Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November

< October 2012	Deletion review archives	December 2012 >

List of unreleased Britney Spears songs – "No Consensus" closure Endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 02:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This closure was in error because it ignored the consensus that the topic carries no notability or relevance for an encyclopaedia. Seven editors were in favor of deleting the article, whereas only two editors !voted keep—and while Afd is WP:NOTAVOTE, numbers aren't meaningless. The administrator's closing comment amounted to "This is a very well sourced list, and a featured list", which is not precedent of a topic being notable. Till 05:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends, I am the admin who closed it. I stand behind my close. I felt that the headcount was not overwhelming and that the arguments of the delete side were weaker. -- Y not? 15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well sourced (unlike similar lists deleted) and an appropriate spin out from Britney Spears discography, itself an appropriate spinout from Britney Spears.
Endorse, reasonable close, ~~although someone else might have called~~ "no consensus". Read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion and consider relisting at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you place a 'keep' vote above? Per WP:DRV, "...Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question." Till 09:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Call it a declaration of my immediate gut reaction to the list-article and AfD nomination, if you like. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't endorse the close, but seriously, just renominate it if you want to see it deleted. How this got to FL is beyond me. --Claritas § 09:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The last time I did that, I received a bunch of abusive and unnecessary comments from people who wanted the article kept. Till 09:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - policy goes one way, head count goes the other; a perfectly reasonable no consensus. WilyD 10:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the policy? All I see is 'This is a featured list and should be kept'. It is not uncommon for Featured articles/lists and GAs to be deleted. See this for the most recent example. Till 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to know what particular policy the deletion of this article would contravene. This is basically a case of WP:NOTTRIVIA. Claritas § 11:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears to meet WP:N, and there's no argument to be made that it runs afoul of the various WP:NOT. I seem them wikilinked, but nobody makes an argument (presumably because it's impossible, and the delete argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT). WilyD 10:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The closing administrator made no mention about the list meeting WP:N. He noted that it was a Featured list and that the content is "high quality", which is not really a reason to keep an article. Till 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "No consensus" was a perfectly reasonable reading of that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 12:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm how so? Till 13:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was simply "No consensus". Statυs (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse though I would have !voted keep, as I can see no basis in policy for deletion. They seem to be of wide public and press interest. I note we include coverage of the lost works of J. S. Bach in the relevant articles, and we could perfectly well compile them as a separate list also; they too are discussed by multiple reliable sources,including the major music encyclopedia. That the sources in one case are academic and in the other case not, is irrelevant. It was noted in the AfD that similar lists for other musicians have been deleted, and perhaps those AfDs are the ones that should be reviewed here. (Some were appropriately deleted as having no sources) (As Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library of the Performing Arts, I'm amazed at the number of full academic books, that I've been coming across there incidentally , even without specifically searching for them, for topics that have been rejected by WP as trivia or not meeting NLIST. I doubt I'll have time or interest to follow them all up, but I may put a bibliography in user or WP space of what I've been finding to help others.) DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse No consensus seems like an accurate summary- there' some decent argument for keeping and a decent argument for deletion, and neither convinced that many people either way. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Process was followed. MBisanz ^talk 19:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endorse verifiable material, neutrally presented, so no overriding policy reason for deletion. Notability remains in question, but there's certainly not a consensus that it fails that subjective bar.--Scott Mac 22:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — there really isn't much high-quality content here. Most of the entries are sourced to the songwriting websites. While some are minor and trivial documents of a song being leaked. None of this content is notable, and this topic goes against Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOT. Till 23:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I see no fault in the closer's result. Incidentally, the FL status is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates#List_of_unreleased_Britney_Spears_songs - if people feel this should be deleted, go there and get it de-listed, and then re-nominate it for deletion. FLs can be deleted, but as they have shown that they meet notability to get to FL (they would have been deleted before that), then it is harder to persuade people that they should be deleted. Although I am not personally in favour of such lists, this one meets the criteria for inclusion here from what I can see - it is well-sourced. If I was to be !voting at an AfD, I would have said to keep. In this case, there was not a consensus to delete, so I repeat that I endorse the closer's conclusion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The closing admin stated, "The result was No consensus to delete. This is a very well sourced list..." Unfortunately, these "well-sourced" lists include several WP:LINKVIO as references. BMI, copyright office and ASCAP are places where somebody in the Britney Spears camp have lodged a title, not necessarily an actual recording - released or otherwise. I am sure my points were clear in enough in the AfD. I have now pointed out that the closing admin didn't actually pay any attention to what those "well sourced" references were. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – the individual items in the list are not notable (otherwise they would all have articles) but the list itself is notable. All we need is a source for each item (which does not have to be third party as no claim is being made for the notability of each item, and none of the items is in any way controversial). I am quite surprised that there is even a discussion about this manifestly excellent list (some people really don't like lists) and not surprised that it is featured. Oculi (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Right...which is why it's already heading for a delist at WP:FLRC. Till 11:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - On spurious grounds. Oculi (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - What spurious grounds do you speak of? If you are talking about the article failing WP:V, I think I proved my point about that on the FLRC page. Till 00:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A well-reasoned close. Far too many of the delete !votes focused on editors' opinions of what ought to be notable rather than actual notability guidelines. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The keep !votes pointed to the list having FL status which isn't an actual notability guideline or a valid reason to keep an article. Till 10:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, even allowing your debatable point, predominantly lousy arguments on both sides would reasonably lead to a "no consensus" close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The delete !voters actually cited WP:NOT and highlighted the content in the article as not notable and unencyclopaedic. The fact that this list may have passed FL does not address the concerns with the article's notability, and nowhere did the closing administrator even mention these concerns in his closing comments. He also probably didn't even bother to take a look at the article, because almost a fifth of it fails verifiability, whereas he claimed it meets verifiability "with gusto". Till 13:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse - I'm a little concerned that the "common outcomes" highlighted during the discussion were not addressed. It's not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument to point out that many (if not most) other similar articles have been deleted or redirected. That said, many of those were on their second nomination and I don't suppose the closing admin (or anyone else for that matter) would have any great objection to this being nominated again in the future (especially since it was closed as no consensus). Could more have been done to explain how the closer came to their conclusion (given the number of votes and disparate arguments)? Sure, maybe. But on balance I don't think no consensus was so unreasonable a conclusion that it needs to be overturned. Stalwart111 04:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Stalwart111 for these comments. Yes, there was no need for a DR for a "no consensus," but having said that, I took both article and discussion off my watchlist because I thought deletion was a foregone conclusion. How wrong I was! The underlying problem with all these "lists of unreleased songs" is that the songs are NOT notable out of context and purely as a list - this is not to say that some can't be merged into the relevant albums and/or into a List of songs recorded by Britney Spears. The notability of unreleased songs is purely because of the artist i.e. inherited. You may take this as confirmation that I oppose all "list of unreleased" at the present time. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I tend to see DRV mostly as a venue to review the close, rather than to "re-try" the original deletion nomination so I didn't comment on the merits of the article itself - just what I perhaps would like to have seen from the closer. At the end of the day, the result was "no consensus" and it looks like consensus here is that "no consensus" was reasonable. So the answer (to me) would be to leave it for a while and re-nominate. In my view, that would be the most appropriate way to "re-try" the AFD. Stalwart111 10:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. As I said, I wouldn't have brought to DR, but now it's here...--Richhoncho (talk) 11:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you attempt to merge List of unreleased Britney Spears songs into Britney Spears discography before another attempt at deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, that might be a better first step. Stalwart111 10:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except that a list of songs is specifically NOT a discography (some artists already have a discography and a list of songs). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think we're now talking about two different things - appropriate process as opposed to potential outcomes. This also isn't the place to pre-empt what those future discussions might conclude. Anyway, I'll not be instigating either course of action either way. Stalwart111 11:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Till's decision to bring the AfD to deletion review, but I also endorse Y's closure of it as "no consensus". Most of the delete votes had no basis in policy whatsoever — the list is most certainly not an indiscriminate collection of information. The only argument that may have even a modicum of credence is the assertion that the article constitutes "fancruft", but it is well-sourced and likely to be useful as a reference for people looking up information on the subject (for reasons of disclosure, if I had participated in the AfD myself, my vote would have been "keep"). Consensus ≠ raw numbers. Kurtis (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Y's closure, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Canuck^{89 (talk to me)} 20:48, December 3, 2012 (UTC)

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 November 2012

Rusthall_Evangelical_Church – This is never going to be undeleted because the text of the article was taken from the church website [1]. This is against our copyright rules and is absolute - articles need to be written in your own words not someone else's. If you want to recreate the article you should read our inclusion criteria and find independent third party sources that discuss the church in detail to demonstrate notability. Finally, give the sprinklings of "we believe" in the text I suspect you may have a connection to the church which means that you need to read our guidelines for editing while involved. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

(A7: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) Pompey123378 (talk) The page "Places_of_worship_in_Tunbridge_Wells_(borough)" lists churches in the area and has links to some extra wikipedia pages about the different churches and i dont see why some can have page but this church is deemed to not be allowed a page, The page supplies extra information about the church not already on the first page and is more appropriate on a seperate page than the "Places_of_worship_in_Tunbridge_Wells_(borough)" page.

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian – Come on, this is ridiculous. We don't rerun a DRV because a DELREV tag is missing from a deleted page or an MfD and there were more than enough eyes on this for us to be sure that we got a decent consensus. Historically Cunard has gone through DELREVS and tagged the XfD after the DELREV has finished and we have never felt that the presence or absence of the tag has ever effected the validity of the deletion review process. This is in no way a valid reason to do this again. Enough is enough. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

relisting because required notice was not put on Mfd page when drv filed NE Ent 12:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussion Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_16 NE Ent 12:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per overwhelming consensus at MfD and previous DRV. Time to ring down the final curtain on this regrettable and divisive drama. JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a slap to me then. Did the DRV instructions say to do it? Could it be twinkleified? Does this mean another seven days? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's Step 6 of Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Steps_to_list_a_new_deletion_review. Obviously an oversight; Concern was expressed on the Mfd page, which I don't feel is the proper forum (hence relisting). NE Ent 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this had better run the full seven days, to give no possible opening for yet another relisting. JohnCD (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per prior discussion; oppose speedy close of this review as it will be more disruptive in the long run. Best to let everyone have their say. NE Ent 12:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I could say it better than Writ Keeper, I would. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and slap the childish trolling. This is beyond vexatious. A CfD on a pointless category - it gets deleted. Listed at DRV. DRV sends it back to CfD. This CfD is closed with delete. Recreated as an essay. AfD'd and deleted again. Listed at DRV. Deletion endorsed overwhelmingly at DRV. Now a DRV on the DRV on a tagging technicality that any disgruntled person was free to fix at any point - and a DRV started by someone who is endorsing the deletion. Grow up people! Someone close this, and stop this immature nonsense once and for all.--Scott Mac 13:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The oyster makes the pearl. We would have been done long ago if we had been "grown-up" about it; a ridiculous amount of the discussion has been due to speedy this and speedy that. Sure, you can slap a close tag on something and tell people to shut up, but unless you're willing to start indeffing critics the conversation will just bubble up again somewhere else. (And if you do indef people they'll likely to end up on wikipedia criticism websites, which can be disruptive themselves, as not all Wikipedians are smart enough to totally ignore them.) Letting any of discussions run the full time would have cut the legs out from a lot of the criticism of powers-that-be. NE Ent 13:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and hopefully wave goodbye. This is getting absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per each of the preceding discussions, and a round of trout for the process-worship that's forcing us to go through this again. Mangoe (talk) 13:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Haven't we had enough of this shit yet? this is an "endorse" per WP:STOPTHEMADNESS, if it needs to be spelled out Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 November 2012

25 November 2012

Improper mass deletion review – Upheld. SchuminWeb's behaviour towards bulk nomination is controversial, and the RFC about it is probably justified. That said, WP:NFCC#8 is explicit in its requirement that the omission of an image would be detrimental to the readers understanding of the topic. All arguments supporting the deletion show a clear understanding of what NFCC#8 is attempting to achieve. Many of the overturn arguments appear to be based on a misreading of the criteria (the argument that "significant" could mean "detectable" or "noticeable" is bad to the point of undermining every argument Lexein makes, for example). While a bulk nomination may be problematic, a bulk overturn would be equally problematic.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC) – —Kww(talk) 03:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Please restore selected images deleted by User:Schuminweb listed in WP:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_17:

every file where Nominator has ignored where the scene depicted or the contents of the scene have been critically discussed. Just search for "ignored".
The deleting editor also ignored the discussion of the scene in the prose, by multiple sources.
Deleting editor deleted first, then, later closed with "saying this once" closure explanation.
Deleting editor alleged I attacked another editor, and used that as a reason to ignore critical discussion in prose. My attack was on the attack on policy language.
Are 272 improper nominations which include misrepresentations of policy to be simply approved now?

"Decorative" cannot be a valid formal deletion reason, as it is not stated in NFCC policy, period. No way around it.
Nominator's phrases "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease" are not stated in policy, and are invalid as deletion reasons, because they add subjective limits not stated in policy.

Am I the only one insisting that policy be quoted properly, and not exaggerated?

--Lexein (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to get the deletion of File:BraveComboSimpsons.jpg reviewed (it's one of the mass deletion at issue) as the resulting discussion was three "keeps" (and nothing else) but it was deleted anyway, against all logic and policy. - Dravecky (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this deleted episode to the list below. Hope you don't mind. --Lexein (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you raised this matter with the admin in question before raising the DRV? Looking at their page I see a few WTFs in deletions for the 17th and Schumin is a reliable admin - is it possible that a deletion script has got out of hand here? You are also required to notify users if you bring their actions to DRV - perhaps you can do that now? Usually we give admins a chance to fix their own mistakes before hauling them up to the public pillory for their misdeeds to be publiclly discussed for seven days. Just sayin' Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way ahead of you - look at User_talk:SchuminWeb#Policy_WP:NFCC. The admin may be reliable, but here, he supervoted, and ignored the fact of valid critical discussion of images in the articles, at least the 4 listed below, because he didn't like my attack on the nominating language. I quote: "For the second "keep" !vote, [me] that was an attack on the nominator, but did not address the specifics of the image in question, and has thus been disregarded" - this is obviously false, since I literally did address the fact that there was critical discussion in each of the four articles DRV'd here. --Lexein (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your concept of discussion differs from mine since your comment was a diatribe against the nomination and fall far short of what I could consider a reasonable exchange of views held in a collegiate manner. I'm glad you remembered to notify Schumin after my reminder above so I think you were at best only partly ahead of me. Additionally, what I'm lacking here is a sense of why these images pass NFCC #8 which states in its entirety: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. This clearly means that the image has to add significant understanding to the text and that it would not be possible to have that understanding without the image. Effectively this does mean that decorative non-free images cannot be hosted on Wikipedia and that the emphasis placed by the nominator which you so clearly disagree with is a valid interpretation of this policy and does, in fact, reflect time honoured application of the NFCC as enshrined by successive DRVs over the years. The other issue to take account is that the NFCC is mandated by the foundation and has legal implications if not followed. On that basis, given the flawed basis of your nomination here and your incorrect application of policy, I endose all closes subject to better demonstration that NFCC#8 has been met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth mentioning that these strictures do not apply to administrators.[2] Thincat (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz: You ignore the facts, and so you force me to restate them again: Nominator ignored where the scene depicted or the contents of the scene have been critically discussed.
Further, you've betrayed an all-too-common zealot's linguistic error: thumbing-the-scale. You state: "This clearly means that the image has to add significant understanding to the text and that it would not be possible to have that understanding without the image." The bolded clause (yours) bluntly does not follow from the first. Your interpretation of policy is blatantly wrong, and baldly disrespects the language of the policy as written. Really really think about the text, and your (bolded) words. Compare. Contrast.
If you haven't gotten it yet, here it is: the "opposite" of "add significant understanding"(policy) is not "not possible without" (yours), it is "reduce understanding" or "detrimental to understanding"(policy), as you previously quoted from the policy. The policy is less restrictive than you (or Koavf) want it to be, and indeed misrepresent it to be. In the immortal words of Dan Aykroyd to Jane Curtin, lying to yourself, or us, about policy does not improve your case one bit.
Shrines are for religions and zealots: not for Wikipedia editors on the job. --Lexein (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty diatribe. Perhaps when you learn to hold a different position to someone else without feeling the need to vilify that other user for the offence of seeing the world differently we can have a discussion... ... but clearly not today. Since you are being such an arse, my quote for you is Never argue with an idiot - they'll bring you down to their level then beat you with experience. More fool me for forgetting that one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn the definitions of 'nasty', 'diatribe' and 'argue'. I've demolished your thumb-on-scale distortions by asserting the fundamental correctness of policy, using the basic English definitions of words. I called out your distortions for what they are. I rejected your injection of religious notions into the discussion outright. And I kept it funny. The bare naked truth which seems to have offended you the most is this: The policy is less restrictive than you (or Koavf) want it to be, and indeed misrepresent it to be. If you truly wanted to discuss, you would have surely discussed that rather than resort to actual nasty ad hominem name calling. But instead of bravely persisting, you took the, let's just say non-brave way out. Not excellent. --Lexein (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises me that SchuminWeb is treating NFCC#8 as if it's an objective criterion. If it was objective—if there was a simple yes/no test—then his deletions would be appropriate. But actually, the question of whether an image "enhances the reader's understanding" is subjective. It's a matter of opinion. Doesn't SchuminWeb's closure elevate his own opinion above that of others? Although I'm open to further discussion on this I'm very much leaning towards "overturn" on the basis that opinions don't carry any extra weight merely because they're held by sysops.—S Marshall T/C 23:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't agree with you there. The assumption with a non-free image is that it should not be hosted unless someone can show that that is does add to understanding and we cannot convey the same meaning with text. If that argument is not been conclusively been made - and the argument that the image has been critically discussed doesn't meet that test than any closing admin is acting according to the Foundation's clear mandate when deleting said image. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "assumption" is yours, based on a deliberate misreading of the policy as a whole. Stop presenting your (and Koavf's) abusively selective reading as the totality of the policy. Sorry you don't like the whole policy as written, but we have to live with it as written, free of any agenda, inclusionist, deletionist or supervoter, Spartaz. --Lexein (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz: if you see it that way, then the ambiguity is over whether we can show that it does add to understanding--how do we determine it: I say it adds to my understanding, you say it does not add to yours, n and that does not produce a helpful answer. I am not very graphic oriented in my imagination, and cannot realize scenes or places or people on the basis of words, unless good images are present--I am otherwise unable to construct my own. A more graphics-able person can find words do very nicely to leade his imagination to construct a picture. I then find images o fan imageable thing a necessity, though you may not. Which of us corresponds to "necessary for understanding". I think we try to produce an encyclopedia accessible to to those of different abilities. From this, we want images wheneever they would be informative, rather than just decorative or redundant, buecaue some reasers will need them. DGG ( talk ) 07:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG if you are not a visual thinker do you actually need an image to understand the concepts being explained in the text? I am a very visual thinker and its interesting that I take a harder line on this than you do. I do agree that there is space for a spectrum of opinion of how to apply NFCC#8 but I don't think I should make any apology for basing my views on the principle of a free encyclopedia that minimises the use of non-free media as much as we actually need to and its well known that our overall approach is significantly more restrictive than allowed by US law. I probably would be ameanable to reviewing my position following a rational discussion based on a correct interpretation of policy that isn't spraying vitriol bad faith and character assassinations liberally over those the nominator agrees with but, unfortunately, that isn't the discussion we are having here. The nomination mistates the policy and fails to show how the inclusion of the images in necessary to extend the users' understanding of the topic. Why should I vote to overturn on that basis? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm the only one here who has insisted that policy be quoted, and never misrepresented. So on what basis are you asserting that I "misstate the policy"? That's just wholesale unfair. Only the literal text of NFCC matters, as I've repeatedly said, with emphasis on plain English definitions of words, and not hyperbole or exaggeration. Nothing else matters in this discussion. Nothing. So what, specifically, are you trying to say? --Lexein (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, I'm concerned that your attitude to this appears to make NFCC#8 meaningless and redundant. If we applied your rule can you give us an example of something that would pass NFCC#8 but fail other inclusion criteria? I would also remark that this is not de.wiki and our policy is to use non-free content where we can and where it would enhance our encyclopaedia. It seems to me that with any visual medium such as a TV show, an image of the show would almost by definition enhance the reader's understanding.—S Marshall T/C 17:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all. How does a screen grab decorating every simpsons episode add any value to the article. Its not like anyone reading the article needs to know what the characters look like is it so I really fail to see what encyclopedic value they add except decoration. and My position is based on NFCC#8 and reflects a credible thread of community thought that is consistant with our project scope and the founding ethos of this project. I would agree that de is maybe a little too extreme but I don't agree that expecting the project to concentrate on free content and only use un-free content when there is a clear encyclopedic benefit from it is inconsistant with the NFCC and the foundations resolution on the use of images. I get it that there is another thread of community thought that rejects this position but it doesn't make my position inherantly wrong or inconsistant with NFCC#8. No does it make my worthy of abuse from those that disagree Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you think the images are decorative. I see that SchuminWeb thinks so too. I get that, and I think your opinion is perfectly valid and arguable. When you describe what you're saying as "a credible thread of community thought", that description is accurate. The important thing is that it's a credible thread of community thought. Not the only credible thread of community thought. And certainly not the One True Way that trumps what everyone who participated in the debate was saying. We're back to what I said right at the start, which is that this is a matter of opinion and opinions don't carry any extra weight just because they're held by sysops.
Of course, none of this means that you or SchuminWeb deserve to be taking any abuse. I think you're wrong, but it's possible to say so without getting personal about it.—S Marshall T/C 23:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note as nominator Lexein, you know that the burden of proof is on the uploader of all non-free content and that discussions and RfCs are not votes. If two users agree on a talk page to violate (e.g.) NPOV and one user objects, that consensus between the two is irrelevant as a much larger and more substantial consensus already exists in favor of NPOV on all article content. In this case, there are also legal implications to the NFCC policy. Irrespective of how many users !vote to keep, if something violates fair use, it must be deleted and by the admission of at least one of the editors involved in !voting, some of the images are definitely not fair use, but you voted in favor of keeping them on some altogether small and trivial technicality. Also, it seems like you are confused about a scene being mentioned in the text of the article and whether or not that constitutes the grounds for criticism to upload someone else's copyrighted work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closes - For a given image to meet wp:NFCC #8, those arguing keep at FfD need to (i) identify coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the file/image and (ii) show how that identified source coverage supports the argument that the image's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Wikipedia articles are to be a representative survey of the relevant literature. If there is no survey of the relevant literature that shows the image's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, then the image's presence in the article merely would be there based only on a Wikipedia's belief in the importance of the image to the topic rather than being supported by a reliable source's belief in the importance of the image to the topic. Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of Wikipedians. WP:V could not be any clearer on this point and is a main feature that separates Wikipedia from the rest of the internet. If there is a reliable source that discusses a deleted image, please open a new DRV for that image. Otherwise, the only outcome to the present request is to endorse the closes. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody is demonstrating (by their written words) that they've actually read the articles, I'll just suggest again that people actually read the articles and the sources cited in the articles listed below, and state how the prose and quoted and cited sources do not support, in the extensive discussion in reviews of the scenes depicted in the images, increased understanding of the scene availed by the inclusion of the images. What's evident here is repeated arms-folded I won't consider the whole policy, just my preferred fragments or words, which breaks faith with the community and the WMF. I'm the only one advocating the policy as it is literally written. --Lexein (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC #8 does not address the understanding of the article, it addresses the understanding of the topic of the article. No one needs to read the article to determine whether the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. You need only look at what the reliable sources write about the image to make that determination. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"For a given image to meet wp:NFCC #8, those arguing keep at FfD need to..." - the way to argue about meeting NFCC#8 is by providing a valid rationale at the "purpose" field in the file image. The mass nomination -without- individual rationales for why NFCC was not met, those were weak reasons for deletion, and deleting all them without those specific rationales was improper, as 1) each file had a claim for fair use and 2) each file was not individually discussed with specific claims about its merit. Diego (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Uzma Gamal:

NFCC#8: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I'll be referring to one example from here on: "Andy's Play", and I can't believe I have to work this example. The topic is "Andy's Play". Playing along with your artificial restriction (without reading the article, but assuming someone reads the article title and the image caption), inclusion of the image clarifies that the play is a production featured in universe of the show The Office, in an episode entitled "Andy's Play", on stage, with a set and props, featuring Andy; the image of the scene also shows Andy and two other actors in period costume, and anachronistically, Andy apparently answering his phone. The image enhances the understanding of the topic, Andy's Play, precisely per NFCC#8.
You say, "you need only look at what the reliable sources write about the image to make that determination". This is incorrect, and is an incorrect interpretation of policy, which is not vague on the matter. Policy consistently uses the word topic. What RS write about the content or subject of the image is what is at issue: the topic. We at least need to agree about that. And guess what? The reliable sources linked in the article do discuss the topic, and the scene, and the acting. Here, the image adds significant understanding of the the topic, "Andy's Play".
The notion of without reading the article is absurd: NFCC#8 does not state or imply "without reading the article", or "separate from the article on the topic". NFCC#8 does not state, "the image must stand alone to illustrate the entire topic", it says, "significantly increase understanding of the topic". But guess what? The image, standalone, does demonstrably significantly increase understanding of the topic, "Andy's Play."
The definition of the word "significantly" includes "noticeable" and "detectable" (science), and when used as hyperbole, more than that. Wikipedia policy is not based on hyperbole; we use plain English. Further, NFCC#8 explicitly states these words: contextual significance, and used, which means we're talking about the image in context of the topic, and in context as used in a Wikipedia article, since that's where it's going, and nowhere else. So there's no such thing as without reading the article. But if you insist, okay, read the sources on the topic.
The image is significant in the context of all of these things: the play, the scene, the incident on stage, the episode, the writing (which created the scene), the acting (which executing the writing), the reviews, and so, the article. Context exists, and usage exists, in policy and in articles, and cannot be willfully ignored. The meaning of "significant" cannot be willfully amplified by hyperbole. Policy carefully avoids using vague value estimations, only presence or absence of a "significant increase of understanding". It is, clearly, present.
Editors might want to believe that policy requires that sources discuss the image itself, the framegrab, as opposed to its topic, but it doesn't. Some sources do discuss the images themselves in other articles, in other contexts, for other purposes (photography, perhaps), but that is not what is required in policy text, as written. It's about the topic of this article, here before us.

