith shown by User:Unscintillating in implying that I was unwilling or unable to explain the close. A more accurate explanation is that I was simply thinking the matter over to provide a considered response to this nomination, rather than providing a knee-jerk reaction. I'm not aware that there is any rule with DRV concerning a time limit that the closer must respond by (if I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected). As has been pointed out, I also responded within minutes to initial questions regarding the close raised by the person who opened this DRV.
  
  On the substantive matter of the discussion, the grounds that the discussion were brought on was that the sources provided did not indicate any lasting significance that the event would hold, citing WP:NOT. Such an argument is one that is subjective in nature, there is no objective way that one can measure whether an event will have a future impact. Therefore, we are forced to look at whether a consensus exists regarding the matter. In the discussion, a clear minority of editors agreed with the nominator that the event would not have any lasting impact. Despite good participation in the discussion, there was not a lot of people lining up and agreeing with the nominator. Under the circumstances, any "delete" close would have been incorrect as there was clearly no consensus that there were grounds to delete the article. Obviously this AFD does not preclude further discussion and consensus being formed on merging or redirecting the article at a later date.
  
  Finally, I acknowledge that UFC has some rather dedicated fans. I am not one of them, I am not a fan of UFC, or any combat sports at all really (cricket is more my game). Any personal feelings I had about the subject did not interfere with my judgement on the close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• In effect, you're endorsing a faith-based version of the lasting-significance argument, then. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse First, the claim that "every event has a title fight" is blatantly false. Many events are sold on main events with number one contender fights or grudge fights. So we can throw that false claim out. Now, the main selling point of this event has been the bad blood between the two main event fighters (Georges St. Pierre and Nick Diaz). GSP requested Diaz over Hendricks <--- This source shows Dana White confirming that the champion requested Diaz over a prior confirmed number one contender, which is extremely unusual in the UFC and can be used to indicate the unusual nature of this event. Diaz will also be entering this fight on a one fight losing streak, and coming off a suspension, which is extremely rare as well as fighters usually need to win several fights in a row or actually fight after a suspension before a title shot is granted. Johnny Hendricks angry at GSP <--- This source also shows another developing storyline on this card. Johnny Hendricks had originally won a number one contender fight against Martin Kampmann. He goes off in this source, and will be featured on this card as well, creating an unusual dynamic. As well so far, this card features exclusively one division on the main card, although this may change. Single division cards are extremely rare. The fact this PPV is being sold on a combination of grudge and championship, along with two contender fights in the same division indicates lasting significance in the company, as the outcome of this card will set the stage for the future of the division. I feel these storylines warrant the inclusion of this page on wikipedia. Killswitch Engage (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Every event in 2012 (UFC 142,UFC 143,UFC 144,UFC 145,UFC 146,UFC 147,UFC 148,UFC 149,UFC 150,UFC 151,UFC 152,UFC 153,UFC 154,UFC 155) either had a championship bout or one scheduled. Every UFC so far event announced for 2013 (UFC 156,UFC 157,UFC 158) has one. ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing many UFC events in your oh so comprehensive list. --SubSeven (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get what you are on about now, talk about spiting hairs, I have amended the text. ✍ Mtking ✉ 07:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that every UFC event in 2012 has had a championship fight or had one scheduled is disingenuous at best and straight out false at worst. There are numerous UFC events missing from that list which featured no championship fights or ever had one scheduled on the card, for example UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida. BearMan998 (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that, while the numbered events typically have championship fights scheduled, you're not taking into account weight divisions. This splits things up significantly. So yes, there were championship fights either on or scheduled for all of those events listed. But, in total, the highest defense rate of the year was an above average 3 for the Lightweight championship. Flyweight had 1, Bantamweight had 1, Featherweight had 1, Welterweight had 2, Middleweight had 1, Light Heavyweight had 2, Heavyweight had 2. The weight classes themselves could be considered their own leagues if you will. Each has their own separate ranking and championship, obviously. So your argument that each event has a title fight is flawed by the fact that each weight division only sees a title defense once every 5 months if that. Lightweight has been the only exception this year. THEDeadlySins (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to know why having articles for, uh, 14 UFC events a year is such an issue? There are more articles per year for pro wrestling events which get less viewers than the UFC and certainly have less lasting effects than UFC PPVs. Byuusetsu (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. The "Keep" arguments were almost all purest hogwash, being faith-based -- at best -- rather than evidence-based. And Smokey Joe's rationale above seems to substitute nose-counting for actual policy-based arguments. --Calton | Talk 03:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The numbers are pretty extreme. Just one !voter, an IP who didn't sign, supported deletion. Even discounting every "keep" vote as policy-ignorant, no one challenged the "merge" votes. I just now discover Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157, which changes the picture somewhat. However, it is now a redirect to 2013 in UFC. Why not just redirect UFC 158 to 2013 in UFC? I can't support an overturn to "delete" when the AfD discussion doesn't support it. DRV is not a higher court so much as a process review. If the AfD participants are policy-ignorant, then they need education, not administrative overrule. I can't support a relist because there is no case for deletion over redirection. Endorse close but redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a redirect to 2013 in UFC (the page did not exist at the time of the close). I know from experience that any attempt at a Merge or redirect will be opposed by the fans and undone; take as an example the page logs for UFC 155 or UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier shows that, or have a read of the archives at WT:MMA countless of editors have explained what WP is not and nothing has changed. ✍ Mtking ✉ 06:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - an event getting substantial international press three months ahead of when it happens suggests to it's likely to have enduring notability, but trying to assess the truth of that matter at this time is completely hopeless. One cannot use a wild guess at what the future may hold to disregard the discussion. In the interim, meeting WP:N shifts the burden to producing a compelling argument for deletion (especially to do so over the headcount), and it wasn't done. WilyD 10:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the routine coverage of announcements that is excluded by policy . ✍ Mtking ✉ 11:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you bother to read them before judging them, no. WilyD 11:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did and they are the routine coverage that these sports event get. Which one shows the analyse of why the event will be of lasting significance. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given how grossly you're misrepresenting them, that you're unfamiliar with their content is the most charitable interpretation of your actions. If you prefer to insist that you're doing it out of maliciousness, I suppose that's your business. But either way, you need to stop. WilyD 09:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 147 and 153 did not have championship fights. Also, many UFC on FOX and FX shows did not feature title fights. Killswitch Engage (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 153, not 152. 152 had two. THEDeadlySins (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was running a few tabs trying to verify those and lost track. Amended. Killswitch Engage (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both 147 and 153 at one point did have championship fights scheduled (in the case of 147 - Anderson Silva vs Chael Sonnen and in 153 Erik Koch vs. José Aldo). ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which happened. If they had happened, an upcoming PPV (UFC 156) wouldn't be having a title fight and UFC 148 wouldn't have had a title fight (due to Dominick Cruz getting injured). Your original comment was that all events have title fights, which was wrong. Backtracking and trying to say that they all either had one or had one planned is irrelevant because the plans that got changed caused other events to change as well. That's not even pointing out the fact that the numbered events aren't the only events the UFC puts on (and may have actually been in the minority this year, I'm not sure) so that's almost less than half of the shows with a title fight. THEDeadlySins (talk) 21:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Event is inherently notable as per WP:SPORTSEVENT. "Some games or series are inherently notable, including...The final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of a top league". 76.103.153.126 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  I think the community is well aware that Wikipedia is being used as part of the marketing effort for the small company that owns the UFC franchise.  Online estimates that I could find for the size of Zuffa vary from 16 to 200.  Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp (dandb.com) was listing the number of employees at 16 last June, but no longer posts the info for free.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The size of Zuffa, the promoting company is completely irrelevant. We are discussing the UFC. Please refrain from attempting to mislead other users. Killswitch Engage (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground.  My comment about Zuffa stands.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what a ridiculous statement. these pages are clearly made by the fans and lovers of the sport. do you have any evidence of your acusation? 182.239.153.53 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a place for propagating irrational conspiracy theories either, but you just did that. Byuusetsu (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the size of Zuffa is relevant to this discussion or how its marketing effort would even think to touch a website that's run by users (and is thus freely edited by a large portion of people from all over the world). That doesn't make any sense and brings absolutely nothing to this discussion, which is a review of the deletion discussion of UFC 158.

UFC had more than 16 fighters contracted last June...in fact there are about that many in one event. All these discussions and deletions are representative of breaking the Battleground policy on Wikipedia. Shame. 173.168.140.188 (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THEDeadlySins (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I stand by my statements in that this event has received more coverage than routine as its a title fight. Mkdw^talk 07:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse An AfD closer should enforce the consensus. That clearly happened here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think Lankiveil closed this incorrectly, in the sense that I would have closed it as "delete". However, I think it's obvious that his close was within the range of admin discretion given the discussion.—Kww(talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Its become very obvious since this crusade against UFC articles started, that Mtking has no interest in the arguments, as long as the article is deleted or merged. Portillo (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:NPA. Focus on the discussion, not the nominator. Reyk _YO! 03:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in the event that I close this DRV the above vote will be entirely discounted. I have asked the editor to refactor their comment. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not retracting my statement, but I changed it to comment. Portillo (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and Keep Two points. One, changing from single pages to one loaded page does nothing but cause linking errors and a mess. It also does nothing to fix the policy points raised by Kww, MTKing, TreyGeek, and the routine deletionists (no harm intended). Second, currently the UFC, its championship belts, and most employees represent the top tier of the sport. Due to there being no seasons in MMA the "playoffs" and "championships" are a continuous and dynamic "event". Considering the slow pace of MMA and the fact that more than four fights in a year for one fighter in MMA is notable then you should consider most if not all of UFC fights as being notable. I am begging the deletionists consider learning more about the sport, please. 173.168.140.188 (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• When the only "delete" !votes are the nominator and an IP, but seven editors with an account !vote "keep", a "delete" outcome would require both a minute analysis of policy and excellent evidence of bad faith in the discussion. This is a non-starter.—S Marshall T/C 19:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jordan: Paranormal Investigator (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted because the "references do not appear to be from independent reliable sources". This decision was incorrect, as the references meet the Wikipedia:GNG guidelines as multiple, independent sources were listed that established notability for the game (the article contained references including: a review in the February 2007 issue of PC Zone, a review at Just Adventure, and a feature at Adventure Gamers as well as an award from Adventure Gamers). All of these sources are independent reliable, notable sources (PC Zone, Just Adventure and Adventure Gamers are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources as reliable sources). In addition to WP:GNG, the reviews also make it meet Wikipedia:Notability (software), since the software is the subject of multiple reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.JenniBees (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no indication that the situation has at all changed since the AFD, and it doesn't look like it's getting any more notable anytime in the forseeable future either. DRV is not to be used when you simply disagree with the consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I remade the article with clearer sources (as I mentioned above the sources are reliable by Wikipedia standards), and the page I put back up was deleted. Andrevan deleted the page told me to explain my disagreements with the AFD here: "it looks like those sources were present during the AFD. See comments like "some then new added sources, which, upon examination, fail WP:RS criteria." "AGS awards are not notable awards for determining notability." "References do not appear to be from independent reliable sources." If you disagree please open a WP:DRV instead of recreating the article." So, that's what I'm doing. The AFD did not take into account that the three sources listed were reliable (probably because they weren't properly referenced in the original article. I used the proper cite web and cite magazine references in the article when I remade it and added new references). Since the sources were properly referenced in the article when I remade it, and all of the references are listed as reliable sources on Wikipedia:Notability (software), the article as it was when I remade it should not have been deleted. I also want to point out that the AGS Awards and the Adventure Gamer awards are two seperate entities. The AGS awards are given out by the community of game makers for games made using the Adventure Game Studio game creation software. The Adventure Gamer awards are awarded by the website Adventure Gamers, which is reliable and notable as I stated above. JenniBees (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Even as someone who loves adventure games, I wouldn't try to claim an award from AdventureGamers.com automatically makes something notable, especially when it's the "underground awards" which seems exclusively geared toward non-notable free fan-made games/mods, and especially especially when according to the link it didn't even win, just came in as a runner-up for best sound. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On reading that article more closely, you're correct that it didn't win. Regardless, there's still an Adventure Gamers article in the references that is a secondary reference on the subject. Also, just because it's a game released for free (it's not a fan-made game, as it has an original story, and it's not a mod as it was created with Adventure Game Studio, which is an engine, not a full game (which would be required in order to consider something a mod) - it's an engine in the same way as the SCUMM, Unreal Engine, etc), doesn't mean it's inherently not notable. There are many freeware games that have received attention from the mainstream and other reliable gaming press. This is one of them. JenniBees (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. A games series, not a biography. Cogliostro (talk · contribs)'s AfD "Rebuttal" was unconvincing and the discussion appropriately closed was "delete". The cached version is an unimpressive article, being devoid of secondary source material. I recommend userfication for anyone who asks. It could very well be improveable, but the deleted version doesn't belong in article space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The four references in that cache are secondary sources, as they are not related to the game series in anyway (and they are notable and reliable as I stated above). If the article needs improvement, it should be listed as needing cleanup, not deleted, since that article (the one in cache) was created after the AFD, with new references and improvement over the original, and the references within meet WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (software) guidelines as the game series has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources, and the software is the subject of multiple reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers. All the references are listed as reliable sources on Wikipedia:Notability (software) and they are completely independent from the game series. JenniBees (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Party and person. There is no secondary source content. I recommend that you request userfication to get us out of this one. After reviewing AfD1, I feel that this should be an article, but it got deleted because the article quality was so bad. You could probably fix it in an hour, and moving it back to mainspace. You seem to be an experienced editor. You would have more credibility if you bluelinked your userpage. Disputing AfD2 is a very hard way to proceed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Request for userfication: OK, I'll request userfication then to improve the article. And no, actually I was not familiar with that. But, I do have a question, I did notice this here: "a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper". There are three reviews in the sources, wouldn't those be secondary sources? JenniBees (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse coverage is not significant, sources are not reliable. Fundamentally not notable. Andrevan@ 21:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your action was legitimate (per WP:GCSD#G4) but your above rationale is very poor. First of all, this is not AFD#2. Then, so, please explain in what PC Zone fails WP:RELIABLESOURCES and how a review article that entirely focuses on a game is trivial coverage about it. Cavarrone (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't find and don't have access to the PC Zone article. But if that's the only reliable source, then there isn't significant coverage from multiple sources. Andrevan@ 20:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So now please explain how and why Adventure Gamers should be considered an unreliable source and how their detailed reviews should be considered trivial coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow userfication. As I said above I see why the article was speedy delete (formatting references is not enough for WP:GCSD#G4). That said, PC Zone, Just Adventure and Adventure Gamers are usually recognized as reliable secondary sources, and especially PC Zone is a well-known, well-established publication in its field. I doubt they became abruptly unreliable because a couple of voters said so, without explaining why and how, in an obscure AfD. And there are dozens of other AfDs, and the same WikiProject VideoGames, that say the contrary. They are a good start, even if the AfD outcome has said this is probably not enough. So, allow userfication and give to JenniBees a chance to work on the article. Cavarrone (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Userfication is great when a topic is notable but there's an issue that can be solved in time or through editing, for example a notable foreign-language topic where sources almost certainly exist but can't immediately be found. Userfication isn't a good solution when a topic is fundamentally not notable and extremely unlikely to return to mainspace. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I said above, just because it's a game released for free, doesn't mean it's inherently not notable. There are many freeware games that have received attention from the mainstream and other reliable gaming press. This is one of them (as myself and Cavarrone have shown all the references in that article are from reliable secondary sources (all three are listed as reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, and PC Zone in particular is a well-known and respected mainstream gaming magazine). It also has room to improve. There's several Adventure Gamers reviews that aren't referenced in the article at this point: [1][2][3]. It was also featured in the article "Year of Free Games" in the July 2008 issue of PC Gamer (UK), which is also a respected mainstream UK gaming magazine like PC Zone. There's likely to be more reliable sources found with some more digging. JenniBees (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

There were two keeps. However, the administrator deleted it without proper rationale. Attempts to contact the administrator were unsuccessful because he retired. Also, the administrator was subject to Arbitration until motion is suspended. If temporarily undeleted, then we must know whether the image can increase readers' understanding of the episode in question. By the way, it was reviewed one month ago, but it was mass deletion review. This deletion is a test to find out whether we can go one at a time or make one review on two or three files.

