Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August

Samuel Galindo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A Bolivian footballer currently with UD Salamanca. I'm aware that he hasn't played any first team matches yet, but he made an international appearance for Bolivia in a friendly against Mexico back on the 24th of February. If a player makes a first team appearance in either a league or cup match, or an international appearance, then why delete the page? That's why I'm adding this on here. – Michael (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see that the article was deleted for failing to meet WP:ATHLETE which states, that a player is notable if they "represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition . . . The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." The second point is "Players who have appeared . . . in a fully-professional league." I'm assuming that "senior international competition" means competitions like the Olympics and FIFA World Cup. So my question is, was the Bolivia v Mexico match part of the 2010 FIFA World Cup? If not, then he doesn't pass this criteria. The second is playing in a fully-professional league. So is UD Salamanca part of a fully-professional league and has Samuel Galindo played in a league game? —Farix (t | c) 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bolivia-Mexico match was an international friendly match. All international matches count on their international career. Also, UD Salamanca is part of a fully-professional league. As I said, international matches count all the same unless it was against a non-international team. – Michael (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a second, does it have to be an international compitition? – Michael (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The notability guidelines doesn't say any international match, but a senior international competition. Based on your description, the Bolivia v Mexico match doesn't fit the criteria. And you still haven't answered the second part of the professional league question. But either way, you need to show significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Without it, there can be no article. —Farix (t | c) 03:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • UD Salamanca plays in the Spanish Segunda División. – Michael (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I began a discussion on the NSPORTS Talk page about this issue of international "A" matches counting towards the undefined "senior international competition" requirement. I believe they do, and I recall supporting comments on the talk page, but the language of NSPORTS was never clarified. Jogurney (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and allow recreation. The multiple G4 deletions are made on the basis of an AfD over 12 months ago. But it is abundantly clear that the player's career has moved significantly forward since then. Reliable sources say he has played a full international match.[1] He is variously described as a "wonderkid", "starlet" and has significant coverage in reliable sources. He might technically fail NSPORT as an international friendly is not a "sanctioned competition" and he hasn't played a senior club match, but he passes the GNG in spades (just do a news archive search). In any case, isn't it ridiculous that 10 minutes on the field in the English fourth tier gets you over NSPORT, but a full international friendly doesn't? At the least his claim to passing GNG is much better than it was 12 months ago so another AfD is called for rather than salting.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note because the most recent article wasn't fully up to date, I have created a userspace draft here. Far from perfect but sufficient in my view to be on the mainspace.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. Things have changed since that first AfD, and Mkativerata's draft is easily good enough. Meets WP:NSPORT thanks to the international appearance, and has the coverage to back up the content. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt, with no prejudice to recreation and if necessary an AfD. Given that the player has made a full international appearance, there is enough to suggest that he might be notable. If he isn't notable, it would still warrant a second AfD, given that the circumstances have significantly changed. --WFC-- 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and allow creation - playing in an international match for Bolivia should connote notability, and the G4 was based on information which no longer applies. Jogurney (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt and allow recreation Fully agree with the sentiments of Mkativerata that representing your country is considerbly more prominant than a sub appearance in a marginal pro league - as long as it is a sanctioned FIFA international between two senior international sides, which is arguably a competitive match anyway as the result counts towards FIFA rankings, which determines your seedign for fianls tournaments. While there may be little or no mainstream press on the guy in England, he is without doubt covered in his ative Bolivia--ClubOranje^T 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional magic users (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Also List of fictional parasites, List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds, and List of fictional characters with telekinesis. I'm the administrator that eventually deleted these pages (except for the list of parasites). This discussion is practically already being held on my talk page, so I'm listing it here because the user who asked about listing hasn't done so yet. I initially closed as no consensus, but upon review changed to delete all except for the parasite list. Many of the keep votes rest on arguments that should be avoided. I believe the correct desicion has been made, but considering others disagree, I'm putting this here. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- yup, you got this one right. Reyk _YO! 01:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand my opinion- IMO the lesser weight accorded to the keep votes was justified. Firstly, many of the users advocating that the parasite one should be kept either had no opinion regrading the others or thought they should be deleted. Ignoring votes along the lines of "It's silly, but where's the harm", or "ITS USEFUL", or "Please give us more time", or incorrect assertions that no deletion rationale was presented, really leaves only DGG's opinion. This one was well argued, but seems to hinge implicitly on the idea that our requirements regarding things like WP:V, WP:OR and WP:N are lessened when we're talking about lists- and that is a questionable assumption at best. On the whole I find the side advocating deletion to have the stronger arguments. Correct close. Reyk _YO! 23:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all No reason these can't be sourced lists, no reason they can't exist as both categories and lists, arguments of "unencyclopedic cross-categorization" are without any policy merit and should have been given zero weight. In other words, there was no good reason to delete any of them, no matter how many people showed up with non-reasons. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC <EC> got it right the first time. NOT#INFO is all well and good, but the lists were an organizational structure (as most lists are) not a directory or something else. Navigational aids are just fine. As such the !votes for keep were by-and-large policy based. Hobit (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, parasites was a clear keep... Hobit (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just pointing out that it was kept. Not sure if you're just restating the point, or if you didn't notice that it was kept. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 02:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, was trying to say that I wanted that one to stay keep, the others overturned to NC. Hobit (talk) 04:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure as written. Keep !votes had little basis in policy, while the delete commentary was on-target and relevant. Closer correctly discards many- not all, but many- as making weak arguments. That the deleted lists were original research went without a real refutation, and were correctly identified as higher arguments, worth more weight. Courcelles 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you identify those arguments you find to be the strong delete arguments and those you find to be weak keep arguments? I don't see things that way, but I can't tell what arguments you are basing your !vote on. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, while I can't claim that all delete !votes were based in policy, the ones that were were more based in policy and in line with the (LOTS AND LOTS of) previous discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly, whereas the keeps were primarily WP:ATA. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Overturn to "No Consensus" with respect to all except parasites which is a clear keep. While I believe that such lists have no organizational benefit and should be either categories or nothing, I don't see consensus for such as view either reflected in policy or in the AfD. The earlier "list of fictional superpower" list deletes were influenced by the claim that the powers were trivial or undefinable which isn't really the case with the iconic powers in the last debate. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, though TBH I would've endorsed the original closure as well, they were both within discretion; this was a close call. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse all, along the same lines as Black Kite. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as just a lot of "I don't like the outcome!" BAWWWing. Keep opinions rested on WP:USEFUL & WP:EFFORT, and were rightly given little weight. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Except for one, none of the keep arguments attempt to address the policy-based problems the lists face. One of the keep arguments didn't so much about why the lists should be kept, but was a rant about AfD as a whole. Most of the delete arguments, on the other hand, try to use policy to back up their positions based on recent outcomes of similar AfDs. —Farix (t | c) 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus for all but the parasite one that was keep. Some of those who wanted them deleted, said the content was better as categories, preferring them instead of list. Not a good reason to delete something. If you believe the information is valid as a category entry, why not as part of a list? Are there different standards listed somewhere? Do you sincerely doubt any of the characters used magic, in that one list about magic users? You can read a review about the series, or the back of the DVD boxes they come in, which will confirm they can use magic. Seems like just a bunch of list haters to me. A lot of people felt the same way and said keep. No consensus to delete any of this. Dream Focus 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the deletes to keep, which was the actual consensus. The conclusion that they should be categories but not lists is plain contrary to policy, which is that both are normally appropriate ( I think the only reasonable exception is when there are too few items for a list to be helpful). If there is enough evidence for a category, there is enough evidence for a list. A list limited to material in notable anythings is not indiscriminate, nor directory. Totally inappropriate rule-making by the closing admin. The arguments about sourcing was also contrary to fact, as most of the material could be sourced from the appropriate (primary, in this case) sources; an incorrect statement is not a policy based argument. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, per our verifiability policy, if there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss a subject then we should not have an article on it. That means it is not enough to "source" an article about a fictional element entirely to the work of fiction in which it appears. Reyk _YO! 19:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're applying a narrow view of notability unsupported by consensus. Each list entry does not need to establish notability, and reliable sources for "list of fictional X" don't need to explicitly state "fictional x...", as long as they apply to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I think my view is supported by consensus- particularly concerning "list of fictional characters with attribute X" type articles. The community has well and truly decided that they are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Consensus has been established that if you can't even write an encyclopedia article about "X in fiction", then dumping a lot of names into a cross-category list is not on. The principle is very clear: is a list an article? Yes. Does policy allow articles to be written from only primary sources? No. Should you then compile a list from only primary sources? No. Reyk _YO! 23:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, individual other discussions don't determine consensus other than locally. The fact that a lot of !voters are confused by the bad current state of some lists does not give you a license to presume that all such lists are to be expunged. Deletion discussions are to be about the encyclopedic potential rather than the current state of articles, so most of the "delete, looks like OR crap" votes are not supported by policy. Jclemens (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would think that several discussions regarding many of these lists, held in a central location like AfD and commented on by a large number of neutral observers and all ending in unequivocal delete is about as far from being limited consensus as you can get barring a Wikipedia-wide straw poll. I also think that, since WP:OR you know, kinda is policy, then arguments that make reference to it are also supported by policy. And arguing that anyone who disagrees with you must be "confused" is just poor form. Reyk _YO! 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • While uncorrectable OR violation is a good deletion reason, there is no OR. Saying "OR" when it is itrrelevant is not a policy based argument but just bluster. Anyway, don't the continued arguments here and elsewhere prove there is no stable consensus? I hardly think the people who persistently gtry for the deletion of these articles count as neutral observers. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Could someone explain how NOT#INFO applies here? It's a navigational aid to existing articles. I'm extremely unclear how that can be in violation of NOT#INFO (and I was in the AfD too). Hobit (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I can't speak for others, I would generally say that "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" which I believe these lists to be are "indiscriminate collections of information". I also note that the former is not a subheading of the latter in the current layout of WP:NOT, but I suspect that similar thinking influenced many of those who cited WP:NOT#INFO in the debate. This is the disadvantage of arguing with links and acronyms rather than arguments. Even if it's a standard one it can often be clearer to make it explicitly rather than via a linked acronym which often applies on in part or in spirit and not in all the specific bullet points listed at the linked section. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my guess. I can't see how a navigational aid can indiscriminate collections of information. I think "loosely related" is a massive stretch here. I think the arguments for deletion in the AfD are just fundamentally flawed. I don't see how flawed arguments can win the day with that close of a !vote count. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to keep Per DGG. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to keep or at least no consensus, admin's closing summary clearly misinterprents or misunderstands the rationales - it would be harsh to blame the closing admin because the quality of debate here was very poor; there was an alphabet soup of quoted abbreviations, but their actual application in these cases received minimal discussion because of the varied bunch of articles nominated. There are legitimate arguments for the deletion of lists like these (I'd probably consider them only "marginal keeps") - for instance discussing navigational structure via WP:CLT, or arguing that the inclusion attribute is not a meaningful, important, verifiable, or just poorly defined - but I didn't discussion about this, particularly judging the articles case-by-case on their merits.

The arguments for deletion generally don't seem to apply policy and guidelines to the individual articles - one main thrust was that it was duplicated by a category, but that's not by itself a reason to delete if you read through WP:CLT (which is glaringly relevant, yet not mentioned in the nomination, the "delete" rationales or the closing statement). I'm not sure WP:IINFO was relevant: the lists had clear inclusion criteria, so by definition are not indiscriminate. The closing statement suggests that recreation as categories is possible which presumably rules out WP:IINFO - information that is genuinely indiscriminate wouldn't deserve a category! (And according to WP:CLT there is a valid argument for creating a list article from such a category and annotating and referencing it to make it non-redundant...so if a category is acceptable, there should be a specific reason why a list wouldn't be.) Some of the other "delete" rationales simply showed lack of knowledge about policies and guidelines: the idea that any list which could contain individually non-notable items is deletable unless it includes "List of Notable X" in the title shows a lack of knowledge of WP:NNC (it is appropriate for lists to include entries that don't deserve their own article - actually at WP:CLT that's a benefit of lists over categories - but it's also appropriate for editors to keep a list at maintainable and readable length, if necessary, by including only entries notable enough to possess an article), while arguments like 'wasted opportunities that follow the boring "click on the blue link" format' seen never to have considered WP:CLT or the fact that improvement of the lists by annotation so they are no longer redundant to a category.

What I found very unhelpful was the clear misinterpretation of several "keep" rationales, including in the admin's closure, in order to render them argument to avoid. For instance, under WP:CLT, a system of navigation (category, list or navbox) that is not useful, is a bad system of navigation, and should be removed if it's redundant to one of the others. So arguing for navigational usefulness is not the same mistake as WP:USEFUL, it's just pointing out that it satisfies WP:CLT. Similarly, DGG stated that for individual items on a list about attributes of fictional characters, it generally would be possible to reference the fact they possess that attribute (and hence belong on the list) to their source material. That's a point about whether the articles could be referenced, yet it is represented in the nominator's reply and closing summary as if DGG had made the mistake of arguing for WP:INHERITED notability of the list, and hence his point can be dismissed. Alphabet-soupping WP:ATA at opposing points of view, without considering arguments on their merits, is very harmful to meaningful debate. TheGrappler (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Most of the "keep" opinions were weak and ignored valid concerns with WP:IINFO WP:NOTDIR and WP:OR. ThemFromSpace 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I just see waves toward those polices, with very little discussion of why they apply. It's now OR to group topics? We do that all the time. You'd be hard pressed to find a list of people here where there is a RS that puts all those people on the same list. NOTDIR also would seem to rule out all lists if you applied it here. Could you explain how it's different than say a list of songs by artist or a list of episodes? And IINFO doesn't even seem to vaguely apply. Could you explain how these policies apply here and where you see that explained in the AfD? Hobit (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OR applies because we can't say that something is a fictional magic user (or what have you) unless a reliable source states the case. WP:IINFO states that articles must discuss "the reception and significance of notable works" of fiction; it also contains an admonishment against "excessive listing of statistics". WP:NOTDIR prohibits unencyclopedic cross-categorizations. All of these arguments were brought up at the AfD and were rebutted by vague handwaves such as "this material is appropriate" without anything to back it up (such as sources showing that this wasn't original research and that the topic has enough relevance to be considered encyclopedic). For lists such as these to exist we need to provide sources which show that both 1.the objects in the list belong there and 2. that the list itself is of an encyclopedic topic. ThemFromSpace 06:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, one at a time.
        • WP:OR. We can use a primary source to identify a "magic user". If the book says they use magic, that's enough. Is there a single case on the list where a primary source doesn't back that up? If so, remove it from the list. But all I saw easily met that requirement.
        • The section of WP:IINFO you discuss is for plot-only descriptions of fictional works. I think applying that requirement to a list entry is a massive stretch. If we are going to claim that listing a person as being a magic user (for example) is a "plot description" then we are left with the direction to be "concise". A list entry is about as concise as you could hope for.
        • WP:NOTDIR#6 is probably the best argument to be found, but it's also a stretch. There is plenty of coverage of fictional magic users as a concept. So the list topic is notable and therefore generally encyclopedic. Unless unencyclopedic means WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
      • My point is that the waves toward policy were A) unclear and B) largely wrong. WP:OR clearly is bogus as nothing prevents the use of primary sources. Heck, even without primary sources reviews and the like will identify the characters as "wizards" or the like. The section of WP:IINFO you cite is about writing too-long plot summaries and doesn't apply to simple lists. The WP:NOTDIR would seem to hang on a personal definition of "unencyclopedic". I'm really not seeing any valid arguments for deletion out there. If people had actually argued their points (like you did here, which I think is great) rather than waving at guidelines the keep folks could have countered them (as I have tried to do). But instead there were just waves on both sides to the guidelines and so we get a bunch of fairly worthless !votes to delete and keep. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Bold call but I'm not going to support overturning the deletion of rampant original research. No, primary sources are not enough, it depends too significantly on how the individual editor interprets the primary source. People who write this stuff about fictional universes shouldn't be held to different sourcing standards than the rest of us who have to actually look for sources rather than watch movies and write about them.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah. I agree that fictional sources shouldn't be held to different standards, but you seem to be holding them to higher ones. If we have a reliable source we can use it as a source, primary or otherwise. Could that lead to a disagreement? Sure just like reading any source. We resolve such things through discussion all the time, even on science topics and the like. The thing we avoid with primary sources is synthesis. I'm not sure how that could apply to a list of this nature. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I'm writing an article on politics, I can't observe the politics myself and write about it. That's OR. There's no difference between observing a movie, and using my observation to include a character on a list of fictional magic users or whatever. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, mostly per Mkativerata. Though I agree that both sides both had some rather poor arguments brought forward, concerns about original research – amounting as a result of a near-blind following of verifiability and nothing else – I think are valid. –MuZemike 06:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - there were essential problems with the lists that were deleted - mainly absence of secondary sources and OR problems. Claritas § 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Claritas has been Checkusered and found to have engaged in sockpuppetry in order to influence the outcomes of other fiction related AfD's. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. Sustain parasites as keep. The AfD nomination should have focused on one list and its associated articles, not several lists. The original nomination's two arguments were "inappropriate for Wikipedia" and "has a category already":

1. Inappropriateness mentions no pillar, policy, guideline, or essay. Not a reason for deletion.
2. "Has a category" is countermanded with authority by WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates - paraphrasing: lists and categories both are useful and considered necessary, and are mutually compatible; camps should not seek deletion. Not a reason for deletion.
3. This leaves the nomination without foundation, except as a fishing expedition for reasons to delete. Fishing is not the purpose of deletion nominations. If I were an admin, I would close as an invalid nomination.

