Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September

D'Penguineers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article appeared to have been speedily deleted without much review. The reason given was that the notability had not been established to ANY extent; however, I believe it had been to a extent that would NOT warrant speedy deletion. Please undelete the article, and maybe submit it to AfD for discussion. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 14:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things. Number one, can you tell us what the assertion of notability was? Secondly it appears you asked the closing admin about deletion after you filed the DrV. Let's wait a bit and see what they have to say first. As the directions at the top of DRV say, you really should talk to the closing admin first and give them a chance to respond. Hobit (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede's second sentence is "The D’Penguineers have won multiple awards at the regional and international levels...", which (in my opinion) is a sufficient declaration of notability that A7 shouldn't have applied. Just my two cents. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The notability was established in several ways, including, among other things, that bestselling author Neal Bascomb wrote a book on them that will be released in 2011. It can be argued that those arguments were insufficient; but on those grounds, it should have been nominated for discussion, and NOT speedily deleted. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted although, strictly speaking, I don't endorse the deletion as written. It's a bit of a grey area, but there was a very weak claim of notability so PROD would have been better. That said, there is absolutely no chance that this would pass an AFD as written, and undeleting it just to inevitable re-delete it in 7 days as purely a bureaucratic exercise would not benefit anyone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a fairly successful FRC team, they are having a book written about them, and their director is a MacArthur fellow. I believe it has a strong chance of passing an AfD. It arguably does not meet any of the criteria in WP:DEL#REASON. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 16:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Horrible A7 with assertion of multiple awards in competition, there's absolutely no way this is a good A7. I've restored it with {{tempundelete}}, but will probably come back in a couple of hours and just restore the article to its previous state if no one strenuously objects. The nominator and the deleting admin both need to re-read what WP:CSD says about A7; I myself have misunderstood this in the past, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone who'd actually read the article lead could have deleted it as A7. Jclemens (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at AfD Not an A7. I agree with Andrew that as it stands it's got no chance at AfD, but that's part of why we have 7 days--sources may spring into existence in that time. Hobit (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn-Multiple award wins, while not proving notability, easily qualify as an assertion of notability, which is all that is relevant in regard to A7.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, Restore and possibly list at AfD. The editors of that page were not given much of a chance to appeal, much less substantiate the article in the face of concerns. I guess time zone issues were what ultimately got in the way. As I already mentioned, the notability should be established relatively easily. I can provide a long WP:N argument to keep this article...and I am sure there are others who would agree with me. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really don't need to keep restating your case; you've already given your two cents three times so far in addition to opening the deletion review. You can take a step back now. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Haha sorry. I didn't have anything boldable before. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 15:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- clear assertion of notability, should not have been A7. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – definitely asserts importance to even satisfy our basic notability standards. –MuZemike 03:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or at the least list at AFD if one feels that the awards are not notable enough. However, I must point to this book that is out that documents this robotic team. –MuZemike 03:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn — Director of organization is a MacArthur Fellow and the team itself has won multiple awards at both regional and international events as previously stated. Qsito (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

In the AfD, there was one argument for deletion due to lack of notability (mine), two arguments to merge due to lack of notability, one 'argument' to keep which was completely unsubstantiated despite significant dialogue, and one argument too keep which provided one or two vaguely reliable sources.
The closing admin's statement observed that the "need for more independent and reliable sources to establish notability [is] noted, and it appears that other editors are locating those." However, not a single third party reliable source has been added to the page before or since: since it is completely devoid of such, it transparently fails the general notability guideline, and I therefore consider the decision to have been misguided, and I wonder whether we should consider changing it?
(The closing admin advised me to bring the issue to this forum.) ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 08:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I'm unclear why the sources provided are only vaguely reliable. The one I can fully read [1] is an academic journal and provides significant coverage. Could you explain your issue with it? That no one has added the material to the article is non-ideal, but we don't delete things based on the current state of the article. If it offends then you, like everyone else, are welcome to add the sources to the article. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the article is justified, and I agree that no further refs are really needed. DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please tell me which sources meeting the GNG are currently in the article? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The GNG says "If a topic has received significant coverage" (emphasis added). It doesn't say the current article needs have said coverage in it... Hobit (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So please point me towards the "significant coverage" which the topic has received. ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 07:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The AfD has a number of sources. One I specifically mention in my !vote above [2]. That is easily significant coverage. Hobit (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "Significant coverage" requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail." The only direct reference to Bookland as a concept (as opposed to the EAN as a concept) is the following passage: Their efforts resulted in what came to be known as the "Bookland EAN" bar coding standard, which gets its name for what may appear to be an unusual reason. "Since the book industry produces so many products", [sic] a trade source explains, "it has been designated as a country unto itself and has been assigned its own EAN prefix. That prefix is 978 and it signifies Bookland, that wonderful, fictitious country where all books come from". [sic] This is clearly not significant coverage. ╟─TreasuryTag►high seas─╢ 12:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  There is certainly more. Extended quote placed on talk page. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  [3] is also significant coverage, [4] has a whole page. Hobit (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse although, keep in mind you can still merge it if you feel like it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion was not an option given the !votes, and merge is still a valid editorial option not needing AfD/DRV oversight. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Existence of reliable sources was shown in the AfD, and therefore the closing admin was correct not to delete it, even if those sources haven't yet been copied into the article. (This, of course, doesn't preclude a merge to EAN.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, as I did not know about this and it is interesting. he he. Turqoise127 18:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:ILIKEIT. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse-The close was a valid interpretation of the consensus. As others have mentioned above, the fact that this close doesn't proscribe a merge doesn't preclude one, especially if consensus for that action exists.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The close was valid, no view on a merge. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I would have gone for a no-consensus closure myself, but it has an equivalent outcome. Per others above, you can still merge. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist vs. Poet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was deleted via AfD, then recreated, and G4'ed by the closing admin of the AfD. The new article made claims to notability that the original AfD could not account for, because they happened since its closure; the group received mention in paper mags such as Alternative Press and reached a Billboard chart. The article included references at the time of G4'ing, and as such should have been ineligible for a G4. The closing admin asked that I come here to recover the article. Requesting Restoration of the G4'ed version. Chubbles (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per new references. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Could you provide a link to the sources in question for the non-admins out here? The use of the word "mention" implies they could be trivial in which case G4 might be reasonable. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're in the article, which has been deleted...that's why I came here. I didn't add all the sources myself, nor did I create the article. The Billboard data is available here. Chubbles (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm at it, here's Dallas Observer, Interview with Music Remedy, Absolutepunk review, one of several pieces of coverage Alternative Press has given the band, and, most curiously, WonkaVision, a paper publication discussing the band's Wiki page from before the initial AfD. Chubbles (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore still not clear what was in the article at the time of the G4, but clearly if all these sources are added we've got a solid article where notability would be at the least be better than it was at the time of the deletion. I'd actually go so far as to say notability is clearly established with these sources... Hobit (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore doesn't look hugely notable to me, but I'm always willing to give Chubbles the benefit of the doubt. Dude knows music. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore/allow recreation-New references seem to address the complaints in the original AfD. A second AfD is, of course, an option if someone feels so inclined.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spira (family name) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not sure why this was deleted 3 years ago, but I only noticed now. I couldn't figure out from Wikipedia:SU why a mass revert/deletion was needed, but Spira (family name) is not listed there, nor was the main author of it, User:Spir, linked to User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg. This request also encompasses many redirects to that article, which were the result of many articles I had merged there. Quarl ^(talk) 00:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of the Marshall Islands (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Respectfully- closing admin erred by closing this as keep. The !keep votes were WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments while the !delete vote properly invoked what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Additionally, the Visa requirements for countries change so frequently that it would be nearly impossible ensure the currency and validity of the information being presented. Thus, I respectfully encourage overturning the keep. Basket of Puppies 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what way is notability an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument?

You've tried various reasons for deleting such articles, but "hard to keep them up to date" is a new one, unfounded in policy, and just as weak as your previous reasons: Individual countries' visa policies don't change so quickly, and wikipedia happily keeps track of much more changeable things - for instance, in sports.

There were three very real keeps. Probably from people who actually read the article, whereas Basket of Puppies did not, judging by the timestamps from the deletion sprees. bobrayner (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobrayner, thank you for affording me a reasonable doubt and your very best faith. /sarcasm I read every article before nominating. Then I nominate. Even when nominating many articles on the same topic. Basket of Puppies

Oh! I'm sorry. When you PRODded at a rate of ten articles per minute, claiming that the content was inaccurate even though a casual read shows that it corresponds with the cited (government) source, and then later the same day AfD'd them all at a similar rate, I mistakenly concluded that you hadn't read the articles. Thanks for setting the record straight; if you'd responded to such questions at the time it might have allayed some concerns. I'll not respond further; don't want to push the issue. bobrayner (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the xfd there were no delete !votes besides the nominator. Worst/best (depending on pov) case would have been a relist or no-consensus IMHO. I'd say endorse. Wouldn't argue with a relist. However I see no consensus to delete.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, could not have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Jclemens (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Appropriate close based on unanimous consensus. Cindamuse (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse being unanimous, it couldn't possibly have closed any other way. Also, this feels very much like an "I don't agree with the result" nomination. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous consensus for keep. DRV is not AfD round 2, if you don't like the outcome of the AfD. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey, that's my line! But really, I think in this case the nom is trying to get a reconsideration of these witless "keep its' notable!" opinions, rather than an "I don't like it" DRV filing. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Fields (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Back in 2006 this article was part of an AFD mostly likely because the article was in bad shape at the time. Since then, the article has been re-created nine times including by myself, immaturely (so to speak). The reason for all those deletions was because the article was involved in that said AFD and as of right now the nominator (User:Otto4711) is blocked from editing for abusing multiple accounts. I believe that Ms. Fields who is an actress is notable. She has never had an actual starring or co-starring role in a television series but due to her guest and recurring appearances in number of notable television series, I believe falls under the first rule of WP:ENTERTAINER. I am requesting that this article be unprotected from re-creation. So that the work that I did in my userspace (located here) can be moved under the filename. QuasyBoy 19:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What you are lacking is any sourcing that is actually decent enough to count as a reliable secondary source for a biography. Since that is the inclusion criteria I'm afraid I endorse the absence of an article on this individual. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Whilst I share Spartaz' concerns about the state of this proposed article, I also note that it's time that we put a stop to the indefinite extension of that AFD discussion's outcome: not because of its nominator (the status of whom is irrelevant here) but rather because one of the expressed rationales for deletion there (JodyB's) doesn't actually apply to this article as re-created (and didn't apply to several of the preceding re-creations either). I think that a good middle ground, that addresses both concerns, is to permit this to stand in article space, but to allow for an immediate, fresh, discussion of the new content at AFD. In preparation for this, QuasyBoy, I strongly suggest that right now you rustle up a lot more good sources and make every part of this proposed biography of a living person easily, directly, and fully verifiable by the reader. If you're going to re-create a contested BLP, you should definitely attempt to make it of the highest standard that it can possibly be. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being on Wikipedia for years now, I have always found it difficult to find decent sources for actors if a article was not created for them in the first place. Knowing that Internet Movie Database is not considered reliable here, I cannot find actual biographical information on the person besides news on pregnancy a few years ago, seen here [5], [6] and [7]. This actress isn't exactly well known and out there like other TV actors she has worked with but should not however deter her notability. QuasyBoy 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it should. Notability is very much about whether someone is known. If someone's life and works aren't known, and properly recorded in depth, by identifiable people who've checked their facts, then that person shouldn't get an encyclopaedia biography purporting to document that life and those works. Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UncleG, while I would usually give great weight to your arguments, I must comment that given the crackdown on unsourced BLPs it would be absolutely wrong for DRV to restore a deleted BLP where even the nominator agrees there are severe issues with inadequate sources. I'm much rather we had the sources first before any further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I said, I share your concerns on this. Hence my strong suggestion and unsubtle italicization. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I see nothing amiss at the original AfD. I'd say begin anew in userspace, i.e. User:Quasyboy/Alexis Fields, and see what you can dig up source-wise. Going by the imdb entry though, her high-water marks are playing secondary characters in Moesha and The Secret World of Alex Mack which I don't think is going to cut it. Tarc (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working on it in my userspace: User:QuasyBoy/Alexis Fields. QuasyBoy 20:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and list at WP:DEEPER; the sources just don't seem to exist. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted it seems that if any genuinely good and useful sources exist, they would have been found by now. This appears to be a person who just isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia and barring any truly extraordinary future events, never will be. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Doria Pamphilj (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I feel this article has been unjustly deleted. The proposition was made that the subject failed notability criteria. However, I have prsented evidence that the subject has had substantial coverage in international media. Nor is it clear that notability through inheritance fails to meet the notability criteria. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Firstly, you do not appear to have approached the deleting admin prior to lodging this DRV, Please can you explain why you chose to ignore this step. Secondly while this was not a stella discussion, I think we need to see some decent sourcing for this individual before we should consider relisting or undeleting. Please advise exactly what independant secondary reliable sources are available. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • If you are asking whether I approached the administrator who deleted the article, then can I point out that I have and they advised me to go to Deletion Review. In terms of sourcing I have provided about 8 to 10 media sources (mainstream, international press) which range from the Guardian, Independent, Times (UK), Wall Street Journal (US), Corriere and Repubblica (Italian). Incidentally I think you mean to say "stellar" rather than "stella". Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify, he and the closer did discuss it on the closer's talk p.; the closer did respond, and advised coming here only after Contaldo remained dis-sartisfied, not suggested coming here instead of discussing it directly. DGG ( talk ) 15:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD result was extremely clear, and I don't think extra sources are going to help in this case. The primary argument was that he hasn't done anything notable, and until that changes significantly this won't be a Wikipedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "The AFD result was extremely clear" - I'm sorry but it really wasn't. The man is a prince - the heir to one of Italy's most distinguished noble families - how can that not in itself be notable? I simply am not satisfied that anyone is engaging in full and serious debate. The article in my view meets WP:Notability criteria and cites coverage in reliable secondary sources. If others are suggesting that it does not meet the notability criteria then please can we be explicit as to exactly why. I also wouldn't mind a bit of consistency - I'm seeing lots of articles on obscure subjects with not sourcing whatsover. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If in fact the primary argument was that he hasn't done anything notable, then this should really be overturned. We use sources to figure out what's notable, not our own opinions. That said, I think the AfD was a lot more nuanced than that. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we get a temporary undelete for this discussion? The discussion relies on the sources and they were discussed in the AfD without links, making it impossible to evaluate the arguments. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. T. Canens (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is a copy of the discussion referred to by DGG above - it includes a breakdown of how I judged the consensus:

I will monitor this discussion, but I don't expect to need to contribute again - however, I will happily do so if required -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Having reviewed the sources in the article, I cannot find any coverage that does not stem from the court case. This rationale for deletion was voiced by Favonian (talk · contribs), and I do not see a rebuttal to that argument. PhantomSteve (talk · contribs) correctly closed this debate as delete. Cunard (talk) 23:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be a simple once-and-done; I'd like to have the titles JME (rapper) and Jamie Adenuga unprotected and redirected to JME Adenuga, which has been substantiated as notable according to WP:MUSIC. Chubbles (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Chubbles (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemechanica (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedily deleted per CSD A7

Hello deletion review! I am petitioning for the wikipedia entry for Athens, Ga band Cinemechanica be taken off protected status. The page was deleted, unbeknownst to us or our record label, on August 28th due to a lack of asserted notability. In reviewing the article, we concur that it lacked sufficient documentation ... however this has more to do with the fact that we had little input into aforementioned article and were unaware of the critera. Considering we have eight years of positive press from notable outlets, such as Spin, Pitchfork, CMJ Magazine and a host of internationally recognized blogs ... have toured three continents and are consistently listed in the top 20 "mathrock" bands of all time by multiple web radio entities (lastfm, pandora, etc.) we are confident that our notability itself is not an issue. At some point around september 11, a fan seems to have reposted the page multiple time without contributing any real content to it, causing original deleter SchuminWeb to lock the page down for "repeated creations". Speaking as a representative of our label and band, we would very much like to put up a detailed page now that we understand the criteria of notability, but need this lockdown removed before we can proceed. Attempts to reach SchuminWeb have been unsuccessful.