As for the file itself, I bet it worked in Production section of "Burns' Heir". I mean, why using a free photo of Richard Simmons? Robot and human being are different from each other. George Ho (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. When every voter on an XFD says to keep, there are only two possible closes: Keep, or No Consensus if the XFD didn't get enough input. There's no possible way that the consensus of voters on this XFD was to delete. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I share Nyttend's view that the XfD did not result in a consensus to delete. I note that at least one other image in the same group (File:Cecil and Bob.png) was deleted at the same time after a very similar discussion and was restored at lower resolution after a Deletion review discussion. --Orlady (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, no way was there a consensus to delete here. In situations where the application of the policy is disputed, the closing admin should not cast a super-vote. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment I think the FfD discussion is sufficient to judge what to do here, without needed a termpundelete DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Maybe you can see the NFUR & image, but I can't. It's disappointing to see a suggestion that prior discussion without quoting of, or access to, the object of that discussion (NFUR or image) constitutes enough information to decide anything. --Lexein (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I agree with Nyttend's "no consensus" analysis. Let's look at the NFUR, the image, the article, and judge with the blinders off, with notification of image and article editors, and time enough for improvement (article:critical discussion of the image or subject, NFUR:rationale language). Re WP:ATADR, this is not "another chance" - the mass deletion notifications were inadequate, nominations were changed after a delay, noms were exaggerations of policy & included WP:AAFFD, noms did not specify all the NFCC #s not met, the closure was premature, done without discussion, and run away from; then, it was heavily disputed with some multiple overturns already. --Lexein (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. First, that SchuminWeb is "suspended" is irrelevant. He's refusing to answer a potential case against him having to do with his interactions with others; it has no bearing here. We should keep in mind thatt here was an original nominator, who argued that the image (with others) failed NFCC #8 (requiring contextual significance). When a deletion is processed without comment, which is quite common in FFD, AFD, and pretty much everywhere else, it's assumed that the deleting administrator accepted the nominating rationale and saw no need to go further. The debate was closed after a week had passed, which is what policy requires. The two other participating editors adopted a strained literal reading of the policy and did not explain in any fashion why this image was necessary and how it was significant. The burden of proof is on the uploader of a fair-use file; not the reverse. Now, let's talk about the rationale: "This image illustrates the text next to which it appears, which describes the scene portrayed." That's a terrible rationale. Of course it illustrates. That's what images do. If that's enough than any fair use image could be included, and we wouldn't bother with #8 because anything could satisfy it. That won't wash. The text in Burns' Heir does of course discuss the robotic Richard Simmons; it's probably the most noteworthy deleted scene in Simpson's history and one of the funnier segments ever aired. Is the image necessary to understand it? Maybe. Did anyone make the case that it was, when writing the rationale or during the debate? No. It is absolutely permissible for an administrator to ignore arguments not grounded in policy. It's done all the time. It's the reason bots don't close discussions. It's the reason vote-stacking is a recurring nuisance rather than a clear and present danger. Consensus must be grounded in policy; in those rare cases when we ignore all rules it must be for a better reason than using fair use images as illustrations. Mackensen (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every person who voted "keep" had no time to type many arguments. Actually, they copied and pasted everything. There weren't further discussions because not everyone is aware of deletion nomination of images. As for the image itself, why would an image of a robot be replaceable by text and a free image of Richard Simmons? Is the text not adequate enough to justify a fair use of the robot image? --George Ho (talk) 07:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were seven days. Plenty of time. You're proving my point--the closing administrator was right to discount copy/paste !votes that weren't apposite. You're ignoring the inappropriate rationale, and the text of NFCC #8. If just text were enough than surely almost every fair use image would be justified by it. This is a free-content project. Fair use is allowed, but heavily restricted. Surely a reading as permissive as that is inaccurate. NFCC #8 says "significant." I don't think that would apply here, but this is deletion review, not AFD round #2. No one advanced that argument. The two the commented rejected NFCC #8 as the basis for discussion. Mackensen (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Copy/paste votes aside, per one discussion, if deleted material is not to be seen, then new evidence may be permitted, unlike recent procedure WP:move review. And let's not discuss many policies at this moment yet. To test yourself out, I reluctantly added a free image of REAL Richard Simmons, so you can figure out whether "robot" should or should not be illustrated physically. --George Ho (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know what Simmons looks like, though if I didn't it might help. Awareness of Simmons' public persona would be more useful, and a still image doesn't convey that. Anyway, you're still missing the point. Of course it's better to have an image of the scene. However, "better" isn't enough with unfree media. Is it significant? Does the text comment on the image itself, as opposed to the concept? These arguments should have been raised in the original discussion, and I don't see how a low-traffic discussion at a low-traffic process not involving deletion has any bearing here. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Besides that it may look like AFD Round #2, why else would new arguments be omitted here? --George Ho (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because the purpose of DRV is to evaluate whether the deletion discussion in question produced a valid outcome given the information presented. This is why you occasionally see DRVs which produce the result "endorsed, but allow re-creation"; the debate was valid, but new information discovered afterwards changes the equation. The only important question is whether NFCC was evaluated correctly based on arguments presented and the state of the file and article at the time. If someone wants to re-upload the image, improve the article, and write an actual fair-use rationale then that would be an appropriate action, but it wouldn't have any bearing here. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn 1 nom, 2 keeps, admin closes as delete == supervote. Jclemens (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite being a popular term of abuse supervotes are neither illegitimate nor against policy. You need to provide a better explanation that grapples with the policies. Mackensen (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The premise of the delete argument was rejected per policy by two to one. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of badgering, could you explain how? I've argued in detail above how I think this wasn't the case, and it would be helpful for the closing administrator to see your argument. Mackensen (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: Closure was fine the first time. Even if the result was "no consensus", that would result in deletion: this is FFD, not AFD, and FFD defaults to deletion, not retention. Further, none of the keep votes even approached rebutting the nomination statement that the image failed WP:NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist None of the keep votes addressed the NFCC3#8 concern. In fact, they appear not to understand the written policy at all. Relist to give further time for constructive keep or delete comments. ThemFromSpace 23:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great - another one who wants abusive misrepresentations of policy language to stand unchallenged, and WP:AAFFD to be ignored. Your care for the NFCC policy language as written is noted. It's okay, take your potshots, I'll defend the meanings of words. By the way, with a really crappy nomination, you expect perfect replies from responders? Did you even look at the edit history? Please do. What kind of further deletion gaming do you want? Not notifying uploaders? My mistake was trying to get the nomination to be rewritten with fidelity to the policy language, then to address each policy point correctly brought up; wasted effort, even now, I suppose. --Lexein (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. The keep arguments at the discussion were entirely off. A non-free image being "decorative" is a valid reason for deletion; this type of use is exactly why WP:NFCC exists to begin with. Lexein's argument that the nominator "falsifie[d] policy: 'not critical for understanding', 'greatly enhance' and 'greatly decrease' are not stated in policy" was entirely wrong, WP:NFCC#8 addresses this entirely. Still, SchuminWeb's deletions had begun to turn problematic, and a fresh discussion seems merited here. — ξ^xplicit 02:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nope. That the policy doesn't say what you want it to say, that much is clear, but deliberate exaggerations, presented as policy, are inexcusable. My statement that the nominator "falsifie[d] policy[by exaggeration]: 'not critical for understanding', 'greatly enhance' and 'greatly decrease' are not stated in policy" - is entirely, dead on, right. NFCC#8 doesn't say or mean "critical" or "greatly" anything. Read it again. Are you saying that "significant" means "greatly" or "critical"?

2. I detest flawed nominations - they are a horrible waste of time, as you are now experiencing. I think flawed nominations should be reverted, or the clock started over after any major edit to the nomination (which happened here, with no clock restart).

3. The discussion ended quite effing abruptly, so of course Relist is fine with me. --Lexein (talk) 05:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your condescending tone of asking me to re-read the policy. I've worked with files everyday for a very extended period amount of time, I think I would know this policy through and through. Anyway, directly from WP:NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This one sentence refutes your claim that Justin falsified policy by exaggeration, as it specifically does knock your "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance", and "greatly decrease" claims down entirely. — ξ^xplicit 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you should appreciate being corrected when you are wrong, and you are wrong here. And you should be glad I asked you to read it again. Getting away with doing it wrong for years doesn't make it right. I cannot tell by what circuitous hidden logic you are arriving at an equivalence between "significant" or "critical" and "greatly", but it is not visible to the rest of us. If you are deliberately refusing to reveal your logic, then you are acting quite badly here; if you claim that there is no such logical transformation required, then you are acting worse. I'm tired of this, but not tired enough to cease calling out anyone who manipulates and falsifies policy language. It was a weak, non-specific nomination, a delayed edit without improvement, with language distorting policy, and it merited swift cleanup or reversion by an activist admin who strongly prefers clean, uncomplicated, uncontroversial nominations, as do I. Unless you think the nomination, and its delayed edit, were above reproach. It doesn't bother you that the policy says one thing, and people are acting as if it says something else? It bothers me greatly. --Lexein (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, let me get this straight... "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and "not critical for understanding", "significantly increase" and "greatly enhance", and "detrimental to that understanding" and "greatly decrease" are not different ways of saying the exact same thing? That's like arguing that "yes" and "yeah" don't have the same meaning. If I've been doing it wrong for several years, surely I would have been considered a controversial admin a long time ago. Fact is, of my three and a half years of being an admin, most of my deletions hardly ever get sent to DRV, and the ones that have, to my memory, have never been overturned. That's how wrong I've applied this policy, apparently. So, if you're going to accuse me of manipulating and falsifying policy for years, you better bring up some solid evidence, because you're quickly approaching WP:NPA territory.

I also find it extremely ironic that you argue against a "weak, non-specific nomination", and did nothing but provide a weak, non-specific keep rationale for most, if not all, of those images. Let me point out WP:NFCCE: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". You failed to do so. — ξ^xplicit 03:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMFG they are not different ways of saying the same thing. Even if they were equivalent (and they are absolutely not), there would be no reason to say "the same thing" twice; this is my point - the nominator deliberately exaggerated the language, pushing it beyond its intent as stated in the policy. Your "yes" and "yeah" analogy does not apply. Accuse? Plainly state, more like. There is such a thing as willing agreement, and if you truly believe in the equivalence of the above contested phrases, then you have in fact been willing to agree to an exaggeration of the explicit policy language, to effect deletion of images, in at least a few cases. I think the majority of images you've deleted probably did merit deletion: I'm arguing the case for the edge cases, where the meanings of words matter. This might be as many as 3%, maybe less. That was my point at the recent 272 nomination bloodbath: 6 or 7 should not have been deleted based on the criteria they were nominated for (perhaps another criteria, perhaps not).

As for your irony, well, I was certainly distracted with what I am still certain were inexcusable flaws in the nominations and was waiting for discussion, which didn't happen. I expected a response, at least for those images (6) at which I pointed out that the nominator ignored critical discussion of the image or its content. More the fool I, I guess. Now I know that that's the strategy: nominate, maybe modify one atrocious error in the nom, don't restart the clock, leave it contaminated with exaggeration, don't discuss, then Profit! That's the exact example I'm going to follow, and I'll cite this as successful prelude. --Lexein (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's also inaccurate to refer to the discussing ending "abruptly." Near as I can tell the FFD ran the full week. That's all that's required. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, given that the language of the nomination changed midstream, I think the clock should have restarted, but as I've stated, I was (vainly) expecting discussion on point, which never happened. At this particular image, I was faulting the nom for its language, and now I don't remember the image, and of course can't see the NFUR. --Lexein (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As an aside, I'd like to point out that there is some faulty math going on here: two keep !votes versus two delete !votes (myself as nom and SchuminWeb as closer) hardly constitutes a consensus to keep. Also, if there are infinite crappy reasons to keep ("I like it!" "It's cool!") then that trumps a single policy-based argument for delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'No consensus' defaults to 'no consensus,' not 'delete.' I get that default-to-delete applies where nobody has responded, or where there is no parity on !votes, but defaulting 'no consensus' to delete? That's nonsense. Better to either close 'no consensus', or just keep open for more discussion. Who does that hurt? By the way, it's galling that you continue to misrepresent: here, you misrepresent the opposing !votes given. Keep it up - it serves you poorly. --Lexein (talk) 10:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Both keeps effectively address that the NFCC#8 concerns are poppycock, which they are. Burn's heir is far harder to understand to someone unfamiliar with the subject matter without the image. WilyD 10:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The nominator said that the image did not enhance readers' understanding, but did not explain why they believe that. The keep voters correctly note that simply stating something is purely decorative does not make it so. There was clearly no consensus to delete based on that discussion so the closure was incorrect. The nominator should be free to renominate provided they explicitly note why they believe the image can be adequately replaced by text and/or a free image. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he didn't. Thryduulf, he said that "[it] is not critical for understanding." That's not the same thing, and that quotes directly from the policy. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not until late in the discussion did the nominator actually refer to the policy, and at no time did they explain their view. The unexplained assertion was rejected by those commenting. The effect is exactly the same - the nominator said "this doesn't meet the NFCC criteria." with nothing to say why they felt it wasn't critical for understanding. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to Keep patient supervote. The nominator did not found consensus on his point of view. Cavarrone (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The closer appears to have utilized a supervote, interpreting consensus incorrectly. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 16:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'd like to remind everyone decrying an alleged "supervote" that WP:SUPERVOTE is an essay, not a policy (unlike WP:NFCC), and that said essay notes that it may be appropriate for administrators to ignore views not grounded in policy. Granted, both the original debate and this DRV are remarkably free of references to policy. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, except when it's the Simpsons and we really want our screencaps. I'm left wondering what exactly people think NFCC #8 is for, because after this review it's a dead letter. Nothing will ever be deleted again. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NFCC #8 is not dead letter but is still, as it has always been, based on a subjective valuatation and it requires consensus by the community. Otherwise you can propose that NFCC #8 becomes a criterium for speedy deletion, so we can solve a lot of controversities that raise at regular intervals about deletions under this criterium. You can consider an image unnecessary and someone else could consider fundamental to the topic, it happens every day, and here clearly the nominator's point of view that the image was unsignificant and just decorative was rejected by community. Yes, the keep voters were probably vague in their rationale, but not less than the nominator's rationale; and the lack of a closing rationale, as well as the refusal of dialogue/justification by the closer, go towards an obvious overturn.Cavarrone (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Addition Even if WP:SUPERVOTE was a policy, it includes "One exception would be in FfD debates where our non free content policy is an issue as this is one of the few policies meant to be enforced 'prescriptively' ". In other words, WP:SUPERVOTE doesn't apply to this discussion at all.—Kww(talk) 19:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • This is true, but whether an image is critical for the understanding of an article is a subjective criterion. The nominator asserted (belatedly) that it wasn't, but this view was rejected by those commenting. The only possible correct course of actions were (1) to close as keep, (2) to relist for more discussion, (3) adding a reocmmendation to keep (acting as a normal editor), or (4) close as delete citing evidence that it failed an objective criterion. None of these actions took place, so the close was incorrect whether it was a supervote or not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The assertion wasn't belated. "Decorative" may be denigrated as a reason based on the perception of it being "fightin' words", but its meaning is clear, and clearly excludes material covered by NFCC#8.—Kww(talk) 20:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Whatever term was used is beside the point that simply stating something is decorative or whatever doesn't make it so. The nominator's implied statement that it failed NFCC#8 was rejected by those commenting. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Objective deletion criterion sound fascinating and would make administrator's jobs easier. I'm pretty sure there's no such thing. Mackensen (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just looking at the NFCC criteria 4, 7, 9, 10a and 10b are always objective, 1 and 10c can be in some circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, and those are almost always at issue during a speedy deletion. I should have been more precise. Actual discussions tend to require interpreting subject criteria. Almost any image can meet the criteria you enumerated which is why they tend to not be at issue. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • You've missed the point. If an image fails one of those objective criteria then it is correct to delete an image in the face of consensus to keep it (but only if this is noted by the closer and/or deleting admin). If an image meets all the objective criteria it must be judged on the subjective criteria. It is never acceptable to delete an image for failing subjective criteria without consensus that it does actually fail them. In this case everyone implicitly agreed that the image met every other criterion, because only criteria 8 was mentioned in the discussion. There was no consensus that the image failed NFCC #8 (even if we assume the deleting admin believed it did, and as they left no comments and refuse to discuss their actions we cannot be sure, then we're at 2+2 with no arguments advanced in favour of deletion (cf my comments below)), so deletion was contrary to policy. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• About the supervote, I think nobody here named it in reference to the relevant essay. The term is long established and it was born long before the related essay (that was created, indeed, as a consequence of the use of the term). If I say that something is ugly, it does not automatically mean I'm referring to WP:UGLY. Cavarrone (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Which would make those comments all the more irrelevant. If they don't mean the essay, then what? I've been closing debates since 2004. Administrators have always had to apply their judgement. Mackensen (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They mean the concept, not the essay, plain and simple. And sure, the administrators should apply their judgement, not close discussions as they want ignoring both the discussion and the policy. If you are a so experienced administrator you know that the application of NFCC #8 is often controversial as it is based on a subjective evaluation and it requires that the community agrees with the deletion's proposer about the lack of significance of a specific image (and the thing does not always happen). Shuminweb not just ignored these points but also failed to provide a rationale for his close, and this is the stronger evidence of a supervote. Cavarrone (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not pulling rank, incidentally; my point is simply that this is nothing new (thanks for assuming I was, though). Administrators aren't required to provide a rationale when closing and often don't. When they don't, we assume that they agreed with the arguments put forth during the discussion, depending on how they closed the debate. SchuminWeb's failure to provide a rationale is beside the point since it's obvious what it was and there's no disagreement here. All that matters is wether it was reasonable to say that the image failed NFCC #8, and wether good arguments were advanced for or against that stance. Mackensen (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No arguments were advanced that it failed NFCC #8. The nominator implied that it did, but without explanation this is not an argument merely an unsupported assertion (AKA "I don't like it"); the keep voters obviously didn't advance an argument that it failed any of the criteria; and the closing admin deleted without comment (AKA "I don't like it either"). In these circumstances is not reasonable to say that the image failed NFCC #8. An admin is not required to provide a rationale if it is obvious, but in this case it was not - the nominator gave no reason and both commenters advocated keeping the image. Further, an admin is required to explain their actions and to provide a closing rationale when asked in good faith to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, There is a wikipedia article for every singe 20 minute simpsons epsisode. Not sure why these UFC fights do not have one as they are much more significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.173.34 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We agree. Fortunately the article was not deleted; we're talking about a screen cap. Do you have any views on the retention of the image? Mackensen (talk) 05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The close did not reflect the discussion. Not even a supervote as the closer didn't even give a rationale, just plain wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - The keep iVotes were very weak in that they lacked any analysis as to why this image met WP:NFCC. The delete iVote nom was stronger than the keep iVotes because the delete iVote nom used some of the wording from WP:NFCC as conclusions. However, the delete iVote nom was weak as well in that the delete iVote nom failed to use the actual wording from WP:NFCC and failed to apply the article language, the image, and the available reliable sources discussing the image together in the context of the actual wording from WP:NFCC to draw the posted conclusions. Arguments that are based on opinion rather than fact are frequently discounted. Neither side mustered an argument of sufficient strength for the closer to determine that a rough consensus has been reached one way or another. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It is possible Schuminweb speedy deleted the file using the WP:NFCC#8 criterion of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria on account of "A file in use in an article ... that does not comply with this policy 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor will be deleted". If so, it should have been stated in the closing rationale that he, as an administrator, was over-ruling contrary opinions. However, the BOT generated close says "The result of the discussion was: Delete". It is suggested above (by Kww) that at FFD the result of a no consensus discussion is to delete. I know stuff like that happens but so far as I can see it is merely a wrong application of policy. WP:FFD says "Files ... are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised" and WP:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions says "If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the file is kept by default" and "There is no such thing as quorum. If after the normal time period, there are no objections to deletion of a file, it can simply be deleted". Is there a policy statement or consensus agreement somewhere that says "no consensus" at FFD should lead to 'delete'"? BTW, so far as I am aware there are very many files that have been improperly deleted over many months. Thincat (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• relist There's enough bad faith here for everyone. I'm hard pressed to believe that the nominator actually looked at all these articles; it looks to me as though a file was scraped of all the screenshots in Simpsons articles and then dropped into Twinkle, just as the same admin did with 160 Twilight Zone screen shots on November 19. He didn't look at the several hundred articles he nominated over three days, just as hardly anyone else did either (I did look at a few of the TZ images, and not finding any that I thought could be justified, didn't go through the other 140 or so.) OTOH the boilerplate 'keep' votes dropped on these discussions don't have anything to do with looking at the images or their use in the articles either. I personally looked at the next bulk nomination of Simpsons images, but these were mostly gone by the time I decided to routinely review FfD. I'm willing to reexamine these, knowing that most of them will get deleted. But these mass noms need to stop, because they preclude actual review. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House at 1022 West Main Street (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deleting editor, an administrator, Nyttend, has twice deleted a series of valid redirects in September and again in November, for a set of NRHP-listed places in Ohio for which I had created a combo article, Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works to cover them all. Each redirect pointed to a subsection about one NRHP-listed place in this combo article. Covering multiple similar NRHP-listed places in one article is fine and good; other editors concerned with NRHP short articles have so argued, in other contexts that Nyttend is familar with (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site where Nyttend commented). What seems salient here is that the places are in Indiana or Ohio where the deleting editor has been exercising extreme oversight, to put it mildly. The deleting editor is fully aware of the fact that the deletions performed did not conform to any speedy deletion criteria, having been so informed by me at least twice. First discussion is archived at here (in Nyttend's archive 24), second "discussion" is at discussion that was at Nyttend's talk, was still showing but was archived during this discussion to Nyttend's archive 25. (The link in previous sentence updated by doncram 1/4/2013. Please note it is necessary to "unhide" much of the discussion there, hidden by Nyttend.) (A Nyttend statement to me also appears at User talk:Doncram#Hobart steel houses, but I quote that fully and respond to that in the Nyttend Talk page discussion.) Nor would their deletion be justified by any regular deletion criteria, nor by any redirects for discussion criteria, but that has not been tested by any such proceeding. The speedy deletion argument cited in the twice deletions was argument R3, which is for "Implausible typos", which always clearly never applied.