But WP isn't Includipedia, nor is it Deletipedia. The post-closure flip, in my view, should automatically result in a "no consensus" merely on procedural grounds, with sincere respect to the good faith of the closing administrator. The AfD discussion points were not shining examples of the best in such discussion, for two reasons: 1. the fan/editors of the articles and lists are comparatively deers-in-the-headlights of doggedly determined, blooded deletionists, and 2. too many editors on both sides inexcusably failed to read the entirety of linked pillars, policies, guidelines, and essays. What's the matter, TL;DR? As a result, the discussion was nowhere close to reaching consensus - no offered compromises were seriously considered - one example: the notion of "keep for some duration of time," per WP:DEADLINE, was dismissed here as "give US more time", even though the proferring editor obviously had nothing to do with the articles or lists mentioned. The WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates guideline strongly supports the mutually-inclusive existence of both by-list and by-category navigation of topics, which was the main argument offered for deletion in the AfD nomination. I have no interest in the mentioned lists, having created none, and having edited one only as an example of the kind of improvement which I strongly advocate. I would insist that the lists be improved with descriptions and some internal organization, and linked articles be improved with reliable, verifiable 3rd-party sources. If that improvement doesn't happen, I'll re-up the lists for deletion in WP:DEADLINE days myself. --Lexein (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakly endorse. In a sort of AfD2 sense, the general argument about list articles suggests that the added utility of a list justifies some leeway when it comes to judging content and inclusion issues. There are some stronger opinions out there (that notability is additive and others), but that is the basic idea. On those merits, I have a lot of trouble seeing a list of fictional magic users as useful enough to overcome the OR/N/NOT issues raised in the deletion debate. On to the discussion itself, we do empower closing admins to take into account some opinions more than others. This is a case where that weighting happened and resulted in delete opinions being given more weight than keep opinions. And weighting those opinions did not require much tea leaf reading. The comments in the AfD were clear and articulate with rationales generally supporting keeping the parasites list (which has some strong potential sourcing) and deleting the rest. I won't do a line by line unless requested, but this close was at the margin of admin discretion and explained clearly. Protonk (talk) 07:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse All, most of the Keep arguments made were extremely feeble, justifying a delete call, and also per Mkativerata. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • So if the keep !votes were feeble we delete no matter how strong the delete !votes? I'm assuming that's not what you meant, but I would like to hear what you felt were good arguments on the delete side. I honestly don't see any. Hobit (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all deletes. The closer acknowledged, by indicating that parallel categories were appropriate, that the articles did not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Therefore there is no policy-based reason for deletion (whatever improvement may be appropriate). Whether to maintain lists, categories, or both is therefore purely a matter for editorial discretion, where the closing admin should not have overridden the community's expressed consensus, or lack thereof, without compelling reasons. Without such reasons, there was no consensus to delete any of these articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was deleted in an AfD on the 10th of August and appeared on REFUND both before and after the deletion discussion. I deleted a recreation and the author asked me to post a deletion review here. He (I.R.Bhattacharjee) contends that the subject itself was inadequately covered in the deletion discussion and offers some sources and arguments on my talk page. My opinions on the page and the original deletion discussion are summarized on that talk page section: I don't think it belongs on wikipedia and I don't think the original deletion discussion was fatally flawed. Please understand that I am posting this on behalf of someone who does feel that the subject should be covered and that the deletion discussion was insufficient (ie. don't close this as without reason to overturn). Thanks. Protonk (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a note w/ the deleting admin. The page is currently at User:I.R.Bhattacharjee/BmecGrav. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse there was no other way to close that one. It _sounds_ at least moderately kooky to me, but some of the publications are in reasonable places though they appear to be more about measurement than the overall theory. Also appears to be a large WP:COI issue. I'd like to see at least one or two more papers in reputable conferences/journals by someone other than Dr. Bhattacharjee before I would argue to keep or some other sign of wider acceptance. Hobit (talk) 02:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I would like to draw the attention of user Hobit and proton towards the article "THE CORE OF THE MATTER

Core and Sleeve in the Rolfian Paradigm" in the url http://www.somatics.de/Linn/Core.htm , which explains the wider acceptance as required by them. I would not like to prove the wider acceptance in any other way but deletion of an elite article Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity from wikipedia would also entitle deletion of other related articles from wikipedia. An example of it could be Artificial Gravity article, because it also starts with some of the facts which have been deeply described by Dr.Bhattacharjee in his newly edited article [[2]]. Rajan Kashyap--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)--Rajan Kashyap (talk) 08:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Wikipedia is not a forum for the "figurehead of a new science" to promote his new science. Edison (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep[Article on Biomechanics of Intrinsic Gravity]is enriched with information having wider acceptance, comparable to any other similarly situated Wiki articles. Before any precipitative action and to get researchers view, article should be referred to list of science-related deletion discussion suggested on 3rd August,2010.–I.R.Bhattacharjee 08:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Courtney Thomas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I don't know who the musician was who's page was deleted several years ago, but there is now a new Courtney Thomas, Miss Pennsylvania 2010 and Miss America 2011 contestant who is deserving of a new page, which I would be glad to write if an administrator will unlock it and allow it to be created. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have pages on state beauty queens? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, per http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Template:Miss_America_2011_Delegates Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks. Unlocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closed as NC "default to Keep", however there was only one "Keep" vote and one "Keep or Merge", both of which were basically WP:ITSNOTABLE and should've been given a lesser weight anyway. All the other eight comments agreed that the article was not independently notable. In no way whatsoever did the close reflect consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC) Black Kite (t) (c) 13:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist (closing administrator) - I'm not against relisting to generate new consensus. I agree that keep was not one of the main choices, but I chose to keep so as to allow discussion for merge or redirect. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 16:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a consensus and that was delete. overturn & delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I didn't/don't think there was a consensus, but I suppose that's why we're here. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 00:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete, as the arguments toward deletion are stronger than those for keeping the article. I wouldn't be opposed to just merging/redirecting, however, which seems more sensible. —fetch·comms 17:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse but merge merging into list article is a reasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as very reasonable determination that no consensus was reached after a thinly argued discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that consensus was reached that the subject wasn't independently notable, yet the AfD was closed as Keep? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No consensus was reached as to the disposition of the article. By policy, the default outcome was "keep," maintaining the status quo. Note also that the closer went beyond mere headcounting, finding the arguments on all sides unpersuasive as a basis for action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • But since consensus was that the status quo was not acceptable, there is no way the discussion should have been closed that way. Reyk _YO! 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's not how AfD works. If the status quo is not acceptable, it can be changed through discussion, usually through the article's Talk page. "No Consensus" defaults to keeping the article so it can be improved. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the contrary, that's exactly how AfD works, especially as of the only two Keep votes, one was ITSNOTABLE and the other was "Keep or merge". There was a clear consensus that the article should not stand alone, and the close will lead (as it already has once) to editors reverting any merge/redirect process with "But the AfD said Keep". Black Kite (t) (c) 19:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • My recollection is that we've turned away those wishing to convert "merge" results into "keep" results at AfD DrV on the basis that no tools are needed to undo the merge and discussion on the talk page can produce consensus to unmerge. Is that correct? If so, how is this case any different? Hobit (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your recollection is correct for past DRVs, but there has been movement towards hearing these sorts of cases: compare WT:Deletion review/Archive 15#Updating Scope to handle AFDs closed as Merge (December 2009) and WT:Deletion review/Archive 15#Wikipedia:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions (July 2009). A procedural close here because "mergers are outside the scope of AfD" (a general position, not a specific quote) would be WP:BURO. A new discussion is required when there is insufficient consensus, but there is strong support for merging or redirecting at the AfD and here – is a third discussion at the article talk page necessary? Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to think we should overturn to merge. There wasn't anything in the discussion upon which a keep result could have hung. Merge was the least deletionist outcome that could have been arrived at, so merge was the most that was within the closing admin's discretion. Delete would have been an appropriate close too and I would have argued for delete in the AfD as I really doubt there is anything of value to merge. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP ARTICLE - The article has proved to be actively developed, have references, and people who want to continue to develop it. What is the rush to delete the thing? Do people plan to repeatedly nominate articles for deletion until they get their way? Move on. Mathewignash (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to merge. Consensus was that it wasn't notable enough for its own article. Consensus was also that outright deletion wasn't a good idea, especially with the list already in existence. So merge it should be. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but merge "merge" is a variety of "keep" outcome, so the close is not numerically unreasonable, if we're counting noses. Having said that, I still believe the merger is the most encyclopedic outcome, as I proposed in the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete- consensus was clear that the contents of the article were unsuitable for inclusion, but the participants were split on how best to remove the bad content. Keep was the only outcome that could not have been arrived at through that discussion, and defaulting to the only outcome that was unacceptable to the participants is not really an appropriate way to close the discussion. Reyk _YO! 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Perhaps someone should just have nominated all the Transformers spaceships to merge a single page of Transformers Spaceships in the first place instead of going on a binge of Deletion nominations. It would have not ruffled as many feathers and probably been done better, even supported by the normal editors of the Transformers articles. Heck, maybe someone should propose that now. Mathewignash (talk) 22:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Kite and I had a discussion about that after this had been kicked off. I tend to agree with your position, but there are issues with sourcing such that if we take a bunch of uncited stuff and put it into one big list, it's still a big mess of uncited stuff. The problem with many fictional articles is that there aren't people willing to do the legwork to make real encyclopedia entries out of them, which I find quite unfortunate. Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is the problem; if you take half a dozen unsourced articles on non-notable subjects, you're just creating one big non-notable article. Whilst merging in this way is usual, the resulting article has to be sourced from actual reliable sources and not become a magnet for page upon page of completely non-notable trivia, like most of the Transformers articles currently are (i.e. this one is 116K - two thirds of it could be removed without losing anything important). Black Kite (t) (c) 08:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect (suggested boilerplate: "redirect, content available in history for merging"), clear consensus against stand-alone article. I don't see a delete consensus, but it would be within admin discretion. Flatscan (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting merge as a variant of keep here is an oversimplification that contributes to polarization – why not recommend delete if merge is actually keep? In this case, it is more useful to consider whether a stand-alone article is supported, per WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I can't find any sort of consensus there (and if there was a delete consensus available, believe me I would have fished it out). Stifle (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect It seems to me there were more comments for merge then keep (and more or less about the same for delete). There is no evidance proudced to establish any notability (and there is still none).Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but merge: Looks to be no consensus on the surface. But with all the discussion here and there, it's clear there is support for a merge. No prejudice against starting an AfM discussion if this position appears controversial, but it really shouldn't be. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but hold off on the merge for now. This is a very young article, hardly over a month old. Merging would be like WP:DEMOLISH since merges often result in a loss of the majority of the information. Moreover, this subject seems to be rather unique in the transformer's universe, and spans multiple TV series so there's not obvious destination for it to be merged to as far as I know (though I must admit I know very little) —CodeHydro 14:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I said Merge in the discussion because I didn't think we'd end up keeping it. I'd prefer it kept of course since nothing is gained by destroying articles that some enjoy reading and those who don't won't ever find unless they were just looking for something to complain about and destroy. There was clearly no consensus to delete. The closure was fine. Dream Focus 17:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the End of Tonight (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A7'ed a couple of days ago. Requesting Undeletion based on the fact that the band has two full-lengths out on Temporary Residence Records and has had copious media coverage, e.g. Pitchfork, Allmusic, tinymixtapes, Drowned in Sound, Dusted. Happy to add to article if it's thin. Chubbles (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• undelete After a quick look at the I'm unable to tell which of those sources provided by Chubbles are reliable, but a discussion certainly seems reasonable at this point. No idea if the original speedy was justified or not as I can't see the article, so I won't !vote to overturn or endorse the decision at this time. Hobit (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with liberty to list at AFD. Two album releases would be enough to keep the article at AFD, so are certainly enough to defeat an A7. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I also can't see the version as deleted but the band has sufficient releases and coverage to likely pass AFD.--Michig (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just give it a minute...:) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per nom. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

human molecule (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Note: the article human molecule never when through an xfd. To give some history, in 2007 I wrote an article on human chemistry (my field of study), based on the first books written on the subject, such as American engineer William Fairburn’s 1914 book Human Chemistry, along with 50 or so other references. To give some idea of how the two subjects interrelate: Henry Adams, for example, defines “social chemistry” as the study of the mutual attraction of equivalent “human molecules” (1885). The two subjects are thus closely related. The human chemistry article was sent to afd (10 Oct 2007), on the grounds that I was attempting to self-promote my own publications, among other objections, rather than to summarize an historical subject. Out of irritation with the derogatory personal commentary directed at me, I speedy-tagged both the human chemistry and the associated article human molecule (that I also wrote earlier), per G7; specifically posting a request note on Tim Vickers’ talk page that he speedy human molecule for me, being that he seemed to be the one raising the most objection.

After three-year cool-off period of retraction from the subject, and from Wikipedia (Note: from 2005 to 2010, I have successfully author about 200 new Wikipedia articles), I attempted a new one-page reserved summary article on the topic of the “human molecule” (10 Jun 2010), being that, as I have come to find, at least seven books have been written on the subject of the human molecule and that the 2002 Sterner-Elser ecological stoichiometry calculation of the formula for one human molecule (the first published calculation for empirical formula for one human) has a 750+ Google citation count and is found in over 500+ libraries, world-wide. The total 90+ people to have written on the subject are listed here. In any event, after starting the new article a few months ago, only after a few edits, the previous deleting editor Tim Vickers, in discussion with Kww (who wants an indef ban on me), quickly objected and reached consensus between themselves, on 11 Jun 2010, to delete the human molecule article, per G4.

The problem here is that the human molecule article never went through an afd; hence G4 does not apply and has been misused in this case. Moreover, the new 2010-version of the human molecule, was not a “a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy” as G4 defines for speedy; but rather an honest effort to summarize a very notable subject in a more neutral way, given three-years retreat from writing at Wikipedia. I’ve discussed this now with the deleting editor (Vickers) who suggests deletion review and have now also requested editorial help, in finding two or three Wikipedians to help me write the article, at physics, chemistry, economics, and sociology, project pages, with the general suggestion being that I go to deletion review.

It is my belief that a noted (albeit controversial) subject over 220-years old, with a half-dozen books written on it, that is taught in universities, and with, unbelievably, four near 100-foot tall statues made in tribute to this subject that it should be notable enough to have a summary Wikipedia article. What I would like is to be allowed to do then, is to be allowed to write-up a neutral, reliably sourced, article on the topic of the human molecule and then if anyone has objections to the new article, let someone formally propose an afd for the article. Libb Thims (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. The 2010 version may not have been identical, but it did not address the objections to the article raised in the AFD. If Libb Thims believes that he can create a version of the article that surmounts those issues, he can do so in the article incubator for review.—Kww(talk) 15:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That related deletion discussion, as I have already linked to above (10 Oct 2007), was for the particular article "human chemistry". The "human molecule" article, by contrast, while some may have objected to it, was cogent enough to be featured in October 2007 Did You Know? and was never sent to afd, but rather I requested it's deletion per G4. --Libb Thims (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to use CSD codes, please use them correctly. I'm skeptical that you requested a deletion via G4: G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. If so, you are agreeing with me that the article was indeed covered by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry, where it was specifically listed. Now G7, G7. Author requests deletion possibly does apply. Actual history is that it was stubbed to remove the WP:OR. You then redirected it. You then requested G7 deletion. That speedy was rejected. Coren then tried a G1 speedy, which was refused with a redirect to Nanoputian, up until the day the you recreated the original offending content, still replete with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. In summary, all content of this article was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry, that content was removed as a result of that discussion, and you have done nothing to repair that material.—Kww(talk) 16:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I was using the codes in reverse order. I have corrected the typos above. The original request for G7 is here. Having now digested your suggestion, the incubator idea might be a good path. Over the next few days (week at most), I'll write up a new version of the article in the incubator space, at Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Human molecule, and there you, Tim Vickors, Coren, and whoever else (maybe some Wikipedia:Project members) can raise whatever objections, and I will do my best to address each objection one a time. Thanks. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at the time of the afd, i supported the article, but only if it was edited drastically,. The article now linked to above remains a combination of information about the historic use of it as a literary conceit, most notaably by Goethe in the novel Ellective Affinities, where they with a extension of the metaphor in ways that might be worth discussing, a cconsideration ofthe vague use opf "chemistry" to indicate romantic attraction, to an indication that it is being used as a serious sociological concept--which is fringe altogether and for which i am not sure there are any reliable sources. The present article is less confused than the past one, but is altogether oriented to the concept of it being a real sociological hypothesis, which I think nonsense, supported by such illustrations as a pile of multiple copies of the key author's books on a cart. I note our current article on Goethe's novel remains somewhat dominated that it was to even a slight degree a scientific theory, rather than the author's opportunity to work out a elaborate metphor by showing a playful intellectual game among the characters to justify their relationships. I am notsure the pressent editor will be able to rewrite the article objectively, in view of the amount of nonsense in the linked version. But he can try, and just possibly someone will fell inclined to make actual sense of it. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, thanks for the comments. Today’s version is starting to fill out and has 21-references (ten more than when you last viewed it), none of which are from a “pile of multiple copies of my books on a cart”. I still have 14 more header sections to write. It is puzzling to me, I must say, as to why I am facing such resistance to write on this topic? Granted, most theorizers on this subject are long dead: Henry Adams (spent 38-years thinking on this topic), Vilfredo Pareto (spent 22-years on this subject), Pierre Teilhard (spent 25-years on this topic), etc. What I’m most likely going to do, when the new-version of the article is finished, is send the whole thing to afd myself so that the article can gather a formal consensus. --Libb Thims (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please don't tell me that this horror show is ever going to appear as a real Wikipedia article. Please. This is not fringe, it's beyond that: this is a piece of original research kookery at its very worst. It's not even pseudoscience: it does not even try to be anything close to science. A textbook case of absurd absurdity cranked up to absurd. 80.135.29.39 (talk) 01:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If anything, that version has exaggerated the faults that led to deletion, not rectified them.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Kww, the problem here is that you have abused your admin powers by misusing G4 (speedy per "recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion") to delete the new-2010 version of the human molecule article I was attempting to start earlier this year. The 2007-version of the human molecule article was never sent to afd. Therefore, you cannot speedy an article that has never had an afd discussion. Secondly, you are admittedly impartial to my edits, as you have been labeled by other admins as a "shouter" for call to permanently ban me, a motion you have expressed on multitudes of pages and dates that I can't even begin to count. Therefore, to resolve this issue, and get a fair community vote on the subject "human molecule" is to finish the writing the article, stopping at the 100-reference level, then move the article into the main space, so I can add the missing images, then send the article to afd for community vote. I will likely be doing this within the next week. It would be enlightening if you could explain why you have such hate for me. I really don't even remember interacting with you prior to my writing the 2007 human chemistry article? --Libb Thims (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have abused nothing. It's just a really bad article, and you don't seem to understand that having this kind of article is not good for Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject you call “dreck”, or excrement, as you have stated in 2007, the Royal Society calls the best science writing of 2005. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is obvious that you are out of your topic area in that you do not have any type of science degree. You have been grinding an axe with me now for 3+ years? I would very much wish for you to cease your attack on me. --Libb Thims (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is attacking you. Write an article that meets Wikipedia standards, and it will be allowed back. Perform original research, and it won't. It really is that simple: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for publishing original research of any kind.—Kww(talk)

The current version has 30 direct references to the term "human molecule", used in various ways (economics, sociology, psychology, literature, physics, chemistry, history, culture, etc). Why don't you try to explain to me what part of the article is "original research"? --Libb Thims (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are using references to multiple different concepts that are only vaguely related and relating them in ways that external sources do not. This paragraph is the best example:

Variations or near-synonyms of the term "human molecule" include: point atom (Humphry Davy, 1813), atomic society and social molecule (Thomas Huxley, 1871), economic molecule (Léon Walras, c.1880), human atom (Albion Small, 1899), human chemical (Thomas Dreier, 1910), human chemical element (William Fairburn, 1914), Mr. Molecule (William Patton, 1919), "chemical formula in operation" (George Carey, 1919), human element (Pierre Teilhard, 1947), social atomism (Philip Rieff, c.1960), dissipative structure (Ilya Prigogine, 1971), Molecule Man (Jonathan Borofsky, 1977), human atomism (Arthur Iberall, 1987), human particle (Joel de Rosnay, 1975), molar group (Pierre Levy, 1994), mereological atoms (Eric Olson, 1998), free electron (Tom DeMarco, 1999), molecular relationship (Joseph Dewey, 1999), gay molecule Y2, the lesbian molecule X2, or middle-Eastern polygamous molecule X4Y (Christopher Hirata, c.2000), child "precipitate" PPT (Karl Fink, 2001), couple "compound" M-F (David Hwang, 2001), family molecule (Paul Peachey, 2001), giant molecule (Jim Eadon, 2001), "well-formed molecule" (Farrelly brothers, 2001), "highly evolved, overgrown super-molecules" (Peter Pogany, 2006), "The Human Element" (John Claxton/Dow Chemical, 2006), social atom (Mark Buchanan, 2007), "bag of chemicals" (Michael Brooks, 2009), chemical molecules (Surya Pati, 2009), entromorphic atom or Mr. Carbon Atom (Mark Janes, 2009), corporate molecule (Vineet Nayar, 2010), etc., among others; each of which are derivative terms discussing different aspects of the same overall subject.

