Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 2010 Deletion review archives May 2010 >

30 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tardieu, Michel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contest sudden deletion of stub article on Michel Tardieu, Professor at College de France, within 6 hours of it appearing. A source had been added immediately after an objection in the same period of time, and more were to come. Nominated by Clive sweeting (talk · contribs). Steps one and two fixed by A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD at editorial discretion. Rough consensus is that professorship is a sufficient claim of notability to avoid speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 (see this discussion and Wikipedia:A7M#People). For the record, the article claims that Tardieu is notable for having been a professor at Collège de France since 1991. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Articles don't even have to claim notability to cross A7, they only have to claim significance or importance. WP:PROF notability standards are pretty much irrelevant to the latter test. This article clearly made a credible claim to importance or significance (published works, developed a theory, etc). The rest is a matter for AfD. As an aside, I'm not seeing where the DRV nom discussed this with the deleting admin first. Disputed speedy deletions can often be overcome that way rather than needing to come to DRV. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Overturn totally unjustified. Clear claim to notability, and, will clearly meet WP:PROF also. I suppose this is simply an error by a usually very reliable admin, and agree that he probably would have reconsidered had he been asked. 00:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Overturn - although I really think we should require DRV nominators to ask the admin first, and give them 12 hours min to respond.--Scott Mac 00:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bigotgate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was speedy-deleted by User:Syrthiss as‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP). This seems an incorrect use of G10 as the item in question was a redirect to a respectable and well-sourced article not an attack page and there are plenty of reliable sources which testify to the prevalence of this usage. Per WP:CSD, G10 should only be used for pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. This is not the case here as there is clearly another purpose - that of navigation using this common search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject matter of articles may be commonly represented outside Wikipedia by non-neutral terms. Such terms cannot be used as Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance, the widely used but non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it.

If a redirect is not an established term and is unlikely to be used by searchers, it is unlikely to be useful and may be nominated for deletion. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources), it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes

  • Comment My actions are not out of line with the deletion of Bigotsgate and Bigoted woman incident. If there are blp concerns with the first two, then this similarly needs to be censored. I'd have no objection to 2010 Open mic incident as a redirect, or some such. Obviously, if the deletion of the previous two are overturned upon overwhelming consensus then I'd have no objection to this being overturned. Well, technically I'd object...but it would be internalized objection and not invocation of hyperbole. Syrthiss (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident. Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Bigotsgate should have been deleted either (perhaps redirected), though I endorse the deletion of "Bigoted woman incident" because it begs the question and is a direct attack. As for your suggestion, I think "Gordon Brown open mic incident" would be a good article title if we were to have separate article on the gaffe; but it doesn't appear to have much traction in the media, so I doubt anyone will be searching for it thusly. Redirects should be created from common terms for incidents, and "Bigotgate" is what the media is using. The claim that deleting the redirect to a neutral treatment of the incident already present in the appropriate article will somehow reduce harm to the woman is dubious - she's already all over the news. –xenotalk 15:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Overturn per Xeno and then RfD it after the election when everybody's forgotten about it, otherwise these redirects will keep springing up. I endorse all the other deletions, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, strongly. Channeling the ICP; "Fuckin BLP, how does it work?" How it shuold work is by considering the real harm that things in this project can do to real people. This is a poor old woman who asked an honest questino of a politician, had no intention, desire or idea that said question would embroil her in a shitstorm from the pol's live mic. This person is not a celebrity, was not seeking selebrity, and should not have her name linked in any manner to the characterization of bigotry. Where it is by an article named "bigoted woman controversy" or a "bigotgate" redirect to another article, both of those are bad. As bad? No, but enough that it should make one pause and consider what harm is being done here. This redir was deleted as an attack, and rightly so per BLP policy. Grow up, Wikipedia, for your own sake and for everyone else's. Tarc (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we delete the section on the incident as well? –xenotalk 15:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The section at least explains the matter and places it in context. What I am against is a pejorative term pointing to it. If the drive-by media had come up with, say, "openmicgate", that would probably fly. It is just unfortunate that people are off and running with this slur.Tarc (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We (unfortunately) do not control the mass media, and they have come up with the term "Bigotgate". As a search term, it is worlds better than "Bigoted woman incident" as it simply refers to the fact that Brown used the word "bigot"(ed) but does not have the same connotations that BWI does. I'm not sure that ignoring/suppressing the media-invented term for this does our readers or the harmed woman any favours. I fully agree that "Bigotgate" should be considered entirely unprintworthy (i.e. it should have zero incoming links from articles), but it should be provided as a redirect to the neutral treatment of this incident. –xenotalk 15:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn...it looks like the term is getting used a fair amount by the press and G10 really shouldn't apply to an unfortunate, but widely-used term. However, the term should only be used as a redirect if the usage of "bigotgate" is properly sourced on the main article (currently United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April, perhaps a future standalone depending on the ultimate impact of the incident). Additionally, whatever the most common RS term for this particular flap ends up being seems like the logical location for the GFDL (described in the other DRV) issue to be resolved. — Scientizzle 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I strongly respect the desire to suppress the article if its based on BLP concerns, but per my comment over at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Bigoted woman incident, theres actually a case that a neautrally written article will help the woman involved as a fair presentation of the availalbe facts find her blameless. With the close to blanket global coverage were not going to significantly raise her profile with an article focusing on the incident and not the woman, especially with a well chosen title like Bigotgate. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn like it or not, this is a term the press, not us has coined, and is being used as a name for this whole incident. While I agree that the whole issue doesn't (at least at this time) deserve an article (and certainly not the poorly titled one deleted and being appealed below), to NOT have a re-direct on something that people could legitamately search for undermines our ability to properly serve as an encyclopedia. BLP is not at issue here, as it is not a term describing the person, rather the incident. To sum up, the re-direct should, imho, exist as a redirect and ONLY a redirect. That'd probably mean protecting it so someone (well meaning, I hope doesn't see a redlink and attempt to re-create the article. Instead of salting something that points to nowhere, we should be pointing people to the relevant article. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as we are not dependent on the mainstream media I'm not sure that their pejorative term is useful. To borrow a bit of exaggeration, if they were calling something Lyingrottenwhoregate I'd hope that we as an encyclopedia wouldn't feel the need to have that as a redirect as a service to our readers. Syrthiss (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the term is used in multiple reliable sources, as this one has, why wouldn't we? WP:BLP is a bright line in the sand, something to keep us from recording on the trivial or the inaccurate as if it were true. It is not something to prevent us from recording something that is well documented, merely because its not nice. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to RFD. Not at all a speedy candidate. Stifle (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-If no internal links are to be allowed and we have an intention to AFD it in a week when the election is over, then what do we need it for. I support open mic incident Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's needed to redirect the hundreds of readers keying the phrase into the search box: [3]. –xenotalk 19:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn it is quite obvious not an uncontroversial deletion, and thus not suitable for speedy. Even if it is viewed as inherently and unfairly negative, still the world uses it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - I think this is a reasonable navigation aid. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to RfD. This title is pretty bad, but still much better than the previous ones. It is also actually in use, so it's plausible. It deserves a full discussion at RfD, at least, though it's still prety marginal. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I said take it to RfD when I declined the first CSD, but unfortunately my plea fell on deaf ears. Here's how I would respond on Tarc's comments. Why would "bigoted woman controversy" (the article itself) and "bigotgate" be the same? The former focuses on a BLP-subject in question considering the article's title, while the latter focuses to the action by Gordon Brown that is widely-used by the press. Furthermore, it has been admitted that the election article section the redirect last pointed to would put this phrase properly in context. If it was redirected to Bigoted woman incident, then yes I would have deleted it outright as an application of G10. - Mailer Diablo 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is an adequate use of a redirect, since it's used by sources (redirects don't have the same rules as articles, there are many cases where an article is bad but a redirect is ok). Idem for Bigotsgate. Please make sure that it stays as simply a redirect and that it points to the relevant section in the election article and not to the deleted article.
P.D.: Syrthiss, xeno is right about the neutrality of redirect, read the paragraphs of guideline that he quoted. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am seriously tempted to say keep deleted. Wikipedia has made such an almighty balls up of dealing with this incident so far, that it is almost better not to direct people to that pitiful excuse for coverage that has emerged, stillbirth style, from the wreckage of a shotgun Afd closure which has frankly destroyed any hope of this incident ever being written about properly here. The readers who want to learn more about the incident, having heard about it from the many and ongoing mentions of it on tv, radio, and newspapers, of her full name, this term, and any and all conceivable reference inbetween, in everything from serious political coverage to humourous satire and cultural comment, should not have their time wasted by the lie that is Wikipedia's in this new era, where sources like the New York Times is laughingly now considered an irresponsible tabloid apparently. Anyone who has eyes and ears can see Wikipedia has no role to play here in protecting this woman any more, and any editor with any experience knows that proper, FA quality and policy compliant writing about this incident would not remotely resemble a biography about this woman, let alone defame her or otherwise cause damage. Knowledge of this incident is here to stay in the real world, it is part of the political history of the UK already, part of the cultural fabric, an instantly recognisable turning point in Gordon Brown's probable last days in office. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is in denial, or is trying to change Wikipedia into something it is not. So, keep deleted - the quicker readers realise that Wikipedia is pretending nothing happened at all, then the sooner they can go and find a superior information source, and let Wikipedia die the natural death it is well on its way to meeting while it continues to tolerate over-reactions like this, where not even a single plausble search term exists after over 48 hours. Anyone redirected to the election article in its current state, is just going to be confused and bemused, and will most probably just leave, thinking they have just failed to find the main article. MickMacNee (talk) 01:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Process wonkery is not needed; see WP:NOTNEWS. Most people still know how to use Google for a term like this, and Wikipedia does not have to use every silly tabloid fashion-of-the-day label. Johnuniq (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this just a theory of yours, that Bigotgate is only being used by tabloids? Or are you using the new definition of tabloid being used by some here at Wikipedia now, namely, all media, not helped by the rather misleading creation of the WP:TABLOID shortcut. Everyone can use Google yes, and it quite quickly shows that this term is not exclusive to tabloids, using the real definiton. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I say we trash the WP:TABLOID redirect as well because Wikipedia does not have to use every silly WP:OMG fashion-of-the-day label. - Mailer Diablo 03:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorsegate per unnecessary redirectgate. Who is really going to search using that term? I mean really? "Rochdale incident" or something perhaps. Actually, people are far more likely to search for "Gillian Duffy" than any passing tabloid cliché. Utterly moronic redirect.--Scott Mac 12:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we can debate what kind of people they might be (no doubt morons in your eyes), but 300 more of them are searching for Bigotgate than your suggestion (searches for which stands at zero at this time). You are correct of course that her real name has ten times more attempted views, for obvious reasons, but readers won't get any joy out of that one either will they. 124 people even viewed 'Bigoted woman incident' yesterday, even though its been a vanished and salted term for days now. I for one am certainly lost as to what other plausible alternatives you might be thinking of, but if they are as usefull as 'Rochdale incident', we will clearly need one of the verboten ones restored, although as ever, admins to do repair work after a BLP steamroller are thin the ground. Because the 57,000 extra people who have looked at Gordon Brown over the last three days, have of course, found jack. A spike of 1,750 for plain Rochdale is just depressing, and gives a clear sign of the run around certain admins have given readers searching for this, who as mere readers in their naivety, clearly have no idea of Wikipedia's tendency for ridiculous over-reaction and dismissal before the facts, when anybody even mentions the magic three latter acronym. And the outcome of all this hand-wringing? Judging by the lack of any discernible rise in the actual election page views, normal readers, who neither know or care of Wikipedia's BLP phobia, are giving up well before they figure out just where the ethical editors have decided to file this information. Not that what they would find there resembles the real world coverage and notability of the incident in the slightest, thanks to the chilling effect of the Afd. So, if the idea of BLP is to pretend it never happened and piss our readers around, then clearly, it's a job well done. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statistics are irrelevant, since WP:NOTNEWS. We'd expect all sorts of searches in the hight of a news story that will not be repeated a few weeks later. It is highly improbable anyone will be searching for "Bigotgate", or any passing tabloid accolade, next year. As for the hits on 'Bigoted woman incident', most of these will be Wikipedian's rubbernecking the deletion discussion. (One of those hits was me, and (I presume) one was you.) If we took NOTNEWS seriously, we'd not have this problem. We are writing an encyclopaedia. If this episode proves to have lasting significance, we can look again later. In the highly improbable scenario that the moronic designation of "Bigotgate" ends up having traction we can look at that too. For now, no evidence exists - try wikinews.--Scott Mac 18:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Paradoxically — I speedily deleted Bigotsgate — I feel this speedy deletion should be overturned. "Bigotgate" has been used in hundreds of news articles and on television hundreds of times, not just in tabloids, and is not in itself an attack on anyone, be it Gordon Brown or Gillian Duffy. It is the recognised short-hand for this incident. It would be a valid redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010#28 April, regardless of whether we should have a full article on this incident or not (which I don't favour). p.s. I was amused by this suggestion that Brown didn't think she said "flocking", but another similar word beginning with "f":[4] Fences&Windows 13:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if most dont want a dedicated article we can at least postpone until a couple of weeks after the election. By then there will be better perspective to see if there are genuine BLP reasons for us not to cover this. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming anybody would bother to review the sources and give it a careful and rationale assesment against our policies and guidelines. It didn't happen the last time, and the lack of due process and rational thought the first time around is likely to be sufficient in persuading anybody who might have been minded the first time round, to not touch this with a bargepole in future, even if Gordon Brown gets a pasting and this incident is cited in every credible analysis as the stand out event of the election. Which is of course, what was already being speculated worldwide just days after the event, in the "tabloid" media. You can tell by the pathetic state of its coverage in the election article as to what the effect has already been in this regard, now the steamroller has rolled off somewhere else. That content stopped being updated about three significant developments ago, not that it even expalains what happened either. Nope, that content is like most sub-par content around here, it is merely a placeholder for the references where readers should go to get the real facts, although they are of course also out of date by now. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to illustrate the point, this was still being steamrollered at Drv, while thrid party coverage was already stating "It's unfortunate for Gordon Brown that this is what will be remembered when everything else that he has said in the campaign has been forgotten.". Rational discussion of a possible recreation in future, even if someone spends days on it and soothes the panic that this migtht be a horriblly damaging and defaming biography on a poor private woman, rather than an article on a highly notable political gaffe, doesn't stand a chance in this environment of BLP hysteria. Lest anybody forgets as they review this in future, the original Afd was closed after one hour, for "blindingly-obvious" reasons. All that article said was what has happened, much as the rest of the world's media was already doing. Why even bother eh? MickMacNee (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.