This is a request for restoration of these specific pages/redirects. However, it is part of a pattern of behavior by the deleting editor (in which the editor deleted other Ohio and Indiana NRHP-listed place articles) which I could document and/or may have to be addressed in another forum. If commentators would address the clarity of wrongness by the deleting editor of this set of instances of behavior, that would perhaps help in heading off the need for another forum. You can comment this way or not, but I think it needs to be clarified to the deleting editor that adminstrative actions of the type taken are not acceptable by consensus of editors (in addition to being incorrect by specific policy and guidelines). Anyhow, I request restoration of the following items:

• House at 1022 West Main Street, where redirect was to Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works#House at 1022 West Main Street
• Hobart Circle Historic District, where redirect was to Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works#Hobart Circle Historic District
• House at 203 Penn Road, where redirect was to Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works#House at 203 Penn Road
• E.A. Hobart House, where redirect was similar (while note that similar E. A. Hobart House was not deleted)
• House at 121 South Ridge, where redirect was similar
• House at 129 South Ridge, where redirect was similar
• House at 145 South Ridge, where redirect was similar
• William Hobart Vacation House

I let the issue lie for a bit, since November, perhaps temper would have been cooled i dunno. I will post notice of this deletion review at User talk:Nyttend and User talk:Cbl62 (who commented about deletion by Nyttend of similar Ohio NRHP articles I had created). doncram 21:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Doncram fails to observe that R3 is also applicable to implausible misnomers. These are names of individual houses (which pass our notability criteria) produced by a company, and he attempted to redirect them to the company. Imagine that we had no article on the Titanic; if we created it as a redirect to its builder, Harland and Wolff, it would be completely implausible. The situation is the same here. Redirects exist for lots of purposes, per the "Purposes of redirects" section of WP:R, but none of them would be fulfilled if someone who's looking for a building article is sent to an article about the company that built it. Moreover, Doncram's accusation that I know that these pages do not qualify for speedy deletion is blatantly wrong and a WP:WIAPA violation — I know that they do qualify. I delete all implausible redirects that I find, as long as they're recent. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. They are redirects from official NRHP names, or at least names appearing in the NRIS database, to the article sections specifically about the NRHP-listed buildings. NRHP editors create redirects from NRHP names all the time, e.g. from perhaps poorly named "Beam's Shell Service Station and Office, (Former)" to something that serves better as a Wikipedia article name (about Beam's, see its Talk page). There are other combo articles such as Cuyuna Iron Range Municipally-Owned Elevated Metal Water Tanks which covers about 5 Minnesota NRHP places, to which there are redirects from individual NRHP names. Here, Nyttend has been policing a personal user page User:Nyttend/Ohio NRHP/Miami and has similar userpages for all county lists of Ohio NRHP-places, so can notice any new NRHP articles, and he has been occasionally deleting new articles which appear which he happens not to like. Every one of these is in his personal Miami County list. To suggest that these topices are not valid topics is nonsense. To suggest that they cannot be covered in one combo article about a company and its works is nonsense (but could possibly be discussed in a Talk page suggestion to split the combo article, where i would vote No). There are clearly not "implausible redirects" in any common English meaning of the term. Insisting that I am blatantly wrong is nonsense. I don't know what is Nyttend's motivation for all this, but I think that assertions that I am blatantly wrong could serve a different wish, towards blocking me or driving me away from Ohio and Indiana NRHP-listed articles. I resent Nyttend just now posting a "Final warning" and threat to block me at my Talk page about my supported-well-enough assertion that he has been fully notified, is fully aware, of the fact that "implausible redirect" reasoning is nonsense. It is nonsense. --doncram 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The example of Beam's Shell Service Station and Office, (Former) is irrelevant here. In that case, the redirect target is an article about the same topic as the redirect name. The edit summary ("SarekOfVulcan moved page Beam's Shell Service Station and Office, (Former) to Beam's Shell Service Station and Office: implausible parenthetical") fully explains the situation. --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? It is an example, perfectly, of "NRHP editors [creating] redirects from NRHP names all the time, e.g. from perhaps poorly named "Beam's Shell Service Station and Office, (Former)" to something that serves better as a Wikipedia article name". Back to discussion about the 8 article redirects, please. --doncram 23:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and send to RfD Doing this by speedy was an error. We need a proper RfD discussion, and this page is not the place to have it. My own practice is that if a speedy of mine is rationally challenged, I always send it to xfd --if my view was proper, the community will support it. My opinion is that any admin not doing likewise is too sure of themselves. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the lot - I see no reason to send them to RfD; there's no credible reason to delete these. They certainly cannot be reasonably construed as falling under R3 or any other speedy deletion criterion, nor could anyone come up with a reasonable rationale for their deletion during a discussion. If someone feels they have to drag them there that's their business, but there's no reason for DRV to endorse such a pointless and disruptive action, Wikipedia ain't a bureaucracy. WilyD 07:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - These redirects clearly do not fall under WP:CSD#R3, and seem entirely appropriate to me. A redirect is completely appropriate when a topic is discussed in another article. This is covered by Wikipedia:Redirect, which states redirects are appropriate for "sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." The purpose of these redirects are to get people to the article that has the most information on the subject they are searching for, even if that is only a sub-section or an entry in a list. Nyttend's example of having a redirect from "Titanic" to Harland and Wolff also seems like it would be an entirely correct and useful redirect if the Titanic were only discussed in the Harland and Wolff article. I actually find it quite worrisome that Nyttend says he deletes all "implausable" redirects he finds, as he seems to completely misunderstand why redirects are useful and when they should and should not exist. Calathan (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn If we didn't have an article on the Titanic, that would probably be a redirect to Harland and Wolff#List of ships built. It easily complies with the purposes of redirects (specifically "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)") It is also 100% in line with practice. Ryan Vesey 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the cases where redirects should be deleted are few and far between, these do not qualify, certainly they do not qualify as speedies. They should be tagged with {{Redirect with possibilities}}. Rich Farmbrough, 05:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Overturn. The redirects are likely search terms to sections of articles where they are explicitly covered - the very definition of a plausible {{R to section}} redirect and almost as far from R3 as it is possible to get. There is no need to send them to XfD as they would certainly be (almost) unanimously kept. If these deletions are indicative of a pattern of behaviour as alleged (I have not investigated) then the proper forum to discuss this would be a user conduct request for comments. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the lot It's common for individual NHRP properties to get swept up into a historic district; a redirect makes perfect sense. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Rich. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I believe Nyttend acted in good faith, and no criticism of him is intended, but I do believe these redirects are plausible and helpful. It's entirely plausible that someone woudl search for an article on one of the houses, as the specific houses are so listed in the NPS system. These redirects allows the person doing such searches to be directed to the overall article on the Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works. That article includes information on each of the houses. This seems like a sensible approach to me. Cbl62 (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adelina Domingues (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not have much of a personal opinion on the article but I do think people should take note of my opinion that it has good sourcing, just needs a small formatting touch to be up to Wikipedia standards, and the consideration that Mrs. Domingues is now considered to be the oldest person in the world at one point. The reason I am listing this here for deletion review though is because I think any article that is reinstated without the deleting administrator's permission or the consensus of the majority of the community but is not a violation of section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion should be reevaluated for deletion no matter how good the article itself is. Thebirdlover (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment doesn't look like a DRV issue to me, there is no policy or process which requires articles which have once been deleted to be reevaluted and given the potential number of such recreations I doubt it'd be desirable. If you don't believe it meets G4 but want it reevaluated for deletion, then AFD would be the option, however if you aren't going to argue for it's deletion, then I suspect that would be seen as disruptive. (Personally I'm not keen on articles like this, the person tends to be known for one reason only and I can't imagine the basic biographical information is of much general interest. They end up being either stubs, or obituaries (not suprising this one is most heavily cited to an obit)) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin Not a DRV issue, the original AfD was a fairly straightforward close, the article appears to have been re-created without any reference to DRV, now appears to be "notable" (though frankly I'm unconvinced that not dying for a long time equals notability) ... anyway, I have no view on this. Black Kite (talk) 00:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's been five years since the AfD; I certainly don't see a problem with a re-creation after all that time. G4 doesn't apply at this point. DRV can't really bless a re-creation; if someone speedy deletes then yes that would probably be overturned here. Mackensen (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Top 50 Singles of 2004 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article about the highest-selling singles in New Zealand was listed for deletion due to a failure of WP:V as there were no sources. Two editors !voted keep after a source that showed the content was provided. However, an analysis of the page containing the content showed that reproduction of the content is not permitted. The RIANZ explicitly stated on the website that "any unauthorised copying, reproduction, linking or framing of any information included herein is strictly prohibited". I pointed this out on the Afd discussion but the comment was ignored, and the discussion was soon closed as "keep" with no further commentary about the newly pointed-out issue. I discussed this with the closing administrator who admitted to overlooking the problem. He suggested to take it to WP:CD which he did, although the discussion has died down and not much insightful input has been provided. The concern that this list is a violation of copyright is still unaddressed, and this article should have been deleted on CSD G12 grounds. Till 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment such lists which require no original creativity are not subject to copyright in the US (See Sweat of the brow, however searching elsewhere suggests the issue is still undecided in NZ. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here's the problem. If we delete this as G12, we'll have to delete all the articles listed in {{RIANZ}} as copyright violations. But as Moonriddengirl pointed out on WT:CP, there is existing consensus that these are not a copyright violation. In that discussion, Moonriddengirl notes that the Wikimedia Foundation's counsel looked at the issue and does not see cause for concern. My closing of the AfD was shoddy, but I don't see any cause for retreading old ground given the legal opinion provided by counsel. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse closure. Your argument is based on two premises: first, that licenses can be more restrictive than and override copyright law. They can't. Second, that the content is copyrightable at all. It isn't. Now, here's the thing; RIANZ certainly has the right to explicitly license their content under a more permissible license than that which copyright law, by default, contains. But they can't issue a more restrictive license, and we don't have to follow it: we can fall back to the more-free-and-legal option of what copyright law itself permits. Which includes these articles. I could stick a tag up on my site saying "this content may only be reused, even in an academic context, by uncircumcised baseball players from Antigua and Barbuda" - it wouldn't stop the garden-variety shortarsed Jewish brit from wandering in and going "I'll have that", because copyright law explicitly permits copying in circumstances wider than those allowed by the license. Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure, it's not a valid G12 for the reason that Ironholds points out above. I don't see any other compelling problem with the AFD; some more participation would have been nice but it's not an ideal world. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Base 30 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

30 being the lowest number with three prime factors, Base 30 hase less recurring fractions than any base less than Base 210, which is far too high a base system to be used in any practical sense. This makes it incredibly useful when dealing with fractions, as in Base 30 every fraction between one half and one tenth can be easily expressed apart from one seventh which is scarcely used, so for example if I want to scale an object down by a fraction (which I actually have to do quite often with 3D modeling software) you are able to enter a complete number in the number field without having to round, which would result in a loss in precision.

Aside from the reason mentioned above, it is also used in geocoding when working with converting longitudes and latitudes. Robo37 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the looks of it, the main concern in the AfD discussion was the lack of sourcing on the subject, scholarly or otherwise. Do you have any reliable sources to present that would show the notability of Base 30? Perhaps some academic articles studying it for one reason or another? Silverseren^C 14:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The AfD couldn't have been closed any other way. If you want the text to write a proper, sourced article, it can be userfied to you without discussion. If you just want it undeleted, well, the AfD couldn't have been closed any other way, and any subsequent discussion without the presentation of good sources is going to be identical.. WilyD 14:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as original nominator). The AfD was closed properly, no new evidence of notability has turned up, and WP:USEFUL is not a persuasive reason for a deletion review. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The nomination argument is incompatible with WP:NOR. Mathematics gets to push the requirement for independent secondary sources, but this article was definately across the line. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See Natural Area Code. It doesn't give any sourses, but from the article content it is apparent that it s used. From a quick google search there is over 10,000 results, some of which seem reliable enough to use as sourses. Robo37 (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV is not AfD2, the reasons stated for review rehash the AFD, not the propriety of the close. Moreover, the close looks pretty much unavoidable, as DGG points out. I don't see secondary sourcing which does more than mention the use of base 30 in passing in the search provided above or other searches (e.g., [4]), save for a few pages which are speculation about why it's used at or mirrored from Wikipedia. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  DRV nominator should have discussed this issue with the AfD closer before bringing the matter here.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore  It is not unusual for AfD !votes to blur wp:notability and wp:verifiability, and this is a problem in this AfD.  Because notability is not based on the content of a Wikipedia article, it is an invalid argument to say that a topic lacks notability because there are no references in the article.  What is unusual here is that the absence of references is not an absence of wp:verifiability, for the same reason that it is not necessary to provide a reference to say that Paris is the capital of France.  Thus the delete !votes that observe that there are no references and imply a problem with WP:Verifiability are flawed.  The AfD deletion argument specifies that it is a Prod.  For articles with verifiable material such as this one, AfD nominators must analyze the alternatives to deletion to prepare the discussion, considering both redirect and merge.  One keep voter correctly induces WP:Good faith that there is a reason for writing this article, and that there are no deadlines at Wikipedia.  There are no verifiable search results provided in the AfD.  No one in the AfD mentions trigesimal being used in Iberian astronomy by the Portuguese Royal astronomer at the time of the Treaty of Tordesillas.  George G Carey in his 1818 book verifies the basic trigesimal mathematical theory presented in the DRV rationale above.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it amusing to see a person who must be using a computer pointing to a source from two centuries ago that says:

    "On the whole, it may be considered that the Binary Scale […] is totally unfit for the most common purposes of calculation. […] We must therefore regard it, rather as a curious instrument of research, than a useful means of promoting the practical operations of Arithmetic."

    And you didn't read footnote 59 of that other source, which pointed out that Zacuto actually wrote the individual "digits" (terceros, segundos, and primeros) in base 10. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The material about how binary was viewed in 1818 is interesting, but I see no explanation for the multiple personal attacks, and until this post there is nothing but a good history between the two of us.  For those with further interest in the concept of using base 10 to notate other number bases, our Wikipedia article Positional notation#Sexagesimal system shows that every post on this page includes such a notation.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "multiple personal attacks"? What on Earth are you on about? Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore if new information becomes available then thats a good reason to overturn the correctly closed AFD. Unscintillating has now found a few references. The Natural Area Code system does have a fair few references [5], [6] (although they dont explicitly mention the base 30 nature of the code).--Salix (talk): 08:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• restore (original keep). The AfD seemed to hinge largely on the claim that base 27 was obscure but had one recorded use, whilst base 30 had none. Natural Area Code seems to show a use of base 30. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Natural Area Code is itself completely unreferenced, and does not describe a system for representing numbers (it represents geographic positions, not quite the same thing). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you claiming here? That Natural Area Code doesn't exist (not only that it's not WP:N but that there's simply no such thing), or that Natural Area Code doesn't use base 30? Otherwise it would seem that your hypothesis is to use WP's arcane referencing policies based on the current state of a single article as a means to disprove reality. Whilst perennially popular hereabouts, that's still not a credible rational argument. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm claiming that from all current evidence NAC has only marginal notability, certainly not enough to support a WP:INHERITED-based claim of notability for base 30. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The7stars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Disagreeing with the close, I discussed it with the closing admin here. We couldn't come to an agreement, which is why I am now listing this for DRV.

