Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January

Verismic Software (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article Verismic Software had been approved through Articles for Creation process and then deleted by user:fastily. The editor gave the reason as G11, but everything stated in the article has a reliable outside source and is written in a factual tone. I placed a message on Fastily's talk page but they are out until Feb. 8th. I then placed a message on the admin who originally approved the article and they suggested I post a request here. Not sure what else to explain? Thanks, HeidiSmith (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore. The article was not written in a promotional tone; it appeared more or less factual and neutral. The G11 criteria are not met, nor are any other speedy deletion criteria that I can see. Is it only me or do we recently see a lot of questionable speedy deletions by Fastily (talk · contribs) on this board?  Sandstein  21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per Sandstein. Fastily's been very active in deletion of late, and I've been assuming that the high number of Fastily-related DRVs probably has more to do with the amount of work he's done than with a decline in quality.—S Marshall T/C 22:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of late, Fastily has done more deletion work than any other admin. Almost all of his work on Wikipedia is deletion related. Given the amount of work he does in the area, it is unsurprising that he has more actions brought up at DRV. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore - the article as it stands is rather brief, but it's well-sourced so there's scope for improvement. ~~ Bettia ~~ ^talk 10:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Take to AFD as it wasn't a G11. But reading at the sources there's clear notability concerns. Source 1 is a type of press release by the creator of the Company. Source three is a press release and the rest of the sources are passing mentions, or don't mention the subject at all like [1]. The only source that may be reliable is this, but honestly and most of these local business news sites content is press releases, which this article sounds like. Secret ^account 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AFD. This did not meet G11, because while there was clearly a promotional intent, the article is not solely promotional. However, per Secret it is questionable whether notability is established by the sources, which all seem to have problems of independence and/or lack of substantial coverage. This needs scrutiny at AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Secret, Verismic IS mentioned on this page [2], it is the one of the bullets above the fold 'Sparxent's Verismic Software' and I think being named one of InfoWorld's top 15 Green IT projects of 2011 is pretty notable [3]. Not exactly a 'passing mention'. HeidiSmith (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the company didn't win the top 15 green projects award. The Boulder Valley School District was the winner with a small passing mention they used the software, so that is misleading. The other source I just saw the mention, and that's clearly not a claim of notability, or a significant mention of the company. Secret ^account 23:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, list at AFD if desired As already argued by the people above: not a G11 candidate, but unclear whether the subject is notable. Yoenit (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• You should get rid of this page right away, it's ridiculous, come on, why even thinking if it should be in the Wikipedia or not? It lacks decent sources and is unreliable. Seriously. Wikipedia's IQ is dropping by the second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutshell1111 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secure error messages in software systems (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Two deletes which addressed the reason given for deletion: essay-like how-to content. Closer gave no policy-based rationale about why the "keep" and "merge" votes raised valid objections. Pnm (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you had asked Stifle to explain his close, he would undoubtedly have told you that the objections raised by the "keep" and "merge" were that the material is fixable by the normal editing process. In other words, the consensus was that while the existing content was of little use, Wikipedia should have an article with this name, so the material needs to be rewritten rather than deleted. The policy basis for this is in WP:ATD.—S Marshall T/C 09:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness to Pnm, I do have a standing waiver of any requirements to discuss my AFD closures with me before coming here. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stifle's waiver notice is here, and after reading another contributor's recent discussion contesting a "no consensus" closure without a stated rationale I concluded I should just come here. – Pnm (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I contended the article did not seem fixable by editing – and still do. Any article with this title would necessarily violate WP:NOTHOWTO or WP:NOTMANUAL. If you think otherwise may I ask you to explain the reason you disagree, or attempt to demonstrate the editing fix you suggest? – Pnm (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not my opinion, Pnm. It was the view expressed by Dcoetzee and History2007. On the face of it Canvashat and Tigerboy's remarks neither agree nor disagree with that, but they say "merge", and indicating that this title should be a bluelink. (By convention DRV regards "merge" !votes as a variant of "keep" rather than a variant of "delete".) Thus what Canvashat and Tigerboy have to say would be taken to support Dcoetzee and History2007, although perhaps given rather less weight. Bobrayner's remark suggest that the content should be deleted because nobody's going to fix it, which carries little weight per our editing policy (WP:IMPERFECT). That only leaves yourself as nominator and Lambiam, which is not sufficient to overrule the "keep" side. Stifle's drawn towards the deletionist side of the force a little more than I am, but I'm not surprised that he couldn't find a delete consensus in that debate. Believe you me, if there was one there to be found, I'm pretty sure Stifle would have found it.—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll see Tigerboy gave an "overturn" opinion below. But okay, I see that two people gave their opinions that it's fixable by editing. I've just tried with these edits. It's still OR, but merging it into error message won't make that article worse. – Pnm (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do see that, but wise though Stifle is, he's not psychic. He could only decide based on what was written at the time of closure.—S Marshall T/C 21:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The only user wanted to keep the article gave the reason "Content is very, very low quality. Topic is not." I can see how Stifle got "no consensus", but I think that a lot of the "differing" views were in fact saying the same thing- that the article did not merit independent existence.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete, or redirect, or merge. Only one user wanted to retain this as a separate article, and even they said that it would need to be cut to two lines. There is clear consensus to not retain this as a separate article, although how exactly to do so is a bit more open to the closer's discretion.  Sandstein  21:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There is consensus at the AfD that the article is poorly written and should be stubbified or redirected. There is no consensus that it needs to be deleted. A redirect or (selective) merge can be carried out by any user acting boldly and then discussed as necessary on the article talk page. See WP:BRD. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Low quality is not a policy-based reason for deletion, and all arguments on that basis should be disregarded. To argue along that line, it is necessary to show that a the quality of the article could never be improved, which requires the topic to be unsuitable in some particular way, or the content to be positively bad in some manner. not just low quality. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Feel free to edit, merge or even redirect. Or try continuing the discussion on the article talk page. One interested editor is more than enough to fix this. If fixes prove unworkable, feel free to renominate at AfD, preferably in not less than two months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Like Tigerboy1966 and Sandstein, I see a consensus against a standalone article, which is usually better expressed as "redirect, history available for merging" or "delete, I will provide history on request". The problem here is that there is no consensus to do anything specific. Flatscan (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no reason to not have an article on this subject. It's actually reliable and notable. You people have to know when an article is reliable and when it's not. Please, do not touch it.
• Endorse and spell in all relevant guidelines and policies that the XfD discussions are supposed to judge on articles' names, not content. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimatum (American band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I think I'm doing this right... Ultimatum (American band) was deleted following a standard deletion review. I got the deleting admin to restore the page to my sandbox where I and other WPers could improve the article, addressing the lack of references and significance of the labels the band is on. I believe that these improvements (and continuing improvements like adding albums, etc.) have improved this article to the point where it is ready for resubmission to the mainspace. I contacted Mr. Ritzman who instructed me to resubmit the article here, rather than proceeding with a move without consulting anyone. I have informed Mr. Ritzman of this resubmission and await your (hopefully positive) comments. Thank you.

Here's the updated page. User:5minutes/Ultimatum (American band) 5minutes (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, 5minutes. Well done for a creditable effort there. I think you need to remove the "influences" section which is uncited, and for the magazine references, add page numbers to those citations that lack them. It would be best if you could also supply ISSNs. Despite these mild criticisms I think this material is roughly ready for the mainspace and I would not be opposed to putting it there.—S Marshall T/C 08:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per your suggestion, I have updated the magazine references with page numbers (I may still be digging some up) and ISSN's and have removed the influences section pending a discovery of a referenced article that says "the band sounds like so-and-so". 5minutes (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I found a reference to a comparison of their sounds, and so I inserted a statement accordingly (with a link to the reference). 5minutes (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. While I have no knowledge about or interest in this genre of ... sound, the revised article is substantially better than the deleted one, and appears much more likely to be notable after a glance at the references. This does not rule out a second AfDF discussion if anybody still thinks it's non-notable, of course.  Sandstein  21:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. I'm not sure if I even have a vote as the one requesting recreation, but I'll vote anyway. Accept or ignore as you see fit. 5minutes (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Sort of. It's assumed that you'd like to have the article recreated, since you requested that earlier, so your !vote here is redundant. But any admin closing the discussion will understand that anyway, since you quite clearly noted the duplication. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. Looks OK to me, though - as noted - another AFD might result if notability isn't clear enough. I think it's borderline leaning to notable, but that's outside of DRV's scope. The claim, at least, is a credible one. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. The article has been substantially improved and significant effort made to address the notability problems raised at AFD. I have some doubt as to whether the sources listed fully satisfy WP:GNG, because the main source seems to be HM magazine, a former low-circulation niche mag now reincarnated as a fanzine, and refs draw from both incarnations. However, that there is a case to be made that GNG is satisfied, and any further assessment belongs at AFD (if anyone wants to take it there). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And the same for this page. Keep it. Why just keep attacking the articles? Leave it because it is highly notable.
• Question - so should I consider this matter closed? Do I need to recreate the page or will an Admin do so? 5minutes (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best to wait for an admin to formally close the discussion and, presumably, move the draft back to article space. DRV's typically last seven days or so and this one isn't due to be closed till tomorrow. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Didn't know the process. 5minutes (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBC.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This file is ineligible for speedy deletion, because I tagged it as do not move to Commons. From WP:CSD#F8, the following condition must be met: The image is not marked as {{do not move to Commons}}. This condition is clearly not met. I would normally just undelete it, but I already did that twice, thinking there was a mistake. However, User:Edokter is clearly willing to wheel-war over the issue, and I don't want to lose my adminship status. The reason I want it to be kept local is this: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom (not that I should need to provide this, seeing as policy does not require it for the user wanting the image to be kept. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: Undeleted for the purpose of this DRV.
• The image has been moved to Commons in 2008 and deleted locally at the same time. Then you undelete the image on January 10 2012 and slap a do-not-move template on it. That's circular reasoning. And yes, you definitely should have provided the reasoning you just gave; I spent a good hour searching for any discussion on Commons relating to the BBC logo, and I couldn't find any (and it is not listed in the Commons discussion either). I just saw a file with a CSD-F8 tag, reviewed it (twice now) and found no reason not to delete it. So don't be suprised if other admins revert your changes because you fail to point to any relevant discussion elsewhere. Since the file is not even under discussion on Commons, endorse delete. — Edokter (talk) — 10:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Edokter, you have wheel-warred and you do need to take that seriously. Technically, the evidence in the history of that file would be sufficient grounds to refer you to ArbCom for a summary desysopping. I think that would be much too extreme in this case, but you are required to engage in collegial discussion with your fellow administrator rather than trying to steamroller him. The appropriate course of action for you now is:-

  1) Apologise to Magog.

  2) Speedily close this DRV as "snow overturn".

  3) If you still wish to delete the file, open a FFD and seek a good faith consensus to support your view.

  You will find that there are very few circumstances in which DRV will endorse wheel warring, and this is not one of them. You would need a very urgent and pressing reason for doing it. Our main job here at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and wheel warring is very far from correct.—S Marshall T/C 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right, I should have discussed this. Therefor I apologise. I do feel the undeletion was just as much out of process as the deletion, hence why we are here now. And I do take issue with Magog not feeling the need to support his action with an explanation, in this case, pointing to a discussion on Commons would have been appropriate. How am I supposed to be aware of discussion on other projects if there is no explanation? I will not be closing this DRV because I am involved now, so I will let another admin use his/her discretion. If that results in a keep, I will happily file an FFD. — Edokter (talk) — 12:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Did you really revert away {{PD-ineligible-USonly|the United Kingdom}} and then speedy it yourself, twice? Wow. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once, after I reverted myself. And since the Commons copy was not marked PD-USonly, nor subject to any linked discussion there, the PD-USonly is null and void here. — Edokter (talk) — 14:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear on two points you've brought up: 1) Yes, I undeleted after your redeletion, but I'd thought you'd made some sort of mistake. 2) the PD-ineligible-USonly tag has a link to commons:COM:TOO, which itself has a decent length section on why the UK threshold of originality is extremely low. By adding the tag, I was under the impression that this would suffice for reasoning. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • First time I missed the fact that it was even undeleted. I only looked at the Commons version, and saw no discussion linking to it in any way, shape or form. Plus, {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} ("Do not copy to Commons") adds to the confusion because the file is already there. This created an ambiguity in which I could only guess at the reasoning. That said... why not just wait until the file on Commons is actually under discussion before restoring any redundant local copies? — Edokter (talk) — 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because it's not a done deal that someone will remember to undelete it locally; people forget. I've seen it happen even after I place a strongly worded note on the talk page stating PLEASE UNDELETE AT ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA IF THIS IS DELETED ON COMMONS (I've noticed only some; I'm sure there are ones I didn't even see). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you guys get a kick out of communicating in wikispeak. Just sayin'. Dadge (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't notice this discussion until today. For a discussion, see commons:COM:VPC#BBC logos (and other sections higher up on the page). For explanation of PD-textlogos in different countries, see commons:COM:TOO#UK. Basically, British logos are problematic in that they have been moved to Commons for years but that it seems that many of them are copyrighted in the UK. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That line of argument, worthwhile though it sounds, probably belongs at FFD.—S Marshall T/C 08:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion discussions are currently being held for a lot of other logos at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom and Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Two British logos. I suggest that no one deletes any British logos from here for F8 reasons until this has been sorted out on Commons since it is likely going to cause lots of deletions over there. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yet, the file on Commons is still not tagged as being under discussion. — Edokter (talk) — 21:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete here - as the file at Commons should be deleted, because even the most trivial of text logos are copyrightable in the UK. --He to Hecuba (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite true; the UK may hold a lower threshold of originality, not a "no" threshold of originality. While that concept is under discussion on Commons, I still feel there is no point in maintaining a duplicate here while the file on Commons is still not tagged. — Edokter (talk) — 01:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, let's delete it here so that it will be forgotten here and disappear altogether from English Wikipedia when people forget to reundelete it here after the Commons deletion. All for the sake of creating extra work for the admins. --Stefan2 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The UK threshold of originality is practically so low to allow any text logo to be copyrightable - I can't think of any recent examples where a logo was judged too simple to be copyrightable in the UK. --He to Hecuba (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep local copy. A request to keep a local copy should ordinarily defeat a deletion under F8 which is for clear and uncontroversial cases. Now that a requests has been clearly made, and a passable reason given it should be retained. The discussion on Commons clearly implicates this file, whether it is tagged or not and there is no reason to weight for Commons to decide what they are doing there before we take action here. It doesn't save space to delete the local copy, after all. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Cricket League (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (XfD2)

Page was speedily deleted on 22 January 2012, reason G4, despite being challenged by two editors. However, the previous AfD discussion took place in June 2011, shortly after the first CCL tournament started. CCL is (Jan/Feb 2012) into its second season and the new article clearly stated this, therefore the article was substantially different from the 2011 article. The event is widely and regularly reported in the Times of India and Hindu Times. I put the recent article through AfC, copy-edited it and added additional sources. The speedy deletion tag was placed on the article while I was in the process of reviewing it (a message at the top of the article clearly stated review was in progress). I notice another article of the same name was created and speedily deleted today, so the 'problem' is not going to go away. The deleting admin, Fastily, is away until 8 February. Sionk (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and renominate: Seems to be a completely different article than the one that's been deleted Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete Sionk's version, not the most recent one. This tournament is clearly notable, IMO, and I'll copy/paste my rationale from the recent AfD here (hope that's OK):

  "There is substantial coverage in major Indian newspapers, as can be seen by a simple google news search. I'll list a few here (but note that there are many more): (1) "Celebrity Cricket League gets hotter", The Times of India; (2) "Celebrity Cricket League excites Salman", The Times of India; (3) "After IPL, it's CCL!", The Hindu; (4) "Cinema Meets Cricket", Indian Express; (5) "Celebrity Cricket League held in Bangalore", The Times of India; (6) "A feast for the eyes", Deccan Herald; (7) "Cricket’s coming home", Khaleej Times; (8) "Salman's Celebrity Cricket League gets hotter", India Today; (9) "Cricket passion rides high as stars take to the pitch", The Hindu; (10) "The cricket star wars get hotter", The Times of India; (11) "Greasepaint to gloves", The Hindu; (12) "Celebs day out", The Hindu; (13) "Cheers to an exceptional performance", Deccan Herald; (14) "K-town puts on its game face", The Times of India; (15) "Joy's game for cricket", The Times of India. Those are all from the first page of my google news archive search [...] I don't think anyone would claim that it's the quality of cricket that makes it notable (i.e. the fact that it doesn't pass WP:CRIN is irrelevant), but rather that it's notable because it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition, it has major crowds (some matches are even being played at Eden Gardens) and is being broadcast on an international television network, Sahara One (ref)."