--Lexein (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? I don't know what more you could want from me here, but the simple fact that you reference Andy holding a phone and that other sources also reference Andy holding the phone does not justify a screengrab of him holding the phone. How is this image going to "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? Are you arguing that "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What in the hell was the point of me wasting my time arguing against the deletion of these images if some random admin is just going to come through and ignore all of the debate and delete the images without even giving a rationale? Stuff like this really makes me hate wikipedia. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images deleted were pretty much just decorative. I'll admit that. But some I felt really did assist in critical commentary. In particular, File:Cecil and Bob.png. In fact, the nominator didn't even respond to my comment (he responded to every other one), which I interpret as his admission that I am right. [3] -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to add disputed episodes to the list below - then the image may be restored for discussion. So I added it, in case. --Lexein (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. NFCC#8 strictly prohibits "decorative" - as a decorative can be removed and not affect understanding of the article, it fails NFCC#8, so claiming the argument "it's decorative" isn't a valid rational is not correct, as it most certainly is. Television screenshots have no immediate allowance for use (as listed at WP:NFCI) and thus require that they clearly meet NFCC. This generally means that the scene that the screenshot shows has been discussed by secondary/third-party sources in depth in a critical manner, and be necessary for the reader to understand what is going on - thus inclusion helps comprehension, and omission would harm it. Just because the text of the WP article discusses the scene doesn't mean that meets the NFCC requirement. Schuminsweb's closures as delete seem spot on here. --MASEM (t) 18:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "decorative" is never mentioned in NFCC. It's a made-up rationale, and should never ever be used again. It's pure poison, and is only used to inflame arguments, never to discuss, explain, or reach consensus. I'm not the only one who thinks this: see WP:DECORATIVE in WP:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions

You stated yourself that it's required that "the scene that the screenshot shows has been discussed by secondary/third-party sources in depth in a critical manner, and be necessary for the reader to understand what is going on - thus inclusion helps comprehension". Well, such scenes have indeed been discussed by RS, just so, as quoted and cited in the articles, and still the images improve the understanding of the image scenes further. I never claimed that "text of the WP article [which] discusses the scene" was sufficient. I have always asserted that independent critical reviews discussed the scenes, as quoted and cited in the articles.

I do wish people would just reread NFCC, go to bed, dream about it, and wake up realizing the essential truth: NFCC's extremely careful, literate, language is more permissive than editors are willing to admit, when exaggerations of its literal text are set aside. --Lexein (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC) (inserted AAFFD above. --Lexein (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely not as permissive as you think. We are purposely stricter than fair use law to encourage free content development. "Decorative" uses immediately falls out of this as unacceptable, and while it is not a word codified into NFCC, it immediately falls out from NFCC#8. Remember there are two parts to NFCC#8 - inclusion to improve understand (which can nearly always argued to be a truism for any image) , and that omission is harmful which is where many images will fail NFCC#8. Take the case of the image of File:BraveComboSimpsons.jpg (which I did look back with admin status to check what it was, namely the band Simpsons-ifed) and the use on the page Co-Dependent's Day, and just being mentioned in the plot is nowhere close to sufficient rationale to use the comic image of the band. A free image of the band, (which we have), sure. Similarly, the use of File:Cecil and Bob.png in Brother from Another Series is one where it is showing a comic-ified David Hyde Pierce in conjunction where the concept of the character is mentioned (better than just the plot), but we have a free image of Pierce that could be used as well, so there's no reason for the non-free here. --MASEM (t) 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative: that's an argument to avoid in image deletion discussions. WP:DECORATIVE. Did you think I was making this up? Or that I was the only one? Reconsider.
Ok, that's your analysis of use of File:BraveComboSimpsons.jpg in Co-Dependent's Day, which was already (below) admitted to being a weak candidate, but its use in Brave Combo - does that get a pass or not? There can be literally no comprehension of the band's animated appearance without the image, and there are sources discussing it in Brave Combo, and the history of the development of that appearance (just added to Co-Dependent's Day).
File:Cecil and Bob.png in Brother from Another Series - without the non-free, there can be literally no comprehension at all of Pierce's animated appearance without the image. So the increase of understanding of the topic, Cecil/appearance/relation to Bob, is infinite: anything / zero = infinity. But I exaggerate.
There are plenty of others below worthy of individual analysis, rather than a blanket "all deletions fine by me". I sorta wish individual analyses actually were moved down there, to be honest. --Lexein (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, I wonder if you aren't overstating the case here a bit. We like to encourage free images; but that's Wikimedia Commons' mission, not ours. Our mission is to write an encyclopaedia. If it improves readers' understanding to use non-free content then we should be willing to use non-free content. Whether or not a particular image enhances readers' understanding is a question to be decided by collegial discussion and consensus between editors, not by one sysop deciding that he knows better.—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the m:mission that guides all projects hosted on Wikimedia Foundation servers: "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." The Resolution on non-free media that applies to all WMF projects restates the same. And arguably, these were deleted after discussion: the nominator's rationale and a few keep statements with the admin going after a policy-based consensus decision. --MASEM (t) 02:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's really painful torture of language: there's No. Such. Thing. as a "policy-based consensus decision" where there is no consensus because there's no discussion (no constructive response to keeps), or there is discussion and deletion occurs even over 4 keeps and Koavf's reconsideration of meeting NFCC on File:Bart to the Future.png in WP:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_17#File:Bart_to_the_Future.png. Man, that was just embarrassing. It makes Wikipedia look bad. It breaks faith with the community. It renders all this jabber about consensus to be a lie. If you want to call it a policy-based overriding of discussion and consensus, that might fly. When pigs do. --Lexein (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Policies are themselves decided by consensus. If two users decide that a single page will break NPOV and one user objects on the talk page, that consensus is irrelevant as the community at large already has a very strong consensus in favor of NPOV. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein, would you please stop inserting angry and hostile rebuttals into the discussion outside chronological order?
Masem says: "...arguably, these were deleted after discussion". In fact, to be complete, they were deleted after a discussion that led to a unanimous consensus (excluding the nominator). The closer chose to disregard the consensus. Our purpose, here at DRV, is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and I put it to you that it hasn't been. I mean, if it's okay for the closer to disregard everything that anyone says during the debate, then we might as well dispense with formal seven-day discussions completely and replace them with a sysop's suggestion box. Essentially the argument is that SchuminWeb has no authority to overrule a unanimous discussion.—S Marshall T/C 08:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When one cites policy (in proper context), they are bringing in past consensus discussions into the current discussion. So no, these weren't 2 "keeps" vs the 1 nom "delete", these were 2 "keeps" vs 1+(Some very large number) "deletes". That's why admins are told to look at the rationales for the !votes, to judge based on those, and not on sheer number. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Except for that the closing admin didn't follow reasons that are encoded in policy ("decorative" is certainly not), and thus he was not using previous consensus discussions. Diego (talk) 11:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question for S Marshall What about the hypothetical that I give elsewhere on this page: two users make a consensus to forget NPOV for one article... Does this consensus somehow override the project-wide consensus to adhere to NPOV on all content? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit of a straw man, as no one in these discussions said "let's ignore NFCC", but rather "NFCC is satisfied." So the question is instead this: Were the discussion commenters so far beyond the pale of reasonable interpretation and application of NFCC that the closer could just ignore them? It's not sufficient that the nominator or the closing admin might interpret it differently. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf puts my feelings very well.—S Marshall T/C 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Process question: It is not clear to me what this section is about. Is it a deletion review for all images on that FFD day? Or is it only a header for the DRV's listed below? If this section is meant to constitute a DRV process of its own, please list the specific images it applies to. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking this question. There are two main parts, which I had hoped I had made clear above:

Improper deletion nominations: Strikethrough or delete the portions of text in all 272 noms which improperly represent policy. Sanction nominator for misrepresenting policy. Or revert nominations which so misrepresent policy. There are four discrete parts which I feel do not belong in the noms:
- "Decorative" (per WP:AAFFD),
- Nominator's three phrases "not critical for understanding", "greatly enhance" and "greatly decrease" are not stated in policy, and are invalid as deletion reasons, because they add subjective limits not stated in policy. They raise the bar far beyond the language of NFCC policy.
Review of selected images (listed below) which deserve such review, since they had at least some discussion by critics, and/or offered arguable improvement of understanding of the topic. Proposal of appropriate NFUR text supporting the claims of improvement of understanding of the topic.

--Lexein (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all deleted images listed on November 17th per the description above. I was very concerned when I originally saw the very large list of images that Koavf - who tends to do things in big chunks without much thought given to each specific item - had nominated, and I think the best way to proceed is to overturn them all and start from scratch. Enjoin Koavf from re-nominating, and SchuminWeb from deleting, and allow other editors to nominate if they feel it necessary, but not all at the same time, or in batches, so that we end up here again. This will allow editors time for true consideration, and undo the effect of the misunderstanding of the meaning of NFCC #8 that is quite obvious here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you can show that SchuminWeb was closing each blindly, due process was followed on each nomination - it wasn't one mass nomination, and they all had the 7 day period for comments. Getting only 3-4 editors to response is very common for image deletion when it comes to NFC, so that's not unusual either. In otherwords, there's no process issues here to make the overturn appropriate, barring SchuminWeb simply checkboxing all images as delete without any careful consideration of the consensus. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here you go Masem, an example of SchuminWeb closing the nominations blindly: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_November_17#File:Bart_to_the_Future.png. See also my comments here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_25#File:Bart_to_the_Future.png. While I agree with him on most of his deletions, he clearly didn't spend enough time looking through all the nominations before he deleted all the images in one go. Theleftorium ^(talk) 16:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see nothing there that implies SchuminWeb blindly closed discussion. Assuming good faith, looking at the image and its use in the article and the text given that is meant to support it, I can certainly see the logic in closing as "delete" because it's not too hard to imagine "older" versions of the Simpsons characters, particularly with the text given for Bart (overweight, pigtail, etc.) - in other words, there is a likelihood of NFCC#8 failure here. Mind you, I also see the arguments to keep the image, but those weren't presented in the discussion, instead arguing "decorative is not a rationale to delete" (which is very much false). Again, there was no problem with the process that requires re-evaluation of all images, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that they were closed blindly. Individual images can be rechallenged, but not the mass lot, unless more evidence can be shown that SchuminWEb was acting in bad faith and without careful review. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The closer's mens rea isn't relevant. Either the close reflected the discussions in light of policy or it didn't, and if it didn't it doesn't matter whether he closed them blindly or conscientiously labored for hours over each one before making the wrong judgment. The discussions speak for themselves, and we should be more concerned with respecting demonstrated consensus than following "due process". postdlf (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it is the closer's intention that are important because we are dealing with the most subjective part of NFC policy, NFCC#8, whether the image is critical to understanding of the article or not. Once that question is brought up, there's no policy-based distinctions that can be used, only at that point the judgement of the closure based on the strength of the arguments of whether NFCC#8 is satisfied or not. Now, if we assume good faith that Schuminweb spent time to consider the images in context, the arguments give (both the nom and the addition !votes) and understanding of what NFCC#8, then the close is in-process, leaving the question of whether Schuminweb interpretation of the policy NFCC#8 was correct. If he blindly went through, that's a different story, but the evidence is just not there for that. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, I must address the misquote in situ: nowhere does NFCC#anywhere state critical to understanding of the article, nor does it mean that. The phrase is literally: significantly increase understanding of the topic ("critical" is not mentioned). See WP:NFCC#8. If you disagree with my every DRV nomination, would you at least agree that policy must be quoted, not misquoted or exaggerated in any way in these discussions? Of course opinion is fine, but it shouldn't be presented as if it were policy, right? --Lexein (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - That rather turns on its head the role admins are supposed to play in XFDs. My experience is more with AFD (both as a closer and a participant) rather than FFD, but what you're describing sounds to me like a super!vote, not a read of consensus in the discussion. And if NFCC#8 is "the most subjective part," than that is all the more reason why an admin should not override the consensus in the discussion and not act upon his own opinion of what the outcome should be. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Remember, the nomination counts as a !vote as well, so while most of these images appear to be universally "keep" !votes, that nomination may be the sole "delete" one. But of course, xFDs aren't numbers-games; it is about the strength of arguments, and when the nom provides a policy argument and the others don't provide policy reasons, it's a bit difficult for the admin to back the non-policy side. (My mind is going blank but there was a recent xFD were it was like 20 "keeps" to 4 "deletes" and the admin closed in favor of the deletes because they offered policy reasons while the keeps were less compelling). Now, that said: of the images that have been called out in this discussion, the only one where I see a compelling counterargument for keeping is Bart of the Future. I'm not saying SchuminWeb is in the wrong here - as I would agree the image is unnecessary, but here could be a case where we have a lack of proper process. It is true the point of contention of this image is NFCC#8 which is subjective. Since the arguments were made that it met NFC policy, perhaps the right thing would have closed the discussion at FFD and then open up discussion at NFCR (nonfree content review) where specifically the merits of meeting NFCC#8 would be discussed outside of the deletion process. The problem is that FFD is not set up to handle that type of situation; I think , ideally, we'd rather have people who contest an image over NFCC#8 to take that to NFCR first than to FFD which is more hostile. But that's not how this is set up, so perhaps that needs changing.
        
        Does this affect the bulk of the images that were deleted? No, I don't believe so, and selective challenges as being done below make sense. But this does point to the issue that FFD is not the proper starting point for images that an editor believes fail NFCC#8. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't agree that it's acceptable to bundle the deletions together, but then to insist on individual, separate undeletion discussions. That's not FairProcess.—S Marshall T/C 21:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        They weren't bundled-FFD to start. All on the same day, yes, but each was a separate discussion. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The closing statement shows clearly why this should be treated as a bundled deletion.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I don't see how much weight could be given to mass boilerplate nominations that do not specifically comment on the image, the article, or their relationship to each other, let alone accomplish anything to rebut the NFURs. Mere conclusory "fails policy X" statements are instead of little or no value in deletion discussions. Seems to me there are some fundamental problems with FFD if that is the norm. postdlf (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        In most of these cases there were no NFURs to rebut in the first place. The alleged "rationales" were no rationales; they were even more boilerplate than the nomination statements. And that really is contrary to policy – such pseudo-rationales are ipso facto invalid. How much individual FFD discussion can you demand from nominators if the uploaders don't do their homework to begin with? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You have a point about the generic nature of some of the NFURs, but none of that is reflected in the actual deletion discussions, and that a NFUR is currently inadequate does not mean it cannot be fixed to be up to code. Many of the images were also uploaded four, five, even six years ago, and the NFC policies and expectations have changed significantly over time. postdlf (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        The claim that the "NFC policies and expectations have changed significantly" during the last five or six years is an often-repeated myth; it is simply untrue. The demand that non-free images must have individual, clear and concrete explanations has been in the policy for 8 years and has never changed. These images were always contrary to policy, no matter when they were uploaded. It's not that the policy has changed; it's that certain corners of the project (e.g. TV series wikiprojects) have acted irresponsibly and systematically ignored the policy for years, filling the project with such quantities of bad non-free images that policy enforcers could never manage to tackle them. Now these uploaders are acting surprised on seeing that their years-long failure to abide by policy comes and bites them in the butt at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Response As Future... pointed out, the burden is on the uploader to justify the non-free media. If the criteria change, then it's still incumbent upon someone to justify that media according to the new standards and all non-free media have to be assumed as invalid until proven otherwise. If hundreds (thousands) of images are uploaded with rationales like "it identifies this film/television show" and simply displays something that it as some point mentioned in the text, those are all invalid as such. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm afraid that I've failed to grasp how this discussion justifies deletion against consensus.—S Marshall T/C 08:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Your question is more "how this discussion justifies deletion against majority", because consensus is a very different beast, and we don't use voting to determine who "wins" an xFD. Even if it was 100 keep !votes to the one original nomination to delete, if the nomination has the stronger policy based argument, the consensus is to close in favor of policy, against those 100 !votes. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I should have said "deletion without consensus". Deletion at any XfD discussion requires a supporting consensus, and with all due respect for the many ingenious arguments you have supplied and your creditable tenacity in debate, there quite blatantly is no consensus to support the deletions that have been performed.—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Any number of users can have a consensus to agree to anything, but that doesn't override policies, guidelines, or even legal requirements. Long-standing, well-entrenched, and critical policies are consensus that apply to large swaths of content on Wikipedia and even though a given image on this deletion page has two !votes for keep and two !votes for delete, which would be a lack of consensus either way, if policy favors one line of argumentation, then the consensus of said policy counts in favor of that side in the discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that this massively oversimplifies a complex and subtle matter. By longstanding policy and by the fifth pillar, a local consensus of Wikipedians can decide to temporarily suspend the global consensus for the sake of one particular article, file, category or redirect. Of course, this doesn't mean that XfD discussions are allowed to trample roughshod over our policies and guidelines. What it means is that policies and guidelines aren't allowed to trample roughshod over the local consensus.
The nature of DRV is that we often examine cases where there is a conflict between the local consensus as expressed in a discussion and the global consensus as expressed in a policy or guideline. It's not a simple or unambiguous thing to decide.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments WP:NFCC#8 says that non-free images shouldn't be used unless their removal would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. That is, if the images are meant to serve a different purpose, such as being purely decorative, then they almost always fail WP:NFCC#8. The wording of WP:DECORATIVE has been discussed a few times, but it seems that the intention of that section is to tell that you shouldn't just quote the policy: you should explain why the image doesn't satisfy the policy. Also, as explained in the documentation of the "image" parameter to {{infobox television episode}}, it is not always permissible to use a non-free image in an episode article; you still need to make a careful evaluation of whether the requirements of WP:NFCC#8 are satisfied. Also, WP:NFC states that "If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, referring to its other use is preferred over repeating its use on the list and/or including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use." Thus, if an image just shows a character from a TV series (say, Homer Simpson), then the right thing to do is to direct users to the Homer Simpson article if you need to know what the character looks like. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question This page lists 7 specific images, but User:Koavf also nominated many other images at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 17. Is this meant to be a review of all images nominated by User:Koavf on 17 November, or is it only meant to be a review of the 7 specific images listed below? Also, how were these specific images selected from the whole set of images at the FfD page? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I answered this in Process question(live link) above. --Lexein (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question I have been a bit busy with other things lately and didn't pay close attention to the deletion discussions when they were running, so I don't know what the images look like. Would it be OK to restore the images temporarily during this discussion so that it can be more easily assessed whether the images meet WP:NFCC#8 or not and whether the closures were in accordance with policy? --Stefan2 (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of File:Andy checking phone on stage.jpg, the image is shown in the reviews 4 5 6 quoted and cited in Andy's Play, and as I mentioned in the suggested NFUR above. --Lexein (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot comment on these particular images, but I've had issues with ShuminWeb's deletion compaigns before. For example, he got File:PRR B6 7928.jpg deleted by removing it from PRR B6 on the pretext that, since the article claims that there is a survivor of this locomotive class, it is possible to get a non-free image. Well, the article claim is uncited and therefore he doesn't know that it's true, but in any case the fact that this locomotive might exist doesn't mean it can be photographed in any usable manner. There were a bunch of articles which stealthily lost their images through this method. He also tried to get essentially every Denver Public Library image deleted in one mass deletion, which was thwarted when his theory their copyright assertion was rejected; however he did manage to get most Otto Perry images deleted through a variety of avenues. On the latter I started an attempt to respond but gave up because it was far more work to check out and apply a rationale to each image than it was for him to simply delete the image from each article; I couldn't keep up with him. I can appreciate the desire to limit fair-use, but the crusading quality of his campaigns is at best questionable. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This thread is not a free-for-all for venting old grudges over any and all past image deletions by this admin. If you want to challenge the deletion of File:PRR B6 7928.jpg, please open a DRV for that one. (By the way, off-topic, but that deletion was perfectly adequate, both in process and substance – there is nothing "stealthy" about removing replaceable images from articles first and tagging them subsequently, and there actually is a surviving machine in the museum mentioned in the article [4][5], as you could easily have found out.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the generic issue, NFCC#8, is, as S Marshall and DGG have stated, a matter of informed opinion. It isn't something that one user (or admin) should be putting their judgement as more proper. The right thing to do is !vote rather than close if you feel the consensus to date is incorrect. Any close based purely on NFCC#8 that goes against clear consensus in the discussion should be overturned. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be clear, this is an overturn all !vote. And I agree Tim that it looks like the closer may not have looked closely at these, which gives an additional reason to overturn. Hobit (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all and start from scratch. Boilerplate nominations and boilerplate keeps cannot produce discussions from which any real consensus can be reliably determined, especially when, given the closure of the FfD for File:Bart to the Future.png, it is doubtful whether the closer actually carefully examined each image. T. Canens (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While both the nominations and the !keeps were boilerplate, the nominations (unlike the keeps) were in fact substantial and did address relevant, factual issues about the images in question. The problem is not that we get many boilerplate nominations; the problem is that we get too many bad uploads with boilerplated rationales. We have a backlog of thousands and thousands of bad TV episode images of this kind. If people keep uploading these in batches, never bothering about individual rationales, how if not through batch nominations are we ever going to tackle them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Similarly to what Future Perfect wrote above, the burden of proof is on the uploader. Non-free media are assumed not fair use until proven otherwise, so if a huge string of sloppy FURs are made, then they can be summarily deleted with just as little care. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... but if files are summarily deleted with little care, then it's DRV's job to overturn the deletion. Our main purpose here is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. I do have some sympathy with the point you're making—there's an asymmetry in that material can be uploaded more easily than it can be deleted, and that's not fair—but I also feel that the file upload process isn't within our purview. Maybe an RFC about this asymmetry is the answer?—S Marshall T/C 16:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "burden of proof is on the uploader" slogan simply doesn't have any meaning once the file's upload is a certain distance in the past. Some of these images were uploaded in 2006. There is probably no one left around to "enforce" NFCC against (not that "enforcement" should have any place in our vocabulary as volunteer editors here). As the files are in use in articles, they are the project's responsibility, meaning all of us as collaborative editors. NFC policy does not trump other policies or pillars, and consensus is still necessary to determine its application. Many of the comments in support of these deletions seem to treat FFD as an empty formality and consider admins free to ignore a discussion's complete lack of substance, but as no speedy deletion criteria applies, then the deletions must be rooted in a consensus found in the FFD discussions themselves. postdlf (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn All - apparently there are significant concerns about many of these. Let us just start over and if (when) some or all are re-nominated, the nominator can be careful of wording and selectivity. The closing admin can be careful to copy and paste from policy instead of any paraphrase. It's unfortunate and more work, but then we can know that the community has dealt precisely with this issue. --No unique names 00:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn all someone has overstepped their boundaries here, whether some of the deletions were proper is immaterial as it's apparent not all of them were. The broad brushstrokes used to take out a more refined questions is incorrect and they can be re-nominated but for now this is an out-of-process deletion that needs to be re-done as the decision is manifestly incorrect. –– Lid^(Talk) 01:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
overturn all it is high time there was a review of the free fanatics and their deletion of "fair use" images. having lost the policy discussion, they now mendaciously tilt the "burden of proof" on uploader when frequently the uploader from 5 years ago is long gone. and we have cases where public domain images are wrongly licensed "fair use", when fixing the license would avoid all the useless drama. we need a new standard of conduct: fix the license first, then delete. more insidious than the mass deletions or mendacity, which at least is forthright, is the stealth ip deletion from infoboxes, with automatic bot image deletion, for example [6]; there are many many more. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 04:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Your perspective is well-taken, I suppose but largely irrelevant here: this discussion isn't about fair use at large or the William Scott article or public domain images (why would they be uploaded here anyway...?), but these particular deletions for this discussion. As Future Perfect pointed out above, this isn't a forum for anyone with an axe to grind. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - the perspective informs the vote. i kinda like this admin, he's polite at meet-ups, does good work, so why this acting out, mass deletions? this episode is part of a systemic problem; if you don't solve it, we will be here over and over. once upon a time, all images were here, before the great migration. i don't really have an ax, just looking for answers, occam's razor. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 15:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are spewing accusations of "mendacity", together with absurd conspiracy claims like that this trivial piece of IP vandalism was a stealthy bot attack by an image "fanatic", and you have the nerve to claim you have no axe to grind? Get a grip on reality. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all. This kind of mass nominations with the same exact boilerplate are really bad process. Let's do it again, this time with proper discussion individualized for each image under FfD. Diego (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn all and list that actually don't qualify for deletion separately for a new discussion. Mass closures or deletions are very often questioned unless the issue truly is identical, as it might have been If they were multiple images but of the same event. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The purpose of deletion review is to determine whether were any problems with the process itself and whether the closing administrator acted reasonably. Batch or bulk nominations are not uncommon nor do they offend policy; it's not an argument to say that too many images were listed for deletion. The central issue is whether SchuminWeb interpreted NFCC correctly, particularly criteria #8. I've argued with Ben in the past about this very issue and it's thorny. However, the arguments raised in the individual discussions don't grapple with the issue. NFCC #8 doesn't use the word "decorative," but it does clearly prohibit using unfree content for purely illustrative purposes. Bart to the Future, down the page, is a good example of unfree content which meets NFCC #8. To take one example, File:Homer Strangling Bart.jpg listed as its rationale "To illustrate to the synopsis of the episode." It's a reasonable application of WP:NFCC that said rationale failed #8. Mere illustration is not contextually significant. No one in that discussion explained how the image was contextually significant. It's worth taking to heart that this project exists to create and distribute free content, and that the inclusion of unfree content is ultimately inimical to that goal. Wikipedia's fair use policies represent a pragmatic compromise; and the burden has always been on the uploader to explain why the use of a given image is valid. In none of these discussions did participants do so. There's a temptation here to mass overturn because it looks like a massacre. I think that would be unfortunate because instead of engaging with the very real problem that their images go against the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's policies. I doubt very much if this decision is overturned whether any of the problems with these images will be addressed. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Way off, and hollowly unconvincing. Do not invoke "letter and spirit" without being very inclusive of all letter and spirit. Do not base your endorsement of all deletions on discussing only one which is not even contested below. SchuminWeb acted on an exaggeration of the word "significant" used in NFCC#8 in order to rationalize deletion; this was as improper as Koavf's nomination based on the same exaggeration. Spartaz even echoed Koavf's exaggeration ("critically important"), and refused to even discuss that fact, yet went so far as to accuse me of misstatement without a shred of example or evidence. There's nothing "unfortunate" about ripping up and rerouting bad road. Mass deletion over and against discussion, without discussion, based on a clear, persistent, pernicious, widespread misrepresentation of policy is just plain bad road. Keep in mind that no non-admin editors can now see the oh-so-precious deleted image rationales now, to even discuss them. Very convenient, and smug, and beyond good faith repair (and, I notice, my proffered improved rationale (offered twice) has still been unanswered). Please don't employ rhetoric about "letter and spirit", while that is going on. Side note: it is a foolish practice, IMHO, to delete the image article along with the image. This constitutes arms-folded "I've done it, now don't question me" smugness at its worst, and makes this deletion review discussion ridiculously one-sided, admins vs. registered editors. --Lexein (talk) 01:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'scuse me but who elected you Godking? You don't get to tell other users on what basis they can frame their arguments and its for the closing admin not you to determine which arguments reflect policy best. Your contributions to this debate are stellerly sub-optimal and the sad thing is that even if you did realise that you wouldn't care. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there it is again. I can argue the points I want, even to dispute another editor's framing, as long as I don't lie, exaggerate, or make ad hominem attacks, and I don't think I have: that is, neither you nor anyone else has shown any such error on my part. You, and others, however, continue to disrespect the actual language of the policy with thumb-on-scale by asserting that "critically important" is the same as "significantly increases understanding", and use that to rationalize sub-optimal nominations, and a sub-optimal close. There's your "sub-optimal", properly applied. That you don't like my arguments is obvious; that you cannot factually refute them is not my problem. --Lexein (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Andy checking phone on stage.jpg – Upheld. Overturn argument irrelevant (critical discussion is useful for demonstrating NFCC#8, but certainly is neither required nor a "get out of jail free" card. Policy based arguments for sustaining the deletion seem sound, subsequent overturn arguments again hinge on an intentional misreading of NFCC#8 – —Kww(talk) 03:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Scene is discussed critically. Deleting editor ignored that. Lexein (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have a link to the reliable source discussing via, previously published information, the screen shot of File:Andy checking phone on stage.jpg. We then can use the previously published information to determine whether that previously published information supports the argument that Andy checking phone on stage.jpg's presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the Andy's Play topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response - As explained above, policy does not require reliably sourced discussion of the screenshot, but of the topic, arguably the image topic, arguably in context of the article topic. Policy pointedly does not require or even suggest that the image be the topic. Policy does not require that commentary or critical discussion exist at any particular point in time (such as, as you wrote, "previously"), just that it exists, and is from arguably reliably sources, such as established reviewers - from this I believe that reviews of the show written at any time are permissible. Policy does require that the image significantly increase understanding of the topic, and that, I am convinced (not yet dissuaded), is accomplished. --Lexein (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong. There are a few cases where we allow an image to be used to represent a topic - specifically cover art for published work and logos for companies/organizations - where the art/image in question itself is not directly discussed; these are outlined in WP:NFCI. For every other image, the image itself is required to be shown significance to the subject, and this generally requires sourced discussion to show the importance of that image (this typically for NFCC#8) Now, I will say that it has been argued that these scene was critically commented on, so technically on that point it meets it, but as there are 10 criteria for NFCC, there are other reasons there is a problem here. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masem, could you cite the policy/guideline that support your claims? Your reading of NFCC#8 doesn't seem to match up with the text (which doesn't require critical commentary) and you also haven't clarified what other parts of NFCC aren't met here. In all cases, I'm seeing a lot of folks who seem to read words into the NFCC that just aren't there. That really disturbs me. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's good reason to be disturbed - the FfD list is packed out with files using reasons that are not directly justified by policy - in special because of NFC#8 is interpreted in a way contrary to its original intention - just to check that the image is in context and provides relevant information to the paragraph it illustrates. I've found many old articles with deleted images that, by the remains of their empty placeholders, seemed to be really relevant and adequate under NFC guidelines. I'm afraid it's a lost battle to keep those images that do enhance understanding; not even images with good fair use rationales and perfectly fulfilled info templates are safe when this subjective criterion is invoked and only the people who regularly nominates images participate in the discussion. I recognize that they do a good work at removing all the chaff that has no place, but many times they seem to have lost perspective of why non-free images have been allowed in Wikipedia in the first place. Diego (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response All non-free media have to have rationales to show that they are critically important for understanding. The burden of proof lies with you to show how you are arguing that the presence of this media "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Users can understand that Andy was onstage holding a phone without this non-free media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (gee, bolded lead words!) I repeat: your phrase "critically important" is not stated or implied in policy, period. Don't believe me, check it yourself! Wikipedia is not built on toying with words and twisting policy to say something it doesn't:

"Critically important for understanding" has an entirely different meaning than "would add significantly to understanding of".
You don't get to change "significantly" to "critically as in highly".
You don't get to change the noun "critical discussion as in discussion by critics" to the adjective "critically important as in highly important or as in must do more than significantly increase understanding.