In short, I do not feel that the arguments within the discussion should lead to a delete result. A no consensus result would make sense, but certainly not a delete one. The first two voters in the discussion, even after their affirmations of their votes, did not return to comment on the finished product of the article, after I had improved it even further than the point where I had informed them, adding a history section and a number of references. Not to mention that their arguments (WP:GNG) are not backed by further explanation. Simply saying GNG isn't appropriate, because after my expansion, GNG certainly appeared to be met and they didn't expand their arguments to explain why it wouldn't have been met.

My improvement of the article changed Cindy's vote and the two delete votes referring to subscription websites are both incorrect (the sources were not majority subscription articles) and also unimportant, as we allow subscription sources per WP:PAYWALL. So I didn't then and still don't understand what their argument was and neither of their votes should be weighted at all.

Other than DGG's neutral uncertain vote, that leaves just two (three if you count the nominator) unsubstantiated votes of delete per GNG and four keep votes that say it meet GNG (with me expanding the article to show this fact.)

Therefore, I do not believe closing the discussion as delete was appropriate, nor do I feel like it appropriately weighted the arguments. Silverseren^C 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin The people initially supporting deletion returned after Silver's edits to reiterate their support for deletion. Theopolisme, Theroadislong, Anthony Bradbury, Bwilkins and MaxSem all restated that they felt it should be deleted based on the GNG and weak sourcing. Their opinions, while Silver may disagree with them, are not plainly wrong and represent a consensus when read with the other comments. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at the dates you'll see they returned to comment before this expansion and never commented on the added History expansion with its further sources. Furthermore, I just went back to check and Anthony Bradbury and MaxSem never once said anything about GNG. Their entire vote and further comments in the AfD were about the inexplicable subscription websites. Are you attributing an argument to them that they didn't make? Silverseren^C 03:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, for the people who did vote GNG, they did not back up their argument. Saying "Fails GNG" after sources were added is not an argument without expansion of the comment. And, again, they never commented on the further sources I added. Silverseren^C 03:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A closing admin cannot evaluate the sources added to see if they were sufficient. They also failed to return despite a relisting, which is generally taken to mean their opinion did not change based on subsequent edits. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I said GNG and weak sourcing, which I meant to include the paywall. I did not attribute the GNG argument to any specific person in explaining the close. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Paywall isn't an argument for or against GNG. It's a nonargument. And so their votes should be treated as such. Furthermore, what was the GNG argument? Saying "Fails GNG" isn't an argument if you don't back it up. How does it fail GNG, how are the sources not sufficient? Neither of them explained any of that, so how much weight can you really give that argument? Silverseren^C 03:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - about equal headcount, sources that could plausibly be taken either way with respect to whether or not they're sufficient for WP:N - that's exactly why we have an outcome of no consensus. WilyD 10:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Straightforward AFD decision, and a passing glance at the headlines of the allegedly sufficient sources makes it clear that no, they fall far short of the mark as evidence for general notability, being 1) trade press; and 2) routine industry announcements. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain how exactly the AfD decision was straightforward (without giving your opinion on the sources, because that isn't the point of DRV)? Silverseren^C 07:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - An AfD closure is ultimately a judgement call, the closer evaluates the arguments and decides accordingly. In this case, the calls to delete based on weakness of the sourcing overcame the opinion to keep, simple as that. If no error or nefarious misdeed can be found in the closer's rationale, there is no merit to a DRV filing. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As stated above by MBisanz, he appears to have extended the GNG argument to two users, Anthony Bradbury, and Max Semenik, who never made that argument at all. You can't weight people in favor of arguments when they never said they were in favor of them in the first place. Silverseren^C 05:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite sure how you get "he appears to have extended the GNG argument to two users, Anthony Bradbury, and Max Semenik, who never made that argument at all" from "I did not attribute the GNG argument to any specific person in explaining the close" but it's your opinion. MBisanz ^talk 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Because you stated this above: "Theopolisme, Theroadislong, Anthony Bradbury, Bwilkins and MaxSem all restated that they felt it should be deleted based on the GNG and weak sourcing." This statement is clearly not true. The two editors never made the statement in the first place. Silverseren^C 02:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Leigh Soto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was nominated for deletion on Dec 22 at 0100 hours and rushingly closed as an AfD and redirected on the same date by 1350 hours (a mere 12 hours timespan) in contravention of WP:DELPRO and WP:PROD. Early closure does not apply in this case. The article creator, its contributors, and the WikiProject overseeing the article where not notified of the AfD. Attempts were made to revert the AfD per WP:IAR, WP:VOTE, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY, and WP:WHATISCONSENSUS but the article was reverted and then protected by an administrator. A request was made for unprotection but it was declined. The article stands on its own per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:BIO, WP:VICTIM, and WP:BLP1E—these cases have been discussed extensively on Wikipedia several times and in depth. This particular individual, as WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E detail, has been covered in an exclusive manner by a reliable source in the context of a single event. Furthermore, we have precedents such as William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD.

Regarding WP:VICTIM the following statute applies:

The historic significance [of the victim] is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

The following reliable sources cover Victoria Leigh Soto in an exclusive manner:

• The New York Times: Remembering the Passion of a Teacher Who Died Protecting Students
• The Huffington Post: Victoria Soto, Slain Sandy Hook Teacher, Remembered As Selfless Hero
• The Huffington Post: Victoria Soto, Newtown Teacher, Emerges As Hero After Shooting
• The Guardian: Victoria Soto: Sandy Hook teacher who wanted to mould young minds
• WHDH: Sandy Hook hero: Victoria Soto
• and many others as shown by a Google News search with the parameters: Victoria Soto Sandy Hook

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; and, Ahnoneemoos, your "IAR" revert of the redirection was a very clear violation of our BLP policies. I see you are very good at enumerating Wikipedia's alphabet soup, perhaps you should be just as diligent in reading what they point to. — Coren ^(talk) 17:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ... and can't echo Coren's words loudly enough (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD and discuss. We with great difficulty established the consensus that the individual victims of an event like this do not generally warrant articles, unless there is something special. As the teacher, and on basis of the news coverage of which a small part is shown above, this at least needs a full discussion. The redirect was not made on the basis of BLP but OneEvent--BLP was not mentioned in the close or the discussion. And quite reasonably it was not mentioned, for the person is no longer alive, so BLP would applicable only in terms of the possible sensitivity of the survivors. I don't think that is relevant here--I cannot see how the presence of the article here does any harm to them, & preventing harm is the purpose of BLP. (I totally disagree with the view that it applies at all after a person has died, except of course to the extent a person's living immediate relatives are discussed, and the decision to insert in the policy needs to be re-examined, but that's not at issue here.) What might be of issue is Coren's unjustified charge of a BLP violation. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err, DGG, BLP1E kinda is part if the BLP policy. — Coren ^(talk) 18:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly BLP 1E is part of the BLP policy. But there is also WP:ONEEVENT, the expansion in N(PEOPLE) of the NOT NEWS restriction in WP:NOT for a person notable for only a single isolated event and not otherwise, living or dead. As this person is not living, it seems clear to me which must have been intended. Do you propose to permit the out of process deletion of articles about recently deceased people, where there is no harm to the sensibilities of anyone living? If the deletion had been made explicitly on that basis, I would challenge it as an incorrect application of that part of the policy,but it wasn't. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an implicit understanding that BLP1E applies to the recently deceased as well. If they weren't notable before, then rarely is their death going to change that. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wether they were notable before their death is irrelevant. What's relevant for a BLP is (1) if people would expect an independent article on the person and (2) if reliable sources have covered the person in an exclusive manner. In Soto's case both criteria are fulfilled. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's why we have BLP1E to avoid the subjective judgement on point 1. Soto's name (among the other teachers that tried to protect their students) all have wide coverage but only for doing one thing, which while part of a tragedy does not have otherwise any significant impact on the rest of the world. This is exactly a reason to avoid creating an article on the person per BLP1E as well as NOTMEMORIAL. --MASEM (t) 21:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does not apply to BLPs of the deceased. Excerpt from that page for your convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

That's why WP:BLP1E is invoked on this DRV.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, there are implicitly unstated applications of BLP1E to the recently deceased. (We don't throw up weakly-sourced slander about a person that just died, for example, that would have never gone up if they were alive). But BLP1E is not the only reason to not have an article about a person that is only notable in their death, as listed. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that Soto's article was referenced with reliable sources (Fox News, Huffing Post, El Nuevo Día, LA News, etc). In addition, we do have a policy for this particular case per WP:VICTIM which states:

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

So our job is to examine wether those two statements are true for Soto. Lets split them up:

The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with WP:BLP1E had a large role within a well-documented historic event.

Did Soto have a "large role"? The answer would be, yes, Soto had a large role, since Soto has to be compared with all others involved in the event. Did the janitor have a large role? No. The school bus driver? No. Soto? Yes, she did have a large role. Not only was she a victim, she also had a significant role within the event's context: she voluntarily and selflessly put herself between the attacker and other victims.

Then we have to determine wether this was a "well-documented historic event". This is self-evident from the article itself and all other references posted on both the article and this DRV.

Now we have the second part:

The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.

Was Soto devoted "significant attention to her role in the event by reliably secondary sources"? Once again, yes, she was, by the references posted above.

So, in conclusion, wether we like it or not, Soto fulfills all criteria to have a stand-alone article.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have no idea about persistent coverage - we can't, two weeks out from the event. And the logic given means we need 27 articles for all the victims, since even the children got coverage of this type. This is a bad way of approaching building an encyclopedia. Again, like the international reactions articles, this is great for Wikinews, but terrible content for WP outside of her roles within protecting the children. --MASEM (t) 03:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's, like, your opinion, man. "Bad" and "terrible" are subjective adjectives and a personal opinion. We have presented evidence, facts, reliable sources, and policies on this matter. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about accusations and point fingering; just ignore them. If anyone wants to accuse somebody else of violating a policy they can open a case at WP:ANI or WP:RFCC. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this review. I do not endorse the conclusion of the "AFD/redirect", because I believe that it was decided prematurely. I was totally surprised when I awoke to find that the article had been speedy redirected. I did not even have an opportunity to defend the article. In my opinion the Victoria Leigh Soto article was not a memorial, she deserves an article. Notable? She saved the lives of the majority of her students and had been hailed as a hero by the international media. By saving the lives of children from being murdered she acted above and beyond of what is expected. Had she been a soldier, she would have been awarded the Medal of Honor. Such reasoning as "Subject has no notability beyond this single event", does not even make any sense. Rosa Parks became notable because of a single event. Her single event was used by others to focus on the Civil Rights issues of the United States. Tell me, does anyone know of another teacher who stood between her students and their murderer? The fact that the Connecticut State University announced the creation of the "Victoria Leigh Soto Endowed Memorial Scholarship Fund" in her honor, tells us that she will be remembered for actions, not only by those affected, but by the students who will be the recipients of the scholarship. It is a question of time before a school or avenue be named after her. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this review and republishing the stricken article. I just got back from church services in Puerto Rico, where the bishop who was the main celebrant, made a special prayer for the "Maestra Heroina", the Teacher Heroine, to then find the insensitivity of eliminating Vicky's article, denying those who may want to research her life the opportunity to easily know more about her. It is insulting to say that "subject has no notability beyond this single event" because how a person dies can very well establish a greater level of notability than the years that someone may live. That's what heroism is all about! In Vicky's case, it wasn't simply that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but she chose, through a heroic act, to put herself at even greater risk in order to save the lives of untold others. That is a story worth telling, and a story worth not denying. Pr4ever (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Our principal purpose here is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. An early closure requires some urgent or pressing need to close early. Without such a reason, the debate should last at least 168 hours so that everyone interested in the topic has a fair chance to have their say. Relist accordingly, although I would emphasize that the material has not been deleted out of process. I think it would be best for the redirect to remain in place until the debate is finished, since there's a good prima faciae case in favour of this nomination and the disputed content is visible in the history.—S Marshall T/C 20:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no prima faciae here. If anything, there are precedents that this type of articles rightfully belong to Wikipedia. For example, see William David Sanders, victim of the Columbine High School massacre which is pretty much a mirror of this article, and Jamie Bishop, victim of the Virginia Tech massacre, who underwent an AfD who's conclusion was that his involvement in the shooting and coverage by reliable sources qualified him as notable enough for Wikipedia. This is the very same case for Soto. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to deletion review! I understand why you think precedents would matter; there's a basic expectation that we'll be consistent. But in fact, Wikipedia rules specifically disavow precedent (see WP:OCE). The simple way of explaining why is that we take decisions one article at a time and we may not have got to those ones yet.—S Marshall T/C 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that, but I was rebutting your prima faciae argument since you went all WP:LAWYERING there for a minute. :P By the way, check out WP:PRECEDENT and WP:OSE too. Isn't WP:EIEIO fun? Jesus what a headache. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. "Wikipedia guidelines are like scripture: somewhere in the labyrinthine network of rules, you can find support for any position." —me. Still, latin isn't the same as lawyering.—S Marshall T/C 22:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure Given that we've not even created the article on the shooter yet, it is way too premature to be doing the same for any of the victims. (and while DRV is not AFD#2, there's a huge plethera of reasons to not have an article on the victims even if they had a notable part in trying to protect the children) --MASEM (t) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion, I do not believe that it is not a good excuse to back up the "closure". If someone wants to write an article on the shooter, fine. The fact is that an article was written about a brave teacher which should not have been affected because no one wrote an article about the murderer. The administrator who closed the AFD discussion did so in hast and the editors who contributed to the article were unable to express themselves. . Tony the Marine (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of an article on Wikipedia does not depend on the existence of another article. Just because we don't have an article on the perpetrator today is not a sufficient argument to not create an article on a victim. In addition to that, the only reason why there is not an article on the perpetrator is because Adam Lanza was preemptively protected by administrators without any discussion whatsoever. If it were unprotected I can assure you that contributors would be developing it, in the same way that we have an article on Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was plenty of discussion that fully prot'd Lanza's article (after the initial mis-identification of the press to his brother). And the protection was recently re-affirmed to be appropriate for a few more weeks. --MASEM (t) 21:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take that into my Talk page 'cuz I can't find the formal process that concluded such thing. The only thing that I can find is at Talk:Adam Lanza and the edit summaries of the redirect itself. Everything else was just an open discussion rather than a formal process. Could you please post the links on my talk page? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to be posted on your talk but all of it was at ANI; one on the day of the shooting, and another that just closed. --MASEM (t) 23:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er,one at AN, the other at the talk of the shooting page. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this review and re-publishing the stricken article. The subject's notability is clearly established with articles and citations from the New York Times, the Huffington Post, television coverage, and international coverage from England's Guardian.

I also agree that "the killer should get an article first" is a bit ridiculous. That is not "Wikipedia policy." In fact, here is another Wiki article about a victim: Kitty Genovese. Kitty Genovese was not notable before her death. Her death did make her notable.

48 years after Genovese's death, her killer is widely known, and an article has still not been written about him. So clearly, this notion that "the killer should get an article first," is not Wikipedia policy.Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genovese's article is about the crime and not just the victim; the crime is named after the victim and thus both are discussed there. The equivalent here is the article on the shooting - the crime itself. --MASEM (t) 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confused. Is this (above) supposed to be a discussion of whether or not the article should be deleted (or kept)? Or is this (above) supposed to be a discussion of whether or not the article's AfD process was properly/improperly closed? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:DRV. The question is: what should we do with the Victoria Leigh Soto article considering that it underwent an WP:AFD? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am still confused. If it already underwent an AfD, then why are we here? Doesn't the result of that AfD stand? And, here (above), are we not just rehashing the arguments that were already presented in the AfD? Or is this being reviewed (DRV) because of a claim that the original AfD was improperly shut down? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint (taking out that DRV is not AFD#2) is that the AFD was "speedily" closed as a delete within 12 hr of its creation, though appearing to be outside the normal requirements of a speedy close. However, the closure appears to be based on an IAR consideration of the subject matter. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Send back for a full AfD discussion per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus was achieved in the AfD. Plenty of eyes saw that it was up for deletion, far more than for the usual article. I am amazed that the proper decision was made to redirect, given the emotions swirling around the event. Deletion Review should not undo the closer's brave decision. Abductive (reasoning) 04:38, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse own close As I have already mentioned I am fully aware that this was an unusual step to take. This is an unusual circumstance, so I bent the rules a little bit. The attitude so far amongst those of us who have been trying to keep an eye on issues revolving around this incident is one of proceeding slowly and conservatively for the time being (as opposed to rushing into things, edit warring, angrily reverting the close of an AFd, etc.) While there may be a consensus at some point that some of he individual victims should have their own articles there as no such consensus when this aricle was created and there certainly was not one at the AFD, which headed rapidly into WP:SNOW territory. Indeed, out of the eight users who participated only one favored keeping, ironically because they also thought it was too soon to say one way or the other. So, all participants agreed it was too soon, but one disagreed about what that meant. It has not been deleted and if, in time, a consensus develops that we should have an article it will be extremely simple to restore it. I realize that is not the normal way we do things but would again stress that this is not a normal situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is this not a "normal" situation? Who exactly is determining this is not a "normal" situation? What authority does this person have to determine that this is not a "normal" situation? What statute from the WP:WMF gives this person such authority? What policy, rule, or guideline is this person following to assess that this is not a "normal" situation? This *is* a normal situation, per WP:VICTIM, William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD. This has happened before and will continue to happen. Wikipedia has already discussed this extensively and has already established policies and processes on how to manage them. It seems that this is just a group of people labeling this as abnormal and treating it as a special circumstance when it is not. You need to understand that WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and even when there is a WP:VOTE that favors a particular outcome overwhelmingly, that WP:POLL is worthless since Wikipedia is not driven by popular vote and WP:IAR stands above all else. You invoked WP:IAR in WP:GOODFAITH but you forget that everybody else has the same right and power. The problem here however is that an administrator intervened and protected it, something that cannot be undone by non-administrators. I'm sorry but logic here is clear, read WP:VICTIM, Soto satisfies all criteria for a stand-alone article. Wether it is too soon or not is a subjective matter and an opinion. Wikipedia doesn't work based on opinions, feelings, nor emotions, we work based on facts and evidence. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on why Soto should and can have a stand alone article. No one else has done the contrary. Keep your feelings, emotions, and personal opinions to yourself. WP:NPOV this. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: Please read my follow up comment below where clarify how I believe there was a pre-existing consensus to proceed extremely cautiously. That is what I refer to when I say this is not a normal situation. Second, please calm down and stop throwing fifty WP:WHATEVER links into every single post you make. Or maybe read WP:SPIDER since you seem to attach such value to any such link. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus was achieved in the AfD.HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It was said earlier that "there are implicitly unstated applications of BLP1E to the recently deceased.". There is not, and it would be irrational to have it. What are we trying to accomplish? Why are our content rules on BLP different from our content rules on any other subject? There is only one justification for treating living people differently--and that is the possibility of doing harm to them, and our feeling of general brotherhood and humaneness that should prevent us from doing this. It's not an encyclopedic issue directly--it has nothing specifically to do with an encyclopedia; it's a moral issue, about how we treat others. That's why we care so much, that's why we enforce it so strictly. Who among us would want to be associated with an enterprise that considered other people fair game for shaming, any more than we would for physical hurting? The rules are intended to ensure that we do not do this--but that if the harm is already done beyond what we can a significantly add to it, or if the person is in one of the special classes of public individuals who are presumed to be indifferent to such matters or at least willing to tolerate them for the sake of their self-chosen careers, such as politicians and entertainers. An argument can be made that it can apply to the immediate survivors of the recently dead: that for example we do not include information about the suicide or minor criminality of a private individual until some time had past, unless it was of great worldwide notoriety. I only agree with this, unless the time period is very limited, but I defer to the feelings of those who are sure it is wrong, because this too is a moral matter. But where this is not involved--as it is surely not involved here--none of the provisions of BLP are applicable. Not just the specific BLP rules for what is appropriate to cover, but the rules against reversing administrative or other actions and edits. Those who interpret BLP policy to include this are not differentiating the letter from the purpose.BLP is not a moral issue here; the integrity of decision making process is the issue, and the willing of people to foreclose it on the basis of mistaken emotion. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Living persons can sue WP for defamation, that's why the rule exists. BLP1E applies to the very recently deceased is further protection from lawsuits from relatives or other relations for defamation as well. Arguably, any material that is defamatory is going to be considered as contentious, and therefore must be sourced to a well-known reliable one, but that said, I would say that there are sources out there that would be fine to assert that a person that died 50 years ago was possibly gay that would fail a normal BLP allowance and by the same logic that of a person that died within a month or so.