Thanks for your time!

• Unprotect Cinemechanica likely passes WP:MUSIC; I know this genre well, and the petitioner's claims of reviews in SPIN, Pitchfork, and CMJ would certainly substantiate that. There's a risk here of WP:COI as the petitioner is clearly associated with the band, but since the topic is notable, it should be unprotected. I'm willing to keep an eye for WP:NPOV issues in the restored article. Chubbles (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - Mike here again, 9/27. Sorry if this is against protocol to respond. We'll gladly have a highly literate, certifiably knowledgeable-in-the-genre 3rd party write the article and be diligent about not letting bias dictate our significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikekanica (talk • contribs) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about you simply stay away and let someone uninvolved (*cough* Chubbles?? *Cough*) write the article? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if he's already got issue and page numbers for articles on the band, that saves a lot of time and might actually make it a better article, since I don't necessarily have access to back issues of CMJ and so forth. Chubbles (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a fair point. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per Chubbles. If he thinks it's doable, it's probably doable. Hobit (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:West Bank Jewish settlements (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This category was deleted as a {{db-empty}}. It was empty because someone unilaterally removed the category from all pages that contained it. There was no discussion held on whether or not the category belonged. Linda Olive (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and repopulate-This sounds like a rather sneaky way to deal with a category someone doesn't like. If the category is inappropriate, take it to WP:CFD. A end run around process like this is not acceptable.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Didn't we just do this? Restore, repopulate, and ready a trout explain to the user that removed the articles what the correct process is. --Kbdank71 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore or, frankly, just recreate it and bring to CFD when and if desired; this was not the purpose of C1. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deleted article was restored and moved to the User namespace as a temporary holding area... on the presumption that the contents of the article would eventually become notable at some point in the future (a presumption on the part of several contributors to the article). The original AfD nomination brought in a fairly substantial number of outsiders into the discussion, as well as a few old hands that normally don't participate in AfD discussions (like myself). Some user new to the whole discussion decided to move the article back into the main namespace. Rather than starting a major edit war over this action, I am simply asking for a couple of admins to review the article as a quick glance over as there has been a substantial change in the composition of the article compared to when it was originally nominated for deletion and removed from the main namespace previously. I don't know if this deserves another AfD discussion or if the "restoration" ought to be kept. My recommendation for dealing with this if the deletion is to stand is to move the article back to the User namespace and semi-protect the page moving to sysop only. To me, the notability was borderline originally and unfortunately not much has happened to change that although the overall quality of the article has improved to at least "C" class standards. Robert Horning (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to judge this is not here, but for anyone who thinks there is insufficient improvement over the version nominated to place a second afd. There's enough relevant change that it does not qualify for speedy G4. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What relevant change? The baseline should be the version at the time of deletion, not the version at the time of nomination; The only big difference I see is that instead of "20 sites" accepting Bitcoin it's now "30 sites" and someone linked to a bunch of them, which is, well, totally unrelated to notability. I moved it back and salted. T. Canens (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reliable sources at all? Stifle (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • T. Canens: First, I typed the wrong word--the version I linked to was the version that was deleted of the 30th, as is obvious if you look at the date when following the link. Second, you seem to have pre-empted the result of this discussion by salting, after I had expressed the contrary opinion, without waiting for consensus here. We're supposed to discuss first, and act afterwards. I may be wrong, or the consensus may not be with me,but we still need to discuss first. As for the issue, I think demonstrating that something is in widespread use demonstrates notability DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I salted because it seems that some random account just popped out of nowhere and decided to move it back. But I suppose it could have been taken the wrong way. I've unsalted. And frankly, I might be convinced if it's 20 vs. 2000, but 20 vs. 30? T. Canens (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are precisely two and only two "reliable sources" that aren't blogs or something else that is mostly a rehashing of stuff found elsewhere. Contents of the article as it was written have been copied to other parts of the web, so it is a whole bunch of self-referencing. Of the two legitimate references, one is a local newspaper and is about the only real source from a reliable 3rd party. The other is a technical journal that merely makes mention of the project but doesn't go into details for more than a single sentence. There have been a few more blog entries written about the project that are pretty recent and well written, but we are still talking blogs and questioning that as a reliable source. Almost nothing in a reviewed manner like a newspaper or magazine that at least has an editor that can kill the piece. I did the most recent Google search looking for sources a couple of days ago and spent far too much time trying to get something more. It is a cool idea, but it still is too small of project to be on the radars of any major tech journal. About the biggest thing to mention the project has been Slashdot. I don't consider Slashdot to be a reliable source for this subject matter. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - the closing admin correctly weighed the arguments. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just a point in case any one needed, the original AfD decision to delete was endorsed by deletion review Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 4. In the more recent speedy deletion it does appear that changes to the article are too small to force a new AfD and the onus should be on the creator to show the article has substantially addressed the concerns of the previous AfD which they have not done therefore the speedy delete seems to be correct at present and I recommend the article is thoroughly reviewed before another recreation. Polargeo (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. The underlying problem of a lack of significant coverage hasn't been resolved, so the article should remain in user space. PhilKnight (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion on the present state of the draft article. From the amount of agitation and the number of SPAs appearing, I think there must be off-Wiki canvassing going on. The message to Bitcoin's supporters is: you would be better spending your energy in writing articles about it and getting them published in some reliable industry journals (i.e. those with enough editorial control to be accepted here as reliable sources). When you have achieved that, you can cite them as references and there will be no problem here. Your mistake is to try to use Wikipedia as the start of your promotion campaign - that's not what it's for. JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I completely agree with JohnCD. This is an ultra-niche technology that, for whatever reason, hasn't taken off. That isn't our fault. The efforts expended trying to fight tooth and nail to get a Wikipedia article would be better used trying to get Bitcoin promoted. In other words, instead of desperately trying to fool us into thinking Bitcoin is notable when it's not, go out there and make it notable and then come back when you don't have to resort to such tactics. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Timișoara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Seems to me a clearly inappropriate non-admin closure, as there was nothing like consensus in the discussion. There were equal numbers voting for outright deletion and voting for a merge/redirect, so I'm at a loss as to how this represents clear enough consensus for merge/redirect that a non-admin closure becomes appropriate ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I closed that is because the information is still encyclopedic, yet, as everyone who voted thought, it should not have its own article. So I thought it was pretty clear that merging would be fine. I still do agree that the redirect maybe isn't needed, but it is still fine to have the info in the Timișoara article, is it not? In other words, because no one out of 6 wanted to keep, and the information was still fine, even if it didn't need its own article, a redirect and merge seemed perfectly fine. Does this answer your question? ∙∙∙Pepper 23:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and reopen - I was a MERGE voter, which is how this closed, but I felt uncomfortable with a non-administrative closure. Once something hits AfD, it should stick around for a week unless there is a copyvio or a situation where the nomination is withdrawn or a clear snow situation. I still think MERGE is the correct outcome here, but I think in the name of fair play this should be reopened and a full week of debate allowed. —Carrite, Sept. 24, 2010.
• Overturn and re-open. An early NAC of this nature is well out of process. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Radke (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Radke's page was previously made as a protected redirect due to its constant recreation despite lack of notability. However, Radke's newest band, Falling in Reverse, now has it's own article, and is therefore notable per criterion 6 of WP:MUSIC. If it is decided that Radke is not notable, his article should be re-redirected to Falling in Reverse's page, respectively. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 21:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:MUSIC 6 is "...a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.". I assume you mean Escape the Fate, the current target of the redirect and the new one? I'll also note that WP:MUSIC is clear that they "may be notable", they still have to have the independant coverage. I'll also note the article on the new band seems to have questions about it's notability also. As such I suspect the current redirect is the most logical. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• His band was also deleted at AfD, despite constant recreation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling In Reverse. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted and keep as a redirect to Escape the Fate. Ronnie Radke fails WP:BAND criterion 6 because consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Falling In Reverse determined the band to be non-notable. Cunard (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rekonq (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Rekonq was removed because it have been considered not notable enough at the time. This is the third time this article is relisted for Deletion review. The last relist was when Kubuntu - a big linux distribution -announced their next version (Maverik Meerkat, kubuntu 10.10) was going to use rekonq as default web browser. Although there was an agreement that the endorsement of kubuntu makes Rekonq a notable enough web browser, it was considered that there was not enough reliable source to confirm the fact. Kubuntu 10.10 is now in beta and will be released in October. Rekonq have been confirmed as the default browser :

- from the official kubuntu website : https://wiki.kubuntu.org/MaverickMeerkat/Beta/Kubuntu

- from a few external review of ubuntu and kubuntu 10.10 Beta:

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Ubuntu-10-10-Beta-Is-Available-for-Download-154853.shtml

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/linux/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=227300142&subSection=Hosted+Software

I believe it should be enough to establish that Rekonq is indeed going to be kubuntu default web browser starting next month, and that this establish enough notability for Rekonq to get a page in Wikipedia. Bzhb (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There might be a stronger case once it is actually released. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Beta means that the development process has already passed the feature freeze, which mean no feature can be added or removed from the software, they are only dealing with stability, bugs, performance issues (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/ReleaseProcess). So I actually think that the fact that rekonq is default in the kubuntu Beta is a statement as strong as to say that it is default in the final release. But if you feel wikipedia needs to wait for one more month... it has been removed for months so it doesn't matter. The thing is that if you look at the list of KDE applications there is quite a few that are far smaller and far less important than Rekonq is and that have their own page. Web browser is nowadays one of the more important part of any desktop environment and Rekonq is now the main standalone web browser of KDE. Bzhb (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note previous discussions:
  • AFD1 - Closed as delete on 15 Feb 10
  • DRV1 Closed as endorsed on 27 Feb 10
  • DRV2 Closed as no-consensus to restore but consensus that original AFD casn be set aside with permission to recreate when there are sources on 3 June
  • AFD2 Closed as speedy delete based on AFD1 on 6 August.
• For no better reason then DRV2 permitted recreation with better sources AFD2 should be overturned and relisted to allow the new sources to be discussed in the correct venue, which is AFD not DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process comment: if a new version is substantially different and addresses the concerns (sourcing/notability) in a previous AfD, there's no requirement or expectation to stop by DRV before recreation, is there? I'm pretty sure there isn't. Jclemens (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's tricky, generally speaking no such requirement or expectation. If something has been repeatedly deleted/recreated not substantially addressing the deletion reasons causing it to be salted, then often there is an expectation that it'll be reviewed here first(I'd go so far as to suggest that it's so often an expectation, that it is in fact a requirement for such instances). For others although not necessary it can be helpful (to the editor in question) to get view if it is likely to survive a future AFD. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure you already know this Jclemens. If permission has explicitly been given to recreate something if a certain condition "X" has been met then a DRV is not required to restore it unless a previous DRV has stipulated this. In this case, a user challenging whether condition "X" has actually been met should (and did) raise an AFD to discuss that point. Therefore a speedy delete and effective G4 was the wrong answer and the discussion should have been allowed to reach its usual conclusion. I'm going relist because someone did take this to AFD for discussion. Otherwise it would be a straight overturn and leave the article to take its chances. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, actually, I disagree with the premise: DRV isn't necessary to recreate something, as long as the recreation addresses the issue in the AfD. If something is AfD'ed as "non notable", a recreation which adds multiple independent RS'es need not go through DRV at all. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I generally agree except in cases where a consensus of editors have already stipulated a discussion before restoration. DRV is the appropriate venue for both consensuses to be formed. It would be highly unlikely that DRV would stipulate a draft in the circumstances except in the case of a highly controversial page - GNAA comes to mind. In 99% of cases the sources will do the case. This is only at DRV because an editor invoked G4. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. With strong recommendation for Bzhb (talk · contribs) to propose and work on a draft version in userspace as a subpage of his userpage at User:Bzhb/Rekonq, which would most likely be allowed to be brought to main-article-space with no significant objections if it could be shown to satisfy WP:NOTE through significant coverage from multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Two of the sources provided by Bzhb (talk · contribs) contain passing mentions of Rekonq, while the other links—wikis—are unreliable. I agree with Cirt (talk · contribs) that the nominator should create a userspace draft that contains at least two sources that provide nontrivial coverage of the subject before initiating another deletion review. Cunard (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• After seeing the suggestions posted by Cirt and myself, Bzhb (talk · contribs) has created a userspace draft that establishes notability. This article from maketecheasier.com is a third-party source that provides nontrivial coverage of Rekonq. Because I am unfamiliar with maketecheasier.com, I am not certain that it can be considered a reliable source. Therefore, move User:Bzhb/Rekonq to mainspace, without prejudice to another AfD. Cunard (talk) 22:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. Looking at the draft article, I see a couple of sources that come close to passing muster. I think that restoration without prejudice to a new AfD is the best way forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Nigger Association of America (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Gay Nigger Association of America article has a very long and troubled history on Wikipedia, and I profusely apologize to any of those that feel it is a waste of time to drag this through yet another Deletion Review.

Before I begin, let me sum up the last major developments. A userspace draft was started from scratch so all sources could be properly checked for verifiability. A previous deletion review was opened on 2010 September 6, which ended as a no consensus close. The review remained open for the required seven days, and was closed in a manner which included a clear and concise description of the closing admin's rationale supporting his decision. Disregarding all non-policy based arguments for keeping this page deleted, the opposers felt that 1) "the notability claims of the supporters, which rely on sources that often mention GNAA in passing during coverage of other topics, or which don't mention it at all." and 2) "The supporters seem to rely on coverage of Goatse Security as supporting notability of the GNAA, but parent organizations do not typically inherit notability from subsidiaries or affiliates". The closing admin had no objection with allowing an article to be created about Goatse Security as an alternative.

I feel that the opposers are wrong in their interpretations of 1 and 2, and I can build the necessary consensus required to overturn deletion.

On point 1, the claim that sources that mention GNAA are passing mentions are false, and can be seen in the article draft, for from the sources presented multiple facts can be derived from a single source. Now, the guidelines don't offer a very great litmus test as what is a trivial mention and what is not, the example from WP:Notability states a single sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton would be plainly trivial. The sources on the draft article do not fit this example of being plainly trivial.

Point 2 is the claim that the notability of GNAA rests on the notability of Goatse Security, and notability is not inherited. This claim would be true if the sources did not establish notability for the GNAA on its own merit rather than on the merit of the other organisation. I would like to point out that the sources used in the draft establish notability for both organisations in the same news article. The article by the Atlantic states "Weev rails against Jews in his LiveJournal and he and several other members of Goatse Security claim to be members of the Gay N***** Association of America," and in the Portuguese article in Rede Globo, the author goes on to describe other members of the GNAA.

