Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 July

Moral and national education (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Some user accused one sentence of the article is a recreation of deleted article Scholarism, but Moral and national education is related to the social issue from a broader perspective, and Scholarism is just one-sentence mention. Moral and national education controversy is a social issue, evidenced by many sources in the article before its speedy deletion. IF Moral and national education needs to be deleted, it should not be deleted as per CSG G4, but via AFD. The MNE controversy will make newspaper headline on almost every newspaper in Hong Kong tomorrow.--Jabo-er (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note the ANI discussion [1] where I explain that the new article and redirect were an attempt at an end-around a previous AFD, WP:Articles for deletion/Scholarism. I will leave it to the reviewing parties to determine. A ping afterwards is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. As I said at the ANI discussion, the original article was deleted per the outcome of this AfD discussion. The author then attempted to circumvent this by creating this article, which contained all the content from the original article in a section, and then re-created the original article as a redirect to the relevant section. It was a shameless attempt to bypass AfD after he didn't get his own way. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To provide some context, the lead of the deleted article read, "Moral and national education is a school curriculum proposed by the Education Bureau of Hong Kong, transformed from the current moral and civic education The "education of students as a [Chinese] national" introduced in MNE has stirred disputes in the city as it is seen as some as "brainwashing"." Moral and national education (Hong Kong) would seem to be a better title per this .pdf (caution, large download). Scholarism is a 2011 formed group that opposes the 2001 originated Moral and national education (Hong Kong) curriculum and whose 2011 implementation was announced in 2010. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Please note that Moral and national education was never tagged for deletion of any kind. Basalisk tagged Scholarism (a redirect) for speedy recreation , claiming it as a recreation of a deleted page. Basalisk also removed contents from the Moral and national education article, claiming the contents also as recreation of deleted article, but the contents (except the one-sentence mention of Scholarism) are not seen anywhere in the deleted Scholarism article. The Moral and national education page is sourced by adaquate references. If there is any wikipedia policy stipulating that "Any article shall not mention the name of any deleted articles", I am surprised. --Jabo-er (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We understand the situation from your original post above. Please give people a chance to look into the matter. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I see from another review that we can have a "temporary undeletion". If the Moral and national education page was undeleted temporarily even for shorter than one day, it allows any people, admins and non-admins, to see the "recreation" accusation could not stand at all.--Jabo-er (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Jabo-er, it's not hard to figure out what is going on. There is a desire to promote the group Scholarism (Hong Kong) within Wikipedia. While there's nothing wrong with secondary motives, the primary motive needs to be to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedic Wikipedia article. Per the AfD (and a quick search), it is clear that Scholarism (Hong Kong) does not meet WP:GNG. However, it appears that Moral and national education (Hong Kong) meets WP:GNG. I found some information on Scholarism (Hong Kong) that is relevant to Moral and national education (Hong Kong), so the Moral and national education (Hong Kong) can include info on Scholarism. That problem is that, in addition to meeting WP:G4, the deleted Moral and national education appeared to be a Wikipedia:Coatrack article. In a desire to promote the group Scholarism (Hong Kong) within Wikipedia, the Moral and national education article glossed over the main topic and quickly got to Controversy and Pressure groups and protests. A thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature would put the Wikipedia article text ratio at about 90% Moral and national education info and 10% (or less) opposition. The deleted article was about 40% Moral and national education text and 60% opposition text. Here's some steps you may want to take:

• 1. Start with the title Moral and national education (Hong Kong). Moral education and national education each are broad topics. Overlapping the two without a geographic limitation opens the article to moral education and national education from every country in the world.
• 2. Create a draft at User:Jabo-er/Moral and national education (Hong Kong) (I suggest an admin userify the deleted article to there).
• 3. In your draft, forget the Controversy and Pressure groups and protests sections and just use a "History" heading. Place the history in in chorological order. Once you are done developing the history section, then write the lead paragraph to summarize the rest of the article.
• 4. When it comes to adding information about Scholarism in the Moral and national education (Hong Kong) article, limit it to (i) South China Morning Post, No stopping 'national' classes Amid the row over subsidies for the production of a biased textbook for national education, minister dismisses calls for a rethink on the launch of the lessons, (July 15, 2012),[2] (ii) South China Morning Post, Self-important and judgmental teens need moral and national education, (July 20, 2012),[3] (iii) South China Morning Post (July 27, 2012)(page 10).
• 5. When you think you have a viable draft, present it to Wikipedia:Articles for creation or back here at WP:DRV and ask that the article be moved to article space.

If you follow the above steps, you should be able to have a Moral and national education (Hong Kong) article in article space before the close of this DRV. Otherwise, you may end up spending your time going against resistance at DRV, WP:NPOVN, AfD, then DRV, etc. rather than adding content to Wikipedia articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to hear more admins' comments before taking further actions.

• Of course it is good if some admin can move the contents to my userpage, so that I can expand it. I didn't save a copy of it because I didn't expect to be deleted for any reason, especially because I was not even notified before it was deleted.
• The strcuture you see was 60:40 because the article was killed before finished. There will be more coverage on preparation for its implmentation. Or I had better create Moral and national education controversy in Hong Kong instead. It is the controversy that makes MNE different from Physics, Mathematics, etc. Even under the "History" section, it must mention "some orgranisation raised objection/support" - perhaps you mean I should not mention the rationals for their objections/supports?
• Scholarism, Parents' Concern Group and the Civic Alliance against ME can be referred to a student group, a parent group, and a protest organising group if their names are too sensitive.
• In any cases, I hold my positions that the deleted article was not a recreation of any previously deleted article, and that the speedy deletion was incorrectly undertaken. --Jabo-er (talk) 23:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, Uzma Gamal has given you good advice. The point is to get an appropriate article, not get involved in an ideological battle. Ideological battles at Wikipedia rarely give results that are satisfactory to anybody. I have userified the article to User:Jabo-er/Moral and national education (Hong Kong) It is usually best to avoid the term "controversy" as part of a title. DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to insist that the article be should restored to the article space, not my userspace. Because it has never met speedy deletion criteria at the first place, and it was speedy deleted without notice. Though far from finished and far from perfect, the existence and preliminary contents of the article surely do not qualify as a CSD, and no sane wikipedians will (in fact, have) put that to a speedy deletion nomination. Admin decisions never satisfy every person, but if a clearly wrong admin privilege is not reverted, justify it and say so in wikipedia guidelines to avoid further ideological battles. Uzma Gamal's advice is good, but I will not edit the mirror article, so as to let contributors to see the article as is. If anyone thinks the article was a deliberate recreation of another article, part of which the contents are only mentioned with such little focus, justify it and say so. Consensus will shut me up.--Jabo-er (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Jabo-er, I'm afraid that there's no point being outraged. It's completely futile. The harsh reality is that on Wikipedia, once someone's passed their RfA then they can do exactly whatever they please forever afterwards; they have tenure and diplomatic immunity (except for the rare few who do something so extremely egregious that they come to the attention of Arbcom). Their deletion decisions can be overturned at DRV but it takes a clear consensus to overturn them, and you don't have a clear consensus. Nor, I think, are you likely to achieve one, in the circumstances. Please listen to Uzma Gamal. His suggested route will probably lead to the material being moved to the mainspace in due course.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall, you and I have different ideas about admins. Had you known that started WP:WER and proposed WP:RAS you might not be so cynical about the the deleting admin, namely me. And the article was brought to my attention by someone else, Basalisk, so it did have two pairs of eyes looking at it. But since I have diplomatic immunity, I will abuse my admin powers by deferring to DGG, and I would request he take the most appropriate action as I trust his judgement in these matters more than my own, and would grant him he power of proxy for this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 04:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Dennis Brown and other admins, again please read this: you deleted the article without anyone tagging it for speedy deletion or any kind of deletion – see the history of the restored mirror article. Only a redirect page that redirected to Moral and national education was nominated for SD, which I am NOT challenging now. Was it a procedural error? "Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early)" It is best if admins can state 1) whether it was procedurally correct, 2) if not correct, whether the error is substantive or irrelevant. --Jabo-er (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jabo, stop badgering. If you want to work on the article in userspace that's fine, but it's no good for article space as long as it's just a coathanger article for you to promote the Scholarism group. Wikipedia isn't the place for this kind of crusade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 06:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dennis Brown, it's a simple statement of fact that there is never any benefit at all in being outraged about Wikipedia admins. It's also a simple statement of fact that once appointed, admins have tenure and diplomatic immunity.There is no reasonable or effective way within the system to hold administrators to account for their actions.

  Am I cynical about Wikipedia admins? Possibly. I think almost all of you are genuinely well-meaning people, but after spending quite a few years as a regular here at deletion review, I've become increasingly aware that some administrators are children, others are self-confessed drug users, others still feel justified in (or even pressured into) making snap decisions, and still others are editing late at night after a few beers. Others still, of course, are highly rational, intelligent, civilised and thoughtful people who consistently show good judgment, but in my experience these are not in the majority.

  Please note carefully that I did not say that you were in the wrong. What I said was that there is no point being outraged.—S Marshall T/C 07:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No offense taken, but I couldn't resist pointing out that many of us, I have discovered, do not fit that stereotype. ;) I actually understand and empathize with your opinions to a degree (and WP:RAS is designed to fix some of that), although I think most admins are good people indeed, even if they are mistaken about some things. I give all admins the ability to revert any action I take without permission, on my user page, since I don't think I'm always right. In this case, DGG and I have different ideas, but I'm always willing to bend in the direction of someone who I think is a better judge, whether or not they have the bit. And Jabo-er, there is no requirement that an admin tag or notify you, so I acted 100% within policy. If you don't like it, you need to go get the policy changed, but harping on the point is useless here. I don't have a dog in this hunt, I just did what I thought was best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Dennis asked me to comment.

(1). Looking at the two articles, the key objection in the AfD (as in most AfDs) was that there were not sufficient sources to show that the movement was notable. The new articles included this material in the context of the policy against which it was protesting, and had sufficient sources to show notability of the overall question. It therefore was not a valid G4.

(2). Presumably the motive in writing the larger article was to incorporate material from the smaller. I see that as a perfectly reasonable approach. There is no requirement that the individual parts of an article be notable, for the standard way we discuss such topics is to include them in larger articles on more comprehensive topics that can be shown to be notable. Whatever may have motivated the author, whether the final article is advocacy is to be judged by its overall fairness--I think it needs considerably more details, and the addition of an historical dimension, but it is not radically unfair. Any POV problems can be met in the usual ways, by adding material to achieve balance and taking care with the wording. As a more general matter, when dealing with controversial topics, it is better to write about the larger topic, not separately about each side of the issue.

(3) I inform an author if I deleted their article, except when the author had been informed already, or the author was clearly not in good faith. The only reason it is not a requirement is that we do have a large number of promotional & trivial articles where the notification would serve no purpose. I don't notify for G4s where the article is truly identical--that's not good faith editing--I would notify when there was an attempt to correct the problem but one I judged insufficient, for I would regard the attempt as a sign of good faith and willingness to improve.

(4) Sometimes we do assume that someone too strongly advocating for an issue is not acting in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. Jabo-er's comments here can be seen to indicate the possibility of this, but not to the degree that we ought to reject their arguments.

(5) The reason we have all been urging Jabo-er to rewrite further is to make a more defensible article. If the article is immediately restored to mainspace, the article will almost certainly again be nominated for deletion, and without prejudging my own opinion of whether or not it should be deleted, I think I can predict on the basis of experience that it probably will in fact be deleted. If that happens, it will be very difficult to ever get an article about the topic. The best way to get one is to first make the best possible article in user space. Anything else may be technically correct, but will not accomplish the purpose.

(6) At Deletion Review there are two goals--The main goal is to help bring about the best solution--as here, this often takes the form of advice, rather than judgment. A secondary goal is to point out errors in deletion process so people will learn to avoid them. But it is only secondary; we are a process intended to deal with articles, not administrators. I think we have often declined to reverse decisions when there might be a valid reason for doing so, but no useful purpose. The exception is when the actions of the deleting admin were so wrong as to justify a need to point the moral in the most unmistakable way. I do not think any of us consider the deleting admin's decision to have been so drastically mistaken as to need that. I can't speak for others, but after thinking about this for two days, I at least do consider it clearly erroneous, and I do not hesitate to say so. (As Dennis is my friend, I hope he will not take it amiss if I suggest he is so deeply involved in so many major questions here that he may not have fully evaluated what seemed a purely routine situation.) DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected and will take your advice to heart. And it is good to have friends like you who will politely point out and explain an error made in good faith, since the goal is to never make the same error twice. I also agree that pushing it into main space today is not in the best interest of the article itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I initiated this deletion review, not only to challenge the deletion itself (and restore the article on an ongoing social issue in my city), but also to bring attention to inappropriate speedy deletions in general. DGG's comment is reasonable, which I find no reasons to disagree with. It is good for Dennis Brown to have a rational friend. Having said that, I don't take DGG's comment as consensus and will still welcome more people to comment.

Though Dennis Brown did it wrongly, I believe he did it in good faith. Without his erroneous action, this article could have expanded to defend Afd, if any, over the past 4 days. Speedy deletion is extraordinary because it gives an admin a certain degree of privilege to judge whether an article should be deleted without seeking consensus. I suggest he use this privilege only when he is 100% sure.

On the other hand, we must bring attention to User:Basalisk who started this unnecessary event. This user uses speedy deletion overwhelmingly. Looking at the log that he takes pride in, we can see this user has nominated some articles for speedy deletions even if the articles are not eligible for CSD Example1Example2Example3. This time, this user used his ugly tricks on a redirect page I created by tagging it for G4, even though a redirect page and the page to which the redirect page points to are clearly not "sufficiently identical and unimproved cop[ies]" of any article. "Please do not rush to mark [a new page] for deletion". His incorrect speedy deletions may sometimes be approved by busy admins, but it is lucky for us to have some clear-minded admins on wikipedia.

While the discussion here is about to end, I must say that we would have lost this chance to learn a lesson, if I had given in when User:Basalisk threatened me on my talk page. I suggest this user learn to communicate.

In short, I agree that the article can be temporarily expanded on my user page before being restored to the article space. --Jabo-er (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All involved acted in good faith. Although sometimes terse and contentious, discussion never reached incivility. Jabo-er, accept that Basalisk is a deletionist. Wikipedia needs deletionists to prevent Wikipedia from becoming filled with material that is not encyclopedic. I fully expect that he will continue to patrol articles and tag those that he believes should be deleted. That the example articles above survived proves that the system works; articles that deserve to remain in Wikipedia do so. He accepts consensus when it is reached. Uzma Gamal deserves some special thanks for showing the importance of the issue and providing a route to creation of a very good and encyclopedic article. I look forward to reading the article that you create. If you would like help writing in a neutral point of view, let me know and I will help review and edit your article either before or after it moves to mainspace. A hundred years in the future, students will read the article Moral and national education (Hong Kong) as an important part of history. I want to thank all of you for educating me in resolving a problem and reaching a consensus that will ultimately be in the best interest of Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 05:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Sonata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was speedily deleted under G4, which only applies if a page is a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion". From what I recall, at the time of the most recent AfD, the page lacked specific references to reliable independent sources. The page speedily deleted had been improved with additional references. The AfD stated that "all are free to recreate the article with sufficient sources" once better sources were unearthed. I tried to resolve the issue with the closing administrator, who indicated that my remedy was WP:DRV. Thanar (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore most recent version. I looked at the most recent edit and compared it to the version as it was during the last AfD in 2008. The most recent edit at least appeared to be significantly better sourced. If there are still problems with the article upon restoration, it can be sent to AfD and go through a full discussion again. But if the article is fine upon restoration, it doesn't need to be sent to AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore as recommended by Metropolitan90. Warden (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and send to AFD speedy deleted as A7 on the 22 July then recreated on 25 July deleted under G4, which I think is stretch given the prior history a full discussion would have reasonable option, add to that 3 prior afd discussions over 5 years. My brief look at the last version of the article doesnt convince me its meets notability requirements but no harm in having another discussion and giving editors time to address notability beyond doubt. For the record I closed the original AFD in 2007. Gnangarra 08:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we have a temporary undeletion, please.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Eluchil404. Overturn the speedy deletion as outwith the criteria, but immediately list at AfD so that a proper discussion can take place and we can delete it again in the correct and orderly way.—S Marshall T/C 14:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Surely the 22 July 2012 A7 speedy was declined and changed to a G4 speedy? So the G4 should relate back to the 26 May 2008 AfD[4] when the article was like this and so the G4 was claiming that the new version was "substantially identical". It is a good thing I am not an admin because I am completely unable to grasp that line of thought. And bearing in mind the AfD closer's advice to improve the article, the remark that "Cmon, it's been deleted twice at AfD",[5] hardly seems appropriate. Thincat (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD. This G4 is plainly wrong. T. Canens (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The first AfD, WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata, as per WP:NOQUORUM "received few or no comments from any editor besides the nominator" so under our current guidelines would have been a WP:SOFTDELETE if deleted at all.  Six months later, the community reviewed and as per unanimous !vote to overturn at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 4, we get a procedural nomination at WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (2nd nomination) resulting in a unanimous keep result from six editors.  Five weeks pass and an editor nominates at WP:Articles for deletion/Star Sonata (3rd nomination), with the statement, "the article has not been improved (citation wise) since the last AFD", an argument from WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:

  Delete I gave them six months for someone to add cites, they didn't, and I have lost my patience. – My Way or the Highway, 01:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The history of speedy deletes for this article deserves a separate comment.  To repeat, in AfD#2 there was no nominator !voting to delete and six editors !voted keep, a unanimous result.  Yet twice in the subsequent history of the deletion log, administrators have marked speedy delete with A7, which is "no indication of importance".  I understand that the Wikimedia Foundation requires administrators to unreasonably consume time in deleting worthless articles, but I don't see that this justifies unreasonably marked speedy deletes.  The history of G4 in this article is almost as incomprehensible.  The deletion of 2008-08-13 for G4 is a stretch at best, it appears to be a new article.  But the deletion of 2009-09-03 as G4 (with an "a7" thrown in as a comment) was clearly not for a "re-creation", this was a newly written article 14,500 bytes long.  The G4 currently being discussed is now the 3rd G4 for this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  A contributing factor to this confusion seems to be that deletions are not recorded in the Revision History of articles.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would claim that this wiki page qualifies for A7. There's just no point to have an article for something so obscure. It's not scientific or historical in nature, so I'd claim the article falls more under general advertisement, and its existence is an abuse of Wikipedia. If you want the video game to have a web presence, then start a wiki specific to it.80.186.49.244 (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The general criterion for whether or not to have an article is WP:Notability. Even if a topic is obscure, "obscure does not mean not notable" (WP:OBSCURE). So there is a point to having articles on obscure topics. Finally, the nature of a topic (scientific, historical or otherwise) does not determine whether an article constitutes an advertisement. The main safeguard against advertising is maintaining a neutral point of view in the article (WP:NPOV) which can be achieved regardless of the nature of the topic. Thanar (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the topic is obscure, it is also not notable. It has not received enough attention to warrant the article existing. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The video game has not achieved this. Full stop. Furthermore, "the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent". The wiki article that has been deleted heavily relied on the subject's website for sourcing its content. Hence, I reach the conclusion that this article was created purely for advertising purposes and not to disseminate any information of note.80.186.49.244 (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are 7 references in the article version that was speedily deleted. Five of these (3 reviews and 2 developer interviews) are to 4 independent sources, namely G4TV.com, GameZone.com, tleaves.com, and onRPG.com. The 2 references to self-published sources were used only for player base statistics and appear to meet the requirements of WP:SELFSOURCE. Regardless of debate about the quality of the independent sources, I would not characterize the article as heavily relying on the subject's website for sourcing its content. Thanar (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore obviously, AfD it again if someone desires, but the more pertinent question is "What is User:Malik Shabazz, who is an administrator, doing nominating an article for G4 when it clearly doesn't apply and he has the tools to know that?" I expect it's probably not documented that admins have to check ahead of time before tagging something G4, but since it's also logical to assume that an admin tagging a G4 already has looked at it, a failure to do so can lead to assumptions of applicability. Thus, we need at least one of a nominating admin and a deleting admin to NOT take shortcuts in investigating the applicability, or else this will happen again. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse G4 deletion - The AfDs weighed references included: frappr.com, gametunnel.com, GameZone.com, lyceumarchives.com, mmorpg.com, pc.gamezone.com, pc.ign.com, rappr.com, starsonata.com, strategyinformer.com, tgr.com. Admin Sandstein was clear in his close of Star Sonata (3rd AfD nomination) that the topic lacked sufficient references to substantial reliable third-party coverage. WP:G4 excludes pages only if the reason for the deletion no longer applies. Admin Y correctly exercised admin's discretion as part of the 25 July 2012 G4 deletion to conclude that the additional referenced material of g4tv.com, onrpg.com, tleaves.com, web.archive.org, and youtube.com in the G4 deleted article failed to overcome the reason for the deletion. Nothing in this DRV discussion has established otherwise. The above arguments based on conclusory opinion rather than fact should be discounted per Admin guideline re rough consensus. Since the reason for the deletion still applies, the G4 deletion should be upheld. To the DRV closer, please note, prior a AfD for this topic have been concerned with suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users.[6] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:G4 does not exclude pages "only if the reason for deletion no longer applies" as you claim. Rather, it lists 3 categories of pages which are excluded: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy)." The page in question fits the first category, and thus is excluded from WP:G4. Thanar (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If someone recreates a page that is not substantially identical to the deleted version but the reason for the deletion still applies to the recreated page, enforcing the AfD consensus via speedy deleting under G4 makes sense. Otherwise, AfD consensus could easily be overcome. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so. G4 requires that a new article be identical and unimproved, not identical or unimproved. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Even when an article is deleted at AfD, the article often undergoes changes during the AfD and the deleted version often is not substantially identical to the originally nominted version. Since the originally nominted version would not be substantially identical to the deleted version, an editor would need only restore the originally AfD nominted version to get around G4 in such a case, if what you say is true. That doesn't make any sense. Sufficiently identical and unimproved relate to the article text on its face as well as whether the reason for the deletion no longer applies. For the recreated Star Sonata article, Admin Y correctly exercised admin's discretion as part of the 25 July 2012 G4 deletion to conclude that the additional referenced material of g4tv.com, onrpg.com, tleaves.com, web.archive.org, and youtube.com in the G4 deleted article failed to overcome the reason for the deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and list Uzma's point is well taken, and I do think if the article had come back with exactly the same sources the G4 would likely be appropriate. But new sources should really be examined by the community. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A search for more sources turned up another Gamezone article covering the original release. Also, Star Sonata was one of 3 role-playing games listed on Gamespy’s 101 Free PC Games of 2012. Gamezone and Gamespy have been established as reliable sources in the field of video gaming per past consensus. Thanar (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and leave alone. It is just unimaginable that the above comments by Unscintillating would not boil an editor's blood. It seems that this article or subject has enemies and individuals who are adamant to have it deleted. Nothing new. However, it is the duty of DRV and senior editors to see this, to put their personal feelings of an article aside and to do all in their power to prevent any abuse of discretion. Thus, overturn and ban editing of this article only for those who keep re-nominating AfD.Turqoise127 19:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore As Metropolitan90 mentioned, the most recent version definitely doesn't qualify for a G4 deletion, it has been substantially changed and updated since it was originally deleted. As for noteability this game has been covered by G4TV, Gamezone, Gamespy, OnRPGas well as numerous smaller gaming blogs and employs 9 people based on a press release as shown on Gamasutra . -FracOMac (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brocas Helm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I strongly believe that the page was deleted wrongfully. The article, nominated for deletion for the second time, was deleted with five votes, because the posters agreed that the band doesn't meet the WP:Band requirements and isn't notable. However, trying to appeal to the deletion's initiator first, I've proved that the band fulfills the needed requirements and is, in fact, notable metal group that has a strong cult following. Still, we didn't come to a conclusion. Hawk18727 (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from this being your personal opinion can you evidence this argument with detailed reliable sources discussing the subject of the article?. If you can't than I can't see how we can possibly overturn a unanimous discussion that appears to have considered the right things and been closed according to policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I certainly can't fault Sandstein's closure of the AfD, which was unanimous. Hawk18727 argued here that the subject meets WP:BAND, but I have to agree with Sandstein's responses there - the claims either weren't backed up with reliable sources or don't qualify. Hut 8.5 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I pretty much agree with Sandstein's rebuttal at User talk:Sandstein#Brocas Helm. No other issues with the original AfD, which was unanimous. ThemFromSpace 16:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - They've gotten some press mentions, Mirror (UK) 3/18/05, San Francisco Chronicle 4/20/06, New York Times 10/19/09. However, those mostly mention upcoming performances. The problem is not one of Brocas Helm being important. The problem comes in that, even if you took all the text about Brocas Helm and plunked it into a Wikipedia article, you still would not have enough WP:GNG content for a stand alone article. Do you know of any other write up of the band printed in paper publications? Have they been covered in alternative newspaper? Are there published interviews? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Kutcher on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I think this debate is pretty closely related to User:Jimbo Wales' statements made in his 2012 "State of the Wiki" address which WP:POST to "cover all topics, even if they are pure pop culture, because if the Wikimedia movement does not cover it, the people will go somewhere else" as stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-16/Wikimania. Given that the Big Kahuna has spoken on the issue, I would like to consider the propriety of this close on two grounds. First, why was this relisted when it was 10 keep and 4 delete? Why was it again relisted when 14 more votes came in to make this 17 keep and 11 delete? Then a bunch of comments came in to make it about 33 delete and 23 keep. More importantly, since Scottywong (talk · contribs) closing rationale which states that WP:INDISCRIMINATE dominates WP:GNG flies in the face of Jimbo's "State of the Wiki" address, we should reconsider whether we want to discard the GNG-based notability of this pop culture topic. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the enormous, blatant supervote. Correct outcome was no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 07:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Good case made. You can see the article [7] and see it clearly has references to major news sources commenting on how popular the twitter account in itself was, and its accomplishments. Dream Focus 08:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep, (with the always available option to start merger discussions) -- Consensus, as the close states, was meets the GNG. Also, there were 11 sources -- including two textbooks -- cited in the discussion showing e.g.., marketing, advertising, and mass media significance of the topic, in addition to other cites in the article and which maybe found. The policy rationale stated in the close was unfortunately a supervote, not dictated by policy text, nor based in evidence and reason (as noted by the second extensive relisting comments during the discussion, which were in fact substantive comments on every purported delete vote under the cited policy, and which therefore cannot be credited). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: this DRV is essentially giving Jimbo a supervote, and I, for one, don't believe we should trade quality for eyeballs pbp 13:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eyeball being people using Wikipedia, if I understand correctly? Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • People viewing it, yes pbp 15:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the vast majority of the Keep comments argued that the article met the GNG. This is a good counter to arguments that the subject is not notable, but the fact that a topic is notable does not mean that we should have an article on it. We can and do delete pages on notable topics for other reasons. Many Delete comments however raised the issue of WP:NOT, and few people attempted to rebut this argument. It's not a case of a policy overruling a guideline, as the closing statement says, because meeting our notability guideline doesn't mean that a page should be included. Hut 8.5 13:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does; that is what "presumed" means. The GNG accords the keep presumption, and it is not rebutted for the closer by differing opinions about NOT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we take the view that articles about notable topics should be kept, then it would become impossible, even in principle, to delete something for being a violation of WP:NOT, WP:POVFORK, WP:BLP, etc. Notability is only one reason for deleting something. Hut 8.5 09:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it from that direction, on what basis would you conclude that WP:NOT isn't a reason to delete something; since, by the same token, any article we have already could be deleted if it ran afoul of WP:NOT? Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't strike me as very relevant. Enforcement of all our policies depends, to some degree, on editorial judgement. The prospect of editors deciding that any article should be deleted under WP:NOT isn't any more realistic as the prospect of editors deciding that any article should be deleted under WP:N or any of our other reasons to delete something. Hut 8.5 13:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, sorry, maybe I wasn't clear; or I don't understand. Are you saying that, deciding when WP:NOT is a reason to delete is based on editorial judgement, e.g, when people say it's a reason to delete? Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an element of editorial judgement, yes, just like every other policy. Hut 8.5 18:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to ask you was, since you suggest that few attempts were made to rebut the WP:NOT arguements, and also that arguing its notability doesn't rebut WP:NOT arguements, What would be a rebuttal to them? To use a less troublesome example, you can suppose I accused 'Naval Battles of WW1' or 'Zeppelins' of being indiscriminate. Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a bit off topic. The point about WP:NOT is that there are topics which are verifiable or notable which do not belong here because we are writing an encyclopedia and our sources usually aren't. In the case of celebrities this principle is especially important because the media frequently give extensive coverage to almost all aspects of a celebrity's life, no matter how trivial or unencyclopedic. For obvious reasons the mere existence of sources do not counter these concerns. To rebut a concern based on WP:NOT you have to provide some sort of argument that the topic of the article is the kind of thing that could be included in an encyclopedia. For the two examples you cite this is easy - if nothing else you could just cite the fact that actual encyclopedias cover these topics. Hut 8.5 19:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rather, it may have finally gotten to the point; if the rebuttal is simply making the argument that it is suitable for inclusion, those arguments were made in spades; and certainly (before anyone accuses them of being bare assertions instead of arguments) to more depth than the 'this is unencyclopedic'/'WP:NOT' arguments they were addressed to. You weren't the closing admin, of course, so he may have a different idea of a rebuttal in mind, but if that's what you're basing your judgement of 'few attempted to rebut' on, it's worth taking another look. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more subtle than "suitable for inclusion". For an article to be suitable for inclusion, it must satisfy a number of policies. Amongst them, the topic must be notable and the topic music be encyclopedic. (WP:NOT relates specifically to the latter.) Notability and encyclopedicity are not the same thing: there are encyclopedic topics that are not notable, and notable topics that are not encyclopedic. A rebuttal to the NOT concerns would have to demonstrate the encyclopedicity of the topic, not the notability. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, such arguements were made. For reference, encyclopedic. I can understand now though how they'd fall short if you expect them to prove something isn't a member of a list that's explicitly not exhaustive. Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening to me. Encyclopedicity is not synonymous with being suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, nor does it have anything to do with notability. Arguing that WP:NOT is inherently flawed or unenforceable isn't going to get you very far since the community doesn't agree with you. Hut 8.5 10:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hut, We take the view that Notability accords the presumption because that is what it says and with good reason, it is based in evidence of reliable sources. As with any article, the article is also subject to content consensus, such as is detailed in policy, but content consensus by reference to policy was not reached, so the presumption holds and the delete closer acts on the presumption, with content addressed in due course and by other processes. It is not impossible, but it is subject to evidence, presumption, standards, and consensus arising from those things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it passes the GNG. This means that an article about such a topic will be kept unless someone can demonstrate some other reason why it should be deleted (such as WP:NOT). That does not mean that the GNG says the topic should be kept, nor does it have any bearing on the question of whether WP:NOT says the page should be deleted. It only specifies what happens if WP:NOT doesn't say the page should be deleted. Hut 8.5 15:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The presumption is given and it is not rebutted by a lack of consensus over NOT, especially bad arguments that NOT applies to anything one doesn't like. As Darryl's questions make clear, your view of sources and NOT is unworkable and ultimately irrational. It amounts to putting fingers in our ears and saying 'no source can tell us this should be written about, we don't care about sources, and whether they have treated this as a business, marketing and mass communication, etc. topic.' (And by the by, NOT is a content rule -- it is only tangentially an organizational aid.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. It seems you're trying to argue that WP:NOT only affects the content of articles and isn't a valid basis for deleting them. If that's the case, then the community (and policy) doesn't agree with you. If you want to argue that the deletion should be overturned on the grounds that there was no consensus that WP:NOT means the page should be deleted, then that's a legitimate view, but it doesn't have anything to do with notability or the GNG. Hut 8.5 19:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is rather the later, and not the former (I am not "trying to argue" that). (The NOT observation is an aside, although it goes to understanding RS and their relationship to NOT. NOT generally approaches things from content up (not topic down), by looking at content supported by RS and saying this content does not fit or does not fit in this manner; it does not say ignore the RS, it says look at them, and be guided by their content, article content, and by the categories explicated in NOT -- it does not list 'forbidden topics,' because there are none for an Enlightenment project, but some content is unsuitable and a whole article therefore may have unsuitable content, and some very specific types of articles listed at NOT are likely to have all unsuitable content. In a complementary way WP:N also says be guided by the sources - they are both based in evidence of RS.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The policy does not say anything like your description. Deletion is appropriate if an article violates policy and it is not possible to fix the problem through normal editing. Here the concerns relate to the topic of the article, rather than its content, and any potential rewrite would suffer from the same problems. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Your position is, it is a matter of evidence free assertion, without regard to RS, or text of the article, or specific policy; and that is why there would be no consensus, nor even a real discussion, because consensus cannot occur around evidence free assertion, so the presumption holds and the closer does not get to choose among evidence free assertions. I, however, disagree that it is a matter of evidence free assertion, and the keep side brought the better evidence. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your position "Many Delete comments however raised the issue of WP:NOT". WP:NOT specifically requires that the article be a certain thing that Wikipedia is not. WP:NOT provides four categories 1. Style and format, 2. Content, 3. Community, and 4. And finally ... with 18 different certain things. The close, those participating in the AfD, and those endorsing the close in this DRV failed to establish the certain NOT thing around which rough consensus developed as the basis for deleting the article. Your DRV endorsement of the close avoids specifically addressing the close's centering on WP:INDISCRIMINATE (and to some degree WP:NOTDIARY) as the NOT basis to delete is because you know there was not rough consensus to delete under either of these certain NOT things. There were only two AfD participants who mentioned "INDISCRIMINATE" in their delete !vote and zero participants mentioned NOTDIARY in their delete !vote. Contrary to the AfD close, rough consensus did not developed around INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY as the basis for deleting the article avoiding addressing INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY in your AfD close endorsement merely highlights this. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Counting the number of people who linked to INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY does not provide an accurate picture of the discussion. (FWIW I think you miscounted: four delete !voters mentioned INDISCRIMINATE at some point, and although NOTDIARY wasn't mentioned, NOTNEWS was - NOTDIARY is a subsection of NOTNEWS.) Plenty of other delete !voters either referred to WP:NOT in their comments or were clearly invoking WP:NOT or the principles behind it. Discounting their opinions because they didn't link to the right policy section is pure wikilawyering. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

