Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August

Wikipedia:Esperanza (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)

Since the deactivation of Esperanza, Wikipedia has become a colder, nastier place. Acrimonious editorial conflict, such as that described in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines is commonplace, while even respected administrators are accused of abusive sockpuppetry, forming the basis for nasty mud-slinging matches along the lines of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar. If good-faith contributors were encouraged to socialize, if we knew each other as people, we might have a far more harmonious editorial environment. While supporters of deactivation cited our policy that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, the policy is intended to prevent the usage of Wikipedia for the sole or primary purpose of social networking, not to preclude socialization among genuine contributors, with its attendant salutary effects in terms of reduced editorial conflict. Our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy was also cited, as Esperanza had a central organizational structure. Yet the application of the policy was itself ironically bureaucratic, as the literal prohibition of all structural hierarchy would eliminate the Arbitration Committee, etc. Given the time that has passed since Esperanza’s deactivation, there may be a consensus to reinstate it. Though Esperanza was often derided as a “group hug” organization, in comparison to a group edit war, a group hug doesn’t sound too bad, does it? Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bah--start over with a new and much simpler project for the same purpose, if one is really needed. Esperanza was noble in intent at the start but had devolved to little but elections and instructions by the end. Chick Bowen 00:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While the above makes a case for the existence of Esperanza (or a similar organization) I don't see that undeletion is needed here. The old content is either out of date or decidedly unhelpful. Just be bold and start a group. If it's successful, then propose moving it to the old Esperanza page. There's no point in resurrecting old discussions or member lists and still less the roundly criticized aspects of Esperanza like the Advisory Council. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no deleted revisions there, and I highly doubt DRV is a good place to discuss the closure of the MfD itself, as a wider consensus would likely be needed to go anywhere on restarting Esperanza itself. Suggest a speedy close and seek another forum. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No We do not need to bring this back. MBisanz ^talk 07:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No, what Chick Bowen said. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's not. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I think that there is a clear consensus here against the wholesale reactivation of Esperanza, as the nominator invites us to do. This discussion would nonetheless be useful if it were to articulate some consensus as to the permissibility of a successor organization without ostensibly bureaucratic elements "like the Advisory Council" -- that is, if it were to answer the question of whether a project to promote social interaction between editors would be viewed as a valuable community-building resource, or a frivolous waste of server bandwidth. Since servers and internet access are cheap to the extent of the usage contemplated here, and since the community-building which might reasonably be expected would be quite valuable, I am inclined to support the former view. John254 15:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment doesn't appear to be a DRV issue, there doesn't appear to be any process issues, this isn't an article so we can't easily judge if "additions" make it overcome the reasons for initial deletion, nor do I think we should be judge of what the broader community believes is useful. As above sounds better to try and propose something new even if it does overlap then resurect something with in many people's eyes a tranished image. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Either no club or start anew. EA was fundamentally broken and it needed to be eliminated. --harej 19:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been around before, during, and after Esperanza, and I can attest to the fact that Esperanza not only improved nothing, but they evolved as an exclusive subculture at odds with the rest of the website. --harej 19:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in responce to John's question. While I think there is clear-cut consensus against the wholesale revival of Esperanza, I am not sure about the formation of a new group with the laudable goal of promoting wiki-love. Therefore what follows is my personal opinion. I firmly believe that a new or revived group would be "a frivolous waste of server bandwidth" both because it is highly tangential to the encyclopedic buidling purpose of Wikipedia and because it is unlikely to work. Experience with Esperanza has shown that it is much easier and more natural for such a group to evolve into an exclusive and self-promoting clique than a genuine force for the good of the project as a whole. I also believe that the claim that the demise of Esperanza is linked in any way to the current WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issues is specious. Instead the problem comes from the increased abuse of Wikipedia sp spammers and POV pushers and the understandable, but unfortunate, effect this has on many long time editors. That said, I don't doubt the good faith of either Kristen Eriksen or those involved in the original creation of Esperana, nor do I wish to minimize the importance of good faith and civility amoung Wikipedians. I simply believe that Esperanza, or an organization similarlyu designed primarily to promote comraderie amoung its members, has no realistic potential of furthering its stated goals, important and valubale as those are. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• --NE2 23:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Consensus was only to shut down EA as it was, and it wasn't a ban on the concept. DRV is unneeded if you wish to attempt something similar. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Advice to nominator: Find something better to do with your time than give people incentive to find out who you're a sock of. —Giggy 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No The close was primarily on the basis of "projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical" I think that if anything , the consensus against closed projects is considerably greater now. We've had dramatic further examples of the problems caused by cabals and the like, or things that appear to be such. DGG (talk) 09:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• no' per DGG. Moreover, to be very clear as someone who was around when Esperanza was here: things could get pretty cold and nasty then too. Things might be colder and nastier now or not. I don't know. But I severely doubt the presence or absence of Esperanza has anything to do with that. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose recreating Esperanza as it was, as noted by most commenting here. Please see Wikipedia talk:Esperanza for some discussions regarding reviving the name "Esperanza" for something a bit more basic (also noted by others above). - jc37 14:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close I already closed this but was reverted. There si no point to this discussion and the nominator is clearly a sockpuppet having a nice troll at our expense. To avoid drama I'm not reclosing it myself but I still think this should be closed now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure where the sockpuppet accusation came from, but I still believe this is a nice, calm, and healthy discussion. -- Ned Scott 06:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I located several news articles about the man, not his Vice Presidential candidate wife, Sarah Palin. Mrs. Biden has a Wikipedia article. Mrs. Biden's claim to be in an encyclopedia is exactly the same as Mr. Palin as both have some sources on them, just not a whole lot. Let's immediately recreate this article as a stub and let it grow. Let's not wikilawyer to stall the article or kill it prematurely. I came here at the request of Sandstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.176.20.2 (talk • contribs)

Sam Wood (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This article was deleted because the player in question had not played a competitive first team match. Now he has done (see http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=49537), therefore the article should be restored. Steve1986 uk (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The sport notability guideline is an indication of the kinds of people who will achieve multiple non-trivial independent coverage. Wikipedia policy does not allow articles on living individuals without credible sourcing, simply running out for a professional match does not actually have any relevance to that policy. Please cite the non-trivial reliable independent sources form which you wish to draw the article. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the special guidelines for athletes supersede the general guidelines, which are just the default in case there is nothing more specific. Even if Guy thinks otherwise, it is still a claim to notability fully sufficient to pass speedy. I'm glad the editor used any of the available channels. Some people prefer to come to an open forum. DGG (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you amended WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT to reflect the fact that unsourced articles are permitted in the case of fulfilling the aim of being a directory of every footballer who ever played a single league match? That's kind of an inportant policy change to be made via a notability guideline which specifically states that it's only a guideline not a policy. Guy (Help!) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore Either this is contesting the original prod deletion in whish case an automatic restoration is necessary (and the reason for the prod has been addressed - which was "no evidence of first team appearances in a fully professional league") or the speedy has been contested and an assertion of importance has been made (and sourced) namely that he has played in a fully professional league. In either case the article should be restored and updated. If anyone then wants to take it to AFD they can do but I doubt it would be deleted there. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per above. Meets WP:BIO. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Austin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

(This concerns only the first deletion.) The article was deleted for lacking sources, however this person is probably notable, it's quite linked in the article space, concerns about notability and research of sources where needed can be handled by an afd. There are problems with articles related to Tag Entertainment due to editors with disruptive/tendentious editing. However, this article can be easily organized into a stub and the unsourced content removed. I'd recommend this to be undeleted and possibly sent to AFD. Cenarium ^Talk 17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no objection to restoring it and sending to afd, but given that she seems from IMdB to have had only a succession of very minor roles, what's the point? I'd encourage editors to go any route they prefer with their requests--some may feel more comfortable coming here, tho probably most will want to go directly to the admin involved. DGG (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who deleted the article is on indefinite wikibreak and unlikely to respond to any message. Cenarium ^Talk 15:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I refer only to the first deletion, the second deletion was justified. Here's the diff with the state of the article before the first deletion and the recreation. Note that I prefer discuss with the admin before, but in this situation I think DelRev is the only way. Cenarium ^Talk 15:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion to avoid the pointless bureaucracy of an AFD that would almost certainly end in a delete result. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course if I thought that the afd result would be almost certainly delete, I wouldn't have asked a DR. Alana Austin has played a major role in A Simple Twist of Fate, see [1]. You can verify the basic biographical data here. Allmovie lists 5 "starring role" [2]. For example in Motocrossed, which is documented in medias [3]. There's already enough sources for a biography with basic personal data and documentation for her major roles. Cenarium ^Talk 15:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- a bare lack of sources does not constitute legitimate grounds for speedy deletion, except under certain narrowly defined circumstances described in our biographies of living persons policy, which are not present here. Given the sources provided by Cenarium above, and the reasonable prospect of AFD discussion participants finding additional sources if they were able to read the text of the article (which, at present, is accessible only to administrators), we should not prejudge the outcome of an AFD discussion by assuming that "an AFD... would almost certainly end in a delete result", but should instead allow the discussion to actually occur. John254 15:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Cat Radio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

no consensus was achieved in the latest AFD. Numerous 3rd party references were located and about half of the editors believe the article met WP:N and were proposing rewriting the article with these references yet the result was delete for some reason. Rtphokie (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Relist - Looks like this could have used another 5 days to me. Oh, here's the AFD in question. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist If someone feels more comfortable asking here, nothing wrong with doing that and getting a variety of opinions. There was clearly no consensus reached in the AfD. DGG (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't really care one way or the other, relist it if you guys desire. I'm disappointed that the nom didn't come to me first though, I likely would've undid my close had he asked. Wizardman 02:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And that is exactly why people should be requesting the deleting admin to take a second look rather than opening a process here for five days. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Seems to meet WP:N and I didn't see consensus here. I'd have suggested a close of no-consensus or a relist rather than the delete close. Hobit (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This was the first deletion review that I've requested and I missed the step of contacting the deleting admin first. I apologize for the concern it has caused a couple of admins but would like to see this review acted on since there seems to be a consensus that it be overturned and relisted.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt For Ida Wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

page met music criteria and was deleted not long after having been proven. Winter.skin (talk) 09:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What was the reasonable indication that the article gave as to why its subject was notable? As far as I can see it's one of a million bands with an EP and a MySpace page, which shares a couple of members with other bands of no great notability. --Stormie (talk) 09:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the hunt for ida wave meet the following;

Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

- both current members are in Eternal Lord, the vocalist is an ex-member of a highly popular group, I Killed The Prom Queen, he has done world tours with them as well and is fairly well known / respected in the scene for that music.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability

- before the band split they were known in their local scene for their fierce live presence and shows.

Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).

- band has released two cds with a third to be released at the end of this year, also they have signed to several record labels which are owned by larger companies / are establish labels for distribution. Winter.skin (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No such discussion took place. Had it done so, I would remain pretty unconvinced by any of the above arguments, which ignore all the important qualifiers such as "a major label or one of the more important indie labels" and "most prominent representative... of the local scene of a city"! This is pretty much "side projects, early bands and such" with a side of WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Only one test matters a damn to me: has this person been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. No evidence is provided to suggest that this is the case. Notability is not inherited or contagious. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that may be the only thing that matters to you, but I prefer to follow the WP policy, where the entire notability requirements are guidelines, requiring us to consider the possibility of exceptions, and the actual WP:N guideline is accompanied by a variety of specific other considerations. I don't make the rules, but in evaluating other people's

s work, i do follow them. 19:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

it was started on the discussion page of the article like the deletion notice informed me to do, sorry i don't write anymore at the moment, i buggered my neck at a concert last night. Winter.skin (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that is the WP policy. Check WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

don't they only have to meet one requirment? Winter.skin (talk) 23:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per JzG. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Hilton energy plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) This was a non-admin closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton energy plan which has now led to edit warring. From looking at the AFD, there is no consensus but to Keep, or no-consensus at all, which defaults to Keep. The novel solution (by a non-admin) has been taken by some editors as a license to go nuts edit warring with redirects, despite other editors flat-out saying they're going to expand the ultra-covered topic extensively. Was this a good close or bad?

I have begun collecting a wide array of sources I will use to expand this out, which even further demonstrate notability of the video itself. You can review them at: User talk:Rootology/Sandbox 7. Thanks. rootology (T) 06:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a consensus on that page to merge the material. To call this "going nuts" is inappropriate. The material at both Paris Hilton#Political Satire and this article are identical. The redirect itself was put in place by the article's creator. User:Wikidemon wanted to ruleslawyer about whether "merge" was an admin action because he (mistakenly) believed "merge" meant "delete and move," which is an especially thin line of reasoning. The article, in its current form (and, I imagine, in all future forms) is a quick overview of the video and then a bunch of citations for all the times it was mentioned in the news media. This does not make a good encyclopedic topic on its own and is best served by being merged back into Paris Hilton. Several third parties at the AN discussion have since concurred that there was a general consensus to merge, as did the closing user, as did the article's creator. I strongly endorse the merger. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There was an alleged consensus, which is disputed. A close or contentious AFD needs to be closed by experienced admins. As I mentioned here I plan to heavily expand this. There is such a large amount of material under sourcing as I listed on the AFD that I can get this to Good Article status asleep and drunk. rootology (T) 06:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Only when you disagree with the result. If you review the AN thread you will find several very experienced administrators who concur with the consensus. And if that's true, maybe you should get drunk and go to sleep. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ANI is not where these things are decided. DRV is. You should let it function as is appropriate.

• I am. You'll notice I'm not objecting to this being here. I very much look forward to watching this discussion unfold. My points about AN are only that they corroborate the closing user's impression of consensus. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I wrote on AFD:

• "Obvious keep I'm not even going to bother listing out the various sources, since... well, c'mon.... This is absurdly notable. Is it a long news cycle? Maybe, maybe not. WP:N says "multiple non-trivial". Here's several sources, of which you can take any several dozen from any of these searches: here, here, and here. Take your pick of any several dozen. rootology (T) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)"rootology (T) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is that notable enough? Myself or anyone else with 5-10 hours maximum to spend can trivially get this to Good Article status. All that aside, it's so far beyond notable as to be painfully notable. Look at my links above. Now, lets let everyone else do what DRV does. You don't need to reply to everything I say. rootology (T) 06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - it's unclear what the closure was. Although I agree with the nominator that the result was "keep", and that any nonadministrative "merge" result is both incorrect and invalid (as not an option open to a nonadministrative closure), we are currently discussing the whole thing at WP:AN. Depending on the outcome there this one may well be moot. Can we speedily close or suspend this please until we get a clear answer from WP:AN as to whether the nonadministrative closure result was actually a "keep" versus a "merge?" If it was a "keep" there's nothing to discuss here, the article is kept. If it was a "merge" we can have that discussion, but limit it to whether the closure was done correctly as opposed to the broader policy question of whether there is such a thing as a nonadministrative "merge". Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be on DRV. ANI is a waste of time trainwreck for all but simple stuff. DRV is made for correcting bad or incorrect closures, and DRV is the final authority on these. DRV outranks ANI. rootology (T) 06:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hell no. If there's an objection to the closing status of a deletion debate, it's brought to deletion review. Forum shopping for your preferred outcome won't find you any favors. You should give up on the AN thread and let this one run its course. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikidemon, listen to CC. I'm agreeing with your position, but I'm agreeing with CC who is opposed to me that this belongs on DRV. Besides, even if DRV somehow endorses the close, this is where I'll bring it back in 2-3 weeks to fork it right back out when I add 20-30+ new sources in one of my sandbox pages. The article is going to stand in the end, but this is the right venue. rootology (T) 06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulus clouds, you're being terribly uncivil and tendentious - your ridiculous accusations of bad faith are just plain juvenile. Will you please cut that out? I bring a simple question to WP:AN (not WP:ANI) about whether there is such a thing as a nonadministrative "merge and keep" result. Apparently there is not. This forum is not the place to decide that kind of policy. Rootology created the process fork by bringing it here instead. I wouldn't call it forum shopping - he/she isn't hoping for a better result here than in the proper forum. It's a simple good faith decision, even though I think it's wrong to create process forks in this way. Wikidemon (talk) 07:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Traditionally, there are two possible results of an AFD, which are delete and !delete. This one closed as !delete. Therefore, the page is not deleted. Had I closed the debate, I would have done so with the closure "no consensus to delete — whether or not to merge can be dealt with on the talk page". Endorse outcome in so far is it is !delete. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think my closure was correct (see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Closure). The merge is not a result, it is just a (strong) recommendation. Ruslik (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure though I would have closed it as no consensus - Stifle is correct and the result here is !delete...everything else is a matter for editors of the article to sort out amongst themselves, not a matter for DrV. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as a delete closure would have been clearly inappropriate. For all the users taking that close as a free reign to redirect and the like, point out to them that it was closed as keep and not merge, so that part of the close is just the closer's opinion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Cumulus Clouds. Closure was good, there certainly was no consensus to delete, but just because people have edit warred over a merger because of the closure doesn't mean that the closure was suspect. I am confused as to how edit warring can be seen to be justified by a closure. The people edit warring are those responsible, not the closer (nless he edit warred too of course). Since when does edit warring require a deletion review? Note: I support a merger as well, but the closer didn't say a merge had to happen or not happen, only that it was recommended. Hence, people should be discussing whether to merge or not on the talk page(s), not conducting deletion reviews. Deamon138 (talk) 14:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of football (soccer) players by nickname (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I would like a review of the contradictory content precedent arising by the recent closure of two related Afd's as keep and delete in the same week. Both List of football (soccer) players by nickname and List of sportspeople by nickname were Afd's by the same person, for the same reason: "Unmaintainable list that seems based mainly on original research and has little verifibility" with no mention of why only the football and general lists were nominated yet none of the others (see below). Both lists contain the same type of content, lists of sportpersons and their nickname. The football Afd was closed as delete with the only closing note being "the prevailing opinion is that it not appropriate content" (although the list does not seem to infringe what wikipedia content is not), while the general sportspeople Afd (which includes soccer players) was closed as keep, with no reason given at all.