Again, I must apologize for what some may seem as unnecessary, but I would only open this new deletion review if I felt that the policies overwhelmingly would support this article to exist under the notability guidelines. Thank you. riffic (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Because the AfD for GNAA is protected, would an admin add the following to the AfD page: {{Delrevafd|date=2010 September 22}} Thanks, riffic (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse deletion - I counted up !votes and found 45 delete, 34 keep, 1 merge, and 1 redirect. The vast majority of the keep !votes had invalid rationales. For instance, "Keep because this is the 18th nomination" was used at least a dozen times, as well as "I've heard of this group before", and "They're notable". There was also evidence of votestacking, as there were several SPA's that voted to Keep, there were other Keep voters who were subsequently blocked, and there were attempts to forge Keep votes. Nearly all of the delete votes focussed on the poor quality of the references in the article. I didn't vote in the AfD and therefore didn't get a chance to see the sources, however that is irrelevant because DRV isn't a continuation of the AfD, it is an assessment of whether the closing admin correctly interpreted the consensus of the discussion. I believe that the consensus was clearly to delete this article. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)I mistakenly thought this was a recent AfD.[reply]

Please take a look at the DRV that was opened on September 6 2010, as well as the current draft in userspace. If you are basing your judgement on the AFD from 2006, circumstances have changed since then. riffic (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not basing my judgement on anything except this AfD (i.e. the 18th nomination). The long history of the situation is frankly irrelevant. There was a wealth of discussion in this AfD and the consensus was clear. SnottyWong ^yak 23:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with deletion policy -- "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Now I am going to go to chipotle and eat a burrito, so I will be offline for the next hour. I hope this is enough time for you to review the previous drv, and the userpage draft, and see if this new information would permit recreation. thank you for your time, riffic (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has been one edit to the userspace draft since the last DRV closed. That edit added a wikilink to the article. How can you possibly claim that the userspace draft has been significantly changed so as to warrant another DRV? SnottyWong ^yak 23:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - Upon further research, it appears this is the seventh time that this article has been brought to DRV (and the fourth time over the course of the last two months). The DRV closes the same way every time. The AfD happened in 2006. This is disruptive and a waste of everyone's time. I just wasted 15 minutes of my life evaluating the AfD before realizing that this DRV is completely frivolous. SnottyWong ^speak 23:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply incorrect. Yes, it is the 4th time in two months that this discussion has been brought to DRV, but I have only brought it forward one other time. I am not doing this to be disruptive, I stated in the argument that I would only do this if I knew that I could build a consensus to permit recreation based on meeting policy requirements. you are not assuming good faith and I hope you strike out your comment riffic (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we had an edit conflict. I initially thought you brought it to DRV all four times, but I was mistaken and changed my comments before you responded. For that, I apologize. However, I stand by my call for a speedy close. The AfD ended in 2006. There have been 6 DRV's since, and not one of them has overturned the deletion. I don't think there was ever a more appropriate time to direct you to WP:GETOVERIT. SnottyWong ^converse 23:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These were concerns I had originally as well, however your !vote will be discounted by any closing admin with an ounce of discretionary thought. please don't keep me from my burrito riffic (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no consensus to delete, a supervote negated the references used Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. True to form, the nominator has not attempted to discuss the deletion with the closing admin or even notified the closing admin of this DRV. In any event, the close was a reasonable reading of the debate and well within the admin's discretion. The closing admin is more than entitled to consider strength of arguments, and did so properly here.--Mkativerata (talk) 06:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as the nominator is acutely aware, deletion review is not for use in cases where you disagree with the closure for reasons previously presented. Would suggest restricting this nominator from bringing DRVs due to his continued failure to observe same. Stifle (talk) 11:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Yet another bad-faith DRV by the ARS crowd. I'd note that no one ever effectively rebutted Bigger Digger's dismantling of the "it's sourced" argument in the AfD. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please participate without name-calling? Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you kindly back off? I find interaction with you lately to be rather distasteful. RAN and associates frequently runs to DRV to contest XfDs that they lost; this behavior should be sanctioned. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would love it if you would abandon your BATTLEGROUND mentality... or at the very least stop actively injecting it into discussions in a manner that poisons the atmosphere. The very concept of "losing" an AfD is inappropriate: the only loser when an AfD is wrongly decided is the encyclopedia itself. I'm sorry you find me pointing this out distasteful, but the power to avoid such interactions lies entirely within your grasp. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I see bad faith, I will fall back on the "AGF is not a suicide pact" principle. If you have a problem with that, then WP:WQA is thataway, bro. Tarc (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question At the first closure opportunity, it was apparently passed over for closure by every admin who looked at it and then relisted. During the first relisting period, it attracted an additional keep !vote and the article had additional sources added. It was relisted a second time, after we can again presume that every admin who looked at it declined to close it. What is the justification for closing it the third time as a delete, when the numbers favored keep and the recent trending favored keep? At the most, a "no consensus" close seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to close it as delete after Bigger Digger, but instead I added a delete !vote hoping another admin could then close it. I was a little suprised at the relisting and I don't think the closing admin should have been bound by any implication arising from the relisting. As for what happened after the relist - we had one more keep !vote, that was (at least in my view) effectively refuted by multiple editors. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that (unless I'm miscounting), the relist came before the seven days had expired. So I don't think it was given sufficient opportunity for admins to consider closing it at that point. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see a delete consensus at any point in the discussion, unless one decides that "I believe the sources found meet the GNG" is somehow an inferior argument. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could just let afd boil down to stock phrases such as "I believe the sources found meet the GNG" and "I believe the sources fail to meet the GNG". Or abbreviate it further and just have "keep" and "delete". Mere belief that something meets a standard when there is a detailed breakdown of why it doesn't is the inferior argument.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - No one provided the sources that would allow us to verify his existence and write a meaningful article. The article's failure to meet that policy means the close as delete was correct. This is confirmed by RAN turning the article into a redirect to a very oddly sourced and written article! Bigger digger (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC Reading the discussion I have a hard time agreeing with Tim's close. Reading the sources, it's closer. The book is fairly weak. Though it establishes he's important, it's really a case of three fairly independent mentions from what I can tell. The first NYT article is boarder-line in that the coverage is decent but and would be an acceptable "second" source but lacks enough material to do much with (though the WP:LOCAL argument makes me want to cry it's so messed up). The other sources are largely weaker still. That said some of the arguments to delete were also weak. Claiming that WP:GNG doesn't matter as much as WP:PEOPLE would seem to ignore WP:BASIC. Also, we have 4 to 3 on the keep side. Finally, the question is "can we write an article on the topic?" I think there is just enough there between all the sources to do so. We can use non-independent sources for age and the like and have enough from the sources found for a decent article. Most people involved seemed to agree with that and I don't think is a clear-cut enough case otherwise to delete here. Hobit (talk) 02:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a nitpicking point - the headcount is 4-4. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I should learn to count, thanks for the nitpick. I still would close this as NC though... Hobit (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I detest NC findings, honestly, they usually just prolong the conflict until someone decides to file another XfD. Admins are empowered to make decisions, even difficult ones. Let's let them rather than wade through this endless second-guessing. Tarc (talk) 11:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It's fair to detest them, but we should keep NC for cases when there isn't consensus. I don't see any here. Hobit (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Well within administrator discretion for a BLP. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closing admin correctly noted that there are fundamental verifiability problems, particularly unacceptable in a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly isn't verifiable? Hobit (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's been covered already by Bigger Digger. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- Consensus is based on strength of argument more than snout-counting. Bigger Digger provided a very in-depth analysis of the purported sources; this was not adequately refuted. The close was well within the discretion of the closing administrator. Reyk _YO! 05:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC There's no way the arguments advanced in a 4-4 split are disproportionate enough to be a delete... or a keep, for that matter. It's clearly a no consensus close, and no one person here has addressed the fundamental issue of the two previous opportunities for closure without an admin finding consensus. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't comment on why admins couldn't close it sooner, but I can point out to you why consensus is clear. The first keep lists some sources found, the second keep is essentially "per keep 1". Then there's ye' olde "Seems to be enough sources to establish notability". Not exactly a strong !vote when the the most assertive it can get is "seems to...", so that can cancel out the "he's done a lot of stuff, but none of it appears notable". I then (mostly successfully I think, if you ignore the WP:LOCAL mishap) dismissed those sources. So now there are two keeps that have been thoroughly undermined. Mkativerata then adds a delete, so at this point you could suggest the score is 3-0 to delete. It's relisted, you'd have to ask that admin why, and in the next 7 days the only other !vote is a keep which actually shows one of the previously noted sources is alright, but then quotes the requirement for reliable sources, in the plural, and having only provided one he's therefore rather shot himself in the foot. So still 3-0, if you're keeping score. It's then non-admin relisted a whole 18 hours early (perhaps for the experience? Because it's fun? Who knows?), when an admin might have closed with a decision. In the next 7 days there are no more keeps or deletes, which seems (to me) to only happen when editors believe there's nothing more to say on the matter. If all the keeps are dismissed and most of the deletes are unchallenged over a 21 day period, then I think you would be hard pressed to describe that as no consensus. I look forward to the rebuttal of my points, for the learning experience at least ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So did any of the other !voters look at your reasoning on the sources and decide to change their !votes? If not, why not? I'm not saying that the result should have been "keep", but I'm saying that when the votes are split down the middle, calling it one way or the other when any number of previous administrators had the opportunity and had passed on it is simply not appropriate. A 4:4 split looks like "no consensus", especially when the last !vote was "Keep", and admins should not rush to decide keep vs. delete when there are plenty of other options--including no consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The sources provided don't represent significant coverage. Everyone has just passing mentions. I think two keep !votes could easily discounted as speculation ("i belive" and "Seems to be"). So there is a 4:2 ratio for delete. And lastly because DRV is not AfD round two, if you don't like the outcome of the Afd. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, as AfD nominator: One of the keep voters produced one source which gave a few biographical details about the subject, but only in the context of an article about vampire sub-cultures. All other sources were passing mentions and were comprehensively examined by Bigger digger. AfD is not a voting process, my nomination was on the grounds that the subject's notability was not established and did not meet the criteria of WP:CREATIVE or WP:NMUSIC, and nothing changed in that respect. None of the keep votes actually addressed the notability criteria so I believe that the closure with the rationale: "The argument that there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources does not appear to have been successfully rebutted" is correct. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric West (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Is a notable personality, actor and model and even host ( http://www.eric-west.com/blog/?p=99 ) ( http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/2006/04/21/2006-04-21_gatecrasher__milian_myspaces.html ). I'm not sure why this has been deleted so many times.

1. He just shot 30 Rock (see latest issue of OK! magazine), Something Borrowed.
2. Has been on MTV's The City, The T.O. Show, Kell on Earth, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phLDni-FiYQ,
3. Did a national ad campaign for Jed Foundatin http://www.jedfoundation.org/get-involved/2010-gala
4. http://www.zimbio.com/Eric+West/articles/JstUT5PR-L_/Eric+West+Interview+Zang+Toi+New+York+Fashion
5. http://www.eric-west.com/blog/
6. http://www.wireimage.com/celebrities/eric-west
7. http://www.okmagazine.com/2010/09/stars-celebrate-oks-fifth-anniversary-at-big-apple-bash/eric-west-sept-14/
8. http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/thisday/may-18-2009-1003963325.story#/bbcom/thisday/may-18-2009-1003963325.story

—Preceding unsigned comment added by JFlash54 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, given the poor history of the article and the fact that it's protected from re-creation, let's see a perfectly-sourced userspace draft first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Seriously, if this is the best you can do with sources then we won't be hosting an article. Give it some time and see what happens, if there is more press then do a draft and bring it here for review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wasn't writing an article. But he is obviously notable in film and television, which is why I don't understand why it has been deleted three times. He is entitled a stub. JFlash54 (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I assume this person is the Eric West listed on IMDb at Eric West (II). But I can't say he is obviously notable in film yet. He is not listed as having had even one credited role in a film that has been released yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like the DRV to clarify exactly under which circumstances an administrative closure is appropiate. We have three people in the AfD agreeing that FL is irrelevant for deletion discussions, we have precedence in several cases, yet an admin closes the discussion which probably would have ended in delete had it ran. I think it's too beaureucratic for wiki's own good. Sandman888 (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Being listed on FA/FL/etc. is not a bar to nominating for deletion; the article deserves to be considered on its merits. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article has already been turned into a redirect, which itself is problematic since it is a featured list that is still being discussed at WP:FLRC. This is kinda turning into a mess. Two speedy closed AfD's, an ongoing discussion at WP:FLRC, a bold redirect of a featured list, a DRV, and a partridge in a pear tree. SnottyWong ^babble 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that it was not me who turned it into a redirect. Sandman888 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If one wants to get it deleted, I think it's more likely once it has been rejected as a FLC. And in general, there's no point in holding multiple simultaneous discussions that may come to contrary results. And as Snottywong said, trying to do the same thing simultaneously by editing, and by AfD is hoping that at least one of the multiple discussions will give the desired results. DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin My rationales for this close are listed in the two AfDs, as well as in my discussion with the appellant at his talk page. To summarize them here...

1. Featured content should not be XfDed except in exceptional cases. Once it's been defeatured, of course, it's fair game.

• • No that is simply not the case and I object strongly to this. Featured content can be XfDed just as well as any other content, we have multiple predents for this and not this "I dont like this process so I will close it". Sandman888 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. Two processes, one specific and one general, should not be used on the same content at the same time.

• • perhaps you have a point here, but i still strongly disagree with the above. Sandman888 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. AfD should not be a dependent process--that is, an FLRC (a specific process) should not be made contingent on an AfD (a general process).

As a point of order, the AfD closure that's going to be under review here is actually the first one, since the second one is essentially the result of the appellant simply restarting an AfD without a conversation with me or an appeal to DRV.

While the redirection appears to be standing for the moment, I really would like to see this gain larger community input. I also have previously agreed to reopen the second AfD should the FLRC be closed with a delisting. I would not object to a larger RfC on how to handle multiple processes at once, especially with respect to de-featuring and deletion attempts happening for the same material at the same time.