—Jenks24 (talk) 10:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4 speedy deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• What is the difference between the newest Celebrity Cricket League article and 2012 Celebrity Cricket League? Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I understood, Celebrity Cricket League was about the tournament in general because it didn't specify a year. To be honest, the arguments that any 'Celebrity Cricket League' articles should be deleted because they weren't notable outside of India or because the cricket was of a poor standard were very dodgy indeed. Sionk (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's a bit like National Football League and 2011 NFL season. Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your answers. Considering that each season was deleted after its own AfD, I think that the combined article would be on shaky ground. Weak overturn, the 2012 season is enough new information to avoid G4 for the first AfD, and the slightly different scope is just enough for the second. Flatscan (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is notable by gaining access to the main draw of 2012 PBZ Zagreb Indoors. I request undeletion. -Gabinho^>:) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Maybe if he wins this rather dubiously notable Croatian tournament. But just because this local boy snags a wildcard slot, it's hardly a reason to overturn the AfD decision. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. The No. 3 article of the tennis notability guidelines (NTENNIS) clearly states the following:

Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they

3. Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments:

Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250)

As per the above I request Undeletion of the article. The player is now notable. (Gabinho^>:) 13:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

• Undelete - Gabinho is absolutely correct. If Mesaros competed in the main draw of an international Mens ATP tournament, he meets WP:NTENNIS. The PBZ Zagreb Indoors is notable, not 'dubiously notable'. Sionk (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per Gabinho. Meets NTENNIS, now notable. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not notable. Down with that article. Nobody knows it, sorry, it's just not reliable enough for an article. Don't tell me we're gonna have a page for all tennis playes. Nutshell1111 (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy or keep deleted. By virtue of the NTENNIS guideline, he is presumed to be notable, but we would still need to see a draft article that actually establishes such notability through references to coverage in reliable sources. The guideline cannot preempt the policy WP:V#Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  Sandstein  08:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rescue (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus to delete this critically important tag. The deleting administrator ignored 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes. The admin's looong comment said very little in many words. The admin received a barnstar for the deletion. CallawayRox (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Callaway, first, there was consensus. If you've read my post, you'd know that. Second, I did take into account the votes. If you've read per smy post, you know that. Thirdly, yes; I get barnstars for a lot of my AfD closes, keep or delete, mostly for my willingness to explain things in some detail - which you might want to take into account. And most AfD votes are good-faith and policy based. Being good-faith and policy based is the minimum we expect, not some magical gold standard which proves that the comments are utterly valid and whatever they say should be done. Ironholds (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I will note that your comments about how important policy is and your implicit accusation of bias conflict rather nicely with the line at WP:DRV reading "Listings which attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias, or where nominators do any of these things in the debate, may be speedily closed". It is a shame your enthusiasm for policy and good-faith actions don't extend to writing your own DRV nominations. Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's really silly to "accuse" Ironholds of receiving a barnstar, as if receiving a barnstar later changed the already-made decision, since Ironholds had zero control over that. What exactly was he supposed to do4? Magically know in advance that he might be thanked and protect his user talk page so that no one could post a barnstar? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion: I didn't participate in the discussion, because these typically lead to a lot of drama, and merely participating in such a discussion leads people to question your motives for the rest of your Wikipedia career. But I will participate at this DRV to ensure this dispute is not resurrected. The keep !votes reveal a circular fallacy: "there isn't a consensus that this is canvassing, because all the people that are canvassed by the template say that it isn't canvassing". This circular fallacy is a perennial source of drama when the larger community conducts an RFC (or AFD) about an entrenched and well-organized subcommunity. The closing administrator specializes in large discussions, where finding a consensus requires more than just bean-counting, and drew a conclusion about the consensus that was perfectly reasonable. The essence of the consensus is this: there are better ways to organize a drive to improve an at-risk article without nearly as high a probability of just canvassing blind votes. That's why we're not deleting the entire collaboration, or banning individual editors. It's also why the community is allowing ARS to try a new model, instead of acting in bad faith to stop any efforts to improve articles. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion was closed on the technical position that it's redundant, and oficially all the arguments for canvassing were removed from the final decission because there was no evidence for such serious claim of canvassing. So I'd like to ask the closing Admin to be coherent with the original decision and not take into account deletion endorsements that are based on the canvassing criterion, or at least recognize that this position couldn't count toward consensus for the original deletion. Diego (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ;). Ironholds (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? The above was addressed to the Admin that will close this DRV asking him/her to be coherent with your decision. Did you understand otherwise? Diego (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha; sorry, misunderstood :). Ironholds (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not contradicting that. Just because we didn't delete the template purely on the basis of canvassing, it doesn't mean the admin didn't take into account the fact that there are ways to rescue articles without using a template that increases the potential for canvassing. (e.g.: the heat vs. light argument.) It also doesn't mean that the issue of potential canvassing didn't affect the weight we afforded to the keep arguments, particularly with the circular problem that "we canvassed enough people to fight the consensus that this was canvassing". The canvassing issue can still affect our process, without being the reason for the decision. (But I suppose we could just ask the closing admin.) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Closing admin explained his close in great detail, and consensus was heavily toward deletion by both numbers and strength of arguments. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just imagine, if I were to turn up on CallawayRox's user talk page, and leave a barnstar thanking him for opening a DRV. Then I could come back to the DRV and say that CallawayRox got a barnstar for opening the DRV, and, well, nudge nudge, wink wink. The barnstar argument deserves a barnstar for ingenuity. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn to no consensus. I was not involved in the discussion and have no opinion about the contested template's merits. The closer said that the opinions were split 53:34. Numerically, this delete-keep ratio is not a clear "delete" consensus, but rather closer to a lack of consensus. Still, it is in the range in which closers may weigh the strength of the arguments and give them more or less weight, as the case may be, to arrive at either a "no consensus" or a "delete" outcome. The closer's explanation is one which I personally find persuasive on the merits. But my understanding has always been that an assessment of the strength of XfD arguments must be clearly explained as based on applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines, rather than on the closer's preferences, or else it is simply a "supervote". This is even more important in discussions to which nearly 100 people contributed, because in such cases the numerical outcome is more likely to approximate actual project consensus than in discussions with fewer contributors. Here, the closer did not frame their assessment of the strength of the respective arguments in terms of a clear analysis of the arguments in the light of the policies and guidelines that apply to the issue at hand (if any). As such I cannot be fully confident that the closer did not use the closure as a "supervote", and would therefore overturn the closure to a finding of no consensus.  Sandstein  18:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I didn't explain clearly; I did try to. The TL:DR reason was that TfD policy gives irrelevance as a reason for a template's deletion, and keep !voters could not show that the Rescue template actually added functionality in the field. Ironholds (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... which TfD policy do you mean? WP:TfD is not labeled as policy and does not mention "irrelevance".  Sandstein  19:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The template is redundant to a better-designed template". Ironholds (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... the TfD page is still not policy, but I now understand how you assessed the arguments. Changing opinion to weak endorse, on the basis that difficult, reasonably defensible closures in close cases are entitled to a certain degree of deference.  Sandstein  20:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• WeakStrong overturn to no consensus. per Sandstein. I praise Ironholds for trying to close that difficult debate on its technical merits instead of the claims of battleground and canvassing, but I'm afraid the final rationale falls short of that noble goal. When the explanations given are that "when you have something that provides no additional functionality but strife, the easiest way to resolve this strife (and not, in the end, reduce functionality) is to delete it" and that "if I had simply counted, I would have come up with the same result", it's not clear that the technical closure is strong enough. Arguments were not addressed that the template provides an additional important function for the Wikiproject that other deletion tags do not, and this was not addressed at all in the closing. That said, I'm more concerned that this deletion won't possibly be used to claim that the ARS project was disruptive than to recover this particular rescue mechanism, thus my weak !vote. Diego (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Sandstein has changed to weak endorse, do you wish to modify your statement? Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started with a weak overturn per Sandstein, but our positions have diverged since then. I now concur with SL93 that ignoring the Canvassing accusations because they were poorly sourced was a big mistake in the closure process and thus merits an overturn, so that those accusations can be properly addressed. Thus the strong overturn !vote. Diego (talk) 20:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong endorse deletion: There were more than half again as many deletion votes as keep votes (somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-65% of votes were delete), so to say that it's "no consensus" means you'd need to throw out almost half the delete votes while keeping every single keep vote. And I really see no reason for discounting any of the deletion votes. Most of them were based on the fact that the template was serially misused. And the template has been serially misused, in fact far above and beyond the closer noted (and I think canvassing could have been proven if people so chose). And knocking Ironholds for specializing in tough XfDs is just plain wrong. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The only thing unsurprising about this caterwauling is that ARS took almost a week to file it. The keepers never really mounted a much of a counter-argument as to what justifies their project advertising out in article-space, or why they could not just flag the XfD as Gene93k does to alert wiki-projects. The MfD found that there was a consensus...not only of numbers but also by strength of argument...of editors who either did not want the ARS flag to fly in article-space, or serve as a canvassing rallying point to organize bloc votes. The predictable "I disagree with the closer" grousing never provides a strong foundation for a DRV filing. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The opinion of the delete !voters was largely the same. There was overwhelming consensus that the template was for canvassing. The keep !voters did not establish a convincing argument discrediting that assertion. Delete !voters, and myself, gave several (I gave 6 on a closely related ANI thread) examples of this tag being used to canvass. The close matched the consensus.--v/r - TP 19:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The keepers have since debated flagging XfD as an option, just as Gene93k does; asking us to adopt that change would have not required an AfD based on (unproven!, per Ironholds words) canvassing accusations. The closing rationale, while difficult, is highly irregular: was canvassing a reason for the outcome or not? Diego (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I quite understand what you're saying.--v/r - TP 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diego, on that front you might take my line in the closing that I'd be uncomfortable deleting simply based on canvassing allegations as a hint. Ironholds (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm reassured of your intention. But I see that as inconsistent with the reasons by which this DRV is being contested (.i.e deletion endorsed). Diego (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that if canvassing concerns were the reason why many people !voted for deletion, those should have been the reasons stated at the closing decision, but weren't (at least officially); but the official reasons are not enough to justify a strong closing stance. That's not a clean closing result, and it's likely to create more dissent in the future. Diego (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse This template has been problematic for years. I've seen it used many times to effectively canvass articles and that problem was brought up at the TfD. The argument that the template helped rescue articles ignores the fact that it has rarely been used to source articles, rather it just brings additional "I like it too!" votes to the debates. The consensus according to both the numbers and the arguments was invariably "delete". ThemFromSpace 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm honestly confused as to what this drv is intended to accomplish. What does this "critically important" tag do that Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/Rescue list doesn't? If anything, the rescue list is more effective, since there's no template on the article to alert the afd closer that canvassing has taken place. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was an easy way to notify other members when the rescue list didn't exist. It also served to inform newbies that encountered an instant AfD of their first article, that there is a group of people willing to help them recover the article they created. Apparently this last function was seen as unacceptable by the TfD promoters. Diego (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second argument here—{{rescue}}'s message to the article creator, rather than the other ARS members—is intriguing. (Though it's a bit unfair to say it was seen as unacceptable, since I don't recall it being raised during the tfd nor do I see it on an admittedly cursory reread now.) Is there some way this might be accomplished without simultaneously being a canvassing tool? Maybe a less bitey rewording of {{afd1}} and/or {{afd2}}, or a user talk template? "Hi, welcome to Wikipedia, I notice your article {{{1}}} has been nominated for deletion [[{{{2}}}|here]] because it doesn't look notable (don't be offended, that's wikijargon for 'we can't find third-party coverage', not its usual meaning); maybe you could stop by the discussion and point us at some sources?"? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this confrontation serves to make a less bitey AfD notification for newcomers, it will have be worth something. The argument was used somewhere in the deletion discussion or the conversations linked as reference, I don't recall it exactly but I'm sure to have seen it this morning when reviewing the deletion. Can we elaborate on this idea at some other place? Diego (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closer properly followed process and clearly showed a detailed, neutral review of the arguments presented. The closing reflected the general tone and overall weight of the comments on a read-through and this DRV has presented no failure in the close which would warrant overturning. MBisanz ^talk 20:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you mean that the DRV has presented no failure, or that the failures presented would not warrant overturning? Because I'm pretty sure I've presented a couple of failures that I found in the process. Diego (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  "...presented no failure... which would warrant overturning." The which connects. Killiondude (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  See Killion. MBisanz ^talk 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closer followed process and gave a very detailed neutral closing statement. He gave a good overview of the arguments presented and closing does reflect the discussion. Not even remotely worthy of overturning. -DJSasso (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closed properly and neutrally. Individuals are entitled to disagree with the arguments put forward for deletion, and while I can see that this could perhaps have been closed as no consensus depending on whether or not some of those arguments were considered valid reasons backed up by evidence or simply personal opinions, I don't see a good reason to overturn. --Michig (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Detailed close rationale that clearly and appropriately weighed both sides. Ironholds did not "ignore" the 34 "good-faith and policy-based keep votes", he found that the fifty-some good faith and policy based delete votes had the stronger argument. Resolute 21:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closing rationale was solid. The user who initiated this hasn't followed policy, as they didn't make any attempt to discuss this with the closing admin. No reason to overturn this. AniMate 21:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion the closing administrator did not ignore 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes, he just felt the 53 good-faith and policy-based delete votes carried the day. Mtking ^(edits) 21:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the 53 delete !votes were good-faith, but how were they policy-based? Diego (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That it is was redundant to other templates, it was the only project that got to put it's template on the article and that it was used as a tool to canvas !votes. Mtking ^(edits) 21:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. A case was made that it helped newbies in a way that a simple AfD wouldn't (The special ability of the ARS to deploy its un-removable template to mainspace is helpful as it helps give voice to the otherwise silent interests of countless millions of interested readers and thousands of newbies affected by deletion). That's why we're arguing that these arguments/counterarguments should have been covered by the closing stance, but weren't. As for the claims of canvassing, I will make no more comments since they were explicitly dismissed by the closing rationale. Diego (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough; so, I evaluated it at the time, but didn't want to exhaustively cover everything or I'd end up with a 10-page closing summary. My basic feeling was that this is not a valid counterargument to the claims of irrelevance; the entire point was "unremovable AfD templates already provide a mechanism for keeping people informed about deletion discussions", and so stating "yes, but we provide an unremovable notification template!" is kind of like responding to "it's used for murder" with "don't be silly, it's used for killing people". Ironholds (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - AFD is !voting, and closing admin spelled out clearly which arguments were stronger. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But didn't elaborate on how they were stronger, which AFAIK is required to justify a consensus close. Diego (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn: If you really think that TfD discussion developed a consensus, I'm speechless. Ironholds' supervote close may seem wise to some in its outcome, but in terms of whether the close was proper, that's not what consensus means in the real world, nor normally in wikipedia. Be careful what you wish for, folks. You may be found unnecessary and redundant yourself someday. Of course the ARS is still locating and improving articles (and canvassing people to do it! egads!) no matter what happens to this template,[4] but it would be nice to have the tool. If you endorsers won't reconsider, so be it. Btw, how the hell are so many people participating in this discussion so fast? AfD itself is dying a slow death.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you meant TfD in your first usage of AfD. Killiondude (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