Your thesis is that these are all derivative terms discussing different aspects of the same overall subject. Without an external source tying these things together, it's WP:SYNTHESIS. You can't make an article forwarding the proposition that there is a common subject tying these things together unless someone else states that common subject exists.—Kww(talk) 17:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Merging. I’ll summarize the main guidelines for you for when to merge two related terms or topics into one:

1. Duplicate – There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject and having the same scope.
2. Overlap – There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. Text – If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.

According to your argument then, either I content fork these various 30 different terms "on exactly the same subject" into 30 new stub articles or else be accused of doing original research? Maybe you should post notice to all the merge-tag happy people in Wikipedia that they are doing original research and that this is not allowed at Wikipedia. Any other original research issues with the article? --Libb Thims (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously arguing that an article that attempts to connect Atom Ant to Francois Massieu is simply merging 30 articles on exactly the same subject?—Kww(talk) 18:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both you and Tomdo08 have both complained about the one sentence comic section, as supposed grounds to delete the whole article, so I have moved it to the talk page. Regarding your issue with the different synonyms, I have now moved that group to its own header section, added in clarification explanation, with support references from German physicist Jurgen Mimkes who has been teaching this subject at the University of Paderborn for ten years now. Any other objections to the current article? --Libb Thims (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above doesn't seem to be getting anywhere - both sides have stated their positions, and neither are convinced by the arguments of the other. The deletion review has been open for almost 7 days, so in order to facilitate closing it, might I suggest that all interested parties briefly state their position below. Djr32 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the original decision to delete the article and delete the re-created version. The 2007 version of the article was deleted as WP:SYNTH, the new version suffers from exactly the same issue. Djr32 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’m out of time for the day, but briefly "NO the 2007 version was not deleted as WP:SYNTH". The human molecule article NEVER went to afd or was even prodded. Kww improperly speeded an article I was attempting to write on the human molecule in June. He hasn’t yet admitted to this mistake, but whatever. I am now a few days away from finishing the new-version, based on all the constructive feedback, at incubator. When I am done and have finished incorporating all the suggestions for improvement, etc., I will move the article back into the main space. After which, it seems, the article will then likely get an official community afd vote. So, I guess there is really no need for this review to remain open. Feel free to archive or close it as resolved. Thanks --Libb Thims (talk) 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you move the article in its current condition back to mainspace, it will be immediately eligible for deletion again, so I wouldn't advise that. Note that no participants in this review have argued that my deletion was improper.—Kww(talk) 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the "constructive feedback" you have received at the incubator, it seems to echo what you have received here.

• there are a lot of completely different philosophic and scientific ideas, allegories, technobabble and completely unrelated stuff mixed together under one umbrella
• The article seems to be a synthesis of not-notable references that are about the subject, joke references that are taken seriously, and off-topic subjects that appear related (but are not) all brought together to form a original thesis
• "human molecule" as you represent it there, is not a theory but a name for a lot of different things, some of them very much not being a theory at all

Given that, there isn't a consensus being developed anywhere that this article is suitable for Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How's about this compromise: (1) I'll finish writing the article. (2) I'll move the article into mainspace. (3) I'll notify you of article completion and then you send the article to afd and explain to everyone why it should be deleted. Is this compromise fine with you? --Libb Thims (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Finish it in the incubator, get a consensus that the article meets Wikipedia standards, and then move it to mainspace. If you move it to mainspace before that consensus is reached, I'll probably speedy it under G4 again.—Kww(talk) 13:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Debrahlee Lorenzana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created a new page on this subject with entirely new sources that were not even in existence when the previous article was discussed and deleted, but it was speedily deleted. According to the Wikipedia:Recreation of previously deleted pages policy: "==Valid reasons for recreating a deleted page==

Acceptable reasons for recreating a previously deleted page are:

• Notability status has changed: ... When an article was first created, the subject was not notable, but coverage has since expanded, thereby establishing notability."

That page also lists the requirements for the speedy deletion of recreated articles none of which are met. If someone could restore the content for this review that would be helpful. I am also open to having the article be about the firing if that's helpful. A study was recently released (sincle the last AfD) and linked to this case regarding gender discrimination of this type. Whether this case has broad implications was one of the concerns when it was deleted, and it's clear now that it does. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and close this, as this is the same user who brought the last DRV. First Gillan Duffy now this, seeing the same "one event" one-trick-ponies pop up month after month is tiresome. There is still nothing to indicate the woman herself is anything beyond our favorite WP:BLP1E. Perhaps if energies were directed at writing an article about the case itself, fine. But this? No, this is not what an encyclopedia is for. Tarc (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for now The reason it was deleted was WP:BLP1E. I personally disagree with that outcome, but that was the consensus. More sources aren't going to help unless they are part of a second event. It looks like you started on an event article at one point and I'd support that quite handily. Sorry, I agree with you on the article existing, but can't endorse the recreation at this time as the study doesn't seem like it would be a second event and so we are stuck with that consensus. Work on the event article and if time shows that she is notable (say in 4 months) try the bio again then. Hobit (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and close No evidence this is anything other than a BLP1E case, as it was when it was last endorsed last month or the month before that. Also suggest a block if this shows up on DRV again, as 3 nominations in 3 consecutive months is clearly disruptive. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bah, it is annoying, but the point is valid. She's spawned a study about workplace discrimination and showed up in about 10 articles in real places (Newsweek, Washington Post, etc.) in the last month. We don't have an article on her because people have an allergy to anything that looks "tabloidish" even if Newsweek, the WP, etc. all have articles on them. Play a single game of major league baseball and you are notable, but hit every major news organization the world around and that's not notable if the reason you did so is somehow tabloid fodder. Bah. That said, creating the event article should be a fine solution... Hobit (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only is Wikipedia NOT a tabloid, it's not a news source of any sort. It's amazing how even long-term editors sometimes forget that rather basic fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but we do cover things that actually happen in the real world. "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." I think we hit all that quite easily. But somehow even experienced editors manage to place their views of what's important (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) ahead of the guidelines we are all supposed to be working off of. Hobit (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, you missed something important in that quote of yours: "over a period of time". We aren't far enough past the event to determine whether it will ultimately recieve that sort of significance. Is it possible that in 10 or 20 years people will look back on Debrahlee's bodacious titties as a historical milestone like 9/11, the OJ trial, Watergate, the moon landing, the JFK assasination, and so on? Well, maybe. But the chances of that are low enough that we needn't really consider them in this debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Yes, that doesn't mean that it is notable, but it does mean we aren't required to wait.... Hobit (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion The nom failed to notify me of this review but did discuss. There is a long discussion on my talkpage but the essence is that Freakshownerd is conflating notability and BLP with regard to creating this article. The article was deleted as a BLP1E vio and there is a clear consensus for this which means that per BLP the content may not be restored without a clear consensus to do that. The article was created when Protonk userfied the deleted text and lost the page salting in the move. Since there is no clear consensus to have this article and there is no draft for us to discuss this should be closed as a waste of everyone's time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual policy in question states "If [BLP material] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". Do you assert that the new article is "without significant change"? Feel free to use my links in the below response. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The section of the policy in its entirety states "To ensure that material about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." I would argue that after 2 DRVs and an AFD the consensus is clear that the actual article is a BLP vio under BLP1E. This means that no tinkering with the content will change the fact that there is an extant consensus to delete this article as a not allowed article and that the salting of the page after the DRV reflects this. Using the accidental loss of this salting to recreate the page against consensus without seeking a new consensus or discussing with the deleting/closing admins is a) an appalling act of bad faith; b) sticking 2 fingers up to the community and c) wilfully recreating a BLP violation. As I pointed out to Freakshownerd, the correct action is to write a draft in userspacem bring it here and then have a further discussion, but at some point those advocating for this article need to accept the consensus and give this some space to see if there is further evidence that this isn't a classic oneevent. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Problems with the above: 1) BLP1E never applied, 2) the last DRV said it didn't, and 3) your G4 was out of process to begin with. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you reading a different wikipedia to me? The closing statement in full was "Endorse. BLP1E covers this pretty neatly, and the evidence given below doesn't point to sustained coverage (or more importantly, some coverage apart from the solitary event). I'm happy to userify the content or email it to anyone as needed. – Protonk (talk) 9:18 pm, 29 July 2010, Thursday (30 days ago) (UTC+3)" Ths bold is mine. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
          • You just told me that Protonk's close was valid until challenged, and I challenged it. Appealing to a reasonably challenged close (numerical consensus was clearly against endorsement) is unhelpful. Did you mean I could challenge it, or didn't you? Protonk's close clearly does not reflect the strength of arguments nor the numerical input of the previous DRV. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • • Sigh you know what I meant, successfully challenged. You know how it works. Don't be so obtuse. If you disgaree with protonK's close then have a discussion of that but however you parse the validity of the close the case at the time of the deletion was an unchallenged DRV.res 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn G4 is for identical content, and the appellant correctly notes that this was different content. Neither G11 nor G10 apply, so I really don't see a valid speedy deletion criterion which applies. BLP does not apply, because the subject of the article is clearly not a non-public figure, nor is the content unsourced, negative, or defamatory. That is to say of all the above "Endorse" !votes, none articulates a policy-based reason for not restoring the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note further that the prior DRV was inaccurately closed as endorse when there were more editors opining that it should be restored and relisted than endorsing the original close. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An unchallenged close is valid until voided, so whether you agree or not with it or not, there is a valid consensus that we didn't have an article. Your votes doesn't really address my reasons for deleting which where BLP and consensus based. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just challenged it--is it now voided?
      • The reason the article should be restored is that BLP1E has not ever applied to this person, who sought out the media attention herself and cannot thereby be remotely construed as a low-profile individual. That hasn't changed, although it really doesn't appear that many are listening. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • To answer your first point, not unless there is a consensus that the challenge has succeeded and this certainly wasn't the case when I deleted this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You do realize how circular that logic is, right? C'mon, man, you're just plain wrong. It's OK to be wrong. Admit it and move on! Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse So what has actually changed? To overcome G4, the article has to overcome the reasons for deletion, which were BLP1E. Throwing in a new source doesn't just automatically cut it for G4. The new source has to raise a real prospect that BLP1E no longer applies. I'm not seeing it here: the "study" arises out of the same event. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please go read WP:CSD G4. The article has to be substantially the same, not just deletable under the same criterion. Jclemens (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly - substantially. If the article doesn't get anywhere near overcoming the consensus-based reason for deletion, it's substantially the same.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely, that has always been the way that G4 applies, whether the article has addressed the reason for deletion. And this one hadn't. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The actual wording is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". This is neither. It uses entirely different sources, as the appellant pointed out. Spartaz, you've just admitted that you've inappropriately applied G4. Now would be an appropriate time to withdraw your speedy deletion, now that your deviation from policy has clearly been pointed out. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually it's both. If it hasn't overcome the reason for deletion, it is sufficiently identical and it is unimproved. Look at the substance the article not the form. Also, look at the purpose of G4, which is evidently to prevent the subversion of consensus.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's perfectly OK to want G4 to say that, even if it doesn't. Please go try and change G4 to mesh with your reasoning, and see how well the community likes that change. Or accept it the way it is, whichever. Just don't pretend that it currently says what you want it to say, which it most obviously does not. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It appears that there is not a groundswell of support for your argument. Let the DRV play out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • That would be because only two other people are currently contributing to this page. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I count only two voices arguing for undeletion, 4 endorses and Mkativerata supporting the concept this is a g4. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • And only two of them have weighed in since I eviscerated your arguments. Jclemens (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Clemens, you couldn't eviscerate yourself out of a wet paper bag, drop the eChest-thumping already. I see little substantive difference between the two versions; rewording and finding different sources to say and claim the exact same thing doesn't cut it. If the newer draft added something substantial, that'd be different. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that Jclemens undeleted this article for the duration of the discussion although it is clearly a BLP issue. I have therefore moved the page into my space at User:Spartaz/Debrahlee Lorenzana and resalted. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYBLP and WP:BLPCORE apply. You're abusing tools designed to prevent real harm to living people in the case of an obvious publicity-seeker, especially in light of a previous consensus that the article should be restored. Jclemens (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used no admin tools to move the page. salting is a matter of discretion and there is no functional difference for DRV between hosting the page in mainspace and my area except that my solution prevents the page being mirrored and googlebotted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I was unclear, and I missed responding to this point earlier. If I hadn't made it clear by my other comments, I was referring to the "BLP issue" shibboleth. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love it when someone cites an essay to support an argument; doubly so when it it one of their own creations. Hell, weren't you the one that once proposed that people who, quote, "cry blp!" be subject to blocks? Tarc (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person in the BLP is neither private nor trying to be private, nor, as far as I know, are there any unsourced negative statements. I'm curious how this article has a BLP issue. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The consensus at both previous DRVs was for restoration. BLP 1-E doesn't apply to a public figure who is part of an event that is receiving lasting coverage. The idea that an entirely new article based on entirely new sources is "substantially the same" as the previous article is absurd. The policies are clear and this article was not a candidate for speedy deletion, no matter how badly Spartaz and Protonk dislike the subject matter. Freakshownerd (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: "The consensus at both previous DRVs was for restoration." I'm sorry, is this Bizarro-DRV? The June 14th DRV closed as no consensus to overturn the AfD, which deleted the article on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. The July 15th DRV endorsed the close, again on 1E grounds. Tarc (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you actually read those DRVs, it's quite clear what the consensus was. That they weren't closed according the consensus is why we're here again on the same subject, one that continues to be covered very substantially in reliable independent sources, clearly contradicting assertions that it was a BLP 1-E and making those voting delete and closing discussions against the clear consensus look silly. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read and participated in both, I believe. There was no consensus in either for restoration, otherwise that is what the closing admi would've, y'know, closed them as. What this is beginning to boil down to is not a DRV filed to challenge a G4 speedy, but rather a run-of-the-mill "I didn't like the result" one. We all know how those wind up... Tarc (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, still a BLP1E. Recommend userspace draft. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If that is to happen, someone else will have to pick up the ball if interested; Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight. Tarc (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking through the logs I see User:Hobit/Debrahlee Lorenzana, which could be a useful starting point if we're serious about it. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I can put a good article together, if we're agreed that every admin who has opined that the article is a BLP1E is INVOLVED and ineligible to delete my work or block me for doing so, and I get to put it back have a full AfD discussion (per the past "overturn and relist" DRV consensus that Protonk failed to close accurately)once I'm done. Jclemens (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how it works and you know that Jclemens. Write the draft and bring it here for review. If the consensus is that this now passes BLP1E then DRV will allow restoration to mainspace. Please stop trying to force this through and just follow the accepted processes for dealing with this kind of thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So let me be clear on this: You're telling me that in order to overcome this presumption that any article on Lorenaza can be G4'ed forever after, I must 1) write an article that passes muster, 2) bring it back to DRV, and 3) you reserve the right to block me for anything you perceive as a BLP violation at any step of the process. Just so we're clear, I object to #3 most strenuously. I'm hoping that's not really what you meant. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, where did I threaten to block you? If you see my block log [3] you will see I'm not a blocker by any means but I do hope that you are not going to do anything pointy when the clear consensus here is that this was a valid deletion and that any article should be run through DRV before going to mainspace. I realise that you disagree strongly with the prevailing view here but a consensus is a consensus even if you think it wrong headed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There was no explicit threat--at most, a mild implicit threat by your use of tools to move the restored article out of mainspace, even though I'd truncated it to the "deletion under discussion" template. What I am asking for, and I think I'm close to getting, is an explicit agreement to NOT block me for creating a userspace draft. After all, BLP is BLP in any namespace, and given the vehemence of the arguments here that this amounts to a BLP issue, I am not going to run afoul of such zealotry when it's very clear that normal checks and balances on sanctions do not apply in the BLP space. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  For the nth time, I didn't use an admin tool to move the article out of mainspace. I clicked on the move button. I did use an admin tool to restore the protection but that was to maintain the status quo from protonk's close of the previous DRV. There is also no implied threat to block you. I don't do implied threats. For god's sake how long have you known me? I am hardly going to block you for hosting a userspace draft when I am also doing that - one that arguably could be G6d as well. I'm very alarmed by the extreme reaction here to normal issues and concerned about bring accused of being about to take extreme steps that are alien to the way that I edit or admin. I honestly suggest you think about this long and hard Jclemens because the level of rhetoric and drama in this thread is wholly disproportionate to the issue in hand and is, im(very humble)o, poisoning the discussion here. You are certainly succeeding in poisoning my good option of your judgement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I should also mention that the vehemence here appears to be mostly emanating from you. Please, please ratchet down the drama levels. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, actually, I saw it as coming from you. You have repeatedly said there is a consensus that it is a BLP1E violation, which is, unless specifically disclaimed, an explicit license to ignore consensus and assertions of good faith. If you want to point outside either of us at the poisoning of the discussion, I'm going to point at the fact that BLP1E has been misapplied in this case. If you don't understand that saying "It's a BLP1E" contains an implied "... and the community has empowered me to delete it or block you if you do something wrong with it", then yes, I can see where my negative reaction might seem disproportionate. BLP1E and BIO1E are fundamentally different issues, and Lorenzana's original coverage probably did fail BIO1E.