I want to commend the appellant for his conduct and civility. Even though we disagree on process, he has been making his points appropriately and politely... I just don't find them compelling. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes its been very civil. Jclemens has also been very polite in the whole process though I strongly disagree with his closes. Sandman888 (talk) 07:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there any policy or precedent which forbids the nomination of featured content for deletion? I'll agree that, in almost all cases, that is common sense. However, in this case, the nomination appears to be in good faith as it deals with content forking, not notability. Also, I'm not sure that the discussion at WP:FLRC is necessarily in conflict with an AfD on the same article. The FLRC discussion is only limited to deciding whether the article gets delisted, whereas the AfD would decide whether it is kept, deleted, or redirected. SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problem I have with an AfD and an FLRC running at the same time is that it raises the possibility of two decisions: one to delete it and one that it continues to represent Wikipedia's best work. That's inconsistent, and the imprecise nature of AfD would be the contributing factor in such an outcome--lots of people knee-jerk vote one way or the other, and whether a deletionist or inclusionist whim carries the day on a particular article is much more random and capricious than the outcome of a more narrowly construed and precise process like an FxRC. Jclemens (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. I don't think there is any policy or guideline that indicates a featured list should not be nominated for deletion, so I believe the close was in error. Also, I see no reason why an AFD and a FLRC cannot run at the same time, as a FLRC is mainly about the quality of a list, while an AFD is about its suitability in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if it is undesireable for an AFD and FLRC to run at the same time, I would think the AFD should occur first, as if the AFD results in the list being deleted there would be no need for a FLRC, while if a FLRC results in the list being delisted there might still be need of an AFD (i.e. there is no need to create extra work by forcing the FLRC to be completed first). Also, it is my impression that AFD gets more participation than FLRC (though maybe I am mistaken about that), which would probably make AFD a more suitable venue than FLRC for deciding if a featured list should be removed from the encyclopdia. Calathan (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Whether the article should be on Wikipedia at all is more important than deciding its quality. There is no bar on featured pages being nominated. It is always going to be rare for such a page to be deleted anyhow. If anything should be closed, it should be the FLRC. Aiken (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I agree with Aiken, Calathan and Sandman888. If featured content is considered to fail inclusion standards, it makes sense to run an AfD and hold the (time consuming and backlogged) featured content assessment until the AfD is concluded, not the other way around.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• OMG We're really having this discussion? First of all, I don't believe merge discussions belong at AfD--the right place for that is traditionally the talk page. On that basis alone I'd be happy to see that closed. Yes, we sometimes merge things at AfD, but that's as an alternative to deletion. We really don't want all merge discussions coming to AfD. Secondly there doesn't seem to be a good reason to have both a delist discussion and an AfD going at the same time. One could, but what's the rush? I'm okay with either going forward first, though I'd prefer the delisting discussion happen first for reasons Jclemens mentioned. So keep closed because nominations for merging should always be closed at AfD as being the wrong venue. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not endorse. I don't agree with the quick renomination (I didn't find any discussion preceding it) or either of the "Administrative closure"s. WT:Articles for deletion discussion from September–October 2009 (1, 2, 3, 4) failed to form a consensus for requiring that Good and Featured content be delisted before nomination at AfD. Reopening/relisting may not be productive, as Sandman888's merging circumvented his own nomination and made deletion more difficult technically. The argument could be made that WP:Speedy keep #1 now applies. I don't agree in this instance, as AfD could enforce the current state of redirect, but this narrow interpretation of AfD's scope has wide acceptance. Flatscan (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist If there is no consensus that featured content cannot be listed for deletion then there was no policy bases for these closes so the discussions should have been allowed to run through as normal. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own close for the reasons I outlined above, just in case someone is only checking bolded comments. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Action Masters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Split vote with no real consensus acheived, then closed by an IP involved in editing related articles (including making threats against other editors). This all seems a little sketchy and out of process to me. Hairhorn (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the close as being way out of process. I'll leave this open though in case anyone wants to comment on either the IP or my actions. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Latsabidze (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was nominated for speedy as promotional by Ohconfucius and after that the article's creator argued strongly for it to be restored. So I userfied it to User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze and after some heavy cutting I tend to agree with Ohconfucius that it is still thoroughly beyond repair. Placing this here for a consensus whether it should stay deleted, or restored. Kimchi.sg (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Stay deleted - Not seeing any reliable sources in this article. That is especially problematic for a BLP. Everything in the "Notes and Additional References" section are really just notes, and not references (with the exception of a bare IMDB link, which is not a reliable source). Also, the tone of the article is still promotional, but I wouldn't say it's a candidate for speedy deletion in its current state. Add reliable sources and then delete everything that can't be sourced, and then you'll have an article. SnottyWong ^{spill the beans} 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• continue rewriting, and restore This is not a hopelessly promotional article; the version deleted was [8], sand it is undoubtedly promotional in style because of the long quotes. Calling it a G11 was, in my opinion, stretching the boundaries of G11 too far, but sometimes that's the only way to get something like this reduced to reason. Ironically, the 3rd party sources SnottyWong asks form & which is missing in the present article, was in the parts that were removed: the reviews. (they did need to be reworded to link to the actually published reviews, not the excerpts on the performer's web site.) In my opinion, just a botched job of rewriting that needs to be done over. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Continue editing and restore This article discussion has already been going on in several places (primarily on Kimchi.sg's talk page) and is out of synchronization with the continued editing that has been taking place. Please refer to the most current edited userfied version at User:Music43lover/Giorgi Latsabidze as well as to the earlier versions shown there. I am the original editor of this article and agree that many of the elements subsequently added by others were over the top and unnecessary. I have removed many elements in the recent editing, including the criticized quotes (leaving only references), the section on "Early childhood" and many of the added pictures and media links. Editor Kimchi.sg also deleted the sections on "Positions" and "Repertoire" that were added by others and can perhaps be considered excessive as well. However, he also for some reason deleted the pre-existing references that SnottyWong for example finds currently lacking, as well as essentially all of the other web references in the article outside of Wikipedia itself, and I don't understand the logic of those deletions. Many of the claims in the article are now without substantiation due to these unfortunate edits by Kimchi.sg. I suggest that the deleted references be restored, unless some valid reason for this exists. I am open to all suggestions for additional changes to make the article more encyclopedic and acceptable for restoration. Music43lover (talk) 01:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Some additional notes regarding the references may be helpful here. The awards listed in the article gave as substantiation links to PDF copies of the award certificate images, such as the one at [9], which were deleted recently by Kimchi.sg. Although these PDF's are located on the subject's website, there is little reason to question their authenticity. In contrast, most such articles on Wikipedia that cite awards do not provide any substantiation at all. In the case of the quote extracts, I can be even more precise. I have the original newspaper copies in my possession, written in Russian or German. Since I could not vouch for the English translations available on the subject's website at the time, I scanned in the articles, did ACR on the scans and used multiple automatic translators together with some personal knowledge of German to produce my own translations. Since my translations are not "official", I referenced both my translations and the original text in the article with links such as [10] and [11]. Again these links direct to the subject's website, where I requested they be placed for this specific purpose. Unfortunately, the links were redirected by the website manager to a long page of miscellaneous quote excerpt translations, and those other than the ones that I specifically referenced have provenances unknown to me. I recently deleted the shorter extracts of the cited quotes from the article in response to criticism, although they appeared reasonably short to me, but I left the references to the full quotes. These were deleted by Kimchi.sg along with all other external references. Now the only references left are those to the original newspaper sources, which are relatively inaccessible. I suggest the following solution: I can place the short quote extracts (essentially one line) on Wikiquotes and reference these and the PDF copies of the longer quote extracts in the PDFs such as shown above. It appears to me that the article is being unfairly singled out for lack of suitable references due to changes that were out of my control, but can be readily fixed. Music43lover (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay deleted: Perhaps one of the problems is that the article is so well-written; the images included are unusual, and I had suspected the whole campaign to list this article is so many of our sister projects could only have been done as a concerted effort by the subject's publicists. I still maintain that even in the current guise, the article is beyond redemption. The only bits in the article which are anywhere near properly sourced are the reviews; OK, the 'Musical education' section may seem relatively uncontroversial, but it remains totally unsourced. If you remove all the unsourced, and lose the quotefarm – which I agree are a significant part of the problem, we really have precious little content left. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 23:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A response – Oh! Confucius. Thanks for the complement regarding my writing capability. A caution, however, about suggesting that I am part of a group of the “subject's publicists”, since speculation about the identity of an editor is strongly condemned by Wikipedia policies. It is more likely that any writing ability that I possess is a result of considerable university education, including a Ph.D., but all in scientific/technical areas rather than in music. I also have no professional connection with the music industry or musicians. I do, perhaps obviously, have a strong interest in classical music, and have played the piano and taken lessons on and off since the age of 6. Now semi-retired from engineering, I am a volunteer board member in an important local non-profit chamber music organization and in this capacity have the lead responsibility in selecting the performers and programs for each of our seasons. As part of this activity, I attend a great number of local chamber music and recital concerts and auditions, and hear many piano performances by both young and established artists. In the past few years, I came to hear several performances by Latsabidze, was enormously impressed by his artistic abilities, and learned from USC Thornton acquaintances something about his background and achievements. In looking at his already substantial website at the time, it occurred to me that he might be an excellent subject for a Wikipedia article on a notable young performer. That is how I came to write the article, rather than out of any pecuniary motive.
• As far as the article sourcing is concerned, I take all the blame for the obvious confusion regarding this issue. I was confounding sourcing, which in this case apparently means where the information came from, with verification, which is how the information can be verified or elaborated. My starting point for the article was Latsabidze’s extensive website as it existed at that time, about a year ago. However, I am as skeptical as anybody about a subject’s own website and understood the need for verifiability. I expressed my interest and concern to Latsabidze, and he agreed to help direct me to appropriate sources of verification wherever necessary and possible. My approach in writing the Wikipedia article was to strictly use information in support of notability that could be independently verified, and in most cases, performed such verification directly myself as well as providing the corresponding references to the verification sources. For example, in the case of his awards, I had him provide the PDF copies of the original award certificates, which were referenced in the article before their recent deletion by Kimchi.sg. Similarly, he was able to provide me with original published paper copies of the newspapers that contained the cited review quotations, and the original published newspaper and flier announcements of the notable concert performances that are cited in the article. Any elements of this sort that I could not directly verify were excluded from the article. In many cases, in particular the review quotations and the details (e.g., dates, repertoire) of the notable performances, there are some differences between the contents of the subject’s website at the time and what appears in the articles, since I was able to refer directly to the source materials. (Note that there have been changes in the website since then that were based on the Wikipedia article.) In short, the sources of the article are a combination of personal information that appeared on the subject’s website, corrections and amplifications that were obtained during the process of verification, and totally independent sources such as the review newspapers and performance announcements. If the article is not deleted, I will improve the sourcing provided in the article’s references, now that I better understand the problem. And please excuse the length of this insert, but I thought the information might be helpful in this resolution process. Music43lover (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, but continue improving sourcing to establish notability I have reviewed the userspace draft and have found little evidence of coverage in third-party reliable sources in the current version; however, per DGG (talk · contribs), a previous revision, though promotional, had much evidence of notability in the form of secondary reviews. The article still contains some non-neutral content (his already evident enthusiasm for the piano was rewarded) and will need work in that regard.

  An older version had the following content:

  This performance received a highly favourable review by the Georgian music critic [to be inserted], who said in part: One of the world-class virtuosi of the 21st century honoured us with an outstanding performance of the Rachmaninoff Third Piano Concerto....Latsabidze projected completely the profound melancholy of this work with a rock solid technique and a singing tone that seemed to hover over the hall. His fresh interpretation was absolutely convincing, providing an example of the best in today's piano playing. During this period, he was also favourably recognised by the Georgian music critic Gulbat Toradze for his performance of the 24 Études of Chopin in his home town of Tbilisi, who said in part: "...he managed this task completely, while demonstrating high artistic craftsmanship, ...at its heart a noble and delicate artistic taste in the interpretation of this inspired music, not giving way to excessive pace or pathos, ...with the main artistic goal of recognizing the internal wealth and “aristocratic spirit” of the music..."

  I recommend that Music43lover (talk · contribs) continue working on the article and prune the content sourced only to primary sources. For instance, although the PDF copies of the original award certificates establish verifiability, they are not secondary sources and thus do not demonstrate that the awards have had enough of an impact on Latsabidze's life to be worthy of mention in the article. If secondary sources mentioned/discussed his receiving of the awards, then the awards can remain in the article.

  I believe that this article has the potential to be undeleted and restored to the mainspace. It is not ready for restoration at the moment due to the sourcing. I ask that Music43lover (talk · contribs), when citing newspaper sources, consider using a template such as Template:Cite news or Template:Cite web. These templates contain relevant citation information such as an article's title, author, date of publication, publisher, and URL (if the article is available online). This will help readers and editors more easily locate a source and determine if it is reliable.

  I agree with Snottywong (talk · contribs) that the references section is more like a collection of footnotes. Instead of placing comments in the references section, perhaps a footnotes section (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)#Separating reference lists and explanatory notes) could be created.

  When sourcing and tone improvements are made, the article may be recreated. If you, Music43lover, want someone to review the article before moving it to the mainspace or initiating a discussion at DRV, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Ject (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I created this page, at first with little content, explaining why Pro-ject is a very notable phonograph manufacturer; I had provided from the beginning one reference to a very reliable secondary source. I was intending to provide asap further sources, but the page got deleted in the mean time in spite of my hang-on tag and a note on the talk page that I would provide these links asap. Here are these links which support this claim that Pro-ject is one of the principal manufacturers of entry-level HiFi turntables. One (visibly not independent, but thorough) source [12] even quote Pro-ject as being the World's largest manufacturer of turntables.

• List of manufacturers on audiotools.com
• Comparion Rega/Project by Don Lindich
• Review by the magazine Stereophile
• Analogue sources reviewed by the online magazine Enjoythemusic
• Review of entry level turtables (from 1998) by Magazine HifiWorld.

Some more info can be found on the US importer's website [13] I tried (and am still trying) to find some reliable sales volume figures...no success so far --MarmotteNZ (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • /Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also.
• Restore and add the references. Not even a valid A7, since the article did claim importance--& even had a ref. to show it: The soundadviceblog review is a signed review, not a blog entry by a reader. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and update with the additional references. VQuakr (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per DGG and nom. There's enough coverage to justify an article here. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Well known brand as Dual_(brand). You might need to check out printed Hi-fi mags, though. But I'm sure you'll find stuff out there. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Thx for all reviews; Sorry for asking, but am I supposed to click the restore link, or is it an admin-action only? Can't find any clue about that in the instructions up the page ;-)--MarmotteiNoZ 00:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarmotteNZ (talk • contribs)
• Restore per DGG and request by the creator, MarmotteNZ. I don't know what buttons you have, MarmotteNZ, but I would wait at least another 12 hours so a neutral admin can close this debate per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instinct (magazine) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Instinct Magazine has generally been the #1 gay mens magazine. This article was speedy-deleted TODAY after a PROD was uncontested. This is little more than Wikilawyering or misusing the system. The reason for deletion was that Instinct was a non-notable, defunct magazine. Neither is true.

15:29, 16 September 2010 JamesBWatson (talk | contribs) deleted "Instinct (magazine)" ‎ (Expired PROD, concern was: non-notable, apparently dead magazine)

Someone had apparently vandalized the page, claiming that it was a "dead" magazine. I can find no source to confirm that, and it is still being sold. Not only that, but how could a magazine in existence for 13 years, reaching #1 in a genre (gay mens magazines), be "not notable"? Even if the magazine were defunct, that's no reason for deletion...do we delete biographies of persons when they die? Of course not. This is an encyclopedia.

Instinct Magazine: Amazon.com: Magazines Instinct is America's #1 gay men's magazine. Instinct is fun, lite and .... Each issue of Instinct Magazine lets readers know that being gay is ok, ... www.amazon.com › Magazines › Gay & Lesbian › Gay Men - Cached - Similar

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Instinct Magazine "Instinct Magazine - America's #1 Gay Men's Magazine. A clever mix of Cosmo and Maxim, Instinct is funny, sexy, and smart, and is a new kind of gay magazine ... www.amazon.com/Instinct-Magazine/product-reviews/B00006KIJJ - Cached

Gay Magazines Instinct Magazine is America's #1 Gay Men's magazine. Each issue brings you fashion, entertainment, health and lifestyle information from a unique ... www.allyoucanread.com/gay-magazines/ - Cached - Similar

I don't feel like re-creating the page from scratch. I would like the prior version restored. It needs some work/expansion, but it would be better to restore this to the Sept 7 2010 version cached on Google.Ryoung122 20:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~ -->

I am suspicious about this zine being extant. My browser is warning me not to visit the mag's website. While not conclusive, reviews on Amazon seem to be dated. I wonder if Amazon has new issues, or used copies for sale? I suspect the mag is out of business and the url taken over by spammers/hackers. The "#1 Gay Men's magazine" claim looks like promotional copy. IF consideration is being given to restoration, the mag's url should be blacklisted. The cached copy has no refs, was properly tagged, deletion was in policy. Lionel (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Botwin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I request temporary review of article "Nancy Botwin", a character of the TV show Weeds on Showtime. Nancy is the leading protagonist on the show. Her page contained significant information on the character's backstory and her relationships to other characters on the show that was not reincorperated into the Weeds mainpage. Also, the page was deleted before I could comment in the deletion discussion. I do not even know who deleted it.

I ask that the source of the article emailed to me to review to improve the article for reposting in the future.

• The article hasn't been deleted, instead the article was redirected. The history (here) shows what has happened. The rationale for making the redirect was that it is original research sourced to primary sources. i.e. It's what someone has watched the episodes and decided the key points, meanings etc. were and written as an article. Not what independant reliable sources have said. Since User:Active Banana did the redirecting I suggest the best course of action is to pop over to their talk page and discuss it with them. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article had no third party sources, save for a blog entry. It failed WP:N and so was redirected. This is a character who may potentially have the sources out there somewhere and if they are provided and the WP:OR removed, I would not object to a properly sourced stand alone article. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that for the portion of it that is purely descriptive of the plot, primary sources -- e.g. the episode itself, and in fact this is the preferred source, rather than taking such description from a review or article. But there seems to be some analysis also, and this must have secondary sources. In principle, anyone can simply revert the redirect and restore it, after which the question of whether it should be redirected needs to be discussed, but a stable solution is much more likely if sources are found -- for example, for the award. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close, article was redirected and not deleted so DRV has no jurisdiction. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Hodes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I request temporary review of article "Celia Hodes", a character of the TV show Weeds on Showtime. Hodes is the leading antagonist on the show. Her page contained significant information on the character's backstory and her relationships to other characters on the show that was not reincorperated into the Weeds mainpage. Also, the page was deleted before I could comment in the deletion discussion. I do not even know who deleted it. Unlike the entry for Nancy Botwin, the entry for Celia Hodes needed additional information and to be reorganized.

I ask that the source of the article emailed to me to review to improve the article for reposting in the future.