But that's not the only issue here. BLP1E's basic tenent is that one event rarely elevates a person that was non-notable to a notable one - more than likely the event itself takes center stage and thus that person can be discussed there. As noted above, if there is enduring coverage of the person after the event, that would elevate them past that point, but that's not yet shown and the only scenarios I can see are CRYSTAL-ball based (eg a gun control law being named after her). It doesn't matter that the person died doing that act regardless how heroic and self-sacrificing it was, that's the only thing to date they would be considered notable for, and thus not appropriate as a separate article at this time. Once you get past 1-3 months or more, you can actually then access the continued coverage in sources, and make a better accessment if a new article is needed. --MASEM (t) 07:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E does not apply to deceased people. Per WP:BLP1E itself, and for your own convenience:

Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people.

Regarding wether it is too soon or not, that's an opinion and a subjective matter. WP:TOOSOON is merely an essay, not a rule nor a policy. WP:VICTIM, however, is a policy and is very clear on this matter and concludes that Soto can have a standalone article since she satisfies all criteria. Base your argument on facts and keep all concerns and emotions out and you will conclude the same. WP:NPOV it.

—Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• as usual David has raised an interesting point. . I would therefore like to be abundantly clear that while some of those advocating redirecting or deleting may have been doing so on moral or emotional grounds, my close, as an action unto itself, was not made on such a basis. On the talk page of the main article and the various conversations at AN I believe a consensus has already been established to proceed very carefully and only add hat we are sure must add and is appropriately verified. It was those discussions that influenced me to take the unusual action of invoking SNOW after so short a time. Clearly, Wikipedians are not sure we should have this article. Again, not the way things are usually done, and not the way they should usually be done. Just what "local" consensus around this incident has been so far. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians are very sure about Soto having a stand-alone article per WP:VICTIM, William David Sanders, Jamie Bishop, and Jamie Bishop's AfD. If you WP:NPOV this DRV you will see that there is no reason whatsoever to not allow Soto to have her own article. We have provided facts, evidence, references, reliable sources, and policies on how Soto satisfies all criteria to have a standalone article. No one else has done the contrary. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no if there is one thing that should be painfully obvious it is that we are not sure we should have this article. Everyone, even the one keep comment, at the AFD felt it was too soon to be sure. WP:VICTIM does not say what you seem to think it says. Maybe try WP:READTHINGSBEFORE YOULINKTOTHEMANDCLAIMTHEYSUPPORTYOURPOSITION. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Send back to AFD There was no possible justification for ending an AFD early for this. Let it run the full seven days like its suppose to. Dream Focus 02:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Redirect seems like the clear consensus and the logical choice. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:48, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Let's get something straight and clear here. The issue is not about if the subject was notable or not. The issue is that due process was not followed. The subject here is that the AFD nomination was closed in haste (12 hours) and with only the limited participation of editors who live in a certain Time Zones. Editors from other Time Zones were not allowed to express themselves. Who are we kidding by stating that a consensus was reached when the process was closed before others could react or express themselves? How would any of you like it if you created an article and when you woke up in the morning you found out, in your "talk page", that your article was nominated for "AFD", only then to find out that the discussion was already closed without allowing you, the creator, and others, who may have wished to express themselves, the option of doing so? Not every one spends 24 hours in Wikipedia, people do sleep. The nomination should be re-opened and enough time be allowed so that editors living in all Time Zones could have the opportunity to participate. Only then, regardless of the result or outcome, can it be claimed that a true and fair consensus was reached. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be having trouble getting folks to understand this point: I believe there was a pre-existing consensus, formed at the talk page of the main article and in the four or five threads at WP:AN on this subject to proceed very cautiously and not rush into anything here. That consensus and the unanimous feeling at the AFD that it was too soon led to me taking the unusual step of closing the debate early. You may disagree with that but I hope it is at least understood as being the motivation for my actions. I would also remind you that the article is merely redirected for now, the content is all still there in the page history. I am also open to the idea of userfying the previous version if there is a desire to continue drafting it while we wait for some time to pass and a broader perspective on these events to become clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These comments are not exactly accurate. For example, the "feeling" at the AFD was rather plainly not unanimous. One would hope that the closer could recognize, from reviewing other controversial AFDs they have closed, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of defensive gun use incidents (2nd nomination), that the initial rush of responses is not always a fair representation of community sentiment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have closed hundreds of contentious AFDs. I tend to do a lot of stuff other admins don't want to deal with because they can't handle the inevitable hassle that will come of it. At the risk of repeating myself I felt that this was a special circumstance based on the numerous discussions that preceded it. The unanimity I refer to (if you take care to read my entire comment and not just focus on that one word0 was the feeling that, whether they felt we should keep or delete the article, it was probably too soon to be able to say. While not everyone was explicit in saying this, the lone user arguing to keep certainly was. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect Beeblebrox's position here; there has been a lot of discussion on the talk page about this spin off. So I don't fault that close as some oversight or maliciousness. However, I do think it's much more widely visible, and useful if the afd discussion is allowed to proceed. I'm starting to see a lot of people make reference in AfDs to other "consensus" that's been reached as a justification for prematurely closing AfDs and I don't think that's a great trend. Shadowjams (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (redirect to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, as the right thing to do, noting that no deletion has occured. BIO1E applies directly. As there was never any caswe for deletion, this did not belong at AfD. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting is already large, and so spinout articles are to be expected. However, we should avoid spining ou tvictim biographies if possible. I recommend considering a spin out Victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting or similar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no result (and revert the last edit[s] by Bwilkins)  The closer was correct to find a reason to close this AfD about a topic whose notability is in flux, and where no deletion was proposed.  The problem is the use of color of office to enact the redirect, when this action was functionally an editorial action, not that of an admin.  As SmokeyJoe explains the need, this decision is and remains a matter for editorial control, not AfD and DRV control.  Editors should not think that they need to get "permission" from DRV if the main article becomes too big.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you are advocating is allowing any user to overturn an AFD if they did not like the result. Whether my close was proper or not that is not a road we want to go down. We have DRV for a good reason. This is not about getting permission from admins, it is about getting consensus from the community. Of a consensus to have this article becomes clear you can trust that neither I nor BWilkins would abuse our admin tools to thwart that consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting words in my mouth doesn't advance the discussion.  The community consensus of which you speak is something to develop on the talk page of the article.  SmokeyJoe has advanced the discussion by talking about spinouts, but spinouts are something to discuss on the talk page, not here.  I see no possibility of developing a consensus for deletion here and now...notability is in flux, the articles are in flux, and no one is even considering a deletion of either the redirect or of the edit history.  I would say that there is a solid consensus that no deletion discussion is needed.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe deleting this article is or ever was actually the subject under discussion here, despite the venue. Consensus can form anywhere, and as I have said we already had a consensus formes through various discussion on multiple pages to proceed with caution. The article is curerntly a protected redirect. If a clear consensus develops to have a full article, be it here, the article talk page, or at a relisted AFD I or any other admin can remove the protection and restore the article in a matter of seconds. As you say though, it is all in flux. That was one of the concerns expressed at the initial discussion, that it is too soon to tell if we ultimately should have a full article on this individual. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you acknowledge it's in flux should bode against closing it after 12 hours. I don't think you did anything particularly wrong here Beeblebrox, but you pushing this point this strenuously is not encouraging. I think, as do most others here, that you made a mistake doing what can only be described as an IAR close on a controversial subject, and you should let this DRV run its course. Shadowjams (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn [send back to AfD], prematurely closing a controversial nomination serves no purpose other than to inflame people and spill a barrel of ink here. Even if it seems obvious that the issue will resolve one way, this doesn't meet the SNOW or any other criteria to close it prematurely. It's one thing if it ran for 5 days, but closing it after 12 hours... no. Shadowjams (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send it back to AFD. I think the outcome is correct, and that's what I'd !vote for, but there is no compelling reason to short-circuit the usual lifespan of an AFD here. Lets do it by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Ovt. and Relist No compelling reason for short-circuit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Touché (quartet) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe I responded fully to those who gave reasons for their claim that the article subject was not notable, using WP:MUSIC. I asked the admin about the deletion soon afterward and the response referred to the quartet as a "band", strongly suggesting that neither the article, nor its supporting source material were read before deletion. The admin declined to respond further after I questioned such action. —ADavidB 21:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Reading of WP:CONSENSUS was 100% correct. On top of that, the arguments within the AFD were fully policy-based, and correct based on the subject/quality of the article (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No details from the AFD, just a statement of endorsement that it was correct according to "policy" and "the subject/quality of the article". Is it incorrect of me to expect more specific response than this? (Without it, such a statement could be copied and pasted freely.) —ADavidB 02:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touché (quartet)|AFD] discussed the notability of this group at length, including multiple extensions. The deleting admin was probably referring to WP:BAND, the notability criteria in question which is mearly a shortcut to Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Nothing else should be read into this admin's use of the word "band". The applicability of source material was reviewed by multiple editors and found not to support notability of the subject. In the absence of any additional reasoning for restoration, the article should be deleted without prejudice for recreation should sufficient reliable sources be identified to help it meet WP:BAND, WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG.--RadioFan (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist While good faith is to be assumed, I'd prefer that the deleting admin (notified of this DRV) state whether the article/sources were in fact read before deletion. Notability was discussed at length between the deletion nominator and me; we clearly remain in disagreement. The last significant change to the article was addition of another source [7], noted in the AFD, which was not commented on by the deletion nominator or any others. An admin made subsequent minor adjustments to the article, before deletion. Another source has since been identified: [8] —ADavidB 10:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you wanted to check with the deleting admin then the place to do that was their talk page, before bringing it here and making a fuss about it. A deletion debate has to stop somewhere, else people would game the system by drip feeding sources at the end of the process and insisting that everyone must be commented on by one of the delete opinions for the debate to be valid. The additional sources presented are both passing mentions, nothing in depth which would be required by the WP:GNG, it's also pretty much run of the mill local coverage showing no broader interest for inclusion in a general purpose encyclopedia. I don't see the lack of further comment on these within the debate would materially have impacted the outcome. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  If you want to criticize those who request Deletion Reviews, please check your own claims. The deleting admin's talk page is the first place I brought up my concern, as mentioned in the initial entry above. The subject quartet is covered in the opening paragraph of an additional source, not a "passing mention". Barbershop isn't a most popular genre, though the subject quartet is the reigning women's champions among that musical style and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. —ADavidB 17:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "I'd prefer that the deleting admin (notified of this DRV) state whether the article/sources were in fact read before deletion" is what you said and which I responded to. You certainly didn't ask the admin that on their talk page, you did much as you did here, waded in with indignancy and accusation. [9]. And indeed indignancy and accusation is what you've responded to me with, so I'm seeing a pattern here. I have no intention of arguing about the source, it is clearly not significant coverage as required by the WP:GNG - "means that sources address the subject directly in detail...". If you want to believe it does that, then I can't stop you. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Accusation? Please read back to the top of these entries: "The admin declined to respond further after I questioned such action." This admin's talk page is regularly archived and the thread in question was archived on December 23. I waited a full week for a response to my concern before requesting this DRV (which I understand is for discussing the deletion and additional sources, not rehashing the AFD discussion). —ADavidB 08:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Nothing shown to be wrong with the deletion debate. If there is in depth coverage by mainstream sources of course an article sourced to those could be written to the meet the WP:GNG at some point in the future. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG refers to "reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which defines the sources in the article and the source identified after deletion. The term "mainstream" is not found in WP:GNG. —ADavidB 17:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The GNG says "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources.", as the intent of the GNG is to establish "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time", many consider local sources which tend to be fairly broad in coverage and fairly indiscriminate to be of lower quality. My comment reflects that. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for clarifying. We differ on what constitutes "significance" with regard to WP:MUSIC. Also, the unsourced use of "many" on WP is generally discouraged. —ADavidB 08:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse no possible chance it could be closed any other way after being relisted twice and garnering not even a single keep vote besides the article writer. Speaking of whom, ADavidB's tirelessly responding to everyone who votes against him both in the AFD and this DRV is rather dangerously close to disruptive badgering. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Defense of my words on Deletion talk pages may be unwanted by those who hold a differing view, though I question that such response approaches badgering. I haven't solicited "vote" support separately; perhaps those with other views have. (Are you saying that AFD and DRV closure is primarily 'vote counting' and has little or nothing to do with the discussion or article content? That would explain a lot, if it's reality.) The deleting admin has yet to respond as to whether the article or its sources were read prior to the deletion. —ADavidB 08:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You really need to take a step back and take a really objective look at these discussions. I think you'll find it's not others with the"differing view".--RadioFan (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaul Hamelech Street bus bombing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

With all due respect, WilyD's close here is a blatant supervote. Having these feelings about the article, he should have voted in the discussion, not closed it.

Before bringing the issue here, I discussed it with WilyD, explaining that the close appeared to be a supervote because in it, he stated which policies he personally felt applied to the article, rather than evaluating the merits and weight of the arguments already made. In particular, the WP:NOTNEWS/WP:EVENT argument was made by many users, who did explain that sources ceased to cover it almost immediately after it happened and that it was fundamentally routine, but WilyD's response was that he did not personally read about such bombings in the news. He seems to be aligning himself here with a number of the keep !voters who simply claim, in a fashion that obviously has no basis on policy and that should have been given less weight in the close, that any attack on Israelis is inherently notable. WilyD's defense that it is necessary to weigh the merits of arguments, as a closer, is clearly true, but that isn't actually what he did in dismissing "it fails WP:EVENT because coverage did not persist and such events are routine" while accepting "WP:ITSNOTABLE."