corrected, thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• One would almost think this was an issue that people cared about or something. Ironholds (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to do another hunger strike.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I joined the ARS squadron recently to save worthwhile articles that were tagged, not to go on a canvassing spree with other editors. I disagree with my joining because the negatives outweigh the positives plus the recent drama. When I participate in an AfD on an obviously non-notable topic and only trivial mentions are shown, I hate the rescue tag. It's always, "Here we go again. Should I debate or ignore the nomination?" SL93 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued here that a tweak to the deletion process would help alleviate the drama and reconcile the inclusionist/deletionist positions. Would you like to join the debate? (long story short, the change I propose would make it easier for inclusionists to just 'let it go'). Diego (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The closing admin gave a serious and considered explanation in the original close, and has satisfactorily responded to all queries here. There is no suggestion that those supporting delete were canvassed or were misguided in their comments, and no one has given a policy-based reason to support a reversal of the solid consensus that was based on solid arguments. Johnuniq (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- consensus does not require unanimity, and "I don't like the result" is no reason to overturn a deletion discussion. Ironholds arrived at the right conclusion after properly weighing the opinions presented, and there is no credible claim of mistake or misconduct. Therefore there is no reason to overturn. Reyk _YO! 22:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse though I don't agree with everything the closing admin said this was a fair, well-reasoned close and no convincing reason has been presented to overturn it. The Keep opinions were not ignored, on the contrary they were taken into consideration. The idea that the discussion should be closed as "no consensus" because a large number of people wanted to keep the template would mean all contentious discussions would be closed as "no consensus", something which is clearly unsatisfactory (just because lots of people participated does not mean there is not a consensus present, though it is often harder to determine what that consensus is). I don't think any admin could be motivated to close a discussion a certain way because they would get a barnstar for it. Hut 8.5 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: Not even gonna pretend that I read the whole closing rationale, but killing this template improves Wikipedia. Enough said. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal attack sucks balls, MZMcBride. Enough said.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how in any way is that a personal attack? — Joseph Fox 01:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context, my friend, if you know MZ's opinions, make it clear.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent: Given that I nominated this template for deletion in 2009, it's certainly no surprise to see me here endorsing a deletion discussion that resulted in delete. My only regret is that I wasn't able to vote in the prior TFD. This template has been used as a political weapon, it has long been at odds with how nearly every other WikiProject template operates, and its death is (will be) a Good Thing. Nobody has any issue with users improving legitimate articles. People do have issues with this template being used as an inclusionist beacon, meant only to be applied to articles of marginal or questionable notability. Sadly, killing this template won't prevent future inclusionist vote-stacking and mob mentality, but at least it can be done without an obnoxious and anachronistic banner sitting at the top of the article. Good riddance. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How in flying fuck do all these people show up within 6 hours of this DRV being opened? For godsakes, if we had 1/2 of you improving articles, we wouldn't have articles at AfD ever being tagged for rescue, all the AfD decisions would be obvious. Holy fuck, I'm disgusted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That comment is rich coming from someone with all of five mainspace edits in his last 50. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Resolute 01:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All these people" probably saw this, this, or both on their watchlists. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute, you apparently know nothing about me, so flaunt your ignorance if you must. I founded Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue which improved thousands of articles in 2010-11, have written well over one hundred articles, and have improved hundreds more. Most importantly, I have squashed very many ill-adivsed AfDs from ignorant folks who had no subject matter expertise whatsoever before making their nominations. I live for knowledge, not for its deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to get into a dick measuring contest, I have started over 400 articles, taken and uploaded over 400 images, have 11 FAs and 40 GAs. And congratulations on getting involved in the BLP cleanup months after I did. Now that that's out of the way, I would like to point out that improving articles and dealing with a DRV over a divisive and redundant template are not mutually incompatible. But I'll forgive you for failing to notice that given how hard it must be to see so far up on your high horse. Resolute 03:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute, I never said you weren't an excellent Wikipedian outside your hasty comment about my last 50 edits.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse- Quite frankly I'm mystified as to how deleting this template "improved" the encyclopedia, and the vehemence of those opposed to its existence bemuses me. The claims that it was used as a means of canvassing seems rather weak considering that the AFD page itself serves as a de-facto canvassing tool for those leaning towards the delete side (at least in my eye, your mileage obviously may vary). That said, the consensus, however weakly, leaned towards the delete side, so I cannot, in good conscience, state that I think it should be overturned. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Ironholds correctly assessed the arguments in the deletion discussion, and the assumption of bad faith from the initiator of this DRV is striking. There was absolutely no discussion of the close with the closing admin before this showed up at DRV, which is a fairly strong argument for a speedy endorse of the close. Horologium (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Ho lawdy. Excellent close. Whether it should have been deleted is not the discussion we should be having here; the way forward is being constructively debated elsewhere. pablo 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This nomination is so pathetic I do not believe a rationale is necessary for endorsing. Let's just say I expected this DRV, but I am pleasantly surprised it took almost a week. Yoenit (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse IDONTLIKEIT isn't a good reason to bring a DRV. The close was well within administrative discretion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and close per WP:SNOW per Spartaz and Horologium. This seems to be nothing more than a bad faith nomination. Mythpage88 (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If Wikipedia is ever going to make progress on stuff like this, we have to accept non-no-consensus results other than 80%+ majorities. There are other means by which ARS can continue to function. Editors can watch the various topical WP:DELSORT lists for instance, or even WP:DELREV. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse That was a needful result and issue was well discussed. Nothing wrong with the close-as-delete-rationale; length was helpful. Alarbus (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Ironholds's rationale is a reasonable conclusion/summary of the debate, and no substantial evidence of any glaring irregularities has been presented in this DRV. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 11:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per Spartaz. Not liking a decision is no reason to bring it to DRV, especially when a clear consensus was reached in the exhaustive TfD discussion (I don't know what further discussion is possible), and when the closing admin made such a lengthy and rigorous explanation of his decision. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The closer was too involved, being a partisan in this ideological conflict. The timing of the close is telling. The discussion started at 04:14 UTC and the close was started at 04:48 UTC, eight days later. Allowing for the SOPA outage, that's about as early as possible, while maintaining a superficial propriety. 04:48 is remarkably early in the morning, being the civil time for the closer. The closer's account had not been used for 5 days and so this was not a routine patrol but seems, instead, to have been a carefully-timed intervention to arrange a particular result, contrary to WP:GAME. Warden (talk) 11:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The reason I was up at 5am, and the reason I hadn't edited for five days, was because my day job both occupies a lot of time and demands I work on PST. The reason I took this AfD was because it was complex and interesting - and if you look through my previous AfD closes, you'll see that complex and interesting discussions are the type I like to close, regardless of the subject-matter. "Allowing for the SOPA outage, that's about as early as possible, while maintaining a superficial propriety" - you know, I don't think I've ever heard "he allowed everyone to speak their bit and then closed it promptly" used as an argument for impropriety before. I closed it because I like complex discussions. I closed it early in the morning because if I'd waited, other people would've got there first...and I like complex discussions. Questions? :). Ironholds (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  We have to go back months to find another close made by Ironholds: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical trials with surprising outcomes. That close does not seem to have any of the attributes claimed for this case and the long interval between these closes is also telling. My position stands: that this is a breach of nemo iudex in causa sua: "It is a principle of natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest." Warden (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I was more thinking of stuff like this, or the Wikipetan AfDs, or the Israel/Palestine AfDs, and so on. Your position is disingenuous; nemo iudex is a warning against having the appearance of bias in justice. You are not worried about the appearance of bias - you are directly accusing me of getting involved here to push a point of view, and of specifically taking this AfD in order to do so. At least have the balls to say so directly. Ironholds (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ironholds is well-known to have utterly broken sleep patterns. Him closing a deletion debate at 04:14 UTC is... not at all out of the ordinary. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It is worth noting that my specific problem with this line of argument is not the assumption of bad faith, or even the disingenuous cowardice that accompanies it; it's that if I'm biased for having an opinion on deletion, every. single. administrator. who has ever deleted or kept anything can be dismissed from handling this AfD for the same reason. In effect, the only person trying to game the system here is you. In the AfD, I dismissed the accusations of canvassing. When the DRV was brought, I engaged with the Article Rescue Squadron to ensure that everyone was okay in me telling AfD participants that it was going on; notifications I passed around in the interests of fairness and transparency, notifications I passed around despite the fact that consensus here was overwhelmingly moving to "endorse" and deliberately bringing more people into the discussion would potentially undermine my position. These are not the actions of someone attempting to ensure a slam-dunk, nor the actions of someone displaying bias. Indeed, the only reason you're here to make your rather craven allegations is because I notified you that this was going on. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, and I have no problem with any allegation that can be substantiated. But to accuse me of bad faith simply on the basis of "he was up at funny hours and a bit busy the week beforehand" is ludicrous to the extreme. Ironholds (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  @Warden - That is some very weak evidence to be throwing WP:GAME accusations around. "Ohh well he was awake at a wierd hour and he closed it at the exact right time". I think we need more uninvolved admins patroling this conversation.--v/r - TP 16:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No matter how much Colonel Warden believes himself engaged in an ideological struggle, there is no basis for those accusations, whether in Latin or not. Beware the argumentum ad hominem (and the argumentum de stercore tauri). pablo 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  This is ridiculous. Looking at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 January 13, we can see that this was closed over two hours after every other debate at that page, so harping about the timing is disingenuous. Frankly everything Colonel Warden has written here reeks of bad faith. If he has evidence that Ironholds was involved he should present it. AniMate 20:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My objection was not simply based upon the timing of the close - the eagerness with which the closer jumped on this discussion, not having closed a deletion discussion for 3 months. The principal objection was that the closer was not impartial. One has to be remarkably blind to the arguments of one side to take a 53:34 split and represent it as a consensus. This makes a mockery of the word and so makes these proceedings a travesty. As for Ironholds' repeated accusations of cowardice; this just seems to be a crude insult - the sort of abuse which one would expect in such a kangaroo court. Warden (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closer gave a detailed rationale which showed that he had thoroughly reviewed the arguments on both sides. In the end, he went with the side that had more !votes and (in his opinion) had a stronger policy-based argument. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 12:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If any keep !votes in an xFD means the result must be "no consensus," and if "no consensus" means the content is always kept, the consequences are simply unworkable. It would abolish the entire deletion process — and while some here might consider that their utopian ideal, it isn't an option that, well, has a consensus behind it. That's the tyranny of the minority, and while you might like it when the result is what you want, it certainly isn't the way to motivate a large number of volunteers to stick around. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 12:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure: I was already aware of this through stalking various pages when I got a direct canvas attempt to come and weigh in. After looking at this plus some of the meta discussions around the deletion (including the invective here and on ARS's page) I see a case of "IDONTLIKEIT" being the primary motivation. This was one of the longest *fD closure discussions I've read in a very long time. IMO ARS is always going to be tainted with the stigma of being a minimal keeping group instead of a collection of editors that actually uses the maintanance templates to improve the article. Hasteur (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• wtf? "The admin received a barnstar for the deletion." and? Bulwersator (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but with strong concern over the rationales given by the !voters A very large number of the !votes were based on assertions about the "ARS". The "barnstar" issue clearly reflects this. I do not regard assertions about those using a template to be "policy based" arguments, but more similar to the arguments given in the ooast at deletion discussions concerning the ARS itself. I am not, nor have I been, a member of that project. I am concerned, however, that the template deletion discussion was based far more on opinions about the ARS than about any actual Wikipedia policies concerning templates. Collect (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, consensus was absolutely clear; DRV is not TFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion:I did not participate in the discussion or in the vote and I believe Ironholds used his discretion to close the vote after going through the discussion, similar is the case with tough blocks and WP:RFA we have WP:AGF to Admins and crats as it is with users with it comes within the area of discretion.Ironholds is very long standing user and knows the project very well.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure — I think that the term "!vote" is used so frequently that some people forget just what, exactly, it means: consensus-building debates on wikipedia are not votes, even though some of of the smallest and largest of them can appear to be. Furthermore, on an *fd that alleges a template being used for WP:CANVASSing, it becomes especially important that the closing admin not simply count responses but actually read them word for word. Ironholds's closure reflects that he did exactly that, and the sentiment appears to be echoed by the vast majority of Wikipedia: just because a person can rally a bunch of people to a common area does not mean they automatically get the outcome they want. Rather, it reflects the notion that what matters the most are the arguments presented in the discussion and how those arguments relate to or reflect our policies and guidelines. On a personal note, it's my opinion that unlike this DRV's nominator, I believe that anyone willing to write that extensive of a closure freakin' deserves a barnstar—pretty much regardless of the outcome. --slakr^\ talk / 14:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I haven't seen anything here to sway me. In fact, DRV nomination rationale and some opposes seem particularly weak. The fact that another editor chose to give him a barnstar -- that most cherished of treasures -- after deletion could not, in my view, be more trivial. Reading intention into the time of morning Ironholds chooses to work, is another doozy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I !voted keep in that exhaustive discussion. While I would have closed that discussion as "no consensus", given the carefully reasoned closing statement, I cannot say that it is unreasonable for the closer to conclude that the 5:3 delete/keep ratio of policy-compliant !votes did reach rough consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closing statement was measured and coherent. Closer took into account all points of view. Close should stand. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted no consensus my ass, did you actually read the deletion discussion. There sure as hell was a consensus. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• EndorseI agree that there are no convincing arguments that there was anything wrong with the decision. The bad faith comments about barnstars and being awake at an apparently suspicious time are pathetic. Dougweller (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Whilst I respect User:Ironholds immensely as one of the few admins prepared to make difficult decisions, I believe he made the wrong call in this case. Similarly whilst I can understand the frustration of the OP, the opening comments have not helped. The argument for those wishing to delete this template, is that it was being used by editors to canvas keep votes in AfD. Well if editors are abusing a template in that manner, then sanction the editors but do not delete the template. To Paraphrase, Templates don't rescue articles, editors do. It is a useful function to have a mechanism for retaining relevant content that would be otherwise deleted and to have a team of editors prepared to do so. Deleting its template is emasculating the ARS. For those arguing that there was a lot of delete votes, consensus is not a vote, its about strength of argument and the bitterness I saw in that discussion was not good. It should have been closed as "No Consensus". Wee Curry Monster talk 16:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any idea how almost impossible it is to sanction experienced long term editors even if they do something wrong? That would be trying to sanction almost all of the main ARS members. SL93 (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, because it may be problematic to isolate and punish a couple of mischievous editors, it's better to disrupt the core tools of a whole working Wikiproject? I earnestly hope that this closure doesn't create that precedent. Diego (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a core tool in the state that it was before deletion. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was the tool that was in active use by people of the project to coordinate efforts. Diego (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • With disastrous results. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you do endorse TfDs as a mechanism to stop active Wikiprojects? Diego (talk) 19:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Exactly, but only if they are disruptive. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Oh, you mean, the very thing for which the closing decision said there was no evidence? ;-) If so, your arguments do not seem to apply to this situation. Diego (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm obviously not the only person with this opinion which you should know. Stop trying to act like a smart ass. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • If it's changed to no consensus, it can be renominated some other time and get deleted again which seems likely. SL93 (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • SL93, my last remark was intended as tongue-in-cheek. My point was that the closing stance has officially nothing to do with canvassing, and yet everybody is praising Ironholds' well-balanced and neutral decision, even when we all know that the claim of canvassing behavior is the main reason why so many people argued against the tag. Diego (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The big problem with this template is that it had the effect of canvassing ARS members even if that wasn't the tagger's intention. The template itself and its instructions exacerbated this: the instructions said not to subst it, so tagged articles could be found by looking at its transclusions; and even were it substed, it had links to File:Gnome-help-browser.svg and Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, which shouldn't otherwise appear in articlespace (er, could someone move Article Rescue Squadron/Current articles subpage/August 2009? thanks.), so it could have been found by their WhatLinksHere, too. I understand it also categorized articles at one point. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Diego, this is why it is disruptive. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Endorse DRV is not XfD 2.0 no matter how much you want it to be. I can not find a reason why Ironholds' close did not follow procedure or that any other consensus can be read from the discussion. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The discussion was proper, the close was neutral. Good call. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Ironholds reasoning for reaching the decision seem clearly explained, and entirely consistent with the balance of arguments. Regarding 'consensus', I'd point out that the criteria can only be assessed in terms of 'consensus amongst those giving policy-based arguments' - and several of the keep arguments looked less-than-convincing when looked at in that light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was one of the delete !voters who mentioned canvassing. The closer discounted those arguments, but I think he should not have. He asked for evidence of a specific incident of canvassing, but that's not what I meant. I meant that (nearly) any use of this template would constitute canvassing a priori; this is a logical statement, not a factual one. I am well aware that we usually try not to delete things because someone is misusing them; I claim that this template is always misuse, so that rule doesn't apply. The point is, the closer did not consider this argument, and I think it bolsters the other reasons for deletion. However, I am reluctant to endorse, both because I disagree with the closer about the canvassing and because the outcome of this DRV is obvious at this point. --NYKevin @794, i.e. 18:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The decision was well reasoned and a neutral third party could reasonably reach the same conclusion. Therefore the close is good. I'll note that, had I been closing this thread, most of the statements here, the "the decision was right because I agreed with it" and "the template was evil" statements, really wouldn't carry much weight. Neither would either of the overturns though, for much the same reason. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This is ridiculous. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion This DRV nomination is based on incorrect criteria. "There was no consensus to delete this critically important tag." Per Ironholds extensive explanation, there was. "The deleting administrator ignored 34 good-faith and policy-based keep votes." Per Ironholds explanation: no, he didn't. "The admin's looong comment said very little in many words." Pure personal opinion. "The admin received a barnstar for the deletion." Utterly irrelevent to the deletion. Thus, endorse from a procedural standpoint if nothing else. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV is not TfD v2. Prodego ^talk 19:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and snowball - I participated in the AFD, I don't agree with all of Ironholds' conclusions (on the matter of canvassing, for instance) but his rationale was well explained and a valid interpretation of consensus. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• For what little it's worth after this horrendous pile-on, I think that was a poor close of a poor discussion. The discussion was full of totally crap reasoning that should have been disregarded. "It is just being used for canvassing purposes" is a user conduct issue and we don't use the XFD process to resolve user conduct issues. "Why does one wiki-project get to put its tag in article space?" is a reason to put the tag in the talk space instead, it isn't a reason to delete it. The fact is that the reason this template got deleted is because users don't like the ARS. Welcome to the ugly side of wikipolitics. Let's not pretend it was a well-reasoned close of a well-reasoned discussion. And yes, let's close it early. This whole episode has been a disgrace to the encyclopaedia and it needs burying and walking away from.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can assume bad faith of the "winning" side in any contentious dispute with that tacky "welcome to wikipolitics" routine. It's a common complaint when someone's "side" didn't get its way. Sometimes it's justified; mostly it's not. But here it's about as convincing as Donald Trump's toupee (and just as tacky). You try to spin it as all the critics and opponents coming out in force to gang up on the poor defenseless ARS, but since there was so much participation from so many people not associated with either side of that dispute your claim is pretty hollow. You also say this disussion was about using XfD as a dispute resolution tool; that it would be better to examine the conduct of the editors misusing the template than to delete it. That would be fine, but you've overlooked an important part of the consensus at the TfD, namely that the template had no other legitimate purpose. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reyk, the ARS is not "my side" and in fact I've never been a member. I doubt if most of them would see me as someone sympathetic to their aims. I don't have a conflict of interest here, I'm an outsider calling it like I see it.—S Marshall T/C 23:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, but plenty of other uninvolved outsiders have reached the opposite conclusion to you so this is clearly not a politically motivated witch hunt as you are claiming. Reyk _YO! 00:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that lots of people disagree with me doesn't make me wrong. It does probably mean this debate will be closed as "endorse deletion", because Wikipedia's essentially democratic in its approach to value judgments. What it does not mean is that I'm wrong, and it certainly doesn't mean this wasn't a politically motivated witch hunt.—S Marshall T/C 10:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like some ideals of the ARS, but what I do not like is the tag bringing a bunch of members voting keep with no evidence of notability. Why sanction members when it's so simple to keep this deleted and walk away? Wikipolitics shouldn't be hard and annoying when a simple deletion can get the same result. Wikipedia can thrive without that template. ARS is a completely different Wikiproject than others because it is obviously bias. If ARS can stay, I want an ADS (Article Deletion Squadron) to balance it out. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's called WP:ADELS. :-)—S Marshall T/C 00:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And they have a tag! (smile!) Diego (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • AfD is not just a deletionist playground. What I want is a group of people that can put a tag on an article that says "This article sucks. Help delete it" or something like that. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's one of those, too. Why do you think it may be filed under "humour"? Diego (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • My point is, there is only something that is all about keeping articles and is bias. Personally, ARS should be a humor page also with how it's been operating. SL93 (talk) 01:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per the thorough, clear, well explained closing statement in the original debate. Begoon ^talk 22:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Pile-on endorse This discussion is not about the template but the TFD. The consensus was clear and Ironholds stepped into what he knew was going to be a controversial decision no matter which way it went and did a damn fine job of evaluating and summarizing the discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Overturn to no consensus. What seems obvious to me is that on both the underlying issue with the ARS, and the template, there is no consensus. I wish there were consensus, both to endorse the project, and also to endorse the template, but I'm not going to pretend there is for either. But there is no consensus the other way, either, at least if consensus refers to consensus of policy based opinions, not the sort of unthinking voting the template is incorrectly said to encourage, but is often prevalent on both sides, before the templates was invented, while it has been here, still persists now it is not here, and will undoubtedly continue. Too many of the arguments to delete were not policy based. Many of the votes for delete were for those who want to increase the already existing bias towards deletion by making it harder to attract people to rescue articles, and all such votes were in blatant contradiction to deletion policy that deletion is the last resort. Most of the other votes for delete were on the basis that there had been a few scattered cases of misuse for canvassing resulting in the keep of articles that should not have been kept, and to consider that more significant than the otherwise improper deletion of many articles is a misjudgment, based on balancing the facts without regard to the importance of preserving fixable articles that is required by policy. Personally, I'd have worked on devising a somewhat different notice not subject to the same objections rather than continue the debate here, because it does not seem likely that the existing prejudices will be erased based on anything said here. I want to distance myself from the view that the closer showed obviously bias: he was just in error: rather than try to disentangle policy from prejudice, he offered his own view of the situation. He did an analysis which would have been an appropriate !vote, but it was not a close based on the policy based arguments in the discussion. when the discussion leads to cno clear consensus on policy grounds, the closer does not get to decide which of the policy based arguments are correct--if there is no consensus about that in the discussion, the close must be non-consensus. Rather he closed on his own analysis that the lack of essential functionality was outweighed by the amount of dissension. I consider that a respectable though incorrect view, even if it did amount to some extent to IAR, but it was not the consensus, though he did point to one good supporting opinion. However, I certainly distance myself from the view that it is necessarily wrong to close only 2 hours after the deadline, or that 600 GMT is an unreasonable time for people in the US to work on Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm based in the US? News to me...Ironholds (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you be opposed to the Wikipedia:Integrity Rescue Squad who uses the {{toilet}} tag to ensure Wikipedia's integrity is ensured by deleting terrible articles? Would such {{toilet}} tag be canvassing? WP:CANVASS concerns are legitimate policy based concerns and consensus was largely supporting that.--v/r - TP 03:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  " Most of the other votes for delete were on the basis that there had been a few scattered cases of misuse for canvassing resulting in the keep of articles that should not have been kept" -- No. I think Ironholds misinterpreted my !vote. What I meant was that any use of the template is canvassing by definition. That's an entirely different argument from what you're presenting, and IMHO it's certainly a valid reason for deletion. --NYKevin @873, i.e. 19:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (no consensus)Overturn (delete/don't use for now, continue at RfC) The close was the best outcome, with no other viable options. Where a close needs that much detail, it is too much analysis, and thus a supervote. Also, the TfD aounted to a policy discussion, which should not be executed via deletion. Agreed that there was consensus that there was a problem with the template or its use. Consistent with "and if anyone can point to some (neutral) functionality that should be integrated into other AfD templates, I'm happy to undelete for the purpose of retrieving that", I think this needs to go to an RFC, with the template not to be used in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So you want to overturn because the amount of detail in my closing made it a supervote - because, who the hell takes some time to close a 90-person debate? - even though you have read all the detail in my "supervote" and agree that the decision made was the right onw, and you think that this should go to RfC....because I said I was willing to undelete if there was some template syntax in it that people wanted to use elsewhere. Not to be blunt, but what?!. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Getting a detailed close is a good thing. Reading it shows that the closer was aware that the issue would be controversial (many discussions involving the ARS are controversial), and the closer took the trouble to explain their policy-based deliberations. Please quote the text in the close that you consider amounted to a supervote, or strike that suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Apologies for a poorly explained (or defined) position. The “supervote” thing is a stretch of the normal meaning. It is not that Ironholds introduced new arguments, but that his rationale, his analysis of the discussion, I find non-obvious. On review, I retract the “supervote” thing. It was a good close of rough consensus. And I thank Ironholds for the explanation. Much is well done, but this is complicated, and there angles to it that don’t seem quite right.