• Same as above, same user did the redirecting... --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article had been tagged since 2008 as having no sources. Per WP:N I redirected to the series. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, article was redirected and not deleted so DRV has no jurisdiction. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Illegal settlements in the West Bank (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Actually, I requested deletion myself as the other, changing the reason for the speedy; it was originally tagged db-empty. I did not want this page to carry the baggage if it were deleted by someone else. But really, someone else set up this situation by unilaterally emptying out the category, leading it to be deleted as an empty category. Whoever did this did not propose it under CFD. Linda Olive (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from what I can see it looks like you created this category on 13th Sept, and I guess unillateraly populated it. I assume that others disagreed with the categorisation and reverted that unillateral population. I'm not sure what you mean as "baggage if it were deleted by someone else". I can't see there is anything to do here. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Close discussion. The category was not deleted as an empty category, it was deleted as a "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page". Since that seems to be what Linda Olive wanted, what's the issue here? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at CFD. Looks like this category was created and populated by User:Linda Olive. Within one hour, User:Shuki reverted all of the edits [15] [16] et al, claiming the category was POV. This emptied out the category. It was then tagged C1-empty by User:DMacks. Not sure why Linda Olive re-tagged it G7, but it seems clear from the DRV that this was not her intent. --Kbdank71 20:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If I recall, I saw Linda Olive's edits, wondered about whether the category was useful or not, and then saw it was empty. Didn't look further (empty is empty, and the db-empty has a built-in 4-day waiting period for editors to (re)populate it). The db-user tag is pretty self-explanatory too, and nominator suggests that actually was the intent of her adding it. So it was deletable on two counts per process at that time. Now if someone wants to recreate it and populate it (or at least revive it pending CFD) and has a strong rationale to support its existance (kind of a reverse-CFD nom), I have no objection. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list Too many debatable actions here. Does this catagory have a PoV problem? Probably, but I think illegal in this context can be found inside of the UN's definition. In any case, let's have a discussion on the merits. Hobit (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black hole naming controversies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This AFD was closed as delete, even though there was clearly no consensus to delete (7 in favor of keep, 7 in favor of delete). Two of the Delete votes were made in bad faith: Christopher Thomas' absurd claim that the article was created as part of a "trolling campaign" (I am the article's creator, hardly a troll, and take major umbrage at Christopher Thomas' personal attack, which should at the very least have been discounted), and Steve Quinn's vote (since Quinn had previously claimed, absurdly, that the article was intended to disparage black women; see [17]). Quinn's rantings on that page, in which he demonstrates an ignorance of WP: NOTCENSOR, frequently assumes bad faith, and makes veiled personal attacks, clearly show that he is not qualified to comment on this matter. In fact, Steve Quinn had absurdly nominated the article for speedy deletion as an attack page, and an admin obliged him; the decision was overturned, however. I don't think Steve Quinn (and Christopher Thomas) should have been allowed to railroad this article, and so I ask that this AFD be re-examined and, preferably, closed as no consensus (or possibly keep). Stonemason89 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Stonemason89 (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - AfDs are not votes; strength of argument is weighed. Thomas' argument is weak, but your opinion's of Quinn's qualifications to comment are irrelevant; his !vote is sound and policy-based, even if you disagree with it it isn't for you to discount. Speaking of discounting though, if I were the closing admin I would have weighted both yours and Ret.Prof's comments as next-to-nothing, given that they are pretty much garden variety WP:ITSNOTABLE. There's no admin missteps or wrongdoing that requires an overturn of the decision. Tarc (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anyone brave enough to DRV an article that User:DGG has said doesn't belong in the encyclopedia deserves a commendation for chutzpah. :-) Jclemens (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. A tie with this many people in favor of keeping is not a consensus. It can always be relisted at AfD later. Linda Olive (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC I've no fondness for the article, but I stayed away from the AfD because I feel it's a bad topic for an article that happens to meet our inclusion guidelines. There was no consensus that it doesn't meet those guidelines, so it stays. As an aside, a closing statement would have been helpful here. Hobit (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doing what I should have to begin with and waiting for the closing admin to comment here. Hobit (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm deliberately holding off endorsing or overturning. A 7-7 count can of course be closed as delete. But doing so is going to involve weighing arguments. Why was the delete side stronger? Only the closing admin can tell us. And without labouring the point, that should happen in the closing statement, and if not, the closing admin should be given an opportunity to explain before being hauled to DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I also have to say I frown upon DRVs filed with no attempt to discuss it with the closing admin first. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- the late run of delete votes makes me think consensus was forming to delete the article. This was within administrator discretion. Reyk _YO! 00:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I discussed there, in advocating deletion I did not mean that some of the material cannot be used to form or be part of sustainable articles. I advocated deletion because the article was so thoroughly confused that the only way of dealing with it is to start over again. Normally (as Jclemens noticed), I do tend to say something like, "Keep, but rewrite thoroughly." This is an exception, & I think it was so in the general judgment. I wish the closer had given a fuller explanation of his close--I am merely guessing and hoping that he saw it as I do. But I remind Jclemens that about some of the time I say delete at an AfD, the article is kept by consensus. And even a few speedies and expired prods of mine have been overturned, or recreated successfully. DGG ( talk ) 00:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I think the admin(s) should have waited or relisted to achieve more consensus. This is a tricky article to judge. I was initially a weak delete and I changed to weak keep, so it is understandable my vote may not have counted as much in the admin's analysis. The vote was 2" weak keep", 1 "keep and rename", 4 "keep", 7 "delete". If it helps settle the matter, though, I agree the article had some major issues, and if relisted I would vote for delete (based on the state the article was). Danski14^(talk) 02:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing admin comment: My apologies for not leaving a closing rationale. I should have done so and was remiss in not doing so. I was surprised that this came here without any consultation with myself, but...meh, not a big deal.

  Stonemason89 mentions that the Keep/Delete counts were equal. To be honest, I didn't even notice that; I generally don't go tallying up votes, especially when there was as much discussion as there was in this particular case. I simply analyzed the comments and found the delete votes to be far more persuasive. Steve Quinn and DGG both made solid policy-based arguments that I felt were not adequetely refuted by those arguing to keep the article, which mostly argued that because there were sources, the article was notable. While that might often be the case, I felt that the arguments made by some delete votes dug deeper into policy and were generally stronger, enough so to close the AFD as delete. NW (Talk) 02:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment If the primary rational was that the arguments made by DGG and Quinn were not adequetely refuted by those arguing to keep the article, then you should have waited with your close of the AFD, since those comments were only made 12 hours before you closed the discussion.TimothyRias (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - in light of NW's comments / rationale. Danski14^(talk) 02:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. In my view, NW's reading of the debate and subsequent close was not just within discretion, it was the preferable close. The rationale for most the keep !votes (coverage = article) was shown in the discussion to have been a gross over-simplification. A good example of AfD not being a headcount.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, reopen, relist. Ordinarily I would endorse a close of this nature, but given the emphasis NW placed on the failure to refute certain arguments, it's important to recognize that those arguments were posted only hours before the discussion closed, so that there does not seem to have been an adequate opportunity to respond to them. The discussion should have been extended rather than closed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment three whacks at trying to keep it around should be enough to show there is consensus that there is no notable controversy. May I suggest adding it to List of ethnic slurs (which has a lower WP:N threshold), give it a Cite and be done with it. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And sources are enough to prove consensus wrong. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As you know, I'm distracted from AFD patrol of late. Otherwise I would have given you John Hartigan Jr, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin, who takes "black hole" and "niggardly", and writes about them as part of an overall discussion as to what constitutes a racial slur, in public discourse in the U.S., in ISBN 9780804763363, published by Stanford University Press. See pages 7 and onwards.

  Enjoy. I have some lists to sort. Uncle G (talk) 17:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree wholeheartedly somewhere in this mess is an Article, but this Article is not in the same league as White trash (the only thing I can think of to compare it to). It currently is misnamed, poorly sourced, badly explained and a mish-mash of concepts of what it wants to explain. IMHO, as a "stand alone" Article, there was not a Notable Controversy. As part of a larger concept, it has a possibility of being notable, yes. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC as I don't see consensus can be reasonably found. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's comments are also quite important. I certainly wouldn't object to a relist, but I think it's time to put this to rest for a while. Hobit (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Without opining on merits of the article, it is my modest opinion that when there is an equal number of policy based opinions, it is too much power for any admin to just arbitrarily choose a side. It is in those cases I do believe we must take into account the 7-7 or 8-8 vote volume and call it a No Consensus.Turqoise127 22:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest that the first step for keeping the article would be for someone to suggest a clearer title. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested "Black hole usage controversies".. I might also suggest the somewhat awkward "Controversies regarding the use of the term "Black hole". Danski14^(talk) 01:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But "usage" , just like "naming", indicates usage in the primary sense of the word, and we are talking about its use as a metaphor. Which gives me an idea: 'Black Hole' as a metaphor, which lets us discuss its allusive use in general, not just as a slur. & will permit a decent amount of content and the avoidance of racist implications. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the very limited information (Uncle G's source is helpful but the discussion there - as far as I can tell - is very limited) - could we not just "merge" it to List of ethnic slurs where there is no entry at the moment?--Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, but none of the references in the original article implied that the term "black hole" is, ever has been, or will be a racial slur. At most, one person said they thought it was inherently racist (but not a racial slur). In another case, (the Hallmark card) it was argued it could be misinterpreted that way in that particular circumstance. I really don't think it belongs on that list. If you really are considering adding it, discuss on talk fist. Danski14^(talk) 01:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks - just throwing it out there as an idea. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Black hole" is definitely not a racial slur (as normally used). The controversy was a result of one person mistakenly thinking that it was intended as such in a special situation. So it does not belong on the list of slurs. JRSpriggs (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been more than one person--it has happened several times a/c the article, now temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Consensus pretty clear, I agree that the delete !votes were more convincing than the keeps. SnottyWong ^converse 22:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, because it appears that consensus was weighted in favor of "delete". Also, because no notable controversy has been established in this article. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there was no consensus. One of the delete votes (Christopher Thomas's) was a borderline personal attack which should have been discounted. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps so, but as your own vote was little more than WP:ITSNOTABLE, it still comes out the same in the end. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with no objection to recreation if someone can rewrite it inj a reliably sourced and unbiased form. The debate as closed did show a consensus to delete, so the closing admin's action can't be faulted. But Uncle G's book source suggests that the topic probably meets WP:GNG, so it seems reasonable to allow recreation. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way was it "biased"? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would assume, as it was written: "A columnist for the Christian Science Monitor wrote an editorial disagreeing with Price's view." was the only mention of the opposing viewpoint. Hardly a well balanced view of the controversy (and I use that term loosely). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - while numerically, the keeps could win, I read the last pre-AfD version, and it was a mess of synthesis, thus seeing how their arguments were the weaker of the two. My general rule is to follow the strong arguments of inclusionists who see logically a need to delete an article, e.g., User:DGG. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

action taken was contrary to consensus Kevin Baas^talk 16:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

also notice the even more overwhelming keep consensus of an earlier attempt at deletion (if my memory serves me correctly, by the same nominator): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy. Kevin Baas^talk 16:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I don't have the slightest idea as to what you are challenging; the "XfD" link in this DRV is pointing to just the article, not a discussion. Is it this large merge finding from 2008? Tarc (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes. sorry about that. i tried putting a link to that first, but it malformed the template. yes, that one. (can you fix, please?) i count 4 delete, 1 merge, 2 keep, and 6 strong keep. the prior one was even stronger, like 10:1 keep. (it's obvious that it had a lot more people participating in the vote. (better advertised?)) i'm surprised a second attempt was even made. not so surprised that it failed, ofcourse. but there precisely lies the problem. Kevin Baas^talk 17:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, link fixed. First off, I'd have to ask "why now?", since it has been 2.5 years since that thing closed. Second, and this purely my opinion, but I pretty much discount 2004-era XfDs. It's a prehistoric wiki-era when the d was for "deletion" rather than "discussion", and outcomes depended more on vote-counting than argument-weighing as it is (supposed to) be done nowadays. Finally, several of the keeps were more favorable of retaining a main controversies page, but offered either "weak keep" or "merge" for the rest. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. with all due respect, if you actually tally the "several of the keeps were more favorable of retaining a main controversies page, but offered either "weak keep" or "merge" for the rest." count, you will find exactly one "week keep [the rest]" and exactly one "keep or merge the rest ... subarticles will still be needed (ahem)". hardly "several". the rest were all keep or strong keep all the articles. Kevin Baas^talk 18:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• are you talking about the most recent deletion discussion? The one in 2008? Protonk (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes. Kevin Baas^talk 18:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In that case I'll generally endorse the decision, as the best way to close the contentious discussion about an article which had frankly grown out of proportion to its eventual importance (And was anchored on a flawed interpretation of exit polling which has since been debunked). However, building a new, reasonably sourced and weighted article isn't outside the realm of possibility. Protonk (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been no flawed or debunked interpretations of exit polling. Statistics by its very nature works both ways. As the Exit poll article clearly states "Exit polls have historically and throughout the world been used as a check against and rough indicator of the degree of election fraud.". The question is simply one of degree and probability. Having corrected that factual error (everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts), I must add that it is not really relevant in the first place. There were a myriad of very real issues, especially in ohio, and that is what the controversies, and likewise, articles are about, not exit the polls. Also, although "building a new, reasonably sourced and weighted article isn't outside the realm of possibility", the current method has clearly failed at accomplishing that. And finally, that is not the question to be debated here. If you were voting on an AfD request, those kind of opinions would be perfectly relevant. But here we are assessing whether the action taken reflected the consensus of those voting on an AfD that is already closed. Kevin Baas^talk 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. In this case, exit polling was interpreted erroneously to reach the conclusion that it was wildly improbable for the voters in Ohio to elect Bush given the results of the exit poll. Nate Silver gives a gentle introduction to the problem but the biggest issue is the fact that exit polls don't represent a random sample of voters and so acting as though they do when generating standard errors is a mistake. Exit polls both select polling places, which creates clusters of voters who share certain observable and unobservable characteristics and voters leaving those polling places self-select in deciding to talk to a pollster. Though self selection exists in phone polling, the effect is much less pronounced and a bit more random than self-selection in exit polling. A strong rhetorical argument was made at the AAPOR conference in 2006. A more balanced argument can be found in this journal article (A fairly well regarded journal published by the APSA). Beyond the clustering and self selection issues are issues of absentee voting--not captured in exit polls and poorly modeled or not at all modeled by the news organizations who commission or report such polls. In short: non-response is correlated with political inclination. An omnibus evaluation of the specific exit poll methodology used in Ohio concluded that Kerry voters participated more in in exit polls than Bush voters (the study was commissioned by the polling company itself, but has been reprinted in Elections and Exit Polling, a volume edited by an expert in the field). It is most certainly not something which can "go either way". The principal article in popular press regarding the exit poll controversy is certainly RFK jr's from Rolling Stone, an article I read with rapt attention (and believed for some time). In it the author basically cherry picks opinions from researchers arguing that the difference between exit polls and outcome in Ohio could not have occurred by chance. He makes the critical error of assuming that the shift in each exit poll is independent of another; this assumption is absolutely false, for the reasons shown above. If the assumption is false, the previously astronomical probabilities given in the piece (generated by basically multiplying the individual probabilities of a polling place result being different from the exit poll result, which is true iff the differences are independent from each other) do not describe the probability that the exit polls are jointly different from the results. As for the general concern that the initial controversy is irrelevant to the DRV, sure. Recapitulating the arguments isn't necessarily the best path, but I want to do so for a few reasons. First, the argument we are having now occurred in the AfD, meaning that one of the reasons voters wanted to merge or delete the specific articles was that they didn't describe the issue neutrally alone. Second, we have two more years of hindsight. More scholarly papers have been published, better models for predicting elections have been developed and charges of fraud have not been substantiated. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's a matter of degree and probability. The issues that came up have very largely been substantiated, and it didn't take two years, it was done right away. Take for instance the many election related lawsuits against the ohio secretary of state at the time (e.g. http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/klbna.php ), many of which are finished and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. That's just one of many examples, each one rather noteworthy in itself. I'd refer you to the wikipedia pages for plenty more examples, but there you see we run into a little conundrum. But again, you see, none of this is relevant. If this were an AfD request, or the AfD request in question was still open, it might be. But it is not. This is a review of a clerical task involving an AfD that is closed. Kevin Baas^talk 19:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing there weren't irregularities. Hence why we have a large article on those irregularities and controversies. But the AfD concluded that the sub-articles were better merged into a larger article in order to deal with problems of scope, attention and POV. Among those smaller articles (some which weren't actually smaller) were specific articles on voting machines, exit polls and such. Those issues have not taken a life of their own and have not been borne out in the literature--were they substantiated by serious work, we could argue that they are unfairly shoehorned into a larger article. Like I said way above, this is a 2 year old AfD and I don't think it completely bars creating a new article which reflects the distribution of opinion and research on the subject. It should be taken as a cautionary tale, given that the articles ballooned into POV monstrosities. And it isn't "a matter of degree and probability". That implies that there is some mix of interpretations of the results based on the fact that polls are involved. That kind of equivocation isn't helpful. As for your ending comment, that leaves me with the opinion that regardless of the data, the basic conclusion of the AfD was uncontroversial and within admin discretion. Protonk (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Though it does not imply that, when striving for accuracy, thoroughness and honesty are always helpful. Re: "But the AfD concluded..." we are not debating what the administrator that closed the afd concluded. we would not even be having this discussion had he concluded differently. i don't know what "data" you are refering to when you say "regardles of the data", hopefully not the consensus. in any case it's quite obvious that the conclusion of the AfD was and remains controversial. and i hope that by "within admin discretion" you are implying that the admin can choose to do whatever they want regardless of what the consensus is. if that were the case, it would be kind of pointless to even have AfD's in the first place. Kevin Baas^talk 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a necessary condensation of the AfD debate into a single opinion (or ANY debate) and that condensation usually occurs in the closing admin making some discrete decision about the article. If the close is good, then we can say something like "the afd concluded" and mean both the conclusion of the admin and the conclusion some hypothetical admin would make in the same circumstance. What makes a good close is a matter for meta-debate but the basic idea is that the close should reflect a preponderance of reasoned opinion, should (if the opinions allow) bring some finality to the discussion and should accord with policy/guidance. To say that we wouldn't be here were the close "different" is not just tautological, it is wrong. We wouldn't be here, a DRV would have been raised sooner or another AfD would have occurred in the meantime for those article. When I say that a close is within admin discretion that is a shorthand for the "good close" comments above, specifically the first. A close of a unanimous debate is also within admin discretion, so there is no implication that the word discretion implies that the preponderance of opinion was necessarily disregarded. When I say "regardless of the data", I should have said "regardless of the facts on the ground about the specific issue of exit polling implying fraud"--meaning although I have shown that the basis for the allegations in the old exit polling article are false, I don't need to show that in order to say that the close of the AfD was basically sound. It is sufficient to say that a messy debate may be concluded (and in this case, concluded without permanently deleting content) by selecting a single outcome. Protonk (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't need to be so long in your response. and your "not only tautological, it is WRONG" statement is obviously WRONG (the irony!). You are clearly slipping on your logic here. and re:exit polls you have not proven anything. i accept the logic you stated above about the debate but it does not reduce to the conclusion that you say it does - that conclusion does not logically follow. For instance, even after those adjustments there still remains significant discrepancies, which are higher in areas where more problems (and more severe problems) are reported, which, ofcourse, is in line with what one would expect. That's how polls are used as a check and in that respect it is all quite sound. (Another place where you are slipping on your logic.) Any case like i said as we both know none of that is relevant here, the only relevant questions are what i stated below. first one determines the balance of the sentiment in the AfD. then when evaluates the decision with respect to that. from what you said you seem to be putting the cart before the horse in that respect, but thanks for clarifying at least that you are considering the cart. Kevin Baas^talk 13:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I voted to keep all but the voter suppression article in 2008 and favorably linked the RS article.  :) See what I said about my change of heart? And you and I even had a discussion then. Protonk (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main question is this: if you objectively look at the opinions of those involved in the afd discussion (on the afd page) (administrator aside, ofcourse), what is the balance of opinion? (by my count, and i even did i fine-grained tally, it's strongly slanted towards keep all of the articles.) the second question then is was the administrators actions faithful to this balance? Kevin Baas^talk 19:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I recall, I closed it as a redirect with the suggestion of merging what content wasn't rubbish. The content wasn't deleted, specifically so that the material not susceptible to the main problem (the terrible sourcing and that the subarticle had turned into a POV fork) could be used in the main article. Did Kevin go through and recover the well-sourced material? The problem here is not recovering material from deletion, the problem is purely editorial - David Gerard (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the close was a good compromise solution. The only other possible close would have been no-consensus, which would not have helped matters any the more than the merge did. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close per DGG. --Avenue (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close per David Gerard. I think Kevin Baas is trying to rules lawyer his way around some really awful content (the deleted sub-articles). Also, i believe Kevin Baas is misrepresenting the AfD, by my count there are only 5 "strong keeps" not 6, and Klausness and Avenue both !voted strong keep only for the article that survived, not the for the whole set. I also count 5 deletes, not 4, R.Fiend changed his delete !vote to keep only for 2004 United States election voting controversies not for the whole set. Contrary to what Kevin Baas claims, i think if you objectively read the AfD you will see that the majority of the participants were concerned with what useful content there was in the sub articles, not the articles themselves. In that sense, the decision was the right one, merge the useful delete the garbage. Id like to think we did at least a passable job of that. Bonewah (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Bonewah, you really should be recusing yourself and you know it. And you shouldn't be making attacks directed at the person. Esp. in the form of wild accusations. Esp. with respect to intent. Besides being ridiculously presumptuous, it's outright immoral. Kevin Baas^talk 13:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And why should i recuse myself Kevin? Why should you be entitled to express your opinion on this subject and I be forbidden from doing so? Bonewah (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a false analogy : i am not an administrator, and i am not voting. Obviously. Does the judge/jury ask the plaintiff to recuse themself on account of their involvement? That would be pretty silly, now, wouldn't it? Kevin Baas^talk 14:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What is your rationale that he recuse himself then? He didn't close the discussion you are debating and even if he did, DRV benefits when the closing admin provides comment on the close. Protonk (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This debate was closed nearly 2½ years ago. Can the nominator please explain why it has taken so long before this listing? Stifle (talk) 11:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  At first I wanted sentiments to cool down so people would have a clearer perspective. (it was obvious that people where not being objective), then came real life. Perhaps I was overly optimistic on the objective thing. Kevin Baas^talk 13:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Puerto Rican Political Prisoners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Restore Category. Closing admin improperly deleted the Category as consensus was not reached. Closing admin does not appear to have covered the full extend of the debate in the rationale.My name is Mercy11 (talk) 02:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