29 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Timothy A. Wilkinson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

MSgt Wilkinson is a recipient of the Air Force Cross for the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, the way I look at is if you delete his article you must delete every other Air Force Cross, Navy Cross and Distinguised Service Cross recipients' articles. If we are going delete military pages because they are only famous for the action that made them worthy for the decoration, then when do we start deleting Medal of Honor and Victoria Cross Recipients? Feickus (talk) 12:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Novaseminary commented in reply, but did not refute, and her comments were not sound. Redirects are cheap. It is easily possible to maintain a redirect for every name that is verifiably associated with the battle and for which a Wikipedian has already attempted to write an article. Also, given that at least one person believes this participant is notable, the redirect is a reasonable search term. Wikipedia's internal search function is not very good, and such redirects are helpful. (helpful is a good rationale for a redirect, not an article.) Novaseminary's "searches will bring up the article without the redirects" is not correct unless one assumes that the project is now complete. I daresay that the project is not complete, and if you disagree, fork it now. If the person's name is not in the article, the search function won't bring the contributor to the article. My assumption here is that contributors are here to contribute something that is not already here, and this is why it is reasonable to be directed to an article that may not already have the information. It is true that consensus said "delete", but they were wrong. Their comments were correct, but they were wrong in asserting (without rationale) that their comments (WP:notability-based) were reasons (WP:notability-based) for deletion. Their comments reflect the fact that the article is not a suitable stand-alone article, and that is the limit of the scope of the notability guidelines. It remains a possibility that such material may have a place in the main articles, and the main article talk page is the venue for such discussions, and an existing redirect will encourage these and later contributors to make their points on that main article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer claimed that the argument for merger/redirection had been refuted but it was not addressed by the delete camp whose contributions included feeble stuff like "Can't tell you how many of these I've been in lately.". When such empty votes are discounted there was no clear consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comments I have to disagree about the lack of consensus. None of commenters, including the 2 who opined merge/redirect, advocated keeping the article as a stand alone, so I don't see how a straight overturn is supported. Of the 2 commenters that were not "delete", only one actually gave a rationale. I thought it was a reasonable rationale, which if supported by consensus could have carried the day. However, Novaseminary's response was reasonable as well, and his position better represented opinions of the other editors who commented in the discussion. Thus, while I had no personal issue with a redirect, I could not say that consensus was reached in this discussion to place one. Having said that, I note that the decision to redirect to that title remains available to any editor so inclined once this discussion is closed. I also userfied the article at the nominator's request at the close of the AfD. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was even unanimous that the article should not be kept as a stand-alone article. I think it better to leave a redirect with the history intact than to leave the history in someones userspace, because any hope for including the material anywhere should be directed at the talk page of the target. There is no reasonable prospect of any single editor being able to improve the material to make it stand-alone worthy. I think this is also consistent with the debate if acknowledging that "fails notability" by any flavour of notability-test, does not necessarily mean "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
EHCP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted under the premise that the software is insubstantial and not noteworthy enough. The argument was made that only 720 servers running on this platform was insignificant, but such information is not conclusive. There remains substantial evidence that has not been presented yet, and cannot be presented if the article is deleted and unable to be recreated. For example, instead of considering the number of servers utilizing the software, a better determination would be how many websites are served from these servers. Since EHCP allows name based virtual hosting, the number of websites being served is potentially unlimited. Also, noteworthy but not considered is the fact that EHCP has been downloaded over 20,000 times. I find this "significant". Furthermore, the argument was made that insufficient documentation and references exist, even though this is not accurate. This is my first time posting on Wikipedia and so I'm sure I have omitted relevant information here. I ask that you please open the deletion of this article to further review and debate, so that evidence in reference to EHCP's "significance" may be presented. Again, I am not completely familiar with procedure here at Wikipedia, so I ask that you please guide me in this process if I am not presenting this correctly. Thank you.}} WiZZiK (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion; allow new draft version in userspace. Looking at the AfD, the arguments for deletion had merit, and the closing administrator properly judged consensus. Accordingly, the closure of the AfD was proper. If WiZZiK wants to start a new article on the subject, I suggest he start drafting it in userspace (User:WiZZiK/EHCP). If there are now reliable sources that have covered the subject, then the article can be moved back to the main encyclopedia. —C.Fred (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have evidence that the subject meets our inclusion standards then this is the place to present it for review. Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of servers running the software as 720 is irrelevant, the number of websites being served is irrelevant, the 20,000 downloads is irrelevant. The argument actually made in the deletion discussion was that there was no significant coverage, this is relevant, the standard general notability guideline demands non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Links to those sources can easily be provided for DRV to see. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There really do have to be some sources. Has nobody reviewed it in any publication at all? DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, lack of sources. And 750 servers is diddly-squat, I have more than that myself. Guy (Help!) 07:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If DGG supports deleting a page, that is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am pleased you think of me highly, but that's every bit as absurd as if I voted to keep every article where you said keep. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is simply that your standards for including content are so far lower than mine (which is not intended pejoratively; we are both entitled to our opinions and yours is one I value highly) that if you have satisfied yourself that an article is not worth including, I do not consider the matter worth investigating further. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me put it differently, then: I am not free from either error or idiosyncrasy, and I rely on other people, especially sensible people with different standards than mine , like yourself, to correct them. And I do not think we are that far apart.-- we would judge 80 or 90% of the time very similarly. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's true. I noticed once DGG tending to be more deletionist than the community on matters associated with libraries. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. WiZZiK, our standards for inclusion are pretty high, especially where there is a potential for promotion, which is always the case for software. See WP:N, and try Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Distant_Worlds (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The game in question has several review the first two I came across - http://www.outofeight.info/2010/04/distant-worlds-review.html - http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2010/01/distant-worlds-a-new-real-time-4x-space-strategy-game/ - Both of these existed at the time of the deletion request looking at the dates. On top of this IGN has a page for data-collation on the game (noteable enough yet?) - http://uk.pc.ign.com/objects/057/057464.html p.s. This "deletion review" process is very user-unfriendly so don't be surprised if I've done it all wrong. Moriarty (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion of this article was done claiming that it should be merged with Ukrainian Internet Association, although 1) The articles are only vaguely related(Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network was created by Ukrainian Internet Association, but after 10 years of existence it is mostly an independent body. and 2) The information from Ukrainian Internet Exchange Network article wasn't actually added into Ukrainian Internet Association article, it was simply deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkononenko (talk • contribs) 12:38, 29 April 2010