• Endorse If Jimbo wants to change the way we apply policy then he is welcome to raise an RFC and seek community consensus but the close is clearly a balancing of competing policies and guidelines and I strongly believe that an argument based on a guideline should have less weight than an argument based on a policy. That is precisely what the closing admin did so this looks well within their closing discretion. Arguments to overturn based on the GNG is really missing the point of DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was a correct reading of WP:NOT, a valuable policy for maintaining an encyclopedia of our breadth. ThemFromSpace 16:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It was closed by citing WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE(both link to the same place) which only concerns Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, and Excessive listings of statistics. The closing administrator should actually read the policy they are referencing in their closing rational. Dream Focus 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:INDISCRIMINATE is not restricted to those three areas. These are specific examples of the application of the policy where particular guidance is needed. And WP:NOTDIARY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE do not link to the same place. Hut 8.5 16:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The way it loads up it looked the same place, my mistake. Diary says "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person." Not relevant here, since the article featured coverage about it, and why the twitter account was notable. And WP:INDISCRIMINATE says "Wikipedia articles should not be:" and list three examples only, it not mentioning anything else. Dream Focus 16:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • INDISCRIMINATE does not only say what you describe, it also says that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The policy does not set any limits on the application of this principle and it applies everywhere. Policies which are intended to be exhaustive lists, such as WP:CSD, explicitly say so. NOTDIARY does contain the word "notability", but it is used in its normal English sense of "worthy of notice", rather than as a reference to Wikipedia:Notability. (Note that the policy is talking about something being "notable" enough for inclusion in a wider article, which is explicitly not what WP:N is about.) Hut 8.5 16:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. INDISCRIMINATE is absolutely correct. AK's use of Twitter may, in a sense, pass GNG if considered in isolation from common sense but, quite probably, so would his toilet habits. Formerip (talk) 17:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parade of horribles fallacy is not sound reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply so WP:GNG must be followed. Obsene out of policy supervote. CallawayRox (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply. The policy states that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" and that fits perfectly here. The discussion shows that there was a consensus of 'x on Twitter' pages being inappropriate on Wikipedia. Till 13:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That statement applies to all possible information, whether suitable or not, certainly -that- applies. However, to argue that there was a consensus that this article actually was not suitable per the spirit of WP:IINFO that actually excludes thing is...a stretch. Darryl from Mars (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As this debate progresses, I think it will be enlightening to compare how editors are voting here (whether or not to overturn an article deletion) vs. the "Obama on twitter" DRV (whether or not to overturn a kept article). It will call into question whether some are honestly examining the XfD and looking at the admin's actions, or if they are just casting a Round 2 vote. Tarc (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. It wasn't an easy one to close, and I don't envy Scotty in doing it, but in the end, it was his read of consensus and I think his faith was good and none of his actions were improper, thus I can't find a reason to overturn. Hut 8.5 sums it up nicely as well, and I agree with his sentiments here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn IINFO does not apply to twitter feeds, closing rationale was based on the assumption that it does, and thus a fatally-flawed supervote. Topic meets GNG, does not run afoul of anything in WP:NOT, close should be vacated as not policy-based. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"IINFO does not apply to twitter feeds" How did you determine that? I reject the notion that IINFO only applies to summaries, lyrics databases, and statistics. The top of WP:NOT makes it clear that "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." -Scottywong| babble _ 02:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That much is true; it could apply, but did you really feel that the view that it did apply reflected some kind of consensus? Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the argument was made repeatedly by different people, and was never convincingly refuted by anyone, so yes. -Scottywong| gossip _ 15:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, far be it from me to say what should convince you, but if the arguments that there was value to the article or that is was suitable for inclusion don't count as refutations; I'm especially curious to know what -would- qualify. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn supervote to no consensus. One man's stupid article is another man's useful information, no consensus that WP:GNG is trumped by stupidity here.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a step in Scottywong's reasoning I didn't get to see; he affirms the basic premise of WP:NOT "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia", which was stated, talks about other articles that aren't necessarily suitable, which were mentioned, then at some point concluded this article isn't suitable. He can't have reached that conclusion from what he said alone (All it states is that P does not imply Q), so I'd want to know what consideration lead him to conclude 'not Q' was representative of the discussion before voting here. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- close appears to me to be a sensible reading of the discussion. The delete !votes were clearly better argued. Closing a long, contentious discussion with a detailed rationale should be encouraged rather than shouted down with "I disagree with the close therefore supervote". Reyk _YO! 05:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The practise of relisting until a desired result is obtained seems to be an abuse of the process, contrary to WP:GAME. The second relisting seems especially egregious. The admin at that point says "there seems scant regard for actually building a compelling case for deletion" and the !keep voters were ahead at that point. So why was the discussion relisted? This seems to be the process, lampooned by Brecht, of dissolving the people and electing another, when they fail to conform to the wishes of the nomenklatura. Warden (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The "supervote" argument is generally the last gasp of the ARS-minded to try to get their article back at any cost. There's nothing wrong with how the admin judged the arguments and weighed consensus. Tarc (talk) 13:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARS-minded? ;-)—S Marshall T/C 14:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, I didn't say ARSE-minded at least. ;-) Tarc (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not ARS minded. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There is some irony in complaining about the closing admin exercising a supervote while trying to invoke Jimbo's name as if he himself is a trumping supervote. Jimbo's opinions are his opinions, and not policy. As such, that argument is irrelevent to DRV. Given the size of the discussion on these foo on Twitter articles at the village pump, I also think it was logical to ensure the discussion had sufficient participation ot guage a true community reaction to these articles, rather than simply hoping that the right people !vote at the right time. Something tells me that if the delete !voters held the numerical advantage on the relists, Tony would not have complained about the AfD being left open. Also, Tony should be reminded that vote counting is not how these discussions are weighed. Even at a 10K 4D breakdown, if each side has presented arguments of similar weight, then we have not yet reached a consensus. Relisting would be appropriate in such a circumstance, especially given the size of the community discussion I mentioned previously. Ultimately, we are left with the "but but but it meets GNG!" argument. I am in agreement with Scottywong that the WP:NOT policy trumps the WP:GNG guideline here. Certainly Ashton Kutcher's Twitter presence is worthy of inclusion, but at his main article. There is no need to cover such a trivial thing in such tedious detail. Resolute 15:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Effectively there is no question whether WP:NOT trumps WP:GNG, as WP:N spells: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not." That is: per WP:N passing WP:GNG and WP:NOT is required. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Plainly within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my question. When two sides evenly divide on if a given policy applies in a given situation and it isn't a black-and-white issue, does the admin get to make that call? Evaluating strength of argument is all well-and-good, but at some point isn't it "agrees with me"? Hobit (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD isn't a vote count, and a 50:50 divide of votes is irrelevant. Your argument amounts to "noone can objectively weigh up consensus", which is a non-argument since it happens all the time. Admins are expected to weigh up the arguments and assign weight to them based on how they reflect policies and guidelines (i.e common practice on wikipedia). The best example of how vote counting is irrelevant is with an AfD where all vote keep and one individual points out it's a copyvio: that one vote trumps all the rest. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in clear-cut cases a single !vote can be enough to override a hundred votes. The argument here is if this case is clear cut. I (and I think most of us arguing overturn) believe that the key issue is if this is indiscriminate information. I don't see a way, other than finding consensus on the issue, to determine that. And I don't see consensus in that discussion. I'm guessing Tim (whose views I greatly respect) does see consensus (or something close to it), and I'm asking him to explain why he sees that in a situation where I don't see it at all. Hobit (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have commented in less absolute terms. Personally I'd probably have closed this one as NC as well, but I do have a view w/r/t these "on Twitter" articles so take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt. I'm usually pretty reluctant to overturn AfD closures; this is not because the closing admin is somehow in a better position to assess the debate, like the relationship between trial and appellate courts, where the trial court is the only one that actually hears live testimony and has significant personal interaction with the lawyers, and so is in a better position to find facts. Rather, it's because it's essential to have finality at some point. This is especially important for divisive and difficult AfDs. It's already a very difficult task to close the debate; I do not want admins be even more discouraged because they are going to be second-guessed by DRV. When the AfD is as divisive and difficult as this one, as long as the admin provides a facially reasonable rationale in light of the debate, I'm not inclined to overturn it. That said, there may be some cases where the close, despite being facially plausible, is nonetheless so obviously wrong that I'd want to overturn it; all I can say, to quote Justice Stewart, is that I know it when I see it, and the close in the case before us is not it.

In the end, an article about some guy's Twitter account is surely on the lower end of the importance spectrum of our four million articles; the harm caused by the article being wrongly deleted - if it is indeed wrong to delete it - for a year or two is, in my judgment, substantially less than the waste of time and effort being spent to decide if it is indeed wrongly deleted right now. Let it settle for a while, and we can revisit this in the future when the consensus may have become clearer. T. Canens (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you may mistake the harm of wrongful deletion. The harm of wrongful deletion falls heavily on content creators (and readers), and their discouragement in creating (and reading) well sourced articles is of worse harm to the pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Exactly as Reso said above. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closing administrator did a good job in closing the AfD, it was closed within his discretion and that is how he interpreted the debate. Till 13:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Clear example of supervoting over consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn S Marshall said it best. Statυs (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no consensus). There was not a consensus, even rough. The closer's GNG vs NOT / INDISCRIMINATE is unimpressive and not supported by the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Only two AfD participants mentioned "INDISCRIMINATE" in their delete !vote and zero participants mentioned NOTDIARY in their delete !vote. Rough consensus did not developed around INDISCRIMINATE or NOTDIARY as the basis for deleting the article. The AfD close centering on INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDIARY as the basis for deleting was, as noted by S Marshall, an enormous, blatant supervote. Correct outcome was no consensus. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to take another look then. I count about a half dozen who mention INDISCRIMINATE, two who discuss the diary aspect, and another large collection of voters who discuss WP:NOT (which, of course, contains WP:INDISCRIMINATE). This appears to be an enormous, blatant, misleading DRV vote. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 02:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The original posters rationale amounts to wanting a supervote from Jimbo. Also policy does trump guidelines, not the other way around. As I mentioned below WP:NOTSTUPID discourages anticipating bad ideas and expecting a line specifically addressing articles of this type doesn't make a lot of sense either, we shouldn't reject decisions based on technicalities from a literal reading of policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I have to say IRWolfie pretty much sums it up here. The original poster seems to want a supervote from Jimbo and I find that extremely ironic. Clearly this page does not belong as a separate topic. It should be mentioned briefly on his page and that is about it. -DJSasso (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

• overturn to NC As this topic isn't specifically noted in WP:NOT as being unacceptable, we need some reasonable consensus that it does apply, and that consensus simply wasn't there. The RfC, once closed, might well provide that consensus. But we aren't there yet. In any case, at the least this should be a redirect (as the article as been around and there is an obvious place to redirect to...) Hobit (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting argument. I take it then that I can create an article like Derek Jeter at Yankee Stadium, fill it with reams of trivial details over every play, hit, home run and out, Jeter has made at that stadium then claim it cannot be deleted because WP:NOT does not specifically mention that articles on baseball players' performances at specific stadia is bad? Man, I'm impressed! Which school did you get your wikilaw degree from? Resolute 15:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to think an editor as senior as yourself could manage to make a point without a personal attack, perhaps you'd care to refactor that? In any case, there are two relevant points here. #1 Such a thing is specifically covered under WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. #2 If 20 good-faith editors felt that some specific topic not covered under WP:NOT shouldn't be covered by WP:NOT while 20 did feel it should be covered, I'd hope you'd agree there was no consensus one way or the other. This is very much a matter of opinion, nothing else. And we clearly see opinion is evenly split. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Meh, adding flavour to a comment on how you are trying to wikilawyer the WP:NOT argument isn't a personal attack, sorry. Also, to my theoretical article NOTSTATSBOOK would not apply, as I would not be creating a list of statistics. Rather, I would be writing, in prose, a tediously detailed account of the player's history at that one stadium. Where both my theoretical article, and this formerly-real article does fall down is at WP:NOTDIARY. As it, using both sportspeople and celebrities as examples, notes both that not everything written about [them] is notable and that over-detailed articles full of trivia are a bad thing. And giant articles about a celebrity's Twitter presence is very much an example of this. Resolute 13:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • So just to be clear, you didn't just wiki-lawyer out of NOT:STATSBOOK? I guess since you haven't actually written it it'd be silly to challenge that though. Anyways, things like 'tedious' 'giant' 'trivia' 'over-detailed', the bases of that argument, are exactly the things for which there was no convincing consensus. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think that Hobit makes a quite reasonable and logical argument. Nothing at WP:NOT applies directly. WP:NOT exclusions are usually taken to be very specific, and that is consistent with the large number of specific exclusions. Participants in the debate did not go into depth as to how any part of WP:NOT applied (juts making vague references). WP:INDISCRIMINATED most certainly doesn't doesn't clealy apply. While some did specifically mention WP:NOT, or its elements, there was no clear (or not clear enough) debate contrasting WP:NOT with the evidence that others have written about the topic. The discussion was therefore not concluded, and with so may particiapnts speaking past each other, it should have been closed as "no consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that it's not specifically mentioned is arguing on the grounds of a technicality, WP:NOTSTUPID discourages anticipating bad ideas. WP:IAR also points out that it is not the specific wording that matters. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That it's not specifically mentioned is simply a fact. The argument right here is that, therefore, it can't be assumed to apply, there should be a clear consensus/justification. Darryl from Mars (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that WP:NOT doesn't specifically say "There should be no Wikipedia articles on the Twitter activities of celebrities" nor does WP:INDISCRIMINATE list Twitter activity as an example, you might want to take a look at the top of WP:NOT, where it says "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." The fact that the subject of celebrity Twitter use doesn't specifically appear in WP:NOT is most certainly not evidence that the policy doesn't apply to that subject. It would be quite ridiculous to expect or require a policy to exhaustively list every last example of specific subjects to which it applies. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 17:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly it is possible that it applies. But I wouldn't assume it applies here the same way I wouldn't assume it applies to zeppelins. I would expect evidence or argument that it does apply to be the standard. You have to accept, as well, that there are things which WP:NOT doesn't mention, which are suitable for inclusion? Right? There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding when I mention this, there are three classes of things: listed in NOT and thus unsuitable, not listed in NOT but still unsuitable, not listed in NOT and suitable. This case was obviously not listed in NOT, the disagreement consisted primarily of whether or not it was suitable. What I ask you is, by what metric, or what arguements, did you surmise that the 'unsuitable' arguments were the stronger? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me echo Darryl here. Folks are saying "it's clearly indiscriminate", but there doesn't appear to be actual consensus that it is indiscriminate. Some cases are specifically listed out at WP:NOT, some aren't. Those that are clearly have consensus. But if it's not there then it needs to be shown that it has consensus. You can (and probably should) argue common sense. And that's what WP:IAR is for. But using IAR generally requires consensus.

"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. 
Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be 
able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus.

• Endorse this was simply the right call, the topic is not notable independent of the subject which is Ashton Kutcher, the citations were all about Kucther not @aplusk and therefore since Notability is not inherited and every FART of his that is reported in the press does not merit an article since that essentially is giving it UNDUE WEIGHT this was the right call to delete, a section in the BIO of Mr. Kutcher would suffice but a DIARY was not necessary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The twitter account was notable for its achievements, and references did mention how popular it was, etc. That was mentioned in the AFD. Dream Focus 20:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  References that mention how popular Kutcher is on Twitter can easily be summarized in a few sentences on Kutcher's article. Resolute 13:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: there is no proof that Aston Kutcher on Twitter is not Ashton Kutcher, the topic lacks subject and thus is excluded per WP:NOT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It appears your argument is "contentfork," a rationale not mentioned as a reason for delete close consensus. And about which there would substantial disagreement, as the article is about a particular use of a written mass medium. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You may take it for snowy endorse. WP:UNDUE would also exclude this topic as a separate article of this size. That said, I agree that the topic is excluded per WP:NOT and particularly WP:NOTDIARY. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Without a more direct reply, Overturn to No Consensus. Lots of people said '~Q'. Lots of people said 'Q'. Lots of people said 'P'. People said 'P does not imply Q'. None of the statements of '~Q' were argued well, or argued from any relevant or realistic premise at all for the most part. How then, those statements could be considered generally stronger than the contradictory statements (irrespective of their caliber of argument) without the use of preconceived and unargued premises continues to mystify me. Darryl from Mars (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC) Q = suitable for inclusion, P = notable; more or less. [reply]
• Endorse. Administrator discretion--and well-argued, too--and weak keep arguments means a deletion. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 3

• Weak endorse or weak overturn - Seriously, we're discussing the merits of arguments on some article about some celebrity's Twitter use that has very little impact whatsoever. I say "weak" because, well, I have compelled myself into condensing or deleting Twitter stuff used by high-profile people. Recently, we have turned "Barack Obama on Twitter" into Barack Obama on social media because... it must not be solely about Twitter use any longer. If anybody wants to create Ashton Kutcher on social media, that would be fine by me, as long as it is NOT solely about his Twitter use. --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would note, that this isn't random AfD of random "X on Twitter" article: this deletion discussion (and DRV for that matter) will set the bar on the whole "Xon Twitter" thing, which is worth any amount of time spent, regarding the cumulative effect on Wikipedia future content development directions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is rather doubtful there would be that many, that make it. And we already have twitter feed articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Liberty (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was the nom for the AfD of this BLP, which resulted in delete. The subject was unhappy (1, 2) that his page was deleted. Ferox Seneca also had some concerns about the outcome, prompting the closing admin, T. Canens, to restore it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Jesse Liberty.
Ferox Seneca has diligently researched available sources, discussed at Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Jesse Liberty. With the research complete, we agree that virtually all the sources are unquestionably WP:PRIMARY. The only sources on which we've disagreed are the short capsule bios accompanying the subject's interviews, which I believe are supplied by the subject himself and insufficient to establish notability. T. Canens has recommended a DRV as the best way to close the matter and I agree. I recommend endorsing the outcome at AfD and the decision to delete. Msnicki (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed {{DRVNote}} notices on the talk pages of all the editors who participated in the AfD. Msnicki (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning endorse. His notability is, at best, borderline. On the one side he has gotten numerous books published and by working with him we can assume there aren't any verifiablity issues. On the other hand there is little to no direct coverage on him as a person. If the "best selling author" bit was sourced to a site more reliable than an Amazon it would good to go. ThemFromSpace 16:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would still have to say a lot more than just "best selling". Consider the arguments at WP:FACTORS that popularity and rank don't automatically render notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought there was a provision that authoring a best-selling book was a qualifier for notability. Looks like WP:AUTHOR isn't that precise. ThemFromSpace 17:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Can this please be temporarily restored to view for those of us who don't have administrator view capabilities? Carrite (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found it in the article incubator... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - Already properly hashed out in the AfD discussion. We seem to be asked for this review due to the article's subject's own request, apparently out of a desire to see one's own name in Wikipedia, which is grossly inappropriate per WP:AUTOBIO, etc. I anticipate that a BOOMERANG may end up knocking it out of the incubator. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I advised Keep on an IAR basis in the AfD debate. I wish the closing administrator had been less terse with the explanation of the decision but see no doctrine-based reason for an overturn of that call. Carrite (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  IAR can't be invoked to just make up a new "writes lots of books" criteria, that's absurd. If this guy's "lots of books" have not garnered significant attention by the sorts of sources that review and discuss books, then we can't just create a hole for backdoor notability anyways. Sources need to discuss a topic before an encyclopedia can cover a topic, otherwise we're just a blog. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even lots of reviews of his books would still not be sufficient. Notability is not WP:INHERITED: "not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable". To establish the subject's notability, we would still need sources that talk about him, not his books. Msnicki (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the correct finding, but please would T. Canens note that when he's closing against the apparent consensus, a clearer closing statement is normally expected.—S Marshall T/C 21:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - (FYI: Jesse Liberty (born 1955 in Brooklyn, New York is a best-selling author and has written about 20+ books on programming (e.g. Microsoft.NET).) He's got two things working against him for a Wikipedia article: 1. His name is common, so it is difficult to find articles about author Jesse Liberty. I found 2,000+ Jesse Liberty articles, but a lot of those are about the concept liberty and happen to mention a Jesse in then near the word liberty. 2. He is a writer. The things that pop up in a search are the thing's Jesse himself wrote (e.g. Software World, May 1, 2002 (which is not about Jesse himself) or reviews of his books (which might make his books meet WP:GNG, but won't make the Jesse Liberty topic meet WP:GNG). That essentially leaves it to Jesse Liberty himself (or one real dedicated Wikipedia editor) to identify press coverage about Jesse from which to develop a biographical Wikipedia article. That effort merely brought in the usual website coverage rather than the paper printed newspapers, magazines, book converge that usually makes or breaks a topic meeting WP:GNG. Article Incubator has made great efforts to try to work with Jesse to find reliable sources from which to develop an article. The subject might be unhappy, but if he can't help a collective effort to develop a Wikipedia article on the topic by identifying paper printed reliable source material, there's not much else to do other than endorse the deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In this and the previous AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama on Twitter) the widespread consensus to merge to Barack Obama on Social Media or Communications of Barack Obama were ignored by the closing admins. In fact all other X on Twitter accounts have been deleted or merged and a Village Pump consensus that these articles are NOT appropriate was not considered. LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse That's because merges and renames should be discussed on the talk page and not at AfD. The consensus of the AfD is that the topic area as a whole is notable. Broadening of the topic can be discussed separately, but it shouldn't be deleted or redirected to Barack Obama's page, because that is not the consensus. That's all it means. So arguing for a merge or rename close is kind of pointless. Silverseren^C 22:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The correct finding in both of those debates was "no consensus". WilyD's close as "keep" raises an eyebrow with me, but there's no point overturning to no consensus because it makes no practical difference. I don't see how a village pump discussion is capable of overruling an AfD when making a decision about whether or not to delete, and I definitely don't see a consensus to merge.—S Marshall T/C 22:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One has to put a substantial amount of weight in the !vote count to find no consensus, I think. An evaluation of the argument strength and applicability of policies has to conclude keep. Note that the first AfD, closed as "no consensus", includes pretty extensive comments by the closing admin about how the deletion arguments are all based on quoting policies that don't apply. The no consensus there appeared to come mostly from the !vote count being 60%/40% (which the closing admin opened with). How much weight to give the numbers is subject to substantial discretion, and yes, my closure did "Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.", to quote WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. The burden on people arguing to go against policy is necessarily higher than those arguing to apply policy. WilyD 06:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where I agree with you, is that the meme "AfD is not a vote" should apply to everyone equally and not just to the Article Rescue Squadron. Where I disagree with you, is where to strike the balance between what policy says and the will of the community. This is fundamental stuff, enshrined among other places in the fifth pillar, IAR and NOTBURO. I find your closes very much on the inclusionist end of the spectrum and your closure statements are often very dismissive towards one side of the argument.—S Marshall T/C 07:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Policies and guidelines are important reflections of the will of the community, too. One can't disregard them without a compelling reason - they represent a longstanding, well established consensus that reflects the thoughts, opinions, and feelings of the entire community. How to balance that against a local discussion isn't set in stone, and in a lot of cases one can reasonably disagree. I'm not sure that's the case here - I'm hard pressed to imagine any line of reasoning that isn't fundamentally a straight headcount that could result in a "no consensus" closure.