However: (ooooooh) in order to move forward, I'll do the repair work: a slight rephrasing, All non-free media have to have rationales to show that they add significantly to understanding of the topic, would be an acceptable, policy-paraphrasic claim, if it were clear from your deletion nomination that that's what your issue was. It was not. Fine! I'll put it there now. Oh, wait, I can't. The entire emphasis in your nom was stated and implied to be the image and the article, not any specific deficiency in the NFUR. My fault for falling for that.

Given that Wikipedia is not built on obfuscation, toying with language to mislead and misstate policy, misleading editors, hiding intentions, or imposing Catch-22 situations on editors, here:

NFUR Purpose, improved by request:

The image is significant for identification purposes of the topic of the episode "Andy's Play", the play itself
To illustrate the pivotal, highly critically praised scene of Andy and cast on stage, in costume, dealing with his ringing phone, while struggling to remain in character.
The image of the scene has been widely seen in other reviews and blogs about the episode.

--Lexein (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm going to ask you to please stop mocking me and please stop making allegations against myself or my character. How would this media "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? Would "its omission [be] detrimental to that understanding"? I know that I can understand this topic without the picture and seeing the picture does not "significantly increase [my] understanding of the topic". Furthermore, if I came along and read this article without a picture, my understanding would not be detrimentally effected to any noticeable (significant, etc.) degree. Of course, virtually any non-free media can help somewhat in providing context and removing it would certainly decrease understanding to some degree, but that argument applies just as much to uploading the entire episode and having it stream on this site, which is clearly not fair use. Fair use means that we can truly justify the reproduction of someone else's legal intellectual property for our purposes as a non-profit educational venture. If we have intellectual property belonging to someone else that we reproduce here for any other reason (such as decoration or because it's cool or because it provides some small-but-not-significant understanding) then we are violating both the spirit and the letter of the law. Your quibbling over whether or not "significant" is functionally equivalent to "greatly" is honestly pointless. This image needs to be justified on the grounds of WP:NFCC and you frankly cannot do it as there is no way that this image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding [to any significant degree]". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: as I have asserted, I stand behind every single word I have written, exactly as I have written it, and not altered by you. I further stand behind every single word in NFCC policy, as it is written, and not altered by you. I have pointed out, for the purpose of correction, and getting you to stop, your linguistic mischaracterization of policy language, which you should never, ever do. Do not blame me for your misdeeds, or for calling you out about them. Take me to any level of dispute resolution; I'm in the right about every single criticism of your misleading language in every place (272) it is used. Including "decorative", see WP:AAFFD WP:DECORATIVE. Your fight is not with me, it is with the policy you have elected to excessively zealously enforce where it is not intended to be so applied. Or maybe it's the simple fact that I oppose the mistaken parts of the noms, and the supervote deletions, that has you so wound up. But really, you should be able to justify a nomination without exaggerating policy even a tiny bit in the process.

Remark: Thank you for understanding one thing, by saying it yourself: "Of course, virtually any non-free media can help somewhat in providing context and removing it would certainly decrease understanding to some degree ... ". Guess what? Stop there! It's a breakthrough. "Somewhat" and "to some degree" do meet the definition of "significantly". It is a binary discriminator. It is literally more than insignificant. It means "having some significance." It is the deliberately chosen word intended by the writers of NFCC. The bar is set precisely so that extremists cannot summarily delete all images with rationales, and fans cannot spray images all over articles indiscriminately. I support and defend that language, because I do not want to indiscriminately spray non-free images all over articles.

And, in many cases, I support the deletion of images of subjects lacking critical commentary and/or lacking explicitly supportive rationales in their NFUR. However, I am quite in the right, here, that my provided rationale (above) which you ignored, meets the requirements for the rationale. See these other fine examples of good rationales, which it is modeled after: File:Marwa El-sherbini.jpeg (copyrighted image of a person, now deceased) File:Action Comics -1 June 1938.jpg (copyrighted comic book cover) File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg (multiply copyrighted art image, used in many places in Wikipedia).

Your concerns about "breaking the law" are your opinions to express, but have no real weight here: of course I do not think fair use is a license to replicate copyrighted works, because I agree with all the notions of minimalization.

--Lexein (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response I didn't blame you for my misdeeds. I did blame you for being inflammatory and slanderous with things like (e.g.) accusations of lying. I haven't lied, so it's inappropriate to say that I did. Even if I had that wouldn't change the weight of my arguments as such. The way that you are misconstruing the "significantly" to mean "having some significance" is tautological: "significant" means "important, of consequence"; the educational value of a screen grab of Andy holding a phone on stage is not "important" and "of consequence". It's curious to me how you always seem to know the content of others' minds and intentions, such as when you can claim to know when someone is lying or why everyone who has worked on NFCC has chosen their particular wording to preempt certain admins' actions. This line of argument isn't convincing to me and it's not amenable even to other users who are sympathetic to your line of argument about reinstating some of these images. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, per NFCC policy and longstanding project-wide standards established per multiple precedents. These are routine cases, and two entirely stereotyped "keep" votes don't overturn project-wide consensus about how and when screenshots can be used. In cases like this, closing admins can and must act in line general policy and not with the vagaries of which two or three voters happened to show up at an XFD page on a given day. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't hand-wave. You haven't linked to anything like "longstanding project-wide standards established per multiple precedents". Getting away with things multiple times doesn't mean they were right, or were on policy. I'm calling a halt to the hand-waving, and the distortions of the language of policy, including WP:DECORATIVE, and exaggerations designed to change thresholds. I'd appreciate it if you would actually reply to my proffered NFUR rationale above, compared and contrasted with other good NFUR rationale examples. In fact, read it all. In fact, show me examples of rationales which you think this one should measure up to, if it doesn't. --Lexein (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Looks like three readily identifyibly people, on stage, in period outfits, with one pulling out a cell phone. I just described the scene in text, making it a free replacement for the non-free image per NFCC#1. Closure with deletion was proper, even if the scene was commented on by reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Can you now describe the actors' expressions, their body postures, a detailed depiction of the outfits, the mood provided by the stage lighting, all that in a way that doesn't provide undue weight? If not, you haven't achieved a free replacement that would provide the same understanding about the play. Diego (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/restore. Your de minimus description might as well say "I see nothing here at all. I will not vouch for anything purported to be represented in this so-called screenshot." To prevent continued ignoring of the expanded NFUR Purpose, from above, by several editors:
- Purpose: The image is significant for identification purposes of the topic of the article, in the episode "Andy's Play", the play itself
- To illustrate the pivotal, highly critically praised scene of Andy and cast on stage, in costume, dealing with his (anachronistically) ringing phone, while struggling to remain in character, to great comedic effect.
- The image of the scene has been widely seen in critical reviews and blogs each discussing the episode. (see links above)

--Lexein (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC) (Clarified 'oppose' to 'overturn'. --Lexein (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Overturn deletion and restore image. The provided rationale for using satisfies NFCC#8 since the image is clearly in context and, as their content describes the visual appearance of the elements that were described in the article with text alone, it's enough to increase understanding of the topic in a significant way. The arguments for deletion stated above and in the closure would render NFCC#8 meaningless and would raise the bar not only above fair use, but above what the current NFC itself allows for and how it is designed to improve the encyclopedia. Also the deletion statement that "decorative is a valid argument", when it's clearly listed as an argument to avoid in the highly influential essay, makes it a bogus reason. Diego (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Carride.jpg – Endorsed. Overturn argument irrelevant (critical discussion is useful for demonstrating NFCC#8, but certainly is neither required nor a "get out of jail free" card. – —Kww(talk) 03:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Scene is discussed critically. Deleting editor ignored that. Lexein (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response How is this discussed critically? This is just a picture of them in the car. How are you arguing that the presence of this media "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Routine, open-and-shut case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Office scott's tots.jpg – Endorsed. Overturn argument irrelevant (critical discussion is useful for demonstrating NFCC#8, but certainly is neither required nor a "get out of jail free" card. Policy based arguments for sustaining the deletion seem sound – —Kww(talk) 03:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Scene is discussed critically. Deleting editor ignored that. Lexein (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response All non-free media have to have rationales to show that they are critically important for understanding. The burden of proof lies with you to show how you are arguing that the presence of this media "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Users can understand that these kids struck a B-Boy stance without this non-free media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. While there may be some critical discussion of the scene involved, there is no critical discussion of this image of the scene, and no case has been made – either in the FUR, or by the keep voters at the FFD, or indeed in this DRV – that the image is necessary for helping to understand those aspects of critical reception that the text mentions. The FUR was, as so often, basically non-existent (it said "Purpose = To better illustrate the episode's story", which is essentially not saying anything at all). The burden of making a concrete, individual case about the specific image's role in the article is on the uploader and keep voters, not on the deletion nominator; in the absence of such a case, deletion is the only policy-conformant decision, no matter the number of votes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an error to claim that policy requires "critical discussion of this image of the scene". It does not. It requires discussion of the topic, which is the scene, the understanding of which the image significantly increases, per policy. --Lexein (talk) 15:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:The office grief counseling.png – Endorsed. Overturn argument irrelevant (critical discussion is useful for demonstrating NFCC#8, but certainly is neither required nor a "get out of jail free" card. Policy based arguments for sustaining the deletion seem sound. – —Kww(talk) 03:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Scene is discussed critically. Deleting editor ignored that. Lexein (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response All non-free media have to have rationales to show that they are critically important for understanding. The burden of proof lies with you to show how you are arguing that the presence of this media "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Readers can understand that the cast of The Office stood in front of a flaming box without this non-free media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Neither in the deletion discussion nor in the FUR was there any tangible case made for the notion that the critical discussion of the scene in the article could not adequately be understood without this image. In fact, it can be adequately understood just fine – the critical discussion is about aspects of comedy that are largely confined to language and actions that the image cannot show and does not attempt to show. FUR was completely inadequate, essentially non-exsistent, and as such ought to have triggered speedy deletion all by itself. Deletion was the only reasonable outcome here. As in the other cases, just because two people go around a large number of nominations and add the same, stereotyped, objection to each of them, without addressing the case of the specific image, does not create a "community consensus" for keeping. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Cecil and Bob.png – Overturn to keep. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Quoting unanswered keep !vote: "In both the Sideshow Bob and Brother From Another Series articles, Cecil's appearance in comparison to Bob is discussed in detail, so the image aids in helping the readers' understanding of the subject." (Per User:Scorpion0422, above) --Lexein (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Are you arguing for use in both articles or just one? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both, with NFURs for both, of course, with verification that RS in both articles provide critical discussion of the topic (here, Cecil and Bob) and the images providing increased understanding of that topic. Of course I'm suggesting inclusion in both. Different images might be a good alternative for the two articles. --Lexein (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep Consensus was clear. Scorpion made a good case. Two others saying keep made the same argument in some other discussions, just as the nominator did when he mass nominated them. Doesn't make what they saw any less valid though. Dream Focus 15:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, inappropriate or inaccurate, take your pick. Highly useful for understanding in both articles, and consensus was against the close. --No unique names 01:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse in Brother from Another Series. The image has been temporarily restored, so it is now possible to tell what it looks like. The image only shows two characters, Sideshow Bob and Cecil Terwilliger, standing next to each other. The image is not critically discussed in any way and the image has no effect on my understanding of the article. Thus, the use of the image is purely decorative, and English Wikipedia does not permit purely decorative fair use. Removal of the image needs to be detrimental to the understanding of the topic of the article, which is the opposite to being purely decorative, see WP:NFCC#8. User:Lexein also listed Sideshow Bob above, but I can't find any evidence that the image ever has been used in that article. Thus, endorse deletion in that article too for failing WP:NFCC#10c and for having an unknown purpose in that article. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep - I have cleaned up the redundant rationale and make it look neat. As for the image, Cecil was drawn to look like Bob, as said in the Production section. It can warrant as either a body or an infobox image. If you see Cecil and Bob in one image, and you read an article, that really helps. --George Ho (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse both closes - Without an independent reliable source itself using the image File:Cecil and Bob.png to illustrate their written description of Cecil's appearance in comparison to Bob (or something thereof), there is no reliable source support to conclude that the image's presence would significantly increase a readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While a reliable source describing the image's visual significance is nice to have and a bonus towards proving WP:NFCC#8, it's not a requirement by policy; assessment of its significance is done by consensus at discussion. The outcome of this review is important to reinforce that WP:CONSENSUS is still a core policy and that no administrator can single-handedly overturn it. If the administrator feels that the formed consensus is contrary to policy, the proper process is to include that policy-based argument as a !vote to break the local consensus and leave a new administrator the closing task, not WP:SUPERVOTE his opinion away. Diego (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:BraveComboSimpsons.jpg – Overturn to keep – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Added on behalf of Dravecky (above):

Three "Keep" !votes (Dravecky, Maitch, Lexein), with some opposing discussion by nominator. Two !votes mentioned improved understanding of the band's appearance as animated characters, not possible with text. IMHO: That said, more discussion by RS in both articles would certainly help. --Lexein (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Are you arguing for use in both articles or just one? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought it was typical to list all uses in DRV. Certainly going for image restoral and reinclusion into at least Brave Combo, since that's identified by Dravecky. Addition of NFUR for both articles if there is one missing. That said, the weaker article for inclusion at the moment is Co-Dependent's Day as stated by Dravecky, and might be harder to rehabilitate for image use - it can wait until further RS commentary is added. --Lexein (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed, my only point was that this image enhanced the Brave Combo article, depicting them in a way mere words could not convey. As a long-time admin myself, I was quite surprised to see the discussion obviated for this and the over 200+ images. (Obviously, I'm asking that the deletion of this specific image be overturned.) - Dravecky (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the band's appearance as animated characters in this Simpsons episode is discussed in multiple reliable third-party sources. (Examples listed below.) - Dravecky (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hepola, Sarah (March 11, 2004). "Brave New Combo D'oh! The Simpsons animate Dallas' favorite polka band". Dallas Observer. Dallas, TX. Retrieved November 26, 2012.
- Beal, Jim Jr. (November 28, 2003). "Group gets a, uh, gig on 'Simpsons'". San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, TX. p. 18H. Retrieved November 26, 2012.(subscription required)
Overturn to keep The nominator was the only one arguing for its deletion, with three people saying it should be kept, all giving valid reasons for their case. Consensus was clear. The image does help understanding of a notable band appearing on a notable show seen by millions. Both the band article and episode article had a valid reason to use it. And as Dravecky has stated above, their appearance was notable enough to get coverage in the media. Dream Focus 14:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. NFCC#8 is a subjective criterion that can only be assessed by consensus. Consensus was clear in the closing discussion that the image significantly increased understanding of the topic, so the closer didn't properly follow the Consensus policy and rather performed a supervote. Diego (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to overturns Are you arguing that the fact that the band appeared on the show warrants fair use in both of these articles? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The issue is not that they appeared on the show but how they appeared while on the show. The band's animated appearance is discussed in multiple reliable third-party sources and mere words are not adequate for the reader to visualize this animated appearance. - Dravecky (talk) 08:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response That doesn't answer my question. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fine. The answer was no, this is not what we were arguing. Diego (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response Well, that's the only question that matters. If you're arguing anything other than that, it's irrelevant to NFCC#8. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Clarification You misunderstand. I'm only arguing for inclusion in the Brave Combo article so the answer to the question of "both?" is "no" but that has no bearing on its relevance. - Dravecky (talk) 04:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not at all. We're arguing that the fair use is warranted not "because the band appeared in the show", but because "the band appearing in the show was described by reliable third-party sources, and that coverage has been included in the article"; and that's an argument that squarely supports inclusion by NFCC#8.

Sources No, it's not. That the band appeared on the show simply requires a reference--not a piece of non-free media. You simply misunderstand NFCC. How the band appears can warrant non-free media if said media will significantly increase understand and its omission will meaningfully decrease said understanding (along with several other requirements.) It's not enough that other sources say "Brave Combo appeared on The Simpsons" and so then we get to use a screenshot. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand NFCC pretty well, thankyouverymuch, I simply don't agree with how you interpret it. We're here to discuss if this appearance is significant or not, given that this is a subjective criterion that should be decided by rough consensus. Right now, it seems that the majority of commentators think it is significant enough to include it given the available sources; and that was also the consensus at the original discussion, so the delete close was improper. Diego (talk) 19:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response Consensus, while important, is not a trump card. And every scene in the episode is discussed by multiple sources--does that justify a screencap from every scene? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Overturn to Keep based on that explanation. --No unique names 01:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could this be restored temporarily so that it is possible to tell whether the deletion was correct or not? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... I tried to restore it but the image itself appears to be no longer present. Perhaps I've done this wrong? (I've successfully restored images in the past, just not his long after they were deleted.) - Dravecky (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - We have a bug on loading new versions of images or temporarily undeleted ones; see WP:VPT. --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse - For now, this image is replaceable. If an animation of the real-life band is fully detailed in Co-Dependent's Day, using this image would be justified. However, I don't see it happening, as any source does not describe the WHOLE animation of the band. We can replace this image with the free2share image of the band and then type in whatever we do. --George Ho (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Bart to the Future.png – Overturn to keep. Unlike many other images that were deleted in the mass deletion, this one has legitimate use in the article, as it does help to explain the topic at hand, thus passing NFCC. Additionally, the FFD page had unanimous support for keeping the image, with well-reasoned arguments, and the image was still deleted unilaterally. Consensus here shows that the image should have been kept. – (X! · talk) · @296 · 06:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This image was restored, perhaps only for discussion. Listed here for permanent restoral, and reversal of closure at FFD to "Keep".

Four "Keep" !votes (TheLeftorium, Scorpion0422, Maitch, Lexein), with some discussion agreement by nominator that image may meet NFCC. --Lexein (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image was restored because the closing admin didn't evaluate the nomination closely enough. He probably made the assumption that all Simpsons images nominated on November 17 were "decorative". If he had looked at the nomination a bit more he would have seen that this image isn't used as decoration like the others and actually "increases readers' understanding of the topic", which even the nominator agrees with. The image is used to help readers understand, among other things, this part of the article:

"According to Greaney, the animators originally designed future Bart as "cool and fun" and made several designs were he was "slim, attractive, and hip."[6] Greaney did not think any of these designs went along with the personality he and the other the writers had assigned to future Bart, so he told the animators to draw the character with belly fat, a ponytail, sags under his eyes, and one earring.[6] Scully said on the audio commentary that he thought the design of Bart looked "great", though he added that it was "slightly disturbing" to see the older versions of Homer and Marge in the episode, and joked that it is "a little bit sad to watch cartoon characters age."[8]"

Theleftorium ^(talk) 19:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert/overturn this one. As the keep'ers (and now Theleftorium clarifies explicitly), the article content specifically discusses the characters' visual portrayal and emotional responses to seeing them, all of which is encyclopediacly (is that a word?) enhanced by seeing them. Because we're talking about visual portrayal of artistic content in a specific copyrighted episode, no non-free could exist. NFCC explicitly allows non-free when it enhances the encyclopediac value and/or the image itself is discussed (!decoration) and when no non-free would suffice. DMacks (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn this one (and only this one). Unlike most of the others, this one does have some substantial, non-trivial discussion that it helps to back up, and the keep votes were not just all stereotyped like with most of the other cases, so closing this as delete against several legitimate keep votes was not the correct outcome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or relist this image. The purpose of the image appears to be to show what the four characters on the image look like in the future. Furthermore, it is not possible to link to the articles about the characters for reference, since the character articles (e.g. Bart Simpson) show the characters at a much younger age. Although Homer and Marge look almost the same as in other episodes, Bart and Ralph does not. Also, the section which begins with the words "According to Greaney" does contain significant discussion of Bart's visual appearance as an adult, and the purpose of the image appears to be to assist the reader in understanding this specific section and not purely to decorate the article. Also note that the image doesn't appear in the infobox but right next to the section containing the discussion about Bart's visual appearance, which further shows that the image is meant for that specific section and not as a decoration of the episode article as a whole. I believe that a deletion discussion around WP:NFCC would have to focus on whether it would be possible to understand this particular section without the image (possibly requiring a rewording of the section, but without removal of information). However, the discussion didn't address this issue at all, so it seems wrong to close it in the way it was closed without further discussion. I think that it should either have been relisted or closed as "keep" or "no consensus". --Stefan2 (talk) 14:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn - I'm seeing this image, and neither text nor image triumphs the other. In fact, combination of words and physical image is a great mix ONLY if amount of properly sourced text is adequate (or more than that) enough to justify an image. I read the passage about the future lazy Bart having similar traits to Homer, and I could not properly imagine adequately the true vision without the actual image. When I looked at the image, that image helped me understand what the passage says. --George Ho (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Four keeps all gave valid reasons and the only one trying to get it deleted mass nominated a horde of things at once. Did the closing administrator read each discussion through, or just mass close all of them without bothering? Dream Focus 14:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. NFCC#8 is a subjective criterion that can only be assessed by consensus. Consensus was unanimous in the closing discussion that the image significantly increased understanding of the topic (even the nominator agreed), so the closer didn't properly follow the Consensus policy and rather performed yet another supervote. Diego (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Bucking the trend here. The key phrase in NFCC#8 is "[the image's] omission would be detrimental to [readers'] understanding". The omission of this image is not detrimental to the understanding of the related topic. A reader can quite well understand what is going on by the detailed description already given in the article, reiterated by theleftorium above. If another line or two needs to be added to cover the characters' physical appearances, that can be done as well, but beer bellies and pony tails are not concepts that need to be illustrated in order to be understood. Would the image help? Yes. Is it needed? No. Them From Space 04:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That evaluation is not something for only one person to make, even if that person is an administrator. The closing admin is supposed to follow WP:CONSENSUS, in special for subjective criteria like the current one that don't have clear and unambiguous decision tests. Diego (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep. A clear consensus of keep !votes was not acknowledged in the closer's rationale. Even the nominator seemed to make an argument for keeping the image in commenting on the file's illustrative utility. I would have liked to see the closer join in the discussion if he felt that the consensus was incorrect. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 23:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 November 2012