  Please feel free to drop by User talk:Protonk and see our discussion on the topic of his prior close. He's said he'll try and post here later, but hasn't yet.Nevermind, he just did. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• restore The original afd was wrongly closed, dueto the mistaken belief that this was a blp privacy-related issue and that this trtumped other considerations, an error which continues. Using BLP this way is an invalid overextension of the intent of BLP policy, which is designed for the extremely important purpose of makingsure we do no harm with respect to living people, and inapplicable if used otherwise, such as in a n attempt to over-ride the notability requirements. Not News would be applicable, except for the continuing coverage, and the demonstrated extent to which this is seen as a sexual discrimination landmark. To refuse to accept the article unfortunately does give the impression that we are doing so out of dislike for what has been seen in some quarters as the subject's self-opromotion. But since she seems to have promoted herself to the extent of receiving continued national attention, she's notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A BLP1E is a BLP1E is a BLP1E. Nothing has changed since last time. Timotheus Canens (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Except that it's not, never was, and never will be until Lorenaza fails (passes?) WP:WIALPI... which is an integral part of BLP1E. If she's not a low-profile individual, BLP1E cannot apply. BIO1E might, but that's a different measure. Jclemens (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WIALPI is an essay not a guideline, or a policy and does not necessarily reflect policy and practice. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it's not. It's an explanation of one clause. If you disagree with it, write a different essay or change it. What isn't in contention is that it is an attempt to clarify what a "low profile individual" is. Please--read BLP1E and BIO1E and go back and look at the differences. BLP1E is to protect Star Wars kid, not Joe the Plumber--which one of these does Lorenzana most closely resemble? Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and everybody should go read up on BLP1E vs BIO1E. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been asked to comment here about my close. PF above says that people should read BLP1E vs. BO1E and he is probably right (myself included). I feel the strongest distinction between BO1E and its BLP counterpart is the non-public figure stipulation. In that respect, this article is on the edge between describing a subject who is ostensibly a non-public figure and one who has thrust themselves into the spotlight. I am very hesitant to claim from my pseudonymous perch that someone doesn't deserve 'protection' as a BLP because they "asked" (one day I'll learn to use single and double quotes properly) to be in the spotlight. That said, I am just as frustrated that my decision in the last DRV is being interpreted as cause to elevate this deletion into the acrimonious and absolutist realm of BLP-mania. In retrospect I should have been clearer that I felt BO1E was enough to support the deletion decision and the first review, but that a reasonable editor could easily conclude that the subject was also a BLP1E. If that sounds confusing/confused it probably is because there is significant overlap in application and terminology. As I said on my talk page, I see my decision as less a prohibition on future discussion than a summary of the debate. I'm still not sure we ought to have an article on the subject, but I don't want to be quoted as suggesting that all future avenues for review are foreclosed. I'll try and return later with some more specific commentary. Apologies for the confusion I have created. Protonk (talk) 22:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tail of Air New Zealand Flight 901.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no clear consensus for deletion. The image is a unique non-free (as far as I know, it is owned by the Crown so it could be free) image that cannot be replaced by the free equivalent currently available. The free equivalent doesn't convey the information like the original file - it was taken 25 years later and severely tarnishes the image of the disaster - the original photo is iconic to the disaster and well used in media relating to the disaster.Lcmortensen (mailbox) 09:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closing administrator per my explanation on my talk page. To summarize: free alternative is available; textbook violation of WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8; user failed to address concerns brought up the discussion. With that, I'm off to bed, as it's 3:05 am. — ξ^xplicit 10:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There is a free image of the wreckage available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the FfD discussion you were asked for evidence the image is iconic and how it distorts the event. If you have any such evidence I'd love to hear it. Also, wasn't there a discussion about treating Crown copyright as free for our purposes? Anyone? Hobit (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid reading of the debate. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, no consensus established for use of the nonfree image. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the above and Crown copyright is not "free". --Mkativerata (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I do apologise - I had internet problems during the discussion (ruddy XT Network!) The current image is of a piece of the fuselage, which is NOT the vertical stabiliser - it is a completely different part of the plane. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide evidence the picture is somehow "iconic"? Can you more clearly explain what the problem is with the free one as far as reader's understanding goes? Hobit (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The free image is distorted - first, can you identify in each image the wreckage as an Air New Zealand DC-10 aircraft if you took it out of context? How do you know the free image it is not a Air New Zealand 767 that crashed in the Southern Alps in 1989? Have a look at this YouTube video of a report on the crash by Television New Zealand in 1999 - the background to the report features a colour version of the non-free image: [4].Lcmortensen (mailbox) 06:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the question " How do you know the free image it is not a Air New Zealand 767..." sums it up, if you can't tell the difference then clearly the impact on the readers understanding is that there is none. You still also don't address the question of evidence that the image is "Iconic"--82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I understand the nom's viewpoint and appreciate the responses, but neither in the FfD or in DrV was there a strong enough reason given to use the non-free version. Our policies on fair-use are quite strict and this doesn't reach that bar. Hobit (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How many of you are actually from New Zealand for one thing - if you are not from New Zealand, you know nothing. I think I would endorse the decision IF someone could come up with a suitable picture lead replacement - the free image is too non-notable and distorted to use as an article lead image. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 03:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need you to provide evidence, ideally via RSes, that the image in question is somehow iconic. If that evidence exists I think you have a good case. If it's iconic nature is just something "you know to be true" then it's not iconic enough for our non-free image policy. Hobit (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. per above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Found evidence of iconicy - I should have looked here first: The New Zealand Herald's website describes the image with the following caption: "The battered tail of the ill-fated DC-10 lying on its side surrounded by wreckage. The sight of the airline's symbol lying in the snow of Mount Erebus was a shocking confirmation of the disaster." See here: [5] (the image will appear automatically after about five seconds) Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that makes the image iconic, the source doesn't state "this image came to signify the crash" or some such. It's also but one mention. Many images appear all over the place with similar captions, they aren't all iconic. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is the image any different from File:Aa191 ohare.jpg? And can anyone read between the lines? When the image reached New Zealand media, it drove the nail into the coffin that the Erebus disaster was real. In a country of then 3.1 million, it shocked the nation. Only a true New Zealander would understand that. If you need more evidence, I can search through the records at the University of Otago library when I return from the mid-semester break on Sunday 5 September. Lcmortensen (mailbox) 08:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS however the key difference there is that there is a claim that no free alternative exists, in this case one does. If the image (and just that image) had that much impact, then it's not unreasonable to expect that reliable sources would have observed the reaction to that particular image - that would make it iconic. DRV isn't a closed door if some significant new material comes to light then further listings can always be made, though I'd suggest that you stay away from the "you lot not being true New Zealanders wouldn't understand..." type lines, they aren't persuasive and add nothing to the debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshiyah Amariel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nomination on behalf of another user I believe that Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yeshiyah_Amariel discussion was closed much too early by an editor who did not provide a reason for the decision. The discussion has gone on for over 2 weeks and more significant information was found... I asked the deleting editor to unto his delete, but instead he restricted my ability to undo it myself and ignored my post to his page. I'm asking that either the discuss be reopened and the page be un-deleted until a real decision without bias and with true consensus be made clear.Yeshiyah (talk) 10:57 pm, Today (UTC+1) Fences&Windows 22:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse clear consensus to delete in the AfD. ThemFromSpace 22:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There was a strong consensus here. The discussion could not have been closed any other way. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse Article was written in a conflict of interest from Yeshiyah Amariel's (aka Yamariel) part. And per Themfromspace. Diego Grez (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin I believe that I was in the right, and I did in fact reply to his post on my talk page, a full 5 minutes before this malformed DRV was first submitted. I still stand by my text then, provided below for ease of access:

I found no evidence of inappropriate behaviour by those who !voted "delete", and found a clear, strong consensus to do so, so I deleted the article, which I still hold to be the right course of action--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Clear consensus to delete. This DRV was started simply because he doesn't like the end result. —fetch·comms 01:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the clear consensus to delete. No secondary reliable sources that provided nontrivial coverage of Yeshiyah Amariel were unearthed in the discussion; therefore, the article was deleted per Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

  As I advised in the AfD: "[The sources provided] demonstrate that Israel for Obama is notable, not Yeshiyah Amariel, so I encourage you to create an article about the group instead if you have more information than that already present in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#"Israel for Obama" Campaign." Cunard (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There are more deletes, and their policy-based reasoning is stronger. I agree with Cunard that Israel for Obama is a better prospect. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, clearly within closer's discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the closure appears to be based on the strength and consensus of the arguments to delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of guitarists considered the greatest (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that this page meets the criteria for list notability (as it is established in the first AFD). This article was well written with full of sources. The main argument which lead to the article's deletion is that the article's title is a POV one but it can be easy addressed by changing the title not redirect the whole article to its parent topic. I think the closing admin has decided by counting votes, not by arguments.

Lastly, Wikipedia already has the lists such as List of films considered the worst. I think this is an other reason to have a list of guitarists which are considered the greatest by reliable sources. Please restore this artilce. Sorry for my English, it's not so good.AM ^(talk) 02:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdrew.--AM ^(talk) 00:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but I don't know where I can request an deletion review or appeal the second AFD's outcome rather than this place. I'm not familiar with English Wikipedia's administrative system.--AM ^(talk) 07:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The phrase "DRV is not AFD round 2" refers to the fact that AFD is normally considered final, and there is no appeal. In exceptional cases, where an administrator has made a decision when closing an AFD that violates deletion policy, or has come to a conclusion that no reasonable administrator could make, i.e. one which is "so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it", deletion review is available for a second opinion. As it says on top of this page, deletion review is not to be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So if an article got deleted, I could not do anything to bring it back, in other words, re-create it?--AM ^(talk) 13:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Barring the above-mentioned level of unreasonableness or some event happening after the closure which changes matters, the deletion of an article is not open to appeal. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I still can not understand. The first AFD's outcome is keep but it was overrunned by the second AFD's outcome. But nothing can overrun the second one because its outcome is deletion which is not open to appeal.--AM ^(talk) 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless you can present some event that happened after the closure which changes matters, then that is correct. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I withdraw this nomination due to the lack of policy understanding and language skills to make argument. Sorry all for all inconvenience I have caused.--AM ^(talk) 00:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse My only issue is that merge !votes were really weak (two just said to merge with no explanation) and the nom is factually in error. I'd likely have closed as no consensus. But merge is a reasonable reading of the debate. As always consensus at the Guitarists page can undo this merge, AfD merge closures are nothing more than a consensus to merge, a stronger consensus to spin it back out would override it. Hobit (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable rough consensus close of the debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No argument given besides mere disagreement. No problem with the AFD that I can see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - "I disagree" is not DRV criteria. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hair Transplant Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe that the Hair Transplant Network meets the criteria for notability. It is notable worldwide among men and women who are experiencing hair loss and seeking support, answers and treatments. While this is a for profit site, it carries no advertising nor does it charge members to join. This article is not meant to be promotional. It simply states the history of the creation of a revolutionary medical website that provides prospective surgical patients with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions and also holds physicians accountable to those patients.

The Hair Transplant Network is an online consumer advocacy community, forum and social network whose mission is to provide valuable medical advice and support to men and women suffering hair loss worldwide. HTN accomplishes this mission by maintaining a database of prescreened, experienced and skilled hair restoration physicians. These physicians must pass rigorous evaluation criteria in order to achieve recommended status. Furthermore, many of the affiliated physicians are considered “rock stars” in their field holding associated patents and authoring definitive texts on the subject of hair transplantation.

I honestly don't see what is missing here. How is this article different than any other article based on a popular online entity? David TTP (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Reviewing the text of the article, it was not anywhere near neutral point of view. I agree with the deleting administrator that it was hopelessly promotional in tone and met speedy deletion criterion G11, blatant advertising. —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse absolutely. No doubt about it, it's a promotional essay that squarely meets G11.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse even this DRV listing is hopelessly promotional. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, obvious advertising. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the article was clearly written in such a way as to promote the subject. The fact that the site carries no advertising and doesn't charge people to join doesn't affect this at all. I note that when the page was originally created there was a thread on the site trying to get people to repost the content. Hut 8.5 15:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse reviewed it, it's purely promotional and met G11.—Sandahl (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Perfectly good speedy. This is what G11 is meant for. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and speedy close. It's just too bad we can't speedy delete the statement here on the same basis, because it's just as spammy.

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

Deleted with a single vote as "non-notable C film", however film appears on IMDB [6], has substantial media coverage [7], appears on Netflix, and has its own website [8] Initial deletion should never have cariied through with only a single vote. -OberRanks (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC) OberRanks (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two people opined in the deletion debate, the nominator and one other (which isn't a vote). As no one opined for keeping the outcome is not unreasonable (there is no quorum for such debates). DRV is about resolving problems with the deletion process, not a rerun of the AFD or just because of a disagreement with the result. However to address your points, IMDB catalogues pretty much everything, appearing there isn't indicative of notability and it is generally not considered a reliable source. One review doesn't make for substantial media coverage. Being available on netflix isn't an indication of notability, they'll stock any and every film. I have my own website, doesn't mean anything. WP:FILMNOT defines things like - "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." or "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following..." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Film has received more than a single review and is widely distributed [9]. Some of the stars in the film are also notable and so, I believe is the director. All that aside, to close an AfD quickly with a single vote was not the proper thing to do. -OberRanks (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again it's not a vote and there were two opinions not one. It wasn't closed quickly it ran the prescribed 7 days. Pointing me to a set of google results isn't that helpful, point out the two or more nationally known critics reviews would be more useful, but not that important. If the article can be rewritten to substantially address the issues of deletion (i.e. you can actually write an article which meets the criteria, not imagined criteria) then just do so (Ask for usification so you have a base to work from if you like). Notability isn't inherited, no midas about here touched things suddenly becoming notable and indeed none of the notability guides says anything about notable directors or actors. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No use debating in a vacuum, especially with a single purpose ip account. -OberRanks (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Single purpose? So rather than respond to the fact that it wasn't cut short, that there were 2 people opine rather than 1, produce the two reviews from nationally recognised reviewers etc. You'd rather try and attack me? Guess that shows just how misguided my policy based response is. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wasn't really an attack. Just appeared that this ip address has mainly been used in deletion debates. Sorry if you got the wrong idea. -OberRanks (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close but relist. This was a proper exercise of admins discretion for what was apparently an "uncontested" deletion request. (however, personally I would have liked to see the "second" have been stronger then a "per nom", I would have relisted it if I saw it before Shimeru did) Question for OberRanks? Why didn't you !vote in the AFD? That would have bought a relist and perhaps a different outcome. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just found out about this after watching the movie last night and coming to Wikipedia to read more about it. I was very surprised to find that there was no article. It was a disturbing film and the ending was well done. I also have no idea what the original article looked like, but I'm sure a proper article could be developed base don material about the film. -OberRanks (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - More input would have been nice, but 2 calls for deletion is enough; there is no fault with the closing admin's action. I'd suggest requesting it to be userfied to User:OberRanks/Meadowoods where you can work on the reliable sourcing problems. IMDB and dvdtalk.com are user-submitted content sites, unable to be used to establish notability. Tarc (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with userification for RS improvement per Tarc. Jclemens (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I userfied the article as suggested, and left a note for both the petitioner and the deleting admin. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_York_City_F.C._Clubmen_of_the_Year (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On recommendation of Dabomb87 and WFC.

On the above AfD, four of the "keeps" where based on the fact that it was a featured list. Of the remaining "keeps", none addressed the content fork point. Then Struway pointed out that the FL-criteria at the time of nomination did not entail the criteria about content forking. The day after a non-admin closed it as keep. I would like some input from non-stakeholders whether this article is a content fork or not, and if not then why. The whole list in it is a subset of a larger list, there is no difference between the information/sortability etc. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 21:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. That the closer accurately read the express, virtually unanimous, consensus can't be denied. The nom is asking for more input on a substantive issue, which is simply a second round of the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the DRV does not concern itelf with the substance of the above matter, please withdraw this. I do not question the close. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 23:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • the DRV tries to avoid substantive issues, but often does consider them, because correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. In the present instance ,nobody supported your argument, so I do not see how it could have been closed otherwise. The obvious thing to do in a case like this, where there is the possibility that broader attention would have given a different result, is to wait a while, and try again. Normally I suggest waiting at least 6 months or so when the first AfD is as clear as this one. When you do nominate it again, it is highly recommended you notify the people who contributed to the first AfD. DGG ( talk )
• Comment from closer. Barring a "supervote", I don't see any other possible way this AFD could have been closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant endorse. There really is no other way it could have been closed, but it doesn't seem like the most useful of content forks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Absolutely no other way to close that AFD; doing so would surely cause the community to exclaim "admin/IAR abuse". –MuZemike 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse, could not possibly have ben closed any other way. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Thomas-Webster (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I have attempted to answer the deleting editors questions but he chooses only to answer certain ones. In addition he has stated that the only IMDB credits acceptable are those verified by the WGA (I am an actor not a writer) and the MPAA who only rate films not verify content. A review of the request page will show the attempts taken to try and satisfy the requirement for links to external sources. I would be grateful if the conversation and examples to external links could be examined please. Nicktw (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No undeletion - Sorry, the request for undeletion is filled with unreliable sources and others that simply list the name. Read all the criteria of the general notability guideline and WP:ACTOR; minor billing and uncredited roles do not meet the threshold for a wikipedia article. I'd also note the rather obvious self-promotion going on here. Tarc (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You haven't actually discussed this with the deleting admin, you placed a request at Wikipedia:REFUND#Deletion_review_for_Nick_Thomas-Webster where an independant editor responded, not the deleting admin. There are various aspects which need to be covered in order to be suitable for an article on wikipedia and these are covered by various policies.