Now clearly this has produced a rather big contradiction, when considered also with the fact that we also have person nickname lists for NFL, hockey, baseball, darts, Ozzie rules football, basketball, cricket and snooker, whereby because of the delete close, a recreation of the football article would be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material, but because of the contradictory keep, an Afd of the sportsperson list on the basis of the consensus apparently shown by the delete vote of Football (which has by the above closure ruled sportsperson nickname lists are "not appropriate content"), would be speedy closed as too soon after a keep result. So I request an overturn of the deletion of the football list on the basis that the judgement that nickname lists are "not appropriate content" is not supportable given the contradictory keep closure of the sportsperson list (and I might add a few Afds having been passed keep on some of the other sport lists), with the option of a group re-nomination of all the sportsperson nickname lists to cater for the fact that consensus can change (and invoking ignore all rules if anybody wishes to speedy prevent that based on any recent keeps on the other articles).

As a pre-emptive point for anyone who goes that way, other stuff exists actually supports this DRv nomination as it encourages the application of consistency in deletion outcomes when there is no material difference between the topic of articles being compared (c.f. Yoda vs. Windu). I will state right now my personal view that there is no material difference in the notability, verifiability, source-ability or appropriateness/lack thereof for wikipedia, of lists of nicknames for sportspeople, whatever the sport named above. This opinion was barely refuted in either Afd for the closers to consider as a proper position, with the debates both concentrating on the concept of the appropriatenes of sportsperson nicknames generally. As such, a consistent opinion on the topic as whole should be declared, without deadlocking of the issue due to Afd/Drv process issues or misapplication of 'other stuff exists'. MickMacNee (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as closer of the AfD. What you fail to mention is that there were 10 delete !votes in the football related one, but only your own spiteful delete vote in the general sportsman one (a debate in which you described the nominator as a c**t). Thus there were clearly differing opinions on a general sports list and a specific football one. In my mind, the arguments for deleting the football list were persuasive, particularly the point that, in theory, every football player has a nickname, and thus the list could end up being thousands and thousands of players long. If anything, the other article should have been deleted too. Given your outbursts in both AfDs, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL before contributing to any similar debates. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything, the other article should have been deleted too. That's the whole point, it wasn't and nothing you have said here, or anything that was said in either Afd has explained the difference between the two outcomes, so what is the point in blindly saying one group of editors were right and one were wrong, when they were discussing the same thing? The argument you just used to bin the football list can be used to all of them, it isn't specific to football (or can we delete the football section from the sportperson list based on this decision?). We have thousands and thousands of cricketer/hockey player etc. articles. What you failed to mention is that most of the delete votes in the football one were of the form WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC, something you failed to address in the closure (in fact with this reply you appear to be endorseing its use as a valid Afd argument), and you are failing to address now. Basically, please explain why you think the inconsistency you clearly disagree with too, but for different reasons, should remain. What would you do as an admin based on these conflicting results if someone renominated the sportsperson list now on the back of these comments? What would you do if a perfectly uninvolved editor created a football list based on the reasonable assumption that because lists for cricket, hockey, aussie rules etc currently exist football would be allowed. It is not acceptable to leave the current situation as it is, it makes a mockery of the pedia, and I'm not seeing any rational explanation why it should. MickMacNee (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The two AfDs had different results because different editors voted. There were far more contributions to the football debate than to the general sports one, which suggests that a wider audience feels that the article is not appropriate. As for why the inconsistency should remain, there were two separate debates with two separate outcomes. Perhaps it is appropriate to have one for all sports, but not sport-specific ones. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Number 57. Furthermore, actions carried out on Wikipedia should not be based on "precedent", so your argument that one article being deleted while the other remains sets a bad precedent is moot. The only reason that the deletion should be overturned is if the reasons for its deletion are no longer valid. I can see that this is not the case, and the deletion should be upheld. – PeeJay 10:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what wikipedia you have been editing, but precedent is very much a central part of what goes on around here, or do you think the same arguments being made again and again is productive, or even actually happens? Please give an example where an established precedent is routeinely disregarded. It is used everywhere, how do you think guidelines come into being, or that speedy deletion criteria such as schools/places/pokemon are notable get decided? Yes, some people think every single issue is always up for debate in Afd time and again, this clearly not a sustainable position, as it produces exactly this kind of contradiction. And as an aside, there were barely no valid deletion votes if you actualy examine the reasons specified in the deletion policy, unless you count personal opinion while stating no policy as a valid deletion reason. MickMacNee (talk) 10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The points made by MickMacNee were raised in the Afd, and thoroughly considered. While persuasive to me, there was a clear consensus to delete that was not outside of policy. I don't feel that the list was indiscriminate, or lack sufficient inclusion criteria, but I can't say that the contrary position in this AfD violated policy - reasonable minds can differ. As this is merely a review of the process of the AfD, the close as delete was appropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which "above" exactly? MickMacNee (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur with the opinions of Number57 and PeeJay2K3. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That every footballer in the world could have a nickname? This is clearly an argument against the general topic of sportsperson nicknames, if this realy is the assertion, then clearly you three should all be supporting an overturn, and group re-nomination of all the lists, as I explained in the nomination. Endorsing this one deletion does not address your apparent general concerns regarding this type of list. MickMacNee (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the well reasoned and perfectly logical arguments above. These XfDs are conducted on a case by case basis, then deleted or kept per consensus to do so. I also ignored your delete !vote when I closed the keep afd because it was a personal attack. I'd like to recommend that you avoid this in the future. Synergy 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What logical and reasonable arguments? I will request again, as it seems to be being purposely ignored, what exactly is the argument to support the idea that one nickname list is "innappropriate content" and another isn't, barring the fact two separate Afd's were visited by different people for different reasons - the arguments on both did not make any distinction between the two, and neither did the deletion nomination reason. If this is your only case for endorsing, that Afd's are done on a case by case basis, then clearly this is a case of ignore all rules per other stuff exists because adhering to the Afd case by case policy is creating a non-sensical situation that makes the pedia look inconsistent and incomprehensible to an outside reader looking at Category:Nicknames in sports and wondering why there is a big football shaped hole in it (not that they would have any link to these deletion discussions to find out the quirky nature of Afd). Otherwise, I will request from you as I have from the others above, if you endorse this result as is, then what would your response as an admin be if somebody either nominated all other lists for deletion as innappropriate content on the basis of the football Afd consensus, or re-created a football list by splitting the footbnall content from the kept all sports list? (the deleted article was actually in a much better sortable table format, but hey, nobody seems to care about that). MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well no. This is not one of those cases for IAR. I wasn't aware of this deletion before I kept that article, but even still, I don't see anything wrong here. The one I kept was a main article and apparently (unless I'm wrong) the fork articles are the subject of debate. You happen to be arguing this as if the articles are the same. They aren't. The fact that no one agrees with you should tell you something. Synergy 21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's well established that even if a 100 editors makes an argument not based in policy and 1 does, then that one person is not wrong. There is no current debate over the merit of the fork articles right now, there was of sorts a long time ago, and that only concerned how to keep them synchronised. If anything, the borderline consensus then with a small number of editors involved was to transfer the main list entries where forks existed and use the proper sub page {link}. I can't see how any difference can be drawn between the main list and single sports lists where you end up with a conclusion that one huge list is appropriate and sub lists aren't, they contain the same information, sportsperson nicknames. I ask you to please explain the reasons in detail if you seriously believe differently. We aren't talking about a complex content issue here. And even if the merit of the forks was currently in dispute such that forks should be deleted and the main one kept, that argument was not even mentioned in this Afd, so how is it even relevant now when passing judgement in review of the original deletion?. MickMacNee (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • P.S. You should have been aware of the other Afd when closing that one, as I cross linked both of them as they were made at the same time by the same person for the same reason. This is what makes the resulting divergence so bizzare, when as said directly above, not one person made mention in the footbal Afd of there being any merit in keeping a main list and not forks. In fact, if you look at the football Afd, a keep vote was registered to actually transfer all the football entries in the main list to the fork list, this seems to have been ignored in amongst all the general UNENYC delete votes. MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The soccer AfD was deleted on August 21, and I closed out the main article on August 20. I was aware of the debate but as I said, I was not aware of the deletion because it happened a day after I closed the main one. While the content may have been the same, theres a difference (albeit small). Fork articles often do not survive, but main articles do. Each AfD was closed based on consensus. Consensus can and always will be formed differently at any given time. If someone wants to overturn my close and delete the whole list under the same premise as the fork, then I am fine with that since I do not have an opinion regarding it being kept. I see somewhere in the middle of the debate, you attack the future closer of the afd, and opt to delete under this rationale. I can see you are arguing this pretty strongly, and I think furthering this conversation will do not be productive. Synergy 01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A raft of invalid reasons for deletion is not a consensus, and yes I lost my cool but this was because I could see the possibility, eventually proven right, that a closure based on a vote count of invalid reasons would end up outweighing policy based reasons for keeping, resulting in this now inconsistent hole in the coverage of wikipedia, because only two lists were nominated, the main list and the football fork (without any explanation of why only those two required deletion, when the nomination reason applies to all of the forks). That and the fact the nominator didn't even have the simple courtesy to even start the article talk page of the football list with his concerns before nominating, and nearly everyone voting simply refused to answer valid questions about their rationales, again reinforcing the impression of a sloppy non-policy IDON'TLIKEIT vote counting exercise was in progress. MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You do realize that you can ask here that we relist the AfD I closed right? I am not adverse to this, so long as you include all of these lists as a batch. Synergy 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Same difference. Were it possible I would have made a joint DRv, but as the Football one is deleted I did it in that one's name to highlight the consequence of the deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: just because nicknames is used it shouldn't be claimed it is all OR as many times it is easy to find the nicknames mentioned in various news articles. Mathmo ^Talk 02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per comments I made at the time and per closing editor. Peanut4 (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from sourceing, which I demonstrated within the first few hours of the Afd was clearly not a serious enough issue to come close to the necessary violation of wp:cite to warrent outright deletion (as could have easily been demonstrated if the nominator had not acted so rashly in Afd'ing an article which had zero comments on its talk page), your stated reasons and those of the closing editor you now endorse are applicable to all the lists. Why is nobody actually getting my point here? I can only assume nobody actually read my Drv nomination in full: I am not challenging the deletion of this one article and that's it, I just want people to demonstrate an ounce of perspective here outside of the one article/Afd and just have the intelligence to accept that their (i.e. your) reasons apply to all the other lists, and to do something about it, i.e. to delete/keep/change all the articles in one go, instead of lawyering about precedents/afd processes and pretending the problem of the obvious inconstistency produced now doesn't exist and everything is fine and dandy in the world of the future reader who might be perusing category:nicknames in sports one day and notice the big whole, as I was way back when. Faced with the incredible narrowminded willfull blindness being demonstrated in here and the Afd, I certainly now wish I could go back in time and get back the hours I spent forking and formatting that article out of the main list and into a table on the perfectly reasonable assumption it was valid content given the existence of footballers in the main list, and the existence of umpteen other fork articles. I also hope nobody makes the same mistake in future, as there is the sum amount of zero information anywhere to show they would be wasting their time. MickMacNee (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn the Football article to no-consensus. Put simply, I do not see a consensus for deletion. I'm surprised it was not a keep, given that the deletion reasons were irrational--I can not see how any list is unmaintainable if people are willing to maintain it, nor how nicknames of players cannot be sourced. DGG (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. No policy based reason to delete that has any validity IMO. "Not encyclopedic" is perhaps the best of the lot. Not sourceable is crazy talk, newspapers use nicknames all the time. Not maintainable also seems unlikely as long as we keep ourselves to the notable players that have articles (20K? more?). Simply put, the close was wrong and should have been "no consensus to delete" as there were only weak or provably wrong reasons given for deletion. The lack of consistency across wikipedia is also a problem. I honestly think if the nom of this AfD DRV hadn't violated WP:DICK this would have been kept as people realized the inconstancy with other similar topics. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

i believe that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. this article has no reliable secondary sources. i was the only contributer to refer to policy in the afd, all the others voted keep with no basis for their vote. after contacting the closing admin, i was refered to wp:consensus, which as far as i understand it, is about consensus based on discussion and constructive arguments. the afd was treated more like a vote, which it shouldn't be. there were far more keep voters, but not one of them made reference to policy. no consensus regarding whether or not this article should exist based on wikipedia policy was ever reached. wp:consensus says "In the few cases where polls are used, understand that they are actually structured discussions, not votes. Your opinion has much more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a simple vote. Your goal should be to convince others of your views (and give them a chance to convince you)." Jessi1989 (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sustain keep' The award was sufficient to justify the keep.A reasonable close. Nominate again in 8 or 9 months if you insist, and if you have made a good faith effort to look for additional sources and failed to find them. DGG (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure An article not making use of sources is a reason for {{sofixit}}, not for an AFD nomination, much less a deletion outcome. A deletion outcome would only have been appropriate had there been a sound showing that no possible sources exist - which even the nominator said was not the case. On this topic, it is highly implausible that there are no useful sources in any language. GRBerry 14:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closer correctly interpreted the consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Only one source in the article (that I would consider reliable) mentions the organization in prose. While an article not making use of sources can and should be fixed, the same is not true if those sources don't readily exist. I can understand the nominator's frustration. He was the only person in the room pointing out this lack of sourcing. I don't know if sourcing does exist, but if it doesn't, I'm going to say that the close might not have been right. Protonk (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep Process followed. MBisanz ^talk 07:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picoku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON The page was deleted before it was completed as a result of saving it several times while it was in the process of being edited by an inexperienced user. This page is not advertisement and nowhere refers to any company or product. It is a word/poetry game that provides endless amusement to young and old. More information can be found at http://picoku.blogspot.com/

• Endorse deletions Appears to be an attempt to advertise that blog. The text string is a valid word in some foreign language, but no reliable source in English uses it as a word, much less for this topic. GRBerry 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The only source I can find for this word/poetry game is the aforementioned blog, which started three days ago and has only two posts. No independent sources have been identified to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Velasquez, Vosloo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache| | article)

The image that I uploaded was in the same logic that the image at The Mummy Returns#Cast but deleted because it didn't have a valid fair use rationale. At the time, I was a newcomer and didn't know about some procedures, and my mistake to didn't ask for help. Now, I'm trying help other people to make things right and if I find an image which is missing a fair use rationale, I'll try put it if I'm familiarized with the subject. This didn't happen to me when I was a newcomer! If it happened, I wouldn't be blocked by violating the rules, when I didn't know what to do. So, doing my routine, I found this image linked to a biographical article, similar with to the image deleted. So, if this fair use image can be linked to living people, so the image uploaded by me, linked to the movie article and articles of actors appearing in the image deleted. Now, for fair use rationale, I can use {{ScreenshotU}}. Today, I'm thinking how many times daily I find something like this. How many times I try to others images be accepted on Wikipedia. Is my attitude with others over good or the attitude given to me was bad. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Remembering better, I did insert a fair use rationale for the use in the article about the movie, but Yamla (now retired) said that the image didn't show anything about the movie. And about the Image:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg linked to Kareena Kapoor, does it shows about the film and is it allow to have this image on the biographical article about her? I had knowledge about this image when recently went to see Yamla contributions. He was who had me blocked on Wikipedia for using this image. I'm feeling discriminated!--Sdrtirs (talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This page was deleted nearly six months ago. Is there a reason it has not been brought up here until now? Stifle (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I though that Yamla was right, so I didn't question his authority. Like I said, I was a newcomer, so I didn't know well the rules. Today, looking back after seeing something similar with my case with other attitude, the image was accepted, I'm starting to think that there wasn't a reason to delete this image nor having me block for reverting removal edits of the image I uploaded to biographical articles of those actors. I just want equality without any discrimination attitude.--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

1. Image source: http://www.bollywoodsargam.com/hollywood_celebrity_photos.php?poster=9183719-262244836-1-latest-The_Mummy_Returns_Movie_desktop_wallpaper_images_pictures.html
2. License: Fair use
3. Propose: Illustrating the movie (in a section of the article about the movie)
4. Reason for deletion: Yamla said that this image does not illustrate the movie
5. Images similar to this with different treatment: Image:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg, Image:Chameli (Kareena Kapoor).jpg and Image:Kareena in K3G.jpg linked to the biographical article about Kareena Kapoor and Image:Mummy returns.jpg about the movie The Mummy Returns. Notice that Image:Kareena in K3G.jpg had reversion to it original uploader, due to vandalism, by Yamla. And the user: BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ wasn't blocked and neither this image was deleted.