23 November 2012

22 November 2012

Odaine Démar – Deletion endorsed. If there are other articles on even less notable sportspeople, then please do nominate those for deletion. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Restore, as he appears to have played more/been sourced more to have an article thus causing someone to AfC one again. WylieCoyote (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, at least for now. It shouldn't be a straight G4, as this version has sources unlike the most recently deleted version. However, the team he plays for is in the third tier of Canadian football (I have no idea what this means in terms of notability), at least two of the references (including the most significant assertion of importance, appearing for the Jamaican U20 team) are to forums and a third is to Facebook. A couple of other references are to what might be primary sources. Absent better sources I don't think this would survive an AfD, so I'm not recommending it's restoration at this point. That said I've not looked for reliable sources and I have limited subject knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, There are articles on the Wikipedia database less notable than this article. To respond to your comment on the sources; Kingston FC his current club had there website removed so their Facebook was used to communicate. Regarding the Jamaica U-20 source no their was no squad list available on the Internet so that was the best source available. Odaine is very well known and a notable person internationally. I don't see why much less notable people are on Wikipedia and he isn't. I kindly ask for this article to be unsalted and approved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.42.34 (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there's other rubbish articles on Wikipedia doesn't mean another one is OK. It's not as though these other articles have received a stamp of approval. Maybe they ought to be deleted as well, but nobody's noticed them yet. Reyk _YO! 10:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oppose I see no issues with the close. Whether an article could be created or not doesn't mean the previous unsourced one should be restored. It's also doubtful whether any of the leagues satisfy WP:NSOCCER (i.e they aren't listed at WP:FPL), but I think it's clear that they aren't contributing much to his notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore, How can a player playing for a club in San Marino and the Maltese 2nd division be listed and not a young prospect such as this player. He has much more creditability than most football articles on the database. I full understand you point made but since there are articles on here which this one empowers why not take your time to remove those and add this instead. Again if you do your research you will see this player is someone well known and qualifies to be on the Wiikipedia database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.42.34 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No player who plays in the leagues of San Marino or Malta should have an article per WP:NFOOTBALL, unless they meet WP:GNG, as they are not fully-professional leagues. This player still fails NFOOTBALL and GNG and remains non-notable. Giant Snowman 16:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiziano_Mottola Simone Confalone Matthew Cocks just to name a few. These players have not played internationally nor for a recognized club outside of the countries they currently play in. I don't see what the big fuss is as I could find articles on here with illegal false written, sport athletes who don't qualify yet this article is being given such a fight. There numerous players from the same league as this player on the Wikipedia database there are even players on here that play lower than the CSL but yet are listed. I don't see the harm in restoring this article because I've looked over the history of this article and I have to agree with the argument made in the "Articles for creation" page discussing for this player that the information now given is better than the last submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.42.34 (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Confalone played in Serie A, there is no article on Matthew Cocks (footballer), and Tiziano Mottola does indeed appear to be non-notable. I will PROD the article. Giant Snowman 17:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There thousands if not more articles on the database that are not notable but yet still exists and this article I feel does somewhat qualify. I believe you should do some research before denying this article because from what I see on the article I believe he is more notable than a lot of articles in the database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.42.34 (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of non-notable articles - but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You have to demonstrate the notability of this individual, not the non-notability of others. You have failed to do this so far. Giant Snowman 17:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have proven his notability. He has played in the CSL for 2 different clubs just like many other players with articles on the database, he was a Jamaica U-20 call up. I believe his notability is the same if not better than most articles on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.42.34 (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have made claims to notability certainly. But what matters is not the notability of these claims relative to other articles (which are entirely irrelevant to this discussion), but to the notability criteria. It is not clear that playing for CSL teams is sufficient to give notability (see above), If he has played for the Jamaican team (I'm not sure just being in the squad is enough), then that probably does. However, this claim (nor any of the others) is not backed up with a citation to a reliable source, and I can't find one at all. Additionally, I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage of him in any sources, reliable or otherwise, meaning that he doesn't meet the general notability guideline criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the reason I brought the issue here. Several other editors during AfC's November drive approved far-less-notable sportspeople. — WylieCoyote (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So? If articles about non-notable people have been approved then nominate them for deletion. If you think the notability criteria being applied here are too strict then get consensus to change them. Neither makes other articles at all relevant to whether Odaine Démar meets the criteria as they are at present. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not aware, in order for a country to be regulated by FIFA or to compete in any FIFA organized competition the country must have a professional or a recognized league; check FIFA.com if you are not aware of this. The Canadian Soccer League (CSL) is recognized as Canada's pro league or the highest level of soccer within Canada. If you check the list on leagues approved by Wikipedia you will see the CSL was once listed and a official update should be done to add the current CSL league. Therefore I believe the player in question as enough notability to be added to the Wikipedia database. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.42.34 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blatantly false statement - there are dozens and dozens of FIFA member countries that do not have a professional - or even semi-professional - league system in place. Giant Snowman 16:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you took your time to read you would clearly see I wrote "a professional or a recognized league". The CSL is Canada's recognized league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.42.34 (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 November 2012

Jill Kelley – Overturn to keep. The vote count here is slightly in favor of overturning, but not by much. The important part, though, is that "overturn" !voters addressed the issue of the closure more, rather than arguing the merits of the article. There is a difference between saying the article is a textbook case of BLP1E (discussing the article itself) and saying that an admin cannot overrule a large majority of policy-based arguments (discussing the AfD closure). – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Overturn (see User talk:Drmies#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jill Kelley for full reasons at closing admin's talk page) because:

In the AfD there were 28 Keep votes, vs 4 Delete votes (including the nominator) and 5 Redirects -- that is almost a two thirds majority to Keep the article by a very wide and clear margin.
The vote was not a "referendum" on the merits of WP:BLP1E, the majority of 28 editors who voted Keep clearly over-rode that and cited good reasons why the subject is now WP:N and stands in it's own right as an important subject.
The closing admin's reasoning is incomprehensible and deprecating, quote: "the moment she has a TV show and a movie contract we can undelete the history" -- since when is having a "TV show" or a "movie contract" a criterion for notability?
Jill Kelley now receives massive media scrutiny as more details continually emerge about her and her family's role/s in current US politics.
Jill Kelley has ignited a massive operation by all the major US intelligence and spy agencies that went from tracking down who was cyber-stalking her to massive spy and FBI work to uncover what else was discovered from HER emails that ultimately involved and reached the top military and law enforcement officials of the USA and could have derailed the 2012 presidential race were it not held back by the spy-masters and law officers.
She has played a key role in bringing down the head of the CIA, a former four star General David Petraeus -- they are suspected of having an affair of their own.
Jill Kelley was in heavy email and personal correspondence with the US Commander in Afghanistan General John R. Allen and has wrecked his career and future prospects -- they are also suspected of having another affair of their own.
Not to mention her role in undoing the life and work of Petraeus's official biographer Paula Broadwell as she (Jill Kelley) became the object of a fatal and fateful obsession for Paula Broadwell, that
also involved and then ruined the career of a senior FBI agent Frederick W. Humphries II now under investigation by the FBI, and
now as the American and world media digs deeper into Jill Kelley's web of connections with senior American politicians, including meetings at the White House, her and her family's life and web of connections are being scrutinized and reported.
She also had official clearance from the US State Department to be a "social ambassador" to the highest echelons of officers at CENTCOM one of America's most sensitive and secret operations, and she is an honorary consul for South Korea, proving her political value and connections that are still being investigated and emerging -- she ain't no ordinary "socialite" and one time wonder!
And all this has only become public information since November 9th, 2012 when this story hit the headlines with Petraeus's resignation -- a mere 11 days ago yet the nominator and closing admin think it's somehow ok to make judgments now, in less than a week by not allowing this subject and article to develop in its own right based on the massive media coverage it's getting right now, and more US congressional hearings and investigations are sure to follow, as this is a major subject.
Imagine if only 11 days after the Lewinsky scandal broke into the news, that the name of Linda Tripp would not have made it to WP article status because she never got her own "TV Show".
At a minimum the article deserved to be left as a bio-stub and under-construction with appropriate templates to indicate that, because it's part of a new unfolding story, but it was a lot better than that already when it was zapped in haste. IZAK (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Izak, would you please convert your list of reasons that dominates a paragraph into a numbered list? It's somewhat difficult to find out what needs to be paid attention to Hasteur (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. IZAK (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Linda Tripp is now at AfD. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Truly absurd, it must surely be a violation of WP:POINT and WP:DONOTDISRUPT because at this point in time it is out of reality, as I have indicated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Tripp and it's also a balatant attempt at historical revisionism by minimizing something that is universally accepted as major by now. Another example of misapplying WP policies to challenge historical facts. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Incomprehensible and deprecating"--thanks! What am I deprecating here? One thing, and one thing alone: the tendency to turn Wikipedia into the news. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: "they are also suspected of having another affair of their own"--that's a reason for overturning a deletion discussion? Who's speaking here--Perez Hilton? Drmies (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the criteria now, when can I expect my own article? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fully endorse deletion. The closing admin was correct that this is a BLP1E. Had I seen the AfD earlier, that's exactly how I'd have !voted. "Social ambassador"? Honorary consul? Maybe she was prom queen too. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niteshift: Not sure why, but you obviously want to mention silly things. Jill Kelley has had deep relationships with top Generals that have resulted in their demise. CIA Director David Petraeus has had to quit, she started it, it is suspected they were also having an affair. Top Obama officials wrestled with what they found in her computer/s and its related content in Paula Broadwell's computer/s that involved the heads of the CIA, NSA, FBI, Justice Department, and Department of Defense heads wrangling with decisions of who to inform and who will be forced to resign all stemming from lengthy email correspondence unearthed from Kelley's computer. There are 30,000 (that's thirty thousand) pages of correspondence between Kelley and General Allen. They are also suspected of having an affair and it has ruined his chances of promotion to head NATO. Kelley had access to the White House, with her sister Natalie Khawam and together they were involved with major politicians such as Senators John Kerry and Marco Rubio. So feel free to belittle and make fun of this important political and national security subject that is now causing major waves in the USA as if it was a Saturday Night Live show, but please don't expect everyone else to buy into such a narrow perspective. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, "social ambassador" and honorary consul are silly things, but it was you that put them forth as reasons, not I. As for my "narrow perspective"....well, I guess we'll see, won't we. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Her positions gave her access to powerful men, after all, what was Monica Lewinsky only a measly intern at the White House? but that is how serious matters grow out of hidden sexual affairs and how politicians and famous people stumble and tumble. But in this case, her social status went further than just rumored affairs reported in the media, but social involvement with Generals David Petraeus and John R. Allen who have been ruined by her documented involvement with them. No small matter. IZAK (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"access to pwerful men"? Once again, you have, for the umpteenth time, asserted that notability can be obtained by being around notable people. Is this like fame osmosis or something? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niteshift: How about a little subtlety. Give me some credit. I am not postulating that the house-butler or maid or golfing buddy or aide de camp who has regular access to Generals David Petraeus and John R. Allen should get WP articles. We are talking about something more focused and specific here, a woman and her sister who had POLITICAL and PROFESSIONAL access to two top US generals, enough that Jill Kelley conducted a 30,000 email pages inappropriate correspondence with one (General Allen) has resulted in his name being stained and his career put on ice, and that came about as a research by the FBI into her emails resulted in the fall of Paula Broadwell and General David Petraeus who was the head of the CIA. These personalities are interlinked. Let me ask you, if the articles about Jill Kelley and her sister Natalie Khawam (who was equally close to Generals Petraeus and Allen, they wrote letters to a federal judge on her behalf on their official stationary) are "deleted," then would you say that all mention of them should be removed and excised from WP due to "notability not being 'inherited' "? If they are already worthy of lengthy mention in the David Petraeus, Paula Broadwell, John R. Allen and Petraeus scandal articles maybe in some others too, so at what point are they worthy, or not, of their own articles rather than having the information about them spread out over five other big articles, because it makes perfect sense to have one central main article where that subject is treated as one subject and not spread over five others only. You see, this is not about some random person gaining "notability" by spending a little time with a famous man or two, it is about key players in their own right with their own minds and own agendas in one drama, I guess like the 6 Wives of Henry VIII who are famous for marrying Henry VIII and are not accused of "notability is not inherited". And yes, the Petraeus affair and its actors is a sex drama as well as a political and military and national security drama, we did not create that, the players in this drama did, all WP can do is describe and explain what happened and not suddernly turn prissy prim and say in a snotty way, ow shucks, that's "yellow journalism" when Petraeus himself quit because had an affair and said so himself. IZAK (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that you've A) completely missed the point and B) completely misrepresented the actual argument here, your incessant wikilinking is becoming a bother. I'm done with you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make things clear, though I think that he who hath ears to hear would have understood: "the moment she has a TV show and a movie contract we can undelete the history" means that she is not, at the moment, independently notable. If she has a TV show and a movie contract, or does anything else that's not directly related to the affair, she's independently notable, clearly. Drmies (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalie Khawam. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion - policy trumps opinion. --No unique names 17:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I would have voted to delete the article per BLP1E. However this is not clear under our policy. Sometimes one event is important enough to create long term notability (e.g. Monica Lewinsky). This was a judgement call and therefore the consensus must rule the result. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single event could be, but it takes time to demonstrate the enduring notability. Not 2 weeks. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I don't know if it is reasonable or required by policy to ask that we wait a few years before starting an article even for a BLP. Editors will most be interested in working on an article while the story is breaking. A better way of dealing with this issue - I think - is to let the article be, and when it turns out that there is no long-term notability, then nominate it for deletion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike Lewinsky, who actually had the affair, Kelly is more of a flirt who angered the actual mistress. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable position to take and probably mine as well. However your or my judgement call does not mandate deletion. This is something that is resolved by a consensus of judgement calls and the consensus was absolutely clear in favor of keeping the article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion Effectively this is WP:ONEEVENT - it's the people who she slept with who happen to be notable, and not her. No, that's not being sexist - those individuals were notable before sleeping with her. AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE - it's policy that matters, and you cannot twist policies so badly (especially BLP policies) to even consider this person as meeting them. As such, the deletion was as per policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but it is far from established that the subject here has had an affair, never mind multiple ones. The subject has certainly not admitted that. I should think someone citing BLP would be more circumspect about tossing out claims like that so matter-of-factly.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion As per Bwilkins comment, "effectively this is WP:ONEEVENT - it's the people who she slept with who happen to be notable, and not her" - she does not warrant a wikipedia biography of her not notable life, add the details about her to the notable peoples life stories. - Youreallycan 17:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and turkey-slap closing admin A closing administrator's job is to interpret consensus, not impose his own opinion, just as a World Series umpire couldn't have declared the Detroit Tigers the winner with an argument that "they were really the better team". Drmies didn't evaluate consensus; he cast a vote and arrogated veto power over every one of the dozens of opinions that addressed the BLP1E issue explicitly or implicitly. The "endorse" opinions here also have the sad aspect of being ex post facto AfD votes and blandly repeating "Effectively this is WP:ONEEVENT" does not address the issue with the improper close. It is closes like this that make Wikipedia a laughingstock in which the arbitrary biases of one admin override the considered opinions of every participant in the discussion. Alansohn (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, it's AfD closures that make Wikipedia a laughingstock. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Alansohn - WP:Consensus is not a head count , its a well considered interpretation of the deletion discussion in regards to all of EN wikpedia policy and guidelines as was this close decision - Youreallycan 19:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

right. And when one does so, it is especially necessary to do it right, with great attention to the real situation, not the technicalities. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and let anyone who wants bring a second AfD. I can excuse the AfD nomination as being done on Nov.13, but by the 20th when the close was made it was blindingly clear that she is now a figure with an historical role. The close said "this is exactly what BLP `1E is intended to cover". Rather, he should have said "This is exactly what BLP 1E is not intended to cover. Even in the close, he admits substantial worldwide coverage. The coverage is not about mere tabloid fodder--what might be tabloid if it were about insignificant individuals who happened to get a great deal of attention by chance becomes major news when it is about significant people who get a great deal of coverage because of the political significance. She was indeed not the key significant figure, but she was directly involved as one of the three key participants. She is not low profile, and, having set off a chain of major events, she's a major player. The basic principle behind all of BLP is DO NO HARM,and certainly no conceivable additional harm can be done by this, after what the press has done. WP:OSTRICH is used to mean people who nominate people of things for deletion because they haven't heard of thinge; but it should more properly be used for WP being a collective ostrich, refusing to include what all the world knows. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - A correct application of WP:BLP1E. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the deletion of the history, but endorse redirection to Petraeus_scandal#Jill_Kelley. BLP1E is not a good reason for deletion. It is clear there is support for coverage of this person, but there is not (yet) good reason for a stand-alone-article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That redirect already exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The page history should be available behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed this again, given the large number of straight "Overturn" !votes, reading the AfD more carefully and the cache copy of the article. I read a rough concenus as being a straight "keep" within reasonable discretion, and a mandated "merge and redirect" at a stretch. The cached version is a weak BLP article. Having said that, I don't think there are further BLP problems requiring action. The most relevant policy/guideline failed is Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event, which reads to me as clearly supporting the content being moved to an article covering the event, not the person. However, closing the discussion this way is a stretch, and may even be called a WP:Supervote, but not decidedly. If the AfD is closed as a mandated "merge and redirect" (history intact), then the door is open for a spinout article, iff the Petraeus_scandal becomes too large and Petraeus_scandal#Jill_Kelley is a major section (which today it is not). My !vote is for Overturn (Merge and redirect to Petraeus_scandal#Jill_Kelley). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn BLP1E is not a CSD, if the closing admin had a dissenting opinion it should have been expressed as a "delete" vote, not as a unilateral decision. As I mentioned at that discussion, I don't see how someone can look at that article and see BLP1E as applying. "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." A socialite that exchanges sexual emails with the soon-to-be head of the NATO forces and former commander of the Afghan War, causes the head of the CIA and previous commander of the Afghan War to resign days before his testimony to Congress about an attack on Americans in Libya, and days before the new commander of the Afghan War was to be promoted; a woman who causes an FBI agent to become so obsessive that he is taken off of her case, becomes afraid for her own safety after a noted journalist and author sends threatening emails... how is that "one event", how are those events not significant, how is her role in those events not significant, and how is that significance not well documented? BLP1E seems like it should apply, but does not. Regardless, it was a bad close, and opinions should be comments, not deletions. Also, as I mentioned in the discussion, the creator was not notified. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, just because someone has been mentioned in many news reports doesn't mean she is notable, as it's all stemming from the one event. These sorts of situations are why we have BLP1E. Redirecting the page while keeping the history is reasonable, because "Jill Kelley" will be a search term. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion: Someone who may or may not have had an affair with someone and called the cops on the media saying they were an ambassador or something is not notable and BLP1E is in full effect on this one. Good deletion Drmies. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I have the utmost respect for Drmies as an administrator, but I wholeheartedly agree with both IZAD and Alansohn (but hitting Drmies with a turkey would be out of line)...the consensus was to keep, but instead of interpreting said consensus, Drmies imposed his interpretation of WP:BLP1E. I would at the very least request a relisting of the AfD, but feel that keeping the article as is would be the best option. Go Phightins! 04:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Keep voters were aware of BLP1E, considered it, and decided that the level of notability was high enough in this case that that wasn't relevant here. Admins' job is not to impose their own viewpoints on a clear consensus about a difficult to decide policy. There's a reasonable argument here for BLP1E being relevant. It was considered and rejected in the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see people saying that honorary consul is a silly thing here in this discussion. You should be aware that thia is a real position, and has real diplomatic functions, so is not a silly thing. Though being an honorary consul does not make one notable (just as being a member of a diplomatic corps doesn't make one notable), it is not a silly thing. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Consensus to keep in view of the WP:BLP1E policy was clear. As for the BLP1E policy, the closer was wrong on several levels. First, as I posted in the AfD, Kelley put herself in the public spotlight eight years ago when she was featured on a U.S. national television show.St Petersburg Times January 7, 2003. Her life story has been covered in detail since at least 2003 and biography coverage of her life from the television show was followed by coverage of her life in Tribune January 15, 2003 (at http://nl.newsbank.com/sites/tt/ , Search for: "TASTY TELEVISION" AND date(01/13/2003 to 1/17/2003)), St Petersburg Times January 15, 2003, St Petersburg Times October 8, 2003. There's in-depth biography information again beginning on Philadelphia Inquirer November 11, 2012 and many other sources through Associated Press November 13, 2012. She was not a low profile individual before the Petraeus scandal and the coverage of her life due to the Petraeus scandal is well beyond the context of the Petraeus scandal, so the article restrictions of WP:BLP1E do not apply. These were all brought out in the AfD discussion by long term editors. There is no justification in the close for the failure to apply the requirements of WP:BLP1E or to impose that closer's own viewpoints on a clear consensus regarding the WP:BLP1E policy. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion: (note: I originally nominated the article for deletion, so I do have a bias here.) That being said, I fully agree with the points made by Drmies, Ed, Bwilkins, etc. Afd is not a vote and in cases where one side makes a very weak argument (as did many Keep voters) their numerical strength is not the concern of the closing Admin. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with a side of trout- Numbers, and more importantly WP:BLP1E (as has been alaborated above, so I'm not going to re-hash) do not support deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The close misrepresented the facts of the discussion in an outrageous way, claiming that "only a few" keeps addressed the question of BLP1E whereas "a number of deletes" was supposedly larger. It seems apparent that this misrepresentation was contrived to arrive at a result which the closer preferred. Determination of rough consensus requires that the closer should "be as impartial as is possible" and this was not done. Warden (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel, you must either doubt my good faith or my competency, or both. Or you suffer from an illness of your rhetorical gland. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion It appears process was properly followed. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep or no consensus, not a BLP1E case, we have indepth biography information and the individual's role within the event is substantial and well-documented. I'm fine with the merging in the "event article" but given the large consensus BLP1E could not be misinterpreted and used to justify an outcome that goes against the discussion. Cavarrone (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. BLP1E is indeed policy, and rightfully so, but per WP:WI1E and WP:WIALPI (both of which I wrote), it's a bridge too far to apply them to this case--certainly too far to close against a numerical consensus like that based on a disputed interpretation of policy. Those who showed up to the AfD gave some very compelling arguments why 1E did not apply, which should have carried the day in a dispassionate close. Jclemens (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't reasonably analogize her role to that of the man who assassinated Ronald Reagan, the listed exception to BLP1E. She's more of an ancillary character to this scandal; petreaus and broadwell are the central figures. The first essay you wrote says things like "When an individual is covered for a single event, and the spotlight follows that individual into his or her new endeavors they should still have an article. Here, she hasn't gone on to have a tv show or a movie contract, as the closing admin astutely noted, and in contrast to the supposedly similar other women like Monica. As far as your second article, I dont really think that the minor news coverage and one Food Fight show from kind of a while ago are anying other than trivial items per WP:BIO. I certainly don't think they make her "high profile."

This all seems a bit misguided. Who cares if there were 7 times as many keep votes in the AfD if it's not a vote? There were a large number of "omg obviously she should have an article because this scandal is kind of a big deal" votes. To the extent the keepers mentioned blp1e at all, it was to say "obviously her role is substantial." That's not obvious. I could be convinced she qualifies, but not if the only example is the Reagan assassination. Basically, I feel like yes there were a lot of keep votes but they weren't very convincing. Isn't the role of the closing admin to weigh the strength of he arguments rather than to count the votes? I don't really see how you can say the result was obviously wrong from either a substantive or process perspective. And this isn't just supposed to be another round of AfD, is it?AgnosticAphid talk 20:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and I ask those who say merely endorse because of BLP1E to explain why the exceptions to it listed by JClemens, and those arguments based on very extensive coverage and on historic significance, do not apply. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. There are far less notable people in Widipedia, i.e. Eunice Penix, one of five commissioners in a small town, Dade City FL. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is usually not that persuasive. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking care of that other stuff. I really appreciate it. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep, "stylistically" because giving the thumbs up to overriding a 2 to 1 consensus (the raw "votes" in the original review were even more lopsided) to keep suggests to closing admins that consensus is not just not determinative but a peripheral consideration, and "substantively" because a keep does not preclude another deletion review a year from now. I have yet to see anyone calling for deletion explain why the sources describing the subject as "at the center" of the scandal or as a "central figure" should be dismissed. BLP1E states clearly that if "the event was significant and the individual's role within it was substantial and well-documented" a BLP1E rationale has not been made out. Are there any sources at all describing this subject as a "minor player" or peripheral to the scandal? Why are there standalone "Who is Jill Kelley?" stories about the subject if the subject is only a notable under another topic? I am not contending here that the subject is notable for all time. WP:NOTNEWS merely limits application of the principle that notability varies with time, it does not completely eliminate the principle. The primary problem with this deletion is that it was premature. Again and again I see people interfering with current events articles by expending time and energy trying to get them deleted at an early stage when it could all be handled far more smoothly if people would wait a few months when public interest will have waned to a negligible level (as it should if it's truly a BLP1E).--Brian Dell (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Normally I defer to the closer's discretion, but a close against the local consensus in the discussion requires a clear support from the wider consensus embodied by our polices. While the broad policy of BIO1E/BLP1E is supported by strong consensus throughout the community, at the outer edges the application of those policies is murkier. In my opinion, the case to distinguish this article as a valid exception to BIO/BLP1E was advanced well enough that closing against local consensus was not justified. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- Admins do not get to substitute their judgement for the judgement of other editors in cases of multi-factor application of policy such a this -- Xymmax is correct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. If BLP1E were to be applied by unilateral administrative action, it would be a speedy deletion ground. But the application of this policy to the facts is notoriously contentious, and a matter for consensus. There are of course cases in AfDs where an admin could go either way, but this just wasn't one of them on my reading of the discussion. Send it back to AfD in a few months when she'll be Jill Who? and it'll rightfully be deleted then. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn BLP1E has to be more subtly read than some are arguing. The fact of an individual being notable for only "one event" should not lead inexorably to a conclusion that the biographical article should be deleted. Readers want to scrutinize the people responsible for the role that they played in significant events. When "one event" is the cause for an article, we should be exercising restraint in what we include in that article. If the person's and the event's importance is established in sources, I think an article, written with restraint, is probably called for. Bus stop (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTIFICATION: WP:VPP has received a notification of the discussions that relate to this page and the policy of WP:BLP1E. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#How to apply WP:BLP1E or not [7]. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Just because we can document the non-notable aspect of someone's life outside of one notable event does not make for a good encyclopedic article if the only "highlight" is being part of an event that portrays that person negatively. There was no misapplication of BLP1E here - just because the majority !voted to keep, the admid properly cited the BLP concerns outweighing the majority - this is completely allowable, particularly when BLP policy is being talked about. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The rationale given for deletion was spot-on and the point - particularly in the face of over-excitedness regarding a current news story - is not to count votes, but to weigh arguments (in this discussion as much as the last one). The acid-test here is whether there would be any encyclopaedic value in standalone bio enabling people to read about Kelley outside of the context of the events that have made her famous. The answer to that is obviously no - there is no-one in the world who will want to find out about this person whilst not giving two hoots about her emails. Formerip (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Formerip: There is no way that the Petraeus scandal article could and should contain the growing and important details about the five main players so far: Jill Kelley, Paula Broadwell; David Petraeus; John R. Allen; Natalie Khawam. See for example this latest New York Times article about the five of them and their uniqueness: Second Act of a Scandal: Cue the Superlawyers and the Spinmasters (Published: November 20, 2012) with important photos of and information about all five. Let editors who are able and willing to develop these key articles do their job instead of standing in the way of WP performing its role as a reliable encyclopedia in this vital subject. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I probably would not have closed it this way, but, bearing in mind that admin discretion is at its maximum when BLPs are involved, I cannot bring myself to say that this close falls into the "unrefrigerated dead fish" category either. I think it's within admin discretion, though perhaps barely so. T. Canens (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, this is a supervote. Consensus is clear here, and I've closed more than one AfD while holding my nose at the result. Admins are there to uphold consensus, not override it. It's not a case of just abstaining from nose-counting, either (which I actually would support), but a case where many editors explicitly disagreed that this was a BLP1E case, and explained why. This is BLP over-enthusiasm, and while the motives may be commendable, the outcome is not and must be overturned. Admins are here to support the community, not overrule it, and this is not within the reasonable realm of discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Stalwart111 says it best here. If this one event had not happened, Jill Kelley would not have an article. Ish dar ian 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original closure of delete. WP:BLP1E is applicable. Coverage in Petraeus scandal is adequate and more appropriate than a separate article on an otherwise non-notable living person. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 14:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. BLP1E is matter of degree, not black and white. I this case the admin did not judge consensus of the AfD on the matter, but supervoted. Tijfo098 (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep and ~~trout~~ ~~barracuda~~ whale closing admin This is a textbook and appalling case of supervote, and of utter disregard of obvious users' consensus. I am shocked a vaguely experienced user, let alone an admin, could even think of closing in such a blatantly disruptive way. If such an incident repeats, Drmies should be sanctioned. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - as much of the keep votes were crap from SPAs or based on "its in the news!" dribble. There was no effective argument mounted against WP:BLP1E. Well within closer's discretion. Tarc (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep per the resounding consensus in the AFD. While AFD is not (simply) a vote, that maxim is not an excuse for disregarding such a clear expression of community sentiment. BLP1E, as policy, does not dictate outcomes, but sets out three standards governing the exercise of community discretion. And, by its own terms, BLP1E should not apply here: "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." Low-profile individuals do not receive sustained coverage in national newspapers of record; Kelley has. The artless manner in which many keep !votes invoke this principle does not justify summarily discounting them. A useful analogy might be Alexander Butterfield, or perhaps Frank Wills. The closer's action substituted his own judgment under policy standards for the community's, and was therefore an illegitimate supervote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain status quo. I can see an argument for an article here, although I think the needs are better served by a redirect as now exists. However, having read the deleted article, I think it is very poor and a BLP violation and should not be undeleted. There is simply no need to dredge up all of those ancient links in order to source trivial aspects of a private citizen's private life, nor should portions of the article be sourced to blogs or Youtube videos. The information currently linked to from the redirect is about what should exist; whether it is a section in a longer article, or a separate article, does not seem to me to be a big deal. Chick Bowen 06:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a pretty skewed view. I've looked at the deleted article, too, and while it has one link to Youtube (I see none to blogs?), it also has sources directly about her in the New York Times, USA Today, U.S. News, and the Washington Post. Mind you, these are articles directly about her with her as the main subject, containing her name in the headline, they're not trivial mentions or name drops. And these are hardly low-quality, tabloid-trash sources, they're generally regarded as perfectly acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 November 2012