  • Endorse deletion There was a perfectly clear consensus to delete. the only dissent was from Rkononenko (the opener of this review), who said "I don't see any reason for it's deletion", but did not provide any reason for keeping, except an appeal that "other stuff exists". There was a suggestion in the AfD that any material worth keeping could be merged, but no support was given to the suggestion. Finally, if Rkononenko does think that there is any material worth merging then he/she is perfectly free to merge it, instead of recreating the deleted article (which he/she seems to have done) or seeking undeletion. The full and complete text of the recreated article was Ukrainian traffic exchange network - was established in 2000 by Ukrainian Internet Association and since then has become the biggest Internet Exchange Network in Ukraine. With more than 101 participating ISPs, peak bandwidth exceeding 140 Gbps/s and average daily traffic speed of more than 80 Gbit/s UA-IX is 9th biggest Internet exchange network in terms of peak bandwidth per second in the world. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sironta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have a new accurate version of this article and I would like to publish it, but it is protected and can be only done by administators.

Can any administrator verify my article and guide me if something is not right? I would like to help and be helped to increase the wikipedia.Marj9543(talk) 13:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the article wasn't deleted for being "inaccurate", it was deleted for lack of notability. Unless you can prove that things have changed substantially in the less than a month period since then, rewriting it isn't going to help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue for request. Create the new text in userspace (e.g., User:Marj9543/Sironta) and then ask the deleting administrator (RHaworth (talk)) if it is sufficiently improved that it can go back. —C.Fred (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, thanks! Marj9543(talk) 9:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
      • C.Fred, surely this is the correct venue for the request?
  • Endorse my deletion. Nothing has changed since the AfD closed only three weeks ago. The new draft contains no extra evidence of notability - the three PDFs referenced do not mention the product at all. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another references added: University of Surrey book talking about Sironta. Tamperee University link added, DEN4DEK project links added, OPAALS projects PDFs added, all of them referencing Sironta. More external links added. In my opinion, this article (User:Marj9543/Sironta) has the needed notability and references to be republished. Waiting to some admin to endorse it. --Marj9543 (talk) 10:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
New Life Children’s Refuge case (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was speedy deleted by John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) as G5 (i.e. "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others."). I'm not sure who the banned user in question is but I do know that I (and others) invested time in fixing the article, improving references and making sure it didn't get too speculative and confusing. I think my edits (for one) qualify as substantial. In any case, the project isn't served by the deletion of this page. Pichpich (talk) 01:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, you're comparing the wrong versions. My first edits have time stamp 20100316213729. Pichpich (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your first edit; you definitely improved the article before my first diff, however the vast majority is written by the banned user. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. If a user in good standing can vouch for the material, it should be allowed notwithstanding actions by a banned editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Vandenberg, do I understand correctly that you deleted the material in question because you were enforcing an Arbcom decision that was taken in private session? And do I understand correctly that Arbcom have made that decision, within Arbcom's normal remit, on the basis of information that is not available to the public? If my understanding is right, then my position is that DRV has no jurisdiction to overturn Arbcom in this matter. I think that Arbcom is the "highest court in the land" for conduct disputes. To the extent that there's a "highest court in the land" for content disputes, it's DRV, but Arbcom is the higher authority. My position is that DRV could decide to permit recreation of the deleted material by a user in good standing, and that might be the best course here, but I think the user in good standing should use their own words, not the words from the deleted content.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words: the user in good standing who already spent his volunteer time working on the article shall now spend his volunteer time rewriting an article that already exists but shall do so carefully because, hey, CC-BY-SA and everything. How about ArbCom rewrites the article? Pichpich (talk) 12:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's too bitter in tone. Still, if ArbCom or John (or any other admin) is really set on deleting the article because it was started by Satan or some moral equivalent, it seems to me that they should be responsible for rewriting a basic article to take its place. It's a boring hour of work but that should be part of mitigating the effect of a banned user. Pichpich (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Chill. If it comes to that, I'll personally write the stub.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My deletion of this specific article is not at the direction of Arbcom. However, the underlying decision to enforce the banning policy strictly with regards to this specific banned person has been upheld by successive Arbcoms over the years, and its enforcement has only been patchy at times where it has gone undetected or resources stretched.
    As you will know, I am usually at DRV trying to undelete articles, so I don't enjoy deleting them. My deletion doesn't prohibit someone else recreating the article, and I am happy to rewrite the article from scratch.
    I deleted this article because I consider it to be primarily written by one banned person, however I can understand Qrsdogg (talk · contribs) or Pichpich (talk · contribs) believing that their edits to this article would count as "substantial". Given the specifics of this case, I don't think their edits to this article are substantial enough to warrant this article being retained, but that is something the community will need to review. Arbcom or myself can give more details privately. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of tangential words below. John, please rewrite the article from scratch, and then I think we'll be done here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional procedral overturn. While I am willing to trust arbcom and the admin involved in the decision as the situation currently stands no accountability is there what so ever. From the evidence above this was clearly not a normal G5 and something more substantial should have been put in the deletion logs. I am also amazed that there appears to be no arbcom motion that describes the very basics so that there can be some accountabaility, even if it's as simple as something like "There is a complex case which we feel unable to make any details publicly avaliable. Deletions and reversions may be done by (insert editors here - presumbly arbcom, ex-arbcom and others in trusted posiitons and privy to the case) because of this and should not be reversed. Such deletions and reversions should reference this motion". To me the issue here is not trusting arbcom to do the job we elected them for but rather accountabality - at the very least editors should be able to know that it's because it of something that can't be made public that actions have been taken. At the moment it looks far too much like a rogue admin. Therefore I'm currently saying procedural overturn as I think it's important that the whole of wikipedia not only acts correctly but is seen to act correctly and that is not currently the case. If a 'paper' trail, even a very minimal one, is put in place then I'd change my vote to endorse. (At the moment I can think if no reason why the minimal trail I discuss above is likely to cause problems. If it is then I'd apprecaite a private message explaining, in very broad term, why). I realise that I've strayed out of the remit of DRV a but here but it explains my reasoning and I'm not quite sure where else to put it. Dpmuk (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Having thought about this a bit more I think my biggest concern is this: Wikipedia works on consensus. Actions are either taken after consensus or or open to review (e.g. reversion / talk page discussion in the case of edits, DRV in the case of deletions, the unblock template in the case of blocks). This helps ensure that a rogue editor / admin / bureaucrat can't do too much damage without it coming to people's attention. In this case an admin has deleted a page and there is now discussion over whether this is a DRV issue due to the ArbCom involvement. If it's not a DRV issue where's this review going to take place? There's no arbcom information about allowing such deletions in the first place, let alone details of how to query one (which would presumably be answered by another arbitrator or similar checking the firsts actions). Until such procedures are in place I think DRV has to handle this as there is no other venue (although a speedy close by an arbitrator with an appropiate comment may be the way to go). Dpmuk (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This DRV is a paper trail. ;-) I think that is the crux of your second comment. CSD G5 is part of the banning policy (see Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting). It is more typically seen with recently created pages when the sock is identified easily and early, and it is daft to apply it articles that have been well developed by the community. In between those extremes, .. is lots of room for discussion[11], admin discretion, and community review. As a result, I doubt that Arbcom would step in here. It isn't the end of the world if the deletion is overturned; if that happens, we'll just need to rewrite it from scratch. btw, I have added a few cases of overturned G5 to Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Overturned_speedy_deletions#G5_-_Created_by_banned_user. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My comments above (certainly the second comment and the 'paper trail' comment) were mainly aimed at explaining why I thought DRV had to have jurisdiction in reply to S Marshall's comments, something with which you seem to agree. If this is to be treated as a normal G5 then those comments are largely moot. However some of my concerns, are I believe, still valid. My understanding of the philosophy behind speedy deletion is that they should only be applied when an article would certainly be deleted at AfD. Obviously an administrator has to make a call as to whether an article meets the criteria but in cases such as this where established editors question an admins judgement on one of the subjective parts of the criteria (in this case "substantial edits") it is my opinion that the article should pretty much automatically be restored. Above you write "Given the specifics of this case, I don't think their edits to this article are substantial enough to warrant this article being retained, but that is something the community will need to review." However this is something we can't do as we don't know the specifics of the case - therefore either the specifics needs to be made publicly available (which seems unliekly) or we need comments from people that do know the specifics (hence my arbitrators comments above even, I wasn't expecting ArbCom action as such but rather comments from arbitrators as some of the few knowledgeable people). Sorry for the length my comments - I really need to get better at writing succinctly. Dpmuk (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This specifics arn't related to the content of this article; they are related to this banned user who created. As a result, I don't object to an admin undeleting the article in order for non-admins to better participate in this DRV.
    I wouldn't be deleting articles if the creator was merely banned for "wiki-sins". OTOH, there is no dispute among anyone who is familiar with this banned person that their continued involvement in the project is not wanted. i.e. in this case, I did lean more towards deleting due to which banned user created the article, and would consider an AfD to be a guaranteed delete decision if I was at liberty to provide a detailed justification publicly. This person has been in WP:RBI territory for a long time. I can show you thousands of reverts, performed by many functionaries and arbitrators spanning half a decade (gosh that sounds weird), and anyone reviewing the edits would consider most of the edits to be "good". I cant quickly grab links for the thousands, but here are 500 of mine from the Christmas/New Year period[12] and 130+ over the last few days[13]. In addition, I have done quite a few G5's related to this banned user.[14] You can see a few comments from a current arbitrator, two ex-arbitrators (excluding me) & one functionary at the last discussion.
    However the deleted article did contain contributions from other Wikipedians that went beyond mere new-page-patrol & gnoming, so I can understand this deletion decision being dragged to DRV. --John Vandenberg (chat) 10:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I take from John Vandenberg's response is that he is enforcing Arbcom-approved sanctions against a specific person. It follows that DRV has no jurisdiction in this matter and this DRV should be closed without result. However, I do see where Pichpich is coming from and have some sympathy with him. In the interests of FairProcess, I offer to rewrite this article or to collaborate with others in the rewriting of this article, such that Pichpich will not feel that he needs to repeat work he has already done.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sensible indeed. How about this. You rewrite a basic short article but keep all the references so that I can eventually rebuild a more thorough account without too much of a headache. Writing all the <ref> gazillion parameters </ref> is an absolute time waster but copy/pasting them from the deleted article shouldn't pose a problem from a copyright standpoint. Pichpich (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've pulled all the refs out and dropped them into User:John Vandenberg/HORM. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also just like to disagree with Dpmuk about whether it's appropriate for DRV to review Arbcom decisions. I'm quite confident that it is not. DRV is about content and process, not about the conduct matters that occupy Arbcom so much of the time. Maybe there is a need to have a body that reviews Arbcom decisions—I'm agnostic about that—but if so, that body should be one with a mandate to address conduct matters.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've miss understand my concerns. I'm not saying that DRV (or indeed anywhere) should review ArbCom decisions but there should be somewhere that reviews whether editors / admins etc have followed their decisions correctly when subjective decisions have to be made. Blocks etc made as a reuslt of ArbCom decisions are logged on the relevant page and the editor has a defined 'appeal' process. In the case of a subjectove deletion because of an arbcom decision I know of no way for that to be appealed, and especially in this case where there is not even an arbcom page on the issue, it seems to me that DRV is the only possible place to go. (If Arbcom says that page y should be deleted then I don't think there should be an appeal route. If arbcom were to say for example that "all pages meeting criteria x should be deleted" the I do think there should be some sort of place for a discussion as to whether the pages actually meet criteria x, which is different from challenging abrcom's actual decision). Dpmuk (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there's some discussion about the relationship between the various places to appeal (particularly DRV, AN, and Arbcom) here. It seems well established that in a matter of content, DRV is the "highest court" and an appeal against DRV would be heard here, except in rare cases where AN would be more appropriate. It also seems to be well established that in matters of conduct, Arbcom is the highest court.