      I'll keep the point about my closure comments being blunt in mind, it's a fair one. WilyD 08:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      For the record, I clearly outlined how I arrived at no consensus. There can be no mistake about my train of thought.--v/r - TP 13:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • • • In my time participating at DRV, I've done a fair bit of thinking about administrator discretion: where the limits are, and why. My starting point is that admins are elected to give effect to the community's will ("consensus"). Sometimes, there's a tension between the local consensus, and the broad principles agreed-on by the community; and in this case the amount of administrator discretion varies according to the circumstances. Certainly, if there's evidence of bad faith, or if it's a small and ill-attended discussion that reaches an unusual conclusion, then it's only right for the administrator to have discretion to discount !votes. Still, in such a situation the administrator is often better advised to !vote rather than closing, so that the next admin to come along will have a less flawed debate before him and can close it better.

            But this kind of thing is very different. Here we have large numbers of experienced, established, good faith users participating in a long and well-attended discussion. Per policy, such a discussion has authority to suspend the rules. In this case, administrators are not given discretion to overrule the substantial number of experienced, established, good faith users and dismiss them with a simplistic summary. Totally not. That's never been within the purview of an administrator; their role is clerk to the discussion, not chairman.—S Marshall T/C 21:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            Which is pretty much what I said - if you treat it as a straight vote count (for whatever reason), you can come to a conclusion of no consensus. The moment you start evaluating the strength of the arguments, you find that most of the delete votes either rely on factually incorrect premises (i.e., citing policies that don't apply, or asserting that sources don't exist when they do), or are mere personal dislike - the "delete argument" isn't an argument at all, it's just a position. The keep arguments are well supported by policy & precedent. The keep position has arguments (most important, probably, that it well satisfies WP:N). As a discussion, it's overwhelmingly keep. Only as a straight vote can it be read as no consensus. Any discussion can IAR, but it should have a compelling reason to do so - that doesn't exist here. WilyD 06:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

            • • I think there's fundamentally no consensus, across the whole encyclopaedia, about whether Foo on Twitter type articles ought to be separate from the main person's article or within it. I think both sides are perfectly arguable. I find it concerning that so many people (and not just you) appear to be of the opinion that the debate has a simple and obvious conclusion: it's indicative of a failure of our processes. I think that until the community has given you a clear steer about the Foo on Twitter approach, the correct answer is to close contentious debates on the subject as "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                The correct outcome of a close, contentious debate is "no consensus". The correct outcome of a massively lop-sided, contentious debate is either keep or delete. Merely being contentious is not a good criterion for no consensus, and every day we delete in contentious discussions where "not notable" is a much stronger argument than "I like it". "I dislike it" being a much weaker argument than "well established notability" is a much less common debate, but the process is the same.

                Beyond which, trying to treat all the Foo on Twitter articles as a class, that can have a class-wise conclusion, is a fool's errand. Barack Obama isn't a suitable target to merge all the daughter articles about him: Category:Barack Obama, Category:Ashton Kutcher may be. I don't think there's necessarily a clear consensus about whether there should be Foo on Twitter articles as a class. There is a clear consensus on whether there should be a Barack Obama on Twitter article. Those're two different questions. WilyD 08:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                • • But that's exactly my point. What policy does is to treat things as a class and seeks to enforce class-wide conclusions. So when you prefer "policy-based arguments" over discussion, aren't you doing exactly what you've just denigrated?

                    "Weight of the arguments" is a tricky case to make because in the whole history of DRV, there's hardly ever been a supervote that the closer didn't seek to justify on the basis of "weight of the argument", "not a vote", etc. From an observer's point of view, how do we distinguish these things from the closer's personal opinion?—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

                    No, I don't think so. Policies and guidelines guide decision making for articles individually; individual articles are all members of the class "articles", but when we make a conclusion about what to do about an article, we make a conclusion for an article, not for the whole class. Even when we consider a narrower class - say books. Some books are clearly notable, and should have encyclopaedic articles - other ones (such as the book I wrote), are not, and thus should not. Making a class-wise conclusion about what to do about all articles on books is a fool's errand - some should be kept, some deleted, some merged, some redirected - many things. Depends on the individual article.

                    You can judge the merits of weight of argument for yourself (obviously, that's why we're here at DRV). In marginal cases, there can be a bit of surruptious supervoting (even if not deliberate) but in most cases it's pretty obvious. WilyD 11:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

• Endorse Within discretion, once the inapplicability of WP:TRIVIA is taken into account. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It is about time someone closed one of these without saying reasons to delete should be given more weight just because. I have not been able to make any sense of the prior X on Twitter AFD closes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Finally, one of these was actually closed per policy, as opposed to trying to hallucinate that NOT#IINFO covered Twitter feeds. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  When will you accept that not everyone on here shares your incredibly strict reading of IINFO? Saying that those you don't agree with are hallucinating is just uncalled for. ThemFromSpace 16:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "To hallucinate" is to see something that isn't there. I'm not accusing anyone of mental instability or "hallucinations" in general, but seeing something in the title of "IINFO" that was never community consensus to begin with. Rather than look at the actual discussion that led to IINFO being used for a group of sections in NOT, people have assumed that there was a widespread decision that IINFO was a good idea, and that multiple different instances were called out. In fact, the specific sections and their examples were lumped together under one heading that was an attempt to find some commonality between the diverget parts of NOT. You and others can want things to be different, but that's simply not how they evolved, and the belief you have in the rightness of expanding IINFO to anything that is perceived to be un-encyclopedic is a belief in an illusion. Jclemens-public (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You are stating a difference of interpretation in an "I'm right, you're wrong" way and you are telling others that their interpretations are wrong. You're not right here. You don't hold any sacred keys to truth, even though you oftentimes act like you do. This has bugged me for some time and I want you to stop. There is no single correct interpretation of IINFO. Say what you believe but don't bash others for believing differently. The correct reading is the consensus of different interpretations, not any one particular individual's hard-line stance, and the consensus was clear in this AfD. ThemFromSpace 21:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, when I imply that you are wrong, I do so because I believe you are, in fact, wrong. To be specific, I mean that I believe your interpretation of what IINFO means is incompatible with how it actually evolved as a Wikipedia policy. So when you articulate what you want IINFO to mean, you are doing so absent the historical context under which that header was developed. Please see User:Uncle G/On the discrimination of what is indiscriminate for somewhat of a review of how that section evolved. Like WP:NOTNEWS, there are a large number of Wikipedia editors misusing WP:IINFO to mean something that may be congruent with the shortcut, but not the underlying meaning and evolution of Wikipedia policy. Like NOTNEWS, I fear the best solution may be to retire the shortcut based on the rampant misuse like we've seen here. I'm perfectly capable of articulating when my opinion differs from yours, or anyone's, but I do not see any reason to pretend that a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolution of IINFO is merely a difference of opinion. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, I really thought better of you. Looks like we should move on, since there is a fundamental disconnect in our policy interpretations. Though my request to stop pretending you have the only valid interpretation stands. This is the last I have to say on the matter. ThemFromSpace 05:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't just assert that I'm wrong about it--demonstrate, historically, how IINFO evolved as an overarching premise, rather than a convenient shortcut for a bunch of differing topics. Do that, and I'll cede the point, but based on what I've seen, I don't think that's possible. That's not so say that the community might not adopt such a stance in the future, just that you've described IINFO in a way that is at odds with its actual development. Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Should be "no consensus". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So just redirect/merge it anyways, such a decision is not dependent on an AfD outcome, as Silver Seren so aptly notes above. Cite the precedent of the other worthless "x on twitter" articles and begin a merge discussion on the talk page. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closure was a correct reading of the consensus. Due to the overwhelming coverage of Obama in general, including his online presence, this article is a good exception to our general rules. It shows that articles can be written about almost anything, provided the subjects have the necessary coverage. ThemFromSpace 16:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The only close of the lot based on actual policy. CallawayRox (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the village pump has broad consensus that these articles are not worthwhile furthermore merge is a perfectly legitimate action for an AfD and the majority consensus was to merge this article so that is what should have been done.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC) You opening this DRV, there is no need to register a !vote.--v/r - TP 19:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is the one exception to the Village Pump discussion, considering the "Barack Obama on social media" topic has had numerous full books written about it. Silverseren^C 21:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse: while the delete and merge comments are numerous, they're not very compelling. I don't think the admin was unreasonable in concluding that "keep" was the policy-based consensus here. Most of the delete arguments don't mention policy, or vaguely point at policies (like WP:TRIVIA) that don't really address the issue. That's not to say a better discussion would go the same way (and if I had a chance to chime in, I'd argue that this is a WP:CONTENTFORK that verges on WP:NOTDIARY, among other things.) But in this discussion, the delete commenters were largely baseless, and didn't refer to any best practice that would give their comments any weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I search for the word "merge" and find most people just said keep, not merge. [8] Then apparently after it closed a few days later someone started a new AFD which fewer people noticed or bothered to participate in. Should've been closed as "Keep", not "keep for now and start another argument on the talk page about replacing it with a redirect later". Dream Focus 22:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, obviously. Sadly, this was to be expected. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse and close: This DRV has no merit.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Is Snow Endorse a thing? Tarc hates these articles and he's not even attempting an overturn. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hm, guess I've really hit the high life when I get name-dropped by random unknowns. I could count on one hand the # of times I've called to overturn an XfD, regardless of how I may have participated in the original discussion, as unlike much of the rabble that infests DRV, I don't treat this as Round Two of the original discussion. Tarc (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What can I say, you strike an imposing figure of eagerness to cleanse the wiki of 'worthless' articles. Also, you're the only one that had bolded something that wasn't Endorse, and I wanted to justify the Snowy-ness of my position. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The neat trick that proponents of keeping this article have pulled is to conflate the notability of things that Barack Obama has said with supposed notability about the medium he said it in. While there are lots of notable things Barack Obama has said on Twitter, none of this points to the notability of his Twitter account. I might as well create an article titled Things Barack Obama said into his favorite microphone or Things Barack Obama said on a Thursday. None of the notability in the article comes from the Twitter account itself, just from the fact that Barack Obama said stuff. When ThemFromSpace writes "It shows that articles can be written about almost anything, provided the subjects have the necessary coverage", the absurdity of this kind of article is inadvertently revealed, and it shows how many editors have a deep misunderstanding of what notability actually means. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability of his Twitter account is shown through sources like this. Though I do agree that the article should be broadened to his use of social media in general, because then sources like this and this can be utilized. Silverseren^C 02:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You know nothing of my work. In all seriousness, though, this claim is repeated a lot, but is straightforwardly factually false. The sources provided do not focus on things said by Barack Obama, which happened to be in the Twitter medium. They (at least, a goodly number of them) focus on Barack Obama's (media campaign team's) use of Twitter. An argument based on a factually wrong premise cannot be given any significance weight. WilyD 08:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'd say that "no consensus" is better, but DRV doesn't exist to micromanage AFD closes. T. Canens (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Twitter is significant enough in the life of Justin Bieber and Ashton Kutcher to support Wikipedia:Summary style articles. Twitter is merely a blip in the life of Barack Obama and the word "twitter" doesn't even appear in the Barack Obama article. Yet, the Bieber and Kutcher twitter articles were deleted and the Obama twitter article kept. The Bieber and Kutcher twitter articles should have been kept and the Obama twitter article should have been deleted. This isn't about consensus and I've come to realize that well thoughtout AfD arguments are not driving the close on these x-on-twitter articles. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument seems to conclude that every person should have the same amount of coverage. While I don't doubt that you put a fair bit of thought into it; at least consider that the article in question here is much more connected to 'Campaign' and other Obama sub-articles, rather than the main biographical article of Barack Obama. A lot of people seem to be lead astray by the fact that most bio articles never have remotely the amount of relevant information Obama's does. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, my argument is that a fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own and that the original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it. Merely becuase Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 at the moment mentions the word "twitter" once does not justify the Obama twitter article. The main biographical article, in this case the Barack Obama article, is a good indicator of what is and is not a major subtopic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That last line is where I disagree with you. While it works for most articles; our prescripts on article size and the shear amount of information means that Barack Obama does not and I dare say could not be an -exhaustive- directory of all the possible encyclopedic topics related to Obama without failing to be an article at all. Darryl from Mars (talk) 14:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they all need to be deleted, but as the disparate AfD results show, actually getting them deleted depends on how many fanboys/girls come riding to the rescue of a famous person that they like. If this is going to be addressed uniformly it will have to come via policy, i.e. putting some actual teeth into something like WP:NOTTWITTER. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are not alone in this line of thinking as that seems to be the primary argument put forth by those proposing to delete all x-on-twitter articles. However, I think that is more of a reactionary bias against fanboys/girls present or potential contributions to these types articles and how that makes Wikipedia look rather than whether there should be an article on the topic. Wikipedia articles are improved over time and deleting an article when there should be an article on the topic prevents that natural improvement of the article over time. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

• Comment Just noting for the record that I have closed the RFC on the talk page. The consensus there seems to favor renaming the article and broadening its scope. The closing admin of this discussion can take that into account and attempt to reconcile the results of the two discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I wasn't a part of the original AfD - was not aware it was happening - but had I been there I certainly would have commented that the article should not be deleted. Perhaps a rename and broadening to cover more social media, but not delete, and not merge to the main bio. There is no essential difference here between "no consensus" and "keep", so this DRV is a waste of time, in my view. Tvoz/talk 17:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Overturn to "no consensus" WITHOUT prejudice to restructuring the article - The close rationale was accurate, although I voted delete. Nevertheless, this vote should not affect the RFC consensus. --George Ho (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC) I realize that I was wrong. --George Ho (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I endorse any action that prevents the Twitter article being merged with the summary style article Barack Obama, which simply hasn't the space for stuff like that. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper, a paragraph on his public relations could have two or three sentences espousing his twitter usage.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - The closer ignores the argument about WP:NOT and instead focuses on WP:TRIVIA (which was discussed less frequently and which clearly doesn't apply to this article). Also, about 60% of editors voted to delete or merge. To close an AfD in the minority opinion when there is 20% difference between majority and minority requires a thorough explanation for why the minority's argument is far stronger and policy-based than the majority's. -Scottywong| chatter _ 21:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To what, merge? Hobit (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC keep might be reasonable if you put the merge and keep !votes together, but I don't see consensus here. We have two sets of valid arguments with strong backers on both sides. I also don't feel the closing statement accurately reflected the discussion. Once the RfC is finished it will make sense to reevaluate this article and a NC close will make that easier to do, so changing from keep to NC actually has an impact. Hobit (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cherylgillan-288x360.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This image is under the Open Government License, under the Controller of HMSO's offer, as it is Crown Copyright, and does not fall into a small number of exceptions listed at the linked page. This was true at the time of the deletion listing, though it was not mentioned on the license template as it is now. As a note, the other file in the old XfD is also fine, and I uploaded it later to Commons without knowing about its deletion on enwiki. —innotata 19:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks pretty clear-cut to me, but if it's on the OGL wouldn't it be better uploaded to Commons rather than here?—S Marshall T/C 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I could, though I would like to know this is the same image as that at [9] (it could be one no longer up). I thought it might be good to go through the process, especially to avoid deletion on Commons. —innotata 01:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is actually free, then why not just upload to Commons and withdraw this deletion review? You know, be bold and all that. If there is any question on Commons, a new discussion will be had there. Whatever happens on this deletion review won't affect anything on Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, this user's raised a perfectly good point at DRV and is entitled to a finding. I think it's been shown that the conclusion the FfD reached was objectively wrong, so if the user insists, we ought to reverse the FfD and have the image restored. Overturn and restore, but imo the image does belong on Commons.—S Marshall T/C 07:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • But why waste the time? As long as the image is verifiably free, (A) the user does not need our permission to upload it to Commons, and (B) what happens in this venue does not affect its status on Commons. So just do it and skip the middleman. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:10, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, I'll do that. —innotata 21:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC) It's already been uploaded, to File:Cheryl Gllian Official.jpg. —innotata 21:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 CD Collector's Set (Rihanna album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This debate was closed as keep by WilyD (talk · contribs) with 4 delete !votes, 1 merge !vote and 5 delete !votes. However, many of the delete votes were not policy-driven and most complied with WP:NOTAGAIN and other arguments to avoid. There was not consensus to keep this article, especially as the first AfD resulted in delete and the previous AfD drew no consensus. SplashScreen (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there have been three AfDs. the first in September 2010 attracted minimal comments, both negative, & the article was deleted; the second, in May 2012, attracted mixed comments and was reasonably closed as non-consensus; this third attracted the same comments as in May, I might have closed as non-consensus, but it would probably have led to a third AfD right now which would also probably have given inconclusive results. This is not my usual subject, but it seems from the discussion there are two incompatible positions: On the keep side, it charted, which is the basic criterion as WP:MUSIC; on the delete, it's just a repackaging of 3 albums in one retail box which might seem by common sense worth a note, not an article. By analogy, the BOOKS guideline, though broad, wants more significant best seller status than "charted"; such repackaging would not have been kept as a set of books. Nor can I see anything similar kept in any other medium. As an outsider, I see this as an indication we need to be a little more subtle about wording the MUSIC criteria. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree it might've been possible to close as no consensus rather than keep - the practical outcome is the same, so usually articles that're a bit gray in that respect don't merit quite a close a consideration as those on the no consensus/delete border. Perhaps I should've written weak keep? (I would have been willing to so qualify it if I'd been asked, rather than just informed a DRV was in progress.) WilyD 08:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A no consensus close allows an editor to immediately relist the article AfD whereas a keep close generally keeps the article out of AfD for another three months. The practical outcome is not the same. Since a DRV has been started, I don't think you can change your close. Yes, the DRV lister should have asked you first before coming to DRV. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, somewhat reluctantly per DGG above. I don't think that a consensus to delete is present in the discussion. However, I also don't think that a consensus not to merge is clear. That is a "No Consensus" or a "Keep, without prejudice to further merge discussions" might be better closes. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The article's sourcing to Amazon is an embarrassment and the relialbe sources used in the article do not mention Rihanna's 3 CD Collector's Set. The delete argument regarding the lack of coverage in reliable sources for this album was not overcome. Wikipedia is a text based communication medium and an article that says "it charted" does not convey enough reliable source information to justify a stand alone article. I don't see how keep was the correct consensus close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete. The "keep" closure was in error because it ignored that none of the "keep" opinions substantially addressed the argument that the album apparently did not attract any reliably sourced third-party coverage, which was highlighted in the nomination and is a policy-level inclusion requirement per WP:V#Notability. The fact that the album may have been included on charts is not, per WP:BAND and WP:NALBUMS, a criterium for inclusion for an album, but only for the respective musician or ensemble, and therefore the "keep" arguments amounting to "it charted" should have been discounted.  Sandstein  05:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus there was no consensus to keep the article, nor to delete it, the Afd outcome was essentially the same as the previous nomination. Till 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse There clearly wasn't any consensus to either keep or delete the article. I would say "Overturn to no consensus" but that would be unnecessary and just a waste of time. Statυs (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Run the World (song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AfD was closed with the rationale "policy based argument, majority of editors" by WilyD (talk · contribs). This is despite the fact that the majority of keep arguments violated WP:ATA (including one WP:JUSTAVOTE and multiple examples of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED) and the rather blatant fact that not one keep !voter even suggested that the article passed WP:NSONGS. The closing administrator needs to be reminded of WP:NOTAVOTE. SplashScreen (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of DRV isn`t to try to re-argue the discussion. Policies & guidelines dictated keep, and therefor most editors argued keep. A very straightforward case. WilyD 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which policies and guidelines would those be? Because multiple users noted that the article fails WP:NSONGS and not one keep !voter suggested that it passes it. Again, WP:NOTAVOTE. SplashScreen (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• What we have here is a consensus vs a mass of WP:ALPHABETSOUP. The consensus rightly prevailed. The fact is, SplashScreen, that there's a good reason why WP:ATA is only an essay. The reason is that it's nothing more than a list of things some editors think other editors shouldn't be allowed to say. It doesn't have a coherent or intelligible thesis, and although parts of it are supported by a few attempts at reason, in fact the logic behind WP:ATA is in general very shaky.