UFC 155 – Speedy closed because the nomination makes no argument about what is supposed to be wrong with this deletion. – Sandstein 10:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Bravowhiskeyy (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy endorse for want of any argument for undeletion. Reyk _YO! 05:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 November 2012

Fourth Floor Interactive – Endorsed and salted – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The claim that the page was a recreation of a previously deleted page is inaccurate. Significant new content was included on the page including new references that have recently been made available:

* Published in 'Best-Selling' Book, specific to the organization's industry 
* Notation within articles (and within the title of said articles) of a reputable newspaper 
* Award from Chamber of Commerce

Furthermore, past references of the previously listed awards have additional merit as other notable organizations (also listed within Wikipedia) have also won these same awards. This detail was specified within the talk and was actually confirmed from other administrators who stated that the awards appeared to have significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchiappisi (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

history temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if I'm reading this right, the big improvements since the AFD were that they produced one screenshot out of thousands on a website about screenshots of websites and a perhaps a couple out of hundreds in a book about screenshots of websites, and got an award from the chamber of commerce of a suburb of 33,000 people? Endorse, g4 was entirely proper. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The improvements were those mentioned as well as the previously listed 'Ohio Interactive Awards' having more merit, as more notable businesses in the industry (that do have their own pages within Wikipedia have now also won these awards. And before discounting the award from a suburb of 33,000 people, please realize that AT&T won the Large Business Award and that this was considered newsworthy within a significant Columbus-area paper. Furthermore, additional websites can be produced in which were featured on inspiration websites, but the website notated is one of significance in the industry and thus the reason it was used. Jchiappisi (talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And furthermore, with all of these changes mentioned, is it not clear that significant new content was added and therefore should not be considered a G4? As the G4 criteria "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Clearly this version was not identical to the deleted version. Jchiappisi (talk • contribs) 06:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The recreated page fitted WP:CSD#G4 as "substantially identical to the deleted version". The addition of a few trivial extra sources came nowhere near resolving the lack of notability identified at the AFD discussion in June. For example, the reference to a book is to only one page, so there is no way that counts as substantial coverage; while the refs to TMC News and ThisWeek Community News are also trivial.
I urge the DRV nominator to spend some time studying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse suggest nominator also looks at the conflict of interest guidelines --62.254.139.60 (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse The addition of trivial sources does not make the article "significantly different". WP:SALT and WP:TROUT (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 November 2012

List of pedophiles – Deletion clearly endorsed Whether or not we can ever host such a list isn't for DRV to decide but the history is very clear that such pages do not last long. I would suggest that anyone wanting to create such a page gets a wide consensus on format, scope, content etc before even considering adding to the drama. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This was not sent to AFD, and there was no reason to instantly delete it. A simple rename to People convicted of child sexual abuse would've solved any problems, the article only listing people in that category. category: People convicted of child sexual abuse Dream Focus 00:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was speedy deleted 16:16, 16 November 2012[8] and "heavily endorsed WP:IAR deletion. Further discussion unlikely to generate additional benefit" was the close of a 16:23, 16 November 2012 AN discussion about the List of pedophiles article and its speedy deletion. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: There was no valid reason for a speedy delete, it was just an ignore all rules action. A dozen or so people appear to have agreed with him in the discussion mentioned on the administrative noticeboard and it rapidly closed 9 hours later before anyone else could participate. Dream Focus 13:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and trouting of nominator. Major BLP issues, and entirely inappropriate. --Rs chen 7754 00:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What BLP issues? There were sources for the five entries showing these people were convicted of this crime, and they all had their own articles listing that they did. Dream Focus 00:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See comments below, this is turning into WP:IDHT. --Rs chen 7754 08:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, unsurprisingly, as the one who originally raised concerns about this page. Inappropriate, with no way it could ever be made appropriate. Mogism (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it inappropriate? If they are identified as this by a category already, and through information on their Wikipedia pages, then how is this any different? Dream Focus 00:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#List_of_pedophiles for an explanation of why, although I'm sure you're already aware. The search engines and the mirror sites cache pages, but don't cache categories - so, when a kid adds their geography teacher to the page, it's preserved for years across the internet and shows up in Google searches on his name, which isn't the case when it's added to a category. Mogism (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It won't last for years, because Google updates its cache. Any vandalism can easily be removed. Vandalism happens throughout Wikipedia, we don't use that as excuse to eliminate articles. Dream Focus 00:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#List_of_pedophiles. - jc37 00:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't even comment in that discussion. You need to state your reason here, not just link there. Dream Focus 00:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Treat it as:Endorse - "per the consensus results of that discussion". - jc37 00:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - As demonstrated by the clear consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#List_of_pedophiles, this was the correct call. --Allen3 ^talk 00:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting admin comment; (implicit endorse, obviously). That list's existence suffers from a number of fatal flaws that make its very presence inappropriate:
- (a) Unlike a category, a list-article pops up prominently in search results. Having random names pop up a result named "List of pedophiles" or whatever other analogue titles is extraordinarily detrimental to anyone whose name happens to be on this list – whether they actually are the same person or not. Unlike an article which has enough context to quickly figure out that the result is coincidental even in the search engine extract, a list is devoid of context.
- (b) That lack of context is also makes BLP compliance impossible. Even if every person on this list was primarily notable only because they had been convicted of such an offense (thus possibly barely avoiding UNDUE), the simple fact that a serial rapist/murderer on children might be associated with someone culpable of having had consensual sex with a partner just a few years younger is incredibly prejudicial and raises insurmountable BLP issues.
- (c) The list is ridiculous on its face by its very definition (an argument, by the way, which also applies to the category): "child sexual abuse" (let alone "pedophile" on the original title) is a jurisdiction- and community-dependent term that means that someone may end up on this list because they were in one country that wouldn't have been 60 miles away. The inclusion criteria is just as variable as "List of people whose surname has more letters than the city they live in" and just as meaningless for encyclopaedic purposes. The list, if complete, would have to include together serial rapist of little children and the poor 18 year old kid that ended up in the tabloids for having sex with his 17 year old boyfriend in Texas. — Coren ^(talk) 00:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Inclusion criteria is often listed at the top of such list to avoid any problems. This list includes people notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, who have been convicted of child sexual abuse. Dream Focus 00:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which makes inclusion in the list UNDUE unless that is the sole reason they are notable; exactly like making the article primarily about that would have. — Coren ^(talk) 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Everyone in the category is there for that purpose already category: People convicted of child sexual abuse. Otherwise they'd just be listed as sex offenders as Roman Polanski is. Write out at the top that the inclusion criteria is that they are known primarily for that reason. Dream Focus 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You make a good argument that the category should go too. — Coren ^(talk) 01:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion In the UK the Director General of the BBC has just had to resign due to a programme taking seriously unfounded web allegations against someone claiming he was a paedophile. Such a list as this would be a magnet for spreading this sort of allegation. At least one of the British papers has argued that the libel resulted from a confusion between people of the same surname. We've had problems in the past with lists such as that of actors in gay porn videos in which there have been links to people of the same name that were not the actors in question. So, even if this list were renamed and accurately recorded the names of people who had been convicted, there would still be a major risk of libelling people who are innocent.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone on the list would have their own article though. They could confirm it wasn't someone with the same name as someone else. The fact that someone screwed up badly on the BBC, doesn't have anything to do with this. He obviously wasn't qualified for the job if he didn't bother to check his sources as newspapers often do to avoid libel. Dream Focus 00:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A posting on Wikipediocracy and the permanent decision to delete are one and the same act, as the site is Wikipedia's mode of governance; but theoretically, in terms of encyclopedic value and community governance, it is comparable to List of rampage killers, and the community was entitled to decide a controversial deletion. So far as I know, no specific claim was made that one of these people was not identified as a pedophile in reliable sources, though I see no point double checking as nothing will come of it. The value of open-ended lists of any kind, for any reason, might be debated; but in truth this is simply an "OMG this is too hot to handle" response - the same response that college and church administrators have shown time and time again to build up such a fine list to begin with. Coren makes a fair argument that perhaps it is time to put a robots.txt message banning Google indexing of anything on Wikipedia - maybe that is a way to end the site's fear to do what it is for, and reduce the impact of power warriors and spammers who are tearing it apart. Wnt (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have much better things to do with my time than monitor Wikipediocracy. I had no idea that thread even existed before it was mentioned in the AN thread, and don't particularly care what the people who frequent that forum see as a problem or not. That some people there may have noticed that list's existence was a horrible problem is just further proof that most people can see that this is the case. — Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The discussion at AN overwhelmingly endorsed the IAR deletion (permalink). Pursuing ultimate freedom is not Wikipedia's role, and it would be a misuse of the encyclopedia to allow such a drama magnet to be hosted on WMF servers. Apart from the obvious issues (well, obvious to some), there are many mirror sites which scrape Wikipedia continually, and someone's brilliant joke about their teacher being a pedo would end up permanently on the Internet and in search engines. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It would not be permanently on the internet or in search engines. They update their cache regularly so any vandalism would be eliminated rather quickly, if it lasted long enough in the article to be noticed at all. Dream Focus 01:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, renaming to List of people convicted for underage sex, and putting it -at the very least- permanent semiprotection. I want to answer Coren's arguments one by one:
- Unlike an article which has enough context to quickly figure out that the result is coincidental even in the search engine extract, a list is devoid of context. - False. Lists can contain context: if they're not a mere list of names, but a table containing also information about the crime, the conviction, etc. Comparable BLP-sensitive examples can be List of disbarments in the United States, or List of rampage killers.
- the simple fact that a serial rapist/murderer on children might be associated with someone culpable of having had consensual sex with a partner just a few years younger is incredibly prejudicial - True, it is. But again, this assumes a lack of context which can be easily avoided. Also I would avoid completely words like "pedophile" and "child sex abuse", and use the much more neutral "underage sex", which would make sense in the context.
- "child sexual abuse" (let alone "pedophile" on the original title) is a jurisdiction- and community-dependent term - Agreed; however including geographical information in the list, along with a brief blurb about the relevant laws and the reason of the conviction would make this concern moot. Laws change in space and time, yes, but this doesn't make the list pointless.
I agree such a list could be a BLP-vandalism magnet. Therefore it should be put under permanent semiprotection (if not full protection), with edits asked on the talk page. This would eliminate the rest of the concerns and still allow to provide a valuable navigational aid. --Cyclopia^talk 01:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're making a decent argument for a list like you've described (though I wouldn't support it, a list like that would not have needed an out of process deletion). The thing is, the page whose deletion we are reviewing here is nothing like that which you describe. I don't think the present deletion implies that no reasonable useful list is possible, only that the existing one was fatally flawed. — Coren ^(talk) 01:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I haven't seen the original list but I understand what you mean. This is an interesting case: we have a possible reasonable useful list which however needs to maintain very high standards before even being considered of inclusion. What should be done in this case? Userfying (with NOINDEX?) --Cyclopia^talk 01:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - There would be very little point in userifying that one anyways; there were about a half-dozen names on it, and absolutely no useful context. Personally, if you wanted to go about creating such a list, I'd start with creating a mock-up in userspace and seek community input before even considering bringing it live. Pretty much by definition, such a list is bound to be contentious and if you can fix problems before it becomes an article, the likelihood of it being valuable and staying there increase a great deal. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion as an inappropriate black-list-esque page that serves no positive encyclopedic purpose as far as I can tell. Any decent article about a subject convicted of such a crime will cover the verifiable material with respect to WP:UNDUE anyway. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Entirely appropriate action given the BLP concerns expressed. Reso lute 01:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm actually a bit shocked we're still debating good decisions like this. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. An obvious gross vandalism magnet. Devoid of context, it is meaningless anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion While the edit filter nowadays does a pretty good job of picking up "Mr. X is a p(a)edophile" vandalism, list-style articles make it far too easy to make malicious edits, and it is in any event more appropriate to use a category from a well-sourced biography. BLP concerns make summary deletion appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Coren and I agree on about three things a year. This deletion one of them. In this case, I disagree with Coren about creating or drafting anything along these lines even in userspace, because userspace is google-searchable. Massive BLP magnet. Risker (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletiom As being required by Wikipedia policies and common sense. Collect (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Really? This needs discussion? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 05:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion- a vandalism magnet and constant BLP nightmare. The existence of an article like this would be a net negative. Reyk _YO! 06:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – Are you kidding me? --MuZemike 07:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AFD This list had existed for years and there are comparable lists and categories which are in a worse state, e.g. Category:Pedophilia or List of serial killers in the United States. There seemed to be no pressing reason requiring immediate action and the deleter openly stated that their action was "out of process". Taking action in this way seems contrary to WP:CENSOR. Warden (talk) 11:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was created at the end of last month; I raised concerns on 11 November, after a couple of weeks watching it to confirm the author wasn't going to improve it (the creator of the article retired from Wikipedia a week after he created it); it was deleted on the 16th. Where have you got "existed for years" from? Mogism (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarifying the article's history. I'm not sure where I got a different idea from but suppose that that the references to it being a vandalism magnet have something to do with it. Was it ever vandalised or otherwise problematic while you were watching it? Not being an admin, I can't inspect the article's history directly as it is deleted. Warden (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute endorse deletion This was a BLP violation-magnet, and all the watchers in the world won't prevent teenagers who think they're funny from potentially destroying another human being's life. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what semiprotection is for. --Cyclopia^talk 15:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What parallel universe are you writing from, where jokers who think that they're funny are magically unable to get Wikipedia accounts? And is there a gateway to it from this universe? Because I could then point the Wikipedia editors who would love to inhabit a joke-vandalism-free Wikipedia in the direction of your magic parallel universe. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Semiprotection works well, since blocking new users and IP addresses from editing potential problem areas, prevents any real problems. Jokesters aren't going to go around making legitimate edits and waiting for the chance to be able to edit there. Dream Focus 21:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For general information: Colonel Warden may be alluding to List of self-identified pedophiles, which was variously named List of famous pedophiles and List of pedophiles and pederasts, and which was discussed on Votes For Deletion in 2003, having been nominated for deletion the same day that it was created. List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles was created in 2004, discussed at Votes for Deletion, and also deleted. Unfortunately for Colonel Warden's point, that means that there are two prior consensuses for deletion at what is now AFD. And no, if you look at the 2004 and 2003 discussions you'll find all of the same points as put forward now were raised then ("troll/vandal magnet", "potentially libellous", "unencyclopaedic", "dodgy and innaccurate", "unmaintainable"), and consensus has not changed in nine years.
One could well advance the argument that Coren was implementing past AFD consensus per speedy deletion criterion #G4, even though xe didn't know it. ☺
Uncle G (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not aware of those discussions and they seem so old that they wouldn't count for much now. For example, see this recent discussion in which an old consensus to delete did not stand up. In that case, the nominating admin contemplated a G4 but "hesitated and went to AfD instead of speedy [because] the previous discussion was in back in 2006." Anyway, in this case, the edit summary for the deletion suggested that it was speedy deletion criterion #G10: "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." Warden (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. BLP, spam, and vandal magnet that does not build the encyclopedia. --No unique names 15:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, per above and my comments here. Herostratus (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Proper use of admin tools to get rid of a horrendous article. Noting that the primary overturners are WP:ARS members, a prime example of out-of-touch this wiki-project is with the rest of the encyclopedia. Tarc (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking for myself, I'm not active on ARS at all unfortunately. But if by being "out of touch" you mean "dissenting from people who shoot articles first and ask questions later" and if you mean "people that solve problems destructively instead than constructively" then well, I take it as a compliment. Also, let's not confuse "the rest of the encyclopedia" with "deletion discussion regulars". --Cyclopia ^talk 19:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary? What does that mean? Four people opposed to this action, and two of them are in the ARS? You just felt the need to take a swipe at a Wikiproject you don't like, which has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Dream Focus 20:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tarc might be pointing out that one person here wrote "Oppose", without seemingly cottoning on to the fact that that's confusing at best, not a DRV shorthand, and actually means, when read as if this were a poll rather than a discussion, that xe opposes you, Dream Focus. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry if either of you were confused. I understood that he meant opposed the deletion, and hopefully most others had the reasoning ability to understand that as well. Dream Focus 21:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am pointing out the reactionary knee-jerkism of the Article Rescue Squad...Dream Focus, Cyclopia, and Warden...who never met an article that they didn't want to keep. Even one so blatantly stupid and ill-advised as this one was. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - who never met an article that they didn't want to keep. - Hoaxes, nonsense and unverifiable stuff I don't want to keep. Verifiable information yes, I want to keep. So far looks that this specific article had potential issues that I gladly acknowledged above in my response to Coren, but that in my humble opinion could have been fixed by using our protection mechanisms instead than outright deletion. What is "reactionary knee-jerkism" is the sense of entitlement that unfortunately leads some editors to feel they can teach our readers what they should be interested in or not. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Coming from someone who once strenuously argued to keep an article about a woman with a lot of rabbits, your opinion on BLP-related matters is essentially worthless. Tarc (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You mention an AFD from over three years ago about something totally unrelated. This is a totally different situation. We're talking about a list article, aiding in navigation, listing people who have Wikipedia articles about them already for being primarily known for being convicted of sexually abusing children. Dream Focus 08:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        An article I'd defend again, since it was about a notable subject. But well, I could also say that from someone who shows this on his user page and later brags about not following WP:BEFORE, any opinion on everything dealing with building an encyclopedia is essentialy worthless too. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        There's nothing wrong with saying BEFORE is not mandatory, because it isn't. Reyk _YO! 10:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Funny, because our deletion process instructions explicitly say, at WP:BEFORE: "Prior to nominating articles(s) for deletion, please be sure to:..." [emphasis mine]. But that's not the point, it could very well be facultative. After all, a lot of things are not mandatory here. What I was noticing is simply that bragging about not even checking what an article is about before nominating it doesn't strike me as a constructive attitude. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        BEFORE is discredited in the eyes of many because it has often been used as a tool to atack deletion nominators. Reyk _YO! 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Discredited in the eyes of those who are too lazy to do a brief search for reliable sources before wasting everyone's time with pointless deletion nominations. You click the Google news archive search button at the top of the AFD, and if you find there are major newspapers covering something, then you know the person was to lazy to do a quick check on their own. Its shameful. Sometimes it takes some work to find things, but usually it does not. Dream Focus 00:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        More like, 'you haven't jumped through my shopping list of arbitrary hoops and you don't think my shopping list of marginal or unrelated sources is as awesome as I do, so I'm going to call you lazy'. Reyk _YO! 00:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Reyk, sorry, but a brief search for RS is not a "shopping list of arbitrary hoops", it's the obvious thing to do unless you just want to waste everyone's time rejecting nonsensical nominations. And in fact it's explicitly indicated as something you have to do before a nomination. You don't like to do it? Excellent, then don't bother nominating articles and leave people with more specific competence doing it. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly endorse per the other endorsers' comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - good grief! >.< - Alison ^❤ 23:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible endorse per, well, everyone above. No further comment needed. Robofish (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per User:Rschen7754. Ripberger (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong endorse, speaking in fact as a rather strong supporter of the ARS, who should not be collectively blamed for this. @Cyclopia, readers are allowed to be interested in whatever they please, but that doesn't mean that this is necessarily the place they should find it. If it were proposed to censor such material from the entire web, then I think your comments might be more applicable. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a problem with the category then? Or the articles themselves talking about the people listed in the list article or the categories? I don't see why most would be in fine with categories Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_18#Category:People_convicted_of_child_sexual_abuse while against a list article showing the same information. Should we delete the List of serial killers by country as well? How is listing all the articles we have for people known primarily for being convicted of sexually abusing children in a list article, a problem? Dream Focus 02:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, with that I was referring to the general rehash for the eternal inclusionism-vs-deletionism debate that Tarc has stirred. But I'm surprised to hear such a weak argument from you. After all we are here to serve the readers, not to build our little walled garden. The point is not that we should include everything -in fact, we shouldn't. We should only include verifiable, sourced information, at a minimum. We should not allow original research. But once we deal with verifiable stuff, we should not have any more significant biases in what we include. Everytime someone uses the infamous "editorial judgement" in such a decision, they're basically smearing our coverage with personal biases (or with those of a narrow community of editors).

But this is not the place for such a philosophical discussion. Regarding what is discussed here, I'd have simply put the article under full protection and double-checked all names listed were germane to the list. If IAR had to be used, it would be to keep the protection level high forever, so that no edit could slip before being triple-checked, and this I would have enthusiastically endorsed. Because that is literally all that was needed to avoid any BLP issues, still providing a navigational aid that could have been improved by third parties, and I've heard no argument that demonstrates this wouldn't be the case. That's the simple reason I recommend overturn. I understand consensus is agains this, and I acknowledge that (that's also why I didn't bring it personally to DRV, even if I saw the discussion on the WP:AN). But well, consensus in this case seems to have chosen the easier but more destructive route. --Cyclopia ^talk 09:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The topic of the article is a BLP nightmare and a libel magnet. The deletion was out of process but completely appropriate given the circumstances. A solid application of ignoring the rules. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and close, as per Coren's well articulated explanation and others similar comments- Youreallycan 04:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and reconsidering my opinion of some folks here and endorse looking more closely at some of the pages/categories used as WP:OTHERSTUFF in this discussion. - UnbelievableError (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While any article at that title is going to be seriously problematic, I'm not persuaded that deletion was necessary to solve the problem. At the time of deletion the list consisted of five names, all high-profile cases of people convicted of child sex abuse (or related offences) who had served prison terms and where the incident in question was covered in considerable detail in the subject's article. I would suggest renaming to something like List of people convicted of child sex abuse, restricting the scope to people who have been convicted of the offence and where the allegations are covered in depth in their article, and applying protection if the list is used abusively. I see no reason to think that such a list would be any worse than, say, List of serial killers by country. Hut 8.5 16:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and fix The list is easily fixed by renaming to complement the conviction category. Such an obvious non-deletion fix being ignored is sadly indicative of the heavy handed trigger happy deletionism that passes for adminship these days. CallawayRox (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion This is one of those rare cases where WP:NOTDUP fails, as there is a significant difference between a category and a list in regards to this subject because of the BLP concerns. Keeping it as a category and not as a list would be a far better way to go about it. Silver seren^C 05:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pick on you personally, but this seems a convenient place to point out that the supposed superiority of categories for such information is false. As noted at WP:NOTDUP, categories have the following weaknesses which seem significant in this case:

There is no provision for referencing, to verify a topic meets a category's criteria of inclusion
Tracking changes to a category is effectively impossible because...
A category's edit history does not show when entries were added or removed from the category
Wikipedia's watchlist feature is useless for tracking changes to a category's membership
Gives no context for any specific entry, nor any elaboration

By contrast, a list is superior because it can be annotated, protected, referenced and watched. A list has a history and talk page and so is easier to manage and supervise in controversial cases like this. The technical claims being made here for categories seem to be quite false and this may be seen at categories such as Pedophilia which puts people like Jeri Massi and Michael C. Seto alongside Gary Glitter and Sidney Cooke without any citation or context. My impression is that lists get all the heat just because they can be deleted more easily by unilaterally using the delete function. Amending or removing a category seems more complex, requiring the editing of numerous articles. It's the law of the instrument. Warden (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often agree with Warden, but I do want to endorse his comments about the limitations of categories. Some of those limits (such as the lack of context) are probably inherent in the nature of categories, while others are probably limitation of the software ... but whatever the cause of these limitations, categories are probably more vulnerable to abuse than lists.

That's one of the reasons why I wish there had been an AFD discussion on the list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The discussion at ANI and review here have produced a set of very cogent reasons for deleting this list, so there is no reason to restore or relist it, but the arguments for speedy deletion are less persuasive.
Firstly, the list as created was well-sourced, and the addition were also well-sourced. If taken to AFD, it would have been closely watched while under discussion, and any add-my-teacher-LOL edits would have been rapidly reverted. So I see no need to bypass our usual consensus-forming processes.
Secondly, the arguments against this list raise a lot of wider issues which could have benefited from airing at AFD, such as a) the questionable merits of open-ended lists; b) our handling of terms with inconsistent definitions, particularly pejorative terms; c) the broader issue of how on earth a declining number of editors with declining activity can effectively monitor a growing number of pages. An AFD discussion could not have changed any of those wider issues, but it could have focused attention on them. That opportunity has been missed.
So I hope that in future, we won't see pages like this deleted so rapidly. This wasn't some sort of one-off silliness, but an illustration of many of the established ways in which Wikipedia is built and maintained create vulnerabilities which could cause real damage to people's lives. Short-circuiting the discussion in this case has not helped us to resolve the wider structural problems. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point, BHG, but there is nothing that prevents that more deliberate discussion from taking place (and I agree it does need to take place) at some venue much better than an AfD that keeps the extant list up and findable through search engines during its course. — Coren ^(talk) 18:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I didn't see any BLP problems with the extant list; the problem was how it would be developed. So the findability question was not a problem for the duration of AFD.