    I think that DRV views itself as a low-drama zone, and a place with no jurisdiction over conduct matters. I also think we don't want jurisdiction over conduct. I think that if DRV is ever seen to overrule admins on enforcement of bans, or on matters of conduct, we'll immediately start to attract interest from people whose cases we aren't equipped, or properly constituted, to examine.

    I suppose I'm saying that where an admin is enforcing a conduct-related sanction, DRV really can't undermine them.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In principal I probably agree with you. The problem appears to me to be that deleting the contributions of a banned user falls into both the conduct and content arenas (the former due to conduct of a banned user, the latter due to deleting content) and at the moment it seems such deletions might fall through the cracks as it's not clear where they should be appealed to. In the lack of any clear place to appeal at ArbCom there appears to, currently, be no other choice but here, no matter how far from ideal that is. I'm tempted to start an RfC or two on these issues as this isn't really the proper forum but given the comments above and else where I'm wary that would be straying very far from WP:RBI and so may cause problems so at the moment I'm continuing to comment here. Dpmuk (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joel Weiner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Joel Weiner's page was deleted on the grounds of lack of notability and I wish to appeal. I contacted the admin who deleted and they said I should appeal here.

I've collected some links of independent sources on Joel Weiner.

There have also been many printed newspapers featuring articles on him; here is one I found that you can view online (page 2).

The above list included six national newspapers.

Rejection of WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E: At the time of the deletion, there were two events, one in October last year and one in April this month. Since the deletion, he has appeared in relation to other events such as http://www.thejc.com/community/community-life/30824/tv-star-joel-weiner-joins-big-bnei-akiva-event and most notably was asked by The Jewish Chronicle to put a question to each of his local MPs which was in print, but I have found to be online at http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/30843/leaders-debate-jewish-boy-puts-more-questions-leaders

WP:BASIC is met by multiple independent sources, as noted above. WP:ENT clause 2 incidentally is also met; he has a fan base on facebook exceeding 15,000 people: http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Jewish-Kid-From-The-First-Election-Debate/110963155604635

For these reasons, I believe there should be an article. Thank you. 930913/A930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 23:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Endorse, transient notability and trivial coverage only. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, the coverage is more of the event itself rather than on the child. WP:BLP1E is pretty clear that "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" then they do not meet the criteria of being article-worthy. Any lasting coverage of this kid is still going to be tied to this single (asking the same thing a year ago doesn't quite cut it btw, the mention of that is happening only because of the current one). The other aspect of 1E that can justify an article is the "significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources" bit. This was one political debate, and hardly one of lasting historical significance. There is no administrator fault that needs to be corrected here (that is what DRV is for, it isn't AfD Chapter Two). Tarc (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Kite correctly determined the consensus, but, it was a very stupid consensus. Joel Wiener is now a redlink that encourages inexperienced users to write a new article, and we do need to fix that. No blame attaches to Black Kite, but I think we must overturn the consensus itself to a redirect to Question Time British National Party controversy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what create-protection is for. The subject is non-notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 19:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salting's for pages subject to repeated recreation against consensus. You know as well as I do that it's not an appropriate pre-emptive measure. Redirection's to take people from a search term to the place where they can find information, and has the helpful side-effect of stopping people from creating multiple articles on very similar subjects. It can be used pre-emptively.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You know as well as I do that it's not an appropriate pre-emptive measure." I genuinely fail to see any distinction between the use of salting as a pre-emptive measure and the use of redirection as a pre-emptive measure, except that the latter suggests that the subject is slightly notable. (I also have no problem with simply having an unprotected red link, at least until we get enough trouble to "justify" create-protection.) ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 19:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If 1 kilowarhol doesn't make someone notable, what does? --930913/A930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 06:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC) — A930913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Adherence to our notability policy. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 08:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
TeraByte Unlimited (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

TeraByte Unlimited has high notoriety and meets notability requirements. The article is informative and fact based. Even though this company doesn't do much advertising, its products and the company itself has been covered by most major computer publications over the past decade as well as respected online resources by MVP's and others. The company and their products have also been recommended by Dell tech support staff (call up the IT/business division support and ask about resizing the server drives), Microsoft (microsoft link from technet for MSSCT http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=46756), and others. Their products are used by different divisions and test labs (including ibm prefab labs) of the largest computer related manufacturers from Japan to the USA. The company and their products have been mentioned in book publications, some of which can be found via http://books.google.com/books?as_brr=0&as_pub=-icon&q=%22TeraByte+Unlimited%22. The BING trademark issues was nothing but a blip for this company (they barley mention anything about it) and has been resolved (http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=331907&sc=101). It seems the main person responsible for deletion request either has a motive or only consider company's that issue a large number of advertising press releases as being notable. Dfatwp (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those appear to passing references. I don't see anything in-depth that would support an article about the company, per WP:CORP. Pcap ping 17:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company entry supports the products all of which have a high notoriety and the techonolgy overall they created. The question is who is this company that is so highly recommended by so many of the top PC industry leaders and that is the answer.
    • A better question posed by the WP:GNG is, if this company is so important to the world at large, where is that evidenced by the world wanting to write about them in a non-trivial way in mulitple independant reliable sources? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • see note added below.
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't really understand how this all works. But in general a company is attached to the products it creates. For most it's the products and not the company that matter and having short concise information on the company of notable products makes logical since and keeps things more organized. There aren't many product related companies that stand on their own without products including publicly traded companies in NDX/OEX/etc..
      • Notability isn't inherited. Having short concise info on the company might make sense if you were trying to create a directory of software and producers, however this is an encyclopedia project. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Redirecting was a valid interpetation of the discussion on the closing admin's part. While my commentary in the below DRV entry for BootIt Next Generation applies here as well, in this case I would caution Dfatwp that he has not really demonstrated stand-alone notability under the general notability guideline for TeraByte Unlimited. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
BootIt Next Generation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This product has high notoriety and meets notability requirements. The article is very informative, interesting, and fact based. Even though this company doesn't do much advertising, its products and the company itself has been covered by most major computer publications over the past decade as well as respected online resources by MVP's and others. Here are some references:

- *Partition & Boot Managers - CPU Magazine Review Article - *BootIt NG Recommendation On LangaList - *Jason's ToolBox Review of BootIt NG - *Converting FAT32 to NTFS at Aumha.org The BING trademark issues was nothing but a blip for this company (they barley mention anything about it) and has been resolved (http://www.theguardian.pe.ca/index.cfm?sid=331907&sc=101). It seems the main person responsible for deletion request either has a motive or only consider company's that issue a large number of advertising press releases as being notable. Dfatwp (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • With the exception of Computer Power User, I'm not sure what makes the other sources reliable. I cannot access the CPU article (registration/paywall), so I can't say anything about its coverage of BootIt NG. Pcap ping 17:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can people please sign their posts? Stifle (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Redirecting was a valid interpetation of the discussion on the closing admin's part. However, any editor is capable of undoing the redirection and adding better sourcing to the article. If other editors object to such actions being taken, discussion can occur on the talk page. That's probably the best course for Dfatwp to take in this case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirection of BING has nothing to do with the notable product BootIt Next Generation. I've already listed several articles and references to computer media resources of substance where the product is recommended over all other products in the same categories from industry experts and leaders (including editors choice at CPU magazine). In addition, the BING article gave a history that shows where technology originated and how it came about. If you can get a court order to get access to Intel and Microsoft emails and communications you can then have your reference of the EFI and GPT concepts coming from the EMBR spec and Intel's going to and working with MS on the GPT with EMBR reference in hand. But review of the EMBR spec will clearly show by applying common sense that the concepts are the same. System level drivers, larger partition table, etc.. Dfatwp (talk) 02:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, notability is not inherited. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image for Windows (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This product has notoriety and meets notability requirements. The article is informative and fact based. Even though this company doesn't do much advertising, its products and the company itself has been covered by most major computer publications over the past decade as well as respected online resources by MVP's and others. The product won bronze in the 2008 community choice awards for Windows IT Pro magazine and one of the top three recommended disk imaging packages. (This link no longer works but that's where it should be http://windowsitpro.com/awards/CommunityChoiceWinners2008.html). Here are some additional references:

Since its release in 2002, the product has always had the ability to image windows systems reliable while in use even before other companies like powerquest or symantec had the technology (or even where MS then copied the technology). It's always important to know who actually creates the technologies. In addtion, that technology was licensed by certain parties to provide the technology in its core products. One of which is LANDesk *LANDesk Support Tools List at Creighton University. In addition, searching google for "Image for Windows" yields a couple hundred thousand references (probably not all there b where 99.99% are related to TeraByte Unlimited and not scion which product name appears to be image and always includes scion and even on the scion website you can't find reference to it as being a product, see http://www.scioncorp.com/pages/product_prices.htm and is no way scion more notable than TeraByte Unlimited. It seems the main person responsible for deletion request either has a motive or only consider company's that issue a large number of advertising press releases as being notable. It should also be noted that the top ten reviews site that is mentioned is nothing more than an affiliate marketing site, typically providing incorrect information on the imaging products, and higher price and percentage of payment makes a difference so using that for any type of references would be bad (half the products there no one even considers to be a player). Dfatwp (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn for this one. This was part of a rather confusing group nomination. Practically nobody explicitly supported the deletion of this one in the AfD. This particular product appeared marginally notable to me shortly after my nomination; I added a couple of refs and stuck it from the nom. Here's another review in a comparison article at [15] Computerworld. The dab page should be kept though, and the history moved to a Image for Windows (disk imaging), or similar, to distinguish it from Scion's product with the same name, which has considerably more google books ([16] vs [17]) and scholar hits [18]. Pcap ping 16:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I'm not sure of the other two, but this one seems to have sufficient sourcing. I think it is inherently confusing to do a goup nomination unless it is immediately obvious that the different articles have the same degree of notability , sourcing, and other relevant characteristics. Otherwise we run too great a risk of keeping some junk, or deleting something that isn't. The AfD guidelines need some revisions to give proper cautions about this. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn as there was little explicit support for deleting this content, and the subject appears to be notable under our guidelines. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 April 2010

[edit]

25 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Egersund IK (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted per CSD#A7. I have asked the deleting administrator to reconsider, a request that was declined. The article created by a new editor and included a long history section that clearly showed that the club have been active for more than 90 years in Norway, and have made a not insignificant impact. The article needed work with references and wikification, but it was a great start and it certainly did not meet WP:CSD#A7. For the non-admins here, the article is cached at Google. Rettetast (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Not speedy material to me. Although it's in the 4th division nowadays, the article indicates that the club was in the 2nd division in the 1940s and 50s. Too many itchy admins lately... Time to instate a speedy desysop procedure for stuff like this. That'll show'em! Pcap ping 09:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio? if the cached version is the same one it appears to be a more or less straight cut and paste from here --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and then delete again as a copyvio; 82.7.40.7's hunch is correct. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with the above comment, by admin Stifle (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete as copyvio, and permission to create a proper article My experience is that a not insignificant percentage of articles , including blp, proposed for deletion as lacking any sources, do in fact have an obvious copyvio source. Time to require WP:BEFORE, both to get keepable articles kept, and more easily dispose of the others. As a general matter, an admin asked to restore as not meeting A7, who agrees it has a claim to importance, but refuses to restore because of not lacking sources, is essentially doing a speedy on the basis of not having sources --which is not a speedy criterion. I usually respond to such requests like: Yes I will restore it if you insist , but it would be better to improve it first and then just resubmit it, or it will not stand at a regular deletion process. People generally take that advice. . DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion because another speedy deletion criterion - G12 - applies. It therefore doesn't really matter that A7 doesn't. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, delete as copyvio; article included credible enough assertions of significance; may be process wonkery, but leaves clear enough signals for anyone interested in writing a legit article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Astrotite (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A7 for a software article. This was raised during the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFA (file format). I've notified the admin who deleted this, but he isn't around. Pcap ping 05:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary restoration would be necessary if you want to go that route.--we cannot afd an invisible article. Without seeing it, how will people be able to look for sources?. 16:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
By searching for its name, which apparently was invented for this software, so not used for anything else? Anyway, since you're an admin, you could do a temp restore instead of asking this rhetorical question. Feel free to restart the 7 day clock on the AfD once you do so, just so shameless self-promoters get the benefit of the doubt in triplicate on Wikipedia. Pcap ping 23:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brett Clouser (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 April 2010

[edit]

23 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Padrino Framework (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A ruby programmer (first paid for computer programming in 1966), who has nothing to do with the Padrino framework, hereby, states that Padrino is an important ruby web framework. That ruby programmer, while doing research, decided to see what Wikipedia had to say about it and was quite surprised to see a large ugly deletion notice and commented that that notice looked like vandalism. That ruby programmer also noted that the fellow who was trying in vain to defend his project from deletion was accused of being biased or not objective or some such thing. That ruby programmer is of the opinion that deleting the Padrino framework is senseless and that the editors should learn the difference between newness and lack of notability. 213.213.139.124 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion- No reliable sources were in the article, and none were provided in the AFD, and the consensus was accurately read by the closing admin. While this may seem unfair, I urge you to check out our guidelines on notability and reliable sources for what is and what isn't acceptable for an article. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as there was a clear consensus to delete, and please consider the helpful comments of Nuujinn in the AfD and of Umbralcorax above. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse. No valid, policy based reason given for overturning the decision. This is the reason we have our conflict of interest guideline, to encourage dispassionate objective review of material by persons who have no personal stake in it. With language like ""Padrino" is a ruby web framework built upon the excellent Sinatra Microframework. Sinatra is a DSL for creating simple web applications in Ruby with speed and minimal effort. This framework makes it as fun and easy as possible to code increasingly advanced web applications by expanding upon Sinatra while maintaining the spirit that made it great" I don't think a deletion debate was even warranted, this is blatantly promotional and could have been speedy deleted as such Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as above. No sources, no article. Also, "that ruby programmer" should take note that appeal to authority arguments are unlikely to work on Wikipedia, especially when the authority is anonymous and the claim to authority is as weak as claiming to have been paid for programming 44 years ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There's no other way that debate could have been read, and you've not provided any sources to justify having this article in this review. As to the distinction between newness and notability; you're partially right, there is somewhat of a lag there. New things are discovered/created before they're written about in secondary sources, but until those sources exist, the article can not exist either. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as AfD nominator. The reason why I nominated the article for deletion was due to a lack of notability and reliable sources. While "Padrino Framework" returns some hits, none of them are reliable sources. Feel free to recreate when enough reliable sources have been found and notability is established. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow endorse. The discussion did not have any other possible reasonable closure. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Wemmick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion involved one editor arguing for deletion—myself as nominator—and two arguing to keep: clearly an inadequate to form a solid consensus (it should at the very least have been closed as "no consensus"), and in my opinion, the debate should have been relisted for further discussion, as other 2-1 !vote situations generally are done. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 18:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In many cases a low-traffic AFD would indeed be relisted, but it is not required. In this case the article was changed during the course of the debate. Before:[19] After: [20]. These changes included adding multiple sources and removing original research, fixing the exact problems that led to it being nominated for deletion. This is a good thing, an article was improved thanks to your nominating it for deletion, look at it that way. In short, while I acknowledge that it is a bit unusual, the closure seems valid as the end result is a positive one for Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think it extremely unlikely that we would delete an article on a significant dickens character, after it has been substantially improved and adequately sourced. appropriate closure. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep Close was within reasonable discretion, and frankly, a delete outcome seems pretty unlikely, given that this was a Dickens character and had survived another relatively recent AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Only the nominator argued for deletion, and in particular, no-one disputed the reliability or sufficiency of the sources added as the AfD progressed. Closing as keep was valid, and preferable to clogging up AfD with another relist. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with extreme prejudice It's not about voting, it's not about time, it's about making sure the articles we keep are worth keeping. The sources added during the AfD justify a keep close even if no single editor had cast a "keep" !vote in the AfD discussion. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin – I based my close on strength of argument even though admittedly this was a relatively low-participation AfD. (AfD #1, which closed in March, drew a little more participation with relisting.) The argument in favour of deletion was that the article was based mostly on original research and was completely unsourced, and there was skepticism as to whether it could be sourced. Ginsengbomb went ahead and removed the OR and added multiple citations. No one argued that the sources added were problematic. The consensus might have been clearer if more editors other than Ginsengbomb and DGG had looked at the sources added and said, "yes these help to support notability", but to me it seemed clear enough. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Soundly reasoned close. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close was entirely correct; relisting this would have been a use of more time to reach the same result in a week's span. After improvements, this article wasn't going to go anywhere, and no one other than the nominator ever advanced that it should. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow endorse, with applause to Paul Erik for having the courage to make the obvious call instead of timidly relisting.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Left Right Think Tank (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted for lack of notability. Those in favour of deletion argued there was an inadequate number of reputable third-party sources. However, I believe the following articles - the overwhelming majority of which were not presented as evidence in the original inquiry - necessitate the alternative conclusion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oR4gMIkfs8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-g0q7CuWKU