• Endorse deletion. As Yamla quite rightly noted when he tagged it, a movie screenshot should be explicitly used in its article to support some point of encyclopedic analysis. This one wasn't. The fact that we have many other images that are used wrongly doesn't mean we should keep this one (). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, the article about the movie hadn't a screenshot image. So, this screenshot image on the article was uploaded after this image uploaded, and consequently my block. And if you think that one screenshot is enough in the article about the movie, what do you say about the biographical article about Kareena Kapoor?--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fut.Perf. ☼ said:

    The fact that we have many other images that are used wrongly doesn't mean we should keep this one

    That's what I meant when I referred to discrimination attitudes!--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS apply to Image:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg, uploaded on 4 July 2008, after deleting this image, uploaded at February 2008? What the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says about deletion of content is discriminating editors! All discrimination attitudes are against Universal Declaration of Human Rights.--Sdrtirs (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but that's a specious argument. For one thing, the UDHR does not have any authority on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I said that to compare with the disrespect of the users/editors which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS brings. Wikipedia as a community editors must help each others and I think that liberals ideas such as Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood should be present all days in Wikipedia. Freedom, Wikipedia don't censure content; Brotherhood, editors are trying to help others editors; Equality, yet it's undefined...--Sdrtirs (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

(1) An image went through [Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 19 deletion review], had many keep votes and also a number of delete votes, but was determined to be a "delete" by its closing admin anyway, which is fine. In any case, the primary deletion criteria of the deletion votes was because it was a headshot from a video, which was argued didn't supply enough information to be encyclopedic. (2) So today I uploaded a completely different image -- that's not a head shot and that illustrates information in the text it accompanies. Yet, a user mistakenly deleted it as a recreation. (Which isn't too terrible; deleted material can be recreated.) OK, finally, here's the presenting problem. I can't find where to appeal this delete since this new image is not listed for deletion anywhere, whatsoever, akin to its being a stealth action.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC) PS the new image is here. It shows Hilton smiling. The original one has her talking, with a serious look on her face. (I'll post it as soon as I locate it.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Well there's so many screenshots out there, but there's a both a closeup and (if you click the No. 2 under it) a farther-away shot found here.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC) This is just supposed to review the process of deletion-without-proper-discussion, a discussion where everybody could weigh in on the merits instead of only two contributors: two contributors who mistakenly believed that one image was a cropped from the other, so they were deleting the same image.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 11:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be very careful before you start making accusations about the deletion discussion. The discussion for the new image was here: WP:IFD, after which it was speedied as G4. You didn't mention that the old image, discussed here was a crop of the new one. The arguments in the old deletion discussion apply for the new one as well and since the new image is a portion of the old one, I believe it qualifies as a recreation. Also, if an image or article is deleted at AFD or IFD, it can be speedy deleted under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I would be equally careful about calling such actions "mistakes."
• The old image was not deleted because it did not "supply enough information" but because it failed item #8 of the nonfree content criteria, which states that a nonfree image must significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the events. The discussion for the old image indicated that any portion of the video would not satisfy that criterion, since it could just as easily be described in the text without having to use an image. The closing administrator for that discussion concurred with that assessment and rightly deleted the image. The exact same argument would apply to this new image and so, again, it was correctly deleted under CSD G4. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whoever believed the new image was a crop of the old one was simply mistaken and I'm sorry but that's just a fact. The mid-distance shot had Paris smiling and the closeup had her talking with a serious look on her face. So the rationale for the second image's deletion was a mistake, plain and simple!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Meh. The old image showed paris hilton. the new image showed paris hilton. Neither image was free. Neither actually illustrated the subject (the controversy) anymore than an image of paris hilton would. We have free images that show what paris hilton looks like. The new image didn't address the deletion concerns, which (unfortunately for the future of a FU image on the subject) were basically that a shot of paris hilton doesn't enlighten the reader about the subject of the article in any meaningful sense. endorse deletion. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, this bait and switch manoeuvre is aimed at circumventing the non-free content criteria, which this image clearly fails. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the image remaining deleted. The difference between the one I deleted after the IfD and the one deleted by Fut Perf as a Speedy G4 are not substantive enough to invalidate the Speedy. Image was correctly deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 11:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred R. Klenner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This is from way back in 2007, but there was still no consensus to delete: 1 delete, 6 keeps. The delete vote says he had only 2 publications, and other comments seemed to indicate that that was misleading or false. The delete vote updated this to 5 publications and 1 book section publication. Because of the way this AfD started, it may have been hard for the admin to follow. Still, I don't see justification for overriding 6 editors. Not all of the keeps were from "OMM advocates", either -- Espresso addict voted keep and Gordonofcartoon voted weak keep, noting something called the "Fultz quad connection" (not sure what that is). II | (t - c) 18:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. I cannot imagine why this was not appealed earlier. He was nominated as part of a very confusing group discussion, and the deletion rationale was "While he may be one of the founders of orthomolecular medicine, this isn't really a mainstream theory. " True, it's not a mainstream theory, but its still a notable one. The article was in my mind deleted on the basis of his work not being mainstream, rather than not being notable. It perhaps can be shown his contribution was not significant, and I may not argue for a keep in that, but this really needs a new discussion. DGG (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Closer clearly got this one wrong; whether or not it is a mainstream theory has nothing to do with whether or not the article should have been deleted. Consensus of that discussion was to keep the article, and no argument from overriding policy appears in it. GRBerry 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Can I ask why this is being brought here so long after the AFD closed? Stifle (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No particular reason. I saw an unjustified close and thought it should be rectified. II | (t - c) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Reasonable arguments made for keeping and there was certainly no consensus for deletion. Davewild (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Leaving Trains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Illegitimate A7 deletion of a band with eight albums on SST Records. The group rockets over WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This needs to be reopened, because after the deleting admin, User: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry restored it at 15:34, User:Coren, inexplicably, deleted it again via speedy on the same questionable reason at 23:13. I have notified him of this discussion. I assume he accidentally failed to notice the article log. DGG (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I have restored the article and put it to AfD; I did fail to notice the log. I don't agree with the closer that the article meets, let alone rockets over, WP:MUSIC but AfD is a better place to discuss the matter. — Coren ^(talk) 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Non-admin closure of the AfD without consensus. Reasons were put forward to keep, that were not adressed. Band has 2 albums, and a member in a second indubitably notable band. Some editors therefore say it meets numbers 5 and 6 in the Music notability guidlines. I thought non-admin closure should only be for uncontrovertial deletes, and should be explained? First page of google find sources such as [4], which says: "Washington DC-based label Fandango is putting out a Radio Birdman tribute comp featuring a number of Scandinavia's leading rock'n'roll acts such as The Flaming Sideburns, The Sewergrooves, The Doits, The Sewergrooves, Thunder Express" (emphasis mine). Also [5], with in depth coverage by RS. I've never heard of this band, but sources say notable to me, after 5 seconds of googling. Yobmod (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SocialPicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

The article is about a company that has a business partnership with Reuters and that has raised half a million dollars in VC funding. You can see my draft of the article at User:FinancialAnalyst/SocialPicks. The company and several of its peers are notable and should have Wikipedia articles, and its peer companies already do. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC) :Comment: The editor who brought this to deletion review has been subsequently indefinitely blocked. I mention this because if there is belief that this editor will continue to work on it, it is unlikely that this will happen. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. While some of the references in the draft have only trivial coverage, three of them seem to be clearly significant coverage in usable sources, namely, TechCrunch and Mashable which are very highly-ranked blogs that can be considered reliable sources. VentureBeat's coverage is also non-trivial but I don't know about their reputation. Beyond that, there are other sources available on the subject, from the deleted version of the article (which can be found in this history of the draft, specifically, here. I note that there are many sources there not used in the draft, including a short mention in the Washington Post and a source from Yahoo Finance that seems to have checked out at the time but the link no longer works. Mangojuice^talk 03:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. The added blogs do not yet convince me that the assessment of the AfD needs to be overturned or reexamined. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you aware of the reputation of TechCrunch and Mashable? Some random blog would not be a reliable source, but top, respected blogs like these are a different story. Mangojuice^talk 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well there were Techcrunch and Mashable links in the previous version, albeit different. I've read the latest and it sounds like a 2006 talk-up. Techcrunch seems indeed to be influential but that has a downside for using it as source. Wikipedia's article weasels around this saying that "no claims of conflict of interest against TechCrunch have ever been proven". As for Mashable, I didn't know them, but was amuesd that the link calls for a Troll contest to leave an insulting comment on that post to win something. So I'd prefer to see this firmly anchored outside of the blogosphere.

• Keep deleted: While I suspect the company might have some notability, the draft article as it now stands is largely a recreation of deleted material. I'd want to see a significant re-write with a strong demonstration of passing WP:CORP since it has recently been through AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't call 6 months ago "recent," not at the pace this sort of topic develops. And I guess the more significant re-write will be impossible now that Toddst1 has indef-blocked the nominator. Mangojuice^talk 04:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. The company is notable, has a business partnership with Reuters, and has received substantial press coverage. There is already a large precedent of similar companies being notable enough for Wikipedia, and many of the other companies that came out of the same seed funding program as SocialPicks have Wikipedia entries. Some of SocialPicks competitors, with less or similar funding have Wikipedia entries (Bullpoo, Cake Financial, etc.). FinancialAnalyst (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You've made your stance already clear with the nomination so there is no need for a bold !vote. And the only precedent here is that everybody pushes stuff, in this case several times already after the AfD. In general unpaid volunteers can only spend so much time to follow-up on articles that juts consist in mentionings of their funds and counting the covergae generated.. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if this is ready quite yet, given the shortness of it. But I'm fine allowing it back into the mainspace, as long as everyone knows another AfD on it would likely be good. So, move to mainspace and let someone who doesn't like it (two above me already) nom it. As a side note, I'm not sure that it's exactly correct that their partnering with Reuters; it looks more like Reuters owns them, given that the two "About" pages are nearly identical (1 and 2), but there might just be something else going on (maybe copyvio?). I've also notified Keeper of this. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 00:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, probably enough there to get through an AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep deleted' until they actually do something documented by RSs with the half million dollars--which, by the by, as venture capital goes, is not particularly impressive. DGG (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per DGG (half a million dollars is the bill for an IPO party for some venture capitalists; not a notable sum). --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt that any company, in the history of the world, has ever had an IPO party with a $500,000 bill thrown for it by venture capitalists. I am also not sure what that has to do with SocialPicks. FinancialAnalyst (talk) 04:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, as above. Add some zeros on that IPO. I also checked the deleted version of the requesting WP:SPA's userpageand concur with blocking; this is an obvious sock, perhaps of Dimension31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I suggest we simply close this. Guy (Help!) 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So is WP:AGF still something done on Wikipedia? FinancialAnalyst (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No way is this a sock of Dimension31, or there would be more of him. And also, Dimension31 isn't blocked anyway. Mangojuice^talk 01:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, per DGG and Toddst1. Still not enough evidence of notabilty, seems dime a dozen. (and thanks, lifebaka, for the notification - I closed the AFd way back when). Keeper ǀ 76 21:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete: Have you seen WT:CASH yet? This template is built for purpose. We don't want to have "See Hollywood Freeway" because it confuses peole when one highway collides with two number. The problem of duplicating the exit list is outdting when people will update one list but not the others, that's why we thouhgt about building a template.--Freewayguy ^{What's up?} 21:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. Templates are not used for content, in part because it makes it harder to edit. --NE2 03:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a location to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not a location to try and get a more sympathetic hearing. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Void (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

meeting the demands for band sand groups at point 6 of the wiki guidelines 81.217.56.140 (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my deletion - the article was mostly discussion of the various members of this band, which is apparently a spinoff of the death metal band Miasma (band). Most of the content was a detailed timeline of what the various members did through their careers, with a single line at the end saying that these members left Miasma to form this band. There's a note under the discography section that their demo is being recorded now. Under WP:MUSIC, there is one guideline suggesting that bands formed by members of other notable bands may be notable as well, but, and I quote: "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply." In this case, considering the band is just now getting started, hasn't even got a demo together, and so on, that a mention in the Miasma (band) article and a redirect would be a better approach for now. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I should also note that User:Destination void, who created the article, appears to be one of the band members, so there's a WP:COI issue here as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, we seem to have a walled garden here, with Miasma (band) and a series of redirects for all the members of both. The deleted article is hopelessly poorly written, exhibits clear signs of WP:COI and lacks any obvious assertion of notability. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, the argument provided here (WP:MUSIC point 6) was provided at the AfD discussion and proved unpersuasive - probably because there's no particular sign that Miasma is a notable band either. Indeed it seems likely that if that article was nominated for deletion it would be deleted. --Stormie (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This article seems to have been re-created. I will nominate for CSD as this appears to be heading in one direction. --Ged UK (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The first edit of the recreated version was enlightening and PA-ish, too. My first challenged deletion *and* my first claim of misuse of the admin tools, all in one bundle! Woot! Tony Fox (arf!) 15:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom e-mailed me, and I explained basically what I said above in a response, suggesting that if it wasn't good enough to come here. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Endorse deletion as no evidence has been provided of an anomaly in the deletion process here. Stifle (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Dunn seeks review of Deb who deleted his name page Afterfostercare (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. entire contents at deletion were "You can read more about John Dunn at http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Qlik&lang=&q=User:Afterfostercare". CSDed as A3 - No content, it also effectively fails R2, as it is effectively a redirect from article space to user space. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy-deletion under cases A3, A7 and/or R2. This was not content appropriate for Wikipedia. I would also very strongly urge the contributor to read Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. It is a very bad idea to attempt to write about yourself on Wikipedia. If you really do meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, you are much better off being patient and waiting for someone else to write the article. Rossami (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion in mainspace, perhaps userfying would be an idea. I use {{nn-userfy}} for this. Guy (Help!) 16:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to reply to a simple request. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would never do this, but judge on the merits. We should not enact procedural barriers to those seeking to review administrative actions, nor delete or endorse the deletion of anything by default for failing to follow exact protocol. DGG (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS BY THE PERSON UNDER REVIEW - JOHN DUNN (AFTERFOSTERCARE) I am not an experienced editor here and I am the subject of this review. I am also not trying to be dramatic. I merely asked the deleter (Deb?) if I could discuss the issue and have as of yet not had a response. The deletion was almost instantanious to when I created the page therefore even if I was about to create much more content, it was deleted so quickly that I would not have had time to edit more content into it.

• • Either way, I am not here to argue, I simply wanted to have a discussion as to why it was deleted so quickly and if the editor had any suggestions as to how I could have my name added since people do search for me on the Wiki and I want it associated with our organization, The Foster Care Council of Canada. I am also not aware of anyone who knows of our work, who also is ok Wikipedia, therefore have not had anyone write anything up. I do know that a great number of people use Wikipedia as a fairly respected source and therefore wanted our organization listed even if my name were to be redirected to it somehow.

• • I even added my name (John F. Dunn) to the ambiguous names page I think it was called under John Dunn's but that too I think was deleted, I can't recall right now.

• • Could someone please advise me and be patient since I have simply not been online as freuently as the editors might be, therefore it 'APPEARS' as if I have not replied ... instead I just came here today after only two days.

• • Please advise how I can redirect my name to my organization without appearing to be "abusing" any protocols or rules here as this is not my intent.