  WP:NSONGS is a SNG, and Deletion Review has a long history of treating SNGs with the contempt that they deserve. If something passes the GNG then it merits an article and if it doesn't, it doesn't, irrespective of what any SNG might have to say.

  Of course, even if this title was non-notable, the answer wouldn't be to delete it. It would be to redirect it to Love?, and a redirect is of course a "keep" outcome. So even if the subject was non-notable, "keep" would still have been the way forward.—S Marshall T/C 18:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – The rough consensus was that the coverage provided met the general notability guideline. While we do have specific notability guidelines for songs, that does not mean that songs that have not charted cannot have their own articles – that is where the general guideline comes in. --MuZemike 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse consensus was that the coverage that existed was adequate. No reason for the closing admin to have gone any other way. Note that SNG's are generally not held to be exclusive (i.e., a song must pass NSONGS to have an article), but more often held to be complementary to the GNG (pass GNG or relevant SNG). Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Wikipedia isn't here to convey a representative survey of what the Internet says about a topic. Articles need to reflect a thorough and representative survey of reliable sources. The trouble with this article is that it includes any information about the topic with little concern to limiting that information to reliable source information. However, that is a basis to improve the article, not to delete it. Those proposing to keep the article seemed to agree that there is enough information on the topic. The closer could have took that to mean the topic meets WP:GNG. A strong 'fails to meet WP:GNG argument' with a review of the existing references and a search for other references could have carried the day. Instead, the delete positions were weakly argued, giving little to the closer to work with. OPs listing was a good argument, but for some reason didn't gain much support from those maintaining a delete position. "I advise readers not to be fooled by" may have turn people off as did implying that there seems to be nothing remotely important about this song. (As an aside, closing with "policy based argument" is annoying to those having a view different from the close since it fails to state any specific policy and you're better off not posting any reason in the close. Also, I think more respect should have been given to the closing administrator by the DRV OP for his willingness to close the discussion and thus open his actions to review at DRV. You're not going to win anyone over at DRV by addressing the admin rather than limiting your comments to the close itself.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bloke (word) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The "oppose a full article" arguments are more strongly articulated, but listing Bloke (word) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloke (word) to allow for more detailed arguments from Green Cardamom.

The result was keep. WP:NOTDICT is the main argument being used for deletion/transwiki, but the argument is not convincing, mainly because (as many have pointed out) the article contains a lot of sourced content that would not be appropriate for a dictionary (like the "History" and "Examples of use in Australian culture" sections, for example). -Scottywong| speak _ 15:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history.

Comment: The content is for the most part dictionary content, though I appreciate the thoroughness of the coverage and do think that there is a place for some articles on words on Wikipedia. The section "Influences in Australian culture" seems strongest in this regard, but even it is a bit too much like original research from primary sources. That is, the sources use the word to describe Australian men rather than analyzing the word as an aspect of Australian culture. I don't regard this as an insuperable argument for deletion, but neither do I think I can really argue to keep the article. Cnilep (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Overturn to transwiki to Wiktionary. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Scottywong (talk · contribs) wrote that he is traveling until 30 July, so I was unable to contact him before filing this review. However, Rossami did and their discussion is here. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think you would transwiki to Wiktionary. They already have a perfectly satisfactory entry at wikt:bloke. I think the question is whether we should have an article about a word, or a soft redirect to Wiktionary.

  Is it possible to have an encyclopaedia article about a word? Certainly. We have thou, a former featured article (delisted after this discussion); at the FAR, editors were rightly unconcerned about its status as an article about a word, because thou goes well beyond dictionary content. Therefore there is—well, not quite a consensus—but at least a substantial precedent for Snotty's close there.

  Should we have this article about a word? No, I don't think so at all. The reason thou is a good subject for an article is because contemporary English lacks a second person singular, which is a very peculiar feature of our language. It's linguistically interesting. Bloke (word) is much less so. I've got a pretty good bookshelf for this sort of thing, and in researching my !vote on this DRV, I pulled down ISBN 0-415-28099-0. Sure enough, there's plenty of discussion of the linguistically interesting word "thou" (e.g. page 339). What does it have to say about "bloke"? Nothing. The article would have you believe that "bloke" is a distinctive part of contemporary Australian English. The best source I have disagrees. It mentions jackass, wombat, kangaroo, boomerang, larrikan and swagman (although curiously not billabong, which I would have expected) as distinctive and linguistically interesting Australian words. Nothing about "bloke".

  Do I think we should overturn? Well, I certainly think the conclusion we reached in that debate was objectively wrong. But DRV is not AfD round 2 so I think the closest we can come is to remand it back to AfD for further consideration.—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus- The delete argued that, because the article contains only a definition, usage, etymology, and history, that it's just a lexical entry. The keep side argued that the article goes into greater detail than any dictionary would, so it's therefore more of an encyclopedia article than a dictionary entry. Both sides are more or less correct in what they say, so the outcome of the DRV hinges on how to interpret WP:NOTDICT. Do we interpret it broadly, noting that it requires articles to go above and beyond what you'd find in a dictionary? If so, the article should be kept- but I think that's an overly lenient reading. Or do we interpret it prescriptively, say that it strictly sets out mandatory requirements? If so, the article should not be here- but I think that's an excessively legalistic reading. I don't see that either side of the debate had a clear edge in argument or policy so I think "no consensus" reflects the debate. Reyk _YO! 00:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse user opinions on policy are just that: user opinions on policy. Overturning is asking DRV to assume as fact what one side in the case argued, and I find no basis for that. WP:NOT arguments have been getting too much attention in borderline cases--if a majority of the participants don't believe NOT applies, then it probably doesn't, no matter what the minority thinks. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Jclemens. WP:NOTDICT asks a topic goes beyond a dictionary definition of a word, if the majority and the same closer considered it was the case, so be it. Cavarrone (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would seriously question any decision made based on the content in "Examples of use in Australian culture" as being "not the sort of content that is found in dictionaries". While at the most basic level its true - it is NOT the type of stuff you would find in a dictionary -, if you look at the actual content of the section you getThese Australian actors have been called blokes. and this popular poetry book has "bloke" in the title. and here is a news paper story that calls the boyfriend of the countries leader "First bloke". - and that is most certainly NOT encyclopedic content either. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse separate article. It goes sufficiently beyond the definition and is expandable into a fuller article. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable close. The sources and content demonstrate that it is not a mere word. Someone else might have called "no consensus", but "delete" with or without transwiki is not a reasonable rough consensus for that discussion. Expanding the entry at Wiktionary is a good idea regardless. Content that stocks at Wiktionary can be cut back here. Do not renominate within six months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Per above, also add that the article is not done, there is room for expansion given a chance. "Bloke" means more than just a man, it's a concept: In Australia it is usually used in the sense of an everyman or average joe, someone with a connection to the people ie. an ordinary person. This obviously needs more work but I am confident with time the article will continue to expand along this line, and possibly others. Green Cardamom (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closing admin decision was sound. The expression is a cultural term as opposed to a simple word. WWGB (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse While there wasn't a clear consensus either way, closing as 'keep' was within the discretion of the closing admin, and his judgement appears sound to me: the article clearly goes well beyond a dictionary definition in its current state. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse entirely sensible decision. Keep arguments are much stronger. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a pretty straightforward case of applying policy and argument. Discussion showed that the article wasn't in violation of [Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary]], which explicitly says this kind of article is appropriate, as the discussion found. Closure was in thus in line with the discussion and the policy. WilyD 13:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Universe Today (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi, I've been asked to comment here. I agree with you that the "delete" side has the better arguments. However, while AfD is not a vote, it is also not only a contest to get the closing admin to agree with one's opinion. Numbers matter as well. That's why I tend to not base my closures only on the strength of argument when both sides have somewhat valid arguments that can be made by experienced editors in good faith, even if I happen to think (as here) that one argument is stronger. In this case, the "holistic" approach of the "keep" side, considering the sourcing to be sufficient in aggregate, is still within the range of defensible interpretation of our practices and guidelines related to notability. More generally, assessing whether the sourcing is adequate for notability is a matter of judgment that lends itself poorly to an admin decision by fiat; such closures tend to be derided as "supervotes". For these reason, I am not ready to find a "delete" consensus against a majority of "keep" opinions in this case. But do feel free to take it to DRV. I imagine commentators there might at least be inclined to consider a relisting, but I would not like to make a unilateral relist decision.  Sandstein  20:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Endorse relisting the AfD as suggested by the closing admin. Cunard (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- The close of "no consensus" reflects the quality and number of opinions presented. The debate had, by my count, 17 different participants and 13 !votes, which makes it an unusually well-attended AfD and so I don't think it can be said that there was insufficient discussion. Reyk _YO! 01:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The close of "no consensus" reflected the state of consensus at the time of close. I believe that to come to a consensus we may need to seek a larger / broader audience, either by opening a new AfD with some pre-discussed canvassing aspects to increase participation or by going to RfC or similar mechanism. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No consensus is a reasonable decision for a fourth nomination where 23 users commented (some peripherally, but they saw the discussion), and where the total length of discussion was 65K. There were no incidents of canvassing or SPA activity, and there is no indication of an incorrect statement having been made at the deletion discussion. Many of those recommending "keep" agreed that the sources were weak, but argued that on balance the sources were adequate for the case in question. There is no reason to think a wider discussion would reach a different conclusion, other than by the somewhat random nature of who would take the time to comment at a fifth discussion. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Start an RfC. Do not relist. There was plenty of participation. While Cunard was persuasive in that it does not meet the GNG, and neither does it meet WP:WEB, it has always been said the wikipedia-notability is not absolute, that occasional exceptions may apply. The ultimate test is AfD, and at AfD the community has failed to be clearly persuaded. To me, the issue is that the website has been well noticed, but lacks direct commentary on it. The evidence for being noticed is the number of references to it. An easy measure is the fifty or so incoming mainspace links. These incoming links seem to be generated by the wikilinking of the site name in referencing of aother articles. The fact that we are prepared to consider so many references as significant and reliable says something. I think a relist will achieve nothing beyond the previous discussions. They are too focused and seven days is too short. An RfC is more appropriate. I think this unresolved question may be advanced by generalising the question. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further reading, I think a merge and redirect to List_of_astronomy_websites#Universe_Today is a good idea. That would be an ordinary editorial decision. Yes, we want Wikipedia to be comprehensive, especially on academic subjects, but per WP:N, not every topic is best presented as a standalone article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see that there are some issues with the scope and notability of that list itself. I have commented at Talk:List of astronomy websites. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • As the creator of List of astronomy websites (which was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of astronomy websites), I supported a merge and redirect to List of astronomy websites#Universe Today. I agree with your suggestion and the suggestions of Stuartyeates (talk · contribs), RL0919 (talk · contribs), and Eluchil404 (talk · contribs) that an RfC regarding a merge is an appropriate editorial decision. My request to the DRV closing admin is to explicitly state that "the close does not foreclose merger discussions on the Talk page", as aptly put by Eluchil404. Cunard (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close. I was the nominator in a previous AfD and suggested a merge as a possible solution in this one, but I understand the closing admin's position. It was a reasonable close in the circumstances, and there is not any firm basis for DRV to overturn it. That doesn't mean the community can't continue to discuss other alternatives. As SmokeyJoe notes above, a "no consensus" close does not preclude alternative editorial actions, such as merging. --RL0919 (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am COI on this issue. I would suggest that others take a look at the site before any votes to delete. I have been a member of the Bad Astronomy board for close to ten years. Some of the finest minds on the planet are also members. As the article says it is used far more than wikipedia for 'true' facts on almost any subject. A quick view of any of the 'heated' threads will show that it is based on very strong peer review of any claim made or statement said. I have found it far more useful than reference desk for satiating my curiosity. The members provide links and verification that is far more in depth, some from the minds of the famous authors themselves. Btw, hi Fraser and Phil.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for declaring your conflict of interest. With regard to "Btw, hi Fraser and Phil", would you explain what you mean by that statement? Are Universe Today founder Fraser Cain and BadAstronomy.com's Phil Plait participants in this discussion? Cunard (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but judging by what I know of the board there are many watching this progress. You would be amazed at how far and wide the board keeps an eye on things. We probably have have a few in the Whitehouse as well as other seats of power. Most remain anonymous and there are no COI declaration rules. I should pop over and see if there is a public thread on this procedure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Sandstein's thoughtful close. There is no consensus to delete present in the AfD and no reason to disregard the "Keep" opinions are clearly erroneous. Our notability standards (even the GNG) are guidelines to which exceptions can be made when there is no overriding policy concern (like BLP or NOR) that counsels in favor of deletion. That said, the close does not foreclose merger discussions on the Talk page or even an RfC to determine the scope of appropriate coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Delete, no reason was provided to justify ignoring WP:WEB. This is the 4th AFD, it is barely a stub, the page clearly isn't going anywhere soon. No sign of it becoming notable in the future.--Otterathome (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer could either have contributed his own opinion to the discussion or closed as he did. If anyone wants an AfD2, there is nothing to stop them having it in the proper place , where the actual merits of the article can be re-examined. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A very, very difficult one. I have some sympathy with Sandstein: this close wasn't obvious and I can see how reasonable people might disagree over what the outcome should have been.

  My personal view is that "delete" would have been correct. We often say that "AfD is not a vote", and should be the rule for everyone, not just for the Article Rescue Squadron. And I'm not thrilled that the article's still around after four AfDs when those are all the sources it can muster—I think this is indicative of a failure of our discussion processes.

  But on the other hand, I can't see what a relist would achieve. If four discussions haven't led to deletion, then I can't see how an immediate fifth one could produce a different outcome.