Firstly all material needs to be WP:V verifiable to reliable sources and primarily secondary sources. Many of the sources you listed don't meet the standard of WP:RS, i.e. as discussed IMDB is largely user submitted content the level of verification done is quite indeterminate. One of the extras you listed is a blog, anybody can setup a blog, i.e. I could setup a blog and start saying "the performance by Nick Thomas-Webster was possibly the worst I've seen...", do you think we should reference that? What qualifies my opinion? For biographical content on you the situation is even worse, on the blog I setup how do you know what fact checking I do to make sure it's accurate (assuming I do any of course). Should wikipedia republish my unchecked opinion and facts?

As you are alive this also needs to conform to the biography of living people policy

It also needs to meet the inclusion standard, that of notability, generally speaking the standard is that the world at large should be sufficiently interested in you that they are willing to write about you (which dovetails with the verifiability policy). The general notability guideline specifies non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. You have problems here as well the sources you've listed are either not independant, not reliable, or trivial (cast listings, bare filmography listings etc. are trivial they say nothing about you). There is also WP:ENTERTAINER as a guide, this is secondary to the guide mentioned above but lists the qualities in entertainment professions which are normally a sign they will meet the notability standard. The article didn't meet those either.

It needs to be written from a neutral point of view

There are many other policies and guidelines for articles, but those are they key ones which you'd need to meet for the article to exist.

Finally wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a brag sheet, as such it is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, see the conflict of interest guidelines. It's usually best to wait for someone else to write about you, which if you are signficant in what you are doing generally won't take long. The other thing to remember is do you really want an article about you? Remembering any article will be written from a neutral point of view, so if indepedant reviewers concur your performances are poor, that will likely appear in the article etc. There are various people who have found that having an article is actually rather annoying. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Clearly promotional: Praise for his first role as an MP and a member of William Wilberforce Clapham Sect Michael Apted Amazing Grace (2006 film) by Phoenix Movie reviews http://phoenixmoviereviews.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default has inspired Nick to seek new challenges.

  The article also lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources, so should not be undeleted because it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

14th Transportation Battalion (United States) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This AfD reads like No Consensus to me. The closing admin must abide by the consensus, and if there is no consensus in the AfD then the article must not be deleted. If the closing admin's role is to close the AfD as he/she see fit, then why do we even bother to have discussions? Inniverse (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you have not discussed this with the closing administrator prior to bringing it here? NW (Talk) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. May I ask why you did not bother to check his talk page before writing the above note? Inniverse (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My bad then. I scanned the bottom few threads on KoH's talk page, and didn't see anything related to the 14th Transportation Battalion. Since DRVs are usually filed within a few days of the AFD closure, I figured that you hadn't spoken to him yet. My apologies. NW (Talk) 14:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin: Actually, he has brought it up at User talk:King of Hearts#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States) already. I stand by my decision; although the number of votes were approximately the same, the policy-based consensus was on the "delete" side. Regarding your comment "The closing admin must abide by the consensus," it should be noted that AfD is not a vote, and a tied vote does not necessarily mean "no consensus." In response to "If the closing admin's role is to close the AfD as he/she see fit, then why do we even bother to have discussions?" here is my own: If the closer's role is simply to count the number of votes on each side, then why do we even bother to have admins? Bots serve the purpose fine. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This DRV looks to me like another appeal to vote-counting. The delete !votes actually addressed the coverage in sources; keep !votes made vague claims to (inherent?) notability.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, it really does come down to independent, reliable sources. A bunch of third party material, however noble the intentions may be behind the place providing it, does not establish notability. Absolutely nothing but independent, reliable, substantial source coverage establishes notability. I would, however, strongly encourage the editor to use the source material he has (somewhat unique) access to toward the end of improving other military articles. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, I was the original nominator. I listed this because a single source not independent of the article's subject does not in itself constitute notability, and it appears from the discussion over the military unit notability guidelines that virtually all of the active Milhist contributors agree with me. Buckshot06 (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Of the three keep votes (Sadads, AustralianRupert and Bwmoll3) only Sadads actually argues that the article meets notability requirements with the other two essentially boiling down to "I think it could meet notability requirements and so I think it's reasonable to give these arguments less weight. Sadads says the article meets notability requirements but then suggests that it meets it because of research done by centre historians and so these are hardly independent. Therefore I think it reasonable to give this argument less weight as well. Although the three delete votes are worded quite weakly taken together with the (much stronger) statement of the nominator I think these outweigh the three weak keep votes and so there was a clear consensus to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion requires a consensus for deletion. The delete !voters themselves were very boarder-line ("leaning toward delete"). I honestly believe if you stuck all those !voters in a room they'd agree to keep the article around. Further this type of material should be something that we don't use notability guidelines for. There are plenty of clearly reliable sources that cover the topic in detail. There is a weak consensus that military units of this size should be covered in all cases. So A) I don't see a consensus to delete and B) as a matter of my own opinion I don't think WP:N should be even an issue here. The topic gets 20 book hits (mostly in-passing one highly detailed but not independent). Hobit (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse We do have the right kind notability guidelines for this sort of material--a consistent general agreement by almost everyone working in this area that formations such as this are not normally notable . (For exceptions where one particular formation might be, we have the GNG.) Though we do not go by strict precedent, some degree of consistency is helpful to the users. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spieprzaj dziadu! (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Last year Spieprzaj dziadu!, an article I created, was deleted. Yesterday some new information came to my attention that 5 of the 6 who voted to delete it were involved in coordinating their editing outside WP (and they were punished for it) - see here for their names, and here for the AFD on the article in question. It seems to me that this group, pro-nationalist Poles in the main, took offence to an article which showed their late president Lech Kaczynski in a bad light and therefore nominated it for deletion, knowing that others in their group would vote for the delete. I.e., it's highly likely that the AFD was rigged. Having seen the EEML investigation now, it strikes me that the AFD should be rescinded due to this unfairness in the voting process.

I have spoken to the editor who closed the AFD (User_talk:Angr), but he also says that he closed it because the article lacked sources. Maybe there were none at the time (2 July 2009. NB - I'm not sure if there really were no sources, due to missing the AFD because I was not informed of it), but sources did once exist and I presume that they were removed around the time of the AFD, probably by this coordinated group (though this is hard to prove without access to the history). As proof that it once had good references, the article had had the required sources in March 2008 when it was given a DYK.

For this reason, would it be possible to review the deletion and reinstate the article's history? This would allow me to easily reinclude the sources. If anyone still believed the sources to be insufficient, I would then find more. It's worth noting, btw, that the Polish WP has an article on the same subject - which suggests that the topic is worthy of a page. Thanks for your time. Malick78 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete the issues raised seem enough and the DYK status would indicate sourcing was at least minimal. Worth having a discussion at AfD at the least. Hobit (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review' DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seeing that, the sources when last touched by Malick78, aren't great. But I think a new AfD would be appropriate given A) the nature of the deletion discussion and B) the massive use of the term in Polish news reporting [10]. Hobit (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I'm going away tomorrow for a few days, but I'll try to work on it in the minimal time that I'll have. Please be patient :) Malick78 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think this is best merged into the Lech Kaczyński article, but this is sourced and significant information that should appear somewhere, so I would undelete it for now.--Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The EEML members made up a significant portion of those !voting and although there may be a slim consensus to delete even discounting their votes (and discounting them all together is going too far) we can never know how their comments affected other users (some of who may not even have commented because of the existing !votes). Although I think a relist is likely to result in a delete or merge result I think this AfD is so tainted and there's enough doubt that the result would be the same that a relist is appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 12:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/relist - No fault at all with the closing admin's actions...and I rarely if ever call for overturns here...but if this really was tainted by now-banned editors who colluded off-wiki then it needs a clean discussion. A similar thing happened to False Moshe Ya'alon quotation last year, where the AfD was found after the fact to have been tainted by a banned sock, though noone ever got around to refiling another deletion discussion. Perhaps that one is due, too. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Agree the outcome is tainted and should be re-visited. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist per the above. Sufficient evidence of impropriety in the original AfD to warrant a new discussion. Jclemens (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist Tainted outcome with no fault to the closing admin. —Sandahl (talk) 22:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and relist I suspect that this is going to end up deleted again, but there seems like enough doubt in this case that a rerun is easily justified. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Koltz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ruled no consensus with a poor explanation. Subsequent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfDs with little or no discussion indicates that there is some confusion as to whether administrator judgment can be used when two people commenting give good deletion reasons. Recommend simply deleting the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure is reasonable when so little participation has correct. That said, this is clearly going to turn into AfD2, so let's go there. He's co-author of 3 books that appear to be best sellers (in addition to the 2 choose-your-own adventerure books) and those best sellers have seen crazy numbers of reviews including commentary from David Brooks and other wonks. Meets WP:AUTHOR#3 and #4. #3 "Played a major role in co-creating, well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." and #4 "The person's work has won significant critical attention". Examples of coverage of the books as they relate to the real world: [11], [12] and examples of review (including real-world components) [13], [14]. There are plenty more...[15]. This is _why_ we don't generally delete articles with so little participation.... Hobit (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hobit, coverage of the products of the subject doesn't equate to coverage of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but they the products of the subject can be used to meet WP:AUTHOR yes? Same with WP:PROF I think. So while what you say is true, I don't think it negates my argument. Hobit (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe. WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF, I admit are useful. They are especially useful for predicting whether a decent article can be written, or whether a new article can be improved or is destined to remain sub-standard indefinitely. But in the end, they are indicators of whether it is likely that there exist third party coverage of the subject. Even if every SNG criterion is met, if in the end, no one else has published anything about the subject, then I don't think we can have a reasonable article based on secondary sourcing about the subject. It would be better to mention the author/inventor/developer/researcher/analyst in a section of one of the articles about the thing the person produced. If there is no such product article, I don't think that it can be said that the SNG criteria have been met.
    • I am aware of an alternative argument, that Wikipedia should attempt comprehensive coverage, and that this means having an article on every best-selling author, every ground breaking scientist, every software developer who developed software in widespread use. I am not dead against that, but I think it is a slippery slope to crossing WP:NOR when it means writing articles in the absence of independent secondary sources discussing the subject directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I think there is enough out there (from non-independent sources) to write a reasonable, if brief, bio. The question is if we should and I think the SNG in this case indicate his works have had enough of an impact that we should do so. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that if a subject meets an SNG, we can relax our requirement for at least 1-2 secondary sources to be independent. In this case, I am not persuaded that the subject meets a relevant SNG. What SNG criteria is met? What is one good secondary source, even if not completely independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing prevents a renomination at AfD . Personally, I would have relisted it a second time, but the results tend to be similar to a non-consensus close. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with a second relist as we seem to do those on occasion for a BLP. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin: I'm fine either way, but just a note that any prescriptive (as opposed to descriptive) policy-related discussion should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#AfDs with little or no discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is currently a bit of a grey are when it comes to policy and guidelines and, although there has been some discussion, it still effectively comes down to admin discretion and as such this was a reasonable close. As a 'no consensus' close there is nothing stopping a reasonably quick re-nomination. Dpmuk (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow an immediate relist per WP:NPASR. Though it's not currently written down in the guidelines, as far as I'm concerned any AFD closed as "no consensus" due to lack of participation can be speedy renominated whether or not the closer says so. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AfD nom, also noting the absence of significant incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete per the consensus at the AfD. There is no quorum at AfD, and no one supported retention. The arguments for deletion were guideline-based in that the subject failed WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. I have reviewed Hobit (talk · contribs)'s sources above and fail to see how the subject would pass the notability guidelines. As SmokeyJoe said above, coverage of the books does not equate to coverage of the author. Here is a sample of one of Hobit's sources (in it Tony Koltz is mentioned only once): "The book, Battle Ready, is by the novelist Tom Clancy, with General Zinni and another writer, Tony Koltz." A very notable individual, Tom Clancy is listed as the author, while Tony Koltz is listed as one of the co-authors. This does not allow Koltz to pass WP:AUTHOR.

  On a secondary note, I am fine with a relist of the debate to allow more discussion. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clancy has claimed he didn't actually do any significant work on the book btw. I don't think it matters and in any case they are all co-authors. In any case the guideline says "played a major role in co-creating" which would be true of a co-author I should think. Hobit (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmere.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi. Because this page was deleted before a discussion occurred, I'm not sure if I am posting this request correctly. I believe this page was deleted without a valid reason. I have exchanged a few friendly emails with the admin but have not resolved the conflict. The primary reason cited was G4 (recreation of a deleted page). This version of the page is substantially different than the last page with over 20 new sources. There are 27 sources on this page, all from credible 3’rd parties (no blogs, no company websites, etc.). 13 of the 27 sources are prominent and substantial mentions (several minute long stories) of Jasmere.com in local TV news segments across the country (several of the sources are duplicates and not unique, however). Yes, a few of the sources have just a sentence or paragraph about Jasmere.com, but those are in substantial publications such as the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper and Real Simple magazine. Between the breadth of coverage as well as the depth in numerous sources, I feel this page meets the notability guidelines. I also think that it is not "exclusively" promotional (G11). While one or two sentences could appear promotional, I feel the overall piece is not overtly promotional. And I do believe there are negatives of Jasmere.com, as I have a section dealing with shopping addiction. Lastly, it appears that someone else tried to add a sentence recently, but in the process may have made some of the links to sources not appear correctly. Also, one source is a dead link (it appears twice) as I recently discovered even though it was working fine last week. Thank you very much for your consideration. Jeff Jbernfeld (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was the admin that deleted this article. The reasons I gave in the deletion log were "‎G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". I do not see any reason for regarding G4 as the "primary" reason: in fact I regard G11 as the main reason. The re-created version of the article does not seem to me to be substantially different from the one which was subject to the AfD, except in regard to the sources, which certainly have been increased. ("27 sources" is misleading, as some are duplicated, but there are certainly many of them, whatever the exact number.) The one point about the sources about which there may be most room for disagreement is the value of the television clips. To me they seem to be essentially promotional in character, but I am sure some people will disagree, and I welcome the opportunity for others to express their opinions on this. If consensus turns out to be against me I will accept that. However, I still feel that, even if the sources are accepted, the article is essentially promotional, and justifies deletion under G11. In fact at one point I actually planned to undelete the article, as the sources seemed to be at least borderline for being good enough, but then I remembered that G11 was another reason for deletion. (I had forgotten that, as the discussion that Jbernfeld engaged me in was concentrated on the issue of sources.) The inclusion of a brief two-sentence mention of the concept of "Shopping Addiction" does not remove the overall promotional tone. I am willing to accept that G4 is not certain here, as the sources are distinctly better than when the AfD took place. However, I still think that the article was promotional, and that G4 remains valid. The "few friendly emails " that Jbernfeld mentioned were in fact comments on my talk page. Anyone reading this may like to see that discussion too. Since it may be archived during the currency of this deeltion review discussion I have made a copy at User:JamesBWatson/Deletion of Jasmere.com. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is pretty darn promotional, but I don't think it is "exclusively promotional" or would require a complete rewrite to fix. I think it's a judgment call, but on contested speedies that are in fact debatable I'd prefer we go to AfD for more input, so overturn. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, actually on reflection I have decided that it is borderline enough that I accept that. I will restore the article, and consider whether to take it to a new AfD or not. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is now at AfD, suggest the DrV be closed. Hobit (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I closed this AfD as consensus to delete. Subsequently the article author contacted me explaining that new sources had emerged, and I had the article undeleted here so that he could use those sources to overcome the referencing and notability concerns. I'm not familiar enough with the subject area to confidently assess the new sources, so I ask for a community discussion on whether recreation ought to be permitted. Thank you for your attention, Skomorokh 04:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFD failed due to notability concerns. The method is apparently quite new with the original article solely referenced to the 2009 journal documenting it. Of the references in the updated article all but 2 of them predate the journal. These are not going to be providing coverage of this method. The other two references I cannot see, however they are referenced as usages of the method and appear to be as such. I would doubt these discuss the method itself as the "subject" as WP:GNG requires they are more likely to be discussion of a usage of the method. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the collapsed section above, don't know if it's me but it's fairly inobvious that it's there. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by the references above, I discovered two additional abstracts in peer-reviewed medical journals that discuss other uses of the PAPRIKA method, which I have added to the Wikip article under discussion (in the interests of confirming notability):

4. Fitzgerald, A, Conner Spady, B, De Coster, C, Naden, R, Hawker, GA and Noseworthy, T (2009), “WCWL Rheumatology Priority Referral Score reliability and validity testing”, abstract, The 2009 ACR/ARHP Annual Scientific Meeting, Arthritis & Rheumatology, 60 Suppl 10: 54.

5. Nosewothy, T, De Coster, C and Naden, R (2009), “Priority-setting tools for improving access to medical specialists”, poster presentation, 6th Health Technology Assessment International Annual Meeting, Singapore, 2009, Annals, Academy of Medicine, Singapore, 38: S78.

Paul Hansen 115.113.11.239 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation as not a DRV matter. As this article title is not protected there's nothing to stop the user moving this back to article space. It wouldn't be a G4 candidate as there would be new sources added and this means that a) the article wouldn't be "substantially identical" to the deleted one and b) there would have been an attempt to meet the concerns at AfD. Discussion of whether the new article meets our requirements should be at AfD, not here. Dpmuk (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: There is no other forum for developing consensus on recreation; recreating and immediately taking to AfD (or even CSD) would be needlessly adversarial. Skomorokh 14:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query from the author. Thanks for your comments, Dpmuk and Skomorokh. I am a little confused ... What next? Should I be doing anything? Thanks. Paul Hansen Paulwizard (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you don't need to be doing anything else. When seven days have passed since you initiated the DRV, an administrator will close the discussion and restore the article to the mainspace. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation/Restore per the changes to the article. WP:CSD#G4 is no longer applicable, and this article would likely pass an AfD. Cunard (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Duffy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Gillian Duffy is a British woman and typical Labour Party heartland voter who on 28 April 2010 became the centre of a political storm during the 2010 United Kingdom general election campaign, when the incumbent Prime Minister, Labour's Gordon Brown was caught in an open-mic gaffe labelling her a 'bigotted woman' in private, straight after having a public discussion with her while on walkabout. full transcript here, courtesy of The Times.