• • • I have finally figured out how to link the name John F. Dunn to my organization page. To see what I mean, and what I meant to do the whole time, do a normal search for "John Dunn" and see "John F. Dunn" to see how it now links to my organization. That is the intent from the beginning I was just not good at editing Wiki. Thanks for the decent suggestion DGG

Afterfostercare (talk) 03:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Petri net tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

temporary revision

User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson deleted this page a while ago. I agree with its deletion, but I want the latest content on my talk page so I can re-insert it into the Petri net article. Gustafson referred me to this place - I hope I'm doing everything right. Rp (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Rp/List of Petri net tools but bear in mind that Wikipedia is neither a link repository nor a directory of non-notable tools. A straight drop-in to the other article would be inappropriate. Actually I don't see what you're likely to find useful in that page, but whatever. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three Dots Tattoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Obviously no consensus to delete. Closer has not left an explanation for disregarding this. meco (talk) 08:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote, closer includes strength of argument relative to core policies. The deleters pointed out lack of verifiability from reliable sources and the prospect of the article being the result of original research. The keeps stengthened the delete arguments by backing up that the only sourcing was their own personal experience which would not be a reliable source and original research. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and recreate as a redirect to Criminal_tattoo#North_American - there appear to be plenty of online sources for the 3 dot tattoo and 'mi vida loco' ([6]) but it probably doesn't require its own article. Black Kite 11:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Didn't write a rationale because I thought the debate was uncontroversial. Apologies for any confusion. This article was deleted because of verifiability issue - no reliable sources for editors to base on and write an article. The first keep voter, a self-claimed addiction psychologist, acknowledged that s/he has not "seen any research to verify whether the specific claims made in the article are valid". The second keep vote asserted that three dot tattoos is popular in Belgium but gave no reference to back up the claim, so that argument was weak. (The credibility of this voter is also hard to judge, as they were an anon.) That said, if good references are found here I would not object to overturning and restoring the article. Otherwise, endorse close. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest handing it as Black Kite suggests, or having a further discussion that might get some more attention. DGG (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy. This could be a potentially decent article with some work. If someone is willing to go dig sources up, let's put it into their userspace as a draft. Of course, a redirect is fine too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I could go with a userfy. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:John Salza (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)

Could I have a history only undelete of the talk page so that I could look at the controversy before the deletion? JASpencer (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The controversy was over sourcing (all refs were self-sourced to sites owned by the subject), with consequent notability issues. It's a bit problematic per WP:BLP, do you want me to mail it to you? Guy (Help!) 17:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Mailing would be great. What would be the BLP issues? JASpencer (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:European-English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)

here is the deletion log for a template. I know that wikipedia is not a democracy, but is a meritocracy. This discussion shows support and opposition over its deletion and works out 50/50 for each. However administrator User:Happy-melon claims that "The result of the debate was Delete" even though there was no consensus from the wiki-community (see the TFD above). The real result of the discussion was no consensus for deletion. User:Happy-melon has decided to use his admin powers and delete the template because he personally disagrees with it, not because there was a consensus from the wiki-community. If admins are going to delete things for personnel reasons instead of going by the discussion, then why have these discussions? I believe this may be User:Happy-melon using his admin powers to suit his own WP:POV, instead of using them responsibly and for the intended purposes, which he was granted with them for. He even told users to "Get over it".
Firstly I believe the TFD should be reviewed by other admins, and secondly other admins should review weather User:Happy-melon used his admin powers appropriately or not. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The nom was well argued and I don't see a similar argument to keep the template - people might not call the language they speak "British English", but they certainly don't call it "European English" - not to mention the fact that millions of native English speakers don't live in Europe!! In reality, of course, they usually just call it "English". The {{Template:British-English}} is sufficient here - the only other NPOV names I can see that it could have is "Commonwealth English". Black Kite 19:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Whatever you think about it, if you think it correct or not to use this term, the matter is something else here: The TfD was inappropriately closed because there is no clear consensus - there were only two real votes: One to delete and the other to keep and all the other votes where "per XXX"-votes. And those were exactly 50/50 split. So no matter what you think about the subject in question, there was no clear consensus to delete it. And thus I think it should be rediscussed to establish a clear consensus. SoWhy 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hence my endorse - I don't think the first Keep was valid, and all the other Keeps were per the first one. Black Kite 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And all other deletes were the first one. So there was 1 delete vs. 1 keep. I share the nominator's concern that "get over it :D" implies a certain POV in the closing admin (not as he writes in general but with this specific close) and thus I think another TfD can only serve to establish a clear consensus. If there really is consensus to delete it, then that will be the outcome there as well. SoWhy 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually there was one Delete that wasn't per nom, but that's nitpicking - the main point is that Mike R's nomination was well-argued and made good points, whereas the single Keep viewpoint doesn't really make sense at all, as I mentioned above. Having said that, I've no real opposition to relisting it, but I suspect it'd end up like the first one. I note that a couple of the Keep voters are in regular touch with the User:Ijanderson977 on their talkpages, too. Black Kite 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we be listening to what the wiki-community wants, there was clear support for "Keep", however these users views were ignored, whether you believe there view is correct or not Ijanderson (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, there was no support for keep, there was no consensus with delete-votes equaling the keep-votes. SoWhy 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The ratio of keep votes to delete votes isn't terribly reliable as a judge of consensus. Look at the strength of the arguments rather than the numbers. WilyD 15:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, User:Happy-melon chose to go with his POV instead of waiting for a consensus to be developed. Ijanderson (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, template is redundant with {{British-English}} and was only used on one page. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sure, the debate edges a little toward No Consensus territory, but the fact remains that the deletion nomination stands unrefuted. The arguments in favor of deletion would, if I were closing the debate, be persuasive. Allegations of admin abuse are quite serious, and I note that you posted this request at ANI as well - but I see no evidence of anything here other than a good faith close that seems to have properly evaluated the debate. As Tim Vickers noes, there's already another template for which this template is redundant, so I'm not sure what precludes the use of that template. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, case for deletion was reasonable and pragmatic, the case for keeping was based on the strange notion that "British English" is a POV term and that "European English" is a meaningful term in the context that this template used it (and there is no sign that I can see that this is the case). A perfectly reasonable close. --Stormie (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; the close was proper. — Coren ^(talk) 02:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Process followed. MBisanz ^talk 11:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus reached on that case, therefore a deletion should not have occured except if policy stated this template could not exist, which it did not. This closing is incorrect per policy KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 16:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Wikipedia is not an experiment in political correctness. The closer evaluated the strength of the arguments (essentially: "delete, redundant" versus "keep, avoid pro-British POV") and acted accordingly. Considering that the English language was developed by the English, and given the admission (in the TfD) that European English is just British English under another name, the closure was certainly appropriate. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - seemingly correct decision. "Unused, never to be used, essentially unusable" is a far stronger argument than the demonstratably false "European English is a thing". WilyD 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I believe that the image should not have been deleted as it is irreplaceable and had a valid fair use rationale. Image was deleted despite discussion here in which other editors were agreeing that the images' use in the Chillenden Windmill article was justified. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - I agree with Howcheng who cited WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #6. This is not an iconic or famous enough image to overcome NFCC#2 concerns. If people want to see a picture of the windmill after it was blown over, they can look at the source given in the article, and follow that to the BBC article. Offline readers and printed version users will have to make do without. See here for examples of famous, much-discussed, images where I feel NFCC#8 overcomes NFCC#2 concerns. This image does not qualify, in my opinion. Carcharoth (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally, I would also endorse the deletion of Image:Chillenden mill part frame.jpg and Image:Chillenden windmill frame.jpg. At the very least, only one of these should be used, and efforts should be made to find free images that would illustrate the same things. You would be surprised what you can find in photo archives sometimes - 19th century or early-20th century pictures may exist showing the framework of such mills. Or ask nicely for the owners of those pictures to release one or more under a free license. Carcharoth (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would oppose deletion of either or both of those pictures. It may well be possible to find photos showing the framework of a post windmill, but that would not show the framework of Chillenden Windmill, which is a mid-nineteenth century mill, and has completly different framwork from, say, a mid-seventeenth century mill. I will ask IJP about getting free-use copies of the photos in question. Mjroots (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per original deletion rationale, and Carcharoth's statements above. Kelly ^hi! 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion and allow the IfD to run its proper course. The deleting admin was already involved and !voting in discussions on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 21 concerning the issue at stake. See AN/I. It was out of order for him to use admin tools in this instance. WP:DRV is to decide whether process was followed properly, which in this case it was not. Ty 02:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be more efficient to keep deleted and follow policy. Sure, Future Perfect could have waited, and should have given a 48-hour notice separately, but ultimately following process here will only result in deletion in any case. The BBC are using it to illustrate a news story. We are using it to illustrate the history of the windmill. Is that transformative enough under US fair use laws? That, to me, seems to be the real question. Carcharoth (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reinstate and overturn the deletion It's a valid use of an image per WP:NFCC; important to convey meaning; and an invalid deletion. Modernist (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a picture of a windmill lying on its side after being blown down. That text adequately replaces the image. Especially since we already have a free picture of the windmill (after reconstruction) so the appearance of the windmill is covered by that. We don't need a non-free one of it after it was blown over in a storm. People can follow the link to read the BBC article and see the picture. Carcharoth (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Granted there is an image of an intact windmill (after reconstruction) and that image conveys what the windmill looks like. However the phenomena of the blown over windmill (covered by a Fair Use Rationale) helps to explain visually what cannot really be totally understood by explanation alone. The image brings a different message; and that's important and now it's lost..I think about ground zero or an Olympic event - the destuction can be explained; the athletic achievement can be described, but the images deliver the information in a profoundly different way. I'd hate to only access the Olympics in my morning paper. This encyclopedia has a unique character and ability to convey visual information. Modernist (talk) 04:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion Reasonable fair use of the picture to explain an important part of the article. I'd otherwise have not the least idea of what such an occurance looked like, and I deft anyone to describe it clearly inw ords. DGG (talk) 07:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a couple of the overturns above don't actually address the deletion issue, i.e. failure to meet one or more of the actual fair use criteria, that it may arguably meet some of the other criteria does not overcome the requirement for deletion. (In fact the argument that this is a particularly good image to illustrate the windmill probably strengthens the argument that it fails criteria 2) --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, and that is a matter of interpretation...Precisely we disagree concerning criteria 2. The illustration of the event is not intentionally or unintentionally replacing commercial journalism's role in depicting that event. The encyclopedia is simply conveying information; and making clear and visually understandable..what otherwise would not be..It becomes a matter of timing as well...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine, but doesn't address my point, succesfully arguing that something is green, whilst the article wasn't deleted for being non-green is a non-argument. If one of the typifying traits of why it was deleted is in fact "being green", then it is potentially just strengthening the argument for deletion. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? What in the world are you talking about? The initial argument was about the bbc spending money, and the article image trodding on journalists commercial turf..addressed by comments above. Have you seen WT:NFC#Press agency photos? Modernist (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And what in the world are you talking about? (Good eh, makes my argument a winner). I was referring to some of the comments not being referenced to the reason for deletion e.g. DGG's argument (sorry I had to pick one) "Reasonable fair use of the picture to explain an important part of the article. I'd otherwise have not the least idea of what such an occurance looked like, and I defy anyone to describe it clearly in words.". The first part is just a bald assertion that it passed the criteria which is similar to "Non-Notable" or "Notable" as an argument in terms of strength. In this it doesn't provide any direct counter argument to those claiming it fails NFCC#2 which is cited as the primary reason for deletion. Second part is highlighting why it's a good image and thus passes NFCC#8. i.e This perhaps succesfully argues that NFCC#8 is passed, but in order to pass our fair use policy all points must be passed. In this case the deletion was specified as being a failure on NFCC#2. Now with regards NFCC#2 it seems in arguable that the commercial opportunity here is a picture illustrative of the windmill fallen down, the fact we want to succesfully argue NFCC#8 is passed since it is a good image to illustrate the windmall fallen down, would in fact suggest we are using it "in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role", since that is the original market role. i.e. as an argument it is potentially supporting a failure to meet NFCC#2. The point here is not if it does or doesn't meet any of the particular criteria, it's about if the arguments presented are in fact properly in context of the deletion. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think your circular and vague comments above make my point.. Modernist (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, another argument winning statement. It seems quite clear that either I am not able to express my point clearly (which isn't about if the image should or shouldn't be kept) or you are not able to understand it. Either way it seems pointless to continue. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. "We really want to use it" doesn't qualify as a fair use rationale. We shouldn't be using press photos ever if there are suitable free replacements, which it seems in this case there is. Nandesuka (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I must be confused...What suitable replacement? Are you replacing the deleted image that satisfies all WP:NFCC with a suitable free replacement? Great...Modernist (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, fails WP:NFCC number 8. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a point which can and should be debated at IfD. This is not the place to introduce new arguments. The deletion was not on that basis. Ty 05:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The image has to meet all of the NFCC, not just one or some. this is a case where the guidelines for inclusion of images differ from those for content. The process issue at hand (whether or not is was deleted early) can be handled by simply relisting at IfD or accepting this debate as a stand-in for what a relisting debate would be and deleting based on this consensus. I'd rather not do that, as it would give some incentive to treat this venue as XfD2 (more so than usual). either way the deletion appeared appropriate given that the delete votes referenced the "governing" policy and the keep votes did not (despite the suggestion of the nominator). Protonk (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reaffirming own deletion, reasons have been stated above. I add that it also probably misses NFCC#8+1. The exact visual sight of the blown-down windmill is not crucial for understanding the article. The degree and nature of the damages can easily be described by text, if it's really necessary. Language is more powerful than some people think. We don't need a visual representation of exactly which piece of rubble was blown where. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - Closing administrator provided comprehensive rationale, which is supported by policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reason given for deletion was NFCC#2, which is -

Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.

The original market role of the original copyrighted media was to tell a news story. The purpose of the image in the article is to illustrate a part of the history of the windmill, not to tell a news story. Therefore the reason given for deletion is not a valid one in my opinion. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original market role of the original copyrighted media was to illustrate the windmill's destruction, and that image is still valuable to anyone interested in telling the story of the mill's destruction. You could claim fair use for using that image in an artistic collage entitled "Destruction in South America" or in an article entitled "The Power of News Coverage in Europe" or in a book called "Photographing Destructed Buildings". But as long as you're just using that image to tell the story of the windmill's destruction, you're in direct competition with the news agency that took the time to produce that photo. --Damiens.rf 20:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This just looks like a pile-on, not a discussion, To reiterate my comment earlier Precisely we disagree concerning criteria 2. The illustration of the event is not intentionally or unintentionally replacing commercial journalism's role in depicting that event. The encyclopedia is simply conveying information; and making clear and visually understandable..what otherwise would not be..It becomes a matter of timing as well - The point is that the image does not violate NFCC#2 or the other nine either... I'm done now.Modernist (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This non-transformative use is in direct competition with the commercial interests of the copyright holder. (And an image must satisfy all of the NFCC.) The deletion rationale was based in policy. I'm sure the BBC would be happy to license this to us for a fee. Until we start allocating donations to pay these license fees, however, we can't be using this photo. Clearly fails the NFCC and likely also the statutory balancing test. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong definition. The image was speedy deleted under WP:NFCC#2 citing WP:NFC#Unacceptable use#I6 as a justification. The latter concerns "A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP)." This photo was not from a press agency: it was from the BBC, which is a public service broadcaster, i.e. "broadcasting intended for the public benefit rather than for purely commercial concerns." A press agency relies totally on income from the products it provides in order to survive financially and is a profit-driven business. The BBC is in a very different position, as it is government-funded and has a remit to do public good. A press agency's primary function is to sell material. The BBC's primary function is not to sell, but to broadcast. Thus WP:NFC#Unacceptable use#I6 does not apply by definition, and all arguments above referring to that are invalid. There is a strong argument that WP:NFCC#2 does not apply here either, and certainly not in a clear-cut way that justifies unilateral speedy deletion while discussion is in progress on IfD. The deletion was improper and should be reversed. Ty 06:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try image-googling for "chillenden windmill". You find this image a couple of times: on wikipedia, on another site that illegally ripped it off from us, and several times on various news reports on bbc.co.uk. Wikipedia comes first. BBC has a legitimate commercial interest that readers wanting to learn about the story are led to its own website. By mirroring the image here, backed by the market power of being one of the world's top-ten websites, we are channeling such readers away from them and to us. This is exactly "competing with the market role of the image". We are actually not just competing with them, we are overshadowing them. As for the commercial status of BBC, they clearly act as a commercial journalistic agency; read their terms and conditions, they certainly don't say: we're non-commercial and in the service of the public good, so you can rip off our contents at will. They say quite something different. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you say, Fut.Perf, the BBC is a NEWS organisation. When the mill blew down in 2003 it was news. Now, five years later, it is history. Therefore, the use of the image to illustrate an historical event cannot be in conflict with the use on the image to illustrate a news event. Mjroots (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have you read Fut.Perf's posting above yours?? BBC still uses this image and, at this very moment, we are detracting the value the image has for them. It's part of BBC commercial strategy to have a presence on the web, and we are driving readers way from their website by copying their content to ours. --Damiens.rf 13:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, I've read it. The BBC is a Public Service Broadcaster, paid for by the TV Licence fee which I and all other UK viewers have to pay - to paraphrase them, "it's my BBC!" Please explain how the use of the image on Wikipedia is driving readers away from their website? I'd argue that on the contrary, it pushes readers towards their website with the link on the image and in the article on Chillenden Windmill which uses the article the image appears in as a reference. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a tax payer, consider starting a campaign to make BBC produced material more free. In the third-world, for instance, Brazilian Governmental Photo Agency licenses all of its images under CC-BY-2.5. --Damiens.rf 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not all the BBCs activities are paid for by the licence fee, it does engage in commercial activities which bring in additional income. When it sells on TV series to other networks charges etc. i.e. There is still commercial opportunity. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question If I uploaded a different image, which was not from a Press Agency, with appropriate licence and rationale, such as this one, would it get to stay in the article?