  The short version is, I think that if we applied our rules strictly then this material should probably be deleted but I don't see it as urgent enough to force the issue. I recommend allowing renomination in three months.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Our rules are that the Notability guidelines are for guidance. They are intended to reflect precedent and give clues as to what kinds of articles make for a worthwhile encyclopedia. When applied strictly they sometimes give unsatisfactory results—for example, for populist matters contemporary topics are over-favoured and historical ones tend to get deleted. I welcome it when AFD discussions turn on the specific merits of an article rather than on the precise wording of our imperfect guidelines. And I also welcome it when the closer respects this rather than imposing his or her own strict reading of WP:GNG. Thincat (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the well-reasoned and carefully thought out close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete - By looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy, consensus and the close was clear that that article should be deleted. However, the close additionally went on to asserted that since closers should not engage in assessing whether the sourcing is adequate for notability (also see this and as posted by OP above), their was no consensus to delete. A problem here is that one does not have anything to do with the other. A closer's duty to not contribute their own opinion to the discussion/provide a super !vote merely is part of deletion guidelines, not a way to determine consensus. In regards to this AfD, the closer didn't have to assess the sourcing to determine whether it was adequate for notability since the participants in the AfD did that. Those maintaining the delete position, including myself, had strong arguments due to their detailed assessment of sourcing to determine that the topic lacked enough source material to meet notability. Those maintaining the keep position argument in this area was weak and mostly non existent. The keeps merely post conclusory opinions on the collective of the sources. The close erred in not give weight or consideration to the delete position on the holistic approach of sourcing. In addition, had the close in fact regarded the "Keep" holistic approach instead of merely restating deletion guidelines that the "keep" side's position should be weighed by the closer and not be dismissed outright by the closer, the close would have been to delete. A no consensus close can be relisted at AfD anytime, so there's no need or basis for DRV to alter that. Of course, after a 4th AfD where consensus continues to be that the topic fails to meet WP:GNG, immediate relisting likely won't achieve much beyond the previous discussion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fightback (Canada) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The edit summary says CSD#G7 but that page states "provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author" which is not the case with this page. It has existed for years, has had many contributors, and has previously survived a vote for deletion. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative endorse. The page that survived AFD was moved to Tendance Marxiste Internationale (Québec), and then to La Riposte (Québec), where it was deleted today at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Riposte (Québec). (Though that afd should really have linked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fightback (Canada) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fightback (Canada) (2nd nomination), the first was ancient (and a delete) and the second withdrawn, so don't provide a basis for overturning it.) Unless someone who can view deleted content says otherwise, I'm prepared to accept that the latest deleting admin did in fact check history first, and that the twelve-day-old article that was there before it was G7d was indeed single-author. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of the "single-author" article was copied from the original article that was moved to La Riposte (Québec), which in fact many wikipedians contributed to before the move (including myself). It was an attempt to split the article into 2, one on Fightback in English Canada and one on La Riposte in Quebec. I understand that La Riposte does not meet the criteria for notability on Wikipedia, but Fightback does. Sickle and Hammer (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like the article has now been restored, so the deletion review seems moot at this point. However, if the article was split from another article that has since been deleted, I think the history of that article from before the split should be restored and history merged to this article. Otherwise, the edits that produced the current content of this article will not be available. Calathan (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I find the history of this page confusing. Is the page in the history the one that was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fightback (Canada). Or was it Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Riposte (Québec)? Or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Riposte (Quebec)? Can I forget Tendance Marxiste Internationale (Québec)? It looks like the CSD tagger was the sole author if you ignore the pre-deletion versions. Does the log search reflect the article title regardless of page moves? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original close was a proper WP:NAC reverted by a WP:INVOLVED editor and then modified by an administrator without any explanation. No one voted for deletion so the correct close is Keep. CallawayRox (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There was plenty of reason given for merge, so no the correct close is not necessarily keep. Merge decisions can be reached at AfD. The NAC was invalid and was discussed here at ANI: Wikipedia:ANI#Invalid_closure, where the admin reasoning is also given. It doesn't make sense to contend that just because noone voted for deletion except the nom then we ignore merge arguments. Merge decisions are frequently arrived at, at AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Specific (stable) link to discussion that includes my reasoning is here. Specific diff where I explained my reasoning is here. Note that the article was not deleted, but merged. The actual merging occurred during the AFD, so all I had to provide was the redirect.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What was wrong with the non-administrator close? Wasn't there once a interaction ban Kww and Warden? I also think this counts as a supervote, as the keep votes claiming the mention was enough to indicate notability were just dismissed by Kww. The closing administrator should judge the consensus of those participating, not ignore them. Six people said the sources were enough to justify a keep, including Allecher who put a line through his original merge vote, and said keep based on improvements added to the article. Four said to merge it. And the nominator apparently wanted it deleted. Most said keep, not delete/redirect/merge, so it should of closed as either Keep or no consensus. Dream Focus 22:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote counts are completely irrelevant to the issue. Consensus is not a vote count. I find it very surprising that you are not aware of this considering your consistent AfD participation (3200 AfDs [10]). The closing admin is expected to weigh up the quality of arguments as "viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", see WP:CONSENSUS. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • They judge consensus of what those participating said, they don't ignore it and do their own thing. See WP:SUPERVOTE. Dream Focus 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Discarding merge as an outcome on a factually incorrect basis does indeed look like a supervote but the reclose by an uninvolved admin too care of that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your comment is factually incorrect. The first close stated "The result was Keep as there is no consensus to delete the article. Merger with another article such as Brian Dunning (skeptic) may be considered as a matter of ordinary editing." The option of merger was not discarded; it was just left to be resolved by further discussion. Warden (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The issue here isn't the actual close: both keep or merge are within consensus. But, I'm not happy with saying that an AfD like that falls within the realm of what WP:NAC is intended to allow. The overriding of the non-admin close by an admin close doesn't seem to be an issue. Endorse the close. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning Support for the AfD's closure. Consensus isn't strikingly clear in this case, and this AfD could have easily closed as either "keep" or "merge." The Brian Dunning (author) article isn't long, and the merge didn't hinder the article or make it difficult to navigate. The merge also consolidates all of the information in one place, and those searching for information about the Skeptoid podcast will be redirected to the Skeptoid podcast section in the Dunning article. That said, the closing comment in the AfD discussion for Skeptoid is quite generic, and a more elaborate qualification of the closure would have served to better-explain the AfD's closure for Wikipedia's editors to peruse. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The policy is very clear, NACs can be voided by any admin and a different close substituted. The basis of the NAC close, that the merge option was not available in AFD outcomes, was completely incorrect and rendered the NAC untenable. That the reclosing admin used their discretion to go merge isn't so clearly wrong that we should intervene and I would have closed it as merge myself. As NA1000 says, no content has been lost. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse reasonable close by Kww given the discussion. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with slight unease, exactly as expressed by Northamerica1000. The merged article, plus the redirect, looks just fine. Thincat (talk) 09:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - A non-admin WP:ARS editor closing an AfD in which other members have commented in is quite a conflict-of-interest as far as I'm concerned, so that angle is shot and done with. As for the AfD itself, merge/redir seems like a reasonable reading, esp as some of the keeps were a little "meh". If further sources come along down the road, it can always be undone. Tarc (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the NAC close was not a good one, as non-admins are not meant to close AfD discussions where the result is not clear (WP:NAC) and the rationale of the close was wrong, as "merge" is a perfectly valid close for an AfD and the fact that the content isn't going to be deleted doesn't mean the debate should be closed as keep. Kww's close was reasonable, and I do think the discussion was leaning towards merging. Hut 8.5 15:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both the summary vacatur of the NAC and the final close. The first is unreviewable, the second is plainly within admin discretion. T. Canens (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A very reasonable rough consensus call by Kww. Colonel Warden's NAC close was reasonable (although he should tag the close with "WP:NAC"). The target article does not look nearly big enough to justify a spinout today. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that the NAC close was not reasonable as it was improper, as has already been noted. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see why Warden's close was "improper". I can't find the discussion at WP:ANI. An NAC close doesn't need to be improper for it to be overturned by an admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, do people usually going around overturning proper non-admin closes? An overturn implies impropriety, IMO. Tarc (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my opinion, "improper" is too strong a word. Nothing at WP:NAC or WP:NACD seems to define this one as "improper". I don't think Warden should feel criticised. Kww did very well to step in when it looked like a NAC-edit-war was simmering. In net effect, Warden's and Kww's closes are identical. Warden didn't mandate a merge. Kww's close doesn't per se enforce the merge. (NB. I see no likelihood of a re-spinout being a good idea any time soon).
        • Responding to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Invalid_closure, I would not have considered the close to be "potentially contentious", but in hindsight it was. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Improper in several senses:
            1. NAC is reserved for trivial closes: the example at WP:NAC of an AFD too contentious for NAC is a 10:2 keep:delete ratio. In this case, there was numerically a near-tie between two competing alternatives.
            2. The keep appeared to be a continuation of Colonel Warden's campaign against AFD, which has taken varied tactics over the years. I can find examples of him attempting "speedy keep" on AFDs because the nominator mentioned "merge" as the probable outcome. The language of the close certainly makes it appear that he disregarded the very existence of the merge results because he doesn't feel that "merge" is an appropriate result for an AFD.
            3. Even if, unlike me, you are willing take Colonel Warden's close at face value, it appears to have been based on vote-counting, with no attempt to evaluate the arguments. We need to contemplate voiding admin's closes when they do it that way, and certainly should do it for NACs.
          • —Kww(talk) 05:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hi Kww. Your apparent view, that a rough consensus to merge evident at AfD is as valid an outcome as a Keep/Delete, is, I think, a widely but not uniformly held view. Is there evidence of the community's view to that question? I believe that it is not usually acceptable to go to AfD to get a merge decision unless you make a reasonable pretense of arguing for deletion? I sense some animosity between you and the Warden, but am unfamiliar with its history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's certainly debate as to whether AFD is an appropriate venue if the actual desired target is "merge", but the sheer volume of AFDs closed as "merge" and "redirect" certainly indicates that "merge" and "redirect" are valid results of an AFD. The mere existence of controversy over the topic precludes an NAC over an AFD where that has been brought up as an issue.—Kww(talk) 07:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse both closures. "Merge" is and always has been a flavor of keep. Once the decision has been made to not delete the pagehistory, the rest of the decision is in ordinary-editor territory. (XfD debates get some small extra consideration because they are well-advertised and generally well-attended but are no more binding than an equivalently well-argued debate on the article's Talk page.) The non-admin closure was explicit in stating that the merger was an ordinary-editor second step. The admin re-closure consolidated the steps. Both are saying the same thing and both closures have exactly the same practical result for the encyclopedia. The arguments above that the non-admin closure was somehow "improper" are not substantiated by the record. Rossami (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the ANI thread where it is substantiated. We don't ignore community decisions just because you think they can be decided somewhere else again. Merge is a possible outcome of AfD and has to be taken into account. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did read the ANI thread (now buried in the archives) and no, I found nothing which substantiated the claim that the initial closure was improper. Except for the nomination, there was unanimous agreement that the pagehistory should not be deleted. That's as close to an ideal example of an allowable non-admin closure as exists. If you think there was something improper or if I reviewed the wrong ANI thread, then please point to it directly.
      To your second comment about ignoring community decisions, you are conflating the issues. Merge is a form of keep. The pagehistory is not deleted. Everything else is ordinary-editor decision and while AfDs may end with a recommendation to merge, that consensus is no more (or less) binding than an equally well-run consensus reached anywhere else on the wiki. Rossami (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (I said merge at the AFD) If you can expand the main Brian Dunning (author) page up to GA standard and show it should be split, then we can always look at this again. With a decent article, it's much easier to demonstrate the need for it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This DRV is vexatious. The nominator should be advised not to waste the community's time in this way in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let Bartlet Be Bartlet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Inappropriate non-admin closure with a redirect. My request to the editor concerned [11] was deleted without comment. I realise this is not a delete, and I could revert it myself but would like some clarification. Thanks Mcewan (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a mistaken review request and should be closed. The AfD has not yet been closed and so there is nothing to review. What has happened is that somebody redirected the article. This can be reverted editorially, and I have done so.  Sandstein  20:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thank you for reverting. I'm happy to withdraw this. Just to clarfy, what confused me were the edits in the discussion which mimicked closure Mcewan (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article about the podcast TOFOP was deleted due to questionable notability, as a result of insufficient sources being available. Since then, in addition to it's regular placings in the Top 10 iTunes comedy podcast charts in Australia, numerous sources have come to light which demonstrate its notability. Some of these are listed here:

• http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/arts-books/podcasts-freed-the-radio-star/story-fn7euh6j-1226407876100
• http://sfluxe.com/2012/03/30/up-for-a-laugh-anywhere-any-time-omg/
• http://www.au.timeout.com/perth/comedy/events/1380/wil-anderson-wilarious
• http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/channel-guide-five-podcasts-that-would-make-for-great-tv.php
• http://www.australianstage.com.au/201107254598/free-stuff/sydney/free-tix-man-vs.-wil.html
• http://xpressmag.com.au/index.php/eye4/arts-interviews/4635-wil-anderson-self-sufficient-success Tiggyspawn93 (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)tiggyspawn93[reply]

• Temporarily restored for discussion--see the page history for the deleted article - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I closed the original AFD as delete. There is some more coverage since then, but as I said on my talk page when Tiggyspawn93 asked I did not personally think this extra coverage was sufficient to establish notability, but suggested he could come here to see if other disagreed. I have also offered to userfy (but have been offline for a few days so was not able to do that before this deletion review started). Davewild (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book:Editor_war (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Completely out of process deletion by User:Salvio giuliano. The page was XfD'd in November 2011 with a result of no consensus. SG deleted the page at the end of May 2012, citing that XfD debate. This should be speedily overturned. If you want to delete something, go through the proper channel, don't just decide something should not exist and unilateraly impose your will just because you have access to admin tools. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Editor war (2nd nomination). I now realise I linked to the wrong deletion discussion, which is what I would have told you — and, then, corrected my error —, had you taken the time to actually ask me about my actions, as politeness would have dictated. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thine Antique Pen is adding hundreds of articles about loactions which really seem irrelevant. There must be a cultural, economical, historical or archaeological relevance - a location with i.e. 16 people is not relevant! I marked several articles for speedy deletion - that means to be deleted perhaps after 7 days. But the user obviously doesn't understand the reason. --House1630 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see Category:Populated places in Artvin Province and Category:Populated places in Amasya Province, in summary about 500 stubs! --House1630 (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Close. This dispute is non in DRV's remit since no deletion or deletion discussion has occurred. You can nominate them for AfD if you want, but as the Talk page discussion has already implied, verifiable villages are almost never deleted and so these are likely appropriate stubs. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Systems (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Undo speedy Deletion

The original site was deleted due to lack of notability and having links broken. I have added 10 more notable sources and fixed every broken link. I feel that the site is notable enough to proceed. The first admin instructed me to combine Nick Savoy and Love systems together due to the fact that Nick is owner of the company and any actions done by him are through love systems. Any notable content that would be used for Nick should be used for Love systems. In comparison to many of the other articles in this field, I believe it is the most notable but having trouble remaining up. I would just like some constructive feedback if anything is wrong or needs to be replaced and that a tempundelete be performed so that it may be discussed. If i have followed any instruction wrong, please alert me and I will fix them as soon as possible. I will be asleep (work overnights) but will try and update as soon as I awake.

Greggcas (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Apologies if the format is incorrect But I struggle with code...

• XfD 2 - June 2012 --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotware Systems Ltd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) <speedy delete> Forextrader2011 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if the format is incorrect above or above but I struggle with code...

In summary I am trying to post the above content. Similar to Ctrader which was deleted for lack of sources, and similar to Spotware which was also deleted for lack of sources (see comments from Arbitrarily0). The latest attempt was speedy deleted for being the same but the content (see comments from Lenticel) is now supported by verifiable sources. In addition to that I make 3 comments to back up the content. 1. It is notable - forex trading is a huge market ($4 trillion a day!) and impacts on all aspects of the world's finances and therefore our lives. 2. like all good Wiki content this was not intended to be the complete, but develop over time through input from other posters, it has not been given a chance to do that. 3. there are many many examples of similar pages that have not been deleted that are in the forex industry see - alpari, metatrader, fxcm to name just a few. Any criticisms people have of the industry are entirely subjective, it is no better or worse than banks, fund management, etc etc. Sorry for the ramble but I just want my content to be given a chance to develop, if there is no activity on the page from other posters updating or disputing it after a few months then put it up for discussion then. Having said that the original case against it was lack of sources and those have now been provided. Many Thanks Forextrader2011 (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't see the article to say, so can you tell me which third party reliable sources provide non-trivial coverage on this? To address your numbered points though (1) Your argument is that forex is notable, therefore this is. It doesn't work like that, forex is notable so we have articles around that subject. This doesn't inherit notability merely for being in that field. (2) It doesn't need to be complete, it does however need to meet the basic inclusion standards, the previous deletion discussion found it to be lacking, we don't list stuff hoping that at some point in the future it'll warrant inclusion. Hence why your sources are important. (3) See what about X the inclusion of other stuff doesn't indicate we have to include everything someone deems similar. Looking at Metatrader, the article as it stands looks poor to me with references to the supplier, references to a yahoo group, reference to the result of a google search and reference to how to install it on linux using Wine. I haven't looked further, but if these were the only reference material available, then that would suggest the Metatrader article should be deleted, not that anything else should be kept. I've no idea where your concern about criticisms of the industry come from, again we have articles about forex etc. it's not being critical of the industry to not include this. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily restored for discussion--see the page history for the deleted article DGG ( talk ) 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, can see the article now. The references as they stand don't seem too good. (1) Spotware itself (2) A press release (3) Can't see, paywall (4)Press release type content (5) Press release type content (6) A review of one of their software products, this isn't about Spotware Systems (7) Can't find what's being referred to here, it's not the easiest to navigate and search for cTrader or Spotware return no results (8) Nothing to do with spotware (9) A directory listing showing some membership. Personally I'm not convinced it's overcome the original reasons for deletion and I'm not convinced it would pass a new AfD. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the review in ref 6 is a substantial review in a major trade magazine, and, except for one problem, would go very far towards notability---that it is about a product rather than the company is irrelevant, because if a company makes notable products, we normally consider them to be notable, to the extent that if a product is not quite notable, we usually redirect it to the company. The difficulty is , rather, that, the review is essentially an interview with the company, and thus represents what they want to say--their own PR. DGG ( talk ) 13:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Good spot, don't know how I didn't notice it to be an interview. I'd disagree about a product being notable making it's manufacturer notable, we frequently state the notability isn't inherited (and indeed WP:CORP re-emphasises that, not quite to the product level), I'd also say we only redirect non-notable products to the company, if the company is in itself notable. In this case though, I guess that's a discussion for another day. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct use is that because a company is notable, it does not imply that every one of their products is automatically notable--and indeed such is rarely the case. But any company capable of producing multiple products is notable, . When a company produces only one product, then if there is notability, there should be only one article, but it is always a reasonable question whether that one article should be about the product or the company. Of course, here the question is whether either is notable, which I think is borderline at best. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, I appreciate you taking the time to look at and for the detailed replies. I take your points about the definition of notability, use of other bad examples, view of the industry etc (and how all those are viewed on Wiki) - but stand by the sources as proof of notability. Spotware the company has created a number of products (cTrader, cAlgo, cBroker) that are reviewed in articles similar to the one discussed by DGG and UTC - but I did not want to bombard the sources with those. If it will help I can do so. I should point out in advance that the forex industry is very blog centric, but that is more because of the nature of industry rather than for stylistic reasons - the markets move so quickly that magazines and even daily newspapers are often outdated before they even go to print. Sites such as www.fxstreet.com; www.forexfactory.com, www.forexmagnates.com - might look a bit 'downmarket' but have are more respected by traders than so-called 'august' publications like the FT and NY Times - and the bloggers are known industry figures not anonymous posters In any event in response to your comments UTC about some of the sources I will come back with some more and hope that this will help to convince you? Forextrader2011 (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Consensus to delete was strong at the 14 February 2012 Spotware Systems Ltd AfD. Endorse deletion. As for your DRV request to recreate the article in the face of the 5 July 2012 speedy deletion,[12] that request needs to be based on significant new information has come to light since a deletion (meaning there now are additional reliable sources that were not covered by the AfD). In my own search on "Spotware Systems", I only found articles from PR Newswire, Canada Newswire, and MediaNet Press Releases. Since Spotware Systems releases them, press releases are not independent of the Spotware Systems subject as required by WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Your focus on importance notability is misplaced. The topic needs to be content-quantity notability for there to be a stand alone article. In other words, the amount of reliable source content needs to be voluminous enough so that when editors write the Wikipedia article on that topic, they have enough written reliable source material from which to draw and develop the Wikipedia article. Press releases do not count towards content-quantity notability. Also, you might want to look over Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I also took a look at cTrader and cAlgo. I found about 80 press releases for these, so they have the same not "independent of the subject" problem as Spotware Systems. For cBroker, I found press releases, but also found Microsoft Systems Journal. If you have contacts at Spotware Systems Ltd, you might want to suggest to them to contact news reporters to write stories on Spotware Systems and its products instead of merely sending out press releases in hopes a reliable source picks up the story. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That Microsoft Systems journal entry is nothing to do with this. It's merely describing a object which they just happen to have called cBroker. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks - I'm not claiming any press release content as notable. I've contacted the guys at Spotware and advised them to forward me independent news coverage. Forextrader2011 (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the topic is WP:GNG notable, that information may be in reliable source publications that are not so easy to access online. The guys at Spotware should know about these, however. The company has a news-updates page. Many companies also have an In the News page on their website that makes it easy to locate reliable source material for Wikipedia articles. If you locate other reliable source material or get some relevant photos uploaded to commons.wikimedia.org, let me know and I'll help you improve the Spotware Systems Ltd draft article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Country data Micronesia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Redirect should be undeleted as it is greatly inconvenient to use templates such as {{flag}} without this. While "Micronesia" is indeed a Geographic region, much like  Ireland the association is clear even though geographic region of Ireland has two political entities on it: Republic of Ireland (this is what people typically refer to when they say "Ireland") and Northern Ireland (a part of the United Kingdom). Nobody will confuse Micronesia ( Federated States of Micronesia) with a geographic region when used though the flag template or any other similar template. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 08:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Relist. White Cat makes a good point, but it is somewhat countered by the claim in the CfD that Micronesian is not an accepted Short Form name for the Federated States of Micronesia. Further discussion may be helpful. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - What's being used is Template:Country data Federated States of Micronesia. Template:WikiProject Micronesia and other templates don't use Federated States of Micronesia. There's Category:FA-Class Micronesia articles and other categories that don't use Federated States of Micronesia. Shortening Federated States of Micronesia to Micronesia seems a reasonable approach to help work the back end of the encyclopedia. Might be helpful to have more discussion on that. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Goh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

dispute of the deletion of this article when adequate references were provided to prove the significance of this living person Kittensfoot (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(partially copied from message on deleting admin's talk:) Some possible independent sources that could vouch for notability are this piece from Utusan Online (in Malay, but meets WP:RS and constitutes significant coverage), Peter Lewis' Way to the Martial Arts, Exeter Publications 1988 (no online version, I'm afraid, but uses Goh extensively as an example in the section on Wing Chun) and the episode of TV show "Just Amazing" on which he was featured in 1983 (which, sadly, I can't find online either). That said, although fairly well-known in MA circles in the UK, he's still pretty borderline in terms of Wiki-notability. I would support reinstating the article and putting it through AfD instead. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