I have often seen that the intense discussion of a test case brings an underlying issue to the attention of a lot editors. That leads to more productive wider discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - A wholly appropriate action beneficial to the encyclopedia, the kind of thing IAR was made for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse speedy deletion, but neutral on the issue per BrownHairedGirl. She didn't see any BLP problems within the actual/extant "List of pedophiles". The article name "List of pedophiles" brings obvious, extreme BLP potential problems since the mere listing of a person's name on that page, even for a few minutes, could have been picked up by a blog/news source and remained a permanent black mark on that person's life. It would be nice to have something like Template:TempHidden (similar to Template:TempUndelete used at DRV) where an admin could have replace the contents the List of pedophiles with the Template:TempHidden (leaving the article history available) while the article was discussed at AfD. Making the article temporarily hidden from view while the AfD discussion was going on would have been a better way to address the BLP issue than a speedy delete. As for the topic, List of people convicted of child sexual abuse would not seem to have the same BLP issue. Oddly, we only have List of people convicted of treason and List of people convicted of high treason in England before 1 May 1707 in our "List of people convicted of" series,[9] So perhaps "List of people convicted of x" is not a favored article name lead. It seems to me that there should be a list article to go along with Category:People convicted of child sexual abuse and there would be a way to both give name to that list and describe an inclusion criteria that would bring that list in line with other lists. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot more articles using "convicted" in the title than those two cases - List of Israeli public officials convicted of crimes or misdemeanors, List of crime bosses convicted in the 21st century, List of people convicted under Anti-Terrorism Act in the United Kingdom, List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes, List of religious leaders convicted of crimes, List of American public officials convicted of crimes, etc. [10] Hut 8.5 15:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is never an acceptable deletion rationale. I find it frankly disgusting the number of comments in this discussion that are apparently advocating (or stronger) that anything to do with paedophilia must be deleted regardless of the content. Wikipedia is an uncensored encyclopaedia, and as such it is possible to write neutral articles and lists about all topics, including paedophilia, and there is never any reason to invoke IAR to delete anything. If it doesn't fit into a a speedy deletion criterion then there is no consensus to speedy delete it and the correct course of action is XfD (anything else is logically incompatible with the existence of CSD criteria). This is a topic area though where we do need to tread carefully with regards to BLP issues (but remember that "BLP" is not a speedy deletion rationale), and so a neutral name and objective inclusion criteria are absolute pre-requisites (just as they should be for all lists). A neutrally-titled list with objective inclusion criteria is possible here, and with information about the conviction would make a very useful research tool. I would recommend though waiting for the hysteria to die down before starting it though, as otherwise it will just lead to more out of process deletion by those unwilling to look beyond their own prejudices to evaluate the actual content. Thryduulf (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - BLP and vandalism issues. Snappy (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What BLP issues? If only those convicted of the crime were listed there, and it was renamed appropriately, wouldn't that eliminate that? Also, would doing permanent semi-protection to block all IP addresses and new users from editing not prevent any vandalism issues? That's what's done on other articles. I just had some IP address randomly replace words on an article on my Taylor Swift wiki with the word poop, and I didn't go and delete that article, I just hit Rollback and blocked all IP addresses from editing that page again.[11] Click click, it just that simple. Dream Focus 00:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse Per Uzma and title/scope issue, although both Brownhaired Girl and Thryduulf are also correct. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Endorse A mind-numbingly bad idea for an article. Endorse the use of IAR, endorse the use of salt, endorse the application of trout to the DRV nominator. Them From Space 05:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but suggest that there's a way to have a comparative article with permanent semi-prot, a strong requirement/definition for inclusion by sources to only those convicted, including only notable people where such details are already established on the individual person's article page. But until exactly how that should be done, this article was damaging to those listed and to WP's reputation. --MASEM (t) 05:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2012-13 U.S. winter storm season – nominations that cast unfounded aspertions on other users are not entertained at DRV. Also your editorialising of the conversation o othe admins talk page misrepresents the conversation quite seriously. If you want to bring this to DRV you need to find some policy based arguments to refute the close not attacks on the closing admin. DRV doesn't handle userfication try WP:REFUND. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:40, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I believe the deleting editor did not take the time to read through all of the comments, because editors, including myself, clearly pointed out the flaws in other persons arguments for deletion. I'd like another administrator to please go review the comments, and please also look at the deleted page to see that it was well written. Also, regardless of this DR, could an administrator userfy the page for me? Bwilkins rudely refused to do so in a post on his talk page. He also has not responded to my complaints on his talkpage, just saying "go to DR, I don't want to go look at it" basically (not a direct quote). As I said, I'd request another administrator (or multiple ones preferably) to go back and look at the page itself and the arguments contained in the AfD and then review Bwilkins' close of the discussion. Thanks. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 November 2012

16 November 2012

Wikipedia:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian – Endorsed with a side trout for the early close. Experience shows that cutting short discussions such as this only leads to more drama. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closer made a rapid SNOW close (< 24 hours) in the face of multiple reasonable allegations of canvassing. Consider that the reason for the apparent rush of similar opinions was the canvassing.

The closer appears to have taken an emotional approach to the matter, and flatly refuses to discuss. As such, he should have left it alone.

Many opined that the page was an attack page. This was illogical, considering the content of the page was a simple, calm summary of the most basic facts. There was no content that was remotely an attack on anyone. Mere hours before the close, the nominal attackee reconfirmed that he doesn't consider it so. In contrast, the alleged attack remains accessible, and the unacceptable category remains functional, containing 32 pages.

Some said the page amounted to a recreation of something deleted by the CfD. This is a weak claim as a major motivation for the deletion of the category was that it failed the usercatergory guideline.

The merits of the essay include: It is directly focused on a Wikipedian matter. It is relevant to the standard of conduct that the community expects of Arbs, It is relevant to the question of treatment and action against prolific but troublesome editors. It is relevant to the desire of some wikipedians to ustilise user categories and of others to tightly restrict the uses of usercategories.

These things were barely touched at the MfD, which was dominated but vocal sudden arrivals who appear to me to have emotional investment in the background story.

Some consider that the matter is a waste of time. In this community, we do not dictate to others on how they should contribute. The uniterested should ignore it. If everything related to the past incident were not raised in a public forum (compare Streisand effect), then it need not be seen by anyone who doesn't care.

I believe that the close ~~should be reverted, with the closers comment converted to a !vote.~~ was a bad close. --05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Given that many individuals consider the subject taboo, ~~I suggest userfying to User:SmokeyJoe/A usercategory flurry in October 2012, blanking and full protection for three months~~(I have copied the cache version for whatever reference purpose I may have in future) --05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC). The valid issues involved are long term, and there is no rush to conclude anything. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse valid SNOW closure. In the first 24 hours 20 people said that the page should be deleted. Only 4 said that the page should be kept, some using very weak arguments ("this page is allowed based upon established precedent and policy"). Several other people expressed opinions arguing that the page doesn't warrant an extensive discussion, or advocated some solution they didn't necessarily agree with in order to avoid an extensive discussion. It was obvious that a full discussion would result in the page's deletion and there was no reason to keep it open for that long. The deletion rationale was based in policy, and disagreeing with that rationale is not an issue for DRV. The closer did not take an "emotional approach" - they merely made the (entirely reasonable) comment that editors' time could be better spent elsewhere. Userfication would not be a good idea, as it was clearly against the opinion in the discussion, wouldn't resolve the underlying issues, and its presence in userspace would violate WP:UP#POLEMIC (it is clearly " statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities", "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws", and "negative information related to others"). Hut 8.5 08:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing in the essay attacking anyone. WP:POLEMIC, which I wrote, doesn't apply. In fact, my sympathy lies with JClemens, who in taking a strong position caused an out-of-proportion backlash, suggesting that direct attention on Incivility is a taboo subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of the page was to criticise Jclemens for a comment he made. That clearly makes it an attack. Even if you don't see this the vast majority of the MfD participants did. It would most certainly violate POLEMIC if it was moved to userspace. Hut 8.5 09:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the page creator, I assure you that it was not the point of its creation. I guess that you assume that by including a link to the initial statement unwelcome to some (as does this discussion here), that it constituted an attack? Whether it was a polemic is a matter for discussion at MfD, which was curtailed early. Agree that a polemic doesn't depend on its location. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, being the author of a guideline does not give you any special say whatsoever in applying it. This page plainly falls under the wording there. I don't think it was an attack just because it linked to the comment in question, I think it was an attack because the entire point of the page was to criticise Jclemens. The MfD was clearly rejecting userfication as an option. Hut 8.5 10:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding there? I created the essay as a study of reaction to a reaction to an aggressively uncivil editor. The intent was to encourage community self-reflection. Are you saying that you know my point better than me? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not your intentions but the effect of the essay, and the community clearly feels (from the MfD discussion) that the effect was to attack Jclemens. Hut 8.5 13:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. It is not deleted bcause of its content, or purpose, but due to its perceived purpose, or use, or effect. I admit the following errors: (1) Using the provocative words for the title (catchy, but too upsetting); (2) starting an essay in project space of unclear purpose and negligible content (a collection of links); (3) listifying the category, which was not really consistent with the purpose, due it recording individuals' actions. (I intended to figure out who all these people were (as Wikipedians), before speculating on motivations collectively). I also didn't realise that JClemens was up for re-election, which means that now is not the best time for this. I still say it was a bad application of SNOW and that the MfD should have been left to run its course, but relisting now would probably not be a positive (at least, I have nothing needing to be added). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I was not canvassed and I iVoted WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND/WP:NOTFACTIONS/WP:POINT at the MfD. This entire blow up (categories --> CfD --> DRV --> CFD --> essay --> MfD -->DRV) was over Arbitrator Jclemens posting a 20 October 2012 opinion in an official capacity as an Arbitration Committee member ("all we do here is acknowledge that Malleus has never been a Wikipedian")[12]. If that were the ArbCom holding, yes, then essays, etc. could be developed. However, it only was one Arbitration Committee member's view and then was only one sentence among many posted during that Arbitration Clarification and Amendment request. It now is 16 November 2012, almost a month since the event. Jclemens indicated that it "wasn't intended as a personal attack."[13] The issue has been memorialized at CfD twice, DRV twice, MfD, Jclemens' talk page, and probably several other places. I think it's time to give creating categories, essays, user pages, etc. in furtherance of this issue a rest. As for the MfD close, I agree with Hut 8.5. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's this got to do with writing or improving an encyclopedia? Yup, we could send this back for another AFD and waste more time, or we could forget it. Cluestick the person who brought this to DRV and endorse.--Scott Mac 17:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"In this community, we do not dictate to others on how they should contribute." I disagree with that. In fact, that's exactly what guidelines and policies and pillars do. The first pillar is particularly relevant in this case: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We understand that you (and others) disagree with Jclemens' statement from a month ago. We get it. There is no need for a category or an essay (or a user page) to memorialize your disagreement, nor are the continuing attempts to express that dissent conducive to the first pillar. Everyone's opinions about Jclemens have been heard and noted. Now let's move on with our lives and do something constructive, keeping in mind the real reason that we're all volunteering our time here. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 17:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nowhere made any statement in support or disagreement with Jclemens' statement(s). I do note that they were an interesting development and that the community's reaction is interesting. Document events of interaction between ArbCom and the community is in the projects interest. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 19:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already documented on the arbcom page where it was originally posted. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 19:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Existence in the huge page history is not documentation. The page here discussed contained a link to the diff, which I find very hard to find, neutrally contextualised mainly by Dmries, a record of the unacceptable user category, and a link to three deletion discussions. I agree that the deletion discussions were time not well spent. What exactly was wrong with the content. If I am able to find the diff again, if I record it, will you want to revdel my record of it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, the unfortunate remark has been discussed endlessly - the implication of "OMG diff censorship" is nonsensical. But we discuss contentions to resolve them on wikipedia, we don't memorialise divisive remarks and criticism of them. But we've been over this argument endlessly in the countless deletion discussion. Isn't it time to put down the stick and walk away from the horse carcass?--Scott Mac 01:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"What exactly was wrong with the content." See the 20 delete votes from the MfD for the answer to that question. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 02:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arghh. Do you really ask me to give critcism of nearly every delete !vote? It is easy. It would be lengthly. Why it was not an attack page. Why it was not backdoor. Why it is not re-creation. There are simple clear answers to each of these. But that debate is not my interest, or anyone else's, it's just what hasty time-limited discussions force us into. I am not interested in the details of JClemens first statement, or in commenting on it further. What is interesting is that an isolated misstatement can produce such a result. It's the meta discussion that is interesting. There are real issues of incivility that are long running and corrosive. Some expect ArbCom to be decisive. However, on a hint of decisive opinion and there's angst, the evidence analysis deleted on the first step, and the Arb forced into BradSpeak. It's so frustrating that the the essay was deleted before it even got started. I just noticed that Uzma Gamal provided the original diff above. Nice, but that was just a spark, and to provide a wider meaning, much more context is required. I get that you're not intersted. Will someone just email the deleted content to me then please. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe, you might want to coordiate your interests with Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party, which received a ringing keep endorsement from MfD. (I iVoted to delete WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party, but there was a strong keep majority for that project.) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you mean kindness. As per my vote, I didn't regard that WikiProject as something that could be taken seriously. I don't have the answers, I don't think there are simple answers. A bit more self-reflection by the community might help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For fuck's sake It doesn't even matter what the category is supposed to mean any more. The point has been made long since; let it stay deleted, and let us never again speak of this black hole of bitterness and utterly pointless drama. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close this to boot, there is no way such a page could ever be accepted as it would unquestionably fail the WP:NPA policy. Mt king^(edits) 08:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So now we're snow-deleting criticism of Wikipedia's governance arrangements. That's brilliant. Inspired. I'm sure the people who run the Wikipedia Review and Wikipediocracy will be delighted. Way to go, colleagues!—S Marshall T/C 13:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- a) Since when did we care what "they" think? b) This is the "ZOMG Censorship of criticism" argument, and it is bullshit. There are dozens of places on Wikipedia for scrutinising our governance, and those we choose to govern us, not least an arbcom election. No sane person, who thinks about it for 30 seconds, can possibly argue wikipedia suppresses constructive criticism.--Scott Mac 14:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it constructive for you to call me clueless and insane? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Scott: deleting people's discussion pages doesn't stop them saying the nasty hurtful things. It just means they say the nasty hurtful things off-wiki. Censorship is self-defeating.—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, you've run that argument several times and it fails spectacularly. Actually, I'm dead against censoring criticism - and no one is doing that. In this case you can, and people have, expressed criticism here, here,here, here or even significantly here, and probably in 50 other places. An aversion to censorship isn't an argument for allowing people to memorialise personal disputes in inappropriate places.--Scott Mac 14:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, and it's fine for you and Snottywong to think that---and to say it. It's not really fine for you to use your admin powers to enforce it, though.—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - entirely appropriate use of SNOW. It was obvious even at an early stage that that discussion wasn't going to lead to anything other than a 'delete' outcome, and letting it continue would just have pointlessly prolonged the arguments and drama. Robofish (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but to confirm, you are not concerned that the 20 hour SNOW close serves to reward the canvassing? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a note on WP:AN, while unusual, is not really canvassing. The editors who watch AN (both admins and non-admins) are not more likely to vote one way or the other on this kind of MfD. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 16:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of editors with no history at the essay page, it's talk page, my talk page or MfD suddenly arrive at a new discussion and mostly say the same illogical or wrong things. This is a clear sign of canvassing and the simplest reason to overturn to let the discussion run its course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing implies bias. If someone posted a message to WP:Jclemens fan club, then that would be canvassing. If one posted a message only on the talk pages of editors who sympathize with Jclemens, then that would be canvassing. Posting a neutral message in a neutral venue is not canvassing. Please see WP:CANVAS for a strict definition. Surely, you can see how this argument resembles wikilawyering? ‑Scottywong | confer _ 07:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The posting to WP:AN, while unusual, was not inappropriate. But I do contend that it produced bias in the set of first responders. (either that or you are right). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the neutral announcement at AN produced biased comments, then surely you can explain why the average editor who watches AN is inherently more likely to vote Delete than vote Keep at this MfD. ‑Scottywong | talk _ 14:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much sense in asking ppl to explain a phenomenon unless there is evidence that the phenomenon exists. What is your evidence about the inherent nature of AN watchers? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand BHGs question. The problem-bias is not WP:AN watchers (who include me), but very quick responders in what is meant to be a seven day discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse , per WP:POINT. The only reason I wouldn't really suggest a SNOW endorse is to counter the charges of censorship. Let everyone have their say one more time, and then maybe were finished with this. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant endorse. The numbers and arguments were leaning so heavily towards deletion that it is highly unlikely that this discussion would have have had any other outcome if it had run its course. However, applying a SNOW close here was a silly thing to do, and the closer deserves a good WP:TROUTing for it. Given the passions aroused in some circles about this episode, it was inevitable that a SNOW closure would lead to a DRV, so the aim of WP:SNOW (to save the community's time discussing it) was not fulfilled. All that the early closure achieved was to add yet another layer of recursion to a drama about a drama, and transfer the wrangling to here. As DGG ssys, now that we're at DRV, no more snow closes: let everyone have their say one more time here, and then we can all move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and sympathize with your reasoning, but I disagree with the notion that the early closure forced anyone to take this to DRV. I don't think it's right to blame me for the DRV, since I wasn't the one who made the decision to start it in the face of clearly insurmountable odds. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 00:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course quite right that nobody was forced to start this DRV. But I do think that you should have foreseen what would happen.

The related Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian was nominated for deletion at CFD Oct 24, speedily deleted, overturned at DRV Oct 24, and then relisted at CFD Oct 31. Whatever an admin's good intentions in short-circuiting the discussion process, trying it when passions are running high merely increases and prolongs the drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be overturned (relisted) because the close was too early and prevented response to multiple erroneouse statements. If not overturned, I fear that it is a precedent for not being allowed to speak of difficult continuing matters. Every valid criticism can be remedied by a rename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral- meh, I don't think the debate could have closed any other way. But I must disagree with the notion that we are only permitted to voice opinions in specially designated areas and only at times deemed acceptable by the Supreme Grand High Archcensorate of Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 00:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the state of the discussion after a week, it should be closed as delete. The problem is that it was populated by respondants to the canvassing and closed way early. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there had been canvassing, I would wholeheartedly agree. But a neutral notification at WP:AN is not WP:CANVASSing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing was small c canvassing, no more. I don't criticise the MfD nominator for posting the note. The problem was the result, which was the sudden arrival of preconceived opinions not reflection the actual content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Scott Mac and Writ Keeper. Valid deletion of bilious crap that was not intended for or conducive to the building of an encyclopedia. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bilious? Are you really referring to the deleted essay page, which I presume you can access? Or the preceding brawls? Or just the title? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not a battleground. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The urge to drag this bit of wikidrama out as long as possible is really proof enough that the deletion for being disruptive was entirely justified. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - per Metropolitan90. Snappy (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest endorse SNOW was wrong but it was unlikely to close in effect otherwise and don't see the good of dragging this out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

UFC_on_Fox:_Evans_vs._Davis – Deletion endorsed MMAEVENT is a wikiproject based essay and is neither a policy nor a guideline so it would be perverse to close discussions on that basis when project wide guidelines and polices for inclusion are in play. There is a clear consensus based on those project wide polices once non-policy based arguments have been discarded. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This article being deleted is confusing even by the standards exhibited on what it takes to make an MMA event notable lately. The two top fights on the card were Rashad Evans vs. Phil Davis and Chael Sonnen vs. Michael Bisping. These fights were considered title eliminator fights at the time and Evans & Sonnen won those fights and went on to get main event title shots at UFC 145 and UFC 148 respectively, with the Sonnen-Silva rematch drawing over a million buys.

It really doesn't seem like the WP:MMAEVENT policies for what makes an MMA event notable are being followed with the indiscriminate deletions recently. Really, I haven't seen much interest in improving the pages in any way, simply in deleting them, and what is deleted seems to be very arbitrary and confusing. Byuusetsu (talk) 04:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. No argument asserting an improper close. This forum isn't for rehashing the AfD procedure just because one disagrees with the outcome. Closure seemed to follow the consensus of the discussion, handicapped by the rampant socking and SPAing typical of these MMA-related procedures. Scottywong (correctly) discounted such input. BusterD (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not see the questioning of both what would make the article not notable and why the closing seems to violate the guidelines for what makes an MMA event notable? Maybe not since you're busy making baseless sockpuppet smears. Furthermore, the article for deletion page suggested redirection to a page that's gone now, probably because the omnibus event pages proved to be clunky and difficult to navigate. Byuusetsu (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No rational given for this DRV other than WP:IDONTLIKE the deletion. On the closure it's self, no hint of anything improper, DRV is not AfD v2. Mtking^(edits) 08:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See what I said above. Actually, your actions are more similar to WP:IDONTLIKE having MMA articles on the site. You claimed that in the AfD that it failed to be notable and I'm asking how it isn't notable when the biggest MMA company in the world has an event, on a major television channel, with the top two matches leading to main event title shots, with one of those shots coming on one of the UFC's biggest shows ever. Byuusetsu (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about what I like or don't like, of cause the MMA fans find in convent to use WP as a free web host to have a single results pages for each event, but consensus is that there are things that WP is not, WP is not a newspaper, not a stats book or not free web host, you can have that over at MMAwiki.com, in fact you can ask for the page sources for anything deleted here to be transferred over there. Mt king^(edits) 23:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly it is about what some people like, since we're suddenly dealing with standards for what is or isn't notable that were never applied before. Also your claims that MMA fans are using Wikipedia as a "free web host" are extremely questionable. In fact, I really want to hear some statistics on how much space a site as huge as Wikipedia is burdened with having single pages for a company that adds 30 events or so per year. Byuusetsu (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get that this show certainly is notable, but the article about it (and some others) is lacking prose. The Background section is good, but without an Event or Aftermath section, I can understand why it may seem like just another MMA card to an unfamiliar reader. I'm not weighing in on this particular case, one way or another, just putting that out there for general purpose. Instead of arguing why these are notable in AfDs, show it in the article itself. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If an article is considered to fall short due to reasons of prose, the proper response would be to solicit improving the article as such, not deleting it. Furthermore how many sports tournament articles have "aftermath" sections? Before random UFC articles started getting deleted, it was actually quite easy to track the aftermath for particular fighters by tracking them to the next event they were on. The Korean Zombie was promised (albeit then rescinded) a title shot for his performance at UFC on Fuel 3, the first Korean fighter to ever reach #1 contender status in the UFC, in a match nominated for Match Of The Year in the annual MMA Awards. That article is gone now, which included 11 lesser fights as well that still had moved individuals further towards or away from title contention (Donald Cerrone, who is now in a scheduled Title Eliminator in January, also won on that card). It's one of many articles that had fit together to form a coherent narrative of the entire sport just as NFL season articles do. Beansy (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree that improvement is better than deletion. An Aftermath section would work well to establish lasting signfificance (something the deletionists have been asking for forever). UFC events are booked and promoted similarly to pro wrestling events (with some glaring differences, of course), which use an Aftermath section well. It would save readers the time and effort to follow through the fighter's articles if we'd note the ramifications of each event (such as Jung's story). Just throwing it out there. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse It's only been arbitrary and confusing because we have some admins that count votes when closing AFDs. In terms of votes, these AFDs would close as keep every time. In terms of strength of argument, not a one has been able to overcome the arguments against the articles that are based on WP:NOT. While it's possible that there will be a UFC event that needs an article some day, I'm not convinced it has happened yet.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Comment Dear god. So, something like UFC 1 that is considered the genesis of the entire sport is not considered article-worthy? Something like UFC 117 that was the subject of a documentary because the main-event was basically the MMA's version of the Rumble in the Jungle fight? Or The Ultimate Fighter Finale 1 that is almost as a consensus credited with launching the boom-period for MMA in the U.S., just before a Yakuza scandal killed it in Japan, saving the sport at the elite level? Clearly these are not as notable as individual Family Guy episodes (you know, since there's a different page for each of the 192 episodes that have aired so far, and this is hardly a unique phenomenon). There are over a thousand different MMA fighter pages, most of whose merit is based on the notability of the events they have been in, with direct links in their fighter tables, but those events that define notability are not considered notable themselves? You also have decided on your own that what other admins were doing in denying AfD requests was merely "counting votes." Perhaps you should re-read some of those. No offense but you are not inherently superior to the other admins, and you have used arguments you have used regarding WP:NOT are ones others have addressed countless times (trying to compare a UFC event to a college football game or something similar has only been something that's been addressed about 15,000 times now). There are also multiple good reasons event articles specifically are and had always been the consensus standard. There are very few individual fights that one would consider article-worthy but modern UFC events contain about 11 fights each. Omnibus articles have been attempted and they are unwieldy, lower-information, harder to navigate, and less user friendly, while taking up more bandwidth since one has to load the entire page to find specific information. Perhaps you should extend your reasoning to start an edit war on individual Formula One races or individual Curling tournaments, except any given UFC event has ramifications across multiple weight divisions, and unlike boxing there is only a single true champion in each one and half as many weight divisions, with all world titles and 85% of the world's elite talent housed under a single promotional umbrella. Even if you swept all other arguments aside, the UFC pages were well organized, very popular, informational, useful, and completely inoffensive, while referring to extremely mainstream events. They also had their own self-regulating community and official set of guidelines that were uninterrupted for years. They fell very neatly under Wikipedia's Fifth Pillar until a single-digit number of people spearheaded by a single-editor launched a war on them without giving an actual motivation for a war that's been going on for over a year (but having little problem belittling MMA fans as "fanboys"). Wikipedia is not about winning, but you wouldn't know it from the way this war has been conducted. Beansy (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm going to be quite frank here, Kww. If you don't think there has ever been a UFC event that was notable enough for its own page, you shouldn't be commenting on MMA at all, ever. It's also a sign of massive bias, especially with your assumption that other admins merely "count votes". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 23:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but discussions like this are not fanboy-only zones. Reyk _YO! 03:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- the close seemed to be well grounded in policy and consensus. This nomination provides no argument to overturn other than "I disapprove of the result", which is not a reason at all. Reyk _YO! 03:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're arguing policy and consensus, maybe the first thing you shouldn't go to is "fanboy" claims. Check WP:PA. Also, people have still completely ignored my notes about the WP:MMA standards, and if you're arguing that no UFC events are noteworthy enough for an article that's self-evidently ridiculous. Byuusetsu (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to get Kww (and me) excluded from the debate on account of not being fans of UFC. That is unacceptable, and it will not work. Reyk _YO! 23:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but no, thinking no UFC event EVER deserves its own page goes far beyond "not being a fan of UFC" and into ridiculousness. Thinking events relevant to the popularity and cultural impact of the sport, and events that have had 1,000,000+ viewers, are not noteworthy is not a position that I can see being explained in a logical fashion. There's been more of an effort to specifically target UFC articles than there's been a bias towards saving them. Byuusetsu (talk) 00:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone said no individual UFC event can ever have a page? No. You're putting words in people's mouths. Kww explicitly says "While it's possible that there will be a UFC event that needs an article some day" which is definitely not the same thing as "no UFC event EVER deserves its own page". It's actually the exact opposite. You then accuse Kww of having a massive bias and that he should not comment on this topic. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not let fans of various things decide who can and cannot comment on those things. Reyk _YO! 00:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say "definitely", but he indicated a strong possibility that no UFC event EVER deserves its own page, which goes beyond bias and into extreme levels of ignorance. If you are even tangentially a sports fan you know how crazy that sounds. It's like saying "it's possible a NASCAR race might deserve its own page some day." Beansy (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no, "a UFC event MIGHT deserve its own page someday" is not the opposite of "UFC articles should never have pages". It is basically the same statement, because if events like UFC 1, The Ultimate Fighter 1 Finale, and UFC 100 don't deserve their own pages, it's difficult to comprehend a UFC event that would deserve its own page. It isn't a matter of being "fans" either, UFC events are more relevant than a huge number of events on this site. And I'm not invoking WP:OSE with that, because many of those articles are good as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 17:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This event has more notability than many of the existing UFC events. Also, for sake of consistency, please restore the article. There should be a policy against inconsistency on WP. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 November 2012

Mirror.co – nominator has been blocked as a sock – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The Mirror.co deletion decision has previously been discussed with the administrator MBisanz who deleted it who recommended that this matter be brought to this space. The page was originally brought up on grounds by a different user on the grounds of "Small startup company; with perhaps one exception, all of the references are either press releases, constitute trivial coverage, or are from non-reliable sources " however further discussion ensued and it was brought to the attention of the forum that in fact notable sources (Mashable,New York Post,Huffington Post ) have in fact covered this site and topic. No definitive decision was reached as to whether to keep or delete this page. MBisanz relisted the article to "generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached". After a week only myself and user Shorthate weighed in on the topic, hardly a consensus. Shorthate provided no explanation and simply voted delete citing a lack of notability. It has been my opinion throughout that the Mirror.co topic is of note and has ample sources and periodicals to justify remaining on the site. Moreover to compare apples to apples, similar social discovery sites Tagged and Badoo remain on the Wikipedia site as well as sites like MeetMe that are in a similar tech space. Mirror.co shouldn't be yet another victim of exclusionary users of the site who wish to keep out more than they let in. MikeGurock (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC) MikeGurock[reply]

Endorse deletion. After reviewing the sourcing and content for the deleted article, it looks like a borderline, paid CSD#G11 case if not just A7, with the best "reliable source" being a passing mention in the Huffington Post. The keep votes were mistaken in their logic, and are very suspiciously connected SPAs. I don't see any flaws in the conclusions drawn by the closing administrator. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how about the NYP article?