The purpose of the Deletion Review/Appeal is not to invoke past deletion precendents as justification for a new deletion. There is a Wikipedia policy that condems such rigid positions. Fact is, even the guidelines on this page pointedly state, "[the Deletion Review] 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." As the principle here is, "each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits" it then follows that "this process should not be used to point out other pages that have been deleted and thus this one should as well." It was also pointed out fairly well in the debate that the Category complies entirely with WP:NPOV. It is not the category as created but, on the contrary, the deletion request itself that was WP:POV. The debate centered on what, in the realm of article names, Wikipedia calls the common name vs. descriptive name. There is a clear analogy here to Categories. I further find it unacceptable that the closing admin appears to have taken but a mere 4 minutes to read, sort out, and process a debate that was 2 weeks in the making. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Restore Category. Agreed. Just read discussion, consensus wasn't reached. He acted careless and irresponsible by closing the discussion. He apparently closed most of the discussions so he was just on a deletion frenzy. Feedback ^☎ 03:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Over the months, there has been quite consistent consensus at CFD to delete categories that categorize individuals as "political prisoners" because they violate WP:NPOV (see here, here, here, here). The fact that a political prisoner category for one particular nationality (in this case, Puerto Rican) was defended by a select number of editors seems to me to activate the considerations of WP:CONLIMITED. Having not heard from the closing admin nor seen any discussion of this on his talk page, I would be hesitant to jump to the conclusions being made above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A reminder that "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. This applies to past "precedents" as well. Now to the Past CfD's which were linked above. The middle two reference the first one which again is in direct contradiction to WP:CCC. The latter link says deletion because POV and OR with no explanation on how those policies applied directly. So they do not apply to this discussion. The first one makes the argument that there is no "neutral definition" of the term political prisoner. This in fact has changed since 2006. There is an extensive article on Political Prisoners and reliable source definitions of the term. The argument that "from discussion in 2006", this category should be deleted is not at par with maintaining quality and rationale in deleting this category. This applies to the other categories that where mentioned as well. What we are in agreement is that WP:CONLIMITED applies here. But rather than just saying that it applies, I will explain my rationale. The Wikiproject CfD editors that have nominated this article for deletion have failed to convince the broader community that generally accepted policy or guidelines do not apply. These were pointed out repeatedly during the CfD discussion, none of which have been addressed. A few examples are why the first sentence of WP:V does not apply and why NPOV is ignored when it states that Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.. For this reason Consensus has not been reached on this discussion.

  The first sentence of WP:V means that everything that is included must be verifiable, but it does not mean that everything that is verifiable must be included. This is a logical error: that A -> B does not mean that B -> A. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your summary above. My citing the precedents was more provided here to show the contextual history and lead into my use of CONLIMITED rather than the reason the close should be affirmed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Quazgaa’s point (in "[No one addressed] why the first sentence of WP:V does not apply") has nothing to do with "A -> B does not mean that B -> A". His point is not that B->A, but that B was not disproven. The significance of his edit is that by failure to disprove B, the Cat passed the WP:V test. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

I think Ruslik's point still stands as relevant, even with this clarification. That could well be an indication that Ruslik understood perfectly what was said, but said what he said nonetheless. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I want to object to me having acted careless and irresponsible by closing the discussion. He apparently closed most of the discussions so he was just on a deletion frenzy. Yes, I closed 7 discussions on 24 August, 2 of them as no consensus, 2 as relist, 1 as keep, 1 as rename and only one as delete. Mercy11, how do you know that it took me just 4 minutes to close it? I was actually keeping eye on it for few days before I made a decision.

I as to past precedents, I think in case of categories they are important. Categories are not content pages. They exist to facilitate classification of the articles and navigation among them. This means that any categorization scheme should internally consistent. Ideally every category should be part of a category tree. So, deletion of the similar categories in past is a powerful argument for the deletion of similar categories in the futute. Ruslik_Zero 08:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I remind the Closing Admin that "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. This applies to past "precedents" as well. Also not explained in the closing arguments is that the decision complies with the spirit of all Wikipedia policy and with the project goal. A good admin will transparently explain how the decision was reached.Not just because. There are numerous policy questions that were pointed out in the discussion which were ignored in deleting this category. Rationale for ignoring them was not given in the closing statement.QuAzGaA 11:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This only means that stare decisis is not an absolute principle here. Past decisions are reconsidered from time to time, but it does mean that they should be completely ignored. Ruslik_Zero 18:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the Wikipedia policy that Quaazaa is pointing out, namely, this one HERE reads as follows, "While past extensive discussions can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed."

This means what it says, that prior precedents are not to be used in making delete decisions. But these guidelines were not followed by the closing admin, instead he relied on his own skewed interpretation of WP:NPOV to throw in an elusive “objective criteria” into the equation, overriding policy, and now he can neither substantiate nor defend his closing decision.

Furtherrmore, Wikipedia’s list of reasons for deletion, which are found HERE, do not say that “deletion of the similar categories in [the] past is a powerful argument for the deletion of similar categories in the future”, as the closing admin is now stating. The “past precedent argument”, therefore, holds no water. It is an on-the-fly guideline of the closing admin. Likewise, nowhere does it say that the guidelines for past precedents are to be applied with any greater force to Categories than to articles. There is no need to make up policies and guidelines when the Wikipedia policies and guidelines are time-tested and should have been used in this instance to determine the outcome of this Category deletion request. Closing admins are not free to make up their own on-the-fly policies as if they were Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policy establishes the principle HERE that when admins consider pages for deletion "each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits".

By going back to the past precedent argument, the closing admin is admitting that the prior precedents set the stage for his decision. And this is contrary to policy as explained HERE. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I appreciate that Mercy11 feels very strongly on this issue, but Wikipedia doesn't take sides. The discussion did not establish that "political prisoner" is a neutral term, which leaves deletion (and the proposed upmerge) as the proper outcome. Mackensen (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are in agreement that Wikipedia does not take sides…and that’s precisely the violation here: that in this case where the category has been deleted, the closing admin has taken sides by supporting non-existing sources that would lend credence to his implied claim that the members of the Category “Puerto Rican Political Prisoners” were not political prisoners. This implied claim is contrary to reason, when all the existing neutral sources (see list provided) either say they were political prisoners or imply they were PPs via an prominently stated link. The closing admin thus deleted the Category without any reasonable basis. Here is what the neutral sources have to say about the members of the category "Puerto Rican political prisoners":

US Govt/Executive Branch:

"Political Prisoners by virtue of sedition charge"

US Congressman:

"Political Prisoners"

The Republican Party:

"Prisoners aligned with Puerto Rican Independence"

U.N.:

"Political Prisoners"

"Political Prisoners"

Academia:

"Political Prisoners"

The American Society of Criminology:

"Political Prisoners"

Human Rights Organizations:

"Political Prisoners"

A Writer and Criminologist:

"Political Prisoners" (In, “Prose and cons: essays on prison literature in the United States” By Daniel Quentin Miller. Page 251.)

All the Sovereign Latin America and the Caribbean Countries:

"Political Prisoners"

The 130 countries in the NAM:

"Political Prisoners"

US Judiciary:

"Political Prisoners", per its definition. (See wikidictionary)

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• Restore Category: No rationale provided on why the first sentence of WP:V should be ignored. QuAzGaA 11:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse fair reading of rough consensus. There was a lot of noise and unconvinced participants, tempting me to call "no consensus", but too much of that was a noisy unconvincible. I wish that the closer would have explicitly cited the precedents, for the benefit of the current and future unconvinced. The category fails my personal test of an existing parent article. I suggest that the unconvinced consider working on Puerto Rican Political Prisoners, after a careful reading of WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:NOTADVOCATE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I invite SmokeyJoe to please explain specifically how those policies apply to the discussion at hand. Also, I suggest that the "convinced" try and convince the "unconvinced" using the policies that seem to be floating through these discussions. Providing policy names as "suggested reading" does not add anything to these discussions. QuAzGaA 15:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Parent article"? Good point Smokey, and maybe an idea for future work – unless, of course, the closing admin is making lack of a parent article a necessary and sufficient condition criteria for killing the Category… in which case a “hold”, while such article was developed, would had been more appropriate.

However, the policy is quite clear. It says HERE that “each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits.” The closing admin did not follow this policy.

It was clear there was no consensus in the delete debate. The closing admin acted contrary to the policy that indicates HERE that “The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so.”

I would argue that the closing admin was in doubt as to whether or not there was consensus on the objectivity portion of his closing comments. At that point, instead of leaving the Category alone, as indicated in this Wikipedia guideline HERE which states that "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it," the closing admin instead decided to delegate the closing/Kill decision to the past precedent argument to tip the balance. Unfortunately for the rationale supported by the closing admin, past precedents, says in this Wikipedia policy HERE, are not to be used to make decisions on deleting new pages. This means that while a closing admin may refer to past precedents for informational purposes (i.e., to fill in any information vacuums he may have), he cannot use such precedents in the decision-making task itself. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• Endorse, as the term being used has been repeatedly shown not to be NPOV, and this CFD didn't make the case that it is. --Kbdank71 18:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Repeatedly shown"? Hum,,, sounds to me like "Let's not try going to the moon, as it has been repeatedly tried but always failed before." I will proffer the following links and let you see for yourself if they repeatedly show that the name "Puerto Rican Political Prisoners" is shown in the context of being POV. Here are mainstream U.S. news media stories calling these people "political prisoners":

Political Prisoners by link

Political Prisoners by link

Political Prisoners

Political prisoner

Political Prisoners by link

Political Prisoners by link

Political Prisoners by link

Political Prisoners by link

Political Prisoners by link

Political Prisoners by link

Political Prisoners

Political Prisoners

Political Prisoners

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• Yes, repeatedly shown here at wikipedia, via consensus. Just because mainstream media says something doesn't mean a) it should be in the encyclopedia, or b) that it's npov. --Kbdank71 10:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What has been repeatedly failed to be rationalized is a) Why it should not be in the encyclopedia, and b) Why its not WP:NPOV. This category has repeatedly been shown why it should be in this encyclopedia through policies and guidelines which try to represent all sides of an issue, thus striving to become neutral. This Encyclopedia represents an international English community, not any specific demographical majority. In representing all sides of the issue, and basing his actions on what is best for the project, what policies should be ignored, what policies should take precedent, is the core responsibility of a closing Admin. This is not the case here. Not just because since 2006 ..... Not because its logical for them to do so. Thus a Consensus has yet to be achieved here. QuAzGaA 12:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The alleged past precedent "consensus" and point letter "b" about the Category being POV, have both been covered above as invalid. The really exciting contribution here is, imo, letter "a" ("it should [not] be in the encyclopedia"):

The opposing doesn’t want the category to survive. But, not because of it violates WP:V, WP:RS or WP:OR. Nor is it because of a lack of neutral mainstream media (his point above), neutral authorities, neutral officials, etc., that have stated that these people were, in fact, political prisoners. Nor is it because everyone that matters says these people were political prisoners. No, it’s not because of any of that. Rather, it’s because the opposing Wikipedia editors feel there is something awkward (a gut feeling) with the “Puerto Rican Political Prisoners” category. This may make no sense to some of us, but to the side seeking deletion of the Category, in their mindset, from their perspective, etc., it makes perfect sense.