On one hand, Ironholds is right, his rationale seems sound (though complex, to me), he has my confidence in distilling a rough consensus, and there is a clear case that the use of the template was disputed.

On the other, what I don’t like, is that this XfD amounts to prescriptive policy decision, and policy decisions are not decided by rough consensus. Where Ironholds writes “when you have something that provides no additional functionality but strife, the easiest way to resolve this strife (and not, in the end, reduce functionality) is to delete it. That is precisely what consensus says I should do”, I must disagree. The resolution of strife-causing behaviour should not be achieved through deletion, the application of an administrator technical privilege.

The question remaining is whether the rough consensus should stand as a precedent-forming prescriptive policy decision. Are new versions of the template going to be unilaterally deleted under G4? I think it is this that push me to type “overturn”. I hope the TfD will not lead to admins using a G4 stick to beat future ARS initiatives, and assert here that no WP:INVOLVED admin should consider doing so. (Here, WP:INVOLVED admins would include all who participated in the debate, but would not include Ironholds).

I think this should go to RFC, because this was fundamentally a behavioural issue that will probably recur by some other means. There are many ways to organise information on AfD nominations on articles that could be rescued by improvement. This method of resolution of the problem may just force ARS members to become creative, or to use off-site methods. I would like to see and RfC serve to help the ARS members productively, and openly, move forward. In the interest of facilitating forward discussion. I’d like to see the deleted template archived for reference. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, I have some sympathy with at least part of your concerns, in that this deletion raises wider issues. However, I think that your conclusions are misplaced. In particular, you are completely mistaken in your assertion that "resolution of strife-causing behaviour should not be achieved through deletion, the application of an administrator technical privilege", because the deletion of this template is not a use of technical privilege; it is a technical implementation of a community consensus. Your view would redefine any deletion, no matter how widely supported, as the actions of one admin, and your failure to distinguish between admin discretion deletions (WP:CSD) and consensus deletions (XfD) invalidates your argument to overturn.

However, I do think that you have a point about the need to build a wider consensus around ARS. There seems to be a clear consensus that ARS's work is controversial, both amongst ARS members (some of whom who post regularly at WT:ARS and elsewhere about their desire to combat what they see as rampant deletionism) and amongst critics of ARS (some of who repeatedly denounce ARS as being either a canvassing exercise per se or a vehicle for canvassing, and others who may be ideological deletionists opposed to any idea of rescue). If ARS wants to continue some sort of work in the future, or its critics want to avoid a repetition of the problems they have perceived, then there is a clear need for a wider community discussion about whether and how ARS's work should continue, and whether that work should happen under through ARS or some different mechanism. I hope that all parties to this heated conflict will agree that the community badly needs some solution which can remove (or at least dissipate) the drama on all sides, and an RFC seems like the way forward.

Such an RFC could have many outcomes, and one possible outcome could be a consensus for the recreation of this template or something analogous to it. In that case, a G4 deletion would be out-of-order, and any fresh TFD would have to bear in mind the RFC consensus.

The effect of your suggestion is to say that we should not implement a consensus because consensus may change, which is a recipe for decision-making paralysis. The article rescue process has been a bloody battleground for far too long, and subverting s consensus decision will only inflame tensions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this admited much of that. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturnto no consensus . There was clearly no consensus to delete. The closing administrator mentions the past nominations, which are not relevant in any way. A lot of things get nominated multiple times. The other ANI discussion should've been kept open [5], instead of moving it to a deletion discussion. The closing administrator also mentions the "militiarism" thing. Because something has the word "squadron" in its name, doesn't make it militarist. There is no actual proof of any wrong doing by the ARS. No one shows up to vote "Keep" on every article tagged. You never get more than a handful of people showing up at all because of the tag. Dream Focus 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Everything past "no consensus to delete" is, by your standard, not relevant in any way :P. I mentioned past nominations because I was providing context. I mentioned the militarism thing because the editors who commented mentioned militarism. You seem to be slightly misunderstanding the purpose of DRV; it is not to hash over old arguments again. If you want to post a big long schpiel explaining why everyone who disagreed with you is wrong, that's fine, but not here. You can use your userpage for that. You know, more. Ironholds (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even a few people from that tag can move a nomination in a disruptive way. SL93 (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • SL93, to you too, DRV is not for rehashing old arguments. Given that I specifically threw out the canvassing claim in my close, there's little point going on about it. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe that there is little point in going on about it when I'm not the only person who voiced that concern. It has been a bigger issue since before the nomination till now so it is not an old argument. You leaving that out that in your closure does not stop the claim from still being open. Anyway, if it is changed to no consensus, I would like to renominate it to settle this. It might not be deleted the second time, but it should have a result. SL93 (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, it doesn't mean the claim isn't open, but what it does mean is the claim shouldn't be discussed here. This is deletion review, not a bloody debating hall. The only ground for bringing up something I dismissed in the AfD is "we should overturn because he dismissed it", which you are, of course, welcome to do. I somehow doubt that overturning the decision is your rationale for being here, though. Ironholds (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it's not a bloody debating hall, you are a hypocrite. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because I have spent large amounts of time discussing irrelevancies? :P. Look, this is Deletion Review. The purpose of this page is to discuss whether or not a decision in a deletion discussion was the correct one. If you are spending lots of time discussing things not because it pertains to the appropriateness of the decision, but simply because you want to continue debating a point, you are Doing It Wrong. You see all those "endorse" comments above telling the disgruntled keep voters "DRV is not AfD version 2"? Well, that comment applies to enthusiastic delete voters just as much. Ironholds (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • It all does relate to the appropriateness of the decision. My comments all go back to the fact that you didn't add anything about canvassing which was frequently brought up. So it all shows that it was not a correct decision. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and renominate: I consider the closing comments a big mistake because it left out important issues that were brought up. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's right; "renominate, he came to the right decision for the wrong reason". You know, the trick in an argument is not to try and blind the opposition with 110% proof stupid. Ironholds (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, using the wrong reason to close a TfD debate is a procedural shortcoming and thus a very strong argument to overturn it at the DRV. If there's a strong consensus on something among the people of opposing views is that the major discussion subject is the presumed canvassing. SL93 and me are both in agreement that this is enough reason to revert the deletion. If that means nominating it again, at least it will mean that the canvassing allegations will be addressed in depth and actual supporting evidence will be requested to analyze how serious it was. Diego (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. This needs closure. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what you're going on about, but my reasoning is that it was not a fair representation of all views. You know, this is my view and you're trying to debate it. Hypocrite. When did I say that it was the right decision? SL93 (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I shall sit over here in the corner, laughing uncontrollably. Have fun :). Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Laughing uncontrollably because you're a dumb incompetent admin? Go ahead. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You do know an admin doesn't have to list every possible reason right? And cool it with the attacks. Your statement is clearly ridiculous when this is possibly one of the best rationals ever written right? Delete rationals are rarely longer than 2 or 3 sentences. -DJSasso (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Ironholds didn't list the main issue. It was brought to ANI because of canvassing which resulted in the nomination and then resulted in this DRV. Long rationales don't automatically equal one of the best rationales. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I called Ironholds a hypocrite because he said that DRV is not a bloody debating hall when he is constantly trying to debate. I feel I have the right to call him a dumb incompetent admin when he calls my overturn reasoning stupid and says that it is funny. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Must say, I think it's pretty funny, too! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec) You shouldn't call anyone that. Furthermore, what does the fact that it was deleted, with another big reason for deletion not even being mentioned, say about the template in question? That it really needed to be deleted. And, therefore that DRVing it was inappropriate, and that the deletion should be endorsed Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it funny? SL93 (talk) 21:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close on the merits. FFS on the rest. The comments here railing against IronHolds and his impure ideology, his sinister timing, and his clearly biased sense of the debate, well - quite frankly I'm embarassed I ever spoke up in favor of keeping the template. If this sort of shenanigans and anger is what comes out of the ARS, then we maybe should consider the place of the ARS on the project. And I know that's a flawed argument, and it's not at all what this debate (or the TFD) is about. But it's hard to say there isn't a problem when you see debates like this one. And this right here is why so many had a problem with the template - and the ARS. Many are just tired of the shenanigans, even if it's only a few editors. Hell, the TFD nom was just to discuss the problem, and ended up backfiring spectacularly. That should give any editor pause, and yet here we are. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I know I said I wouldn't poke my head in, but... I don't think the problem is with the ARS. My opinion, standing here? We've got people on both sides of the aisle who are clearly angry and convinced everyone else is All Out To Get Them. The fact that some of those people are in a club with a lot of other people who aren't angry and paranoid simply acts as fuel for the paranoia of the people on the other side of the ideological divide, and their actions then spur the paranoia of those angry people in the ARS. The ARS itself is not the problem; some of the people in it and some of the people who object to it are. And last time I checked, we didn't punish the whole for the actions of a few, any more than we would block everyone who has ever !voted "delete" on the grounds that some of those guys are fuelling the flames as well.