Update, I've indef'ed MikeGurock as a puppet of the now two week blocked editor Dmattio. Deleted contribs, starting new by "reviewing" Mirror Media, clearly link the two. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2012

User:Arulraja/Kagapujandar – Moved to mainspace – Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Improved the article with third party references as per editors advised, so requesting to move the page User:Arulraja/Kagapujandar under the original article name Kagapujandar -- Arulraja (talk) 11:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)Arulraja[reply]

Decline restoration based on the exceedingly poor quality of the article and most of the sources it cites. The article is incomprehensible to anyone not familiar with the religious tradition this person (or deity?) was part of, and contrary to WP:NPOV it presents religious beliefs as facts ("since in every reincarnation He was born on different places"). The sources are mostly bare URLs of what appear to be self-published websites, or offline works that do not seem to be about this specific person judging from their titles. On that basis, the article not only fails just about every content policy and would need a complete rewrite by somebody else, but we're also unable to evaluate the topic's notability. Sandstein 19:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Decline- Sandstein sums it up pretty well. It is very hard to tell what this article is even about. Reyk _YO! 20:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and Move. The only reason the article was deleted was inadequate sourcing; that has been corrected, and there is no question about notability. Agreed, it is not well written, but we do not delete from that, nor should we refuse creation. Most of our articles about non-Western subjects have been written by people for whom English is not the first language, and need some attention from those who know more. We do not refuse participation to these editors, but help them. Most of our articles about figures in any particular religious tradition, Eastern or Western, assume some background knowledge of the tradition. For those who do not have it, but are are reading the articles presumably because they have come across the name, we have links. Indeed, if our detailed articles were to explain the basics every time it would be inappropriate repetition, and we consistently avoid it. As the nearest example, almost none of our articles on Christian saints would be comprehensible by themselves to a Hindu who has little knowledge of Christianity. Outside religion, our articles on biology or economics or baseball or computer games assume a basic knowledge of the subject, Our typical level is the college undergraduate who has had a course in the subject, and I do not see how this article would be incomprehensible to anyone who has a course on comparative religion, let alone Hinduism. My own knowledge is no greater than that, but I think I was able to clarify it by adding some links, and some information from the linked articles. Of course the citation of the sources is unclear to someone who has no knowledge of them, but that's true of any specialized subject. I did not try to improve these, for I do not know enough to avoid error. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and move per DGG and trout the above commenters. This article is in need of a little copyediting, a little tidying, some relevant hyperlinks and explanation of terms. I've requested editor attention at the Hinduism-related topics notice board. It's fine to go live, and will get better. Please don't encourage systemic bias. — Hex (❝?!❞) 20:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and move for the reasons given by DGG and supported by Hex. I think the suggested reasons for declining were inappropriate and regrettable. Thincat (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accept and move, further modification done to the article and categorized which clearly states what category it belong to. Those are genuine third party resources added. Arulraja (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Arulraja[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 November 2012

12 November 2012

Victor Dahdaleh – I'm going to close this early because of the BLP risks in this article. I would suggest that it would be very difficult for a CIO related editor to manage a comprehensive article that covers this subject sensitively. I have salted and while recreation is possible we will have to see a decent draft for review here first. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

On 9 December 2011, HJ Mitchell deleted the Victor Dahdaleh Wikipedia article citing G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Dahdaleh is a notable business figure and I believe the article can be rewritten and reinstated. Vivj2012 (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was primarily written by now-blocked accounts operated by a PR company (Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations]), the user requesting undeletion above is an employee of the same company. I don't have a problem if someone unaffiliated with the company wants to rewrite the article, but given the controversy surrounding this (including RL news coverage) I don't think they should be allowed near it. Hut 8.5 13:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article will have some BLP problems about the proportionate coverage of some recent events--for a summary, see the article on him in the French WP. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 November 2012

Mimi So – Moot as the deleting admin has reversed himself. This is highly unlikely to survive without being significantly improved. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This complete, neutral and well referenced article about a clearly worthy subject was improperly marked for Speedy Deletion, immediately contested, but deleted within hours with no justification or explanation given. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solange Azagury-Partridge is an article I used as an example, in this, my first attempted article.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep but needs lots TEC (that's "tender editing care") The article has been restored. I see an Examiner interview which I think settles the notability issues conclusively. Tone of the article is another story: it's still way too promotional. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. The article was nominated for deletion for being promotional (not for lack of notability or references or anything else). It’s not the worst promotional I have seen, but it is certainly far from neutral; it reads like a press release. The contested deletion addressed notability but did not address the reason in the nomination. Therefore the article was properly deleted under G11. It may not be relevant to deletion review, but I would add: The subject appears notable (assuming references are valid). But at least some of the references are problematic: (The first is non-neutral (indeed blatantly promotional), and the second doesn’t verify the asserted fact.) —teb728 t c 03:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since writing that it has come to my attention that you recently removed content from the article with the summary “… eliminating overt marketing” It sounds to me like you admit that the article was promotional when it was deleted. —teb728 t c 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am open to other contributor's opinions reshaping my own. Some people believe that this article is too promotional, and I can embrace that feedback and compromise. If you consider that evidence of something nefarious, so be it.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That notation is so those contributors can see that I am responding to their constructive criticism--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above notes, the reference that doesn't verify the asserted fact was corrected, and promotional content noted by DGG was removed. There is no Examiner reference. Thanks for your review and comments--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 03:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article still contains the first reference, "CFDA Member Directory"., a blatantly promotional blurb, which you use to “verify” some of your most promotional text. And contrary to what you say, you have removed only about half of the promotional content DGG identified at User talk:DGG#Mimi So. And he did not identify all the promotional content: the article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. BTW, you don’t seem to have notified DGG of this DRV; I will do it for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 12 November 2012(UTC)

- Thanks for your comment and assistance notifying DGG, who has made substantial efforts to add this subject to WP despite my naiveté. DGG in User talk:DGG#Mimi So mentioned photos of penthouse, stores and race car: all gone; mere mentions of magazine articles: about 15, all gone; paragraph about stores that carry her brand: about 8, all gone. Re 1st link to CFDA, this is a council of leading fashion designers selected by the leading designers themselves. Membership is considered a pinnacle achievement for any designer. Beyond membership, she has risen to Board Member, having previously been influential in the addition of new members on the selection committee. That board membership is an important element of notability within the subject realm, and the CFDA site is the primary reporting source. I also include an independent reference to this particular fact in a fashion industry publication, WWD, in the Awards section. Thank you.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think MJH forgot to mention that there was ongoing discussion between the two of us on my talk p. and his, at the very time he chose to come here. At 22:39 last night I told MJH I would explain it to them in detail as soon as I could write the explanation, and at 23:02 I offered to improve it myself, or "Alternatively, I can restore the article and send it unchanged to AfD, where unless someone else chooses to rewrite it, it will almost certainly be deleted as promotional and non-notable." At 23:25 I further told them I would restore the article so he could make improvements himself, and I would hold off at AfD until he had a chance to do it, but that if I thought it still not OK, I would send it to AfD. (I was doing other things also, & did not actually restore it until 02:40). I do not see what more I could have done, but I think they did not forgive me for taking what they called the "asinine" action of deleting it in the first place.

So in a sense, this is all moot, because as the deleting admin I had in fact restored the article. as Mangoe noted earlier in this DelRev. But perhaps the additional comments will reinforce my advice. I note the article still has two photographs of the designer, which is one more than appropriate--one formal, one informal, but neither of them with adequate licensing. And her full name is given 30 times in the approximately 600 word article: a rather astounding 10% of the total content is just repeating her name.

From their user page, this is not a paid promotional editor, but a fan of her work. This reinforces my frequent statements that paid editing is not the worst of the problem with promotionalism. A paid editor would probably have been more tactful in dealing with this; few of them want to be so conspicuous as to come to DelRev and most of them would be very glad of an offer of mine to rewrite the article, an offer I now almost never make to someone I think a paid editor, but only to those amateurs editing in good faith where I think myself more likely to fix it properly & think there's a good chance of notability. Notability is better displayed when not surrounded by junk. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Reply I apologize for not being competent with all the linking of various Talk discussions. In response to your comments, I removed 20 uses of the subject's name and the second photo. I have asked the owner of both photos to provide verifiable permission to contribute to commons. FYI I am a she, not a he, and now that we have a constructive discussion, I don't think you are as asinine as I originally did. Thank you.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem absurd to discuss details on improving article content here, but since we have started, the following needs to be fixed also: (1) A statement "her collections are said to have a distinctive and definitive fashion vibe" is sourced only to her bio on her p. at cfda, which is not an independent source. (2) ."Recognizing an up and coming designer, luxury department store Neiman Marcus approached So" is OR--there may be evidence they added her line, but is there reliable evidence they approached her, let alone recognized her as a "up and coming designer" (3) That Richemont accepted her into their portfolio is relevant, but listing some of their famous established, brands is name-dropping. (4) The judgements "surprising growth " & "substantial investments" are unsourced. (4) That she sponsored a Daytona car is worth mentioning, but neither she nor any sponsor is considered important enough to mention in the articles on the events--they just provide the money . What it amounts to with respect to the race is just advertising; what it amounts to her is an opportunity or name dropping, with links to the notable manufacturer of the car and the notable racing team--and even to the model not just of the car, but of the engine. (6). Being a member of a board of even an important organization like cfda is not notability--being the chairman is. It's worth a mention; it's not worth emphasis. That she's on a particular committee there isn't even worth mention. The next step will be to remove the third level headings, which are not needed in a short article. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect MJH may not understand why it is “absurd to discuss details on improving article content here”. The explanation is that the sole purpose of this discussion is supposed to be whether this version of the article was properly deleted under G11. So it is technically out of scope to discuss later improvements here. —teb728 t c 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the two of you, I understand much more about the WP process now - thank you sincerely. All I ever wanted was the chance to collaborate on this article, which was so ruthlessly put on speedy delete. I'm ok with all the suggested edits and actually feel fully vindicated. After all the completed and proposed edits, at least 30% of the original article will remain. From my perspective, this seems to imply that the original content was NOT (to quote from the G11 requirement) Unambiguous advertising and Exclusively promotional, needing to be fundamentally rewritten. Yes, the changes are/were correct to make. No, Speedy Delete was not indicated. BTW, now, I also know about proposed articles. Thank you again, and I will get to work on DGG's kind suggestions.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yes "fundamentally rewritten" is a nonspecific term; what we are doing here in several rounds of edits is what most Wikipedians would probably consider a fundamental rewrite, which is otherwise called "more than "routine editing". Not that many of us would be prepared to do as much work on a strongly promotional article on a routine basis. I sometimes will, though people have been known to think it rather odd of me; the extent to which I am personally prepared to go to rescue an article is generally considered here as way more than routine editing. Neither I nor anyone else would advocate that admins be thought obliged to do so rather than delete and ask for a fresh start. DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Dating Guy – Endorsed. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The user who deleted the page is no longer an administrator. I would like to request that this article be undeleted for the following reasons:

In the deletion discussion, 3 separate sources were provided (of which only 2 admittedly seem to work now), 1 of which was an entire article about the show.
This is the only Teletoon Original Production that currently doesn't have an article - out of 68 at last count, no less - so it would seem that there is WP:CON about this, the deletion discussion aside. Speaking of which...
Votes in straw polls that clearly didn't consider WP:N properly (given that this article clearly satisfies all of the criteria, as pointed out above) are virtually meaningless. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional significant media WP:N evidence links: (added after the first comment below)

Media sources

Non-media sources

Endorse closure You haven't given any real reason to overturn the closure. The only source presented in the discussion that was anything close to significant coverage was this one and it is only barely significant coverage. The other two sources given there weren't coverage at all, considering one was just a tv listing time with a sentence description of the show. If the other 67 articles on Teletoon shows do not have significant coverage in reliable sources, then the articles should probably be deleted. That's something people should go through and check. WP:CON doesn't factor into this at all, since you're essentially asking to have it override notability requirements. Silverseren^C 21:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This user originally voted to delete and may thus be violating WP:NPOV given point 3, above. As for the points brought up: I really doubt that you actually remember what was in the source that is now unavailable, so stating that "the other two sources given there weren't coverage at all" stretches WP:AGF quite a bit from my perspective. Also, your assessment of the remaining source as being "just a tv [sic] listing time with a sentence description of the show" isn't accurate, as the heading above it clearly indicates that this show was specifically chosen by the source. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll concede that, but that doesn't make it anything close to significant coverage. It's a single sentence that is merely a description of the plot. Now, let's go through your other sources.

Reuters is a press release, it explicitly says so.

Pegasus News says its source is HDNet, which is the producer of the show, meaning that this is essentially another press release.

AWN is actually a decent source, if extremely limited in its information, barely making anything close to significant coverage.

I can't consider an unviewable source, in regards to WorldScreen.

Sys-con is a press release, released through PR Newswire.

Animation Insider isn't significant coverage and I also don't know if its a reliable source.

PressPlus1 is at least good coverage, but I have no idea if its a reliable source or just some random review by a person on the internet. Might want to toss this one over to WP:RSN.

IMDB, TV.com, Amazon, and Itunes are all not sources for anything.

So, out of all this, you have two potentially reliable sources, only one of which is actually good coverage. Silver seren^C 01:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read my response about both the press releases and disregarding those sources below. In any case, even if we go by your ridiculously high standards for WP:RS, the fact remains that WP:N only states that "multiple sources are generally expected", so two is enough. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a general guideline for WP:N, but the sources still need to be significant enough coverage to actually be able to make a good article. And you haven't shown that with these sources. And the potential unreliability of PressPlus1 doesn't help matters, as that is easily the strongest source you've shown. Silver seren^C 19:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, not being willing to pay to view a source is not a valid reason to ignore it. If it was, every (non-free, free previews aside) book in existence wouldn't be usable as a source. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse not really seeing significant information that the close was incorrect, or significant new information to justify reopening the issue. Several of the sources linked to above explicitly identify as press releases and therefore do not demonstrate notability. Being sold on Amazon or itunes doesn't demonstrate notability, and IMDB is not considered a reliable source (I suspect tv.com falls into the same category). Hut 8.5 22:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases as mentioned in WP:N are implied to be self-published, which the links in question clearly aren't. Also, what's your source for disregarding those sources? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The disqualification for press releases is that they are not independent of the subject, not that they are self-published. The press release was produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator, so it is not an independent source (WP:GNG). Although it was published by Reuters, they didn't write it and they have disclaimed any responsibility for the content. And no, you don't need a source to discount a source in this way - it is only our articles which require sources. Hut 8.5 08:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regarding the last sentence: so you're just ignoring sources for no reason? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I'm not ignoring sources for no reason. I'm applying our guidelines to conclude that certain sources do not demonstrate the notability of the subject. Hut 8.5 11:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        What I'm asking for is a link to those particular "guidelines". Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:GNG and WP:RS. Hut 8.5 12:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You're also stretching WP:AGF quite a bit from my perspective... do you really think that I haven't read those, given that you already referred to the first one and that I already referred to the second one myself? What I'm looking for is where these pages specifically mention Amazon or iTunes being disallowed, or at least sites similar to those - in the same way that IMDb is mentioned at WP:RS. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You were the one who asked for a link to the guidelines I was referring to - you can't complain when I comply. Our guidelines can't possibly include a discussion of the status of every conceivable source. Rather they establish general principles. The description of the product on Amazon will have been written by whoever is involved in producing or selling the work, and hence is not an independent source and does not establish notability. Hut 8.5 13:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- the consensus at the original AfD was clearly to delete, and I don't see enough good coverage to overturn that. Reyk _YO! 02:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Background - The Dating Guy is Canadian-made cartoon created in 2010 for the mature-minded "At Night" block viewers of Teletoon (Canadian TV channel) and Télétoon (Canadian TV channel).[14] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This doesn't mean that someone cannot draft or AFC something that meets the standards, but the AFD as closed was policy-based, and met the discussion without issue. The fact that they're no longer admin is poor attempt at a red-herring (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm surprised that an administrator doesn't seem to have read the very policy that administrator is commenting on, stretching WP:AGF quite a bit from my perspective yet again (and this is the same administrator who very recently refused a related undeletion request twice in a row, which also possibly brings WP:NPOV into the picture again): "If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page." Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 November 2012

9 November 2012

8 November 2012

UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall – Deletion Endorsed - when there is tension between what a subgroup of editors believe the project should hold and project wide consensus then the project should always win out. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was deleted because of WP:FUTURE and notability issues. WP:FUTURE no longer holds. The event was notable because it was the UFC 2012 Flyweight Tournament Semifinal. The event also had lasting effects on a number of notable fighters' sporting carriers. The AfD stated that the event was only covered by UFC itself or specialized MMA web sources. That is not true. A quick search shows that it is covered by general sports sites such as Bleacher Report, Fox Sports, SB Nation as well as other news agencies (Postmedia News). Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC) The event's results are notable, but they were lost when the page was deleted. At least they should be kept in a summarization page (like UFC on FX, UFC events in 2012, ...). But there is no such page. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please give an example of what sorts of sources you intend to use to meet WP:EVENT and WP:GNG? I think we need to ensure that it goes beyond routine coverage. When I deleted in October, well after the event had happened, it had nothing but MMA fan sites--no indication of the notability required to meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it meets all WP:GNG criteria. But here are some decent non-MMA-specific sources that could be used:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskar Liljeblad (talk • contribs) 13:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any particular horse in this race, but what special occurance can you point to that justifies an individual event article? There's hordes and hordes of MMA event articles. Like it or not, there are some that don't meet the notability of an individual article, and therefore it might be a better idea to have a redirect to a secon on the UFC on FX article that describes the highlights of the article. Just a suggestion, but I'm willing to bet that my suggestion will be jumped upon by a swarm of MMA SPAs who will point at the suggestion as a call to destroy all the MMA coverage on Wikipedia. I'm not bitter, just realistic about what kind of reaction this suggestion has had previously. Hasteur (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no UFC on FX or similar page. I think there used to be a "2012 in UFC events" or something similar. But it was never appreciated. The page became too long, and hard to navigate. I'm not sure what criteria one would use to determine what events get separate pages. As I mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 7#UFC events notability, FX/FuelTV events are not necessarily "lesser" than the numbered UFC events. But I agree that this would be better than the current situation though. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to believe that someone who's nominated and continues to support noms of similar articles has "no horse in this race". Agent00f (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a criticism of the OP, because he appears to be a productive account. But basically, practically none of the hundreds of articles on individual events are notable. A parallel, for example, would be that Wikipedia had an article on every single Premiership soccer match, or every single NFL game. Yet the articles are utterly impossible to delete because every time they are sent to AfD, a group of MMA fanboys shows up, usually including a parade of sock and meat puppets, and votes to Keep them. For extra bonus points, they usually abuse anyone who disagrees with them (example [15]). They've even AfD'd "2012 in whatever" type articles which were meant to contain the information about such events, so that they can re-instate their individual, non-notable, articles. I've given up with this abuse of Wikipedia, since it shows the community is incapable of actually removing material that violates our guidelines. To restate - these articles are not notable - they fail WP:NOT#NEWS amongst dozens of other guidelines. Having news coverage does not equal notability. UFC is notable - every event is not. Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that the analogy with soccer matches is not entirely correct. As I said before, in Premier League there are 20 teams, and 380 matches a season. In UFC maybe 30 events a year. So you should compare UFC events to team-seasons instead. In fact many teams already have one page per season, like 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season. Also compare Formula 1, with one article per race since 1980. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. The few Premership games that are independently notable have their own articles. But equally, all the UFC events which are not independently notable (i.e. most of them) should be merged to aggregate articles. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generous lists of reasons why these events are not analogous to singular matches have been provided to Black Kite and several others here numerous times in the past, so it's unlikely re-iterating them yet again will make any difference given reasoning seems to have no effect on the repetition. Agent00f (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having sufficient news coverage does equal Wikipedia notability as in WP:GNG. However, having sufficient news coverage does not equal importance/significance as in WP:NOT. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Black Kite. Reyk _YO! 23:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before this becomes ridiculous, could we please, for the love of all that is holy, not re-debate the "are individual MMA events notable" issue again? While many like myself find this to be ridiculously obvious (no, of course not, not now and not ever), but the community has spoken pretty clearly on this and it's time to move on: if there are non-MMA-centric sources which go beyond mere results reports, the general consensus is that the page should have its own article. We simply cannot have this debate every single time on every single article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, yet 95% of such articles which don't have such sources still exist, and appear un-deletable. Black Kite (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, I like to avoid using the "per xyz" but in this case I could not say it any clearer than them so Per Black Kite and will add that none of the sources listed come close to non-routine coverage, some even fail the WP:RS test. Mt king ^(edits) 06:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The AfD close noted WP:N, but such events usually receive enough coverage from which to write a stand alone article. I think it is reasonable to say that every professional sporting event receives enough coverage from which to write a stand alone article. Even if WP:N is met, you still need to look at WP:NOT, particularly Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The delete arguments in that AfD were unified on that point, which the keeps never sufficiently rebutted. By closing as delete, the closer of the AfD interpreted the debate correctly. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a stickler on this, Uzma Gamal, but you're not answering the right question. The OP is asking to recreate the article with sources that were not in the article at the time; further, the user is asking to recreate it now that WP:FUTURE no longer applies. The OP isn't arguing that the original decision was wrong; this DRV is only being done because the article title is salted. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the original AfD no longer holds any relevance. I'm almost tempted to say, given the list of sources provided above, that the appropriate step would be for the OP to create a new draft in his or her user space, then have an admin move it to mainspace, and then run a new AfD. Again, part of me hates myself for saying this, because I'd rather see no articles on MMA events, but, community consensus rules here, not my own personal preference. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. I would like access the original article's contents, so that it can be incorporated into another article if not noteworthy of its own. But I guess the deletion has to be overturned for that to be possible? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless:I agree that the original AFD is only marginally relevant and the article could be restored, but, as others have noted, there's no reason to believe that the result would not violate sections of WP:NOT again. I'd need to see someone demonstrate a reasonable probability that a suitable article could be built.—Kww(talk) 19:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will build such an article if necessary. It will be hard to read and even harder to edit - it will be a 100K+ page with some complex tables and hundreds of references - and the WP:MMA community (including myself) won't like it. But I could always refer to this discussion that it was necessary... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that's a sign that the level of coverage you are seeking would violate WP:NOTSTATSBOOK?—Kww(talk) 20:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 10K's of hits these pages get each month well after the events are over makes them enduring by definition. It's unclear how NOTSTATS applies given here are plenty of words on the pages which should be plain to the literate. Agent00f (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Question: I was unaware of the disputes regarding these articles until recently. Previously as both a user and an admin I saw a similar situation of merge/delete/single article debates occur regarding professional wrestling pay per views. As near as I can tell there isn't much difference between the two situations but the outcome has come out the opposite in this case. Is there a technical issue regarding these articles existing in any form that I am unaware of that contradicts the already established near identical situation regarding professional wrestling event notability? –– Lid^(Talk) 04:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving for a second the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, the issue is with policy here, WP:NOT is quite clear on what we do and do not cover as far as events are concerned, they need to demonstrate enduring notability, most sports events, most PPV TV events just don't get that, they get coverage in the sports pages of newspapers, on sports websites etc, but once the event has finished the coverage finishes. You are right that a large number of WWF events also on the face of it fail WP:NOT and if they were nominated at AfD for failing that they should be deleted. For example having a look at Over the Limit (2010) it appears not to demonstrate any enduring notability, most of the sources are from the period of the event, just looking at the list of sources in the ref section there is nothing from any mainstream source they all appear to be to specialist wrestling sources (in summary would fail WP:EFFECT, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE section of WP:EVENT). I suspect in the past editors have confused the issue of passing GNG means yes the article can be written (as there are RS to use to write the article), without considering that as an encyclopedia is the event of encyclopedic note, for that the NOT policy needs to be consulted. Mt king ^(edits) 05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - "Other crap exists" was not my point, that this exact debate has occurred before but has had a decidedly opposite outcome was my question. Do not think this as a side by side vendetta, I'm just witnessing the same debate occurring twice but with different outcomes both in the user groups and in the deletion approach. You address this by referring to editors but I am referring to that the edit debates raged, the same way this did, to the point of admin involvement (on these very pages if I remember right) with an entirely opposite outcome involving non-involved editors, admins and policy. –– Lid^(Talk) 06:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA entries on wiki are treated completely differently to those of any other sport for reasons plain to anyone who's familiar with this drama/fiasco. As another example: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2004_Estoril_Open, by the same OP, and a lower quality page than most MMA ones. Using logic to explain this would be futile since it's a problem of a different nature. Agent00f (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: I am heavily questioning the way MMA events have been treated on this site. Random recent MMA events have had their articles deleted. This has been done without any attempt to replace them with something that's still easily navigibile. Further, all the previous Fight Night cards are still up. Those shows were certainly less relevant as a part of the UFC than the shows now, due to the UFC being more PPV-focused then and having less weight classes to have fights between champions and top contenders.

There has also been no effort to establish a standard as to what does or doesn't make an event notable, as some of the FX and Fuel cards are listed while others aren't. What exactly would make an event notable? The ranking of fighters fighting at the show? What effect the event might have on future events? Would an event having a very popular fight and/or a very impressive knockout/submission make it more notable?