Now, past precedents or not, neither one closing editor, nor a few editors, nor consensus by the majority of editors, can supersede Wikipedia policy, as stated HERE. But this gut feeling is, in their view, enough to kill the category.

The side seeking deletion is translating “gut feeling” into WP:COMMONSENSE, and finding their rationale in that. Their rationale seems to go like this: “It’s common sense. We have it, and they don’t. We are immune from Wikipedia policies, because common sense has no boundaries: common sense is so powerful that it supersedes even Wikipedia policy.” The problem is that gut feeling and common sense are not the same thing. So this comes down to, imo, a battle between gut feeling/resting on past laurels and WP:CCC/WP:POL. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• Restore Category: Wikipedia does not have any verification or sourcing standards for categories. They either belong or they don't. This one meets inclusion criteria for being geographically-based. Linda Olive (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is certainly wrong: the standards are the same for everything (WP:V). We also already have a geographically-based category—Category:Puerto Rican prisoners and detainees. Why to create another one? Ruslik_Zero 10:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Verifiability is not under dispute here; we are passed that point. What is being disputed is whether or not the Category name violates WP:NPOV. I do find it interesting, though, that the response from the closing admin points us in the direction of a category that does not uniquely identify the individuals in question. "Amusing" because this has already been discussed - extensively. Please. Please. Please: Did the closing admin not read the extensive delete debate on this found HERE? It is a subject of further curiosity that the closing admin will, on the one hand, bend the Wikipedia guidelines on precedents found HERE to accommodate his own interpretation of why precedents are, as he says, “important…in [the] case of categories” vs. content pages, but then HERE he claims that “[no], the standards are the same for everything.” He can’t have it both ways. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• Comment. The debate closing admin has added HERE to his closing comment on "past precedents." However, he has thus far not clarified the other portion of his comment. Namely, what did he mean by "Categorization should be based on objective criteria, but none has been specified here"? Exactly what “objective criteria” was he seeking to see and why was that so paramount to him to in fact become the deciding factor for killing the Category? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

  Wikipedia:Overcategorization says that categorization should not be based on an opinion as in this case. In other words there should be objective criteria for inclusion. Ruslik_Zero 10:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The CfD discussion clearly established that this category meets the inclusion criteria per WP:V. It has been clearly established that reliable sources and mainstream media outside the geographical area support the existence of this category. When this Category meets these inclusion criteria, does that qualify it to be an "Opinion" based category per your statement? I beleive that this statement may be an indication that bias may have been applied in closing the CfD in the manner that it was. Without any clearly established rationale on why wikipedia policies specifically support deletion, and why the policies which support inclusion should be ignored. The strongest argument here is that in 2006 there was no "neutral definition" of the term political prisoner. That is no longer the case. QuAzGaA 12:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  You continue to misinterpret the policy. WP:V has nothing to do with this debate. Ruslik_Zero 14:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Then please clarify your contradictory statement above: the standards are the same for everything (WP:V). .QuAzGaA 16:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:V says if you're going to add something to wikipedia, it needs to have a source. It does not say that everything that has a source has to be in wikipedia. As for the statement the standards are the same for everything, that just means that policies like WP:V apply to categories just as they do to articles. There is no contradiction. --Kbdank71 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The closing admin and User:Kbdank71 are both incorrect, as the issue raised has nothing to do with misinterpretation of Wikipedia policy, and because, contrary to the claim, there is a contradiction. The issue Quaazaa is raising has to do with the closing admins flip-floping to accomodate his own interpretation of Wikipedia policy. And herein lies the contradiction, not in the policies, granted, but in the way how the closing admin is trying to manipulate the interpretation of the policies to fit his needs. On the one hand, the closing admin is bending the Wikipedia guidelines on precedents found HERE to accommodate his own interpretation of why precedents are, as he says, "important...in [the] case of categories" vs. content pages, but on the other hand as shown HERE he claims that "[no], the standards are the same for everything." That's the issue Quaazaa is raising. The significance of Quaazaa's concern is that the closing admin "is trying to have it both ways." And Quaazaa is saying (and so am I too) "No, wait a minute: You can't have it both ways." That's a legitimate concern. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• The closing admin appears to be dancing from excuse to excuse in his quest to kill the Category. First it was the “objective criteria” claim found HERE, then he followed that with the invalid “past precedents” rationale found HERE, now he is coming up with overcategorization HERE to explain (incredibly) a question on his meaning of “objective criteria”.

Fact is, lack of an objective criteria is not a reason for deletion according to Wikipedia delete guidelines found HERE, and furthermore the phrase "objective criteria" is not found at all in the overcategorization link the closing admin is giving HERE. He now points to overcategorization, imo, because he can find no basis to defend his initial “objective criteria” claim.

Act IV, after a delay from the closing admin, he now claims that the problem is that the category is based on opinion (“Categorization”, he says, “should not be based on an opinion as in this case.”) There are two things wrong with this argument: (1) The passage in question, this one HERE, is not talking about Wikipedia editors’ opinions; it is talking about the “personal opinions” of the members of the category (Quote: “Avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions”). That is, the category should be based on fact, not on the opinion the members of the category have about themselves. For example, the category "Puerto Rican Political Prisoners" should not exist if its membership inclusion criteria were those people who themselves opinionated they were political prisoners. (2) The closing admin is confusing "holding an opinion" with "being an activist". He killed the category because it would violate WP:NPOV as the members claimed (read: opinion) they were political prisoners (which is a given, they did have that view of themselves). However, the closing admin failed to note that these prisoners were also activists, and "activists" is an approved defining characteristic for the people in that group and, as such, it becomes entirely acceptable to have such category. As such passage does not apply, it follows that the closing admin was wrong in deleting the category, even if his basis was this newly provided "opinions/personal opinions" criteria. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

Restore Category. It is clear that consensus was not reached, plus the admin did not even take into consideration the fact that others had suggested a possible renaming of the same. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct Marine, consensus was not reached. Yet the closing admin went ahead and based his closing rationale on lack of “objective criteria”. Ladies and gentlemen, if consensus is not reached, the closing admin is not free to make up his own rules to still kill the Category. He’s got to abide by the guidelines. The guidelines state HERE that if there is no consensus, the closing admin is to leave the Category alone. He did not do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercy11 (talk • contribs)

• Endorse as accurate reading of policy-based consensus. Arguments supporting category too often rest on distortion of sources and willful misreading of applicable policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The first sentence appears to be a case of WP:MAJORITY. The second appears to be a case where WP:MAJORDICK applies.

Claims that the category violated policy (first WP:OR, second WP:V, then WP:RS, and last WP:NPOV) were one by one demonstrated to be without foundation. Then came the "objective criteria" and "prior precedent" arguments, and we also disproved those as well, for sedition charges -is- an objective criteria and the use of past precedents violates the delete policy. What else can the opposition say now? The personal accusations above of "[willful] distortion of sources" and "willful misreading of policies" are understandable now that the opposition has, it seems, run out of reasonable grounds to kill the category. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]

• Comment. I find it rather exhausting to even read this discussion. Would it be possible for everyone to just state their opinion once and let others do the same, without extended rebuttals of others' points? I don't know why this needs to turn into a "re-litigation" of all the questions that were discussed in depth at the CFD. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close; proper read of consensus and policy. That the term "political prisoner" is widely used is not in dispute, but that only proves that it is verifiable that the term is applied, not that it is verifiable that the term is correctly applied. It's quite clear (to me, at least) that its application is never more than a POV characterization, not an objective one. While it may be appropriate to state within an article that X group has called individual Y a political prisoner, categorizing an article applies the label without any attribution and is thus POV. postdlf (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - (1) the discussion and consensus: the closure seemed to represent consensus. If the closure had accepted a rename (which is something I suggested) I think that would have been less strongly evidenced as consensus in the discussion. But there was certainly no consensus for keeping the category as it was. (2) Application of policy/guidelines: another accusation raised is that the closure overrules or ignores WP:V, and that even consensus can't trump this. This argument shows a failure to understand that categorization depends on balancing different and sometimes competing policies and guidelines, and in this case WP:NPOV was clearly a valid factor for the closer to weigh up. (A comparable "V vs NPOV" scenario: I can find seriously scholarly work in which Muhammad is described as a "False prophet", but his article doesn't belong in Category:False prophets because the cited work would only be expressing one point of view. A broader "weighing up other things against verifiability" example is overcategorization: it is both verifiable and noteworthy that David Schwimmer was an actor on Friends, and a large part of his article is devoted to this. Yet he doesn't, and shouldn't, appear in "Category:Friends actors" or indeed any subcategory of "Category:Friends" because sorting actors by their film and TV appearances would not enable effective navigation. Verifiability and even noteworthiness can be perfectly validly trumped at CFD if other factors of are felt more important for a reasonable navigational structure, and this is one of those cases.) TheGrappler (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul J. Alessi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I do not understand why this actor's page was deleted, I understand sources are a major thing but it appears as though the page was mass nominated for a delete, appears to be use of sockpuppetry. As a fan of Paul's I do not understand why the page was so speedily deleted. Paul has been an actor in numerous television parts and movies. I propose that if a person such as http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Jack_Ringca who is a yo-yo'er and a drummer from Florida who is no longer active in either field. I feel that Paul's page should be un-deleted. I am currently assisting in trying to locate more sources for information on Paul's work and career in Acting, production, and other fields. Thank you. 98.82.76.112 (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed nomination; this went through a third AfD. No comment on the merits. Mackensen (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Sparse AfD participation, but 2 notability guideline-citing calls for deletion is enough, the AfD really could not have been read any other way. If you want to try to find sources to meet the Wikipedia's guidelines then that's always a possibility, but looking through his list of roles, they appear to be minor and/or in films that are themselves non-notable. Tarc (talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• vote for un-deletion I feel Paul J. Alessi is notable enough to warrant a page for himself. I have found numerous wikipedia pages of people that are not known at all to the general public and am confused as to why an actor's page was removed. Also I would like to add that Paul is a producer and as per his IMDB page has been involved in NUMEROUS productions. Please give me info on what sort of sources would be acceptable to wikipedia as I am very confused by numerous pages and pages of drivel and guidelines that make this place seem more like a neighborhood H.O.A than a place for research, and the preservation of knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.210.40 (talk)AKA A-less 15:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  First off, a call to "endorse" means that you wish to see the discussion's results upheld, i.e. the page deleted. From the rest of your comments, I think you mean to say "overturn the deletion". Second, if we're going to go by his role as a producer, I believe the closest guideline is WP:CREATIVE. But there, we hit the same issues as with his acting roles, especially as he has done both for several of these films. The films themselves just aren't "well-known or significant", as the criteria requires. Tarc (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarc, I do not understand how wikipedia works as the democracy of this place reminds me of a bad H.O.A. I feel anyone with 184,000 results on google from independent movie/other news/reviews does indeed warrant a wikipedia page, as well as being on the first season of a reality show. The same results could be applied to the whitehouse party crashers wikipedia page, or the octo-mom due to general public dislike of either. Notable figures in their fields they are not, but yet they still have wikipedia pages. Paul J. Alessi is an accomplished actor and producer, and if this iteration of the page was deleted then another one will be written to the guidelines. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.210.40 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• vote for un-deletion I am not understanding why there are many pages of content with no source and people that have done nothing but yo-yo and fallen off the face of the earth, but a notable actor gets deleted? This makes about as much sense as a broken piggy bank. I nominate that this page be fully restored as Paul is a known actor. He has many sources and he is still active, unlike a person I found on here that did yo-yoing years ago. -Feanix — Preceding unsigned comment added by FeanixFire (talk • contribs) 15:39, 14 September 2010 — FeanixFire (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  As I explained to the IP user above, an "endorse" means that you would wish the article to stay deleted. As for your argument, we generally tried to avoid "If !A then also !B" arguments. If you find an article which you feel warrants a deletion, the by all means begin a deletion discussion on that article. Tarc (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Endorse, per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow EndorseAMuseo (talk) 12:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete: This appears to have not been a clean deletion. Being that it was of a controversial nature, the page should be restored to its last version before the proposal. If someone wants to propose it again, that's fine, and hopefully, the discussion will be clean. Linda Olive (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which part to you see as not being clean, as being controversial? Articles creator was informed. AFD listed in a timely fashion. Two people arguing for it's deletion, one commenting on it not being a speedy deletion candidate (G4), no one arguing against deletion and an administrator closing it as delete. Looks good to me. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The article had no reliable sources and therefore deletion was justified. Nobody in this debate has demonstrated that such sources actually exist. Ruslik_Zero 14:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources: http://www.housewifeinhollywood.com/tag/paul-j-alessi/ , http://www.movieroomreviews.com/knuckle-draggers-movie-review , http://www.reelheart.com/2009/reelheart/582 (won best actor for Knuckle Draggers), I am still trying to locate the rest of the sources from independent web pages/publications for un-deletion purposes. My main complaint is that the article seems to be personally targeted by the original deletion nomination user and then vigilantly voted over and over by friends of his in a sort of personal vendetta not against the actor in anyway but just because the user wanted the page removed for his own reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.210.40 (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for those sources, however, they do not meet the criteria for reliable independent sources (see here and here). HouseWifeInHollywood is a blog written by a housewife; MovieRoomReviews "is a media site with a balance of personal opinion reviews and news items, written and edited mostly by the domain and website owner" (from the website); RHIFF is a film festival, but looking at the article on Wikipedia, I see no evidence that it would meet the notability guidelines - and I can't find coverage at reliable sources about it, which makes usign it as a source a bit iffy. Also, it should be noted that DRV is not "AfD part 2", it is to discuss whether the close was correct or not. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. (I nominated the article) Suggestion this was mass nominated don't make sense. The only thing I've seen to anything suggesting possible sockpuppetry has been in this deletion review. Other parts of the reasoning for this review are WP:ILIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF. DRV is not a contiuation of AFD and the AFD in question was run and closed properly. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I see nothing wrong in the close for this AfD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Motorsport in the UK (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I cannot understand why the decision to close this nomination as kept, when the only person to vote keep was the template creator himself, but then if you are the creator of the template, you really will do anything to save your template, well who wouldn't. My point for deletion was as I pointed out that if you added a more comprehensive amount in bluelink or redlink that have the potential to become bluelinked, then this template will become too oversized for its own good, which the admin failed to realise that the one keep vote was from the creator himself. Since this decision to keep this template, I have addad a lot more in to illustrate my point, not to mention there will be some more to come. Donnie Park (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse While there was only 1 !vote favoring keeping the template, a second editor endorsed a modification to the template, an expressed desire to have the template retained in a different form and an implicit keep. The nominator failed to attract any other delete !voters, which is the real issue here. A relist or no-consensus close would also have been acceptable, but there's no abuse of discretion involved here. Jclemens (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The one vote was by the creator of the template himself who didn't have a valid reason why this template is worth keeping, I can't see that vote is worth keeping considering it was by the creator himself. Personally, I would like another renomination as I think this is a joke that it was closed as a keep considering that weak keep vote was by the creator himself. Donnie Park (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to point out that there is no second editor, the keep nominator endorsed a modification to the template that I cannot see made much difference as series come and go a lot like I pointed out. Donnie Park (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So, you have added a ton of redlinks to the template increasing its size by almost three times! Now you are claiming that because of this it suddenly has become more deletable than before. You are obviously trying to make a point here. Ruslik_Zero 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The nominator didn't convince anyone else to support deletion, and the deletion rationale is poorly reasoned at best. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No reason was provided for deletion; the administrator got it right. It's not a bad argument for a split or a redesign, but those are editorial questions best decided elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 11:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The reason for deletion appears to be "I don't like it". I also find it sad that you were so pointy as to add all those redlinks. You didn't get anyone to support the deletion nomination, and the correct decision was to keep the template -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Topsite (www) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Widespread and important web concept - 106 million ghits! Toplist was effectively blanked by the nominating author. Insufficient attempt to find sources - certainly there are many topsite scripts available. The idea is of a similar vintage to banner exchanges and webrings. Rich Farmbrough, 14:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