All hell broke loose, grovelling apologies were made, Brown's already slim chances were written off, and he even mentioned it first in his opening speech in the third televised leader's debate on 29 April. The gaffe dogged him for weeks, before he eventually lost the election on 6 May 2010, and resigned as Prime Minister 5 days later.

However, Gillian Duffy was vanished from existence (on Wikipedia anyway) in a series of knee-jerk BLP over-reaction speedy deletions of various articles within a couple of days of the gaffe, and in an out of process speedy closure of an Afd of bigotted woman incident. The resulting DRV, which would likely not have even been needed had the Afd run its course, turned out to be no consensus as it turns out, but it was irrelevant by then, no admin was apparently going to fess up and admit infront of the deleters that this had been one giant runaway steamroller.

The general assertions at the time were the classic 1E rationales - the incident wasn't significant, she was a private person, the coverage would blow over within a week. And people used all their powers of sooth saying to support their opinions and actions, despite the fact that even at the time of the incident, the coverage showed this was anything but.

The coverage at the time went well beyond routine news, it was a hugely notable event of the election, as evidenced by the summaries of the immediate coverage of it from The Guardian and from The Times. Such was the interest in her, she was given full biographical style coverage by the BBC and by The Telegraph and by Channel 4. It got ample global coverage as well, even Americans in their haze of domestic insularity got how important she was to the UK election and the interest in it: Gillian Duffy, .... potential game-changer in the U.K. election -Wall Street Journal, 1 May, the only gaffe that got any attention during the campaign -CNN, 6 May

After Brown resigned, it was even mentioned as the last significant event in the BBC's rundown of the "political career of Gordon Brown" published the same day - "And then on the campaign trail, he met a woman called Gillian Duffy...Mr Brown visited her at home to apologise but the damage was done". This is just a few days after the first Afd would have been scheduled to have been closed, had it been allowed to run it's course.

Still, that was then. This is now. So, let's take a look at whether the people voting and deleting in that knee-jerk-fest were better political analysts/commentators/predictors than all those reliable sources, or were justified at being so concerned over her privacy and stating BLP demanded immediate prejudicial erasure of any and all content, such that we couldn't even wait 7 days to judge the impact or coverage.

Well, first, let's address the claims that this would be a flash in the pan event, violating NOT#NEWS, it would be over within a week, with no resulting ongoing coverage of any significance that would mean anyone would want to know anything about the event. First off, we have the basic indicator of Google hits. The incident happened in late April/early May. Yet searching for "Gillian Duffy" delivers 1,160 results for July 2010, rising to 13,200 results for this month, all 18 days of it so far. I even did a random 'last 24 hours' search as I type this, and still got 354 results. And as an aside, when searching for "Gillian Duffy" in Google, "Gillian Duffy wiki" is Google's top auto-complete suggestion. Rather depressingly, due to Wikipedia's blackout, people are resorting to asking WikiAnswers, Who is gillian duffy?.

Now let's address the claims that the event, or her role in the election, were not going to remain significant for the purposes of 1E, making here a notable person, and would not be mentioned in ongoing historical contexts proving long term notability, of at least the incident, but more probably, her. Well, her views are used as a benchmark in coverage of immigration issues by The Telegraph in early June, where it has become known as the "Gillian Duffy question" by The Guardian, with the "Gillian Duffy gaffe" described as having been symptomatic of Brown's "refusal to engage with the issue". All in coverage spanning the entire month of June. Gillian Duffy's encounter with Brown is still described as "one of the defining moments of the election campaign" by Channel 4, over two months on. It is described as "One of the biggest ever blunders to hit Gordon Brown" (in only three years in the job), which "effectively derailed his election campaign" and which "some observers say it was a major factor in him losing", this from coverage over three months on from the incident. Four months on, it is remembered as the "election disaster" by The Independent.

Now to address the claims that she was a private person and deserved simple blanket protection under BLP generally (which was probably about the only legitimate reason that was ever given in the deletion melee). Well, despite the fact that it always was a ludicrous suggestion that with the media explosion and already proven coverage as detailed already, now, well after the incident, she is courting, and receiving, ongoing media coverage. In the resulting Labour Party leadership election after Brown quit, at the end of July she was sought out by candidate David Milliband for a meeting, with the media making much hay of her edorsement of his candidacy. In early August she was guest of honour at a Labour Party constituency event in Rochdale, and began to give televised interviews to ITV about the gaffe. This doesn't sound like she is shunning the spotlight to me.

In conclusion, it's about time this almight balls up was corrected, and people were allowed to create this link. It took me barely two hours to rustle up the evidence above that this is justifiable, it is by no means comprehensive, many many more examples are out there. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd prefer we have an article on the incident and redirect the person there, at least for now. The incident is clearly notable and I see no reason not to have an article on it. At present she should redirect to [16]. I can see no reason not to have _that_ redirect in any case. Hobit (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to have a bold !vote weak edorse deletion of article, overturn deletion of redirect to [17], endorse writing event article and moving redirect to there later. Longest bolded !vote ever... Hobit (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Hobit. All those sources are brilliant, and they show that the coverage did indeed continue... but it's still coverage directly related to that one event. Duffy herself would fail BLP1E; on the other hand, the event passes WP:EVENT. So let's allow creation of an article on the event, and possibly redirect her name to that. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No - To quote a well-known meme image, "Aw geez, not this shit again". Mick was a rather fanatic proponent for retention back in the original discussions, and I find it slightly disturbing that this sentiment has not abated over time. The concept of "one event" has not changed in the slightest; a woman says something, a live mic catches an unfortunate, candid retort, and then the political fallout. There is nothing notable about the woman other than she talked to a politician. There is not now nor will there ever be a rationale to create an article on the woman herself, or even a redirect. A few interviews doesn't elevate her notability in the slightest. I'd rather see either the Gay Nigger Association of America's or Brian Pepper's article make a return before this. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentiment has not abated over time because the abuse of policy back then was such a monumental disgrace to the pedia that it stuck in my mind, and I vowed to do something about it once the inevitable evidence of notability became overwhelming, which it has now, which any clueful editor will easily appreciate now I'm sure. Still, I guess it's something to see that you are consistent. Your fringe and fantastical interpretations of actual policy is as bad now as it was back then. Why don't you actually try reading them beyond the titles this time? MickMacNee (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • More coverage doesn't makes one event into two. She would be utterly unknown if not for a slip of someone else's microphone, and despite a smattering of interviews, does not appear to be going out of her way to grasp onto 15 minutes of proverbial fame. Show a bit of decency and just let it go, already. Jesus. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who said there were two events? Please don't invent arguments just so you can give a rebuttal. And 'she would be unknown if she hadn't done the thig that made her notable' is not the brightest of arguments I've ever seen. And sorry, but you are quite mistaken if you think the presumption of privacy aspect of 1E means we only write about reality TV contestants who are demonstrably 'grasping for fame'. It is ludicrous to suggest that someone going to public functions and giving television and media interviews can still be considered a private person in terms of the historical record. Your total lack of perspective in that regard is not going to affect my sense of deceny one bit. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • One event happened; someone inadvertently insulted this woman on a live microphone. She is otherwise a completely ordinary and non-notable person. Note the "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate" line from WP:BLP1E. You do know what the word "and" means, right? Both of those conditions need to be met; the first one likely has been, the second one certainly has not. There is no more to this story, and no more to this person, than that. That is about as simple as I can explain the matter. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Her role couldn't have been more significant, which is why she has been given biographical level coverage in multiple sources, and why even many months after the event, the resulting political issues are framed as 'the Gillian Duffy question', and she is actively sought out by the media and Labour leadership candidates for her pesonal opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse was and still is a classic BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it. I will most definitely go after any admin who dares close this review by giving any weight to simple assertion votes like this. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we turning to eThuggery now? Threatening to "go after" people who disagree with you is not really much in the spirit of collegial editing, IMO. Tarc (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, nooo! MickMacNee is going to go after me! Excuse me whilst I quake in fear! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't give a monkeys about you and your lack of policy knowledge/reading skills, I will be 'going after' any closing admin who puts any weight on these wholly deficient 'classic 1E' votes. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A classic case of BLP1E. Complete this sentence, "Gillian Duffy is notable for ..." The answer is, of course, she is "notable" for what someone else said about her, and off the record as well. To be notable, you have to actually do something of note or be of interest in your right. Despite the masses of verbiage listed above, none of it - not one bit of it - indicates that Duffy is notable in her own right. The event was, and is, notable because of Brown's actions, not Duffy's and to use that one event as a coatrack to create an article on Duffy is an abuse of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and a breach of the spirit of WP:BLP. This discussion has been picked over many times and the existing consensus to delete remains valid. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1E is not a blanket ban on ever creating articles on people known for one event. The detail given above is more than ample evidence to demonstrate that all principles behind the 'spirit' of 1E - significance, privacy, historical notability, have all been satisfied, and in spades - I managed to find all of the above and write it all up in just a couple of hours. There is much more out there. We can debate where the level is, but if you simply doubt it completely, then you've not read the policy at all, and do not know what a 1E even is, let alone a "classic one". Your idea that this has been picked over many times is simply false, with all the out of process shenanigas and shut-downs that didn't even wait seven days proved that. It has never had a proper discussion, and most certainly not since all the above detail was known, so if you can think that, I would say you have not even bothered to consider what has changed in that respect. And God knows why you even mentioned coatrack, without an actual article to dicsuss that term is meaningless, as you have no idea what the 'coats' are. And whether it's a 'rack' for coats even, is as said, dependent on you judging correctly if it is a 1E or not. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions can anyone give a policy based reason why this shouldn't be a redirect? It appears there was some debate about this on a now-deleted talk page, but given that she is covered in an article, I don't understand what possible reason there is for not having a redirect. Anyone? WP:BLP1E would seem to suggest it is a good thing. I was going to add the redirect myself but I see it is protected. Also, are those of you opposing the recreation of this article also opposing creating an "event" article as Alzarian16 and I have suggested? It seems to meet WP:EVENT in spades. Hobit (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy-based reason against a redirect here on "dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions" - fuller comment below, including links to ANI and to the now-undeleted talk page where this was all debated at length. JohnCD (talk)
    • Those are reasons to consider privacy. I don't see how a redirect harms that given that she is clearly already there by name in the target article. Also, I don't think there was consensous on the talk page nor do I think the talk page was the right place to have that discussion (RfD exists for a reason). Hobit (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No, no, no, no, no. This is a classic BLP1E and mention in Brown's article or that of the election is enough for this. AS the redirect? No strong opinion, but if we do put one up I'd suggest we lock it to prevent abuse. Oh, and the traditional way of presenting cases like this is to produce a userspace draft showing enduring notability. That would be a much better way of getting this changed then a long rant and threats. Flys and honey anyone? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not have an article on the event (which you seem to be ruling out)? It certainly looks to pass WP:EVENT. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding at the time was that it was covered in the article on the election. Surely it's an editorial decision whether this gets spun into a sub article but the focus would clearly need to be on Brown not Duffy. But an article on Duffy - absolutely not unless she becomes newsworthy for a second event. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The idea that it is/was 'covered' is not accurate at all. At the time, it was buried under a section called 'April' because people were still trying to pretend their early reactionary sooth saying was still even remotely accurate, even though this was clearly false even based on contemporary coverage. And there it rotted, barely updated because nobody could find it to update it, and where over time it has ultimately been given equal prominence with totally trivial incidents, none of which even had a hundredth of the level of significance or historical impact of Gillian Duffy. It is not just an editorial decision just to split it or not, because thanks to all the kneejerk reactions and subsequent admin actions, any and all proposed titles for content about Duffy but not necessarily titled 'Gillian Duffy' have all suffered the same restrictions of being considered 'recreated deleted material', and/or being protected, thanks to the almight blunt fist that is BLP. Given that the only plausible search term, her name, the one used by all the coverage, has been salted, then for all intents and purposes, unless someone was just randomly browsing the election article, it apparently never happened, and nobody has any reason to wonder what all the coverage detailed above, which all mentions Gillian Duffy by name, is all about. And the relevance of all that material is no longer focussed on Brown or even the election, it has gone way beyond that. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage relating to Duffy has gone well beyond Brown and the election. It would be bloody ludicrous to include the information detailed above in either of those articles. Totally absurd, a classic case of a square peg in a round hole. If people are so insistent this is a "classic BLP1E", then why don't you have a go at rebutting what I've said with actual policy wording with regards to significance, historical notability and privacy, rather than making simple personal assertions, which don't make a blind bit of difference to the facts of the matter as far as I'm concerned. I did not bother creating a draft first because the previous astounding abuse of the deletion policies on the several prior drafts people wrote about this at the time made it clear that nobody would probably even read it before kneejerking their way to the delete button, so better to get it straight beforehand as to whether future objections are going to be policy based, or more of the same hysterical kneejerking out of some half-clue about what 1E is for. MickMacNee (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can't be bothered to write a draft you can't be surprised if we aren't interested in overturning the afd. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting logic. Unless I waste many many hours writing a userspace draft which may never see the light of day, you won't bother making any policy based arguments. Brilliant. You are an intelligent guy, everything you need to know about how any proposed draft would go is easily discernable from the detailed evidence presented above. MickMacNee (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that there is no need for a draft given that we are arguing about sources and meeting WP:BLP1E a draft doesn't really serve a purpose I can see.Hobit (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, I think we all know how this is going to play out. There will not be consensus for an article on her, but objections to an article on the event and a redirect from her to it will be limited. Nick, I realize where you are coming from and largely tend to agree about the general case but consider this one boarder line (at the moment, if she continues showing up in the media that would move me to your side). Is there any chance I could talk you into A) dropping the DrV B) writing an article focusing on the event and it's implications and C) having a redirect of Ms. Duffy to the event article? The election article could then have a link to this event article also and we'd have reasonable coverage of both the event and more limited coverage of the person. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see myself ever wanting to write a draft before someone says it would be OK to have Gillian Duffy become a redirect to it. Otherwise, how is anybody even going to find the article? And as it happens, there is no bar to simply recreating a new event article, that was the conclusion of the DRV on the one that got zapped after its Afd was shut down after an hour MickMacNee (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've requested that the deleting and protecting admin redirect to the election article. Hobit (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I support a Gillian Duffy being a redirect to either an article on the incident or an article containing the incident. 1E doesn't apply to the existence of redirects and, for a name well known as this one is, we should have some information on wikipedia. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the presumption of privacy issue. Regardless of whether we have a redirect from Gillian Duffy to the incident or not, I seriously doubt if her grandkids will be unaware of this incident. It is well reported and well covered and the privacy issue is, imo, a non-issue. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, and (as the admin who originally did it) also endorse deletion and salting of the redirect. This was discussed interminably at AN/I here and again here and on Talk:Gillian Duffy (now undeleted - discussion visible in the history) and there was (over Mick's metaphorical dead body) a majority against a redirect.
• Hobit asked above for a policy-based reason. I cite WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy on "...dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