• You would have problems with WP:NFCC#8, since we don't need a visual representation of exactly which piece of rubble was blown where. But alternatively, have you considered contacting the copyright holder and asking him to release this image under a free license? See WP:COPYREQ for avoiding common mistakes. --Damiens.rf 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your opinion is that it fails #8, mine is that it passes all 10 points. I'm trying to locate the copyright holder - he is active om flickr but I don't have an account there. Mjroots (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contacting that flickr user is certainly a good idea. If we're lucky he might give us a truly free license on it, which would be best for everybody. If he won't do that and only grants us permission for Wikipedia only, or for non-commercial use only, then it's still non-free, but at least we'd steer clear of NFCC#2, so yes, it would be somewhat better than the BBC image. In that case, the issue of the other NFCCs would have to be reassessed. As I said, I'm also a bit skeptical there, but that's open to discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The fact that such an involved argument needs to be put in order to justify the deletion is proof that it is not clear-cut, as should be the case per WP:SPEEDY: "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." There is obviously reasonable doubt, and the IfD should be allowed to proceed to achieve a consensus. This venue is not a substitute for IfD as it is being treated: it is to examine whether the proper process has been followed, which it has not. If the image should be deleted, then the IfD will establish that outcome. Ty 05:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Natch. This is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia not an excuse to violate commercial copyrights. NFCC neds to be closely adhered to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite. And it needs to be discussed in the IfD as to whether this image meets NFCC, so that is an argument for undeletion. As pointed out above, NFCC does not specifically prohibit press agency images. It also needs to be decided whether this is a violation of copyright. If it is a legitimate fair use, then no copyright violation is involved. The Foundation Licensing policy "permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project". One use is for an image to "illustrate historically significant events". This is not something an admin should unilaterally decide when there is a discussion in place about it, particularly when the discussion is going against the view of that admin, who is at the same time engaging and !voting on similar debates on the very same IfD page. Ty 05:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For information The image was raised at IfD on August 21 but the image was deleted before the IfD discussion had run its full course. General consensus there was to keep the image. Mjroots (talk) 08:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_21#Image:Chillenden_windmill_blown_down.jpg shows that at the time of the speedy deletion there were 4 users !voting keep and 1 delete. Instead of participating in this debate, as he had with some other similar debates on the same IfD page, Future Perfect decided to circumvent the process and impose his view with admin tools. This DRV is not about deciding whether the image should be kept or not: it is clear that there are differences of opinion on that, and IfD is the venue for those opinions to be examined in detail. This DRV is about whether it was right that an admin should perform an action in this way. Those opposing undeletion need to address this issue. Ty 11:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You insist on head-counting, but the closing admin is supposed to weight arguments. The nomination was concerning the use of an image proceduced by a commercial news source, but none of the keep arguments addressed the matter raised by the nomination, even with a legible NOTICE on the nomination warning about this common mistake. MBisanz's argument for keep was that the image "would not be replaceable", what was a complete no-issue. Mjroots's argument was also about the inexistence of a free alternative and the impossibility to "recreate the exact image". How does this address the concerns raised by the nomination? Tyrenius's vote was just a recitation that the image meets WP:NFCC" with no further explanation, other than a link to a talk he started (and concluded nothing of interest). Nyttend's vote was an attack on the nominator (yours truly) that he pasted on almost every other image on that IFD page. Any admin would be right to ignore these head-counts. --Damiens.rf 12:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the IfD should have continued - to look into these points. See Wikipedia:An/i#Action_to_be_taken_on_Consensus_violations. Ty 00:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are those of us who say NFCC is met, and some say it isn't - restoration of the image and a new discussion is in order...Modernist (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Damiens.rf. --Kbdank71 13:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Unless I'm missing something the purpose of a deletion review is to establish whether policy was correctly followed. In this case an image was CSD before an IFD was completed, i.e. the policy wasn't correctly followed. I'd suggest overturn and allow the IFD to be completed. 217.41.55.225 (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - L.A. Times v. Free Republic would suggest that no fair use rationale could be crafted for reproducing press content in its entirety, which would make this a valid speedy. The presence of an XfD does not prevent a valid speedy from being speedied. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no comparison between this case and the one you cite. Free Republic was reproducing whole articles en masse. This is just a small part of the original article on the BBC site. This is also why the speedy deletion citing WP:NFC I6 is invalid and shows the difference between a press (as in photo) agency and a broadcaster. The agency's sole output is the photo. In the case of the BBC article, the photo was a small part of the output, which was mostly the text in their article. Ty 00:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The work in question was a photograph. We are reproducing it in its entirety, and therefore derpiving the BBC of its ability to re-sell the image, if in fact it was an image taken by the BBC. I see no reason to distinguish between the BBC's News & Current Affairs department and any other journalistic body. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Richards-Lloyd 001a.gif (edit | [[Talk:Image:Richards-Lloyd 001a.gif|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Image:Lloyd Richards.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Lloyd Richards.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Meets all requirements for Fair Use Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin's note: image originally deleted was Image:Lloyd Richards.jpg. Speedy deletion under NFCC#2/CSDI7, for being from a commercial news source. Was re-uploaded immediately after first deletion without attempt at discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at IfD. I very much doubt that a low res image adversely affects a news agency's commercial rights WP:NFCC#2. Now whether it meets the WP:NFC#Images#6 guideline is up to users to decide at an IfD. RMHED (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Images were used a mere two years ago in the New York Times. It seems to me this is well within their commercial lifetimes. Nandesuka (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, blatant violation of NFCC 2 and probably don't meet 1 or 8 either. The requesting user is also encouraged to follow the instruction on this page to discuss matters with the deleting admin before listing here, although it probably would not have accomplished anything in this specific case. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reaffirm own deletion, as per Nandesuka and Stifle. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; deleted as a WP:POINT violation. No point in discussion with deleting admin as said admin has made it clear he will not take any interest in such discussion. This image may or may not meet fair use criteria but knowing deleting admin's track record significant doubt is likely to exist. Restore and relist if necessary. --John (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:17anderson 190.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:17anderson 190.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Image:Lew Anderson.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Lew Anderson.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Meets all requirements for Fair Use Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting admin's note: image originally deleted was Image:Lew Anderson.jpg. Speedy deletion under NFCC#2/CSDI7, for being from a commercial news source. Was re-uploaded immediately after first deletion without attempt at discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at IfD. I very much doubt that a low res image adversely affects news agency's commercial rights WP:NFCC#2. Now whether it meets the WP:NFC#Images#6 guideline is up to users to decide at an IfD. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. This image is a mere two years old, and was recently used in the New York Times, USA Today, and other publications. That's quite within the lifetime of a commercial photograph, and doesn't fall into the "historical archives" exemption on NFCC#2. Nandesuka (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Nandesuka. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reaffirm own deletion. On reflection and on reading comments made about my actions on ANI, I see no reason to change my opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; deleted as a WP:POINT violation. No point in discussion with deleting admin as said admin has made it clear he will not take any interest in such discussion. This image may or may not meet fair use criteria but knowing deleting admin's track record significant doubt is likely to exist. Restore and relist if necessary. --John (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bo190.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Bo190.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Meets all requirements for Fair Use Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at IfD. I very much doubt that a low res image adversely affects news agency's commercial rights WP:NFCC#2. Now whether it meets the WP:NFC#Images#6 guideline is up to users to decide at an IfD. RMHED (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — does not appear to meet NFCC 1, 2, or 8. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - already been through IfD (Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_21#Image:Bo190.jpg) and closed in a fairly normal way. Nominator here does not say how the image meets WP fair use requirements and has not given a reason as to why the closing admin's decision was incorrect. Why also has this not been discussed with the closing admin per the instructions at the top of this page ? - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn; deleted as a WP:POINT violation. No point in discussion with deleting admin as said admin has made it clear he will not take any interest in such discussion. This image may or may not meet fair use criteria but knowing deleting admin's track record significant doubt is likely to exist. Restore and relist if necessary. --John (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reaffirm own deletion. It was a commercial news image from Reuters. Deletion meets the spirit and the letter of both WP:NFC and WP:CSD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse IFD policies were followed just fine. I looked up one Getty image, and for a 200x300 thumbnail they wanted $300 for a two-year license. They are clearly in the business of licensing low-res photos. This fails WP:NFCC2. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; inappropriate deletions? for the community's view on this. --John (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Max Grün (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Has now played professionally, in the 3. Liga. [7] Also applies to Alexander Benede, Marco Höferth, Marco Stier and Stefan Rieß. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You will get those articles recreated, I have yet to see sports fans lose one. Still, those are non-notable soccer players, that fact will likely produce low quality articles but since they are under the protection of the WP:ATHLETE the articles will stay.

A side note, just for soccer players there are over 30,000 articles, all very notable indeed. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a widespread fallacy among sports fans that the guideline which says that players at a certain level are likely to have the kind of coverage that allows us ot have an article, means that all players at that level must have an article regardless of the existence of reliable independent sources. Funny, really. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These were all PRODs, so strictly they should be restored on request. Stifle (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cold War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Deleted as original research by the closing admin (under CSD G6), when the result of the discussion was no consensus for delete. I believe the closing admin substituted his judgment for that of the nearly fifty participants in the discussion. I understand that the job of closing a deletion discussion is to weigh arguments not based on quantity but based on our policies, but as best as I can tell, four participants raised concerns with synthesis or original research (two of which came in very late in the process, about three hours prior to close). Meanwhile, at least four others felt it was strongly sourced and cited. That's out of at least 46 participants. I don't believe in tallies for determining outcome, but I do believe it can help gauge whether or not any consensus has been reached: by my count 21 participants advocated for keep or some variant thereof, while 26 advocated for delete or some variant thereof. Certainly, I think many people, including myself (as the first editor of the article) and the nominator for deletion, believed there was no consensus for delete.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and close as no consensus. As J said, the OR concerns were a very small minority; further, Coren seems to have completely missed the discussion between myself and csloat regarding the improvement of the article on the talk page of the AfD. I said from the very beginning that AfD was completely incorrect for the article; with all the sources provided, it should have been made into a list, nothing more than a glorified disambig page, detailing the various usages of the term through the decades. GlassCobra 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, Coren's reasoning looks sound to me. Discussion of possible "new cold wars" does not amount to any kind of authority for the existence of a term "new cold war" or any scholarly conensus as to how it might be defined. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; as closer. I've reexamined the evidence to see if I missed some substantive argument, to no avail. All of the keeps were based on the fact that the phrase was found in use on the web and in the media. "New movies" gets 98 million ghits and is used a myriad times in the media, that does not mean there should be an article with that title either. The phrase is used constructively, by multiple independent entities and for dozens of different meanings. It's not even a neologism: it's a politically loaded catchphrase with no set meaning; any article on the topic is doomed to be original research, no matter how fancy and cleaned up. — Coren ^(talk) 18:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside to the vote counters out there: I did simply discount the keeps that were based on "I've seen it in the media/in a book title" as they do not address the primary problem of original synthesis. — Coren ^(talk) 18:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I've always believed that there was consensus to delete, User:J is quoting a deleted statement that doesn't reflect my views or opinions on the matter.
  Of course User:J violated WP:OR, he wrote an essay arguing that the new Cold War had arrived, that essay was created by putting together bits of News articles.
  Coren, the closing administrator made a correct judgement. The entire Background section of that imaginary, undefined, unrecognized war was invented, literally invented.
  The keepers argued that the essay was sourced and also that the term new Cold War was notable by itself, since it has many different meanings. That argument doesn't address the serious violations of the WP:OR and WP:SYN policies. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 18:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no basis for this deletion in any deletion criteria. There was a lot of good reasoning for having it modified but the subject of a New Cold War is just as legitimate as an article on World War III or the New Great Game. The arguments given against it were not sufficient arguments for deletion and it seems Coren even conceded as much by not even bringing up the neologism or crystal nonsense put forward by those advocating deletion. AfD isn't there so an admin can wait five days, jump in, give their own opinion, and delete an article based on their own inklings. If that were the case there wouldn't even be a need for discussion. The article was flawed no doubt, but the subject was perfectly legitimate. No need to delete that which can be improved. It seems however that some people just weren't willing to give it a chance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't bring the "neologism" argument up because the phrase isn't even worthy of the term: it's not a new term for some concept, it's a strictly constructive phrase with no set meaning. You have not addressed how "improving" the article could be done in a way that is not original research (which, I should remind you, is the reason why neologisms aren't acceptable either). — Coren ^(talk) 20:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a strong set meaning, across dozens of reliable sources. Here's an article from The Nation, in 2005, titled "The Media's New Cold War" (referring to Russia). Here's an article from the Washington Post in 2006, titled "Russian Media Warn of New Cold War." You have your opinion on the matter, but that opinion wasn't supported with consensus from the deletion debate. Which is why your close needs to be overturned.   user:j    (aka justen)   20:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No phrase or term has a single definition, but one thing which could certainly be agreed is the present-day take of a new cold war is going to be almost entirely referring to something between the U.S. and Russia, the U.S. and China, or the U.S. and both. There are also several sources which talk of this situation matter-of-factly as a New Cold War. Some examples in reference to Georgia: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] and one that's a litte more interesting: [15]
      I said before that I do not like the term "New Cold War", but I don't like the term "Cold War" either. However, this has gotten sufficient notable coverage that to delete the article is simply ridiculous. You can't simply ignore books, articles, and chattering pundits talking about a new cold war with Russia not just for the past few weeks, but past few years. There are clearly a lot of issues here well beyond simply Georgia as some deletion advocates said. This dispute over the Arctic resources, the talk of Russian military in Cuba or Venezuela, the missile defense dispute, and now this conflict in Georgia have all had people talking about a new cold war. Also, no argument given in the AfD did anything to address the basic issue of notability and verifiability. Clearly both criteria were satisfied and no other sufficient criteria for deletion existed. Your argument about original research doesn't satisfy as the subject itself was not original research and did not require original research for substance. You can't delete an article on the basis that it contains original research, that's an argument for improvement. The subject itself was not original research and had ample verifiability.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those sources simply mention the term "new Cold War" informally and only once. Those sources don't attempt to even define the term and don't treat the term with seriousness. Coren has a point when he writes: "unless someone brings up reliable sources discussing the use of the phrase, as opposed to simply using the phrase itself in yet another new context." ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Although the article was extremely well written, interesting, and I am certainly reluctant to see it deleted, wikipedia is not a primary source for synthesized material. I suggest the author submit it to one of many online magazines for publication, I think many would be glad to have it. It is patently unsuitable for Wikipedia, however, and therefore Coren closed this discussion appropriately. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 21:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The closer seemed to impose his own opinion of the matter rather than following the discussion in which there was clearly no consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, by the way, that the phrase New Cold War is quite irrelevant to this since, per WP:NEO, if the title is ambiguous or otherwise unclear, we can readily move to another title such as Russo-American relations in the early 21st century or the like. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a totally different article; feel free to start it. This article is about "new cold war," which could refer to any number of things (I have listed at least ten during the discussion), which is why the deletion was warranted. csloat (talk) 05:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yet more sources explicitly calling this a New Cold War proving the argument about original research or not having notability is flawed: [16] [17] [18] [19] This one is actually referring to Litvinenko, not Georgia or any of the other issues. [20] [21] A poll showing most Americans believe there is likely to be a new cold war. Also a comment from the former Georgian President saying there is a New Cold War which started over missile defense. I think all of these sources pretty much obliterate most of the arguments given in favor of deletion since several of these not only say there is a new cold war but that it was the case before the recent developments in Georgia, including one source connecting it to the New Great Game. When one considers the debate in several areas brought up constantly in various situations, in fact here's another source on that very debate showing it was a topic months before the conflict, it's hard to imagine how there could have been any justification for deleting the article. The broad scope of the debate itself suggests it is a subject deserving of an article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That "New Great Game" article is one big WP:SYN violation. It should be the next AfD. csloat (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and listed it for deletion; folks here should join what promises to be yet another fun-filled discussion about the principles of original research and synthesis. csloat (talk) 05:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Even the person who nominated it was convinced by the evidence submitted during the discussion, and tried to withdraw the afd. The number of books cited was more than sufficient to fully establish the notability of the subject. The closing was overinfluenced by the delete comments at the beginning. I think the article title might need some clarification, butt hat's another matter. DGG (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not true, I've always been convinced that there was consensus to delete and I never tried to withdraw the AfD.
    I did try to offer a compromise solution so that there would be no losers or winners, not only was I ignored, the offer was read as a sign of weakness of my position. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand corrected; you didn't withdraw the AfD, you stated you would accept other things than deletion. I apparently misread, giving you credit for recognizing the massive evidence supporting the use of the term in political science in contexts other than Ossetia. DGG (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • DGG, I should point out that you've just shot your own argument in the foot. With a 12-gauge no less. The phrase is used in a lot of contexts, meaning all sorts of different things— that means that any article on one of those use is is necessarily original research, and thus verbotten— unless someone brings up reliable sources discussing the use of the phrase, as opposed to simply using the phrase itself in yet another new context. — Coren ^(talk) 14:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • on the contrary, my argument is for the expansion of the article to express a broader viewpoint--the opposite of deletion. As the following arguments show, others seem to have understood this. DGG (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Clearly, there was no consensus to delete. The closing admin gives the following rationale: "This isn't a New Cold War of set meaning (even as a neologism), but several allusions or parallels drawn to new Cold Wars.".. Few to none of this AfD participants actually suggested this. People have written books about New Cold war, this is not "an allusion". There is a significant literature about the "New Cold War", which is simply a growing confrontation between Russia and the West, according to the main meaning of the expression. Surprisingly, this article has been deleted exactly at the moment of the second Russian-Georgian war, which marks the beginning of the "New Cold War" according to many observers.Biophys (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there was an editing conflict earlier.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The assertion that we are experiencing a New Cold War is ludicrous, since there is no definition or consensus among historians or political analystis.
  It's IMPOSSIBLE for this Cold War to have books written about it because it has has as background the 2008 South Ossetia war that happened 3 weeks ago.
  The definition and the background of this New Cold War were created entirely by User:J, they don't exist anywhere else because the war itself doesn't exist.
  It's very hard to move on if the issues regarding "original research" are not dealt with or even acknowledged. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 04:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gotta point out the numerous flaws with your argument, partly because many calling for deletion used similar arguments:
    1. The article did not claim the New Cold War was an actual occurring event but that some have considered these events as an indication it is.
    2. The Russia-Georgia conflict is not the only background to this article, far from it. As I pointed out this idea has been around for a while sparked by other events like the dispute over the Arctic, the spread of NATO, the West's backing of Kosovo's declaration of independence, the American missile defense system, the assassination of Litvinenko, and Russia's attempt to monopolize natural resources as well as using those resources for political purposes.
    3. The original research claim only applies if the subject of the article itself is original research or synthesis. If the article merely has original research in it but the subject itself is both verifiable and notable then original research is only a case for improvements, not deletion.