More relevantly to this page itself, this event was part of the tournament that determined the inaugural UFC flyweight champion, and also settled a controversy that happened with a draw at the previous UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"establish a standard as to what does or doesn't make an event notable". This rather assumes that there's any interest in creating a usable and consistent reference of human knowledge for this sport. At this point, it's just dragging out over a few years these deletions of hundreds of well-linked pages. Hardly productive and completely against the purpose of wiki, but that line's been crossed long ago. Agent00f (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida – Deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:12, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The article was deleted because of WP:FUTURE and notability issues. WP:FUTURE no longer holds. And notability can be argued. The event had lasting effects on a number of notable fighters' sporting carriers. I would like to continue editing the article and add references to show its notability. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC) I argue that MMA events in general are not routine. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 7#UFC_events_notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oskar Liljeblad (talk • contribs) 11:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on which to judge this clam of notability, so unless you list sources this should be just closed. Mt king ^(edits) 06:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The AfD close noted WP:N, but such events usually receive enough WP:GNG coverage from which to write a stand alone article. I think it is reasonable to say that every professional sporting event receives enough coverage from which to write a stand alone article. Even if WP:N is met, you still need to look at WP:NOT, particularly Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The delete arguments in that AfD were unified on that point, which the keeps never sufficiently rebutted. By closing as delete, the closer of the AfD interpreted the debate correctly. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Star Wars Episode VII – redirect endorsed The DRV discussion here has produced an approximately 2:1 majority for endorsing the redirect, and it is well-founded in the WP:NFF guideline that reads

"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun."

Since there has been no principal photography of the film yet, Episode VII does not yet meet the guideline's criterion for a separate article. Of course, this is a guideline, not a policy, and as such it could be overruled if there is a consensus for that, but with the majority here for leaving the redirect in place, the consensus needed for making an exception here is lacking. An argument can be made that there was a clear majority for "keep" in the AFD itself, and having looked at that discussion, I am not sure if I would have declared the result in the same manner as jc37 did (maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't) but since this DRV discussion is more recent, and has what approaches a consensus for endorsing the original result, I see no grounds for overturning the AFD based on this DRV.

Some of the people who want an article on Episode VII may be disappointed that the AFD and DRV have ended with this result, but I will remind them that this setback is only of a temporary nature. If and when the film comes to fruition, the criterion for a separate article will be met at some point. – Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Page was redirected by an overzealous moderator who did not give considerations to the notability of the movie and overrode the wishes of the majority of the community. The discussion was not settled and it makes a whole mockery of this site and needs to be reversed.Þadius (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment We appear to have a policy that covers this particular circumstance and it supports the action taken by the closing admin so allegations of malfeasance and overriding the majority of the community are overblown to say the least. Perhaps the nominator can try for a less strident tone and look for a policy based reason for the DRV rather then just relying on raw emotion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Note: The bright line guideline applying here is at WP:NFF, mentioned many times in the discussion, and it should have been mentioned in the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:NFF is a bright-line rule then please explain why the closer:

Did not mention it
Did not delete the article
Did not delete Star Wars sequel trilogy too, as it is more of the same

That's the way that bright-lines work, isn't it? Why are you endorsing his clear failure to observe WP:NFF? Your position seems illogical. Warden (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1). NFF should have been mentioned in the close. I believe that the close should be amended to include mention of NFF.

(2). These are "stand-alone-article" rules and do not necessitate deletion when failed. A merge target is almost always preferable. Content forking under a non-offensive (eg non-NPOV violating) title should almost always should result in a merge and redirect. I read this as a consensus in the AfD.

(3). That's a good question, but outside the scope of the close. You or I may do the merge and redirect at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn There were a zillion Keeps in that discussion but the closer failed to respect these, contrary to WP:DGFA. The closer is himself a member of the Star Wars WikiProject and so was clearly involved rather than impartial. The close was therefore an obvious supervote contrary to WP:OWN and so should be discounted. As the article was not deleted and the topic is likely to develop continuously as production advances, the close should not bind ordinary editing development. Redirection to a supposed sequel trilogy is unsatisfactory because the new owners are now likely to keep cranking out Star Wars movies as long as they make money. The supposition that they will follow a trilogy format seems even more contrary to WP:CRYSTAL than just having an article about the next movie. When looking forward in cases of such franchise properties, we usually just have the next one in the sequence and so our common practise will be best served by maintaining a focus upon the next movie only. Warden (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The INVOLVED point is a reasonable call for a re-close by another admin. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, being part of a WikiProject (a facility for collaboration) does not disqualify someone from closing a discussion. (Not even getting into how long it's been since I actually helped out there. I should do something about that...) - jc37 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to comment on the substance of the INVOLVED allegation, just that the appriopriate remedy for a mild case is to ask for a re-close by another admin, or to ask another admin for a second opinion much as this whole DRV does, but that it is not a case for an "overturn". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the previous time that Jc37 closed an AFD was in 2008 — over four years ago! But Jc37 has edited Star Wars topics more recently than that. So, to recap, the evidence is that the closer is a card-carrying member of the Star Wars project and has edited Star Wars topics this year. But they have not closed an AFD discussion for over four years. It therefore seems apparent that the closer's intervention in this case was not disinterested and impartial. As they closed the discussion contrary to the general wish of those contributing, it further seems apparent that their extraordinary intervention was made to ensure an outcome which was not otherwise likely. This seems a clear case of a supervote. This seems especially disgraceful as, unlike most AFDs, the discussion was well attended. We now have many editors who see that their views are held in contempt and that such discussions cannot be relied upon to be closed in a fair and impartial manner. Tsk. Warden (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABF, aside, if all that were true, wouldn't one presume that I would be supporting it being kept? And in that your ABF logic falls apart. The close was done the way we are supposed to weigh all closes. I realise that you (someone who has a history of full throated support of anything inclusionistic - nothing wrong with that, to be sure) want it kept, and are merely attempting to attack the closer as a means to that end. But that doesn't change that the close was per the discussion, and per policy. I hope that, should the film be made, you will spend at least as much exhuberence building the new article : ) - jc37 19:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was kept. There's a crowd here who talk as if the close had deleted the article but their position is illogical. The outcome was to keep the article and then force the content into an even larger article which discusses the next three Stars Wars movies, not just this next one. As for my own position, I don't much care about the outcome. I looked at the discussion when it was occurring, rolled my eyes and didn't bother to join in because it's a big waste of time. It seems quite apparent that there will be another Star Wars movie and so it is just a matter of time until this nonsense is made irrelevant by the facts. My comments here arise because I don't like to see a claim of consensus being made when it is so clear that there wasn't one. It's a matter of standing up for honest and impartial administration. Warden (talk) 10:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This isn't rocket science, it fails NFF pretty handily. If the film goes ahead, it'll have its own article, and if it doesn't it won't. Meanwhile, all the sourced, relevant and useful information is quite easily accessible in the redirect. Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NFF lists the criteria, can't see how the close could have gone any other way, if it had it would have been listed here much sooner, being a member of a relevant WikiProject in and of it's self does not exclude an admin closing a discussion on an article in that projects area. Mt king ^(edits) 06:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I added significant details to the Star Wars Episode VII article from sources dating from 1999 to 2011 regarding the development green-lighting history and some film treatment (potential plot) info. (The AfD close apparently avoided addressing the approximately 70% of the article that was sourced to 1999 to 2011 reliable sources and instead focused on the approximately 30% crystal information in the article.) In any event, after the Episode VII announcement, what currently is poping up for the most part is people positioning themselves to be part of the cast (Pre-production) Harrison Ford ready to reprise Han Solo role. If you look at all the available reliable source information on the Star Wars Episode VII topic, that information really doesn't yet fit well to where the Star Wars Episode VII film itself can be written as the main topic of a stand alone article. Basically, the 1999 to 2011 green-lighting history is the different ways Lucas said no to a Star Wars Episode VII over the years and the fans not letting up on the idea, until Disney bought the rights in October 2012 and said yes. I don't think you can say that information would be sufficient to justify a Star Wars Episode VII film topic. So far, the best fit for that information seems to be Star Wars sequel trilogy topic. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I feel the closing admin made the correct judgement, given the majority of the "keep" !votes were unqualified, and along the lines of "of course it's a keep, it's Star Wars", demonstrating an unfamiliarity on the parts of those editors with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's a perfect example of what WP:NFF was written for, and the closing admin seemed to recognise this, even if it was not mentioned explicitly in the closing statement. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Overturn and overrule'

Apparently Wikipedia is not a Democracy. 89 votes for KEEP. And with the stroke of the pen, the decision of the People is overturned in favor of some obscure policy of Notability and crystal of which both policies should be absolutely scrapped at once. I believe this is one of the many reasons why Academia will NEVER take Wikipedia seriously. I am absolutely stunned that a Moderator could overturn the will of the People with a stroke of a pen. Who is to play judge here? Who is to say who is Qualified who is unqualified? Geee I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia for EVERYONE, not for a few at the top. Shame on Wikipedia! Magnum Serpentine (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTAVOTE. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, well-reasoned close, every new information could be easily added to the parent article Star Wars sequel trilogy and when/if the film will be finally produced a separate article will be created. I cannot imagine a different outcome for this. Cavarrone (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Obvious supervote close. Now, I thought the closing admin might get away with it, and I wasn't sad about that, but the close was in no way in accordance with the discussion. There were more than sufficient keep votes arguing policy based WP:GNG and otherwise to keep, and also more than sufficient delete rationale to prevent any consensus from existing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Here is why I disagree. The admin did not make the decision based on NFF. The admin, in their decision, wrote the topic did not pass WP:CRYSTAL. However, to quote that: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The topic is notable and that was not a point of contention. As for the second part, there is no evidence at this time that it would not take place. It was the central focus of a takeover of Lucasfilm by Disney, and both the principals of Lucasfilm and Disney stated there would be an Episode VII in 2015. There are no obstacles to the take-over. I would not expect any 'shysterism' from the proponents of the film. That would be completely uncharacteristic.ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No reason to overturn NFF. "there is no evidence at this time that it would not take place" There is no evidence that I will not win the lottery this week. Therefore, I will? And NFF is basically CRYSTAL anyway, maybe he thought it was redundant. And an unmade movie was certainly not the focus of the deal, it's not worth $4bn. That is just what the fans are focusing on. Barsoomian (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, mock me, but it almost goes without saying: there is evidence that the movie will be released. A story was written prior to the sale; Disney stated that the future Star Wars films were critical to the sale; including the 7-9 story treatments. They even stated that earnings will be negatively impacted until the release of 7 in 2015. At this point, it's going to be made. If it is cancelled, at that time it would be appropriate to redirect anyway. Not based on the evidence AT THIS TIME. If the decision was based on NFF, then we could debate the merits of that argument, but right now we are debating the merits of the decision as written up, which was CRYSTAL. It was a judgment call and I think the admin went the wrong way, based on the evidence. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you assert the existence of the movie. Does the movie exist? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere, we had an article on the Microsoft Surface tablet well before it was released. No precise release date was given. In fact, the second version's release date is still unknown. Why are we applying a different standard here? Do we trust Microsoft and not trust Disney? No-one objected on wp:crystal grounds. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The essence of NFF is that the film has passed a major hurdle towards a defined, definitive existence. If principle photography has not commenced, then the film does not yet have substance, it is only plans and preparation, and it may yet change substantially. There is, admittedly, a degree of arbitrariness in that choice of hurdle, but it is a major hurdle due to the costs of principle photography that are sunk if there are subsequent changes, sunk costs such as actors' fees. The hurdle is not "release", and so a direct comparison with the release of the Microsoft Surface is invalid. I don't know if there is a similar definable hurdle for a piece of hardware technology, but it may be physical construction of the prototype, or testing and review of multiple working models, or some other hurdle past which it is very likely that the product will continue to be as described.

The DRV suitable comment here would be: the appropriateness and applicability of WP:NFF was not criticised in the AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date.

Closer comment - First, I was not notified of this discussion. I'm also wondering what "new information" has appeared or what "procedural error" which is considered to justify a DRV. Anyway, For those asking about NFF, I mentioned (though didn't name) that several policies/guidelines had been noted in the discussion; and note that NFF makes clear that it's based on WP:FUTURE. And if one looks, they will find that WP:FUTURE leads to the same section of WP:NOT as WP:CRYSTAL : ) - If there are any (civil/collegiate) requests for clarification of the close (besides "how dare you not count votes"), of course I would be happy to. - jc37 18:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you choose to ignore that there was no consensus to delete? Instead you did a super-vote as noted. The proper decision would have been to simply note that there was no consensus and move on. There are relevant exceptions in both NFF and CRYSTAL, and I feel that you have failed to accept the good-faith objections as even worthy of debate. Often editors use short-hand, sort of the basis for WP:ATA's pet peeve list, but it doesn't seem to be in decline, and should not be used to mock person's points. If you point out a topic (Star Wars) that is the focus of a Wiki project, surely that is merely a point-out that the topic passes GNG on the basis that Star Wars has already passed GNG to the point that it is the focus of a project? The whole deletion go-around is somewhat harsh. People are merely repeating their own objections. How could -any stub- grow if we force up-to-the-minute scrutiny? I would have rather let the article grow, we find out if it is truly lacking or valid, then decide. There are obviously lots of article police here, so it would not have put Wikipedia in any bad position to let it exist. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to "no consensus" Sorry but I cannot agree with jc37's close since he based it solely on WP:CRYSTAL which has been shown to simply not apply to this subject since it "is notable and almost certain to take place". Actually, jc37 failed to write a detailed closing statement that considers and debates the arguments made in a way that others can understand as to why he came to this decision. Just saying "But no argument ever appeared to get past WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, which held the most weight in this discussion." is imho not sufficient unless you also explain a) why WP:NOT#CRYSTAL is applicable in the first place and b) why all arguments against it were incorrect. Also, the closing statement contains no mention of WP:NFF despite the fact that this was the second-most used argument in the discussion. As the closing statement is deficient, this close needs to be overturned. Personally, I don't see a consensus in this discussion, so I'd advise overturning it to "no consensus". Regards So Why 19:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:CRYSTAL clearly says "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". This is the case. Currently all wwe have about Star Wars VII is an announcement and a few speculations and rumors about the plot. And they could be easily (and, in fact, already are) merged in the parent article. When (and if) there will be a Star Wars VII with a director, a screenplay, a cast and possibly a release date a separate article will be start. It is not even a question of policies and guidelines, it is first of all a question of common sense. Cavarrone (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you quoted correctly, "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate" (emphasis added). This was not an article consisting "only" of the announcement information, so your argument is incorrect. Whether the content was sufficient to warrant a standalone article is another question but it's not one decided by CRYSTAL. Regards So Why 14:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and the announcement was the only verifiable thing in that article. " Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" (emphasis added). Cavarrone (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "the story might be..." or "X or Y might be part of it..." is speculation - saying "X is definitely not part of it despite many people thinking he would be" is not. The article contained some speculation, true, but it also contained things like negative confirmations (like mentioned above) which are not. But then again, DRV is not AFD round 2, so even if you were correct, it would not matter for the outcome of this discussion. Regards So Why 20:35, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

overturn Essentially per SoWhy. The primary point of CRYSTAL is to deal with things where we have a lot of speculation but little in the way of genuine reliable sources. That's not the case here, and the consensus of the discussion reflected that. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be confusing something concerning the references. The article isn't Declaration to make the film Star Wars VII. It's Star Wars VII -the film itself. And so, while the notice/notification/declaration of intent may have many references (because the notice/notification/declaration exists), the film itself does not, as yet, exist. So it would be difficult for you or anyone to find references concerning the existing film, as it, as mentioned, does not yet exist. Hence, those in the discussion never managed to "get past" the policy WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. (Or NFF, for that matter, as many also noted.) - jc37 05:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say this but you seem to misunderstand what WP:CRYSTAL actually says. As I quoted above, the policy allows articles about future events (and thus subjects created in the future in general) if the subject "is notable and almost certain to take place". It explicitly does not require that any part of the subject already exists (for example, no part of the 2020 Summer Olympics has taken place but we still can have an article about it because we know it's almost certain to take place). The fact that WP:CRYSTAL does not have such requirements is also why WP:NFF was created in the first place and while the subject discussed here might or might not qualify under that guideline, it does not fall under the scope of WP:CRYSTAL; as such closing the AFD based on it is simply incorrect. Regards So Why 09:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I am misunderstanding "what WP:CRYSTAL actually says". But let me ask you a question, do you think that Star Wars VII is or is not a "product"? - jc37 10:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a product in the sense of the word as it is usually used on Wikipedia, since policies and guidelines clearly differentiate between products (i.e. stuff you can touch) and artistic works, which is why we have different guidelines for artistic works than we have for other products (WP:NMUSIC, WP:NFILM etc.) Regards So Why 14:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Product - This is how the word is used on Wikipedia. And here is the wiktionary definition (wikt:product): "Any tangible or intangible good or service that is a result of a process and that is intended for delivery to a customer or end user." - Sounds an awful lot like what we're talking about here.

And I'm sorry, but just doing a quick search, references don't appear to support your belief either. For example, the Mona Lisa is described as a "product of Da Vinci's genius". What I think you may be conflating (in reading your comments in this discussion) is that the premier of the film is an event (as also may be subsequent showings). The film itself isn't an event. But the showing, displaying, presenting is. So the "events" are showings, displayings, and presentations. (One could even say that the completing of the film is an event.) But the film itself is an object. A product. And incidentally, speaking of the premier, there appear to be doubts in the references whether the film will be released in May as previous films had been. So we don't even reliable sources on when the event is to take place. And so, again, CRYSTAL applies.

But applicability of "product" aside, a closure is about the strength of the arguments, not head counting. And, as I said, the policy WP:NOT#CRYSTAL had the most weight, and, as far as I saw, wasn't adequately refuted in the discussion. "IWANTIT because it's Star Wars" isn't a policy arguement. - jc37 23:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, while it's certainly a product in the sense of the word as it's usually used, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines do judge works of art different from other products and thus the arguments re products are not always applicable to these subjects. As I stated earlier, my problem with your close is mostly that you failed to actually explain it, instead opting to simply state that CRYSTAL is applicable and leaving it at that. Only now, after this has been brought here, you have shown willingness to explain the reasoning for your close in detail. I'm fully content to accept it if the consensus is not what I think it should be but I do require a closing admin for a long and heated debate to show that they have weighted all arguments. Your closing statement neither mentions the WP:NFF argument nor does it explain why you thought consensus was in favor of applying CRYSTAL, a policy that was actually designed to avoid clear-cut no-information-availble-just-speculation-articles. On a side note, because this is not AFD v2, Ep VII now has a writer (Michael Arndt) and pre-production has started. Regards So Why 12:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Reasonable close grounded in policy, and I commend the closing administrator for weighing arguments appropriately. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, XFD is not a vote, and mob fiat doesn't override policy (unless it does). All that being said I expect events will render this discussion moot in a couple months, but all in good time. Mackensen (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. There's a grey area between "weighing the arguments according to their merit", which closers are supposed to do, and "weighing the arguments so as to engineer a close that's consistent with guidelines", which they aren't (even policies have their exceptions on Wikipedia). Contrary to the extremist statements being made on both sides of this debate, in fact there was nothing obvious about this close, and it did fall into that grey area. Where we stand on this depends on how far we believe closer's discretion can prevail over a lack of consensus in debate. I have not found this point easy to determine. But there must be a limit to the closer's discretion, otherwise we might as well replace XfD debates with a Sysop's Suggestion Box. In the end, I don't think discretion stretches as far as this close, so I find SoWhy's view the more persuasive.—S Marshall T/C 12:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. If this was to be overturned to "no consensus" what would we be left with? An article which fails notability guidelines, or a redirect? --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flip comments aside, I would expect it to be put back as it was. It's not unprecedented and the sky won't fall. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No "flip" comments intended. A genuine question for an admin, which may also serve to illustrate how the closing admin made the only choice they could have, given the lack of understanding of guidelines by *most* of the "keep" !voters. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more of an issue of control on your part. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We would be left with an article as opposed to a redirect. The article would not "fail notability guidelines", because there are all these reliable sources that have noted it.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so maybe I shouldn't have started this argument here. We're just going to end up with a repeat of the AfD if I respond to this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It is hard to see a consensus in the discussion given the large number of limited arguments, but a substantial number of the "keep" "votes" are pretty clear ILIKEIT and can be discarded. What's left are arguments that this is straightforwardly covered by WP:NFF, WPCRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, etc. and arguments that the level of coverage is sufficient to overcome those guidelines. I would opine that going with the guidelines was within admin discretion in this case. I disagree with SoWhy's claim that a deficient closing statement necessitates an overturn here. The primary issue is the result not the reasoning. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I argued to overturn it because I don't see a consensus here. The deficient closing statement is imho the result of this fact. Regards So Why 21:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close was completely in line with policy. Would have made the same close myself had I stumbled upon it needing a close. -DJSasso (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Close seems to be logical given the discussion and policy.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Despite my obvious biases as nominator, I don't see any misconduct with the closure. most of the keep !votes were "but it's Star Wars". I just don't see that argument holding any weight in a policy/guideline based consensus discussion. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 07:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a heads up but the nominating reviewer did not contact the closing admin first. CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 07:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 November 2012

Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape is "something God intended" controversy – Deletion endorsed. Consensus is (still) that this topic is best covered in the context of the articles about the person and/or the election. – Sandstein 19:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Richard Mourdock just lost the Senate race and the media primarily blame this controversy. As such, it is WP:N and is no longer WP:Crystal Ball. Casprings (talk) 02:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just saw the merge discussion. I am asking for the recreation of an article. It was a controversy that cost a senate election. As such, I feel it is WP:N enough for a standalone article. Casprings (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question, what's your proof this is the reason he lost? CRRays Head90 | ^{Get Some!} 09:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The media says so. Virtually any story on this race mentions the comments. Some exempts, Here, Here, Here, Here. One can find many more with a simple google news search of him.

Comment. So far as I can see during the previous DRV[16] the material was merged into United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 with this edit, probably losing copyright attribution to the original editors. I have no strong feeling about whether this has been satisfactory or not. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. The prior editing history is stored here at Talk:Richard Mourdock/Richard Mourdock pregnancy from rape and God's will controversy. I shall note this at Talk:United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012. Thincat (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close (delete/merge) An obvious close, arguments about whether the hammering of Mourdock by his opponent on his debate answers can be substantiated by WP:RS and are thus WP:N are all thoroughly within the article on the campaign, and are arguments for the size of the entry within that article per WP:UNDUE. WP does NOT encourage separate spinout articles, for obvious reasons, and no good argument was made that this particular campaign talking point should be a standalone article. The standalone invites the many, many NPOV issues that partly led to its deletion, and by its separate existence (as opposed to mention WITHIN the campaign article) it makes a statement in WP's voice that this is as important as the campaign itself, when it was actually mostly a component of a partisan fight. It also inappropriately minimizes that Mourdock's opponent is also pro-life, and tried to stay away from general abortion issues, and that Indiana has a long history of electing bipartisan pols of both political parties(see Lugar, Bayh), something Mourdock proudly declared he was NOT. Opinion pieces that come before all results are certified and released are by their very nature not grounds for revisiting. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close The only real question is whether the material should be merged to the article on the campaign or to the article on Murdoch. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already merged into campaign article, and would argue WP policy makes that the right move. Taken on their own, in context, or published just as a reasoning for Mourdock's views on abortion exceptions, the debate statement seem unremarkable, even though a minority view. That his opponent cast his comments on life as instead being pro-rape doesn't really change his position, but the success of the effort is absolutely relevant to the campaign. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the AfD, and note that the title sits uncomfortably with WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NPOV. The material involved can be appropriately covered on other pages in appropriate context and weight. Wikipedia should not have this title as a link. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and keep as is. The event merits coverage, but the fallout here is simply that Mourdock lost some votes, which may have proven to be decisive. The fact that Mourdock defeated the moderate Lugar in the primary is the event that is credited with making the race competitive in the first place, and the primary election, a far bigger event than the offensive comment by Mourdock in the debate, is covered within the United States Senate election in Indiana, 2012 article. The event is similar to the Akin controversy in Missouri, but the fallout was smaller. Akin drove away almost all his financial supporters and the central Republican funding and the outcry was also much greater there. Mourdock still retained Republican support for his candidacy, although his view on this point was repudiated by many. The entire controversy can therefore be covered in context of the senate race article, and a separate article is not needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 November 2012

Paul Summerville – Redirect endorsed Its not clear why the revisions were deleted so these have been left in the history. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am requesting this page be undeleted and restored/rolledback to the condition it was in before the it was deleted and redirected. There was political vandalism done to this page. I will provide third party citation to strengthen the articles integrity. Nbaumgartner (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)nbaumgartner[reply]

Userify. I note that of the six people commenting at the AFD, four considered "lack of notoriety" was a reason for deletion/redirection. To get good coverage in the press, some form of deplorable conduct is indeed the most satisfactory approach. Dr Summerville seems to have failed in this respect. Thincat (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I temporarily restored the deleted versions for discussion at Deletion Review . And I note the close was Redirect, not delete and redirect. These versions should consequently not have been deleted in the first place. there were two people saying delete and redirect, both of them were SPAs in the most narrow sense, who contributed to nothing at WP except this AfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the AfD outcome and DGG above. No arguments are presented as to why the AfD consensus was incorrectly assessed or why things have changed in the meantime. Sandstein 11:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 November 2012

James Gough – No experienced editors object to the speedy deletion. The article can be recreated after the person meets our inclusion standards. – Sandstein 21:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Will Be NotableI am requesting a undeletion of James Gough. User:Fram used speedy deletion to delete this page, citing that the person written about was unnotable. While the hockey player quoted here is a minor player, he is quickly rising above the other players in the OMHA and will soon be playing minor pro hockey, and possibly the NHL. If he is not notable, he will be soon. Jimmer93 (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And once he is notable, he can have an article, not before that time. Please see WP:NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UPANDCOMING and WP:CRYSTAL, if he doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS standards now, we wait until he does. Endorse speedy deletion (and speedy deletion is without prejudice to an article in due course that meets WP standards for inclusion). Bencherlite ^Talk 18:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 November 2012

3 November 2012

2 November 2012

HiSilicon – Listed at AFD – Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

{{a7}} Popolon (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC) There are several specialized major electronics newspaper that speak about this company (EE Times, DigiTimes, and some of the biggest today actors (ARM (the most used technologies on smartphone and tablets) and Linaro) see the Mike_7 discussion page), this is one of the last than ten companies working about last ARM technologies (ARM Cortex-A15 MPCore, and Cortex A-50 next generation, a company created by Huawei, one of the major worldwide telecommunication companies.Popolon (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy list at AfD as a contested A7. Discuss its merits there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD - There was a Japanese company called HiSilicon Co.(an Osaka Titanium and Mitsubishi Metal joint venture) in 1986. The DRV nominated topic, HiSilicon Technologies Co., was established in October 2004.[17]. Hisilicon has set up design divisions in Beijing, Shanghai, Silicon Valley (USA) and Sweden.[18] There's lots of press releases under HiSilicon Technologies, which might be a better name for the topic. There might be English language third party sources amoung all those press releases. There may be Chinese language sources or source material from Sweden as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (but not sure) that's better to copy here some of the sources Popolon (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC) :[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.