  What we have here is, to use a metaphor, a war. Two countries, both of which have angry people with guns, fighting each other. The solution to such a problem is not to just nuke one of the countries - the end result of that is that the other nation's angry people feel justified, a lot of civilians get caught in the crossfire and, most crucially, one big chunk of angry people still have guns. It's not a very clearly thought-out metaphor, but then, to be honest, this isn't a particularly clearly thought-out post. What I'm trying to say is that we clearly have a situation where people feel very impassioned about their beliefs. The solution is not to punish anyone who occasionally agrees with the impassioned people. We should be looking to heal this rift, and such an action would only make it deeper. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I largely agree with you, but it's easy to get frustrated when good points are lost under piles of rhetoric. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Gingsengbomb's comment which he removed: Surely, surely you can't be serious. This has got to be a joke. If it's not, this is at least something I've never seen before. Someone voting to overturn at a DRV even though they agreed with the outcome. That...is a first. - A relist with a proper closing rationale will help this drama. Sorry that I want something more lasting where a possible agreement can arise. SL93 (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  SL93, your idea of "something more lasting" (correct me if I'm misrepresenting your views) seems to be a decision that says "the ARS is a big pool of canvassers who gang up to alter consensus". Ignoring my decision to ignore that - which I stand by - how could making such a decision ever foster agreement rather than further divide the community? Ironholds (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be found that the template has negative effects, but if it is kept in another nomination, it is possible for a discussion, RFC, the ARS talk page, or whatever to reach a solid conclusion. I don't think that most of them are intentional canvassers, but it does get the result of canvassing. The members of the Article Rescue Squadron pretty much have the same views and that tag brings people with the same views together in nominations the way that it is set up now. There should be some way that the ARS can help with a tag or without a tag. I stated earlier that I was against individual members receiving sanctions. That won't work with unintentional canvassing so the ARS needs some sort of overhaul. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair enough, but DRV or TfD are not the places to enact community overhauls; as you say, that's what talkpage discussions or RfCs are for. Deletion venues are simply not designed as a place to reach binding consensus on anything but the existence of articles (or lack thereof). Ironholds (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, the only outcomes from a TFD are: The Template is Deleted OR The Template is not Deleted. There are no outcomes with broader ramifications possible. Wrong venue. I definitely agree with your overall point, don't get me wrong, and I share your interest in any kind of process that gets the ARS to a place more fully in line with its charter. I've actually been idly observing some of the ARS overhaul conversations that have popped up in light of the Rescue tag's deletion -- and I mention that to point out that the deletion, even without a rationale focused on canvassing problems, appears to be bringing a lot of attention to "fixing" the ARS' problems, whatever they may be...so I think you've gotten what you want out of this. Another TFD discussion will just throw gasoline on a fire that's basically burnt itself out. Anyway, sorry for the snideness earlier, I didn't like your "dumb incompetent" talk and I hate this DRV :D. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The close was well within administrator discretion, and was clearly explained. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with a caveat. This was a carefully-reasoned closure, which took care to address the issues raised and examine them against the relevant deletion guidelines and policy. Closing a contentious XfD requires careful assessment of the issues raised, and the closing admin was right to set out the reasoning by which zie have weighed the debate. That helps everyone involved to understand how thorough that assessment has been. The DRV nomination's complaint about length is not just misguided; it inverts good practice.
  So the nominator's complaint about the closer getting a barnstar is so utterly irrelevant that it discredits the good faith of the nomination. The nominator's failure to even try to discuss the closure with the admin before coming to DRV is a clear breach of DRV procedure, and would alone be sufficient to dismiss the DRV as frivolous.
  The substantive weighing of the discussion seems to me to be right in identifying the duplicated functionality issue as a well-founded rationale for deletion, and in that respect the closure is sound. However, I believe that the grounds for dismissing the canvassing complaint are shaky. The closer's requirement for solid evidence of abuse of the template for canvassing seems to me to be raising the bar extraordinarily high, because this would need the evidence of not just one canvassing episode, but many. The resulting forest of diffs would overwhelm an XfD discussion, and I don't believe that it would be workable in the current format of XfD. At a first reading I sympathised with the closer's concern that assertion should not be treated as evidence, but since an AFD does not sanction an individual it seems to me to be wrong to subject a template to the same evidential test as we would apply before sanctioning a user. In a situation like this it seems to me to be sufficient to conclude that a template is an potent tool for canvassing, and that such a capability has caused the community to regard it as disruptive to consensus formation. In this case there was clear evidence from the discussion that a large proportion of the community regards the template as being a canvassing tool; that is clearly disruptive to our core policy of WP:CONSENSUS, so the nominator was wrong to dismiss that case. This template did not provide content or navigational aid to the reader; its purpose related solely to editors, and the closer should have examined more closely the widely-supported policy-based concerns about the impact on editors. Consensus decision-making is so important to Wikipedia that a loss of faith in it is corrosive to the project as a whole, so I suggest that in future the evidential test for editor-notification templates should focus on whether the community is satisfied that they assist rather than impede consensus formation. The question of whether any set of individual charges of canvassing were proven was a red herring at TfD, so the closer was wrong to dismiss canvassing concerns.
  Since my caveat would not affect the decision of the closer, I endorse the outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as above. This is almost exactly what I've been trying to say. --NYKevin @056, i.e. 00:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, or at least come up with a decent substitute There are indeed non-canvassing uses of the template, as was its intended usage back in 2007 (at least, I thought this was how it was supposed to be used). There's lots of unsourced or badly written stubs that, if they were improved, would uncontroversially meet notability and other guidelines for inclusion. If they are improved, even the deletionists will generally vote keep; if not improved the article will get 3 or 4 "per nom" delete votes and be forgotten. This use of the rescue template used to be uncontroversial, and still should be, unless people are going to say "no fair directing people to fix that article before I could delete it". (It's true that the rescue template often gets placed on the typical inclusionist/deletionist battlegrounds in which the existence of the article will be controversial regardless of its content; I happen to think this is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. More relevant to the DRV, people who say the template is never used for purposes other than votestacking are simply mistaken). On the duplicated functionality issue: Merely being listed on AFD isn't always enough to make this happen; not everyone who runs across an improvable article has the time or ability to fix it themselves. The wiki project notifications are definitely no substitute for the rescue tag, I personally have no idea how to use them. So on top of there being significant opposition to deletion (thus "no consensus") the deletion arguments are, if not totally fallacious, not so overwhelmingly persuasive that the keeps should be ignored. 169.231.55.236 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC) — 169.231.55.236 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  Some of your commentary appear to belong in a re-run of the substantive arguments, whereas the issue here is whether the closing admin correctly weighed the debate. For example you say that the template "used to be uncontroversial, and still should be", but that's a POV which belongs in the XfD, not at DRV.

  I am curious about your focus on the canvassing arguments. Leave aside the fact that the closing admin actually discounted canvassing arguments, and consider your assertion that since the template has purposes other than votestacking, it should be kept. This would be a very extreme principle, open to a lot of abuse. (In extremis it would provide a reprieve for a template was disruptive in all of the 5,000 examples cited so far, but was used legitimately once in late 2007)

  It seems to me to reasonable for a discussion on any template to weigh the positive uses against the negative ones, and reach a conclusion on the balance. Why should it be wrong to for a discussion to conclude that the harm caused by negative uses of a particular template outweighs its good sides? You or I may agree or disagree with the answer to that question generated by any given TfD, but I find it bizarre to suggest (as you appear to do) that the community cannot reach a decision on that balance of legitimate functionality versus disruption. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for Mr. IP, of course, but when he says "I happen to think this is a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater," I think he is saying that legitimate functionality outweighs the claims of disruption. He also recognizes that there was no legitimate consensus in the discussion as any rational uninvolved observer would conclude.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two different arguments. The first one is an attempt to restrain the scope of legitimate consensus by inventing a principle which bans editors from ever concluding that the bathwater is too contaminated to keep, even if the baby goes. No evidence has been offered that such a principle is in use, so it is quite legitimate for a discussion to form a consensus that a) emptying this bathwater would not throw out a baby, and b) the bathwater had to go.

The second point is based on the notion that "significant opposition to deletion" amounts to "no consensus". See WP:NOTAVOTE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You disagree that someone finding significant opposition to deletion (61%/39%), assuming rational commentary all around, could conclude there is no consensus to take some proposed action? That happens every day around here. And as for the baby and the bathwater, I believe he's saying he thinks the outcome of deletion is the wrong result, that is -- that it goes too far. That's what the whole saying means; he's not saying others can't disagree. But -- "An attempt to restrain the scope of legitimate consensus by inventing a principle which bans editors from ever concluding that the bathwater is too contaminated to keep, even if the baby goes"?!?!? What?!?! Its just an expression meant to illustrate a point.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, it's not complicated. On the numbers, simply read WP:NOTAVOTE.
As to the rest of it, the question of whether deletion goes too far is either a matter to be determined by consensus at TFD, or it isn't. If it is a decision which TfD is free to make, then the IP's raising of the issue here is just an attempt to re-run the TFD discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Reasonable closure that was well explained. DRV nomination is unconvincing. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The argument that a consensus had been reached in that discussion is not supported by the comments used in the close. I must commend the closer on taking the time and effort to provide a complete explanation, but still find it lacking. Of the Delete arguments made, several are clearly not supported by policy: 1) The namespace in which the template was used is not a supported cause for deletion; 2) The accusation of inappropriate canvassing which is not supported by evidence, and is therefor not a valid criteria for deletion; 3) - That the purpose of the template is actually duplicative to that of another template - i.e., one which notifies interested editors that there is a potentially notable topic whose article has been nominated for deletion regardless of subject matter. If the Delete comments supported by any of those arguments are appropriately discarded, I fail to see how this can be judged as a consensus to delete. The majority of Delete comments relied upon those three premises. Without supporting arguments that are rooted in policy, counting those comments as meaningful additions to the discussion stretches AGF to the breaking point, or at least it does as long as our policy remains that a clear concensus is required to make any change from the status quo. Changing the template instructions to allow its use in talk space was a perfectly viable alternative to deletion, as it is strictly useful to editors and not readers (just like the AfD tag itself). Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 16:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misinformed. I provided six recent cases at the ANI thread that directly preceded the TfD. There were examples by other users also recent and more in the past of this behavior. The opposite was actually true. Evidence was not presented that this template was used how it was described.--v/r - TP 21:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most editors never go to ANI nor even think about it. This situation went from ANI to TfD (boneheadedly,I must say, by an ARS member) before I even knew about it. When your wikiproject is profiled in the media as effectively saving articles, you really don't imagine others thinking its untrue. It was claimed in the TfD that there was a coordinated campaign of Wikipedia Review types who descended on the TfD to ensure its deletion. Surely it was more attended to by far than the average AfD which can barely eke out 2 votes these days.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on the AFD and I hadn't heard of the canvassing from WR. I understand your frustration about that particular ARS member though; if not for different reasons.--v/r - TP 23:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The admin who closed this clearly explained his reasoning, based on the arguments given in the deletion discussion, and the close was well within the scope of his responsibility. It was closed fairly. The argument for review doesn't justify an overturn based on DRV guidelines. First Light (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closing admin explained his reasoning at length and clearly showed that even though he ignored some arguments for deletion the remaining ones were still valid and unrefuted. I'm especially puzzled by the "barnstar" argument presented by the nominator. Receiving a barnstar cannot be an indication of bad faith or of a bad result, and it is irrelevant to whether the deletion discussion was closed properly. Huon (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This template is fundamental to the WP:ARS and should not be deleted without an RFC on the ARS itself. IMHO the Rescue list will cause more issues because it isn't template based! I do generally endorse the closing admin's actions, including his hinting this DRV was worthwhile; I just think this was forum shopping and an otherwise successful attempt at killing off the ARS. Mark Hurd (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That kill-off-the-ARS argument is demonstrably false. It might make sense if the ARS had no other means of working, but as you know it has promptly adapted by creating the Rescue list, only 24 hours after the TfD closed. The idea of a list was proposed at TfD by a "keep" !voter, only 4 hours after the TFD started, so its creation was no surprise. If your crystal ball is correct in predicting that the list will cause more problems, then those issues can be addressed by a future process (probably RFC or MFD).

  Regardless of what decisions the ARS makes on how it works in future (or whether it has a future), it was quite legitimate for the community to decide that this particular mainspace template was not an appropriate tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  How I see it is not that the ARS couldn't adapt or create other ways to do the same, but that deleting the primary mechanism that was in current use is disruptive. Diego (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Diego, this isn't the place to anyone's substantive arguments, and that claim of disruption to ARS was made at AFD. The community had to chose between the perceived disruption to ARS arising from deletion, and the perceived disruption to AFD caused by the rescue template's continue existence. On balance, the consensus of the discussion was that editors preferred to prioritise protecting AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Mark - the only part of your post that's really relevant to deletion review is I do generally endorse the closing admin's actions! pablo 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Closing statements seemed accurate and non-controversial. Although, it's hard for me to imagine why someone who doesn't want to delete the template would have nominated it for deletion, nor do I understand why someone who did want it deleted would vote for the closure to be overturned. Anyway, the case for overturning this to no consensus is not persuasive. —SW— ^express 15:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  People can nevertheless !vote in a procedure against the desired outcome if they feel that will help the procedure to work in a smooth way. We establish procedures for a reason, and if those procedures are used in ways that differ widely to their original intention they are likely to cause trouble. The TfD was used to close a working tool that should have been modified, not deleted, per the main reasons stated in the discussion; and the issues about the ARS project should have been resolved through a separate RFC - since "being canvassing" was not a property of the template but blamed on the project. Diego (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC Ignoring for a moment that I've found the template to be a useful way to indicate that an article is probably notable but I can't find sources. I'm not at all happy with how that discussion went or how it was closed. There is no policy-based reason to delete the template. So the !votes to delete it should have been given very little weight. An RfC on how to use the template would have been much better. Putting it on the talk page, or bottom of the page or whatever would have been just fine and not an unreasonable outcome. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gagnongrave.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This image file was deleted in this 2 week discussion that I missed for failing to log in to notice prior to January 1 and January 24. I had no chance to respond to any concerns about the file. I cannot speak with the admin, User:Fastily, who deleted it as he/she is away from Wikipedia until sometime in February. This image file was created by myself from two photographs I personally took, front and back, of the headstone of Iwo Jima flag raiser, Rene Gagnon, at Arlington National Cemetery. I believe I had released its rights to CC. It was taken and then created in 2006. This image was determined, somehow, to be "3D Art," among other issues, which I could have addressed had I time and chance to respond. The Rene Gagnon article is now missing this illustrative photograph as a result of the deletion. Please undelete this image file. Thank you. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there is no freedom of panorama in the US, so it's not exclusively yours; whoever holds the copyright of the headstone also holds an interest in this image. --NYKevin @808, i.e. 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The maker of the headstone was the United States government, ergo, shouldn't it be in the public domain? Nor would it be covered under fair use? That type of rationale, as applied to the headstone in a national cemetery would effectively wipe out every photograph of it's nature, which I'm sure, there are quite many on Wikipedia. This would mean that photographs of the tombstone rows in Arlingtion National Cemetery should not be allowed. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's some images at http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rgagnon.htm. I would be absolutely stunned if the front side of the headstone was eligible for copyright. Nothing original, just a cross, name, and dates. However, the back has an epitaph and a bronze relief of the flag-raising, so I suppose its possible it could be copyrighted. 169.231.102.6 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. No procedural error is apparent; it is editors' own responsibility to be available during the time of a discussion. The deletion is also materially correct; the bronze relief on the headstone is a copyrighted creative work of which the photograph is an unlicensed derivative work. Even if the relief is a PD-USGOV work, which we do not know, it is itself a derivative work of the copyrighted photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima.  Sandstein  23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Sandstein, your comment misleadingly implies that the FfD "discussion" hinged at least partially on this being a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. The single, brief nominator's statement which comprised the entire "discussion" did not raise that issue.

  RebelAt, even though it looks like this picture might not be up to Wikipedia's standards for free images, this could still be used in the article as a fair-use image. Would you mind writing a proposed fair-use rationale for this image, so it can be discussed by participants in this DRV? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to offer up a fair use rationale for the image: First, there are no apparent free equivalents or alternatives to the photographs of Rene Gagnon's headstone to be used in Gagnon's article. Second, there's no infringement to commercial purposes for images of Rene Gagnon's headstone at Arlington. Third, the image has an important encyclopedic use in illustrating how Gagnon is memorialized in death by for his role in the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. (A larger scale example would be Lincoln's tomb of which there are multiple photographs on Wikipedia). The photograph thus significantly adds to a reader's understanding and its current absence is detrimental. Fourth, this image has a home and a use. It will not exist merely to exist. Fifth, it's use will be minimal. Please let me know if I need to expand on this rationale, I'll be happy to.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't imply that the FfD discussion hinged on copyright status. I said that it was procedurally correct, and that it also happened to reach the correct result.  Sandstein  18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I'm not sure what I was thinking, as I misinterpreted your comment. I apologize.