    Your argument for deletion was inadequate and Coren's argument was as well. I admittedly did not review all the sources used to see what specifically they said, however if they were not good sources that is not an argument for deletion, but for getting better sources and there are plenty of sources to back this subject up. Ultimately the article itself did not conflict with any policy on Wikipedia and did not satisfy the deletion criteria. Considering this deletion happened only days after the article was created I think this is a basic case of editors not giving an article a chance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • 1- "The article did not claim the New Cold War was an actual occurring event"...
      So Wikipedia had an article about a war that may not exist. This war could be occurring or not, we just don't know it yet...but just in case, we created an article about it.
      That's why that article violates the WP:OR policy, this conflict is not confirmed.
      2- I disagree, I read the background it focused on the Ossetian War of 2008 as a starting to this "new" conflict.
      3- I disagree, it is impossible to write an article about the "New Cold War" without violating the WP:OR because "New Cold War" is not a defined concept. He could have written the article Post Cold War tensions between Russia and Nato but he ignored that offer. His WP:OR violating essay would have been digested there. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 20:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. So I take it your next target for deletion is the article for World War III? The article doesn't claim there's a New Cold War because presently that is a matter of dispute. Several have said there is a New Cold War and several has said there isn't. Others have said we are heading towards one. The back and forth discussion makes the subject notable.
        2. Apparently you didn't read the background or you didn't read it very well. It was pretty clear that the conflict in Georgia was one of many things being cited to claim there was a New Cold War. It also cited the missile defense systems and issues over oil and gas. I don't remember everything cited, but I know there was more still.
        3. It is a defined concept actually. It is simply a concept with multiple definitions but one commonality is that the modern-day usage of such a term is almost universally meant to be some form of new global struggle as a successor to the Cold War particular a struggle with some major power like Russia or China. You can keep chirping OR, but it's nonsense since I've already provided ample evidence that there are numerous reliable sources which could be cited in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Simply because the article was "strongly sourced" does not give it a free pass to be kept, see WP:SYN. And even looking at all the news articles and speculation, it seems that the columnists themselves do not even have a consensus on whether there is a "New Cold War" going on. Many of the articles include a question mark after the phrase for example. To quote from one of them: Unfortunately, there appear to be plenty of people in the West who are now arguing for a new Cold War. They have fallen into the trap of believing that Putin is the new Hitler and Georgia the new Czechoslovakia, so “the West must make a stand”. ([22]) In addition, many other articles seem to oppose this idea, such as this one from the Salt Lake Tribune titled, "Despite Georgian-Russian conflict, new Cold War unlikely". Another example: While politicians sometimes talk of a new Cold War, none seems on the horizon. ([23]). Why don't we wait until there is an academic consensus on what the exact definition of the word is, and whether it's actually happening or not. I don't see any evidence of most experts agreeing here. For now, why don't we take Condi's advice and not jump the gun here. Khoikhoi 09:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the very fact it is so widely discussed suggests it is a subject notable enough in reliable sources to justify having an article on it. Something popularly speculated on, but not actually in existence or generally agreed upon can still be considered worthy of an article. No one's actually terra-formed a planet or colonized the Moon, but it's still a notable subject of discussion worthy of an article, so is this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion the article is about the term applied to 2008 South Ossetia war. There is no way to ensure the term will be applied the same way in a few months (and especially years) time. As shown by csloat the term was used to describe many entire different things before. Just now we have a neologism and no way to ensure that it will be ever notable. We do not have a crystal ball to see if the term will be ever notable in future. It was shown quite clear on AFD Alex Bakharev (talk) 10:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and close as no consensus. Clearly there was no consensus for deletion. The OR concerns advanced by a handful of people can be solved by improving the article rather than deleting it. Hobartimus (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (no consensus), let interested editors sort it out, and relist in a couple of months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This was as clear a "no consensus" as I've seen in awhile. I'm growing weary of administrators simply imposing their own view in deletion discussions, instead of simply measuring where consensus is in the given discussion. Extra buttons do not give administrators extra rights not possessed by other editors. What this closing admin essentially did is count their recommendation as outweighing all the others who posted there and failed to reach consensus. This is unacceptable, and should be overturned. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the validity of the arguments? If all that is required is a consensus then this article is going to be kept simply because editors want to, no rationale required.
    One can now create an article titled Cold War II, get keepers claiming "notability" and "fully sourced", drive the debate to a "no-consensus", interpret as such and keep the article. This is what happened.
    User:J and others were counting on at least a "no-consensus" result, that's why all the compromise offers that corrected the WP:OR issue were ignored.
    Did Coren delete that article for the wrong reasons? That's the important question. Once again, unless the "original research" issues are recognized we will go in circles. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 20:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue specifically here at Deletion Review is whether User:Coren closed the deletion discussion properly and accurately. Many recognize the outcome of the discussion was that there was no consensus for delete, hence this deletion review. This isn't the best place to rehash the deletion discussion.   user:j    (aka justen)   20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, what I did is follow the principle guiding XfD: namely that policy trumps head counts, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.". — Coren ^(talk) 20:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is that a number of editors disagree with your assertion that the article is original research; headcount isn't the issue here. What is the issue is that you seem to believe that your opinion that the article was original research trumps anybody else's opinion that it is not original research. I believe you have essentially said here, now, that you closed the AfD not based on the consensus there but based on your own personal opinion of the article. That's a problem.   user:j    (aka justen)   20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Really? They did? Excellent, then you should have no problem giving a single reliable source that discusses "New Cold War" as a defined concept, as opposed to simply use the phrase as a rhetorical device? No? Odd. Strangely enough, pointing at original research and saying "not original research" is not an argument. In fact, I've just reread the AfD discussion and not a single editor has advanced that this was not original research; indeed 18 of the keeps were simply stating "notability" because media or book titles have used the phrase. How is this "dispute that this is original research"? — Coren ^(talk) 21:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "No? Odd." I think dismissive rhetoric is not quite the best posture to take, but do as you will. You don't seem open to recognizing your error here, and this isn't the place to discuss your reasons for deletion; that place would have been the AfD, which you erroneously closed based on your own disputed opinion (an opinion that simply wasn't supported in that discussion). Nevertheless, I'd suggest you take a look at The Nation article entitled "The Media's New Cold War" or the Washington Post's article entitled "Russian Media Warn of New Cold War." If you want to debate your opinions on those articles sources, though, I'd suggest you take it up at a future AfD for the article.   user:j    (aka justen)   21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It appears you define "error" as "not what I wanted". It is pointless to discuss under those conditions. The close was good, and this DRV is now veering into the (lack of) merit of the article— something for which this is not the proper venue. — Coren ^(talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Really now if it was 100% delete opinions but none of the deletion criteria were justified then any deletion review would ultimately note that criteria were not satisfied. That's all that's being done here, pointing out the criteria for deletion were not satisfied. I've actually given about a dozen sources so far showing several articles that not only treated it as a defined concept, but actually treated it as a fact on the ground. You can go back and forth claiming there was no consensus about whether there is a New Cold War, but an article shouldn't be deleted because the subject itself is disputed. Many Wikipedia articles exist on disputed subjects, often times the dispute itself justifies having an article. In this case pointing out various sources saying there isn't a New Cold War does not establish any basis for deletion, in fact, it's basically an argument in favor of keeping the article. Clearly the subject of a New Cold War is notable enough to be a matter of discussion by high-ranking politicians, media pundits, and books. Also I've already pointed out several books that while New Cold War is not in their title, still deal with the subject of a New Cold War. In other words your justification for deletion and Economicst's argument for it are both shaky and just plain wrong. It is not appropriate behavior to impose your opinion on the rest of the community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- Coren's argument that the article constitutes original research as "the phrase is semantically transparent" [24] is completely without merit, since there is a general consensus that it is acceptable to have articles concerning words or phrases which are susceptible to multiple meanings and are construed on the basis of the context in which they appear, provided that each meaning for which we have an article is notable. For instance, we don't have users clamoring for the deletion of Technicolor, Technicolor (physics), and Technicolour by means of an absurd claim that since the word might refer to a photographic process, a particle physics theory, a band, or who knows what else, it actually has no meaning at all. Given that the term "New Cold War" has been used innumerable times in reference to contemporary US-Russian-Chinese relations by the many reliable sources cited in this very deletion review discussion, the assertion that the article somehow constitutes original research is absurd -- one might as well claim that our article on Technicolor (physics) is "original research" because "the article is an interpretation of current usage" of the term "technicolor" in particle physics literature. This deletion should be overturned not merely because there was no consensus for such an action, but because Coren's closing argument was fundamentally flawed. John254 00:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, per reasoning I already gave little more than a day ago. Coren's close was a good one, and justified by both the discussion and wiki policy. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion; at the end of the day, this comes down to WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse deletion; this whole article is a gross WP:SYN violation. There was clear consensus in the discussion for deletion despite the fact that a few of those arguing for keeping were more shrill than the rest of us. Besides the SYN problem, there is the problem that the article title has no proper referent. At one point in the discussion I posted the results of my research into scholarly uses of the phrase. I only listed the books with titles that included the phrase "New Cold War," and even that extremely limited search turned up ten totally different uses of the expression. These different uses varied from describing US intervention in central America to describing tension between China and the former Soviet Uniion, to discussing terrorism and religious nationalism. I pressed those who supported keeping the article to provide at least one single peer reviewed scholarly source that used the phrase as something more than a sensationalistic catchphrase and nobody could do it. So there is no evidence of any agreed upon usage of "new cold war" in academia. Besides all this, there is a severe problem that the article is being used as a crystal ball and a soapbox for a particular political perspective. I have seen this problem before where users create what amounts to an original essay out of a synthesis of various articles that they use to soapbox a particular point of view. That is simply put not the purpose of an encyclopedia. csloat (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are different uses for many phrases and terms. That doesn't constitute an argument for deletion. Also crystal ball did not apply there and Coren should have understood this to be the case. As far as soapbox I fail to see how it was so, though I presume this involves some nonsense about hawkish neocons. All the things cited in the article have been identified as being aspects of a New Cold War. If the sources failed to verify this then you need only look at sources I've provided here to see this does not mean the claims were not verifiable. Beyond that all the information was provided in an objective manner which does not suggest a POV. Considering your arguments here constitute the bulk of deletion calls I think that provides a very clear indication there was not a consensus for delete as your arguments are easily debunked by merely looking at the article and examining the subject. Far from there being non consensus I think it's clear there was a consensus for keep as all deletion arguments showed an underlying ignorance of deletion criteria, the article, and the subject itself. I can only assume this happens because people browse the AfD area and insert their opinion haphazaradly after making swift evaluations of the arguments and skimming the article, perhaps only reading the introduction.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, crystal ball did apply, as well as WP:SYN and several other arguments that have been discussed to death by now. The bottom line is that the sources don't support this as a notable category itself; what they show is that it is a sensational catchphrase that can be used for various different meanings. This has nothing to do with "hawkish neocons" that I am aware of. It is actually most of the "keep" arguments that showed an ignorance of our deletion criteria (and of our policies here generally), which is why many of them were appropriately ignored by the closing administrator. And I agree with you that people browse haphazardly and don't read carefully before voting; a lot of such readers voted "keep." csloat (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Update - the most recent vote (from someone who didn't even participate on the original AfD) on this page is a case in point of what I mean). csloat (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please note that this is not a second deletion discussion; this review is specifically to determine whether or not User:Coren closed the deletion discussion correctly, reflecting the consensus (or lack thereof) that was (or was not) determined during the deletion discussion.   user:j    (aka justen)   23:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right -- let me be more clear then: I strongly endorse Coren's closure of the deletion discussion with the result of delete, which strongly reflected the preponderance of actual arguments discussed during the deletion discussion. It also was the decision most consistent with Wikipedia policy, as I noted above. Excellent work, Coren. csloat (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the bold from your comment here, lest it be mistaken for a separate opinion on the matter. I'm sure neither of us would want a mistake of that magnitude to occur.  ;) (As a side note, and in all sincerity, it may be helpful to move your comments here into your comments above, for the benefit of the closer of this review?) Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   23:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. In determining consensus, the closing admin is supposed to evaluate arguments and not just count votes. Per the instructions, arguments that amount to likeit/don'tlikeit should be ignored. Whether arguments represent valid interpretations of policy should be considered. Often a decision must be made whether an article can plausibly be brought within policy, and the admin must make that call. Creation of a dab page (pointing to particular books or article sections) with the title of a deleted article is not generally treated as recreation of the deleted page, so is not forestalled by the deletion decision. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but did you even read anything that's been said? The argument for overturning this deletion is that the admin's reason for deletion was not in keeping with policy. The editor who deleted the article actually said above that he/she did so after discounting arguments saying the subject was discussed in newspapers and articles. In other words, this editor basically admitted to discounting arguments given on the verifiability and notability of the subject. That completely contradicts established policy. Verifiability and notability of a subject is always a reason for keeping an article and should always be taken into consideration. This fact alone suggests the deletion was completely invalid.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assiduously read everything that has been said in both the original deletion debate and in this review, hence my opinion. The deletion was within process. Original research that uses verifiable sources is good quality original research, but it is still not what Wikipedia does. As for notability, the term has no set meaning, none of which are particularly notable. One should not take uses of a term to mean X and use them to establish the notability of a term to mean Y. That is what I take "semantically transparent" to mean. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Title of ABC News front page / Associated Press article today: Russia "Not Afraid’ of a New Cold War. Whether anyone thinks we're really in a "cold war" or not, even as a concept, a "new cold war" is part of the mainstream reliable sources lexicon and scrutiny.[25] And oh yes, there was no clear consensus to delete. --Oakshade (talk) 05:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First off, the article mentions "new Cold War" it doesn't define the concept of "New Cold War".
    "Cold War" is a state of affairs per wordnet.princeton.edu "a state of political hostility between countries using means short of armed warfare."
    So basically the term new Cold War means a new state of political hostility and not Cold War II.
    Not even this "new state of political hostility" has been confirmed or become consensus among political analysts. That's why it was offered to TransWiki the term,
    Why not create the article Post Cold War tensions between Russia and NATO? We are trying to create sensation and awe with an article entitled as New Cold War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EconomistBR (talk • contribs) 13:58, 27 August 2008
• Comment. At the enormous risk of sounding like a broken record, please remember that this is not a second deletion discussion. This review is specifically and exclusively to discuss the accuracy of the closure. There is no need to debate notability or prominence; the only issue here is whether or not User:Coren was correct in his determination that there was a consensus to delete or a case of original research which could only be cured by deletion.   user:j    (aka justen)   14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the use of any of this? The article has already been recreated.
    I give up, two weeks wasted is too much time.
    ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 15:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing out the subject is notable and verifiable considering those are the two major things to look at when making a deletion decision is legitimate. Fact is Coren actually admitted to ignoring arguments for notability and verifiability when making the decision and those were the majority of the arguments for keeping the article. Furthermore pointing out that in spite of what was contained in the article ample sources exist to support the notability and verifiability of the subject also serves as legitimate in deletion review.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. My concerns are undoubtedly fairly obvious through my comments above. The article was not synthesis, was not composed of original research, and it was on a notable topic. With all that in mind, I find it interesting that, thus far, 12 out of 24 participants in this review are presumably uninvolved in this dispute and did not participate in the AfD. Among the 12 "involved" of us, I think this has become a second deletion discussion, exactly mirroring the result of the original AfD: no consensus. Among those 12 uninvolved participants here, though, the picture is a bit clearer: eight have !voted to overturn, while four have !voted to endorse. Of the four endorsing, each shared the closing administrator's view that the article contained synthesis. Of the eight advocating the decision being overturned, several expressed, in very strong words, their disagreement with that assertion and their belief that the closing administrator substituted his opinion for the lack of consensus at the deletion discussion. I believe this deletion (and, hopefully, undeletion) process has been contentious and unnecessarily complicated, but it is what it is. I hope and expect that the administrator who closes this review will look closely at the viewpoints expressed here, and reach the same conclusion I have, that there was no consensus for delete reached in that original discussion and that the closing should be overturned as such.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC) updated: 15:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- Plenty of sources going back several years. Its a valid topic for an article, and it seems competently written and adequately sourced. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I admit to being biased, having been one of the people calling for deletion. But in all honesty, I can't see anything wrong with Coren's actions, procedurally. I would, in fact, welcome the existence of the disambiguation page I proposed, but the decision was taken on the article as written, and seemed fair. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the few days since the Afd several things happened that are relevant to the initial Afd discussion among them Russian president stating "Russia is not afraid of new Cold War" and mountains of articles discussing the prospects of a new Cold War see for example [26] [27] Hobartimus (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that there is a semantic distinction between New Cold War (a proper name) and new Cold War, an adjective plus the existing proper name. If someone were to describe the discussions between Ukraine and Russia as a new Crimean War, that would not justify us in posting an article on some New Crimean War. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or consider "New Watergate." That headline appears on a regular basis, referring to the scandal du jour, and has 10K GHits, let alone significant pre-Web usage. Yet, I would oppose an article on the subject, even a list of various usages, as unencyclopedic. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the argument about lower case and upper case is the most ridiculous red herring being trotted out here. The fact is in the post-Cold War era talk or another Cold War is pretty constant with most either putting the opposing power as Russia or China or both. The Cold War part is always capitalized and that's the important part. There many claiming there exists a new international competition on the level of the Cold War or that the world is headed for one. Given the amount of discussion on this subject, it's notable and verifiable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The lower case "n" makes a world of difference. The "new Cold War" the media is mentioning is simply a new "state of political hostility between countries using means short of armed warfare" (Princeton), it doesn't mean Cold War II. Only few articles mention "New Cold War".
          That difference is very important and it will have to be noted and made clear once this article is recreated. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Update on sources - A list of only a small percentage of articles about the concept of a "new Cold War" published since the AfD ended.
  • Sabina Zawadzki (Aug 28, 2008). "Britain warns Russia on new Cold War". Reuters. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Emma Alberici (Aug 28, 2008). "Russia warned against new Cold War". ABC News (Australia). {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "Miliband: Medvedev must avoid new Cold War". International Herald Tribune. Aug 28, 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "Russia 'Must Not Start Cold War'". Sky News. Aug 27, 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Tom Rivers (Aug 27, 2008). "Britain Urges Russia Not to Start New Cold War". Voice of America. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Caroline Alexander and Daryna Krasnolutska (Aug 27, 2008). "Russia Must Not Start New Cold War, U.K. Foreign Secretary Says". Bloomberg Television. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "Replay: Is It A New Cold War?". Sky News. Aug 27, 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Paul Reynolds (Aug 27, 2008). "Testing for a new 'Cold War' in Crimea". BBC News. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Patrick Buchanan (Aug 27, 2008). "Pushing Russia Into the Cold". Komsomolskaya Pravda. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Taras Kuzio (Aug 26, 2008). "Russia takes one step closer to a new Cold War". Kyiv Post. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Anne Penketh (Aug 28, 2008). "Is the Ukraine the new Cold War front?". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • David Blair (Aug 28, 2008). "Analysis: Should we fear a new Cold War?". Daily Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Anne Johnstone (Aug 28, 2008). "All too easy to drift into a new cold war". The Herald. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • James Hider (Aug 26, 2008). "Dimitri Medvedev raises spectre of new Cold War". The Times. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)--Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- The decision was made far too hastily and stemmed from disagreements over the current situation in Georgia. Certain individuals seem to be following their own agenda, proposing the deletion of these articles on the basis of their individual views and not on the basis of the content of the articles. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a matter for DRV to consider; we are only interested in the conduct of the closing admin. If it were, Justen's massive removal of discussion from the AfD would be at least equally questionable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original nomination of both neo and new cold war was made by a user who, for some unfathomable reason, thought, erroneously, that the articles had been created as a result of the current conflict in Ossetia, disregarding attempts to prove otherwise. Despite discussion on the article and possible comprises to deletion due to noteworthy issues raised therein, the discussion was closed before consensus had been reached. The fact that a merge of neo and new cold wars had been proposed not long before the deletion of the new cold war article should also be taken into account, and could have been one of the motives for the hasty decision to delete the article. The merge discussion in itself could have provided a valid basis upon which consensus could have been reached, removing the less notable "Neo Cold War" and merging into the more notable "New Cold War". There were two AfD discussions, and one merge discussion taking place. Consensus should have been reached on all three issues, as they cover one and the same. The admin has acted hastily and with poor judgement, seeking not to reach consensus or a closure of discussions, let alone comprise, but simply remove these articles from Wikipedia. This entire situation has been mismanaged from the start. I would strongly suggest replacing the article and resuming discussion on both deletion and merge with neo CW, as well as merging the different discussions and deletions into one. Whiskey in the Jar (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure as a reasonable conclusion from the discussion. The major alternatives discussed were transwikiing (my preference) and conversion into a dab page, but both can still be done; the page is not salted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, you believe there was a clear consensus to delete from that deletion discussion?   user:j    (aka justen)   16:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sufficiently clear to be within the range of admin discretion. Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. Many keep !votes were solely based on the opinion that there is a New Cold War, without evidence; some, as some here, disregard elementary English syntax or WP:SYNTH. No consensus might also have been defensible; but it is not mandatory. If it had been no consensus, I would not have come here; but I would have considered renomination. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think what you've just recognized is the key problem: if you concede there was the reasonable and (at least on your part) uncontestable possibility the deletion discussion could have been interpreted and closed as no consensus, then I believe that's quite incompatible with it being closed as it was. The synthesis argument was argued by a small minority of the participants, and was dismissed out of hand: synthesis requires using a source to make assertion alpha, and a source to make assertion beta, and then inserting unsourced assertion charlie (as original research). The article didn't do that: every single assertion was sourced. The problem here is that a "no consensus" deletion discussion was closed based on an error in "admin[istrator] discretion." If you believe there is the possibility that the deletion discussion could have been reasonably interpreted either way, I think you're missing the point of exactly what "no consensus" means.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are mistaken on what WP:SYNTH is. Saying A (sourced) and B (sourced) in such a way as to lead the reader to conclude C (unsourced, and with no evidence that the sources for A and B would agree) is synthesis; indeed, the paragraph began with an example which did that. It is sufficient that it "expresses [your] opinion"; how it does so is secondary.
          You are still more mistaken on what consensus is. If we required that there be no possible argument that it wasn't consensus, we might as well require unanimity, or the liberum veto, which would reduce WP "from a juridical anomaly into a farce", as one historian of the Austrian Empire desribed its last days. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). This was within reasonable admin discretion. At time of deletion, the page was a self-evident dictionary definition that "New Cold War is a phrase used by the media to describe" followed by several different descriptions all of which boiled down to 'a recent conflict that is similar to the last Cold War'. The sources provided in the discussion and here document that the phrase is used - but no one is disputing that point. The relevant question is whether any of the sources are substantive enough to be the basis of a proper encyclopedia article that does not cross the line into original research. Reviewing the sources makes it clear that unlike Cold War, there is not yet consensus on what the "new Cold War" is, who it's with or anything useful. (In particular, the sources do not support the assertion made above that "new Cold War" is a term with a settled definition or scope.) Right now, it's nothing more than a catchphrase being used by journalists. There might be enough here to support a Wiktionary entry but not a Wikipedia article. Rossami (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only is there enough reliable sources (hundreds, actually) on the concept of a "new Cold War" to write an article, already Mark MacKinnon's entire recent book The New Cold War has been written on the subject. --Oakshade (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That (as the AfD brought out) is one of many books and papers, which have been written on many subjects, using that title. For example, MacKinnon's book is about the color revolutions, as should be obvious from its subtitle; the deleted article had no place for them. The article was always purely verbal; that's why it belongs on Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not finding any reliable sources on this concept (much less the "hundreds" alleged). Many sources (including that one) use this phrase but not as a single consistent or coherent topic. What we have are hundreds of examples of journalists using a catchphrase to draw attention to their topic du jour. Mere examples of usage of a word or phrase is not, all by itself, evidence that we can write an encyclopedia article on a topic. I'm sorry but no change of opinion at this time. Rossami (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• *sigh* Endorse deletion & Coren's closing rationale.
  This "new Cold War" is a mere rhetorical expression; a comparison, a parallel, and a simplistic attention-generating hyperbole. As such, it may merit a single-sentence mention in an article on "West"-Russia relations after the fall of Communism, and nothing more.
  In principle, an encyclopedic article could be written about this expression's usage — provided some serious publications -academic ones, not your odd book or newspaper article- have analyzed the usage itself.
  The deleted article went beyond a dictionary definition (Wiktionary is that way) to include an original synthesis of different press articles & books. It even started with "The New Cold War^[1] is a term" (notice the capitalized proper name), while the BBC News article used as reference (with the clear title of 'Cold war' comparisons on Georgia, 16 August 2008 - mmhh... 'Cold War' comparisons... I'm so tempted to start a fine Allegations of Cold War series-) mentioned perceptions of a "new Cold War", or a "Cold War-style" face off, and a reporter cautioning against Cold War comparisons. — All comparisons, parallels, and simplistic attention-generating hyperbole in non others than The Sun and the Daily Mail.
  Regards, Ev (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems some people here aren't paying attention to the central issue. There is no criteria for deletion that mentions a subject not having a single clear definition or starting with lower case in common media mentions. Really, all criteria for deletion stem from notability. To this extent the statement of the deleting admin here should be considered:

  I did simply discount the keeps that were based on "I've seen it in the media/in a book title" as they do not address the primary problem of original synthesis.

  If you look at the AfD this basically means Coren discounted nearly all of the arguments given for keeping the article. What's more noting something's usage in the media and literature constitutes an argument for a subject's verifiable notability using reliable sources. In other words, the arguments Coren discounted are arguing for what is basically the key issue in any deletion decision, the notability of the subject. Coren ignores an argument on the key basis for article deletion and instead deleted it by citing a problem with the article. I do not like the term "New Cold War" myself, but I recognized rather clearly that this was a notable subject which could be verified by reliable sources. As such the article met all the crucial criteria for inclusion. The argument of the original nominator was that it constitued a crystal ball or neologism, both of which were seriously flawed as it is not a neologism and it was not making a predicition or even asserting something as fact. Most argument for deletion reiterated this argument or made irrelevant statements about it not having a single clear definition, which ignores the notability of the subject itself. One thing which is commonly agreed is the idea of a large global struggle following the Cold War has been a matter of frequent discussion with several considering there to be one ongoing and others arguing that such a situation doesn't exist. As such it constitutes notability solely by the matter of it being widely discussed. This argument was given on several occasions, but apparently ignored and Coren did not address they key issue of whether the subject itself was notable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be very clear, in my comment above I am explicitly endorsing the closer's decision to discount those opinions. The relevant question is not whether the phrase exists - lots of words and phrases exist. The only relevant question is whether an encyclopedia article can be written on the subject. The concept as you define it above (any "large global struggle following the Cold War") is too diffuse to substantiate a properly sourced article. None of the other sources presented are able to substantiate a prospective article either in my opinion. There is no single subject behind this catchphrase at this time. Of course, that may change in a few years. We'll have to wait and see. Rossami (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Devil's Advocate mischaracterizes deletion policy by attempting to boil it all down to notability. Wikipedia:Deletion policy enumerates fifteen criteria, and states that these are not an exclusive list. Of the enumerated reasons, eleven can sensibly apply to articles in mainspace, and only one of those involves notability. Others include WP:NOT, content forking and articles that contain prohibited syntheses. In this case, the administrator found that trying to cover every meaning of "N/new Cold War" would render the article an indiscriminate collection of information, while concentrating on one meaning would give one view undue weight. Moreover, the fact that it uses sources that talk about a Russian-China "new Cold War" to support a thesis on a Russian-American "New Cold War" makes it original research. The article is caught on a fork: the solution to one policy problem causes another policy violation, and any article that overcame the problems would owe little debt to the deleted article. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Even if we made an article that said, " 'New Cold War' is a term defined by the news media to describe any tension or rivalry between nations that does not result in armed conflict...", it would have to have a source...and where is that source? This turns it into a wiktionary definition, rather than an encyclopedia article. And it turns it into OR again, since that's a synthesis of all kinds of different definitions to this over the years since the end of the Cold War. Hires an editor (talk) 02:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, doesn't matter if the current article had too much OR that is something editors of the article deals with not AFD. Secondly a "New Cold War" (or "2nd Cold War" or whatever) is getting a lot of media time at the moment, also this is a concept that has been around a lot longer than just now (such as WWIV). Mathmo ^Talk 02:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The existence of sources that use a phrase is indeed irrelevant to whether an article on it should be kept. Sources that discuss the phrase itself are what is needed. Closer was right to disregard comments based merely on wide usage without evidence of material that could make this more than a dictionary definition. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently it's relevant enough to argue for its deletion but not enough to argue for it being kept. Many of the delete opinions and the deleting admin as well argued based on media reports that the subject was not clearly defined and therefore should be deleted. Yet somehow the deleting admin did not consider those media reports enough to argue against its deletion, only enough to argue for it. Let's be clear on the problem. Discounting almost every opinion given for keeping the article because they cited media reports and books which not only use the term, but several which describe it and define it as a contest between the U.S. and Russia is simply ridiculous and is one reason why the deletion should be overturned. It's also complete hypocrisy to then cite media reports in justifying deletion. I argued that the article should include other things the term is used for, but focus primarily on Russia because other articles on similar subjects do the same thing. A subject can include more than one thing but be focused primarily in one area. As such including other uses is not making it an indiscriminate collection of information, but acknowledging that while one use is most common there are other uses that are not notable enough or different enough to have their own independent article but should be mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Advocate, see necessary and sufficient conditions. Sources (in existence, even if not in the article) are necessary for a keepable article, but they're not enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I looked again at the AfD and found most deletion advocates made completely ridiculous arguments for deletion that belie a general ignorance or the article itself. Most seemed to think the article was centered entirely or mostly on the recent conflict in Georgia, which it wasn't, several argued that because it has not been used exclusively to refer to relations between the U.S. and Russia following the Cold War it shouldn't be an article, and yet others seemed to think the article was actually saying there was a New Cold War then argued that there wasn't and said therefore it should be deleted. None of these arguments are legitimate or have any basis in policy. The only legitimate argument given was crystal ball, but that one falls completely flat from the fact this wasn't asserting a future event, but describing a perception of recent events. Nowhere did any editor make the argument Coren did and the argument itself was simply wrong. The argument was that the article was "an interpretation" of current usage, which is not accurate. It's not an interpretation of usage, it's a description of what the term commonly refers to when used by the media and several authors in the post-Cold War era particularly in the past few years. I've pointed out a number of areas its used in as it concerns Russia and not simply as a possibility or fear, but as a reality. This is beside the fact the possibility itself is widely discussed. Mind you, again, I'm opposed to the use of this term to describe these events, I think it's naive and silly, but I also understand it has been used for several years to refer to relations between the U.S. and Russia and has well-established notability. I'm not biased towards the subject of the article, I'm biased against it. However, I think even concepts and ideas I find ridiculous should be given articles if they are sufficiently notable, and this one is.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't seem to get it. Read this more carefully and think about how it might apply to this article. Citing more sources that use the term, as someone else said, is just shooting yourself in the foot -- there are lots of uses of the term, all different, and nobody writes anything connecting these various uses except for Wikipedia -- that is an original synthesis of ideas (however ridiculous they might be). An article in a RS discussing the various uses of the term does not appear to exist. csloat (talk) 08:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might be legitimate if this was claiming there was a New Cold War, but it's referring to a term or concept. So citing multiple articles involving this term isn't synthesis. Also, several articles exist that do tie together the various uses of it towards Russia such as these: [28] [29] [30]. I can tell you right now quite a few sources can be found linking the missile defense, Georgia, Kosovo, and disputes over energy together under the umbrella of a New Cold War. So your argument on synthesis is wrong.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What concept? And how many of your "sources" address that concept, which ever one you choose? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of a post-Soviet collapse global confrontation between Russia and the United States. That is the most notable usage of the term beating out its use towards China, Iran, and Islamic militants. Also they do address it rather clearly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see. You cite three sources.