CADprofi page has been created on April 2011. This page has been quite poorly created with almost no reference links and in a discussion debate at the end of April 2011 it has been voted to be deleted. After some time (aprox 8 months) I have created an another page CADprofi but this time with a text that meets the notability guideline and with many reference links. There was another discussion about this page (even longer than the previous one) and in the discussion, this page has been voted to stay. After some time (aprox 4 months) on 28th of June 2012 Mr RHaworth has deleted the second version of this page (speedy deletion) upon the "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion" rule. Personally I don't find this rule to apply to this page. For example I could create a page about about some famous artist which has been voted to be deleted. Does it mean that nobody can recreate this page again but this time with another text that follows the notability guideline? CADprofi page has been recreated, there was a new discussion and it was voted to stay in this discussion (which seems that was also deleted). Klimbert

• No opinion yet on whether the company meets our generally accepted inclusion criteria but the recent decision to preemptively protect the title after a single rewrite was patently in error. Wikipedia policy says that we are to limit protection to those areas necessary to protect the project. This appears to have been excessive. Rossami (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding "there was a new discussion and it was voted to stay in this discussion (which seems that was also deleted)", where did this take place? Are you claiming that that discussion itself was deleted? Tarc (talk) 16:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any other AfD's relevant to this page. I thinkthought Klimbert means there was a discussion on the Talk page - but RHaworth didn't delete a talk page so I'm not sure. Without being able to see the content of the two deleted versions I can't really say about the G4. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that Klimbert asked RHaworth about this before coming here, and was told 'Search this page for "decency". If you insist on trying to force an article in, go to deletion review.' [13] I do not see this as a very helpful reply -- though I can not figure out the meaning of the first sentence. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  There are various sentences along the lines of "kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your service is notable and writes about it here" on the archive which that entry appears on. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored both the article and the talk page for discussion at Deletion Review I too can find no other deletion discussion butthe original one; I think Osburn is right, that the article talk p. was the intended meaning. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- The article that was deleted was about a marginally notable company, but I think it would cut the mustard as a stub until someone expands it and adds citations.--Mblumber (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for all your answers. The discusion that is there at the moment is a discussion of the old article version from April 2011. There was a new discussion although I'm unsure if it was on the talk page or rather it was on the speedy deletion/deletion discussion page. I will try to find it in the archives. Klimbert
• Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion. The speedied version[14] was clearly not a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" compared with the version deleted at AFD.[15] as is required for G4. It would be nice to see the later discussion but that would not validate the speedy. Thincat (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graham at NRB 1977.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

File information page for a file on Commons consisting of a fair use rationale. Although local file information pages sometimes are allowed (e.g. for the {{badimage}} template), it seems totally inappropriate to have a local file information page on Wikipedia consisting of a fair use rationale. If the file is unfree, it should not be on Commons in the first place, and so Commons images shouldn't have fair use rationales. User:AnomieBOT closed the request by keeping the file information page on the grounds that the file is on Commons, but this seems irrelevant here. Since the bot doesn't allow the discussion to be held at the normal place, I'm taking it here instead. Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have informed Anomie of the underlying problem and he is following up.[16] Thincat (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The image is up for deletion at commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Graham_at_NRB_1977.jpg as there is some question as to its licensing status. Maybe the appropriate thing is to wait for Commons to determine if it's free or not? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber on Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) AFD

The article was deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTDIARY and WP:IINFO, which suggests the topic of the article is problem and it obviously does not belong on Wikipedia. Hence, deletion. At the same time, the closing administrator said the WP:NOTDIARY and WP:IINFO could be included in the article. The closing administrator made content comments, citing the Charlie Sheen comments. Articles deletion are based on policies, not content. For example, an article with 1,000 reliable sources that establish notability will be kept even if only one of those appears in an article. Content is not a consideration. Admin does not appear to have given weight to sources that establish independent notability of the subject. given issues, WP:NOCONSENSUS seems obvious close. --LauraHale (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin comment; something which may be suitable for a paragraph in an article, may be unwanted as a stand-alone article topic. The personal life or the youth of many notable persons is the subject of a paragraph in their article, but wouldn't be suitable as a stand-alone article. I did not state that all the info in the deleted article could be included in the main Bieber article, only that "a short section" would be appropriate. That(s hardly claiming that the NOTDIARY content can be included in the article. As for the content comments; it was used as an example, together with the text of the note from the article, as to why it came close to being a WP:COATRACK; the article was enlarged and more sources added by discussing different topics and adding tangential stuff (even after the severe pruning halfway through the AfD), giving the appearance of having many sources when in reality there were less. This is similar to the lists of sources added in the AfD, which gave a false impression. However, even if the coatrack issues would have been adressed, the main reasons (NOTDIARY and IINFO), as indicated by most "delete" opinions, would remain, and hence my close. Fram (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out the WP:NOTDIARY part of your close? The article was NOT, despite the repeated claims at AfD, just tweet after tweet, after tweet. The sources provides in volume did not post content to meet WP:NOTDIARY as they were not 140 character article after 140 character article of his tweet. This deletion rationale doeesn't work. The sources didn't treat it that way? And WP:COATRACK was discussed a lot? It doesn't do that because there was not point of view pushing on the article. WP:IIST has no consensus that the article would meet here and the essay does not have consensus. There appeared to be no consensus around any of the rationale, and the rationale of not diary WAS made clear to be false based on sources AND article content. --LauraHale (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - as I mentioned (albeit obliquely) that whoever closed the AfD was going to be in for a tough time, since there were strong opinions on both sides, I think what Fram has done is a reasonable compromise that satisfies the majority of people. May I humbly suggest that sticks are now dropped. --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opinions on both sides with good arguements on both sides leans toward WP:NOCONSENSUS, not delete. --LauraHale (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't really matter. Can you still type "Justin Bieber on Twitter" into the search box? Yes, you can. Do you get presented with some information on how his presence on Twitter is notable? Yes, you do. So what's the issue. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. One of the least worthy articles on en.WP I've seen in quite a while. Lots of duplication with main article; elavates trivia. Tony (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Either endorse or relist - "Keep" arguments are insufficient because they cite policies and guidelines as part of reasons. Some "Delete" arguments were not that compelling due to possibility that a policy may not apply. Nevertheless, "delete" arguments triumphs "keep" over possibility of massive trivia in this article, putting notability aside in favor of writing a content that would suit general needs, and favoring encyclopedic standards over existing rules. But if an uninvolved administrator feels that arguments are insufficient, go for "relisting". --George Ho (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I must say that people believe that whatever that is in the essay is not a very good argument. Nevertheless, some of short arguments have some merit, especially when they cite one policy or guideline without explaining further. In this case, we are talking about a Twitter use by one person. If a Twitter account is not a "work", as it supposed to be per WP:IINFO, what is it? (By the way, neither of us make a mention of it in AFDs.) --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - keep arguments insufficient, most are a complete misinterpretation of WP:N: sure, if for something no reliable references can be found, it is likely not notable, but that does not extrapolate to a situation that when for something reliable references can be found, that that subject is then by definition notable - the Sun is hot (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), Grass is green (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), the Sky is blue (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), and Justin Bieber on Twitter (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) - for most of the first 4 way more news, scholar and book-results can be found than for the last one - yet none of the first has an article. And the last one is just fancruft. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was probably the least or second least worthy of the on Twitter articles, I'm not going to disagree with the admin decision. However, this evaluation of the arguments; this is essentially what arguements for deletion amounted to, a sort of Proof by assertion that the article is cruft, or trivia, or unencyclopedic; and then claiming that's proven right, only because WP:N doesn't prove them wrong. Accepting that the keep arguments are insufficient, and WP:N itself can't be an argument for notability/inclusion, what could be? What trumps someone calling something cruft? Darryl from Mars (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An academic article or book which is focused to the topic for one. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Common sense is another one - why not write Grass is green? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Realistically, no one has ever convinced anyone of anything by arguing that their position is 'common sense'. IRWolfie at least presents a potentially useful thing. I'm also not sure how the issue of a (usually) true statement not being an article relates. We use noun phrases, and technically, we do have an article on the color of the sky. Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know, the common sense argument is not the strongest - "Grass is green" it is so socially accepted that we even have proverbs using it, and I am sure that you can find references to it in book, song and/or popular movie titles. Still we don't have an article about it. I think that though we know it is notable, we use common sense to know that it is not worthy of an article.
          I think that Diffuse sky radiation is more like Celebrities' use of social media, not exactly the same. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Most celebrities have accounts on lots of social networks, and they use all kinds of ways to communicate (phone, mail, twitter, youtube, ping, whatsapp, skype etc.). Arcandam (talk) 12:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have probably closed it as merge, but Endorse - it's certainly a valid close within admin discretion. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Consensus was read that this is not the sort of thing we devote encyclopedia articles, it is high time to draw a firmer line against ephemeral pop culture trivia. If you want to tweet with Beiber, then go do so. We don't need to read about it here. Tarc (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the decision. While opinions were divided, there appeared to be a consensus, arguments and all (well beyond "IDONTLIKEIT"), that deletion is the proper way to go. Drmies (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus The WP/N presumes notable topics may have thier own article. Thus setting the higher bar of actual consensus for WP:NOT to apply, (at least in cases where WP:NOT is ambiguous on the type of article at issue). For WP:IINFO to apply actual consensus must be reached, as nothing in the text of the section requires deletion of this article. As someone has said elsewhere, "this section is in no way a catch-all for anything that any editor may personally view as being indiscriminate" (See, The discrimination of. . .; See also WP:Burden). Indeed, the close admits the topic is notable for inclusion somewhere in the encyclopedia. Under the Editing Policy an article is not indiscrminate nor is it WP:NOTDIARY, even were it arguable that it contains some such. (It is also false that this article listed every tweet and so it cannot be a diary). The deletion rationale and the endorse rationale relies on the logical fallacy of a parade of horribles. Other imaginary articles are irrelevant. Notable people, like other people, when thier lives intersect with something else notable make for articles (see, eg. Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln; Letters of Charles Lamb; at least one notable Twitter feed has its own article, Shit My Dad Says; as do notable Blogs.) Because this close forces consensus, it should be overturned. It also replaces objective application of policy with standardless feelings about the topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeating the same arguments over and over again is a bit boring. Other imaginary articles are relevant. People already responded to this and explained you the difference between Twitterfeeds that are notable and "Celeb X using communication method Y"-articles, right? Arcandam (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further demonstration of no consensus. The claim that a twitter feed becomes not notable because it involves a notable person lacks logical force or policy standards. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who claims that? Nice attempt at a straw man. Arcandam (talk) 21:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, I thought that was the claim. If it's not that it involves a notable person, than is it about particular use of a mode of mass communication? Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Typing Justin Bieber on Twitter redirects you to a few paragraphs on his Twitter presence on his article. I think this is more than enough. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 15:47, July 9, 2012 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep I thought my argument summed it up rather well. I don't see why this should be treated differently than any other website. Its get ample coverage, not just for the activities of his on it, but for the twitter account itself. And getting "180 million page views per month" is fairly notable. Did those wishing to have it deleted just look at the title and make their decision, or did they actually read through the article? Dream Focus 17:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 1

• Overturn to keep:

  1) WP:IINFO does not cover twitter feeds. Contra the closing administrator's assertion, WP:IINFO is very specific about what is, in fact, indiscriminate. There has been a concerning tendency for deletionists to argue IINFO instead of IDONTLIKEIT, because the former is the actual name of a valid policy, while the latter is not. However, the extent of IINFO is limited to summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, and excessive listing of statistics, none of which covers a twitter feed. The sentence "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." applies to each of these three sections, as well as every other numbered section on the page. Administrators are not free to invent new sections, for things that they believe might fit appropriately under one of the headings, especially not for things as ephemeral as indiscriminancy.

  2) The twitter of one person is not, by any rational definition of discriminancy, indiscriminate. It has a clearly delimiting category, the tweets of one person, and is therefore an encyclopedic intersection, as can be seen by RS'ed commentary ON Bieber's (and others') twitter feeds.