  For those who find the earlier discussions TL;DR I would like to restate briefly two reasons against a redirect. One can be summarised as "Granny, we looked you up in Wikipedia! What does BIGOTED mean?" The other is that though it was argued that since Brown apologised and retracted, the whole story is not to Duffy's discredit and so no harm is done by linking her to it, that overlooks that he clearly thought she was bigoted, and the resulting comment was by no means universally friendly - a Guardian article headed "Anger at Gillian Duffy, anger at all the people who weren't willing to stand up to her" produced readers' comments such as "She should be the one apologising", "this odious woman" etc. That article will fade off the Google hits quite soon, but a Wikipedia redirect would not. For the rest of her life it would link her to a story about an off-the-cuff remark she made which made the Prime Minister think she was bigoted, and would make some other people, like the Guardian columnist and many of her readers, think the same. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • She's already showing up in context in a number of articles. Anyone searching for her will be presented with a bunch of articles that mention her rather than being directly sent to the one that has the most coverage. I'm not seeing how not having a redirect helps the issue you've raised. The reason we should have a redirect is A) usability B) our policies say we should. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh also, and perhaps more relevant to the DrV, this deletion wasn't handled within policy from what I can see (I'm missing the RfD discussion and the talk page is not only the wrong place for the discussion there wasn't any consensus I could see to delete it in any case). I don't fault the admin who deleted it, but it is certainly an issue. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This theoretical scenario of embarassment by her grandchildren was as flawed and assumptive back then as it is now. Wikipedia is chock full of information about people who did not actively cause their own notability. What's the bar for inclusion in these cases? Well, having a lasting role in British political history is as good as it gets. While she is of course not auditioning for X-factor off the back of it, she has not remained a private person. Because of this, and because the original event was so significant, and because it is now an ongoing frame of reference in politics, she is not dissapearing from Google. Quite the reverse actually. Her granchildren will never be in a world where they are not going to be able to find out within seconds why she is evidently historically notable and noted, even if she never ever tells them. She clearly has absolutely nothing to fear from having information about her on Wikipedia, which will present the facts accurately, neutraly, verifiably, and in historical context. It's hard to see this as prolonging victimisation at all, without a great deal of fear mongering and general unproven assumption. Wikipedia can only document facts, it can do nothing about dubious commentary of the incident at the time, or about Brown's gaffe itself, or even about what readers might think even if presented with all the facts. To somehow pretend that this all goes away as long as Wikipedia pretends in the face of all evidence that Gillian Duffy is not notable or noted, is arrogance in the extreme, and not what BLP's presumption of privacy is all about at all. MickMacNee (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate and transform into an article about the event, which is very notable and may well have changed the election outcome. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being "a victim of another person's actions" is really the heart of the matter here, and it seems to be forgotten by those urging restoration here. For goodness sake the woman didn't actually do anything directly to gain this unfortunate infamy. This is all on Gordon Brown's shoulders, not hers. Maybe we could enlist a certain youtube personality to make a "Leave Gillian Duffy alone!" video. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tarc, that's a fine reason to not have an article on her, but I don't think it's a reason to not have an article on the event. A) there is no policy I'm aware of that would promote such an action and in fact WP:BLP1E actively supports such an article B) she is covered in the mainstream media to the point that adding anything here is a drop in bucket if not a lake and C) your premise appears to be somewhat off as Nick has shown she has actively gotten into the media spotlight. I personally would prefer not to have an article on her as she's clearly a BLP1E at this point (if she writes a book or ends up on a reality we'll talk about that changing), but see not bar to an event article. Or to a redirect for that matter (again per WP:BLP1E...) Hobit (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think I've spoken much for or against an event article, I'm fairly neutral on that at the moment. Though what can really be said about the event other than the blurb that is already in the election article, I have no idea. I am still quite opposed to a redirect from the woman's name, per my own and JohnCD's reasonings. Tarc (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I admit to being lost on the redirect thing. I understand the goal of keeping her name out of things, but frankly it's already in a bunch of articles. The only thing adding the redirect will do is cause anyone searching for her to go directly there rather than getting a bunch of articles in a list and having to read those and click (the first one most likely which leads to the proposed target anyways). As far as I can tell nothing changes other than requiring the extra click. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 04:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • To say that the incident "may well have changed the election outcome" is, frankly, nonsense. Its impact on the voters (as opposed to the press) is shown by the YouGov poll voting intention figures for Labour on the day of the incident, the next day when there was all the fuss, and the three following days: 27%, 27%, 28%, 27%, 28%. JohnCD (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Pure WP:OR. Much like the curious grandchild theory. MickMacNee (talk) 12:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not OR; verifiable fact. Don't you understand the difference? JohnCD (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • The figures are the verifiable facts, that is all. Everything else is you making your own conclusions. And yes, I understand the difference between editors claiming it made no difference, and reliable sources saying it did. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The figures verify the fact that the incident had no measurable effect on declared voting intentions. Assertions to the contrary are commentators' opinions. JohnCD (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Nope, not even close. OR is OR, even if the editor is using verifiable figures to support their conclusions. RS are RS, whether being used to support facts, or opinions. And after all, whether it had an effect is only ever going to be an opinion, informed or otherwise, unless someone finds an RS of a poll on that specific question. Find an RS that repeats your opinion, and you might have a point, but if it even exists, I'm expecting it to be in the minority. MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The YouGov poll is a reliable source for voters' declared intentions. Its figures show that in the days immediately following the incident there was no fall-off in the proportion saying they intended to vote Labour. If you cannot see that point, others reading this thread can; I will leave the last word to you. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • If they see it, let them agree here. I've no issue with that, I've got the WP:OR policy page on my side here. I think you've given them all they need to make a determination as to whether your statements represent a new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources, or whether your assertion that the Gillian Duffy remark "had no effect on the election" is a position that is infact attributable to a reliable, published source. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I do think if there is going to be an event article we need a good name for it. _that_ might actually be tricky without creating BLP issues. Hobit (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gordon Brown live mic incident, or somesuch. If this has to happen then focus on who said it, not who it was said about. Tarc (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bigotgate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) currently exists in the main namespace, containing all of the edit history of the old article, and isn't protected. If having an article on the event were the issue here, I'm sure that the people arguing so extensively here would have done something in that vein with bigotgate in the three and a half months that it has remained unprotected yet entirely untouched by anyone in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is BLP1E, but BLP1E name articles should, if the name is already public, always redirect to the appropriate event article. So, endorse deletion of the full article, but overturn deletion of the redirect. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Seraphimblade. There should be a redirect because some people will remember the name, and it should point at a general article about the election campaign and the significance of the incident in it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse Wikipedia has taken a small step in recognising the damage it can do to living people with the BLP1E policy. Especially we don't have articles on people who are unwilling victims in news cycles. This woman has courted no publicity and is not in herself notable. Sure the incident has significance for the election campaign (although, I think not much) and should be mentioned there. But story is about Brown, not Duffy. Basically, MickMacNee (and a small number of others) don't like our stance on BLP1E or NOTNEWS and so they picks at scabs. Enough. No to the article, and no to the redirect. Since Duffy is only notable because of the election, anyone looking is going to be looking for it, not her, and know the two are connected.--Scott Mac 13:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To quote from above: In early August she was guest of honour at a Labour Party constituency event in Rochdale, and began to give televised interviews to ITV about the gaffe. She's not exactly unwilling at this point. Even ignoring that, the only impact of the redirect is a navigational aid to get you to the article you'd be looking for. I agree to no article about her, but there is one article that discusses her (well actually a few) and having the redirect isn't a BLP issue. BLP1E even tells us to make it. Do you have a policy-based reason for not having a redirect? Hobit (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't buy the argument that any of that elevates her into publicity-seeking status. If it were a book tour or a run around the paid lecture circuit, I'd probably change my mind on that. As noted above somewhere, her "fame" comes because of someone else's fuck-up. (I was going to make an analogy to how if you wanted to find out more info about George Allen's "macaca" incident, would you search for the guy who filmed it...only to find that that guy actually has a goddamned wikipedia article Facepalm Which will be going to AfD shortly. Tired of this idiot 1E cruft). Tarc (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you missed it Scott, but the evidence flatly contradicts your statements, for example, from the Daily Mirror a whole two months after the incident: "But after meeting Mr Miliband she said she was coming back to the fold – and was happy to back the shadow foreign secretary to be Labour leader with her union vote. The endorsement came after he went to visit Mrs Duffy at her home for a chat. The gran said: "He’s a really nice man and obviously very intelligent but also down to earth. I think he would be a great Prime Minister." She added: "I felt David really listened to my points of view and shared my concerns on the issues that matter to working people."[18] That is not an article about the election, it is not an article about Brown, it is not evidence of someone who is shy of publicity, and it is not evidence that she is not notable. She is notable enough to be sought out by the favourite for the Labour leadership race, and have her opinions on what makes a good PM be quoted in national newspapers. If you want to talk basics, "bascially", there is a hardcore of BLP activists on this site like yourself who make snap decisions, engage in prediction and sooth saying, in a wish to take the fundemental principles behind BLP and extend them far far far out of all proportion into the scope of the historical record, even if it leads them to make statements that are provably and patently wrong once the facts from reliable commentators emerge, both at the time, and months later. They claim to speak for the 'victims', but the real victims here are the readers who are being lied to and having their political history airbrushed infront of their very eyes. They are effectively acting as editors in the newspaper sense, rather than the encyclopedia sense, and are making (or distorting) the news, rather than accurately and neutrally reflecting the news and historical record, and it is an abuse of our fundemental mission. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your post rather makes my point. You don't like that the community is slowly coming around to a much stricter view of our responsibility to living people and you're trying to fight it on all fronts. So, because of an incident an election-charged media tried to draw out a soap-opera story about Brown and the poor pensioner, you want to write her biography? That's certainly a facet of the election that ought to be recorded in a discussion of the election, and how the media handled it, but it does not make her personally notable, nor does it mean we have to take a tabloid-esque prurient interest in Duffy and her relationship with the Labour Party. We are an encyclopedia not a news aggregater, and what is encyclopedic here is the phenomena she represents in terms of British media and politics, or (perhaps) what the incident illustrates about the character of Gordon Brown. We just don't need to do "the life and times of Mrs D." to inform our readers about that. It must not be a case of "where the Sun leads, Wikipedia will follow" - we are better than that! (And whatever we think, we will not use people's lives as a means of making a POINT in some philosophical inter-wikipedia discussion. If you want to change a policy direction, then open a policy discussion, NOT a review of some woman's biography. --Scott Mac 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scott, to me at least the key point is that the community hasn't come to the point of having a policy against redirects in a case like this. Can you point to any consensous about redirects and BLPs? Hobit (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Point me to the place where is says...." is generally not a strong argument. The fact is that there is far more scrutiny, and questioning, of such things, and the old arguments "well this is cheap, and policy doesn't prevent it" are not so convincing when we are talking about living people as (regrettably) they once were. --Scott Mac 16:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We'll have to agree to disagree I guess. If you're claiming that the community has come to a point where redirects like this should be deleted, I'd expect there to be some discussion on that point... Hobit (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • • • I'm wondering about that too. I understand the logic of the 'we don't need to write her biography' argument. But, a redirect that points to wherever the incident is discussed doesn't seem outré. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No policy change is required. The over-reach and agenda driving of 1E over and above what it mandates is on your part, not mine. How on Earth any sane person take a dispationate look at all the evidence presented above, and remotely describe the coverage as just a 'soap opera' is completely beyond me. It is not Heat Magazine covering this, it is The Independent, although I'm sure you will start redefining those RS as tabloids for the purposes of BLP v2.0, I've seen it attempted before. It's your spin, your agenda, your paranoia, and it's your problem if the policy and the evidence don't support your appeals to emotion and distortion of the evidence. This is not simple news aggregation of one incident's coverage, it went beyond that months ago. She is a frame of reference herself now. Not a celebrity, not a victim, but a significant part of British political debate, and in particular, the problems of the Labour party in the post-Blair era. You are simply blind to bullet proof evidence of that, like the examples given above in RS, which have absolutely nothing to do with either the election or Brown anymore. The election is over and he has gone, yet Duffy is still considered relevant and noteworthy. If you disagree, then actualy pick one of the sources and rebut it, rather than simply talking in vague terms which have been manufactured in your head to support your idea of what the reality is, rather than the actual reality supported by the actual evidence. You give me a rational and objective explanation as to how the reporting of her meeting with Milliband, or the coverage of the immigration issue, or the problems of Labour reconnecting with voters, or anything else, that has come months after the event, is "tabloid-esque prurient interest". I never sourced The Sun once, I used The Mirror for convenience for being first to hand, but it's all been similarly considered notable and reported in the highest quality coverage you could ever hope to find. It's not about documenting 'the life and times of Mrs D' (although again, you flatly ignore RS's actually doing this), it is answering the question 'who is Mrs D. and why is she continually being referred to in coverage of British politics?'. 'What occured to give this person continuing and apparently significant status in British politics'? etc etc. The exact sorts of question readers expect Wikipedia to be able to answer, without lying to them, or offering up lame excuses based on imaginary threats, or amazingly, pretending she never ever existed, and if she did, it was just because of the stoopid tabloid meedja and their stoopid trashy reporting. MickMacNee (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "She is a frame of reference herself now" - what does that actually mean? She's a granny who met a PM and got the sharp end of his tongue. She illustrates something, so use her as an illustration in the relevant articles: that's not "pretending she never ever existed", it is telling the history in context and in proportion to its significance. No one is pretending she never existed, or erasing her from the relevant articles, we're just not wanting to create mythical "frames of reference" around people's private lives. That's what newspapers do, because there readers (or some of them) are too thick to understand the issues without reducing it to anecdote and neo-celebrity. It isn't so much that we are not a tabloid here, it is that we are different from newspapers of whatever quality (see WP:NOT). We are an encyclopedia, recording the "second draft" of history. That means we record facts in context, and don't simply record a string of "here what happened on Thursday" stories, or use particular people as "frames of reference". The frame of reference here is the political issues, the media style, the election, and the rise and fall of a Prime Minister, not who Mrs Duffy is, or what she thinks of Mr. Milliband this week.--Scott Mac 18:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It means that her name is now associated with a political issue, and problem for Labour, as evidenced by the sources. I'd detailed this to death, it should be easy to pick up. And I think you make far too much assumptions about what would be in any proposed article, I for one would not be writing this in the style you seem to think people would. But that's an editorial issue, it is not a justification for deletion and salting. Any second draft of history that portrays Gillian Duffy as only relevant to Brown or the election, and actively prevents people finding out about her role and relevance, will simply be innaccurate and discredited by the wealth of alternative evidence, like real reference works. She was maybe a 1E then (although we have plenty of articles to even disprove that), but she is not now. People who think that the only way you extend beyond being a 1E is by virtue of a second totally unrelated event, just haven't understood the policy. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No. She ought not to be the subject of an article, because she is not "a frame of reference herself". She is NOT the subject of what is relevant here, she is the object, being used as a point of interest in the political and media discussions. Thus, we record her in content in our articles on those events and discussions. Why? Because outside the politics and the "Brown story" she is not notable. There is nothing notable about her other than "Brown did this" or "Labour were in an election" or "here's how the media treat people". That's the whole essence of BLP1E - not making the object into the subject. Newspapers (even reasonable ones) tend to do the opposite - they tell the big story by anecdote and human interest. We are not a newspaper - not even a good newspaper.--Scott Mac 18:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    She is not simply a point of interest, her real life and her real opinions are very much the subject here, as well as her already notable role in the election, which is why she gets continuing coverage herself, and not just being continually namechecked as an anecdote. Your apparent contempt for the entire news media seems to be what is driving your judgement as to what is a 1E or not, rather than the measures actually detailed in the actual policy - privacy, notability, historical significance. MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. I'm shocked that anyone could be as biased as to suggest that there shouldn't at least be a redirect for someone who got, and still gets, so much international media coverage. [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. At a bare minimium, there should have been an AFD on this. I'd suggest that anyone editor who doesn't believe there shouldn't at least be a redirect is clearly and grossly biased, and should be banned from Wikipedia for at least one decade. Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I Can Has Hyperbole? Tarc (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, pretty much the definition of WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you arguing for keeping both the article and redirect deleted or just the redirect? Hobit (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just the article would be enough, but I'm not sure what an appropriate redirect target would be. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • [28] was the target discussed above. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That would seem reasonable. It seems better that the title redirect to some relevant article (but be protected), because I expect it will be a likely search term for some time to come, so people should not be presented with a deleted article and no indication on where to find one — as they will then probably proceed to try to create one, and probably complain here when they can't. The principle of least astonishment should apply. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for closer I'm biased, but here is what I think is an accurate summary of !votes, please correct/add as needed. I'm doing this as I run out, so sorry about any errors or omissions. Hobit (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this reads far more into the debate than is here. We are reviewing the deletion of Gillian Duffy. And it looks to me like there isn't a consensus to overturn that deletion (which there would need to be, given this is a BLP). That's really as far as it goes. Some people may have commented on other connected issues, but there's been no full discussion here, and in any case DRV's focus is narrowly on the legitimacy of the deletion. This ought to be close as "deletion endorsed" and that's it for now.--Scott Mac 23:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has already rejected an "event article" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident. If someone wants to bring that to DRV, we can discuss it separately.--Scott Mac 23:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this discussion shows that an event article is now reasonable. This doesn't mean it won't be brought to AfD of course, I've no doubt it will. That said, I _think_ the table correctly labels the various opinions. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This DrV clearly _can_ discuss the deletion of the redirect, and I'd say there is consensus to overturn that one, especially as that deletion was done out-of-process from what I can tell (not at RfD and no clear consensus to delete on the talk page discussion...) Hobit (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This debate is confused as to what it is talking about - which makes the discerning of opinions on that table highly dubious (it imputed views to me on matters I've never considered). As far as I can see, this is DRV of the deletion of Gillian Duffy although some people are talking about the article some about the redirect (I've never expressed a view on the redirect, so again the table is quite wrong). The event article was condemned by a healthy consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bigoted woman incident. If you think that closure was wrong, then I suggest you bring it to a separate DRV. There's not enough discussion of it here (and the closer hasn't been informed) for this DRV to overturn it in passing. (I make no comment about whether it ought to be overturned or not).--Scott Mac 08:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think the DrV can certainly address what goes in place of that red link above. At the moment it seems people prefer to not have an article, but would prefer a redirect. Also, your statement "Enough. No to the article, and no to the redirect" is what I based your opposition to the redirect on. Hobit (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the deleter of the redirect was notified of this discussion some time ago and has indicated support for the redirect [29]. Hobit (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. I'm willing to concede: 1. that there's (although it isn't that clear) a consensus to have a redirect to the election article 2. the non-existence of a BLP is clearly upheld. 3. There's insufficient discussion either way to determine an "event article". The Afd of the deletion of the "Bigoted woman" event article thus stands (it hasn't been reviewed here, in truth), although I note closer didn't close the door on further consideration. The deleted I was referring to was that of the "event" article.--Scott Mac 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The early closure of that event article Afd was taken to DRV here, where it closed as no consensus, whereby any new 'event' article would not be subject to speedy deletion, and instead would require another Afd, done properly this time. [30] MickMacNee (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn In particular, overturn the deletion of the redirect. There should be either a mention or a discussion of the incident somewhere and having a redirect to that from her name is consistent with standard practices for how we handle BLP1E. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Machado (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There are lots of articles about minor league baseball players from the last two MLB drafts that have less information and less reliable sources than this page did and those pages have been kept up. I think this page should be undeleted because he meets WP:GNG. He has signed a professional contract. The deleter hasn't replied to my message about the page. The deleter said that the situation with Machado had not changed since a different page was deleted two months ago, but this time the article was put together with good information with references from him being coverd nationally by places like The Miami Herald and Sports Illustrated. ¿Ice? (talk) 05:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. Deletion review is not a second bite at the cherry to be used just because you disagree with the outcome of a deletion debate. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh....Isn't that the point of Deletion Review. Someone disagrees (doesn't like} with the outcome, so they come here for a second opinion and a review?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that's sarcasm, but if it isn't, see the notice at the top of this page: "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Equally, this process should not be used to point out other pages that have not been deleted where your page has — each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits." JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Could someone do a temporary restore of this article please (both the AFD version and the G4 version). I think the concern here is with the G4 deletion rather than the last AfD and given the G4 criteria we really need to see the version that was deleted at AfD and the recent version that was deleted to see if this was a valid G4. Dpmuk (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I did the second speedy deletion. The new article is completely different to the old article, with different references. However the major claim, that he was picked third in the draft remains the same, and the issues expressed in the AFD have not yet been resolved, in that he still has not played. I am quite willing to userfy the deleted articles as a userspace draft if someone asks as the article does not harm the encyclopedia. If I do so I will note it here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Per the G4 deleting admin comments above the page was not "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" (G4 criteria) as per the own comments it was "completely different" to the AfD article and so not sufficiently identical. I read the "this excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies ..." part of the criteria to mean that if the article meets any of the clauses it's not eligible for G4. Yes the reason for deletion may still apply but it's definitely not substantially identical, especially given that it has two sources that were only published after the AfD so can't possibly have been considered, and therefore it wasn't eligible for G4. Dpmuk (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (ec) The outcome of the deletion debate was not clear "delete". In my opinion this player meets WP:GNG - he has currently signed a $5.25 million contract with Baltimore Orioles [31], which is quite unusual for an amateur. The article was reasonably well written and referenced. There should be an exception in the rules, this is a disservice to our readers. But I know nothing about baseball. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD. Not quite similar enough for a G4. The AfD close was correct at the time, but the new article is sufficiently different (both in terms of content and sources) to suggest that another discussion is necessary. Whether or not he's notable I'm not at all sure. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy New sources and WP:ATHLETE specifically allows inclusion via WP:N, so those new sources may well be enough to overcome issues from the last AfD. I do wish admins would overturn debatable speedies and list at AfD when there is a reasonable request. Hobit (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the AfD, I'd also say there wasn't any policy-based consensus for that deletion. Things like "not drafted yet" as a reason to delete is an IAR delete argument as no one argued he doesn't meet WP:N and several argued he does... Hobit (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• After I restored it I forgot to remove the G4 tag, and it got deleted again. Now it is at User:Icealien33/Manny Machado after userfication. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per most of the above as sufficiently different to be ineligible for G4 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't this be up for a new AfD instead of it becoming a redirect, or am I missing something? -- Ice (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly should at least be a redirect, so it's that for now. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted even though the vote count was 3:2 in favour of keep.