• One says "the hint of a Cold War"
• One doesn't discuss any sort of Cold War; the phrase is in the on-line comments and the headline.
• One comments on a media tsuris about the phrase, in order to deny its reality and importance compared with the ccnflict he really wants to discuss.

In short, therefore, you are claiming that we should have an article on the basis of headline writers and bloggers; and I presume these are your best sources. Perhaps we should add a clause on that to WP:NOT, but I don't think we have to. Please stop wasting our time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. I could not agree more with Guy. Regards, Asterion^talk 17:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Orient de Suisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Could I have a history only undelete here please? JASpencer (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• why? Protonk (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Not to be combative, but what is the purpose behind the request? Protonk (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

presumably to see if there is material suitable for merging or improvement. Looking, there is little there, but the links might be useful DGG (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have been more clear. Protonk (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RF CHECK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Requesting temporary review with the article restored to a userspace so work can be done on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion. I'm making this request for the creator, Nathanvoite. The user wishes to edit, possibly re-write the article to Wikipedia standards. I was making many edits using Huggle at the time I added the CSD tag to the article and don't remember anything about it and figure it wouldn't hurt to bring the article back in a userspace and give him a chance to fix whatever was wrong with it. If it can't be added to their namespace without them making the request here feel free to add it to mine so they can copy it from there. Oroso (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Orient du Congo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Could I have a history-only undeletion please? I want to see what needs to be done to the article. JASpencer (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Other than a category tag and a request for citation, the compete contents of the article read The '''Grand Orient du Congo''' or ''[[Grand Orient]] of [[Democratic Republic of the Congo|Congo]]'' is based in [[Kinshasa]] and has an office in [[Brussels]], [[Belgium]]. Excluding the edits which added the deletion tags, no version had more than minor wikification of that text. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DoubleJay Creative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Rewritten to be notable; speedily deleted without review Dingstersdie (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm doing this right... this is the first article I've written and I'm still learning my way here. Since the article has been deleted, you can see it in my sandbox at [[31]]. Again, I'm trying to learn here, so please tell me *nicely* if I'm doing something wrong.

The DoubleJay Creative page was originally deleted due to non-notability, so I significantly revised it, adding almost double the amount of links and media coverage of the company than it had before. The page was speedily deleted under G4, but the copy is NOT substantially identical to the deleted version and I added a great number of additional articles and sources to specifically address the reason it was previously deleted. Therefore, I don't see how it fits that policy, and think it should be restored. If someone will tell me the specific issues with the page I will address them, but since the entire reason for its deletion before was non-notability (and there were those on the talk page that disagreed with that, even then), and I have added a great number of new sources, this action doesn't seem to make any sense to me.

I've provided a number of reliable, independent sources which cover and explain the significance of this company. In fact, the majority of the articles focus specifically on DJC and their work, which more than fulfills any notability guidelines I can find. The editor who speedily deleted it mentioned being suspicious of SPAs, and my only response to that is that this is the first article I tried to write, and I see no reason to waste the effort to move on to another until I can figure out exactly what's required here. I thought that doubling the amount of media coverage provided, adding new projects of nationwide importance, and taking out non-factual language would do it. I wish that someone would tell me how to fix it, if it is indeed broken, rather than just deleting it. Thanks for your time, Dingstersdie (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my deletion. I am automatically suspicious of SPAs. Dingstersdie should have the modesty to wait until an established Wikipedia editor writes about the company. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, the version deleted is not the same as the one deleted at AFD except that the sourcing remains pretty similar. Perusal if the new sources doesn't suggest that any of these meet RS. I'd say that this should be userfied for the creator to research better sources and bring that version to DRV for review of the original deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If four papers, three magazines and numerous other sites aren't RS, what is? (I don't mean that in a bitchy way, I'm just extremely confused.) Suspicion of SPAs is not a sufficient reason to delete this. Again, tell me what to do to change it to make it better-- don't just tell me to go away, which seems to be what the editor is doing with his "modest" comment. I am trying very hard to make this conform, and I don't understand why the sourcing (and notability?) isn't sufficient now, after adding the additional information and sources. Dingstersdie (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To give you one example, IMDB isn't a reliable source. Have you read the guidelines on sourcing here? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If I took out the IMDB and even some of the award pages that only mention DJC, would it be acceptable? As I said, there are numerous newspaper and magazine articles in there which are solely focused on this company and its work. Are those the offending links?Dingstersdie (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Three speedies and an AfD, all versions by the same single-purpose account, all versions advertorial. Dingstersdie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) tells the story here, look at the deleted and remaining edits - almost everything this user has done here since arriving has been to promote this subject. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions page observes specifically that "the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD. An article is to be judged on its own merits and not those of its editors or detractors." Judge the article as it is now, with a wide variety of sources. And why should I as a user be punished for not giving up and trying to improve an article until it meets wikipedia's standards? Tell me what to change to make it acceptable, please. I have tried to take out any advertorial language-- if some remains, please point it out and I will remedy the situation.Dingstersdie (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Wikipedia:Conflict of interest page makes it absolutely plain that your constant agitation in respect of a subject with which you are obviously connected, is unacceptable. As is repeatedly re-creating said content after numerous deletions. Nobody else has created an article on this, the only other edits at any time appear to be maintenance tags pointing out that it is advertorial, and attempts to make it less blatantly promotional. I tend to the belief that after four separate deletions of an article, created in every case by the same spammer, it is time to leave it gone until another established editor comes along. And if there's one thing worse than a spammer it's a wikilawyering spammer. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• question Can someone who knows more about the awards in the article comment on whether or not they are significant enough to justify an article? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion in the AFD was that they were not. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per JzG. Stifle (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Up Tour (talk|history|links) (AfD1, DRV discussion, AfD2)

This article was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burning Up Tour) on the grounds that a previous AfD resulted in deletion. This article was not a simple recreation of the previously deleted article, and it underwent another AfD, where it appeared the outcome would be no consensus—however, an admin speedy deleted it and closed the AfD without even considering the views of the participants in that AfD, citing past consensus. I believe the more recent consensus (or lack thereof) is what should be followed. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Closer's comments. The previous version of the article was a highly promotional article lacking in sources, consisting mostly of a list of appearances. The version I deleted was a highly promotional article lacking in sources, consisting mainly of a list of appearances. Offers to userfy either version to make it not promotional or to properly source it have been roundly rebuffed. The keep votes focused on potential sourcing, but nobody has offered to step up and do that sourcing. When we have a clear consensus not to have an unsourced version, and nobody's willing to bell the cat, what should we do?
  Additionally, the keeps in the AFD were mostly appeals to incredulity. "How can you not think this is notable!" doesn't really answer the question "Where are the reliable sources that have seen fit to comment on this subject?" Everything that I've been able to find only mentions that there was a tour in support of such-and-such album, a fact which is already appropriately covered in Jonas Brothers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already know the sources are available; in the last DRV for this article I pointed out that there were hundreds of sources available on Google News, and I specifically cited two of them. It is not necessary for them to be immediately placed in the article to justify its existence; once it exists, someone will do the work. Everyking (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you like me to undelete one or both versions so you can add those sources to them? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you're offering to undelete it in the mainspace, then yes; if you're offering to undelete it in userspace, while then acting as a gatekeeper to unilaterally decide whether the sourced article is acceptable to go in the mainspace, then no. Everyking (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how making a point of "You're not the boss of me!" is more important than improving the encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just wanted to note that if the article were undeleted, only the earliest versions can be restored...which are indeed simply a list of dates. The article was riddled with copyright violations from the day it was created. The creator of the article pasted content from here a half hour after first edit and shortly thereafter added a pretty blatant one, beginning with the words "The Jonas Brothers tickets are headed to the big screen with a Disney Digital 3-D feature film that will include footage from" That "tickets" is the give-away. See here. I'm surprised it wasn't detected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted for copyright concerns. Only the earliest versions of the article could be restored, and these truly are just a list of dates. Copyright violation was introduced at the first addition of a text section, and those violations continued through the history of the article with only a few minor additions and alterations. Given the PR powerhouse that this band has become, I wouldn't be surprised if sufficient reliable sources probably could be assembled to document widespread, significant coverage, but this article didn't do that, and the copyrighted text makes it improper to serve as a base for a new article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted (or redirected to the band's page as it currently is) both because of copyright concerns and because I have found nothing to indicate that the concerns raised in the prior Deletion Review discussion have been addressed. Everyking asserted in the prior discussion that sufficient sources had been found to support the article. I reviewed a significant number of those cites and could not reach the same conclusion. No new evidence has been presented here, in the deleted article itself or in the aborted second AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this appears to be the product of a user who isn't interested in taking the simplest route in avoiding CSD-G4, userification and approval before returning an article to mainspace. I see no good reason why that route wasn't taken. I can't see the deleted versions so I won't comment on how alike or different the recreated article was. All I can say is that we should all strive to solve something at the lowest level possible, invoking process only when required by the situation. Protonk (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for reasons expressed on A Man in Black's talk page. Obviously bad close. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While it is impossible to be certain given that all evidence has been destroyed, the version deleted here seems to have been improved above and beyond the original version deleted. If there is material in violation of WP:COPYVIO it should be removed, but unless the entire article consists of violating material, there is no justification for deletion. The original DRV was closed with the comment that "Closure endorsed, no prejudice against recreating a new and better article", and it appears that the new article was better. As consensus did not support deletion and as the speedy appears to have been unjustified, the closure would violate process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Draganic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

I am here (and hopefully doing this correctly) to request the undeletion of a page titled "Pete Draganic". Pete Draganic was a page here in 2006, created by someone else when Pete ran for Governor of the State of Ohio. It was later deleted because (per the discussion) he had not won and was therefore not noteworthy. However, since that time, Pete Draganic has won a city council seat, running against the well-funded godson of Dennis Kucinich, no small feat. He was also elected as a Republican Committeperson and currently serves both offices.

The page was recreated recently and deleted by speedy deletion.

While he may not have been thought to be noteworthy following his gubernatorial race, he did in fact gain a lot of recognition statewide during that time. He had spoken and debated to thousands of Ohioans. He was interviewed and reported on by every major and dozens of minor newspapers, radio stations and television (air and cable) venues throughout the state. He is known by all Republicans in authority all across Ohio. Pete Draganic campaigned through 77 of Ohio's 88 counties alondside of his powerful opponents (then the current State Attorney General, Jim Petro; Auditor of State Betty Montgomery and Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell.)

It would stand to reason that someone with political ambitions such as Pete's plus his most recent successes, That his background would be of interest to many. He is a political figure on the move and in the spotlight regularly.

His burst into politics has earned him some fast credibility as well. He was the ONLY ONE of 180 republican council candidates to receive funding form the Cuyahoga County Republican Party (Cuyahoga is Ohio's most populous County). He is a fixture in republican events and his campaign advice is sought after by others. For the record, the party doesn't give much money to any candidates at all.

I suspect that in short order, you will see his page grow to substantial lengths.

Pete Draganic was included in Gubernatorial polls in 1996. He was included in at least one newspaper poll. He won two blog-based polls. There are thousands of internet references to him. He is currently a winner of two public offices.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this matter. --65.43.181.120 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what will be needed for this is media references from major newspaper in the state talking in a substantial way about him. If you have them, re-create the article in user space and let's see it. DGG (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the user page to provide links to an archive of 25 news reports on Draganic as well as the full list of google archive news references, most of which are pay to view, unfortunately. The original archive of 25 is not a pay to view source. You can view that user page here[32]

One good way to handle pay per view sources from which a interested party collected an archive is to cite the original print publication, add its online link if available , and then add a "convenience link" to the place where you have it visible. Optionally, include the quotation. A few of these sources appear to say nothing more than that he's among the candidates; pick the most substantial. I'll give my opinion that similar sources could be found for many candidates who do not win election if sufficient work were done, and this material appears to fulfill our WP:N general notability criterion. DGG (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that aside from his notability as a candidate for major office, he has gone on to win other lesser offices which, I feel, increases his notability in that he is a person of current interest instead of simply one of historical reference.

• support re-creation in user space if nobody disagrees. DGG (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please help me clarify this. It already exists in user space. It was deleted as an article and I would like to recreate the article.

Hollywood Undead (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This should be a quickie; the protection of this page was overturned a little while ago at DRV for this article, which is located at Hollywood Undead. (The band was so popular that both the normal name and the (band) name were protected due to repeated recreation.) I'd like to have Hollywood Undead (band) unprotected so it can be redirected to the actual article. Likewise, I'd like to have hollywood undead unprotected and redirected for the same reason. Chubbles (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, not controversial and at the request of established editor. Someone else can archive this, I stuffed it up last time. TravellingCari 01:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of creationist museums‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This is a somewhat non-standard DRV request; it isn't as much a request to undelete the page, as it is a request for clarification on how to recreate it. The list was deleted with a variety of arguments, but the reasonable ones seemed to be that there were too many red and unsourced links in the list. In the course of the debate, User:Plazak referenced quite a few of them, and after I was personally challenged to make articles for them I made two reasonable, well sourced (if I do say so myself) articles (including one WP:DYK), and three more in the 4 days since the close. In short, I feel fairly sure there is plenty of reason to restore the list, but want to know how to best restore it, while taking the result of the AFD into account:

• Should it be restored completely, like an undelete, leaving the red links as opportunities for expansion?
• Should the red linked entries be unlinked until their article is created, but left in the list?
• Should the red linked entries be deleted altogether until their article is created?
• How about the ones that are cited with reliable sources writing about them, but not enough for individual articles of their own, can they still be part of this overall article on creation museums in general?
• Something else?

I was asking the deleting administator, and he did kindly restore the article, with history, to my userspace - User:GRuban/List of creationist museums - but said that question was too hard for him to answer quickly, and after two days of silence, he protected his talk page, so I somehow think he's not going to answer. So it looks like my best remaining choice is DRV. Advice, please? GRuban (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This DRV will probably be closed early since this isn't TOO much of a matter for deletion review. My advice is to keep it in userspace until some more sources can be found, specifically those that define what a creationist museum is and preferably a source that lists creationist museums in general. Those two sources would eliminate the most valid AfD complaints. contrary to the assertion of a few people in that AfD, red links are fine as long as we could reasonably expect the target subject would be included in this encylopedia sometime in the future. But without a source providing a criterion for inclusion, this list is still indiscriminate and without a source showing that museum X is creationist it still smacks of WP:OR. Does that help? Protonk (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really, they all say they're creationist. The word "creation" is in half of the museums' names. If you want, it can be "creation museums", it's not a big difference. It's the term they use for themselves. It's not something they're ashamed of. What they say is controversial, but whether or not they're creationist isn't. Here's a list referred to by USAToday: [33]: [34] --GRuban (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if they all say they are creationist then we can cite each of their "about" pages on this list. All I'm saying is that apparent obviousness of categorization doesn't absolve us of the need to properly delimit categories and to ensure that entries fit the categories themselves. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation Article provides a clearly-defined inclusion criteria and sources are provided. As to the presence of red links, a recent study reported in the WP:Wikipedia Signpost indicates that "This implies that the connection between redlinks and new articles is a collaborative one, and that adding redlinks actually spurs others to create new articles." While a Google News Archive search turns up "Creation Museum", it does so in the context of a specific museum. This search using "creationist museum" turned up 111 articles, providing ample evidence of institutions meeting teh definition. Alansohn (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, most are about Creation Museum, which is one.We66er (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Wikipedia:Deletion review is for "disputed deletions and disputed decisions." The consensus was to delete and it was deleted. User:GRuban has since been creating articles promoting pseudoscience. See Category:Creationist museums. As it stands the few articles about this is Creation Evidence Museum (a double-wide trailer could be merged with Carl Baugh) and Museum of Earth History (which has two sources) doesn't need a list. If you count Liberty University, that category has 7. Thus, the AFD was closed appropriately and User:GRuban has since created three or four articles on the subject to argue his position to keep the list. We66er (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]