http://www.leftright.org.au/%27Evenings%20with%20Derek%20Guille%27%20Radio%20Interview%20on%20774ABC%20Melbourne,%2023%20March%202009.mp3

http://www.leftright.org.au/heraldsun170309.pdf

http://www.youthcentral.vic.gov.au/ViewPage.action?repositoryName&siteNodeId=1993&CurrentFolderID=1966&ItemID=12325

http://www.leftright.org.au/hansard041208.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/pdf/Hansard_3.2.10.pdf

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20080723/broader-political-debate.html

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20090408/leftright.html

http://www.leftright.org.au/uwanews280708.pdf

http://www.standard.net.au/news/local/news/general/youths-want-change/1804436.aspx

LETTERS OF SUPPORT

http://www.leftright.org.au/costello221008.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/hollingworth171108.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/pyne101208.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/pdf/gillard290909.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/mirabella220109.pdf

http://www.leftright.org.au/ellis130309.pdf


Though not exhaustive, I think this list is sufficient to establish notability (talk).

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The "sources" all fail one or more of reliable, independent, secondary or non-trivial. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer of original AFD. The deleted version of the article had zero references, and a full week was given to correct the problem. Most of the above links do not qualify as reliable sources. Letters of support and the group's own website are obviously not independent sources. "Youth Central" is user generated content with minimal oversight [21]. The article in "The Standard" contains only a trivial, passing mention of this group. The remaining sources may contain enough on which to base a new article, but I believe the decision to delete the previous version was valid. It would be nice if the tv news coverage was hosted somewhere other than YouTube, preferably the station's own website. I'd be happy to provide a copy of the deleted version as a userpage draft to use as a starting point, but unless and until the content of the article is directly verified by the sources it should not be in article space. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original article was nominated for deletion for lack of notability, not lack of references. Though they are linked, all of the above sources are independent of the website. (talk)
References are how notability is established. References are also how content is verified. Letters of support or other content hosted on the group's own website are not independent reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Claudia Lynx (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This person is clearly not a notable individual. Her biggest claim to fame is minor role in one episode of the West Wing many years ago, which is about as notable as any of the million struggling model/actors in Los Angeles can claim. Essentially she is a model of no particular prominence. This page was probably created as a self-marketing piece.

Deletion of this page was an AfD suggestion in 2007. A majority of those commenting essentially agreed with the nomination for deletion, but the result was "no consensus." Kmehrabi (talk) 05:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to come here if it was closed as no consensus so long ago; all you need to do is renominate it for another AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nelson Cubs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD was closed as consensus keep, but all the keep !votes were of the form "team has played at X level so is inherently notable" whereas delete !votes commented that the article has no reliable independent sources. The sports notability guideline is a guideline only, showing the kind of team that is likely to meet the criteria for inclusion. In order to verify the content and ensure its neutrality (policies), reliable independent sources are required. There is also consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory, though this is clearly in dispute. Google finds around 100 unique hits, among which I did not see anything that amounts to a non-trivial independent reliable source, and Google Books finds no relevant hits at all. Notability is not inherent, it requires sources. This lacks sources therefore should have been deleted. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- Consensus was accurately read by Stifle. In reading the AFD, DJSasso came up with a compelling reason for keeping, based on the GNG (and perhaps a dash of IAR. That the article is lacking in references now is not a dealbreaker, as we're not exactly in a hurry. And since this isn't an unsourced BLP, or a (as far as we know) a copyvio, there's no compelling reason to override consensus and delete the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of votes to keep does not override the consensus that Wikipedia is not a directory and articles must have reliable independent sources. This close endorses the view that there is no need to actually source articles, merely to assert that they could be sourced if we cared enough. Except that my searches indicated to me that this one probably can't. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That articles absolute must have reliable sources is a rule, true. However, much like almost all of the rules here, if there is consensus to do so, they may be ignored for what the consensus perceives is the greater good of the encyclopedia. That is what happened here. And while your search for sources online may have not yielded results, the crux of the argument for this ignoring of the rules is that sources for something of this nature are unlikely to be online. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reluctantly because it isn't an outcome I'm happy with but it was the right outcome based on the debate. WP:GNG can be put to one side in an AfD as it is only a guideline that creates a presumption of notability, but WP:V can't. In this case, at least a couple of participants pointed to the fact that WP:V means verifiable, not verified, and made arguments that the information in this article satisfied the former test. I reckon this article can be given a few weeks to see if the test of verifiability is met. If no sources are added to the article, which I think entirely likely, renominate it and I'll !vote delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't like closing that as keep but any other closure would have ended up here anyway. Stifle (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's certainly an element of administrative discretion in deciding what the consensus was, but administrative discretion only goes so far. In the absence of any evidence of sockpuppetry (and there was no such evidence here) then such a very clear majority of debate participants !voting in a particular way represents a consensus. The question before us, therefore, is: in what circumstances does a local consensus of this kind get to overrule a global consensus such as those Guy cites?

    In my opinion the answer is that a small local consensus shall always fail in the face of, for example, copyvios or attack pages, where there is a clear and compelling need to protect Wikipedia. It may fail in the face of BLP violations (though the allegation that something's a BLP violation is often made falsely). But the local consensus typically prevails in the face of content guidelines. This is the essence of IAR.

    In this case, we have the right close but the wrong outcome. I shall endorse Stifle's close as being the only option available to him, but I also wish to relist the debate in the hope of a new consensus that takes more account of the relevant guidelines.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

22 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Trains (video game) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

During the Afd discussion no secondary sources or non-trivial mentions had been found. Rainbows and trains, a 1984 InfoWorld article, reviews the software and comes to a positive conclusion: "Trains is quality software with good graphics ..." To me, this establishes notability.Cheers --Make (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As it turns out, this DRV is more formal than I anticipated. It's the first time I started something like this, so please allow me to add some explanation. --
(1) I think the decision by User:Juliancolton in July 2009 was right. During discussion noone was able to produce a source that established notability. One reason might be, that "trains" as a search term is more than common.
(2) Concerning the reliability of InfoWorld#History: This is not a publication for gamers, but a weekly business/trade publication for information technology specialists. Articles about Games are rare. --Make (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn It indeed seems to have gotten a bit. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:ZwillingeStampSWA1985.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to request a deletion review of this file.

  • I have been unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the deleting adminstrator User:Fastily
  • I believe the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly
  • I believe significant new information has been added to the article which renders the image's ommision detrimental to readers understanding
  • I believe that image's presence would assist in the identification of the stamp

I believe that image was being used to identify (not merely 'illustrate') the stamp. The image's presence, in my view, significantly increased readers' understanding of the topic of the section 'Zwillinge (Locomotives)#The Stamp' and its omission is detrimental to that understanding. So it seems to me it passes WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8.

The proposer of the deletion User:Ww2censor is I think operating a far tighter criteria than is stated in our policy. His suggestion was that "stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image". I think the key things here are whether the image is being used to aid in the identification of the stamp and the use of "necessity". It seems that a criteria stronger than our polices is being used. I have tried to raisie these issues with the deleting admin and but only got a reply from Ww2censor. His reply seemed to me to just ignore rather than adress my questions and just be a restating of his interpretation of policy. User_talk:Fastily/Archive_3#File:ZwillingeStampSWA1985.jpg

That is it looks to me like in Ww2censor's view one cannot use a stamp to allow the identification of a stamp in a section of an article on a stamp unless the article itself is on the stamp or the stamp itself is worthy of an article.