I would like to request that the discussion be re-closed by another admin. I'm well aware that this might also result in a keep (based in part on the slim numerical majority favoring a keep), but even if that's the case, we need a close by an admin doing an admin's job, not a supervote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be perfectly willing to re-close it, but I would re-close it as a keep, on two grounds. First, that no policy-based reason for deletion was given. The apparent reason given was: not important enough, because worse things happen. that's nonsense. If the event is of sufficient magnitude to warrant sufficient international coverage from sources not prone to sensationalism, it meets the guidelines. I see excellent responsible sources from the US & the UK; I cannot evaluate the one from Rumania. The rule is pretty basic that we go by the sources in judging significance of new events, not by private judgement--I don't really see any other basis for evaluating such questions. Second, the nominator of the article changed his opinion during the discussion and !voted keep. Although that does not settle the issue when others say to delete, any closer would give considerable respect to that, unless very clear consensus after his change of opinion was to delete. I do not recall ever participating in an AfD when the nom changed his view to keep, that was not closed as keep. (as for supervotes, I personally have no opinion, and do not consider myself aligned with either of the principal sides in the overall political issue. I see nothing in the closing admin's history to suggest he would have a view on this either, & nothing to indicate a proneness to supervote, since his contribution history shows him making many non-consensus closes when he thinks them justified. ) DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. What DGG said. Terrible deletion rationales; it's only appropriate to delete a POV fork if it's actually a fork--sub-articles are not forks! A merge might be called for, but that's an editorial question and amounts to a keep regardless. Good close. While we're on the subject, I think the decision by Riley Huntley to relist was inappropriate. There was more than enough discussion to close, and it does no one any favors to let debates like that linger on. Mackensen (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was a rough consensus to keep. Maybe someone might have called a no consensus. At worst, the delete rationales called for Merge and Redirect, and so it didn't belong at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and I would encourage introspection about the potential for underlying crypto-anti-semitism that would prompt editors to argue that such an attack didn't merit an article even though it was covered in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I 'm of the opinion that this comment – which appears to cast aspersions of anti-semitism on the editors who recommended deletion – is entirely inappropriate, particularly coming from a member of the Arbitration Committee who will need to impartially address conflicts in this topic area in the course of his duties.  Sandstein  22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Jclemens, such a statement is entirely out of line and I would ask that you withdraw it. NW (Talk) 01:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decline to withdraw or amend the statement, although I will explain it a bit more, since two otherwise fine editors appear to have misunderstood what I've said. "Encouraging introspection" is not the same as casting aspersions, and equating them to silence the call to conscience is itself unhelpful. If this had happened in Boston or London there would be no question of its notability and significance sufficient to exist as a standalone article--thus, the question is "Why is this even up for discussion?" Of the many answers ("editors have such a vehement anti-news bias...", "editors are just not thinking through the impact of deleting this...", and so forth) one possible answer is the view that ethnicity or location makes this somehow less worthy of covering. Without positing any overt anti-Jewish feelings, I can see editors possibly thinking that a bus bombing in Israel where no one actually dies isn't really that newsworthy because the conflicts that prompt such events have gone on there for longer than most Wikipedians have been alive and have dulled us to the human tragedy involved in each and every one of them. But then, perhaps I am biased by a conversation I had with a young Israeli woman traveling the United States 15 years ago, who, when I asked what seemed strange or different to her about America said, "People get on buses here without worrying about them blowing up." Encouraging introspection is entirely consisted with assuming good faith, and I stand by my statement as appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JC, do you really feel it was appropriate to discuss the motives at all, whatever they might have been? And since it does not affect the issue, I consider it very close to a personal attack on the appellant & the other !keep voters at the AfD , even though not mentioned by name. This particular charge is a particularly strong one, which I would never make without positive evidence, merely on the implication from a possible unproven motive. And even you admit your own possible bias in making the charge. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't overturn. I'd probably have closed this as "no consensus", rather than finding a consensus to keep, but this wouldn't have changed the result, i.e., that the article is kept. I agree with the above commentators that many "delete" arguments were weak - this is an article about a distinct (sub-)topic, not a content fork. That said, I disagree with DGG's argument that we must cover everything that reputed media sources cover. Our policy WP:NOT#NEWS does state that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion". In other words, notability (as measured by coverage in reliable sources) is a necessary, not a sufficient criterium for inclusion as a separate article, and there is room for editorial judgment in evaluating the lasting importance and therefore article-worthiness of an event – particularly of a "routine" event, as such bombings sadly seem to be. I don't have an opinion about whether this particular event should be covered in a dedicated article or as part of another article, but because this is in part a matter of editorial judgment, I wouldn't have discounted opinions arguing either way.  Sandstein  22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The AfD result was somewhere on the border between "Keep" and "No consensus, default to keep"; there certainly wasn't a consensus to delete, nor were any BLP or similar concerns raised. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as being within administrator discretion. While I may not have voted the same way as the closer closed it had I participated in the AFD, I almost certainly would have closed it as either keep or no consensus. NW (Talk) 01:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endores it's pretty clear that no consensus was reached in the AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't make sense as a reason to endorse a keep close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, a no consensus close makes much more sense.--RadioFan (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endores Nonsensical (disruptive?) nomination for DRV. The result was keep regardless as that was the consensus or lack thereof. Thus it makes no difference even assuming the closer added his own rational.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think discouraging abuse of admin power in a topic area known to be contentious and fraught with policy violation is reason enough. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comments - I recognise that I'm a little reluctant to close discussions as no consensus, I've been working on it - it's not really clear from this discussion whether that's the case here. I'd appreciate people's thoughts on that for my own edification. WilyD 11:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The decision between no consensus and keep was in the grey zone. Admin discretion is required to make a decision from the grey. You did fine. In either case, it can in principle be renominated at a later date (although I think there is no case for deletion over a merge). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It is clear that no consensus to delete exists. Whether the policy arguments supporting the relatively slim numerical majority were strong enough to justify a keep rather than a no consensus close is a matter within the closer's discretion, and no legitimate argument of an abuse of discretion has been advanced. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained in my original comment, I'm aware that a re-close might well result in a keep anyway; I just think it's in the community's interests to discourage supervoting, particularly in a topic area already so full of POV-pushing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:23, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:CVM Dedication Plaque 1.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

All the photos that I took and placed on this page were deleted. Several have been restored in a request for undeletion. A couple of photos, File:CVM Dedication Plaque 1.JPG and File:CVM Dedication Plaque 2.JPG have not because supposedly the text on the plaques is copyrighted. In the request for undeletion I have made the point that the text in the plaques would not qualify for copyright based on Template:PD-text and commons:Template:PD-text. However, my point fell on deaf ears, so I'm trying to raise it here.
Just to make sure that I'm clear, I am requesting a review for both File:CVM Dedication Plaque 1.JPG and File:CVM Dedication Plaque 2.JPG The Hills of Cerritos (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion OP has been advised of policy, and requested to provide policy-based proof of non-copyright status on WP:REFUND and refused to do so. Requesting DRV is an attempt to bypass what he refuses to do elsewhere. This is copyright we're talking about, so extra care must be taken (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand the policy on copyright status, I just think that text on a dedication plaque saying that the monument is dedicated to the veterans of the City of Cerritos qualifies under Template:PD-text. I brought up that point in WP:REFUND, but nobody responded to that point. I apologize for appearing to be "attempting to bypass" something. I am really not trying to bypass anything. The Hills of Cerritos (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The answer to this depends on the nature and length of the text and any decorative element associated with it. It's impossible to assess without seeing the image and DRV's rules prevent us from restoring a file deleted for copyright violation. On the face of it, only administrators can participate in this discussion, which is a problem because that's not how DRV's supposed to be.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt we need to see the actual image to understand the text in question. Unless the text is particularly lengthy there would be no reason to not quote it here so we can see the nature of the text (and if it is particularly lengthy it's unlikely to fit pd-text). However PD-TEXT is "This image only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes". I think the description so far tells us that the inscription is none of those things, it isn't individual letters, it isn't an individual word, nor a geometric shape, and I some how doubt anyone would claim the wording of a dedication to veterans as a "slogan". So unless there is a compelling argument to say that it does fit one of those, then I'd see little point in quoting it. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We might avoid the need to type out the text by a simple comparison. Is the text and font more comprehensive and elaborate than, say, File:Dorset_Obelisk.jpg?—S Marshall T/C 13:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as deleting administrator. The exact same photos of the plaques can be found here, the last two pictures. Clearly impossible for this to fall under {{PD-text}}, and there's no way these images are justifiable under fair use. 62.254.139.60's comment pretty much hit the nail on the head. The comparison S Marshall is misguided, as the image he provided is a picture of a plaque in England; British FOP laws are significantly less restrictive than American FOP laws. — ξ^xplicit 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the plaques contained a considerable length of text and the photograph (or any textual quotation in the article itself) was just a snippet, my feeling is that there would not be a copyright infringement. I do not think FoP or sculptor's copyright comes into it. However, since all the text is in effect quoted and the text is creative enough to attract copyright, I expect the images should go. So, unless someone persuades me otherwise, delete. My apologies for breaking DRV etiquette by not critiquing the earlier discussions or their closes but I mostly can't understand their logic. Thincat (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion the text contains 39 words and looks like the whole inscription. It even has a copyright notice attached. So I would agree that this is big enough for copyright to apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cargolux Flight 7933 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Relist Final report released, recommendations to change practices at the airport where the accident happened. This is one of the outcomes listed at WP:AIRCRASH for a stand-alone article. I believe that WP:GNG is already met. Relisting would allow the opportunity to expand the (deleted) article. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:AIRCRASH is a wikiproject essay, so carries less weight. I'd note you are mis-stating the recommendations to change practices part which has the additional "that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry" which affects the meaning somewhat.
  In this situation where the deletion debate doesn't seem that great, a reliance on a wikiproject essay, and an established editor believing it meets the GNG and willing to put effort into expansion, I'd tend to err on the side of letting that expansion happen - of course that wouldn't protect it from further deletion debates. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes will affect every international airport in Luxembourg. OK, there's only one of them, but if there were more, then it would have affected them too. I take it you've read the report in full? Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly the argument that should more such international airports exist, then it would impact them, so warranting coverage beyond the airport directly impacted, seems a pretty weak argument to me. If I were interested in having it restored, then I'm sure I'd do the work and would take it on myself to explain my view point rather than pointing at a report and expecting every one else to read it and reach the same conclusions as me. (I did see, as you stated, that the report contains a section of recommendations, I'm not convinced even if more airports were impacted that the when, how and if of the implementation of those recommendations amounts to "a wide effect", but I'm no expert). I'm not sure what the point of this debate is however, as I didn't believe the wikiproject essay to be that compelling a deletion reason anyway if the subject meets the GNG as you believe, though if it pleases you feel free to try and talk me down from the position that you should be able to expand the article. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that obviously didn't come across as I intended. Your support for the chance to expand on the original with the new info is appreciated. No doubt that after expansion there will be another AfD debate, after which the issue will be settled one way or another. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation I think the original debate reached the wrong outcome (I count three RS'es in the restored article) with respect to the GNG, but the recently-released report is itself an additional reliable source, and, when added to the article will address the concerns of all the delete !votes in the original AfD. Thus, it really doesn't even have to come through DRV at all--a relisting isn't required, but any editor should be able to start a fresh AfD if they still feel it inappropriate for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion An accident report was done and recommendations were made. Same thing happens in the United States after trivial accidents. Nobody killed, plane put into service, cargo flight. Nothing notable....William 23:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am a little puzzled why this is at DRV. I believe the consensus in the AfD discussion was clearly in favour of deletion at the time. If new sources have emerged that would likely make the subject notable (I don't have an opinion on this) that doesn't make the AfD outcome incorrect. The article could have been restored to be worked on with the new source(s), but I didn't receive a request to undelete. I would have no objection to Mjroots restoring the article and making these changes, and if anyone then feels that another AfD is warranted, so be it. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I accepted the AfD result at the time. Having created the original article, I don't want to be perceived to be abusing my admin privileges by undeleting the original article and then expanding upon it. Thus I've asked for opinions as to the consensus in respect of this course of action. If the article is restored and expanded, there is nothing to stop any editor bringing it back at AfD in good faith. Should the article then fail a second AfD, I will accept that and won't come back a second time. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Weston Chandler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Relist Subject of article has increased in notability since the deletion of the article. Subject has been written about in more places over the past three years. Subject was represented in a criminal case by a lawyer with a Wikipedia article about him. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Notability is not inherited being represented by a notable individual does not "rub off". If there is more non-trivial coverage about the subject in third party reliable sources so it might meet the WP:GNG, and not all foul of WP:BLP1E then you should point a few out. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A vulnerable living person who's the butt of long joke pages on the ED... what could possibly go wrong with that?

  Sarcasm aside, let's not do this. If we do, it should be fully-protected indefinitely, as a pre-emptive measure, but I'd be much happier if we didn't.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've looked at the article, and I am not going to restore for discussion: this is a BLP of a non-newsworthy individual. I would suggest create-protection, because I think we should look at the asserted sources before anyone re-creates this. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment, but the decision of whether or not to relist will be established by consensus. 70.241.73.164 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No sign of reputable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per S Marshall. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Chandler has grown in notoriety since this article was deleted. There are many references to him on the Web as well as print, television, radio, and video games. Let's at least relist for discussion given his criminal trial.70.241.73.164 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• My search found nothing really worthwhile, but the subject doesn't seem to meet WP:WIALPI, nor was the previous content particularly malicious, so I don't know that create protection is really required for an article on him, even if one doesn't seem to be warranted at this time. Jclemens (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to point out, Jclemens limited his search to Google News. 70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Definately relist. Not even sure why there is even debate given Chandler's notoriety. 2600:100D:B00B:735C:0:1F:627E:1B01 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 155 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deletion of this article is a travesty, the votes were 3 to 1 in favor of keeping it. So what if it breaks one silly rule, I should not have to remind you of your other rule called 'Ignore all rules' which says 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'

This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes.

This silly censorship of UFC events needs to stop. UFCFan92 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the original closing decision. The nom has not shown why they are contesting the deletion as per WP:DRVPURPOSE other than they didn't like the decision. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, it may not be in wiki-speak, but point 1 says 'if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly', with 13 votes to keep and only 4 to delete in anyone’s book that is interpreting the result incorrectly. UFCFan92 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Per above. I see nothing wrong with the discounting of the canvassed, non-policy based opinions. ThemFromSpace 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see above UFCFan92 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - "This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes", says it all really - Wikipedia is not a sports news service. Claiming that the deletion of articles about non-notable subjects is "censorship" is childish at best, grossly misinformed at least. Ignoring sock-spam and taking into account only those keep and delete opinions that actually cited policy is entirely reasonable. I can see some keep votes that made perfectly valid arguments so doing so was certainly possible. Their arguments just weren't as strong as the others. The sock puppetry was the only "travesty" involved. Stalwart111 03:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - I reject the arguments presented by UFCFan92 as being pretty silly, but I absolutely must vote to overturn the deletion of the article UFC 155 (I vote to keep UFC 156 as a major sporting event worthy of encyclopedic preservation as well but I am arguing specifically for UFC 155 here). I am perhaps a bit biased, but as someone who went to great lengths to make an improved version of UFC 155 after it was deleted (check my sandbox), I can say I ended up with a total of 23 good sources including half-a-dozen articles from mainstream newspapers such as USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, The Las Vegas Sun, and the Daily Telegraph (London). The rest weren't just MMA-specific sites either, there were a number of sources from mainstream sporting web sites including ESPN.com, Yahoo Sports, and Globo Esportes (Portuguese language) to help illustrate the importance of the card. It's one of the most major combat sports events of the year and not a routine MMA event. I would reject the notion that it is comparable to a single game as there are 11 different fights on the card, in a promotion that has managed to cull together 80-85% of the elite MMA talent in the entire sport, with separate ramifications in six different weight divisions. The card includes a World Heavyweight Championship fight (and unlike in boxing there is only one of those in MMA that is taken as legitimate), only the second in the past year (which is about average frequency), which is also a rematch of the first UFC match shown live on an American broadcast network, wherein the current challenger Cain Velasquez was dethroned. It is also a match that was made as a result of a major and notable steroid scandal that has rocked the entire sport when #1 contender and linear champion for a number of other historically important organizations Alistair Overeem was suspended for unnaturally elevated Testosterone-to-Epitestosterone levels, which is mentioned in detail in the reworked article. Furthermore, as is normally the case with the larger UFC events, the undercard is not fluff, and there are arguably five other matches where the winner could end up a fringe title contender in their respective divisions. Finally if the event is somehow cancelled, it will only be the second UFC event where that has ever happened out of over 200 and that in itself would be notable. As it were, I've gone to great lengths to illustrate UFC 155's worth as encyclopedic content and would ask you to consider the above. Beansy (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 8 Heavyweight MMA champions listed here, The UFC has had over 14 scheduled "championship" fights this year. You also support the proposed draft MMA article guidelines that if in place now would see "Upcoming events will be placed in omnibus articles" and "split out into stand alone articles only after they have taken place and meet the criteria for stand alone event articles" Mtking ^(edits) 08:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any promotion can tack on "world" to the front of their title. Literally no one in the sport considers anything but the UFC Heavyweight Championship to be the consensus champion. But don't take my word for it. Find me a recent ranking from any news website (MMA, general sports, whatever) that considers anyone other than Junior dos Santos to be the #1 Heavyweight in the world. Any ranking in the past year. For that matter, I'm not aware of any rankings that list any non-Zuffa fighters even in the Top 10 Heavyweights. There was a time when only their Welterweight Champion was considered the best in fact. That time has long since passed. There might be a very few journalists who rank Pat Curran as the best Featherweight, above Jose Aldo, but that's about it across all 8 weight divisions. There's a reason the UFC was investigated by the FTC for potential anti-trust violations: they fall just short of being both an industry monopoly, and, for elite fighters, an employment monopsony. Beansy (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for my support of the proposed guidelines, this is a cut & paste from below: As a compromise position I would support it (I believe even in that I argued for splitting off numbered articles between five days and two weeks ahead of time when all other standards were met, and for earlier split off when the notability was overwhelming ala UFC 157), but until an RfC is conducted that crystallizes policy I will continue to support the creation of new articles for major UFC events. I'm not exactly arguing for a separate article for the next King of the Cage event here. Beansy (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - The reasons presented for the initial request for deletion review aren't objective, but Beansy makes a good case for why the article would be notable. Furthermore, it still seems clear that attempts to delete UFC articles are based on overly strict interpretations of WP:NOT directed solely at UFC events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 06:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The event fails WP:NOT specificity the section that says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". Mtking ^(edits) 08:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic could apply to any upcoming sporting event on Wikipedia (assuming you meant to liken an upcoming sports event to a product announcement). Why have you not nominated Super Bowl XLVII for deletion if this is the case? Far less is known about that event right now. Not to mention the 2013_NFL_playoffs. Too big? Okay, how about ATP/WTA Tennis. Maybe the 2013 Australian Open? Beansy (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably counsel against WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - the Australian Open is a particularly unhelpful example - it's a Grand Slam event and is run in January (less than a month away) and I think precursor events have already started (Brisbane/Sydney internationals) or are at least about to start. Anyway, unlike MMA, Tennis and other sports have specific guidelines here. If MMA (and WPMMA in particular) want to be taken seriously here, the members/enthusiasts need to get together and work on some proper guidelines. And without prejudging those discussions, "all UFC events are presumed notable", probably won't be taken seriously. Until you put that effort in, these AFDs are going to keep happening and you'll keep having furious 50k+ byte arguments over every single one. So instead of having the same arguments over and over again, go and put something up at WP:VPP or start an RFC (as I think was suggested during one of these AFDs) and you'll not have to worry about it again. Stalwart111 11:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The closer correctly accepted the WP:NOT argument. As for "This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes" - nonsense. Why does this sport have to use an encyclopedia as an event news and results service? What's wrong with sites like:

• mmafighting.com - MMA News & results for the Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC), Strikeforce & more
• mixedmartialarts.com - MMA news, fighter profiles and events
• sherdog.com - MMA news, interviews, pictures, videos and more since 1997
• mixedmartialarts.wikia.com - "Welcome to the Mixed Martial Arts Wiki"

JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 156 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The deletion of this article is a travesty, the votes were also 3 to 1 in favor of keeping it. So what if it breaks one silly rule, I should not have to remind you of your other rule called 'Ignore all rules' which says 'If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.'