So where are the sources? The AfD appears to hinge on the lack of sourcing--many people asserting sources should be findable, no sources brought forth in the AfD. I don't doubt that there might be sources out there, but the AfD looks eminently reasonable and I endorse Spartaz' close. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Google hits are irrelevant, and mere existence is not the same as there being sufficient verifiable content for us to have an article. Rich's argument is essentially IVEHEARDOFIT and GHITS. I couldn't find any discussion of the idea of "Toplists" in reliable sources either, so I doubt the failure of those at AfD to find such sources was due to neglect. If Rich or anyone else can dig up sources then deletion could be reconsidered - but not until then. Fences&Windows 17:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The articles in as-deleted state were awful, and there were a total of zero convincing keep arguments at either. Show me some decent sources and I'll happily support recreation, but so far I'm not seeing much. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, clear consensus to delete. Argument presented here is essentially WP:GHITS. Would support recreation, but only if a suitably referenced replacement article is prepared first. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse clear consensus, and GHITS is always an extraordinarily poor reason to keep anything. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah well not enough time to research this particular one myself. We should perhaps let it become a palimpsest, until the history of such things is written widely. Rich Farmbrough, 02:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse Consensus seems clear - and I note that despite the nominator and one of the 'delete's saying that they would change their opinion if reliable sources could be found, these were not found. GHITS is not a basis for keeping an article - especially when I can't see any at reliable sources! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010 West Bank shooting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

August 2010 West Bank shooting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Overturn to keep on both There was no consensus to delete. The claim that NOTNEWS trumps NOTABILITY seems weak because the editors who supported retention made a case that this incident was not routine, having particular special characteristics and the closer failed to address this argument. In asserting the primacy of the not news argument, the close lacked consistency with our general practise and failed to observe the guidance of WP:DGFA by not respecting the judgement of the editors and deleting despite the element of doubt. AMuseo (talk)

The articles should be kept for two reasons. One is that there is a WP:CONS that individual terrorism incidents are significant. This consensus is demonstrated by the fact that Wikipedia has hundreds of such articles, many about incidents as minor as the Columbus Shopping Mall Bombing Plot. That article has been on Wikipedia since 2007. The fact that hundreds of stable Wikipedia articles exist on minor plots, incidents of intended terrorism that never happened, makes it clear not that anyone is arguing that Israel/Palestine articles should be treated differently, as the closing administrator has asserted, but that I/P articles are in fact being treated differently than other articles. To wit: they are deleted whereas comparable articles about incidents of terrorism elsewhere in the world are not. Note, for example, that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting was nominated for deletion before I had even finished writing it. The 2010 Ottawa terrorism plot was not treated this way. Nor was the 2010 Newry car bombing. To keep them but delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting you have to argue that I/P articles be treated differently than articles about the British Isles. My second argument is that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2010 West Bank shooting and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 2010 West Bank shooting should not be deleted under NotNews because they are about incidents that are having a real impact on the peace process and on the construction freeze in settlements in the West Bank. in particular, because pressure from settlers in the West Bank has caused the government of Israel to lift the ban on construction in West Bank settlements [18], [19], but also it is widely understood that Hamas launched the attacks in a deliberate effort to derail the peace talks [20], [21]. there are dozens more articles like these in this week's news. Deleting an incident with this kind of impact as a news story of merely temporary interest is incorrect.AMuseo (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus on both - there wasn't so much as a majority supporting deletion, how can there be consensus? The closing admin cited "newish users" participation, but even with their votes disqualified the results were 55% and 50% supporting deletion in the June and August AFD respectfully, not even borderline consensus (and still not even a majority in the later). Rami R 13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep on both. In both cases, about half the participants in the discussion advocated keeping and half deleting. Rami is right that this looks like a no-consensus, but almost all of the people in both AfDs who actually discussed the issue, rather than merely voting and citing a Wikipedia policy with no substantiation of its applicability here, advocated keeping. The arguments they raised were not responded to. (If this assessment is challenged, I can itemize the users and the arguments, but I'd really rather not.) If consensus or lack thereof were measured by votes as opposed to quality of arguments, there would be no point in having discussions. An independently sufficient reason to overturn to no consensus, if not to keep, is that there seems to be a Wikipedia-wide consensus that terror attacks are notable, as several users pointed out. To go against this consensus, deletion advocates had to bear the burden of showing why these terror attacks are exceptional, something they clearly failed to do. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus on both Closing administrator imposed his view of policy in these AfD discussions, disregarding the actual consensus of those who participated who addressed the NOTNEWS issue and explained why it was not relevant here. There was no consensus for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is not forum shopping. 1, 2, 3. --Jmundo (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to a wikiproject and to two editors talk pages in bland non-prejudicial manner is not forum shopping either, of course.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep—closing administrator made an incorrect decision both in regards to the deletion policy, and the policies he cited. Both sides presented an argument but the consensus seemed to be keep. The assertion that WP:NOTNEWS trumps WP:N is false. These policies aren't even about the same thing; it's like comparing apples to oranges. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep From NOTNEWS: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." While NOTNEWS is indeed policy, it is often used inappropriately via WP:VAGUEWAVE. A "no consensus" close would have been within discretion based on the numbers, but the NOTNEWS arguments misrepresent the policy and should have been accorded less weight. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and censure the abuse of the DRV process. Disagreeing with the outcome is not a valid rationale to file a deletion review, and as many seem to willfully ignore, an AfD is a discussion, not a vote. Consensus is not about bean-counting, but rather about about weighing the strengths and weaknesses of the opinions. You disagree with how the closing admin weighed those opinions? IMO, too flippin bad. It is well within admin discretion to do so. No wrongdoing on his part here, no valid reason to overturn. Move on. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. We wrote WP:EVENT for a reason people! WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS clash, and that guideline on the notability of events is an attempt to reconcile the two. It'd be nice if it were referred to just occasionally, it's actually quite nuanced. Sheesh. Because of this clash, vaguewaves at guidelines or policies are pointless, and closes like those of Spartaz that simply assert that something fails WP:NOTNEWS rather than demonstrate why this is the case despite opposing arguments are basically worthless. Therefore overturn to no consensus, as the closer has failed to sufficiently explain their reasoning and appears to be simply applying their own personal preference to side with those vaguewaving at NOTNEWS instead of analysing the debate. And Tarc, don't be silly: DRV is to challenge admin decisions, this is plainly not an abuse. Don't be a wikilawyer. Fences&Windows 17:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  DRVs should be be for serious misapplications of policy, not "I disagree with the outcome". Doubly so for cesspool topic areas like Israel-Palestine, where the reasons are partisan rather than procedural to oppose the AfD conclusion. Tarc (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, Tarc, you're welcome to your opinion. You're welcome to present it here at DRV... but implying that other editors are not opining in good faith does not lead to an appropriately collegial environment. With all due respect, please argue policies, not motivations. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yea... Surely you don't need to be told that AGF is not a suicide pact, Clemens, you've been around the block long enough. Reading this discussion, I see quite a bit of bad faith and personal attacks directed at the closing admin. Tarc (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I could care less about there, you've accused people here of having "partisan rather than procedural" reasons. If that wasn't your intent, I strongly suggest you clarify your above statement. Jclemens (talk) 01:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What was said there shows that comments here are not being made in good faith, IMO. Is that clear enough for you? Tarc (talk) 13:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It certainly appears to be that your WP:ABFing despite plenty of opportunities to repudiate that impression, which is unfortunate, because you're also quite wrong, at least as it applies to me. I can't directly comment on others' motivations, but I AGF that they're not pretexting their rationales. Jclemens (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not assuming, I'm looking at a WP:SPADE. That is the end of this as far as I am concerned, so please, do not address me again. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  sorry, but you don't get to cast aspersions on everyone's motives AND then hide their responses to this behavior. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per Tarc. DRV isn't a second bite at the apple. Nobody has produced a convincing argument that the AfD closing procedure was flawed. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy that should be followed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep per Jalapenos and YnHockey. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Fences & Windows makes a persuasive argument here. I might have considered endorsing a delete close that had properly explained why the NOTNEWS !votes were stronger than the N ones, rather than just making a bland statement in favour of them without explaining why. As it stands, delete doesn't make sense. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep, per Jclemens & Fences & Windows. NOTNEWS was intended to keep out 'routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities', no tmajor events that received widespread national and international coverage, such as these. WP:EVENT specifically states that 'Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).' HupHollandHup (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse "NOTNEWS trumps N" is a completely uncontroversial statement. Just reading the keep !votes - especially those near the end - it was right to give them less weight. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep on both per AMuseo's detailed explanation. LibiBamizrach (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus on both I support keep, but the issues here is the admin's closing of the AfD singling out these widely reported and analysed events as NOTNEWS, and the Afd did not reach a consensus on anything. --Shuki (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn to no consensus Not routine events but serious incidents which were plausibly argued to be major enough to not be covered under NOTNEWS (although I'd prefer if people didn't refer to these incidents as terrorism which is a very non-neutral term). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. While NOTNEWS is part of a general WP policy, it does not provide specific detailed, or enforceable criteria for establishing the cutoff point between what is notable, in the encyclopedic sense, and what is merely newsworthy. The cutoff points/standards are determined by community consensus, an ongoing/dynamic/evolving, and sometimes imperfect process. It is not the closer's role to determine what consensus the community ought to have reached, based on the closer's view of where the cutoff point should be and the closer's reading of NOTNEWS. Unless the expressed consensus in a discussion is unquestionably aberrant, the community's determination should be respected. The idea that NOTNEWS "trumps" N strikes me as entirely misconceived; NOTNEWS is designed to provide general standards for interpreting N; if the two are found to be in direct conflict, then either the interpretation of one or the other, or both, is misguided, or NOTNEWS is defective and needs to be reworked. The former case is much more likely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus on both The deletion was inappropriate. There was no consensus. There are hundreds of articles that are about news and nobody complains about those. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFF. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep on both. While the closing admin's policy analysis is correct, it is a strawman argument. The essential point of the consensus in favor of keeping the articles was that the incidents notability extended beyond the dog-bites-man stories which NONTEWS was intended to exclude. None in favor of keeping the articles made the argument that the closing admin was "debunking", namely that GNG trumps NOTNEWS.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep on both. Per Museo.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn , application of WP:NOT NEWS here is wildly overextended and against the general consensus of how it should be used.It is intended for trivial local events only, not those that affect international relations or major political conflicts. And there is an advantage in consistency, --someone deviating from a general string of decisions should be able to explain why, We're too important now to decide everything ad hoc from first principles. If users find something here, they expect to find similar things also. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the misuse of NOTNEWS, I completely agree. It is one of the (more than a few) that some editors seem to use having read no further than the title, inasmuch as their bandying about of the guidelines fail completely to reflect the meaning of the guidelines -- but just resemble what one's guess might be as to what the guideline said if they only read the title. Perhaps we could help those editors by renaming some of these guidelines (e.g., notrivialnews).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and restore both. This was the main news in Israel when it occurred, dominating the headlines at the time. I was in Israel at the time of some of these shootings, and that's all the TV and print media was covering. The motivation for these events was also notable; these were on the level of terrorist acts. Linda Olive (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Quite simply, the closing admin felt the policy truly trumps the guideline. I see a similar habit on the AfDs that is occurring her on the DRV, lots of WP:PERNOM or WP:MAJORITY !votes, which frankly really are people just voting without a proper rationale behind the vote. The point of discussion is to present real reasons why an article should be kept, deleted, etc., not votes because people want an article to be kept. These polices written for a reason; if you disagree with them, propose a change to them. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that a perusal of the afd will reveal that real reasons were given as to why the Wikipedia article is not inconsistent with NOTNEWS and none of them included arguments that N trumps NOTNEWS (an arguement the closing admin made up himself) or arguments that NOTNEWS is a policy that anyone disagrees with.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure. The closing administrator correctly realised that WP:NOTNEWS, a policy, overrules WP:N, a guideline. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Stifle, you've been around long enough and I'm presuming you don't have a particular personal axe to grind in the I-P area, as I don't, so I'd really like you to comment in more detail on why you think NOTNEWS applies, given the current wording of NOTNEWS, to this situation. We're all agreed that NOTNEWS trumps N... but not that this sort of event is covered by the wording or intent of NOTNEWS. Can you please articulate in more detail why you think it applies? Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the shootings are one-off, transient events. WP:EVENT elucidates this further. Now I appreciate that you're trying to demolish my argument and won't accept anything that I post, so I'm not going to respond to this any more. Stifle (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - policies do in fact override guidelines and it is an entirely uncontroversial thing to say. All this over encyclopedia articles where every single source was a news article from the day of the attack. Until WP:NOT is modified these articles remain inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and the closure was proper. nableezy - 14:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

point of fact. User:Nableezy is entitled to his own opinion; he is not entitled to his own facts. He states flatly that both of these articles exclusively include material from articles written on the day of the events. Moreover, even if Nableezy's false statement that "every single source was a news article from the day of the attack." were true it would be irrelevant, since reliebe newspapers have since covered such events as settlers breaching the construction freeze in self-proclaimed response to these attacks, Hamas holding celebrations of the attacks in Gaza, Hamas spokesmen threatening further attacks in articles that cite these attacks as indications of their power to attack using sleeper cells, and various pundits musing over the likely impact of these two attack on peace talks. Had the article not been deleted, they would both now feature many more of the news article that are still being written about the impact and aftermath of these attacks [29] , "west+bank"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#q=shootings+"west+bank"&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn&fp=6f32b8af52b7e0b8, [30]. AMuseo (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single source in the June article was a news piece from the day of the attack. Every single one. You dont like how the AFD turned out and are now playing this game to get a second chance. That you can find op-eds now does not change that fact. There is no false statement in what I wrote and saying so is both malicious and untrue. nableezy - 15:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, of course, for this one [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/world/middleeast/01settlers.html?_r=1&ref=world "Killing of Israeli Settlers Rattles Leaders, Isabel Kershner, Mark Lander, August 31, 2010, New York Times. I hope that you will 1) retract your incorrect factual assertion that in both articles ""every single source was a news article from the day of the attack." Since it is demonstrably untrue of both articles. and 2) address the real issue, the fact that these two incidents have garnered ongoing news coverage and, in addition to their non-transient importance, are notable under WP:EVENT.AMuseo (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I missed that one article. That one article which mentions the June incident in passing. The other 10 sources were all from the day of the attack. However, DRV is not a second chance to argue the AFD, it is to see if the close of the AFD is proper. The closing admin wrote an entirely non-controversial closing statement, that NOTNEWS, a policy, overrides N, a guideline. There is nothing procedurally or factually wrong with the close and as such the DRV should end with it being endorsed. nableezy - 16:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And except that not everyone would consider this a mere "in passing" reference. The second-to-last paragraph of this New York Times article, written two months after the event, reads"In July, Israeli security officials said they had arrested several members of Hamas’s military wing who were responsible for the fatal shooting of an Israeli police officer south of Hebron in June." [31].AMuseo (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had hoped that you would apologize for calling me "malicious," asserting the my statement was "malicious and unture" and for asserting bad faith on my part, accusing me of "playing this game to get a second chance." As I see it. You made an error, and , when called on it, instead of checking your facts, you made a second assertion of error and accused me of bad faith. You now admit to having made an error in your assertions that sources for the page on the June attack were all form the day of the attack, what about your similar assertion of the page on the August attack? Was that also an "error?" Or were you stating your assumptions as matters of fact on a discussion page? As I see it, we have a difference of opinion: you believe that these two articles fail WP:NOT NEWS; I believe that they qualify as notable under WP:EVENT. But I am troubled by your uncollegial style.AMuseo (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]