RebelAt, I tend to be more on the lenient side when it comes to interpreting the NFCC, but in my opinion your proposed fair-use rationale is up to snuff. In particular, my opinion based on what I know so far is that the image would enhance reader understanding of how Gagnon is memorialized in death, thus complying with WP:NFCC#8. I vote to undelete and append a fair-use rationale like the one you've articulated in this discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Where is the photo? It's hard to make a decision without being able to look at it. But, assuming that the quality of the photo is okay, let's get it back up where it can be providing a useful service. Dadge (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot see the photo because it is deleted. It is a composite of the front and back of a gravestone. The back of the otherwise unremarkable stone holds a bronze relief based on a photograph. The quality or usefulness of the picture are irrelevant; what's at stake is its copyright status.  Sandstein  18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, kind of The back is definitely copyrighted, and there is no need for readers to see the back of his gravestone in the article, so it fails WP:NFCC8. HOWEVER, the front is not copyrighted. Let's just crop the image and keep the front side only in the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Regarding the nomination page, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 1, the page has 24 nominations, and 24 deletions.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  There are four technical issues that have been raised here that are outside the scope of this discussion.  (1) Is the upload a picture of the derivative of a copyrighted photograph?  (2) Is information from gravestones released to the public for perpetuity?  (3) Are images of US government monuments protected by copyright?  (4) Is a fair use rationale possible?  Unscintillating (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to "delete without prejudice to undeleting/re-uploading with an appropriate licence" as per WP:Deletion process.  The nominator of the deletion discussion notes that no date was given of the picture, and raises an FoP argument; each of which were remediable but unanswered.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia (U.S. state (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:RHaworth deleted this redirect with the summary "(R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)", but I think he's mistaken. I created the redirect after I committed that very typo, while trying to go to Georgia (U.S. state). It seems like an easy error to make, and there's no risk of confusion, so a redirect definitely seems in order. He's indicated on his talk page that he disagrees, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. Relevant policy includes Wikipedia:Redirects, where likely misspellings are an explicit reason for the creation of a redirect. Moreover, under "reasons not to delete", that page lists "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." I find this useful and think it should be recreated. Meelar (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my deletion. We do not need redirects for every conceivable typo. Authors are expected to use preview - they should spot a red link and correct it. We should not be helping them to leave ugly typos in articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, this wasn't meant to be used in article, but when typing in the search bar. Meelar (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The "some find them useful" principle has to have a line somewhere though, and I believe this is it. It is one thing to provide help for common mistakes, e.g. Michelle Bachmann, but extending this to typos of Wikipedia-specific naming styles is a bit absurd. What about the leading parenthesis, do we do Georgia U.S. state) ? A lot of people hit shift and do curly "{", how about those permutations? Tarc (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I suppose this could go either way at RFD but its not so clearly implausible to be speedied. 169.231.124.150 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. RHaworth's explanation above doesn't make much sense to me. This isn't about red links in articles. It's about what people type into search bars. Tarc's explanation makes a lot more sense. I'd just be far more generous about where to draw "the line". I think Meelar's point is valid: if someone finds a redirect to be useful, it probably is. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is all about red links. As to what people type into search bars, we do not need a redirect for that purpose. A search for georgia (u.s. state works perfectly well without the need for a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In almost any article, Georgia (U.S. state) would and should be pipelinked so it appears as Georgia. The typo would be invisible in the article anyway. This is much more relevant to the search bar, and makes life easier for users. Meelar (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn it's certainly possible that this could be kept at RfD and I don't think it was sufficiently blatant for speedy deletion. I should also point out that R3 applies only to recently created redirects and this one had existed since 2005. Hut 8.5 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• List at RfD. I agree that it's an implausible redirect, but others apparently disagree; that discussion should be had at RfD and not at DRV.  Sandstein  23:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion and do not automatically list at RfD. Redirects are cheap. It's ridiculous and a waste of time to delete redirects like this under CSD#R3 when they are (a) essentially harmless and (b) not wildly implausible. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - If nothing else, there's no way that 2005 can be considered "recent", so that by itself invalidates the R3 speedy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Meh. If your Wikipedia literacy is high enough to commit this particular typo, you are a regular editor anyway. (I don't expect a non-editor to spontaneously use "Georgia (U.S. state)" as their exact search term; this combination of brackets and capitalisation is very niche to Wikipedia.) So, whether this redirect exists doesn't actually matter. Deryck C. 10:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to RfD' Using CSD in a case like this is to some extent a matter of judgment--but if one of my speedies like this were challenged in good faith, I cannot imagine why I would insist on it, instead of just reverting and sending to XfD. It's much easier than forcing someone to come here and waste time debating over whether we should debate something. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn In my experience, missing parentheses is not uncommon as a typo. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Are you going to have similar redirects for every page with parentheses in its name??

And what about people who type in Georgia (U.S.), Georgia (U.S.A.), Georgia (America), Georgia (US state), Georgia (state) or Georgia U.S. State? They have a more reasonable right to expect a redirect than someone who's made a punctuation error. What would be more useful would be some consistency on what appears when people make such "errors", partly to prevent them starting new Wikipedia pages.

Isn't it quicker anyway (than typing in Georgia (U.S. State) to enter "Georgia" and then click on the correct option from the list provided? Dadge (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – to err is human but to leave an unbalanced bracket is unconscionable. Oculi (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Don't mess with formality and send this to RfD, get your consensus right here. A reasonable deletion. If we wanted redirects like this, we'd end up with redirects for every article title with parenthetical errors and stuff like Georgia U.S. state) and George (U.S. state)) and Georgia (U.S. stat) and Georgia (US state and Georgia (the real one) and Georgia (we're responsible for Newt), etc. etc. Its too much, some level of error correction needs to fall on the user.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse  Nominator states, "I committed that very typo", which is evidence that this redirect exists due to WP:OR.  Unlike Wikipedia:Redirect, which nominator incorrectly identifies as a policy; WP:NOR is a policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per WP:SNOW: Even if it isn't implausible enough for a speedy deletion, this kind of redirect is routinely deleted at RfD (unless it has history, which this does not since it's new); I see no evidence that this redirect is special. --NYKevin @779, i.e. 17:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn  2005 is not recent, and similar to what DGG says, nominator should not have had to come to DRV to get this restored.  Best path here is that nominator agrees to drop the matter and leave the redirect deleted, so that this DRV can be WP:IAR closed.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Wikipedia:NOTBURO. There is no reason to overturn for policy sake, I'd support deleting this at MfD too. Redirects are not needed for these kind of typos, the search functionality as well as google already compensate for this. An experienced editor, who would type this into the URL bar, would be needed to make this useful and such experienced editor will figure it out. Otherwise, we need to create redirects for every possible typo. Redirects should be used for other names, similar spellings, ect. Let this one rest.--v/r - TP 14:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edelsohn-Rebecca 1910 census.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Properly licensed and no valid reason for deletion Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to haver been an obvious PD-US, and was so specified on the license. Source information is visible on the face of the document. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A patently erroneous speedy deletion: the file (a 1910 official US census sheet) is obviously a US federal government work. But why have you not discussed this with Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) first?  Sandstein  14:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The answer to that question is, if I may presume to speak for the nominator, in the pink banner near the top of Fastily's talk page. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks; that notice says "I will be unavailable until 8 February 2012" and "Admins, in my absence, you do not need to ask for my permission or input to reverse one of my administrative actions." On that basis, I am reversing the mistaken deletion unilaterally, in my capacity as administrator.  Sandstein  23:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is a slightly unconventional DRV, as I wasn't involved in the initial AFD; but I noticed it discussed on ANI and saw that this early close caused a certain amount of disagreement, so I'm bringing it here for further comment. This discussion was closed after less than two hours on the grounds that the article has previously been kept several times, and that this was a bad-faith nomination by a possible sockpuppet account. That allegation has been rejected by ArbCom, see here: this was a nomination in good faith. As for the first ground, while this article has been kept at AFD several times before, the last two AFDs, in 2009 and 2010, were both closed as 'speedy keep' after three and a half hours and eight hours respectively. The last AFD for the article which was actually allowed to run for the full period was back in 2008, three and a half years ago, and it's entirely possible consensus could have changed since then. In fact, this time round, one user besides the nominator did make a good-faith comment that the article should be deleted before the AFD was closed. That alone means that Wikipedia:Speedy keep should not have been used: none of the criteria listed on that page applied.

To be quite clear, I'm not asking for the result of this AFD to be overturned to 'delete'; I only think that there are good-faith reasons to doubt whether this person meets our notability guidelines, and that the AFD should be reopened and allowed to run for the full period so those arguments can be properly considered. Robofish (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen I'm sure Drmies was acting in good faith when closing it, but I think that it should be left to run for a full week. SmartSE (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse Clearly a disruptive nomination and if you don't think it needs deletion that reopening this is process for process' sake. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was it clearly disruptive? Noobs have started AfDs before you know. Also, as I noted here there are good reasons to reopen it - Robofish isn't saying it should be reopened for process' sake - just that it shouldn't be overturned as delete. SmartSE (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not reopen - Nominating user currently known as "Fortheloveofbacon" made this his first activity after a 20-month absence from Wikipedia. There's something fishy going on here, and it's not with the Arthur Rubin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully I was able to satisfy your pescatarian suspicions. I think I have User_Talk:Fortheloveofbacon but I am happy to discuss it further.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen I don't see how the nomination is clearly disruptive, either way, another editor !voted delete in good faith, so speedy keep doesn't and didn't apply. Let the discussion run its course, and if it ends up as a WP:SNOW keep, let it be closed then, but that's not how it looks now. Quasihuman | Talk 18:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can an editor's first edit after 20 months absence, be an action like this, and NOT be a bad-faith nomination? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who know's? WP:AGF? SmartSE (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do assume good faith, until doubt is cast. Let's put it this way: I am on an interaction ban with the editor this Love of Bacon guy was alleged to be a sock of. Am I also implicitly on an interaction ban with this Love of Bacon guy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well arbcom have looked at it and say it's not a sock, so we have to AGF. SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Even if it is a bad-faith nomination, WP:SK says:"bad motivations of the nominator don't have direct bearing on the validity of the nomination". This was not a good speedy keep, therefore it should be reopened, the supposed bad-faith of the nom is irrelevant since a good-faith editor !voted delete. Quasihuman | Talk 18:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe you missed the case a week or two ago where PGPirate (talk · contribs) made like 80 nominations, all of which were overturned on the grounds of being bad-faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't aware of that case. All of the AfDs I've seen that that user nominated were closed without any other delete !votes. Were there any that were closed with good-faith delete !votes, if not what is the relevance of that case to this one? Quasihuman | Talk 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That your premise, that AFD's have to be considered without merit to their nomination, is not true. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Er, no, that's not my premise, my premise was that where a nominatior is bad-faith and an independent, good-faith editor !votes delete, the nomination should be considered on its merits, this is what WP:SK, which I quoted from, says. Of course we should speedy keep AfDs nominated by people like PGPirate, but only where no independent good-faith editors say delete. Quasihuman | Talk 22:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen. Does not meet criteria for speedy keep, and the closer made an assumption of bad faith on insufficient evidence. Also, this repeated very fast closing of what look like valid AfDs creates an appearance of favoritism towards our own editors that I think we should try to avoid. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen per David Eppstein. The appearance of overuse of Speedy Keep undermines the appearance of AfD as a fair process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, a dozen speedy keep's with WP:NPASR every day at AfD for ill-prepared nominations would soon improve the quality of nominations.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree, but I'd like to see such a practice written up at WP:SK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with WP:NPASR  Both the AfD nomination and the AfD close are inadequate, but there is no need to get involved in process when any editor can make a new nomination; hopefully a nomination without the ad hominem content, and with a demonstration of understanding of WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE.  Reopening would be a distinctly bad idea for many reasons.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Rubin (6th nomination) (the logical next nomination page) has been salted (see the ANI post). While it would be possible to get around this, doing so could be considered disruptive, so your statement that: "any editor can make a new nomination" is false. Quasihuman | Talk 21:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems a little OTT to me. SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can note that, and you can also misquote me and declare that your misquote means that I have stated a falsehood.  The closing admin did make mistakes, including not taking down an improper "delete" !vote, but those mistakes do not rehabilitate an inadequate nomination.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was not my intention to misquote you, and if I have done so, I apologize. I have struck the offending passage. Quasihuman | Talk 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close - Closer was correct in that notability of subject is well-established, and no new reasons were advanced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has WP:ITSNOTABLE been a reason for a super vote and a speedy close?  It is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions for a reason.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. First of all, that's an essay (even though it's a very useful one). Second, please read it: "Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability." Well, two AfDs have provided community consensus. It's nice if one can throw acronyms around, but it's more helpful to know what's actually there. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NotabilityDiviner from WP:ITSNOTABLE states, "Keep It is clearly notable."  Evidence presented by Beyond My Ken is that "notability of subject is well-established", but like NotabilityDiviner, the statement about notability is a proof by assertion.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous poster's (PP) last comment to me at ANI dwelt on excrement, and now the PP chooses to tell me I don't know what's in an essay I've referenced.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep clause 2 begins, "2 The nomination was unquestionably...disruption...", and clause 2c continues, "c making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion"  SK#2c does not apply unless someone wants to claim that an AfD 3.5 years ago is "recent".  And not only is it recent, it is so recent as to be "unquestionably disruptive".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I considered that a 5th AfD was disruptive, yes, since the first two were in-depth and thorough (by now I'm repeating this past nauseam). Number three and four were clearly disruptive, and I had (and still have) no reason to think better of number five. Out of the blue comes this account and finds its way to AfD, getting every detail right, and going straight for an admin with an article--one which, as I noted, has been the subject of disruption before. CoM or not isn't really interesting to me: I have a habit of running into his socks but when I closed this the topic hadn't even come up, and I wasn't thinking of it in the first place. But given Bacon's known history it was odd enough. Here's something funny: I don't think someone who's seventeenth edit, the second after a 20-month absence, is an AfD nomination. Explain to me how that is not fishy. And look at what we're doing here: an ANI thread that's still open, an SPI, and now a Deletion review, and poor Bugs wondering if he can even talk to the guy. Yeah, I don't have a lot of good faith here, and if the mission of Bacon is what I think it is, they've succeeded pretty well. Robofish and SmartSE, if it ever comes down to something I'd want you on my side, but in this case I think your good faith is misplaced. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting malfeasance because I behaved too properly in submitting it, while condeming previous AfD attempts because the submitter behaved improperly? You have confounded me, sir. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not. I never said you did anything properly. Drmies (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of the blue comes this account and finds its way to AfD, getting every detail right..." Did you mean to say I did everything right without doing anything properly? Also, please note that this user is the one who made the speedy keep. Contrary to what you say above, you expressed a predisposition towards accusing me of foul play from the get-go. Read comment here: "Hmm, maybe that account is compromised--it's odd. Maybe someone else can have a look; I've never dealt with such a thing before. Oh, Rubin, you're kept. I expect some currency in my secret Swiss account soon, since you math people are notoriously rolling in money. Drmies (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) I do not know why you insist on this witch hunt, when the admins have said it was a case of mistaken identity. For the sake of professionalism, I have to ask that you please speak to the facts in this case. If you disagree with arbcom's finding or are unsatisfied, this is not the place to beat that dead horse. Talk to them, or even come over to my talk page, if you prefer. But by doing this here you are tainting the proceedings in a way that I have gone to great lengths to avoid, since it has been a perpetual problem from other users with whom I have no desire to be associated.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen and let the matter take its course for the required seven days as per Eppstein. And give it a fresh seven days after closure of this debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Endorse and WP:SALT ALL AFD's and DRV entries related to this article - Unless any NEW arguments are presented then this constant AfD'ing is highly disruptive! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What constant AfDing? the previous nomination was over a year ago, that doesn't sound like constant to me. Quasihuman | Talk 23:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the last full AfD was over 3 and a half years ago, in which time our BLP standards have changed. SmartSE (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • BLP minimum requirements for sourcing have certainly changed, but I don't believe that relevant standards for notability have done so appreciably. I can't see the AfD nom as in any way legitimate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I believe that my WP:BLP1E assertion is new as well, thereby satisfying your request for a new argument. This section in particular is one that has evolved since 2008. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen Not an appropriate speedy keep candidate, as a good faith delete !vote had been made. With the last full discussion more than 3 years ago the discussion should be allowed to run for 7 days. Yoenit (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist The following narrative sums up the situation leading to my actions: I read a comment by the User, and decided to read his user page. When I got to the bottom of it, I found a link to Arthur_Rubin. At first I thought, perhaps, it was tongue-in-cheek and there was another individual with the same name. Then I read the article and found it uncannily similar to a userpage in content. Then I got to the bottom and saw a link to his meetup profile. "This is irregular" I thought. Still not completely sure that User:Arthur_Rubin and Arthur_Rubin were the same, I fired up the edit history and talk pages. Turns out User:Arthur_Rubin likes to weigh in on Arthur_Rubin from time to time. fact, he is the 5th most frequent editor, there. That sealed it for me, so I put my fancy booklearnin' to use, and started reading about the finer points of wiki procedure. You seem to be implying that I appeared out of the depths of the internet only to land on this article. Nothing could be further from the truth. I read here all the time, and you should not misconstrue my lack of participation with a lack of familiarity re: the wiki. Arbcom cleared up that sock issue about 15 minutes after I spoke with them.
  
  Now, the last time that this was actually put up for review was in 2008, where the reviewers noted that WP:N was actually relatively new and still under development. They did seem to settle, however, on the fact that his Putnam win possibly satisfied the test. I do not think this is WP:PROF because he is no longer in academia, which means that it is WP:BLP1E. I quote "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." This would suggest that the article is unnecessary, but that it would be appropriate to have a "Putnam Winners" article, in which it could be noted that User:Arthur_Rubin was a winner.
  