This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes.

This silly censorship of UFC events needs to stop. UFCFan92 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the original closing decision. The nom has not shown why they are contesting the deletion as per WP:DRVPURPOSE other than they didn't like the decision. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, it may not be in wiki-speak, but point 1 says 'if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly', with 7 votes to keep and only 2 to delete in anyone’s book that is interpreting the result incorrectly. UFCFan92 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Per above. I see nothing wrong with the discounting of the canvassed, non-policy based opinions. ThemFromSpace 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see above UFCFan92 (talk) 03:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - As above; "This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes", says it all really - Wikipedia is not a sports news service. Claiming that the deletion of articles about non-notable subjects is "censorship" is childish at best, grossly misinformed at least. Ignoring sock-spam and taking into account only those keep and delete opinions that actually cited policy is entirely reasonable. As with the other DRV above, I can see some keep votes that made perfectly valid arguments so doing so was certainly possible. Their arguments just weren't as strong as the others. The sock puppetry was the only "travesty" involved. Stalwart111 03:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just in general, not related to any specific article, I would argue that you overlook socks for the individual arguments. One must always consider only the best arguments in an AfD from either side no matter how many poor ones each side makes. Stupid arguments should not be considered a harm to those on the same side who make better ones (and this is from someone who has started plenty of stupid arguments in the past, mostly with my ex though). Beansy (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it all points to a need for the MMA crowd and/or WikiProject MMA to "get its house in order" and present a coherent front where these arguments extend beyond WP:ILIKEIT. As suggested above, this could all be sorted with a couple of good, solid guidelines that go beyond, "all UFC events are notable because they rulz!1!". You are fighting battles without having agreed on the rules of war. Stalwart111 11:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I wouldn't be able to take UFCFan92's arguments seriously either but the event itself is nevertheless of encyclopedic notability on the same level as any number of established sports events articles (I would be happy to rattle off a few thousand if you like, although that might take a while). The targeting of MMA articles in particular has, at best, been arbitrary and capricious. I would reject WP:CRYSTAL for the event as a whole as the UFC has a 99.5% batting average when it comes to not canceling events, so the possibility of cancellation by all rights should be considered de minimis. As for notability, I would consider the amount of coverage that such an event gets as far ahead of time as being dissimilar to individual team sports games, and should not be considered as such as UFC events generally contain ~11 individual fights in up to 8 weight divisions (7 are currently represented on the current card, including a former Light Heavyweight world champion and four other #1 contenders in fights outside the main-event). I'm not trying to say each fight would be worth an article, as they are not, but they are individually important, much as different games in an NHL season are, which is why you never have articles for hockey games (short of the Miracle on Ice) but always have articles for every single NHL season or playoff series. Cumulatively the event is of considerable importance and is a very major event in combat sports. If folks would rather wait until within 48 hours of the event to ensure that injuries don't radically change the contested bouts, affecting WP:CRYSTAL, I am less opposed to that idea, but I must article that the article is worthy of encyclopedic preservation regardless. If it is restored I and WP:MMA can populate it with mainstream citations and establishment of notability as there is an ongoing effort to do that across MMA on Wikipedia, but obviously it would need to be restored first. Beansy (talk) 06:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not nessaserly as is proposed in the draft MMA article guidelines that you support "Upcoming events will be placed in omnibus articles" and "split out into stand alone articles only after they have taken place and meet the criteria for stand alone event articles" so this can be restored to User space, covered in an omnibus and then after it has taken place a view can be taken on spiting it out. Mtking ^(edits) 08:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise position I would support it (I believe even in that I argued for splitting off numbered articles between five days and two weeks ahead of time when all other standards were met, and for earlier split off when the notability was overwhelming ala UFC 157), but until an RfC is conducted that crystallizes policy I will continue to support the creation of new articles for major UFC events. I'm not exactly arguing for a separate article for the next King of the Cage event here. Beansy (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Once again, the reasons presented for the initial request for deletion review aren't objective, but Beansy makes a good case for why the article would be notable. Furthermore, it still seems clear that attempts to delete UFC articles are based on overly strict interpretations of WP:NOT directed solely at UFC events. Byuusetsu (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The event fails WP:NOT specificity the section that says "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic". Mtking ^(edits) 08:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The closer correctly accepted the WP:NOT argument. As for "This page needs to be added back so fans have a place to check out all the latest fightcard changes" - nonsense, that's not what an encyclopedia is for, there are specialist MMA sites to do that, see my comment in the UFC 155 DRV above this one. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in UFC (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting a review of the speedy deletion of 2012 in UFC for the following reasons:

1. I believe that the article 2012 in UFC events at the time of deletion was substantially different to the 2012 in UFC page at the time it was tagged, while I accept that the page may have resembled an prior version of 2012 in UFC events.
2. I believe that the reason for nomination is one that could have been fixed by editing rather than deletion, since when is "useless and worthless" a valid reason for deletion.
3. finally I believe (given the notice left on my talk page) it was tagged for deletion by a now blocked sock and therefore we should WP:DENY him or her recognition.

At very least this should go to another AfD. Mtking ^(edits) 23:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: Although both articles are on the same topic, they contain different content and structure. The earlier 2012 UFC article AFD was focused on the poor formatting and design of the article rather than notability itself. The latter version has information not found in the four omnibuses. At the very least there needs to be more community discussion than adding a speedy delete tag. Gizza^{Talk ©} 04:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This whole thing is hard to follow. Is 2012 in UFC supposed to be something like 2012 in association football or 2012 NFL season (or generally articles at 2012 in sports)? Also, please history undelete 2012 in UFC events and 2012 in UFC so they can be reviewed in view of the above request. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interchange_(software) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was just noted by someone in our community (Interchange) that the Interchange page was deleted a couple of months ago. It appears to have gone two rounds of discussion and yet no one in our community was contacted or notified during this process so we did not get a chance to provide input into the discussion. The reasons for deletion was missing notability, no references from reliable sources and it was commented that, "couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability". Surely if our community had been contacted we could have provided a number of links to establish notability such as the following (not exhaustive): http://www.techrepublic.com/article/red-hat-suite-makes-e-commerce-easy/1031400 http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000121501406PSCYSW

Note that this has already been requested on the deleting admin's talk page and we were referred here. Pajamian (talk) 08:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - of the references supplied, the former looks like a press release, and hence not an independent source. The second source has two paragraphs that briefly talk about it. All said and done though, that doesn't really in my view amount to the significant coverage required in independent and reliable sources to establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first actually reads like a press release for Red Hat, not Interchange, to me. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A more exhaustive list of sources for us to evaluate would go a long way toward helping your case. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored history for diiscussion DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Of the two already mentioned one was an article in Linuxtoday, and one an article in techrepublic, both of them are respected independant publications. Regardless of the content they do establish notoriety. Here are some more: http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000092501006PRRH http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2000112201306PSCYSW http://www.dmnews.com/akopia-expands-site-building-services/article/69338/ http://investors.redhat.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=356094 http://www.amazon.com/TRAINING-INTERCHANGE-E-COMMERCE-PLATFORM-Marketing/dp/B0008I0ABI http://mozillaquest.com/Linux/RedHat_E-Commerce_released_story-01.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajamian (talk • contribs) 20:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "Regardless of the content they do establish notoriety" - nope you can't ignore the content as to if they establish notability. The ones you've listed in this lot include a couple of press releases, now I can setup some company, website, whatever and issue press releases, does that mean anyone actually cares about my company/website/whatever? Of course not. There are some reviews in there, which may help though they don't really seem to be in any indepth coverage and seem fairly old (which for such a product doesn't suggest that great an interest and no enduring interest if that's all there is). The final one includes large quotes of a press release, and interview about the project, I'd consider this to be worth little more than a press release, to my mind it's basically promotional not independent interest. Are there any which are provide in depth coverage of the product which are independent (i.e. no press releases, large quotes from interviews etc.) Are there any sources which show enduring interest in the project? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is not temporary, there should be no need to show enduring interest. It seems reasonable to conclude that the software had significant coverage from multiple, independent source although that is now hard to demonstrate because many of those publications are defunct. In addition, the WP article doesn't meet any of the common pitfalls for non-notability. The software has clearly been around a long time and there is no real basis to remove the article, ie "for articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort". Here's a link from (yuck) SCO which traces this software back to 1995 http://www.sco.com/skunkware/ecom/minivend/docindex/30.00.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.html#ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . It's just old and not commonly discussed in trade magazines anymore - you could say the same thing about The Howdy Doody Show or a Lockheed L-1049 aircraft. Eli lilly (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's a revision log for the software showing changes as recent as 3 days ago and going back more than a decade (I got tired of pressing "prev" around 2002 I'm not sure how much further it goes) http://git.icdevgroup.org/?p=interchange.git;a=shortlog Eli lilly (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (Anyone wondering about the Amazon link this is a 2-page edocument and given the publisher, title seems to be the same as http://www.thefreelibrary.com/RED+HAT+DEBUTS+TRAINING+ON+INTERCHANGE+E-COMMERCE+PLATFORM.-a075642562 which looks to be another press release --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• I oppose deletion. (--Jon Jensen) Interchange (and Minivend, which it was called before its name change in 2000) is notable for having been the most long-lived and prominently used Perl ecommerce system and it is now in maintenance mode at age 17. The enduring interest may well be historical since most users of Interchange have been using it for years already, but lack of recent press hype does not mean its historical interest is gone. I have print copies of reviews from the 2000-2002 era which I can scan and post if that would be helpful. More examples of reviews and thoughtful feedback by people not directly involved with the project:
  • http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id=3690
  • http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3301
  • http://mark.stosberg.com/Tech/interchange/review.html
  • http://www.linuxtoday.com/security/2000071001604SCSW
  • and a 1999 presentation by a user who years later became the project lead: http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~linux/linuxtag99/webshops_mit_minivend.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.183.180.134 (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first couple of these look better than the previous things we've had. Of the others, the third I'm not convinced would be considered a particularly reliable source, the fourth is obviously very brief and I can't evaluate the nature of the fuller article behind it. I personally wouldn't give much weight to the presentation as a reliable source either. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As a community member (--Sam Batschelet) and longtime user I would just like to point out a few sites powered by Interchange so that it's relevance can be shown. Backcountry.com arguably one of the largest outdoors/sporting goods website in the US is powered by Interchange. Simmsfishing.com the largest manufacturer of sportswear and outerwear targeting the fishing market is powered by Interchange. I agree that this software isn't marketed heavily or at all but a major upgrade to the project is planned for next year as Interchange version 6.0 is launched. This version of Interchange will put it inline with competitors such as Magento. Based on the evolving Perl platform Dancer this next step will be huge for our community. This software is used by many large web consulting companies such as endpoint.com. Again just because the software is not published about it silently powers thousands of websites and is the foundation for many private consultants work. I have attached a few references. Please reconsider the deletion. Hexfusion (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yapc europe 2008 yapc europe 2008 linuxtag 2009 Interchange Website Hall of Fame Linuxia blog Interchange Powered Sites Sandro Groganz LinuxTag 2008 Review IANA list Minivend Port 7786 Cpanel support for Interchange Homeland Security Report Hexfusion (talk)

Hexfusion (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexfusion (talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I notice this external canvassing to gain support for this. Please do not just come to try and vote, nor to just add opinion that the software is great and used by 1000s and really should be here - such comments hold little weight and may in fact be counterproductive in obscuring any real points being made relative to the real wikipedia policies and guidelines. Wikipedia has basic inclusion standards to try and work out what the world at large is interested in, the basic principal being that if they are, then reliable sources totally independent of the product will have decided to write about it in a good level of detail. Each of the bits on this have definitions, i.e. what constitutes a reliable source. Personal opinion, vague waves towards how many users are believed to use this don't cut it. Press releases demonstrate nothing, and superficial run of the mill coverage says little about the worlds overall interest in the product. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note this post to the same thread, where I explicitly asked our community members to keep the signal to noise ratio up and provide constructive comments to the deletion review. It is not our intention to overwhelm the review process, but to simply give our community the opportunity to participate, something that was not done in either of the first two discussions over removal. These are community members who have used Interchange for years and know beyond any doubt that it has had a significant impact on e-commerce over the past 15-odd years and continues to have major impact today. To try to tell us that it lacks notability is laughable and well, we will speak up if given the chance. Pajamian (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With all due respect why can we not notify our community members that the wikipedia article is being deleted and to please give support. Although you maybe frustrated with this process you are strongly underestimating the presence of this software on the web.... Hexfusion (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a few reasons. As I say people have a habit of just piling in and chucking out votes, these can obscure more significant points and can be counterproductive. Also if a whole ruck of people turned up at your project for a brief "10 minute" period, and without trying to understand the project etc. tried to vote for features/direction they wanted, how much weight would you give to them? Also see WP:CANVAS. Regarding the presence of the software on the web, that's exactly the point I've tried to make, we have guides as to what makes something notable and vague waves to some perceived big number is not one of the criteria, if having a large installed base makes something notable, then why isn't anyone else writing about it? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion in house developers take this software highly modify it then keep it as a "trade secret". Because of it's complicated nature I think many users have overlooked it in favor of quich and easy PHP solutions. But you will find flavors of Interchange used by developers and rebranded example http://www.infogears.com/cgi-bin/infogears/market_ecommerce.html. These guys build and host the site for simmsfishing.com and have modified a version of Interchange and rebranded it as "InfoBench E-Business Platform". So in this case this developer maybe powering many sites with Interchange without marketing it as Interchange. For this and other reasons I believe the impact of Interchange is vastly larger than appears.Hexfusion (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for posting the reliable source and notability guidelines. I think it is clear that some unwarranted dismissal of this page's notability was used earlier. WP:N says that "Notability is not temporary". That's important because everyone involved with Minivend/Interchange is aware that it was more frequently written about in the press 10 years ago than now, but that does not mean it is not noteworthy. At the very least I would say it has historical noteworthiness. I agree that press releases do not by themselves establish notability. Reviews do, though. The lack of peer-reviewed published print articles should not surprise, since such things are very rare about software such as this which is backed by no company, and is quietly used behind the scenes on servers, not in large visible deployments that lots of people talk about. In case someone thinks this is somehow about self-aggrandizement of the project participants, I will just say that for me the page was most useful to point outsiders to so they could learn about Interchange when they hadn't heard about it, because its own site assumed too much domain knowledge. That's what I find Wikipedia best for: teaching people about topics they're curious about in a fairhanded manner. And that's why I would like this page back. (--Jon Jensen) 207.183.180.134 (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, notability is not temporary. The problem becomes that with the internet there is much run of the mill coverage of things, if you get 10 very superficial reviews one month, then nothing ever again, then questioning if the interest was temporary is easy. If you get a few indepth reviews it suggest significant interest at that point in time that people invested the time in doing so. etc. Showing coverage over a period of time, particularly for an evolving product tends to demonstrate that even if the coverage is run of the mill there is actually real non-temporary interest. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Although somewhat mentioned in a list of links above, it's worth commenting that the software is assigned IANA port number 7786 [10] . IANA does not assign these trivially. Eli lilly (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here is a 1996 article from "Internet Retailer" where a large ecommerce retailer (BackCountryStore) is cited as using Interchange. [11]. The same retailer was also mentioned in the October 2003 print edition of Business 2.0 magazine [12]. According to the Business 2.0 article, BackCountryStore was the #2 outdoor gear retailer on the web, behind REI, and Interchange is mentioned as their ecommerce platform. Eli lilly (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Regarding canvassing. A Nail (fastener) doesn't have very many articles written about it today (if any at all), but I am sure if you attempted to remove it from wikipedia, people would spread the word to get it reinstated. To imply canvassing would not be needed is to say that Wikipedia is an essential tool in order to know what a Nail (fastener) is, or how to use it. Wikipedia is not an essential source to know about or to use a Nail (fastener). Therefore, canvasing would be required. To suggest otherwise is only self diludance. Regarding notability not being temporary - it most suredly is. Do we find many articles written about the Nail (fastener) today? How about the scratch awl? We don't. How about Mason - the Perl server that Amazon used to build it's empire? Mason has the same amount written about it as does Interchange. Interchange probably has a larger user bas than Mason, but try removing the Mason page from Wikipedia and you won't be able to because of its very large single user. Because most of its (and Interchanges) users leverage it in an anonymous fashion, you don't get the Heroing of other newer products made in the last few years, especially since (the point of time that) Apple made the Heroing of products the new litmus test of existence. Regarding the "showing up for 10 minutes" comment. Again, Wikipedia is a non essential for the vast majority items on wikipedia. Why would I have any more interaction with wikipedia that what I as an individual deem necessary? As if all of a sudden I must use Wikipedia more if I want to have the ability to say "Yes, this exists". In the last decade I alone have allowed clients to make millions of dollars selling goods and touch millions of users with applications that run anonymously on Interchange. What has all the Scratch Awl users combined done in the last decade? I don't use wikipedia and am excited to have reinforced knowledge of this flawed process. To be bantering with someone who opens retorts with "yep" and "nope" - priceless. You may wish to ignore my retort as being off topic, but I am only refuting points 62.254.139.60 chose to bring into this conversation in order to counter the valid points of others. Gishnetwork (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you've succesfully managed to demonstrate all my points, thank you. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep There has been a large number of sources provided now to establish notability and while not all of them individually meet the criterion as such, a significant number of them do. Of the ones that do not, the sheer number of these sources should add weight to the notabilty of Interchange. Note that recent or current publication is *not* a requirement of notability and while Interchange has entered maintenance mode it is still quite relevant in today's e-commerce industry. I also think that regardless of the actual sources cited the relevance and notability if Interchange is established now. The deletion was made in error, let's fix it. Pajamian (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, folks, Wikipedia isn't your webhost. You're not entitled to put an article here. You have freedom of speech, but your freedom of speech doesn't include the right to write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is someone else's wall (specifically it belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation) and content only gets included if it meets their strict rules, as interpreted by this forum. Being angry and outraged with us won't help you; in fact it's more likely to keep this material deleted, because we see plenty of angry and outraged people and they aren't easy to work with. Saying that there are a lot of sources will not help you. The only thing that will help you at this point is evidence. For example:

  (a) Providing links to independent, reliable sources; or

  (b) Providing references to sources that are offline. You can cite print magazines by ISSN number, date and page number (if the magazine doesn't have an ISSN number it's unlikely to convince Wikipedians). You can cite books by ISBN number and page number.