In deciding to delete, the administrator's reasoning was:

"The result was delete. While the pure votecount is evenly matched on each side, Herostratus's comment is pretty much a delete !vote, and vinciusmc/meshach's proofs by assertion fail to impress. I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)"

However, Herostratus clearly voted to keep:

"Keep. Cruft. We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes, it appears. Future generations will doubtless thank us. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)"

Further, if the article on The Cartoon is deleted, shouldn't articles on other individual Seinfeld episodes be deleted? Isn't there an important issue of consistency?

Addendum (20 Aug 2010): In discounting the statement "We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes", the administrator overlooked or ignored a permissible WP:OSE - "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia."

Rainjar (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD is not a vote --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why does the admin refer to "The result"? Rainjar (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The discussion ends in a result/outcome/whatever you want to call it. Using the word result is not synonymous with being a vote. Football matches end with a result, they aren't a vote either. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So why bother to interpret Herostratus's comment as a delete vote in direct contradiction to the express vote? The referee at a football match records the final score. He doesn't interpret it as he would like. Rainjar (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • He refers to the bolded sentiment, which it appears was meant to be sarcastic. My reference to a football match wasn't supposed to be a direct comparison to AFD merely that the word result doesn't imply anything about voting. Really you can argue about if it's a vote of not as much as you like, it's long established that AFD isn't a vote and that isn't going to change here. For example Template:Not_a_ballot was created getting on 5 years ago to explain this concept to newcomers. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The aim is to reach a consensus isn't it. A 3:2 majority in favour of keep clearly isn't a consensus to keep, but it's hardly a consensus to delete either. My criticism is of "the administrator's reasoning". Rainjar (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The standard is laid out here and is that of a rough consensus. Saying 3:2 majority isn't a consensus is again try to boil this down to a vote, which it still isn't. If I state delete because it fails to meet policy X whilst someone else says keep, then if policy X is agreed by the broader community, my sentiment of delete is not just about my view at that point in time but has a broad community consensus from the formation of policy X. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • So a "rough consensus" is reached by ignoring an express vote and interpreting the comment that follows the vote as the admin wishes. If the recourse is to policy, what about the broader policy of consistency, and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comment below? "[T]here's very certainly no good reason to reopen the not-long-enough-dormant TV episodes battling. And per WP:OSE, no reason to delete a single article from a comprehensive set unless there's cause shown to re-examine the global question" See also the comments by Robofish, Ron Ritzman and Kotniski below. Rainjar (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • How many times can it be said to you that AFD is not a vote. Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE#Deletion, moving and featuring. Yes if I say "Keep - the articles crap doesn't meet any of our policies but I think it's nice", then yes an admin should weigh the strength of that, the strength being that it's a sound reason to delete it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • As I said earlier, my criticism is of the admin's reasoning. It is the admin that stated that Herostratus's comment was "pretty much a delete !vote", ignoring the express "Keep" vote. Not me. Rainjar (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Your criticism is that the admin didn't treat it as a vote, but that correct since it isn't a vote. He said !vote (i.e. not vote) the bolded sentiment shown is secondary (at best) to the opinion expressed. Final time of saying it, you can argue about it for as long as you like, but that's the way it works and has worked for many many years. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • My criticism is that the admin treated it as a delete vote (in effect, even if not by the precise word), ignoring the express "Keep" vote. How difficult would it have been to clarify with Herostratus? I did. If "that's the way it works and has worked for many many years", perhaps it's about time there was a broader review of the scope and exercise of the discretion. Addendum (20 August 2010): TeleComNasSprVen has raised on my talk page a discussion on !vote and polls generally, to which I have responded. Rainjar (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There were two indisputable keep !votes, both saying it met WP:N and two !votes that were indisputable deletes, both essentially saying the coverage is trivial and based purely on these four votes I think a no consensus close would have been appropiate. However, Herostratus's !vote is an interesting one as it could be interpreted a number of ways but personally I think it adds strength to the delete vote. Using the term "cruft" clearly suggests that the article shouldn't be kept (as I've never seen cruft used anywhere other than a delete argument before) while the rest of the !vote seems to be sarcastic comment on the fact that we have articles on many other episodes and so should keep this one. If this were a proper keep vote I would discount it as a "other stuff exists" vote but as I discuss above I interpret it's more as a sarcastic vote and so as a (weak) delete vote. The nominator, although saying it was a procedural nomination, also suggested that they didn't think the sources were sufficient to meet our notability requirements. Thhe nom's comment along with Herostratus's !vote clearly, in my opinion, push the consensus in favour of delete (although I think a no consensus close would also have been within admin discretion). Dpmuk (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why does the word "Keep" appear in the quote of Herostratus's response Rainjar (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As stated by Stifle below it's the strength of argument not votes that count and I interpret that vote as contributing towards the strength of the delete argument even if that's not what the user intended. Dpmuk (talk) 13:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So an admin can not only ignore the consensus, but interpret the views of others any way he chooses. Your arguments become more bizarre with each statement. Rainjar (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If an admin is to interpret consensus they have to interpret the views of others, AfD is not a vote but is based on the strength of argument. In any argument people can make a mistake and accidentally make a comment that supports the other side more than they side they're supporting. This appears to be what happened here and usually it may be clarified by further discussion but that didn't happen here so the admin, as they are meant to, based their decision on what was in front of them as we have to end the discussion somewhere.
        • All that said even if we almost completely ignore that vote (which I think is reasonable if it is a keep vote as it amounts to a other stuff exists argument) I still think a delete vote was within admin discretion given the nominators comments where they said they don't think the current sources are good enough.
        • Finally all the comments about articles appearing on the rest of the series amounts to a other stuff exists argument. Yes, the current situation isn't idea but I'd suggest that many of the other articles should end up at AfD as well. TV episodes can vary in notability so it's probably appropriate to hold a separate AFD for each one (as here) but an argument for keep based on the others existing should be given very little weight as one has to go first. Otherwise we're in danger of allowing a walled garden - it would be precedent for any one to set up a whole bunch of articles and then say one shouldn't be deleted as it left a gap. Dpmuk (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In discounting the statement "We have articles on all the other Seinfeld episodes", the administrator overlooked or ignored a permissible WP:OSE - "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia." If the comment was ambiguous, wouldn't the proper step have been to seek clarification, and not merely to interpret the comment in a manner that suited the administrator? If the view is that only a few episodes are notable enough to merit a separate article, then, as Ron Ritzman says below "Wouldn't a better approach be to start a discussion at Talk:Seinfeld or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seinfeld about expanding the episode list articles to include short summaries and then turning most episode articles into redirects?", rather than seeking to delete individual articles, leaving one or more gaps in what would otherwise be a complete set. Rainjar (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, in my opinion seeking clarification isn't the correct thing to do. We have to draw the line somewhere - what happens if the editor doesn't reply for days or someone else comments in the meantime. Admins have to make the decision based on the discussion at the time of the close. While I agree that OSE can occasionally be a valid keep reason I don't think just saying an unqualified other stuff exists is. Saying other stuff exists and it's nearly all notable is a valid argument because then it would be odd not to have one. In contrast a plain OSE argument could be used to support an article on something where none of them are notable (as I explain above) so needs to be more reasoned to support a keep - plain OSE argument are regularly given very little weight at AfD. Dpmuk (talk) 12:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what an arbitrary line it has proven to be. As for how much weight as OSE argument should carry, it appears to me that the illustration used in the WP:OSE is weaker than in the present case. Rainjar (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse own deletion as AFD is not a vote; it's up to the strength of arguments. Stifle (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why do you refer to "The result"? Rainjar (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See what 82.7.40.7 said above. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replied to that. See also what I said immediately above your self-endorsement. Rainjar (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. First of all (and for what any of this is worth), I'm sorry for my confusing comment on the original AfD. I just kind of threw it off, and didn't expect it to become a bone of contention. I wasn't thinking it through, and that was an error, for which I apologize. My comment should probably have been ignored as being too poorly formed. Again, sorry. What I meant to say was something like: "Keep, even though it is cruft, per the precedent that we have articles on all the other Seinfeld shows. <sarcasm>Future generations will thank us</sarcasm> for retaining such cruft, but I suppose we must." Herostratus (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. Ironically, "List of Seinfeld episodes is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so." On the same subject of Seinfeld episodes, one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community to many, "cruft" to a few. We're all entitled to our views. It's just sad to see a few impose theirs on others. Rainjar (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Too bizarre to be allowed to stand. Admin seems just to have deleted an article on his own whim (none of the arguments on either side look particularly compelling, although I haven't seen the article), and the idea you can just reverse someone's opinion like that (without even asking him, as far as I can tell) is a travesty. The result is (apparently) that we now have a random unexplained gap in what was very comprehensive coverage of a topic, and at least one more editor disillusioned by seeing the way Wikipedia "works". --Kotniski (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but... - The close itself was sound, but I question the nomination of a single episode out of the season, which has left one redlinked episode in the list of Season 9 blue links. Every episode of the season (apart from the finale and "Puerto Rican Day", which likely have sourced citations due to being the last episode and being controversial, respectively) should have been put up. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Blatant abuse of the deletion process, as the admin was pushing his own POV contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Er, this is an issue of notability. Where in the AfD did concerns of either the neutral point of view or "objectionable or offensive" content come into play? Your input here is, quite frankly, rather bizarre. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn per Herostratus and Colonel Warden. I don't have a strong opinion about whether there needs to be a separate article for each Seinfeld episode, but it doesn't make any sense to have an article for all except one. Also, it was deleted without any consensus. Helvetica (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Overturn - Although I was too late to comment, I would have commented to keep the article, as I believe that movies, TV shows, and books are their own sources. But given the arguments at the time of closure, Stifle decided that the delete arguments out weighed the keep arguments, and I concur. It wasn't a poor close, but I wouldn't be against reopening to make sure. After looking through the citations, this should really be reexamined. Those citations were not as ambiguous as we were led to believe.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is looking a bit like the situation in the AfD where someone's !vote was reversed from what he said. You write endorse, then imply you'd quite favour reopening, which is overturn. Can you clarify? (I mean, we're not evaluating the admin here - we can believe that the admin took a perfectly reasonable decision at the time, while also believing that it's best for the encyclopedia that the issue be reopened.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As Dpmuk says, this was within discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can someone do a tmp. restore so non-admins can see the article? The strength of the keep !votes depend on the sourcing of the article. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Stifle has userfied it here. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would go out on a ledge and say that those citations were not as ambiguous as we were led to believe. They seem to be right on, and confirm the information in the article.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC I think the book provides enough coverage (including a plot summary) and some of the other articles are strong enough to make the claim that WP:N is met by the sources in the article credible. No one specifically explained why they weren't, so I don't see how those !votes can be discounted. In general when an admin is dealing with a majority !voting in a way they disagree with AND those !votes are at least reasonable the admin should !vote rather than close. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cartoon" episode of Seinfeld is referred to in the following Wikipedia pages (1) The New Yorker and (2) Ziggy (comic strip) - more "notable" than several other episodes of Seinfeld, but oddly, the only one that has had its article deleted. The parallel to real life events between Jerry Seinfeld and Kathy Griffin may also be "notable". Rainjar (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in response to the vote count was 3:2 in favour of keep - if we look numerically (which we don't, as AfD is not a vote), the nomination is a "delete", so the "vote count" was 3:3. Also, I feel that the argument that this would be the only episode redlinked on the list of episodes is not a valid reason to overturn the closure - perhaps that's an indication that some/all of the episodes' articles should be considered for deletion? I make no further comment on this issue. Incidently, Stifle userfied it to User:Meshach/The_Cartoon, so it can be viewed there. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination was "Procedural nom". So not a !vote to delete as I read it. Hobit (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair point - I didn't look at the AfD before typing that (oops!). With that in mind, I'm going to say Overturn to no consensus -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus, as there was clearly no consensus to delete here. While some would say this is within the closing admin's discretion, I don't think such a bold move was appropriate; given that List of Seinfeld episodes is a featured list, and that (as Herostratus pointed out) all the other episodes have articles, I think a stronger mandate (i.e. more input) would be needed in order to make a new precedent by deleting this article. No objection to relisting this one to try to reach a broader consensus. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as per Robofish. There certainly wasn't any consensus to be found at the AFD, and there's very certainly no good reason to reopen the not-long-enough-dormant TV episodes battling. And per WP:OSE, no reason to delete a single article from a comprehensive set unless there's cause shown to re-examine the global question. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with Tarc's sentiments here. Why nominate only one episode? Come to think of it, why start with nominating any of them at all? Wouldn't a better approach be to start a discussion at Talk:Seinfeld or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seinfeld about expanding the episode list articles to include short summaries and then turning most episode articles into redirects? (except the obviously notable ones like The Soup Nazi) The way it is right now, this leaves a big red hole on our coverage of episodes, especially if this AFD result is used as a precedent for nominating other Seinfeld episodes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said. AfD was the wrong forum for this in the first place (as is usually the case when the issue is not the inclusion of the information, but the giving of a separate page to a topic). --Kotniski (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, within admin discretion; however, I don't have a problem with restoring it, basically per Tarc and Ron Ritzman. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If by exercising "discretion", an admin can interpret an express "Keep" vote as a "Delete" vote, delete an article on one episode of a long running and popular series while leaving articles on the other episodes untouched (all of which episodes are a featured list on Wikipedia), and ignore a relevant WP:OSE, then perhaps the scope of the discretion itself needs to be re-examined. Rainjar (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Stifle misinterpreted Herostratus' comment - something that often happens online when you write a sarcastic comment without noting it. Calling something "cruft" isn't what someone who supports keeping usually says, and how, exactly, is the closer supposed to figure out if the "keep" is sarcastic or not?

      It's not a defective close, but a defective debate. For that reason I'm happy with it being restored. But frankly, WP:BLUDGEONing about everybody who endorsed the close is not helping your case. At all. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • There is a separate issue as to how "discretion" is exercised. I have raised it elsewhere, where it may be more appropriate to do so. I have not gone on about "everybody who endorsed the close". I have dealt with the argument that the decision was within discretion, which appears to be the principal argument. On a separate note, a debate is a debate. It can be a good debate or a poor debate, but I cannot see how a debate can be "defective". If anything was "defective", it was in the application of the process. Rainjar (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The people arguing for keeping the article did a poor job of defending the article's notability, so I won't blame the closer too much for deleting the article. However, I agree with Hobit that the position of keeping the article has some merit, and that a consensus to delete the article was therefore not present. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Robofish.--Cube lurker (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Robofish and Sjakkalle. A poor debate which not surprisingly led to the wrong result. Not really Stifle's fault, but the close looks to be outside of consensus. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As obviously within the discretion of the closer. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to non-consensus, which was the clear result, obvious to 890% 80 or 90% of the people here. But what really bothers me is not the mistaken close, but the attitude in an admin saying "I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree. " As for me, I'm perfectly aware that no matter how carefully I consider I might make an error, and I never make an admin decision that I will not reconsider. I know the odds are against any self-presumption I'm the most careful admin here, but even if the closer thinks he is perfect, he should recognize both that nobody else is likely to agree with him, and that a priori it's extremely improbable, to the extent that it has never yet been the case with anyone. Myself, I'd think anyone would want to have the opportunity to change their mind rather than experience a deltion review like this one. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  890%? Are some people here sockpuppets, so the actual number of people commenting here is less than the number of accounts commenting here? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC) fixed my typo. Sorry. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DGG, I don't understand your problem with an admin saying "I have considered this closure carefully and will not be amending it; feel free to DRV if you disagree." If, when his decision is challenged, an admin reconsiders it carefully but still believes it is right, what would you have him do? You seem to be saying that he must amend his decision if challenged - you surely don't mean that? JohnCD (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think DGG's objection goes to the closer's preemptive refusal to consider objections as a general rule, as expressed here [32] and restated in the close under debate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I understand, I had not taken in that those words were actually written pre-emptively in the AfD close under discussion. JohnCD (talk) 09:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak overturn to no consensus – Those first two "keep" !votes were correct as far as the sourcing is concerned (which I can verify). Discounting the one "keep", which was either sarcasm or otherwise an application of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it boiled down to whether or not the sources given in the article were valid and hence established notability. That being said, none of the arguments brought forth in the AFD were very good at all or developed enough, and neither came out on top. –MuZemike 18:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and severe trout: Textbook case of admin super!voting and deciding the fate of an article by his own whim. A consensus to delete for sure did not exist. It was a "no consensus" at worst. Considering a keep !vote, (even if ambiguously sarcastic), as a delete, is the icing on the cake: the closing admin should have at least asked what that meant. --Cyclopia^talk 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - the article should be kept. There was clearly "no consensus" in the discussion; for the closing admin to say otherwise is unsupportable. The closing admin must follow the decision of the AfD. Why do we bother to have AfDs if the closing admin just follows his own judgment? We would save ourselves a lot of time if we just appoint this admin to be the sole judge of wiki-worthy articles. Inniverse (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There are several comments above excusing the administrator for the outcome of the AfD on the grounds that the debate/discussion in the AfD was poor. If the debate/discussion was poor, isn't that all the more reason for the administrator to be more careful in "interpreting" the debate/discussion, in the exercise of "discretion", and in the reasoning in reaching a decision? Rainjar (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - the article should have been kept. There was no consensus to delete and the Notability is demonstrated by the other episode's articles / the subject matter. meshach (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but should be restored anyway The close, based on what was brought, and strength of arguments, was correct. As others noted, AfD seems to be the wrong place for this to have gone. There needs to be some sort of centralized discussion regarding Seinfeld episodes, a mass nomination of non-notable episodes, or .. what. Picking off individual episodes seems to be the wrong way to go about it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Steven Slater (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)