  I am voting "Relist" to try to show good faith, so please see that this truly is. If you're bent on seeing something bad, you'll find it... I'm a sock, I'm editing in bad faith, something is fishy, etc... Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think 7 out of 301 edits is significant, even if I were the 5th most frequent editor. (The toolserver isn't working for me, so I can't verify the numbers.) I should not comment on the merits of the deletion or whether procedure has adequately been followed, but it should be pointed out that my edits of the article consist of (1) Adding my birth year, to confirm that it's authorized in the article; (2) Wikilinking my thesis title (as, even among mathematicians, it's not obvious which words should be linked); (3) one minor edit to use {{DEFAULTSORT}}; (4) correcting the spelling of a category; (5-7) reverting clear vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 04:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding your year of birth is inappropriate as it is not sourced. Nor is it found anywhere on the internet from which it could now be referenced. By "weigh in" I did not intend to refer simply to your edits, as I don't think your reversions of vandalism would be deemed inappropriate by anyone. This is not intended to be a condemnation of these actions, it is merely that observing your actions re: this article convinced me that the User:Arthur_Rubin and the article Arthur Rubin pertain to the same individual. Rather, I was looking at the totality of your participation across the talk page, the review discussions, your opening of an ANI requesting a speedy keep and circuitously accusing me of sock-puppetry, and now here. Please know that I did attempt to locate information to expand this article or improve it. However, it appears that the majority of information available is found here on Wikipedia alone. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - regardless of the merits of the AfD having been closed early, the article makes a sufficent assertion of reliablity sourced to non-primary sources that I don't see the point of reopening just for the sake of "dem's the rules". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you on WP:BURO, however I think "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." is more apropos here. There has not been a true discussion since 2008. That stands by itself as reasonable grounds for addressing it. Additionally, recall that WP:N has actually developed quite a bit since that last decision was made (I was actually surprised how much when I looked through it just now).Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when does the fact that something hasn't been discussed in 3 years require the community to engage in self-doubt and debate. 99.99% of articles haven't been discussed for deletion at all, much less within the last 3 years; should we now nominate them all and decide whether we'd be a better pedia without them? Process for process' sake is what will turn this project from an encyclopedia to a debating society. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's standards of notability have changed in the last three years. Experience at the academic AfD noticeboard shows that they have increased markedly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse. I agree that it didn't strictly meet the "speedy keep" criteria, and instead it should have been closed as WP:SNOW. But this technicality isn't a sufficient reason to reopen the discussion. Jowa fan (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a logical fallacy. The mere fact that there are 15-some-odd people having this debate would mean that would fail WP:SNOW. If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause. Simply reading up this thread it seems obvious that this is far from a unanimous decision. And there is certainly interest in it. So even if it did pass WP:N, we have already proven that it would fail WP:SNOW.Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your assumption that every commenter here who is !voting "Reopen" would also have !voted "Delete" if the AfD hadn't been closed is actually the logical fallacy. Most of the "Reopen" or "Relist" comments are procedural in nature and not based on an evaluation of the article one way or the other. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. It is most important to follow proper procedures in order to protect Wikipedia's reputation. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• The snowball clause is an essay giving some rough guidelines. It's not precise enough to present logical fallacies in a clear form; I don't think we can prove that this line of argument is either right or wrong. But if you want to talk about fallacies, you're quoting a one-way implication and pointing out that the hypothesis is false. That doesn't falsify the conclusion. Mentioning the snowball clause is shorthand for "the probability of this page being deleted is extremely close to zero, so it's best not to waste time rehashing the same old arguments again". The fact that a few people would support reopening the debate (but wouldn't necessarily advocate deletion) doesn't significantly increase the odds of the page being deleted, in my opinion. Jowa fan (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wise words. We won't know how people will vote until they are given the chance. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'll actually defer to your expertise on the precision of that statement. I only meant to say that I think "unanimous" is optimistic. But I re-read my comment and thought it sounded a little terse, so if you took it that way, I apologize. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Even though I disagree with your opinion, I accept that you're acting in good faith here. Best wishes, Jowa fan (talk) 04:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen, same reasons as posited by David Eppstein above. -- Samir 04:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not reopen; This article has been through the ringer at AfD seemingly ad infinitum. It shouldn't be sent back there without conclusive evidence that something has changed, either with our guidelines, or Rubin's notability. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - We all know what's going on here, enough with this "tut tut, AGF" tap-dancing. We have an AfD filed by a "new" user avoiding the scrutiny that'd come with their previous, real account. The same as the last AfD and the one before that. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The nomination may have been in bad faith, but looking over the sources I think he only has borderline notability. I'm tied over whether to reopen a troll's request or to endorse a decision which would discourage future nominations of the article. meh... Endorse without prejudice ThemFromSpace 17:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- troll nomination plus empty "only voting delete so you can't speedy keep it" equals good use of WP:IAR. Reyk _YO! 19:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If we endorse the close purely on the basis of suspicions about the nominating account, then there will be no reason why Robofish couldn't open a fresh AfD immediately. Therefore we do also need to think about whether we endorse the speedy keep on the basis that the whole thing was already thoroughly discussed in 2008. I express no opinion on the former point because I find conduct questions extremely tedious and I don't really care, but on the latter point, I'm very reluctant to enforce a three-year-old decision without a new consensus, so I would say that procedurally, in the event of a fresh nomination from an unimpeachably good faith user, the discussion should probably go on for the full seven days. But I also think such a discussion would be pointless, since it seems highly unlikely to end with a "delete" outcome.—S Marshall T/C 19:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we should allow a user in good standing to Reopen the article. While the last nomination was a bit odd (for reasons stated above), I see no reason why a member of the community with good faith doubts about Authur Rubin's notability should be barred from re-nominating it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that I have been proven incontrovertibly to be completely unafiliated with (and heretofore unaware of) this other user, aren't I considered to be in good standing? I raise this for two reasons: 1. for the purpose of this discussion but 2. because more than that, I am concerned about ongoing prejudice over my account and choice of username. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry if you felt insulted by my comment. I had seen that editors had raised suspicions about you and considered you to be of questionable standing for that reason. I haven't looked into their accusations in depth though, and am unfamiliar with the history of the person they suspected you to be. To answer your question though, yes, I shall consider you an editor in good standing from now on. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen The disruption came not from the Afd, but from the subject of the article posting on ANI and a lack of good faith regarding the nominator. If the article is notable, it can withstand a 7 day Afd. Nobody Ent 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  When I wrote that, the AfD was broken; for some reason, it was pointing to the first AfD rather than to the new nomination. I didn't say that the nomination wasn't in good faith, although I suspected that the the editor was one of the other nominators. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This debate is developing some rather nasty features. Some editors have claimed the nomination of the AfD (incidentally a subject that I have never had anything to do with before) was made in bad faith and was disruptive and that the nominator is a troll. From the nominator's history and behavior here I can see no evidence of this and none has been produced. Intemperate and uncivil language of this sort is unexpected at a venue frequented by the brightest and best of Wikipedia's editors. I note that one other editor has also had misgivings about this. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse The speedy keep was justified in the circumstances. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the Wikipedia policy that leads you to this view? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Reopen. I have no opinion about either the article or the editor; this board is only for the discussion of procedural matters. The "speedy keep" does not invoke or appear to meet any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Speedy keep. The closure was therefore premature, especially as it appears that all other discussions since 2008 were also speedily closed and consensus may have changed since then.  Sandstein  23:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein hits the nail on the head. I wish I had expressed the matter as clearly myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Just out of curiosity, I see a handful of votes based on the misinformation that I am a sock or otherwise in bad standing. Are they still considered valid if the information is factually incorrect? Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per DGG and others. Mathsci (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Including a singular lack of solid rationale for the proposaed deletion. And I think the limited contribution history of the nominator may well suggest an "alternate persona" is involved. Collect (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – per DGG, Tarc and others. Oculi (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - jeebus, aren't there are more constructive things to do around here? hint: yes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Giftlite (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

East Turkistan Government in Exile (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

About two weeks ago, the page for the East Turkistan Government in Exile (ETGIE) was proposed for deletion under the premise that this government organization had to establish its notability. As a result of the discussion for deletion, it was concluded that the page be redirected to Anwar Yusuf Turani, who is the founder and Prime Minister of the government. At the time of the proposed deletion, the page was undoubtedly in a novice state with around 10 to 12 sources. However, I have worked on improving this article on my user page, at User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile. I have added multiple sources and additional sections in attempt to establish that ETGIE is in fact a legitimate government organization in exile with the purpose of gaining the independence of East Turkistan from the People’s Republic of China. Among the sources, there are also several second sources in English, Turkish, and Uyghur that analyze the establishment of the government and the Chinese rejection towards its formation in the United States. Therefore, due to the fact that it is actually a legitimate government in exile based in Washington D.C. and is backed with numerous credible sources, I believe that the East Turkistan Government in Exile should have its own page and not be redirected. Tewpiq (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who closed the AfD, I have no opinion about the notability of the new version of the article, but I have concerns that the new version that is now being proposed is an exercise in advocacy rather than a neutral description of this movement. For instance, it contains this unsourced map which is apparently meant to represent the real boundaries of real countries. Given that there seems to be no editor at the moment who is interested in or capable of developing this article in WP:NPOV form, it might be better to keep it redirected to the leader of this movement.  Sandstein  19:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realized the issue of the map. Since this page is about a government organization, I decided to delete the map and link the words East Turkistan to the Wiki page, where several sourced maps can be found. And yes, it would be great if there were other editors knowledgeable in the matter of ETGIE to "neutralize" the article, however the majority of people who are informed of or associated with ETGIE are predominantly Turks and Uyghurs who do not speak the English language. ETGIE directs almost all of its activity towards the Turkic community. Tewpiq (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the draft article clearly shows notability, so the result of the AfD has been superseded. Producing this sort of result is an ideal conclusion to AfD, and I think the new version could have been restored by any admin without needing to come here. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relisting DRV to get more discussion to develop a consensus.--v/r - TP 13:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse protected redirect. Preposterous, pretentious, promotional, activism, advocacy. There is no reasonable claim for this group to be called a "government", and I think the title is unacceptable. This is an external separatist group, and shoul dbe described as no more. If there is any real connection to the people or history of East Turkestan, some mention should first be established at East Turkestan. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that your argument here amounts to a content dispute over what the article should be, and this is not the place for it. Wikipedia does not make judgments about which governments or separatist movements are politically legitimate. DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. However, the AfD demonstrates a concensus against a stand alone article, and the subject has no mention in existing articles. Before re-creation, mention of this group should be made in related articles, and even then this title I can't support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The East Turkistan Government in Exile is in fact mentioned in other Wikipedia pages including the page for government in exile and the East Turkestan Independence Movement.Tewpiq (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From East Turkestan Independence Movement:

Pro-independence organizations overseas include the East Turkistan National Freedom Center, the East Turkistan Government in Exile, and the East Turkestan Liberation Organization (Transnational Hizb ut-Tahrir).[16] The most noticeable event towards the East Turkistan Independence Movement was the establishment of the East Turkistan Government in Exile by a group of East Turkistani immigrants lead by Anwar Yusuf Turani in Washington D.C. on September 14, 2004.[17] The target audience of these organizations is generally the Western governments and public, as almost none of the websites are in Chinese or Uyghur, and most Uyghurs in China and Central Asia have never heard of them.[18]

Well described as one of three "Pro-independence organizations overseas", targeting "Western governments and public".

This is not a government in exile. It is absurd for this group to claim to be their country's legitimate government. They did not previously hold power, or any role, in East Turkestan. What they have is a website - http://en.eastturkistan-gov.org/government/ and it read it as advocacy (we do not allow advocacy no matter how worthy the cause). No one else recognises or describes them as a government in exile, and so Wikipedia should not describe them so. Deny re-creation under this title. Allow expansion at East Turkestan Independence Movement, and should this group prove independently notable, allow a spin-out at an NPOV title, perhaps Anwar Yusuf Turani's East Turkistan separatist group. I don't think the groups is notable. All sources are connected or belong to a rash of news reports following their dramatic declaration of Government in Exile. I don't see independent direct secondary source coverage of the group or so-called government. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I advise moving User:Tewpiq/East Turkistan Government in Exile offsite to http://www.eastturkistangovernmentinexile.us/ and waiting for independent coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Many (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unlock For Creation Review New References And Discography DJ Many56 (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note from your name that you appear to have a close connection to the subject. Could you provide some references here, as examples, to show that you have references which are both from what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources and which are independent of the subject which would show that the subject meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Actually, having looked at the deleted article, the repeated re-recreation (including recently as DJ many, which appears to be identical to the AFD'd version, and which is now also SALTed), I see nothing to indicate that this should be recreated. I reiterate that some sources should be presented here - and they can't be the ones used in the deleted articles, as they have already been decided by the community to be insufficient. I am open to being persuaded to change to 'allow recreation', but at the moment I do not see this as a suitable result here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You Should Allow Creation For Me To Point The New Sources And Info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Many56 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for that. Just tell us what the new sources are here so we can review them. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, because I'm a beastly admin, I've just SOAblocked DJ Many56. Do you know how many times he has re-created this article about his non-notable DJ self. I've also WP:SALTed the article title. Sometimes enough really is enough - we all have better things to do. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello this edit is in regard to the redirection of the wikipedia article Trenzalore. Please look over the history of the article. I have placed alot of material to be analyzed by a different administrator. Tom morris has asked me to provide him with my resources and other supporting material. I have complied with his request but he still refuses to revert the article from its current redirected state. If you have any questions for me or my team i will happily answer them to the best of my ability. This article is not yet finished but it cannot evolve unless it is viewable to the public and users with an esoteric understanding add their input. I would like to make it clear this article is not about whether or not aliens exist. The article is about the television character Doctor Who and one of his future adventures.

I await your responce, Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a redirect - First off, the original AfD could not have closed any other way than it did. I have watched Doctor Who since Tom Baker and even I had to pause for a moment to think "Trenzalore, what the hell is that?", before looking at the link and seeing for myself. This will in all likelihood never be worthy of an article. It is the name of a planet mentioned in a single episode of the 11th Doctor, describing an event that has not happened on-screen. No offense, but this is the nerdiest of nerd-lore. Tarc (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a redirect - I echo Tarc's last comment. Despite the essay written on the AFD talk page, there is no demosntratable notability here. But this isn't even AFD do-over, this is a DRV, and at DRV we determine if there was a process that failed at the AFD. After examining the AFD, I think the closing administrator closed it exactly as I would have.--v/r - TP 14:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin The key words in the DRV are "esoteric understanding": the !voters in the AfD rightly saw that the article was a coatrack for all sorts of fringe—sorry, "esoteric"—material. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, "my team"? What? —Tom Morris (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep redirected. I recognised the name immediately and actually found the former content somewhat interesting to read, but Wikipedia is completely the wrong place to host it. Any other close of that AfD would never have been allowed to stand given the overwhelming consensus, and I can't see any new reasons being presented to justify recreation. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep redirected. This article as it previously existed was devoid of context (it did not even mention the television series title "Doctor Who"). It also appears that most of its content came from sources that were talking about things other than the planet as depicted on this television series. If the planet becomes an important aspect of the Doctor Who universe and otherwise satisfies notability and sourcing requirements, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Jerrydeanrsmith has now tried to recreate the article by moving Talk:Trenzalore to Article:Trenzalore, in the process removing the previous discussion on that talk page and the old AfD notice. Only an admin can move it back.... First Light (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now he's moved that to an alternate spelling: Trenzalor. First Light (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Warned the user. Given the complete waste of time that is this DRV and my persistent attempts to explain this, I'm thinking we have a bad case of WP:CIR and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Wikipedia is not a publisher of exegeses and fan fiction, which the most recent drafts of this article seem to be.

  The article is written on the basis for the outline of a movie script.This article was suppose to encourage those willing to add input on how a future doctor who episode should be structured.
  —Jerrydeanrsmith (talk · contribs), from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trenzalore#Rebuttal

  User:Jerrydeanrsmith is advised to find another website for this project—if tardis.wikia.com doesn't do this sort of thing, perhaps the Collaborative fiction section of the Fiction wiki would be a good place. In any case, subject is a plot detail in a work of fiction, and lacks independent notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i understand. Thank you for your time and diligence in the matter. Jerrydeanrsmith (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1990s (U.S.) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s (U.S.) (2nd nomination) (which included the 1990s and 2010s articles) as no consensus, meaning that they are kept. However, a month earlier Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2000s (U.S.) was closed as delete. There's absolutely no reason that two should be exist and one should not, so I'm bringing them here in the hopes of getting a common outcome. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore the deleted one for at least temporary consistency and bring an rfc on this. This sort of thing is the disgrace of our AfD system. In a case like this deletion review is not the place to discuss the actual merits, but we have confused the entire question of notability with the question of how to divide up articles. Nobody doubted in any of these that the material should be covered--the entire dispute was merely whether to put them into a single article. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I don't see anything policy based, with the exception of Rlendog in none of the AFDs, the last AFD (2010s) was a clear "needs further consensus" to, as neither the keeps or the deletes have much policy or guideline base agreements (like saying it meets WP:LIST with no reasoning behind it). Secret ^account 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that seems like an equally good idea to mine. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Renominate all three in a mass nomination to obtain a uniform outcome.  Sandstein  22:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mass renominate per all. An RFC seems like overkill. --NYKevin @129, i.e. 02:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Mass RfC with 3 options: Endorse, Restore all or Delete all. I can see why some prefer an RfC rather than AfD / DRV: 2 of the articles currently exist; the other is currently deleted. Deryck C. 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• It still seems to me to be a content fork which "result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided", and these are redundant. I've tried to take the discussion to WT:CHARTS but have received little input. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the deleted one and renominate all three together. This is a perfect example of where mass nominations can be useful, since separate AfDs can produce completely different results depending on the individuals involved despite the articles under discussion (and the reasoning behind the keep and delete arguments) being virtually identical. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• We are going to have to add in List of Hot 100 number-one singles during 1958–1969 (U.S.), List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1970s (U.S.), and List of Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1980s (U.S.) to the mass nomination because User:TheCuriousGnome isn't willing to wait for this deletion review and its consensus to play out first. May I be bold and nominate them all to resolve this once and for all. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained to User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars in my talk page, I would attempt to finish my work on this series of articles ASAP so that when the voting would be held the next time around the Wikipedians taking part in the AfD would express their opinion based on the articles' optimal versions ​(and not having a voting based on the half-baked versions – which would definitely justify their removal). For this reason, I would agree with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars that the additional pages I created in this series should be added as well to the mass nomination. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• ARE YOU NUTS? This is very reliable in terms of music. If this is taken, then so does every single article about Billboard and most of any chart data, at it is "already on the articles for the songs", or "people could check the Bilbboard site anyway". Delete this, and every single Billboard article must go down with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutshell1111 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, firstly, we're not actually debating whether to delete them right now, we're just trying to figure out how to have that conversation. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a system of formal logic, and arguments saying "if article X is deleted, we'll also have to delete article Y" are unconvincing in any forum. --NYKevin @880, i.e. 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm beginning to think an RFC would be better after all. The missing list was restored and more have since been added. As stated by DGG above, the debated issue is the redundancy of information in different list formats. Should the lists survive AfD, the issue will remain. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At the AfD the argument was made that, just as with the previous AfD, this article constituted a POV fork. Reference to the discussion and rationale of the previous AfD was explicit, as well as an example of the POV nature of the current version of the article: Despite the fact that the work is called "controversial", there is no criticism of it it in the article.