  Good sources are independent, reliable and have enough to say about the product to fill an actual article. There's no point providing a source that only gives a passing mention of the subject, because we shouldn't put something in an article unless it's sourced.

  Having said all that, this discussion has included sources and I've reviewed them. I'm somewhat taken with this source and this one, and based on those two I think there probably is the potential for a short article with this title.

  Technically, the outcome of this DRV should be endorse because there was a consensus to delete at the deletion discussion and it was closed in accordance with our rules. I'm inclined to allow creation of a new article in its place based on the new sources provided during this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 13:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would it be ok to instead temporarily restore the article and then add in the new sources? Pajamian (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't object to that. Changing my !vote: let's Userfy to Pajamian and then close this discussion. Pajamian and anyone who wants to help him can add the sources, remove any unsourced content that remains, and create a satisfactory Wikipedia article without any time pressure. Once that's done, however long it takes, he can come back to Deletion Review and we can move the draft back to mainspace for him.—S Marshall T/C 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds good to me. Pajamian (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Just for the record, these articles contain passing mentions of Interchange in use by Backcountry.com, a large online retailer. I don't think they're terribly meaningful for this discussion, but they're from 2006-2007, later than many other references that have been cited and I wanted to note them for anyone interested. 207.183.180.134 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.inc.com/magazine/20070101/technology-software.html
  • http://archive09.linux.com/feature/53628?theme=print
  • http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:gTG_SDzI-EUJ:ns1.itcprojects.com/news_november06_216.php+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us which is basically the same as http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:P82oTeTJou4J:www.opensparc.net/index2.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26do_pdf%3D1%26id%3D1330+&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
  • http://business.highbeam.com/435689/article-1G1-146488106/case-study-backcountry-bets-shop-open-source
• Endorse deletion "because nobody told us" is not a valid policy-based argument to overturn. 2 discussions, insufficient notability. Indeed, if advised of the deletion vote we would have had even more inadmissible, WP:COI !votes. The consensus to delete was clearly policy-based, and appears to remain as such (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenby International School, Penang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non-admin closure, which apparently counted !votes rather than considering the arguments, which were not referenced in the brief closing statement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - The presumption is that public schools will receive enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG because, when you spend a ton of tax money on something that affects the children of a lot of families in the commuity over the history of the school, reliable sources are going to write about the school. However, the AfD discussion needs sufficient evidence that the presumption is valid and this AfD discussion lacked that. Overturn to no consensus. No consensus will allow the article to be listed at AfD again, should someone decide to. If it is relisted, the discussion should consider New Straits Times December 4, 2006, Business Times (Malaysia) December 9, 2009, New Straits Times January 25, 2010, New Straits Times August 12, 2011, and New Straits Times January 8, 2012 as well as Google news archive. In an alternative, someone can expand the article with this source material. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says the school is private, not public. There is no evidence in it that any tax money was spent on it. The links you list seem to be mostly if not wholly churning press releases from the school and its builders. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is exactly why another AfD should be opened - to discuss the available source material in view of WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist - I'm not seeing a single keep argument that has any basis in any Wikipedia guideline or policy, and the relevant guideline for schools (WP:ORG) specifically notes that merely existing is insufficient, and the keep votes basically boil down to "It exists, therefore sources must exist", and that's not how Wikipedia works. - SudoGhost 19:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - I was one of those who !voted keep, but I agree that none of the !votes (including mine) cited any relevant guidelines, only WP:OUTCOMES. This should probably be relisted to take into account the newly-discovered sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist yes, per Narutolovehinata, I see that nothing of those existing !votes with keep cited relevance in accordance to some Wikipedia guidelines and policies, it was WP:OUTCOMES only as Narutolovehinata did. It is just of the dominant keep !votes with saying WP:OUTCOMES why I closed the discussion. This must be relisted and overturned. Mediran ^{talk to me!} 02:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sachi Matsumoto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This is going to be a rather complicated one. Originally I !voted for deleting the article at the article's AfD, stating that: 1. My standards for criterion #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER were very strict and that the works she starred in had to be high-profile, and 2. There was a lack of Japanese sources. Since then, I realized that my standards were too high and would mean deleting most articles on Japanese voice actors when, I now believe, they clearly meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, I was able to find this interview, which, while I'm not sure if it's third-party, would be a useful source of information. Even if I still had my high standards for criterion #1, she would easily pass it; as it turns out, she voiced Link in a few games (although Link does have a reputation of not speaking so much). So I'm taking this article to deletion review because I now believe that she's notable, if only for the Link role and the large amount of work she's done. Should the article be restored, more sources should be found, which is difficult even using her Japanese name (松本さち). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I forgot to mention this. Before putting the article for DRV, I spoke with the deleting admin. He said he has no problems with me bringing this to DRV. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - yeah, always going to be a difficult one. You acknowledge in your opening paragraph that sources should be found if the article is restored and you acknowledge that will be difficult. I think, realistically, people are going to expect those sources to be ready before the article is published, as is the case with brand new articles per WP:V and WP:BURDEN. Editors, in my experience, will expect an even higher standard for an article that has previously been deleted. That said, I also have no particularly strong objection to it being restored, as long as you have no particular objection to it being taken to AFD if other editors believe it is not up to scratch. I certainly think, though, that your WP:ENTERTAINER argument is a strong one. Perhaps it would be useful (especially to those editors who supported deletion at the AFD discussion) if you mocked-up a quick draft of the article in your own user space. If you can demonstrate how a new article would address the old concerns then you might have an easier time of it. That way no one is discussing this in the hypothetical. Put it beyond doubt. Stalwart111 22:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment With respect to the interview you list is based from [13], did you bother to take a look at their main page, say, via automated translation? To me, it appears to be an equivalent of PR Newswire. Am I missing something? --j⚛e decker^talk 00:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tahoe-LAFS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Definitely an improper NAC which should have been a relist (no clear consensus), but I believe the sourcing claims to GScholar and GNews made in the keep votes do not meet RS/GNG requirements (many hits, but trivial mentions). Relist was suggested by two other parties in the course of discussion at Talk:AFD MSJapan (talk) 13:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The keep positions rebutted the nominator's "no secondary sources" argument and what's left is only keep positions. I agree that the sourcing claims to GScholar and GNews made in the keep votes do not appear meet RS/GNG requirements. However, DRV determines whether "the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the result incorrectly." See WP:DRVPURPOSE.[14] OK. I don't know what that means and it appears to have been recently changed. DRVPURPOSE used to say "interpreted the consensus incorrectly". In other words, DRV is not AfD2 where we weight the reliable sources. DRV is used to determine whether the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. In this case, I don't think the consensus could have been interpreted any differently than keep, particularly when you add in the weight given to the close decision itself (e.g. the discretion closers are given in deciding how to close a discussion). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Relisting is at the potential closer's discretion and it's not just a substitute for absence of consensus. I think it's reasonable to close a debate that way if both participants disagreed with the premise of the nomination. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - MSJapan, next time, please atleast inform the the AfD closer if you feel they are incorrect. I shouldn't have to stumble across this discussion to find out about it (Specially since now there are two discussions I have to comment at). Now, about the closure. Just from spending around three minutes, I was able to find eight sources. If I am correct, those each have around a paragraph just about Tahoe-LAFS. I am not going to question your judgement, but those are more than just trivial mentions. If you feel my closure was incorrect, feel free to undo it at your own discretion. -- Cheers, Riley 22:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - First, I was not the suggestor of bringing this to DRV. Second, I can't undo this, as I'm the nom. Third, I went through the sources you added; and I'm going to be blunt because you're insinuating I did shoddy background work, and I've made note of my findings on the article talk. If I didn't think you did a cut-and-paste based on existence in the first place, I've got pretty good proof in that none of the sources is actually tied to anything said in the article, because your sources are garbage. Two are not readable online due to format (one behind a paywall and one book-only). I'm pretty sure you didn't read those. A third source you didn't even get the source language correct in the citation, so I'll just go ahead and assume you didn't read that either (as a side note, someone needs to contact WMF so they can inform the Brazilian government through official channels that their higher educational system is now conducted in Spanish instead of Brazilian Portuguese). Out of the five "sources" that are left, one says "we based our work on this", another is a research proposal (meaning the work may never have happened), one looks chronologically to be the initial presentation by the devs (so it's not independent and also potentially technically inaccurate), one's a Master's thesis on mobile security, and the last one says "we know this exists, but we're not using it for our research." So please explain to me, if you will, where the plethora of sources is that I apparently missed? That is the crux of my complaint at AfD talk, which is that a little due diligence and care exercised by people wrt sources, instead of assuming "if a word is in there. it's good" would save a lot of trouble all the way around. MSJapan (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment - Regardless of "not the suggestor of bringing this to DRV." it is kind to inform the closer about the discussions. I was not trying to imply you did "shoddy background work", I was just stating that the sources were more than trivial mentions. I don't know why you added this comment here as now I have to repeat exactly what I stated on the article talk page. First, "Two are not readable online due to format (one behind a paywall and one book-only)." - Have a read at Wikipedia:Offline sources and WP:PAYWALL. I read those through access of a university library and through a nerdy professor who seems to love this type of technology stuff and has a large collection of books, press releases and papers on storage systems like so. Secondly, they all (all as in the ones I didn't remove) basically proof the same stuff about this small article. Regardless, they proof notability and that the article is correct. Third, yes, I placed the incorrect language as I was reading about the Spanish source I also placed here (I am a horrible multi-tasker). If you would like a rough translation, I would be more than glad to provide one. WMF and Brazilian government have nothing to do with this discussion. I removed the dev one, I was unaware that the developer was Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn at the time I added the reference. You are complaining that the source did not want to use Tahoe because it was unsuitable for their purposes? That is the best thing you can have a secondary source say because it means they aren't being biased, the source still confirms the first sentence is correct. Confirms cloud storage, confirms P2P, confirms that it runs on Windows, Linux, OS X. This is a reliable source. So now, we are left with six reliable sources, which all prove notability and prove the article is correct. What is the problem here? -- Cheers, Riley 03:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I do not think this AfD was NAC territory since there were only 3 voters; the Nominator, someone who voted keep whilst having an argument close to a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument; enough that it was reasonable that someone could challenge it, and a "me too" argument. There was no clear consensus suitable for a NAC. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Much like IRWolfie, I believe that the three votes weren't sufficient to determine consensus, especially due to their rationales. —Theopolisme 16:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "No clear consensus" doesn't mean "relist". And there is absolutely no reason why you had to be an administrator to close that debate. Ciphergoth and Cirt are both highly experienced, long-term editors, and the closer had no reason to disregard what they said, so the available closes were "keep" and "no consensus", both being within discretion. I see no grounds to disturb this close.—S Marshall T/C 01:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion wasn't closed as "no clear consensus", it was closed as keep. The only way a non-admin could have closed a discussion as no consensus is if there was little discussion (per Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure#Appropriate_closures). They can not close that discussion as keep as it's not a clear keep outcome. They can not close a discussion as no consensus if they think there was enough discussion to decide keep. MSJapan is also a highly experienced, long-term editor, and the closer had no reason to disregard what was said since it was only countered by vagueness from one editor, and a "me too" from the other; it's not clearly a keep. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't really care what that essay says about non-admin closes. The actual guideline is WP:NACD, and even that's suffered severe WP:CREEP over the years and is now phrased much too strongly. This community gives adminship far too much weight and admins far too much status; it's becoming a hierarchy in all but name.

  In particular, the line that enables power-tripping sysops to overturn non-admin closes for no reason is totally misused. And increasingly misused to overturn a non-admin close of anything that's a bit difficult. According to actual policy, admins don't have a monopoly on closing contentious discussions. This is because, as any DRV regular quickly learns, the wisdom of Solomon isn't one of the tools they get on passing RFA.

  Of course, closing Wikipedia discussions is a bit random in any case; the outcome of anything contentious always depends on who shows up to close it. Deletionist closers tend to disregard inclusionist policies, and vice versa. But the fact that you disagree with a non-admin close is not sufficient grounds to overturn it. You need a reason, and "you're not a sysop" is not (by itself) a reason.—S Marshall T/C 17:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a simple rule to prevent the admittedly fairly common occurrence that " Deletionist closers tend to disregard inclusionist policies, and vice versa. " The rule that I follow is that I try to never close any seriously disputed AfD in an area where I have deletionist or inclusionist views, except against my own general opinion. I hope I don't for example close disputed AfDs on local organizations as delete; I hope I don't close disputed AfDs on fictional characters as keep. While there is a certain degree of randomness and error in the AfD process, it doesn't have to be as large as it is: I think about 10 to 20% of disputed AfDs are closed wrong. It should be 5-10%. Better than that I don't think we can go. As for the accuracy of NACs, it depends on the closer--some people have records that make clear they would pass RfA, some just the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I think I agree with every single word of that, DGG.—S Marshall T/C 04:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to "No Consensus" Even with numerical !votes, this was 2-1, which is neither "keep" nor "delete". Choosing "no consensus" does not mean "relist" on an AFD as claimed. Non-admin should not have been closing 2-1 discussions whatsoever. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have to agree that my closure is incorrect but at this point (even though I wanted more discussion and still do), I do not know in which direction I should go to fix this. While I believe Bwilkins comments should be the result of this action, others are stating the discussion should be relisted which I do not fully agree with, but if that is decided upon, that should be the result. To clarify, I am not against any actions made to fix/reverse my action. I also apologize for all the time wasted over this discussion. -- Cheers, Riley 00:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original reason for deletion in 2009 was 'Lack of Significant Coverage', and it seems that Morphyre now has significant coverage to warrant a page. There are 80,000 Google hits for Morphyre, and it ranks higher for search terms like 'Music Visualization' that virtually every other Music Visualizer. I recently updated the external links in the article and resubmitted it. I thought that this was the correct route to reinstate the page, but it seems not. Sorry about that. I have looked at similar articles on Music Visualisations and put in external links that I assumed to be of sufficient quality for the article. I accept now that AppEggs was a bad source, however the rest of the links seem very reliable to me, and often include reviews by users of the software. If more links are required I can dig up several blog posts, as well as twitter posts and over 100 videos on YouTube. However I did not think that these were required at the time. Please reconsider the deletion of this article. There is a significant amount of general awareness of Morphyre now (with over 15,000 users per day, and 5,400 searches per month on Google for the word 'morphyre') and it seems surprising that there is no Wikipedia page on it. GW PUR3 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly is possible to recreate an article deleted through AfD if you can bring up some source coverage which warrants reopening the issue of the subject's notability. The question here is whether or not the links added are the sort of thing that might conceivably demonstrate notability (the text was essentially the same as in the AfDed version). The links added were [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21] (the last one claimed as a "review"). These do not look like the kind of things which would demonstrate notability. The first one is the website of the developers and thus isn't independent of the subject, most of the rest are sites hosting downloads of the software with some kind of description of it, they likely aren't independent of the subject and do not appear to be the kind of thing that we would consider reliable. You should also be aware that you can't demonstrate notability through YouTube videos, blog posts, Twitter posts, or searching statistics. Hut 8.5 20:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, it was quite OK to recreate the article afresh but it was (rightly or wrongly) deleted as being "substantially identical" to the previous version. I disagree with Wikipedia's notability guidelines but most people accept them, even taking them as rather inflexible policy, and we must accept that. The staff review in Winamp has some value but even that is a bit weak. The article will still need better references. I suggest you edit Music visualization to improve the description there and also edit that article, probably in the history section, to put in place some substantial, independent, reliable sources to establish the notability of the topic "music visualisation" (to avoid the Music visualisation article itself being submitted for deletion). Thincat (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for deletion review DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with considerable misgivings. The edit comment when the CSD deletion tag was applied ("the article is exactly the same it was before, with the addition of a couple of commercial links") was wrong. Also, WP:CSD#G4 is not supposed to be applied to "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The recreated page is indeed different—for one thing it has had the section "Morphyre Engine" removed and that is a substantial change. Deleted, recreated, diff. However, a change (even a major change such as this one) caused by removing text seems a technicality and I think it was reasonable to move to the primary CSD#G4 test of whether the new article is "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". Again ignoring identicality, the improvements seem not to relate in a substantial way to the reasons for the AfD deletion, namely, lack of satisfactory sources for notability. However, if other people feel that process has not been followed properly, I have no problem with listing again at AfD. Particularly for speedy deletion, the criteria should be observed strictly and in this case they were not. Thincat (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Morphyre is a 2009 software that takes musics and converts the sound into animated/visual imagery. The above DRV's nominator's offer to improve the article with non-reliable sources goes against an interest in having a Morphyre article in article space (see WP:GNG). WP:RS has written standards to determine what is and is not a Wikipedia reliable source, and that standard is not "the rest of the links seem very reliable to me, and often include reviews by users of the software." A news search does not bring up much on the topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]