Only one other editor User:Seresin commented and he asserted that it "Fails NFCC.8 as seeing the stamp is unnecessary for comprehension"

But NFCC.8 is on 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.

These seem to me significantly different from User:Seresin's "unnecessary for comprehension".

I have tried but been unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator and I think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly if one is judging against our stated policy rather than a vote.

Also I have added, what I think is, significant new information since deletion to try to improve things. In short I think even more so than previously the omission of the image of the stamp is detrimental to reader's understanding of the topic of the section and the ability to identify the stamp. Anyway Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

PS: Users Fastily and Ww2censor have had little notes put on their talk pages about this being brought here (Msrasnw (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Overturn this is a question of whether the "topic" is intended to mean the topic of the article, or the particular topic or point within the article. Requiring the very narrow interpretation here is like requiring that every person or thing mentioned in an article be notable, which would make it almost impossible to write about any but the broadest topics. If we're interested in communicating information, the information within an article is what needs to be communicated properly. Images cannot be described properly in words. If a stamp is being discussed in an article, and is relevant to the overall subject, it should if possible be illustrated. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equivocal, and I think we need more information. Stamps are copyrighted, and on Wikipedia NFCC8 is taken very seriously and given great weight. I do accept that the image would significantly readers' understanding of the topic, but the law is the law. Some postage stamps do present unique complexities because it could be convincingly argued that Wikipedia has wide latitude to use images in Crown Copyright. (The image fair use criteria need revising to take proper account of Crown Copyright, by the way.) But would a South African stamp from 1985 be covered by Crown Copyright in any case? SA left the Commonwealth in 1961 and did not rejoin until 1995, and even while in the Commonwealth, I'm not sure if there is a concept of Crown Copyright in South African law. In the absence of clear information on this, I think administrators have a duty to be very rigid in respecting copyright and while I recognise Msrasnw's case has some merit, I am not yet convinced that its merits are strong enough to justify overturning Fastily's decision.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on copyright - This stamp's copyright is a bit complex I think. It is a South West African stamp produced by the illegal South African colonial authority - "In 1971, acting on a request for advisory opinion from the United Nations Security Council, the ICJ ruled that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and that South Africa was under an obligation to withdraw from Namibia immediately. It also ruled that all member states of the United Nations were under an obligation to recognize the invalidity of any act performed by South Africa on behalf of Namibia" like perhaps the issuing of stamps!
I have asked here for help but nothing yet - Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyright_status_of_South_West_African_Stamps_.281985.29.3F(Msrasnw (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You might want to try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as well. Jafeluv (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I have now asked there. - By the way have been in email contact with both SA post and Namib post but no joy yet.(Msrasnw (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment I've deduped the references in the article. The section on the stamp is referenced to two places (1) A blog - see WP:RS and (2) Pictures of the postmark - i.e. it's pretty much unreferenced. The text also seems pretty much contrived to attempt to justify inclusion of the image - "The locomotives there depicted are marked 2A and 2B." seems to have little encyclopedic worth, and certainly isn't "critical commentary", "The name of the Otjimukoka station on the notice-board on stamp, written in German - Gothic script, was changed in 1903 to Johann Albrechtshöhe and again changed later on to Albrechts" - is pretty much nothing to do with the stamp or the locomotive. Remove those two sentences and the stuff about the postmark and the section on the stamp comes down to "A painting by Koos van Ellinckhuijzen of a Zwillinge was used on one of a set of four commemorative locomotive South West African postage stamps issued in 1985." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Copyrighted stamps should only be used in the article about the stamp, if there is one, and to discuss the stamp itself. Not something on the stamp. Of course, if it is proven to be PD, then it's all fine. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the debate hinged around interpretation of WP:NFCC#8, and I think the views expressed on both sides were reasonable. Overall, I think the close was well within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (defaulting to keep). The stamp is discussed in the article: Zwillinge (Locomotives)#The Stamp and Post Mark. There's no requirement in NFCC#8 that a separate article need exist, as posited above. There was no consensus in the original discussion either (2:1 for delete). One of the delete arguments as "unnecessary for comprehension", which is again not a criteria in NFCC; the wording is "detrimental to that understanding". WP:NFCI#3 explicitly allows stamps for indentification purposes, even without commentary. But there's a fair bit of (sourced) commentary about the stamp itself in this case, so meets NFCI#4 as well, and possibly NFCI#8 as well, as historical image. Pcap ping 09:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Songs from the Tainted Cherry Tree (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article discussion was deleted (or i just cant find it, please tell me if you do).
The album article was originally deleted for failing WP:HAMMER. According to that logic it should be recreated since the cover art has been reveled as well as the track listing along with the release date, i now believe it meets with WP:NALBUMS.
Link to cover and tracklisting below : "[22]". Please share your thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by L-l-CLK-l-l (talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Songs_From_The_Tainted_Cherry_Tree. I42 (talk)
  • Endorse close. WP:NALBUMS states "unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" and "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release". Merely having a release date, tracklisting and cover art does not demonstrate significant independent coverage. I would be willing to reconsider if sufficient independent coverage is located - all I could find was primary, retailer info (not sufficiently independent), or a single piece in the Daily Telegraph which was an interview with Vickers so still not really independent. Most coverage appears to be interested in the single. There is no hurry; this article can be restored when the album in released next month - and in the meantime it can be developed in readiness at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Songs_From_The_Tainted_Cherry_Tree. I42 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the avoidance of doubt - the references cited by Hobit, below, are not the sufficient independent coverage I was hoping for. The articles are all about the artist and her single, and quote Vickers herself, who obviously has a record to promote. The mentions of the album are in passing, or primary, or both - they do not seem to anything like the "significant independent coverage" that is required. Now, an independent review of the album itself from a major source would be different - and as of today such a thing does seem to exist, at the BBC. It's not a favourable review, but it is a review - and I think it tips the edge towards notability. I42 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation [23], [24], [25], [26]m [27], [28] etc. would seem to meet WP:N. signed late: Hobit (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Informatica (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Informatica Corporation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Note: The article in question, originally at Informatica has been speedily deleted by User:JzG as G11: [29]. Pcap ping 04:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walery (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TO: Wikipedia administrators FROM: Debbie O’Brien, VP Corporate Communications, Informatica Corporation

Informatica Wikipedia Page – request for deletion review


The Wikipedia page about Informatica Corporation was recently deleted due to the inclusion of materials deemed to be promotional. We regret that these materials were posted to the Informatica page and request that you review the following, which we would like to propose as the text for a new Wikipedia page about Informatica.

Moving forward, we will remain alert to any changes made to the content and language of the page, and will be active in reaching out to the appropriate administrators to ensure that all standards are met for Informatica information on Wikipedia.


Proposed text:

Informatica Corporation is a provider of data integration and data quality software and services for a wide range of businesses, industries and government organizations, including financial services, health care, public sector, telecommunications and insurance. The company’s products support various enterprise-wide data integration and data quality solutions including data warehousing, data migration, data consolidation, data synchronization, data governance, master data management, cross-enterprise data integration, complex event processing and cloud data integration.

Informatica comprises numerous business units which include: Enterprise Data Integration, Data Quality, Cloud Data Integration, Application Information Lifecycle Management (ILM), Complex Event Processing (CEP), Master Data Management (MDM), Ultra Messaging and B2B.

History: Informatica (NASDAQ: INFA) was founded in 1993 in Silicon Valley by Indian Entrepreneurs Gaurav Dhillon and Dianz Nesamoney . It was based on the idea that data warehouses should not be "handcoded", but instead can be built more efficiently with graphical tools. Software industry veteran Sohaib Abbasi became chief executive of Informatica in July, 2004 at a time when the data integration software company was struggling financially and with its identity. Abbasi took the helm and refocused the company on a narrower set of products, while evangelizing the broader use of data integration across the enterprise. Under his leadership, Informatica’s revenues have grown from $219 million in fiscal 2004 to over $500 million in fiscal 2009.

Acquisitions:

  • Influence Software, an analytics applications company in 1999.
  • Zimba Software, a mobile business intelligence company in 2000.
  • Striva, maker of standards-based mainframe connectivity software in 2003.
  • Similarity Systems, maker of data quality products in 2006.
  • Itemfield, maker of data mapping and transformation technology in 2007.
  • Identity Systems, an identity resolution technology company in 2008.
  • Applimation, an application Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) company in 2009.
  • Address Doctor, a pioneer and leader in global address validation technology in 2009.
  • Agent Logic, maker of Complex Event Processing software in 2009.
  • Siperian, maker of Master Data Management software in Jan 2010.
  • 29West, Ultra-Low Latency Messaging company in March 2010.

Outbound Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Integration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_quality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_Data_Management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_event_processing http://quotes.nasdaq.com/asp/SummaryQuote.asp?symbol=INFA&selected=INFA http://www.informatica.com/news_events/press_releases/Pages/01282010_q4_earnings.aspx

Inbound Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohaib_Abbasi

  • 'Comment It looks like the article just mentioned, Sohaib Abbasi, needs considerable attention. It seems to have been here is about its present state for several years, which is pretty disgraceful. A dozen small technical format changes were made, but that was attention paid to the wrong level of problem. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed text doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article to me. (An encyclopaedia article would begin, "Informatica is a medium-sized Californian company founded in 1993" and then immediately go on to say what's actually notable about it, which I'm at a loss to do. And we can't use text supplied by the organisation, it's a clear conflict of interest.) What we need is information published in third party reliable sources that are independent of the article's subject that we can use to construct a proper article, and I'm not sure that such information exists. I also suspect that the reason Informatica wants a Wikipedia article is essentially to generate sales enquiries; a Wikipedia article enhances its image.