In discussing the AfD with the closing admin, several things stood out: [10]

• The admin made a note of taking a head count, as opposed to considering consensus when closing the AfD: "Given the headcount, I could possibly have closed it as no consensus"
• Despite explicit linked reference to the previous AfD, the admin made no effort to review that discussion: "I didn't look at the AfD from May 2010"
• Despite this being a "borderline case", subsequent review of the previous AfD and highlighting of the POV fork issues, the admin did not update the closing status of the article, and invited the discussion to continue here: "I stand by my closing... request a deletion review."

Once the AfD closed with a keep, Yfever stepped in and began to copy/paste content from other articles.

• from Arthur Jensen (unattributed): [11]
• from History of the race and intelligence controversy (attributed): [12]

In light of the consideration given by the closing admin, and subsequent content forking, I ask that this AfD be reviewed by the community. I will be notifying all the editors who participated in both AfDs to get more input on the issue. aprock (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Aprock. The initial form of the recreated article was copy-pasted from the lede of User:Ephery/How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?, a subpage of topic-banned user David.Kane: issues in the arbcom case WP:ARBR&I were closely related to the creation of the original fork. Additional content was copy-pasted by Yfever out of context from the stable article History of the race and intelligence controversy. This controversial paper, which is carefullly summarised in the History article, is never now discussed in secondary sources outside a historical context. There is no justification for having a separate article, written without reference to the events in the decades that followed its publication. The editing of Yfever is currently being considered at WP:AE. How a new user could find the original on a subpage of Ephery has not yet been explained. In addition it is now acknowledged that since the close of WP:ARBR&I there has been an unprecedented amount of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Although a disruptive sockpuppet of Mikemikev has been blocked within the last few hours, a checkuser confirmed that the account of Yfever has no relation to Mikemikev. A similar kind of article was created by another sock of a banned user user:Rrrrr5 some time back: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Spencer195/Archive. That article The Color of Crime (New Century) was also a fork and is now discussed in the main article New Century Foundation. It is possible that Yfever'saccount is related to that bizarre account, which was a usurped administrator account. Mathsci (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reading the above, this is either an editing dispute or an allegation of puppetry, both of which belong elsewhere. I suggest the best course would be to resolve the puppetry--once that is eliminated , probably the contents will stabilize and a proper discussion can be held on the talk p. about what the contents of the article should be. DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a content dispute. This material is clearly covered by WP:ARBR&I. I hope you are not suggesting otherwise or trying to ignore that case. Please look at the templates that are added on the talk pages of the associated articles, e.g. on Talk:Race and intelligence. If you think for some reason that this article does not fall in that category, clarification can be sought directly from arbcom. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see any statement there about this particular article. I see a general statement about avoiding NPOV, which merely repeats the standard Wikipedia policy, but I see no statement that articles where NPOV is question should be deleted. The talk p. heading warns against POV forks, but whether a particular article is a POV fork, or merely detailed coverage of a particular paper is a matter for the community. I do see a prior topic ban with respect to you in particular, which was removed by motion. Since you are using general statements of policy to try to enforce your own POV by pretending it had the endorsement of arb com, perhaps the topic ban should be reinstated. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking, I see the sentence in the findings on DK that "this editor has placed undue weight on selected research by A. R. Jensen to promote a point of view". I do not think that having an article on this famous paper is undue weight, if treated correctly; but it's not my opinion on that point that matters, but the community , and they expressed it. It is perhaps inappropriate that we do not have an article on many other famous papers, but that is to be dealt with by writing the articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking your statement and stating your own POV. Procedurally, the second AfD was started in an improper way. It was initiated by the same problematic user (Yfever) who created the article. In normal cirumcstances all those involved in the first AfD should have been contacted. This was not a community decision in any way imaginable. It looks like the beginning of an almighty train wreck. Mathsci (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this was for both scientific and political reasons an exceptionally important paper; I do not think that necessarily corresponds to any particular POV on the underlying subject. I agree with you that the course of editing on the topic has been very far from ideal--and therefore I don't edit on the subject myself here. DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A very detailed discussion of the article, with a lengthy summary from secondary sources and in a historical context, already occurs in History of the race and intelligence controversy#1960-1980. Mathsci (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep of article. Article seems a well-sourced and balanced account of an issue that has generated much interest. I hope that the initiator of this DRV has informed all contributors to the AfD about it. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Would you mind explaining what you man by "balanced?" The WP article begins by saying that this is a controversial journal article, but our WP article does not provide much of an account at all of what makes it controversial, or of the many criticisms leveled against the article, or of the context for the controversy. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the article contains shortcomings then improve it by editing, not deletion. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Any editor making edits to this particular article which infringe the restrictions set out in WP:ARBR&I is liable to discretionary sanctions enforcable at WP:AE. Mathsci (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That won't affect Slrubenstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

It affects all users, including in particular you. Mathsci (talk) 01:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why me? What have I done wrong? I can't see any reason why Slrubenstein should not edit the article and I can't see any reason why I should not. However, I don't intend to, it is a horrible editing environment to work in. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The article is subject to extremely stringent restrictions that apply to all users. When you commented here, you were aware that this particular article had been at the centre of the WP:ARBR&I case in which you participated. You chose not to mention that. Mathsci (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was Xanthippe who wrote that this article is "balanced." Well, is it, or isn't it? If Xanthippe is now admitting it is not balanced, well, fine but just say so. If Xanthippe still thinks it is balanced, I would appreciate a serious answer to my good faith question: what about it in your view makes it "balanced?" Slrubenstein | Talk 20:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have expressed my view. Let User:Slrubenstein express his. Does he think, the article is balanced or not? If the former, then fine. If the latter then let him edit it to restore the balance. It is Wikipedia policy that articles should be edited to improve them before deletion is resorted to. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

You did not express your view, you are just posturing and wasting people's time. You say the article is "balanced" but when I ask, p0olitiely, and twice, why you think it is balanced, you have no answer. I am willing to answer any question about my view. Are you unwilling to answer questions about your view? If you have reasons to believe it balanced, why not share them with us? If you have no reason to believe it is balanced, then your asserting that it is balanced is worthless. We are here for a reasoned discussion. Your posturing, without reasons, is not any kind of contribution. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make accusations of bad faith. You say that you are willing to answer any question about your view. Here is one: do you think the article is balanced or unbalanced? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I do not need to accuse you of acting in bad faith, you are so obviously acting in bad faith. On Jan. 18 you wrote that the article seems balanced. On Jan. 19 I asked the reasonable question, what about it makes it seem balanced to you? This is now the fourth time I am asking you this simple, appropriate question. That you repeatedly refuse to answer is proof that you have no evidence that it is balanced, which means you are acting in bad faith. Note: it was you who used the word "balanced" so it is perfectly reasonable to think you could explain what you mean. Note also that in my view on this question, posted in Jan 19th, I did not write that it is unbalanced. Since I did not write that it is unbalanced, how can I answer your question? I wrote my position on this question and if you have any questions about anything I wrote I would be more than happy to answer them. Would you be happy to answer questions about what you wrote? So far it looks like you will stall and weasle and change the topic as often as you have to, so as not to answer a simple question about what you wrote. It is only logical to infer that there is no thought or consideration behind your posture, it is pure posturing. Your approach to this matter is almost reason enough to delete the article. Are there better reasons to delete it? Sure! Just read my own post from the 19th. Or MathSci's. Fortunately, some people here actually care about wikiprocess! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

balance = NPOV. Please be civil. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Where have I been incivil? No matter. If you won't answer the question, then you won't answer the question. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Concur with Aprock Aprock's reasons are sufficient for deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect. All of the "keep" arguments amount to, "this is a reliable source for a particular point of view." I heartily agre, which is why this article should be used as a reliable source for Jensen's view in the article on Race and Intelligence which is our article that directly addresses the subject matter of this article. As the WP article itself notes, the Jensen article was and remains controversial - this is why the data and arguments in it, as well as the critiques of it, which concentrate on the larger debate concerning race and IQ, ought to be presented in the article on Race and IQ where the article, and jensen's body of work, can be put in its proper context. It is the Race and IQ article that fully addresses this research and Jensen's conclusions, as well as other work by people who share Jensen's view, and other work that is critical of jensen's view. To create a WP article on one controversial article is clearly a POV fork that gives undue weight to a single journal article. This is especially wrong with regards to this article, because the article does not stand alone, it is very much a part of a larger and ongoing set of debates. I speedily deleted it because it fits all th criteria for a speedy deletion. Someone restored the article and created an AfD entry that produced four "keeps" and three "deletes." Only seven editors commenting? The best one could say is that the AfD was closed prematurely; it should have been more widely announced and time should have been given for more people to register their views. Given the narrow margin - 4 to 3 - the outcome of the discussion has to be based on the merits of the arguments, and all that the "keeps" really had to say is that it is a notable article. Sure, we all agre with that, but notability is a criteria for inclusion in a WP article and not justification for the creation of a new WP article that limits itself to discussing this one journal article. All of the substantive contents of this WP article is already in another WP article. We should use all notable and reliable sources in writing a proper encyclopedic article on the topic. I fail to see why one of the sources for the Race and IQ article merits another WP article. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep Jensen's article is one of the most debated in the history of psychology. There are many articles about scientific papers in Wikipedia, and Jensen's is surely one of those that most deserves it. It is currently discussed in History of the race and intelligence controversy and Arthur Jensen, among others. It would be better to have a thorough discussion of it in a dedicated article. If the current version of the article is deemed to contain too little criticism of the article, this should not be a problem because a small library could be created exclusively out of critiques of Jensen's paper, i.e. there is no shortage of reliable sources. The current state of the article should not be regarded as a reason to delete it.--Victor Chmara (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue. Listen to DGG. This is a conduct dispute about sockpuppetry, and should be dealt with accordingly. Bes ides, I'm afraid that DRV is never going to overturn that close to "delete" on the basis of that debate, because there was no consensus for deletion. This DRV has no prospect of success and should be speedily closed.—S Marshall T/C 12:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue, but redirect - classic WP:POVFUNNEL. For the admins commenting - why haven't you blocked Yfever, obvious sockpuppet? Hipocrite (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete Ever since the discussion closed, a lot of uncritical information has been added. It is now clear that this was only a WP:POVFORK to avoid the mainstream criticism in other articles. This is exactly the same problem that caused the deletion in the first AfD. The book is already covered exhaustively in History_of_the_race_and_intelligence_controversy#1960-1980, in the context of the whole controversy. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't think the article contents should be kept but we seem to be missing a general article about whether things like Headstart are worthwhile. I think the contents are fairly worthless currently and are covered by History of the race and intelligence controversy and should be redirected there for the moment and if somebody sets up an article on the general topic was started later then it could be redirected there. Dmcq (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The existing general topic article is achievement gap. That article doesn't really have a history section. The existig history of the race and intelligence controversy is probably a better fit given that the legacy of the paper is the controversy it generated. aprock (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete - IMO the quacking is loud enough that we're in G5 (creation by a banned/blocked user) territory here for a speedy deletion. Tarc (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Admins can only really close deletion debates on the basis of the arguments raised in the discussion. In this DRV, we've had mention of CSDing under G5, ArbCom restrictions and discretionary sanctions, sockpuppets and much else besides. This was not discussed in the second AfD: how are admins supposed to take these things into account if you don't actually bring them up? Similarly, if there are behavioural issues, bring them up at ANI or a similar noticeboard—if you've done that, mention it in the AfD. Will admins now have to go on a complete treasure hunt across noticeboards, user talk pages and half the wiki before we can close a deletion debate in order to not risk ending up at DRV? I stand by the opinion that given the arguments presented in the AfD, I closed this correctly. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem was that Yfever started the AfD himself and did not inform editors involved in the prior AfD. You did not act improperly, but Yfever did in several ways. Mathsci (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. This is a deletion review, not a third AfD. The relevant factors that prompted the review are clearly noted in the opening statement. Instead of responding to the tangential issues (socks, G5, WP:ARBR&I, etc) please do discuss the head count, lack of reviewing the previous AfD, and unchanged closing despite the original closure being "borderline". aprock (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You concerns about "head count" are simply based on out-of-context quoting of my talk page. When I said that it is "borderline", I'm saying that it wasn't a cut and dried case either way. But just because something is borderline doesn't mean that one must reverse one's position: 60/40 is more "borderline" than 80/20 - but saying that the former is borderline doesn't mean you instantly have to reverse and side with the 40 over the 60. There wasn't a clear consensus to redirect. Given a lack of clear consensus to redirect, I could have closed with keep or with no consensus, but there was a slightly stronger consensus to keep, so I closed as keep. I leave whether or not I should have reviewed the previous AfD up to DRV participants: I stand by my closing and by the principle that admins should close on the basis of the consensus in the AfD before them. Without that principle, one need only stir up a hornet's nest quietly in the background, allow an AfD to run its course, and if the admin closes it in a way you do not like, go to the admin's talk page and release said hornet's nest and then demand action. Not that this is what happened here. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me if I observe that you're not making yourself clear here. I'll add that I'm baffled by the fact that you did not initially review the previous AfD (even after it was mentioned and linked to). Likewise that upon reviewing it your assessment remained unchanged despite you calling this a borderline case. Maybe I should take up ESP :). aprock (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One question is, if all this information had been known at the AfD, should it have closed as delete instead of keep? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, can we avoid having yet another AfD just for the purpose of following proper bureaucratic procedures? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

we have a policy on that: WP:IAR. We can do what we think best in the way of exceptional remedies, if there is consensus that it is necessary for the benefit of the encyclopedia . I don't think there is such a degree of consensus here to use it, for we can at worst always have another AfD--& remaining the additional 7 days will not harm anything. The practical reason for the rule that we do not discuss actual AfD - type problems here in depth is that this is a specialized venue, and many of the people who would come to a properly and neutrally announced AfD do not normally come here. There is an advantage in orderly consistent procedure for processes--especially since there are so many overlapping processes that no one person can follow all of them. If you're interested in some type of question, you need to expect where it will appear. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fadzilah Kamsah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A motivational speaker who has won many awards in his country, including obtaining a datukship, which carries the title "Datuk", equivalent to MBE in Britain. He does clearly passes WP:N, do refer to here, here, and here for sources. These sources were from Malaysia's top tabloid/newspapers i.e. The Star, Utusan Malaysia and Bernama, a news agency of the government of Malaysia.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recent revisions were speedily deleted per A7. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 17:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The datukship aside, the "Tokol Maal Hijrah"--an annual award for one outstanding person (has to be a Muslim though, I think) in each Malaysian state--is a significant award that alone is a credible claim to the subject's significance and importance. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete of article. No good reason to retain. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn Makes a credible claim of notability, making it exempt from CSD#A7. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 04:35, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn appears notable per WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:ANYBIO. Cavarrone (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides this being a clear wp:AFD argument, it is also a very bad argument. Saying something is notable per wp:V shows you do not actually understand it and kills the rest of your argument. Yoenit (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol! Mine was a (not too clear?) reference to WP:NRVE. Or maybe passing WP:V is not more a prerequisite for notability? And yes, maybe it is an AfD argument, but for an A7 deletion that appears wrong by numerous points of view it is almost inevitable. Cavarrone (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. At least one (arguably two) credible claims to notability, and coverage in reliable sources too... this isn't A7 material. (As an aside, I agree with Yoenit, but the fact that it's possible to make AfD-style arguments in favour of retention show that this shouldn't have been speedied.) Alzarian16 (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Those look like good sources. --GRuban (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]