  While I think the topic is silly and inconsequential, it is neither my job, nor any administrator's, to sit in judgment on whether reliable sources are dealing with consequential topics. Unfortunately, by listening to the naysayers anddescribing content followed by RS publications in the categorization as "indiscriminate", the closing administrator has either inappropriately assigned weight to non-policy-based deletion rationales, or has himself supervoted to reach that conclusion. For all of those reasons, the above 'endorse' !voters miss the point, and the decision needs to be overturned. Jclemens (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do "endorse" people miss the point? --George Ho (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that since IINFO doesn't apply, if (for example) 12 delete !voters say "delete per IINFO", then those are zero policy-based delete votes. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, the point that IINFO doesn't apply isn't a widely-shared, point, though. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • If IINFO doesn't apply, and it does not, then people misquoting it shouldn't be figured into an estimation of consensus, no matter how numerous, since its not a vote. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You keep saying "it doesn't", but that is only your opinion; many who weighed in feels that it does. Editors can disagree on interpretation of policy and not be "wrong", e.g. see the recent Muhammad RfC which pivoted on interpretation of censorship vs. offense. Each "side" felt their arguments were solidly rooted in policy, but one side didn't win that day. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jclemens: Doesn't your point apply to short "keep" arguments, as well? --George Ho (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Length of argument is unimportant; basis is. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well in that case (and this is why I would have closed as a Merge) they're in excellent company with the large number of evidence-free Keep votes along the lines of "it's notable", "it's got lots of sources", "it passes GNG", and "you just don't like it" ... and there are far more than 12 of those. In fact, you could probably remove 75% of the comments - on both sides - on this AfD and lose nothing. Black Kite (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aside from something that would trigger NOT, as IINFO was erroneously assumed to do by the closer, then arguments about sourcing and notability would be the appropriate and prevailing arguments, wouldn't they? Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's my point - most of those arguments don't consider whether this topic has the notability to stand alone - they merely assert "it's notable" without explaining why, or assert that "having lots of sources" is a criteria for notability. Clearly, neither is true. Obviously, notability is helped by significant sourcing, but its existence is not evidence of notability; it's the same as these "Personal life of Celebrity X" articles we've been having recently, they're spectacularly sourced because they're tabloid fodder, but it doesn't mean the information belongs anywhere else but as a section of that celebrity's article. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • What is evidence for notability, if, as you appear to say, it is not significant reliable sources? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I thought I made that clear. Something cannot be notable without significant reliable sources, but the existence of those sources does not mean something is notable. Otherwise we would have a new article (for example) every time a celebrity got married, had an affair, got arrested ... Black Kite (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That does seem clear, sources don't prove something is notable, I think the question is; what is positive evidence for notability/keeping, i.e, what does mean that something is notable? Darryl from Mars (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • You've said what it is not. What is evidence? Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, BK, I think you're wrong: If a particular event, like a wedding, has GNG-level support, then an article on that event does meet our notability criteria for a separate article. After all, the contrapositive has been being used against fictional elements for years ("Delete it, since no sources cover this element outside the context of the movie"). Stretching IIFNO is inappropriate; if we want to have a NOTTWITTER, then by all means let's create one, rather than saying IINFO means "whatever the closer doesn't think encyclopedic". Twitter articles are not per se indiscriminate: they cover what one celebrity has said on twitter--that's very discrete and specific. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think you know what I meant, though. A very notable wedding may possibly have a chance of passing notability (but beware WP:NOT#NEWS), but the point I was making is that you could display shitloads of sources for pretty much any celebrity wedding, because that's the nature of our media. Doesn't mean they need an article, though. And 99% wouldn't; they'd be a note in the relevant celebrity's article. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • And, regarding the 1% that could have an article, how would you, in particular, distinguish them? Darryl from Mars (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I wouldn't, because I couldn't care less about trivia articles. I was merely pointing out that I would not rule out 100% of articles of that type; there are always exceptions to the rule. And that's why we have AfD. Black Kite (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This was a correct reading of policy and consensus. Jclemens' ultra-narrow reading of WP:IINFO above is inappropriate. IINFO is not bound by the three examples listed on WP:NOT. ThemFromSpace 19:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are not examples, they are sections, grouped under the heading of IINFO. Within those sections, there are two examples in the third section: Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008 and United States presidential election, 2008. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no-consensus. The article was drastically improved by fluffernutter in the course of the discussion, and there was no consensus to delete the improved article. The close appears to relate only to the original article as originally submitted: the closer's rationale does not match the actual article. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this case, I would also go for "relisting" because I still favor deletion in both here and there, regardless of condensation. Even after condensation, I don't see anything valuable in this article. --George Ho (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close definitely took into account the changed article, and the !votes cast after the change (which weren't significantly different from the ones before). Please don't claim things which aren't true. Note that both the Charlie Sheen issue, and the note that "This article is about both Bieber as a topic on Twitter and Bieber's use of Twitter", were included in the article version "revision of Justin Bieber on Twitter (as of 4 July 2012, at 23:39) by DGG". Fram (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Merge would have probably been a better reading, but this has essentially accomplished the same thing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Good close, strength of delete arguments considerably stronger than keep arguments, some of which are being repeated again here. The keep arguments are just as weak here as they were at the AFD.--Otterathome (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse When one looks past the mere !votes (as Black Kite points out above) on both sides and judges the strength of the arguments, I think the closing admin did a fair job in determining consensus (although I read it as "merge", the result is the same).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 23:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per IINFO; the view that it should be read narrowly, is simply wrong. It is a statement of a concept that applies to a great many indiscriminate things that may not be specifically enumerated. Such strict constructionism interpretations are about seeking to neuter IINFO for indiscriminate inclusion purposes. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're correct about IINFO: in what way was the article indiscriminate? Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original close. I believe the original close accurately interpreted the comparative merits of the delete and keep !votes, and made a fair determination that the consensus of policy-based !votes was to delete or merge (which amount to the same thing here.) Not that it matters too much, but I didn't vote in the original AfD. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Resigned endorse, though "merge" might have been more technically correct. I spent a lot of time and energy cleaning/rewriting the article in the hopes that it could be saved, and I think I did improve it...but the more I look at it, especially in light of the AfD arguments, the more I think the kernel I thought was there just wasn't enough. The topic of Bieber's Twitter use has coverage - notable coverage. But the fact that it has coverage doesn't mean it has to stand on its own as an article, and if we continued to trim off the "fat" of overly-detailed stuff in the article, we'd have ended up with little more than the few important sentences that ended up in Justin Bieber anyway. The bulk that fleshed it out to article size is mostly unneeded WP:NOTDIARY stuff that in a years' time will be very clearly unimportant (and I think that in a year we'll have a much clearer idea of what the really notable stuff was/is), even to those of us who had hopes for the article. I do think there's some stuff that was in the article that didn't make it through the merge and should have (and that Fram probably should have done the merge himself rather than leaving it for someone who wanted to save the content), and I'll probably take a look at that in the upcoming days to fix, but overall I endorse with sadness Fram's close for now (though I will not be at all surprised if within a few years we find ourselves recreating social-media articles like this because the weight of notability has finally gotten too much). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was clearly no agreement for the article to be neither kept nor deleted. Statυs (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arguments about content apply are compelling, and sometimes I don't follow WP:AADD. Notability matters less for fiction, just as notability matters less for a Twitter account of the high-profile celebrity. --George Ho (talk) 02:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was within admin discretion. That some coverage of this topic is appropriate at Justin Beiber does not mandate that this be kept (even as a redirect) in the absence of a consensus that it should be used in this form. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to some form or a merge close. The GFDL requires us to keep the attribution of the page intact since content was merged into the main article, so what we really need here is a "redirect and full protect" close to keep that intact. Fram, however, correctly determined consensus against this being an article. (Whether intended by the close or not, what has happened here is a Wikipedia:Merge and delete, and that essay explains why this is not a good thing.) Courcelles 04:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think anything was merged from this article, so what happened here was a "delete and redirect", not a "merge and delete". Feel free to correct me on this though, but there certainly hasn't been any merge of info since the start of the AfD. Fram (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While a "delete and redirect" was what technically happened, I think semantically from a casual observer (which is what really matters IMHO) it was more like a "merge and delete". I'm also concerned that there seem to be a lot of people here treating this review as "AfD II - this time it's personal" and rehashing the same arguments we saw last week, rather than what I believe the review is for. Did those that are requesting an overturn take it up privately with the closing admin in the first instance? --Ritchie333 (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was discussion during the AfD of information being moved back and forth between the articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fram, the partial merge occurred here, back in April. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. It would have been easier to find that if the merger had properly attributed this in the edit summary of course (but that is not your fault of course). How best to proceed? Undeleting the article (but with the redirect as current version of course), or moving the deleted history to a talk subpage of Justin Bieber? Fram (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I note that the merge was indicated at the JB talk page (not by the merger though), I could have found that if I had actually looked there of course ;-) Fram (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have now restored the page because of the merger (and the need to have the contributor history. This does not change my AfD close except on a technical level. Fram (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Endorse, then, as I think that corrected the only flaw with your close, which was otherwise within your discretion. Courcelles 03:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: Article not notable independently of Bieber himself. pbp 04:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: even though that's not the way I "voted" in the AfD, I think the closer has weighed the discussion well and arrived at the right conclusion. pablo 10:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse one of the main arguments put forward for deleting the page was WP:NOT, and that reason was the one cited in the closing statement. Very few keep !voters tried to address this argument in the discussion. Instead they focused on demonstrating that the subject passes WP:GNG. Passing our notability guidelines does not mean that a topic should be included, or that we should presume that it should be included. It means that the topic cannot be deleted for being non-notable, which doesn't say anything about whether it should be deleted for any other reason, including WP:NOT. Hut 8.5 11:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears the problem lies in that the only standards suggested by WP:NOT are reasoning by analogy. There was substantive disagreement over the applicable analogies with reference to the sources given, and the text of the policy and article (whether it be mass commincation, or personal information, or publisher/publishing, or marketing or something else). Choosing among the differing substantive analogies is imposing consensus. Also doesn't passing GNG or the other notability guidelines lead to a presumption? Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD was close under WP:NOTDIARY. A main issue of WP:NOTDIARY is whether the Twitter event Justin Bieber is involved in was notable: "Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are". Of course the keeps are going to focus on demonstrating that the Justin Bieber on Twitter subject passes WP:GNG per the requirements of WP:NOTDIARY. A second main issue of WP:NOTDIARY is whether the Justin Bieber on Twitter article was an overdetailed article that look like a diary. The deletes failed to establish that the Justin Bieber on Twitter article look like a diary. So what was the basis to close the AfD discussion under WP:NOTDIARY? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The use of the word "notable" in WP:NOTDIARY is not meant to be interpreted as a reference to the standard of Wikipedia:Notability. Note that NOTDIARY goes on to say that "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person", which is exactly what the guideline WP:N is not applicable to. Rather the word is being used in its common English sense of "being worthy of notice". NOTDIARY is not an extension or application of the GNG, it's a completely separate standard. Hut 8.5 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think Uzma's point is if it is not notable, according to NOTDIARY, it should not be noted in the Pedia but if it is agreed that it will be in an article, and further that it will have its own section of the article, it cannot be diary or indiscriminate because those are logically contradictory. If it's in the pedia, it is noted, and if it has its own section, it is discrete. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break 2

• Overturn to keep Laura's AfD contribution alone was sufficiently convincing to outweigh all the delete rationales. She provided a well presented table listing dozens of RSs that have both JB and social media as the primary topics. Her arguments on the applicability of policy were sound too. Taking into account the other keep rationales, and the obvious falsity of several of the delete comments, a delete decision should not have been an option. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep The nominator cited a lack of notability as the reason for AfD, which was the reason that most keep arguments addressed this issue, and it was amply demonstrated that the article was well-sourced and passed WP:GNG. Anyone who said that it was a list of tweets never even bothered to look at the article. No evidence was ever presented that WP:NOTDIARY applied. But most disturbing of all was a bizarre extension of WP:IINFO to simply mean "not encyclopaedic" ie WP:IDONTLIKEIT whenever convenient. I would not normally bother to comment on a DRV, but I this interpretation poses a grave threat to the integrity of the encyclopaedia as it permits any article to be deleted on a whim. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see anyone who argued it was a list of tweets. Who argued it was a list of tweets? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - WP:IINFO: Before I get to my main point, let me address WP:IINFO. First, IINFO presently is limited to fiction, songs, and statistics, which are far from biographical information. The deletes did not establish that WP:IINFO applies because the collection of information on the topic can be focused on twitter and the deletes never established that the article only could be developed at random or without careful judgment. Our own LauraHale (the DRV OP) is an academic writing in this area, so the delete claim that the topic will always be an indiscriminate collection of information is wholly baseless. WP:NOTDIARY: While WP:NOTDIARY is relevant, it only states that not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person. Even after the AfD, Twitter has its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article ((Justin Bieber#Twitter), and the keeps argument that Twitter is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person was strong and not rebutted. The AfD closer himself noted that a short section on Twitter in the Justin Bieber article is perfectly appropriate. Since Twitter is notable enough to be included in the Justin Bieber biography per WP:NOTDIARY, the only remaining issue was article spinout. NPOV and NOTPAPER: Both WP:NPOVFACT and WP:NOTPAPER are the policies that govern article spinout. Under WP:NPOVFACT, all facts on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of an article spinout, and article splits must not be an attempt to evade the consensus process at another article. Under WP:NOTPAPER, splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic. The AfD failed to adequately address these points and failed to do so objectively (which is a basis for relisting with directions to consider article spinout policy and guideline). CLOSE ERRORS: As a result, the AfD closer relied on the subjective beliefs and opinion of the deletes to justify the close, instead of basing the close on an objective standard. The AfD close erred in not addressing whether the Justin Bieber on Twitter topic was a valid article spinout. The AfD close erred in focusing on all verifiable events of Justin Bieber on Twitter rather than whether coverage in reliable sources on the Justin Bieber on Twitter topic could be limited to justify a stand-alone article. The deletes did not establish that clean up was not possible. The deletes did not establish that the topic was a COATRACK - Justin Bieber on Twitter is not a biased subject and the coverage in the Justin Bieber on Twitter article clearly was directly related to Justin Bieber on Twitter. The coatrack part of the AfD close was not justified by the discussion. In addition, the deletes did not establish that a brief summary of Justin Bieber on Twitter in the Justin Bieber main article would be sufficient as thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. As such, the AfD close avoided the issue if whether a short section on Twitter in the Justin Bieber article is adequate and instead merely concluded that a short section on Twitter in the Justin Bieber article is perfectly appropriate. In view of this, overturn. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since Twitter is notable enough to be included in the Justin Bieber biography"; Notability and due weight in an article are not the same thing, as such it is not a strong argument. Having a section in an article does not mean a topic is notable. You also inadvertently say the opposite of what you intend, You say that twitter is notable enough for content in the article, twitter wasn't at AfD. Further, WP:NOTPAPER does not mean that the individual splits do not need to be notable, "However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD was closed based on WP:NOTDIARY, which reads "Not every match played, goal scored or hand shaken is notable enough to be included in the biography of a person." Twitter has its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article, so consensus has concluded that the Justin Bieber twitter event is notable enough to be included in the biography of Justin Bieber per WP:NOTDIARY. The AfD closer indicated that Twitter should have its own subsection in the Justin Bieber article, so the AfD closer concluded that the Justin Bieber twitter event is notable enough to be included in the biography of Justin Bieber per WP:NOTDIARY. Even with that, WP:NOTDIARY was an insufficient basis to determine what should be done per WP:NOTPAPER as were the other reasons given in the close. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I don't see it. Notability just is not the right concept for determining whether something gets a section in an article, read WP:N: "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.". Nothing in the closers statement indicates that he thought the topic was notable. Due Weight != Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IINFO is not limited to fiction, songs, and statistics. Those are examples of areas where the policy applies. Hut 8.5 14:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are those examples in the policy? And are you saying the policy is unbounded? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The principle of WP:IINFO is that "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That principle is generally applicable, and is certainly not limited to three areas. As an illustration of this, the lead of WP:N makes it clear that our notability guideline is intended as a (partial) implementation of this principle, and our notability guideline is certainly not limited in scope. The three examples are in the policy to clarify how the principle is to be applied to some commonly occurring cases. Hut 8.5 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern is for article creators. How do they know if the article they have sources for is indiscriminate or not, if the topic and article they want to write does not look like the examples? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well obviously a decision like that would be down to editorial judgement. We have plenty of policies which don't spell out exactly how they are to be interpreted in all possible cases. Hut 8.5 20:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for discussing. It would seem to be fairer and a better system to guide editorial judgement, or it seems no judgement at all, but fancy or whim. But I think I have led us far enough astray from why we are here. For which I apologize. Again thanks for discussing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The strength of the delete arguments was greater than the keep arguments, as summed up by the closer: "Once someone or something gets sufficiently notable (like Justin Bieber), many subaspects, minutiae and trivia of his work or life get excessive attention". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with a strong ordinary-editor opinion to redirect. The AfD debate (and apparently the closure) failed to consider the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The edit history of the page and of the latest redirect target strongly suggest that content was moved from this page to other pages. Not all of it, of course, but enough that we should have kept the pagehistory. This was clearly a difficult close and I applaud Fram for taking it on. I agree that the AfD reached a general consensus that the content does not belong on Wikipedia in the then-current level of detail. I do not, however, see consensus that the article's pagehistory had to be deleted. When considering the various "merge" opinions as flavors of keep (though not keep-as-is), the closest I can get to is a no-consensus decision. Rossami (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the page history has been undeleted for that reason (I had missed this aspect, which indeed wasn't discussed at the AfD, but it was brought to my attention by other editors in this DRV). You may call the current result a soft-deletion; while the history is still visible for licensing / attribution reasons, the consensus (or my close) was that Wikipedia shouldn't have a separate article on this subject, which means that this redirect shouldn't be reverted to the article as it was without proper discussion (like we are having here). This is different from a regular WP:BOLD redirection, which may be overturned by anyone at any time in general. Fram (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Guys, its time to drop your sticks. Fram made a good decision and explained it very clearly. Most people who voted delete at the AfD aren't interested in this article enough to know it is at DRV and/or they don't want to be a part of the drama that is inevitable when some people don't get their way. But still a majority endorsed the decision here. Arcandam (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it was closed on the correct basis, wherein the discussion should be analysed in accordance with the strength of the arguments based on Wikipedia's policies rather than guidelines. Although there was a general consensus that the topic meets the WP:GNG, it is irrelevant when citing WP:NOT as reasons for deletion, because policy always outweighs guideline. However, like the admin pointed out, a section on the Justin Bieber article is perfectly fine. Till 16:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although there was a general consensus that the topic meets the WP:GNG, it is irrelevant when citing WP:NOT as reasons for deletion, because policy always outweighs guideline. This is the reason the IINFO overreach must be eliminated--if any closer says "well, it's indiscriminate, so even though IINFO doesn't say anything about it, I find that it's IINFO and must be deleted per policy even though it's notable (which is just a guideline anyways)." This is not about Justin Bieber or Twitter, but about the fundamental rules for inclusion and exclusion on Wikipedia. Otherwise perfectly good editors are endorsing a horrible, horrible deletion rationale because they don't like this one topic (and neither do I, of course), but one that gives essentially any admin carte blanche to rewrite anything they don't like into NOT, and make it policy by default. Jclemens (talk) 18:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • agreed. something is wrong when subjective criteria can overrule objective criteria, because the former is "policy" and the latter is "guideline". 169.231.121.57 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — 169.231.121.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Overturn to keep per devastating rebuttals by Jclemens, Uzma Gamal and Alanscottwalker. When the invalid delete !votes are thrown out, the sources and meeting the GNG win the day. CallawayRox (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny; I don't particularly feel devastated. A lot of editors have a different opinion when it comes to interpretation of policy and guidelines, it happens all the time. Tarc (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you honestly believe we are going to throw our policy and the majority of the comments out of the window just because you disagree with them and call them invalid? Would you be so kind to link the rebuttals here? My devastating rebuttal to them is probably WP:IDHT and WP:DROP. Arcandam (talk) 19:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that since IINFO doesn't apply, if (for example) 12 delete !voters say "delete per IINFO", then those are zero policy-based delete votes. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC) CallawayRox (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I and others disagree with Clemens' conclusion of the non-applicability of IINFO, though. Tarc (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • What part of WP:IINFO do you believe does apply to this? It has three parts. Summary-only descriptions of works, Lyrics databases, and Excessive listings of statistics. Was the article one of those? If not, how would it possibly apply? Dream Focus 01:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Probably the part that isn't limited to those 3 examples, the one that speaks to the general concept of the indiscriminate inclusion of topics, as noted on the Wikipedia:Notability intro. I think that intro is worth a re-read, particularly the "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." From discussions at the Village Pump to the prevailing sentiment at the AfD, it seems that a significant number of editors have opined that this is not something that we want on the project. We (the royal we) are well within our remit to determine what is and what is not "worthy of notice". And you and Clemens cannot simply bludgeon those that feel that way into silence. Guidelines can and will be bent if a majority of editors feel it is to the betterment of the project. Tarc (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You don't like it, and don't think it should be on Wikipedia, understood. But don't go claiming a guideline supports you here when it doesn't. Do you accept that nothing in WP:IINFO applies here then? That claim is thus an invalid reason to have deleted the article. As for the part in Notability, that doesn't apply here, since this isn't about merging anything, its about deleting something people don't like. Dream Focus 02:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Don't take what I said and lie about it, please. Collecting what a famous person said on the internet via one particular website (twitter.com) is an indiscriminate collection of information, a collection unworthy of notice. IINFO and WP:N apply; we should not collect random bits of news and slap them together into a "famous person said things via X" article. Simple as that. So far, you have merely offered your own interpretation of IINFO and such. being different isn't wrong. Being different is insufficient grounds to overturn an XfD. Therefore, you have no case to make here, per usual. Q.E.D. Tarc (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Did you see the article? [17] It is coverage about it, not just covering things he said on it. After the fluff was trimmed, there is ample content left to justify an article. Dream Focus 02:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Calling the article "indiscriminate" again and again doesn't make it true and calling WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:IINFO doesn't make it policy-based. CallawayRox (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn too many of deletion rationales are about the general inappropriateness of the topic, rather than specific problems with this particular article. Although it is probably the case that few of them meet the threshold of independent notability, it doesn't make any sense to say "Twitter accounts are inherently unencyclopedic", any more than "blogs are inherently unencyclopedic" or "schools are inherently unencyclopedic". If policy allows such prima facie judgments about article topics (and I don't think it does, beyond some feeling that Twitter is "trivial") it needs to be changed. 169.231.121.57 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — 169.231.121.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Overturn with a strong recommendation to make the merge and redirect official even if the overturn fails. WP:NOTDIARY cannot be used as a deletion rationale for any article with valid sources. If there is a properly used source, it must have at least one statement that is not "excessive detail", per our official policy on experts (even celebrity experts) and published material. If a reliable source got something published, they must have printed something relevant/notable. Even if the article can be distilled down to just 2 or 3 sentences, that is not a reason to delete - we have lots of stubs. If not, then the article has a sourcing problem, not a problem with excessive detail. In that case, "no reliable sources", or "only trivial mentions" would be your correct deletion reason. This was not the case here, and not even one person suggested that all the sources for this article had a problem with excessive detail. Thus, any delete rationale based on NOTDIARY is incorrect. However, NOTDIARY/excessive detail is a good reason to merge, which is why I would accept an official re-jigger to merge and redirect (I know that it's technically one already).  The Steve  23:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A simple contrast between policy and guidelines is not sufficient to solve conflicts. The various parts of the many Wikipedia guidelines and policies have varying degrees of strength and consensus, and every one of them requires interpretation. It requires judgment. The judgement is made by the community, not the admin, though the admin is expected to interpret what the community thinks and if necessary evaluate the arguments in order to make that interpretation. If the community disagrees with the admin's interpretation with respect to a deletion, they can reverse it at Deletion review. Though we give considerable respect to the admin's discretion, how much respect we give it depends on the circumstances, and here is where we decide. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]