    On balance I think that if Informatica is noteworthy, some independent editor will write an article about it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn: delete the dab and restore the original article that was under Informatica before April 7. The only plausible dabbing is from Acta Informatica (an article I created), and that can be done by a hatnote if at all. Someone added two ridiculously obscure Easter European CS journals to the dab, but I've nuked those. Try creating articles for them first—they are far more likely to qualify for a CSD than this corporation ever was. Never mind a russian word added to the dab: what happened to WP:NOTDICT? None of the two dozen incoming links [30] are about any of this "disambiguation" stuff. Informatica is indeed a notable corporation. The deleted article doesn't read like over the top spam to me. The company even meets the much stricter German Wikipedia standards for corporations: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatica. I'm sure less drastic measures that deleting the entire article can be found. Independent sources are easily found. There's a 150 page chapter about their products in this book for instance. More book coverage [31]. The Sohaib Abbasi bio (he's the company's CEO) has more Forbes coverage in the last section, etc. A narrow search for "informatica 9", the latest version of their main product, returns 191 gnews hits. (Article history: The article was originally at Informatica, and was speedily deleted by User:JzG as G11 [32], and a new article dab was written over [33]. Rather ridiculous. The Informatica Corporation was a redirect deleted by a bot [34].) Pcap ping 04:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn-The article was originally deleted under G11 which states:

    Unambiguous advertising or promotion
    Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

    — G11-Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

While the deleted article wasn't of high quality, it should not have been speedied. Informatica has a quarterly revenue of $135m [35]. It is indeed a notable company that should have an article. (A google news search shows that there are a sufficient number of articles on the company).Smallman12q (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletions of obvious COI PR puffery like this. The requester, Walery, has precisely one contribution to Wikipedia and the request is headed "VP Corporate Communications, Informatica Corporation" - so, blatant promotion hits it smack on the head. If anyone provably not connected with the company wants to create a real article some time then let them, but this was not such an article. Does that sound like I hate spammers abusing Wikipedia to promote their own commercial gain? If so, I said it right. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unsurprised you're endorsing your own deletion. Wikipedia has a massive hole when it comes to our corporate coverage, especially if they're business2business, and offer nothing visible to the general public. The PR "puffery" that you describe is not unique, take a look at Convergys and Sykes Enterprises, you'd be hard pressed to find a corporate article a paragon of quality. But this hole isn't going to be filled by speedying anything that smacks of an ill defined puffery. Wikipedia should be working with corporations, and encourage them to identify themselves and write articles following Wikipedia guidelines. That User:Walery has identified themselves is a positive. Sure, there are COI issues, but it's not like any political/middle east/climate change article doesn't have them. Maybe we should let third parties write corporate articles for payment following Wikipedia guidelines, but the last time that sensible idea was tried out, we dicked on the user involved, and administrators complained over "subtle biases" that are so subtle that we're not aware of, yet are influenced by anyway. We should have engaged with the corporation, and asked them to use a single role account, but apparently - that's not allowed either. This could have been dealt with a lot easier by stubbing, or by sending it over to WP:COI/N. This should be restored so that we can do that. I mean, Wikipedia's rate of growth is decreasing across the board, and yet we still have redlinks on NASDAQ-100?! Business as usual, has not been good enough. - hahnchen 23:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find it absurd that a sysop could honestly believe that a company which has a quarterly revenue of US$134,000,000 could possibly be here on Wikipedia for commercial gain. The company is notable enough to have its own article, and the fact that the VP of Corporate Communications has come here goes to show that they'd like to work with us in writing an article. Whatever happened to collaboration?Smallman12q (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did they donate any of that money to Wikimedia? I suspect not, otherwise some magic OTRS/office would have happened by now. Clue bat, Mr. VP if you're reading this!
  • Endorse deletion: I believe the correct way to proceed is to create a minimal stub and the company to post ideas on the talk page. What we are particularly looking for is independent third party coverage, which should be easy to achieve for such a notable company. I can offer to work on a new article from the ground up. I think the company should also commit not to edit the article directly, and to post on the article talk page and contact an administrator if there are temporary inaccuracies which are damaging to the company. Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The deleted article was puffery, sourced only to Informatica and some Informatica press releases posted on third-party websites. If this is notable, which it may be, a new article can be developed from scratch. --Orlady (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Siberian Wikipedia – Despite the fact that I commented I think it is fair for me to snow this in a direction that is different to the way I commented. In short, Deletion Endorsed as the closing admin made the right close based on the information provided, but since the outcome was clearly affected by the socking the AFD is declared void and the article relisted. – Spartaz Humbug! 15:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Siberian Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

False consensus/sock puppets voting

This article was deleted unduely. Altenmann, a now banned sock puppet master managed to get that article deleted (Siberian Wikipedia), in the AfD he initiated as Altenmann, he also voted delete as Xuz, Timurite and Dzied Bulbash. In essence, his 3 (!) sock puppet votes should be discarded and the article undeleted as the deletion resulted from false consensus , created by this user. Needless to say, his main account, Altenmann, closed the debate as delete. In case of Derzhava, he made a similar trick, proposing deletion as User:Timurite and then deleting it as Altenmann.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFD is a discussion and the consensus is measured against policy not headcount. The closing admin found the argument that the information was unverifiable and lacked sufficient reliable sources to be the most policy based argument and that this supported delete. The socking is obviously bad, but the deletion argument was supported by other non-socking editors and the issues with the sources were not sufficiently rebutted to win the day. I personally see no point in recreating this, re-listing it and then deleting it since the lack of sources is absolutely fatal to the article. I suggest we incubate this and you should work on the sources to see if you can overcome that hurdle before considering a restoration or relisting here / AFD. Essentially, even with the disgraceful socking, no sources = no article. Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you didn't dig deep enough into the issue. There were sources, too, as some users pointed out, but then again, those sources were not accepted by some users, so the issue was much more complicated. For example a number of users argued that Wikipedias in different languages often have few sources about them, yet outright deletion of our articles on different Wikipedias is unwarranted. A number of comparisons with other wikis like Lithuanian Wikipedia were drawn, but it fell on deaf ears. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog | woof! 16:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also mention that, much like the posters after me have stated, that though I think this article does need relisting, i do not think the closer made a bad close with the information they had at the time. Merely that the facts that turned up after the close, over which the closer had no control, warrant the article being given a second consideration. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Regardless of the merits of keeping the article this clearly needs to be relisted as it's important that we are seen to do the right thing. Even if the closer feels that they would have closed the same regardless of the socks we do not know what influences they had on other people's actions. It seems at least somewhat likely that a fuller discussion may have taken place of whether the sources were sufficient if it wasn't for the socks and this may have influenced a closer's decision. It is also possible that the socks made editors think a deletion close was likely and so discouraged them looking for further sources. Hence I see no choice but to relist. Dpmuk (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As much as I agree with the close - WP:V is a core policy - the socking was just too prevalent to allow it to stand. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist --perhaps by SNOW. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist but there's no indication that Sandstein, the actual closing admin, has had a chance to comment here yet. I suspect he would not have opposed such a relisting, given the socking, but I can't speak for him. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein made the correct information given the information available to him, but of course subsequent events have overtaken that. Therefore, endorse but relist. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, exactly per Stifle. Please would whoever closes this debate consider saying in the closing statement that no blame attaches to Sandstein, who was understandably duped by bad faith users.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kharsag (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was unduely merged and deleted without discussion based on the opinions of several editors that it is the same word as the kharsag epics, a group of Sumerian texts given that name by a fringe scholar.

Kharsag is clearly a completely different word from the fringe naming of a group of texts. It is a singular location, a sacred mountain in NE mythology that is always described in similar terms to the Mount Olympus in Greek Mythology - the birthplace and home of the original Sumerian pantheon including Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninkharsag. I have been working to seperate this from the fringe theories surrounding it by providing a host of notable sources describing this word or part of a phrase referring to the same location. I therefore suggest it requires it's own page, concentrating on the scholarly work of the following eminent scholars. I have tried discussig this with the editors concerned who seem to consistently support the deletion of the work of the following notable, verifiable, non-fringe sources of information about a location fundamental to human origins:

Kharsag; also Khar-sag, Imkharsag, E-kharsag, E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra, E-kharsag-kurkurra, Kharsag-kzurcktra, E-kharsag-kalama, Hur-Sag, Gar-Sag or Gar-Sag-da[1] is a Sumerian word or part of a Sumerian phrase noted as the mountain home of the earliest mythological hero-gods including Anu, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursag. It was later used to describe temples or houses dedicated to this location. It is suggested to represent the location of a Sumerian creation story.

Arthur Bernard Cook amongst many others translated one of these gods "Nin-khar-sag, 'Lady of the High Mountain.'"[2]

The Nippur Cylinder, a reverse cut cuneiform cylinder, described by George Aaron Barton as "The oldest religious text from Babylonia" mentions Kharsag in the first line of the second verse - "The holy Tigris, the holy Euphrates, the holy sceptre of Enlil establish Kharsag".[3].

The 'Liturgy to Nintud' (Barton's translation) says "E-kharsag-gal is devoted to ceremonies" and "The luluppi-tree of the wife of the god, the pi-pi plants of ... In Kharsag the garden of the gods were green" showing similarities to other creation myths.

The 'Hymn to Ibi Sin' (Barton's translation) says "Kharsag for the cold constructed a furnace".

Barton's 'New Creation Myth' was re-translated as the first "Kharsag Epic" by fringe author Christian O'Brien, who claimed it began "At Kharsag, where Heaven and Earth met, the Heavenly Assembly, the Great Sons of Anu, descended - the many Wise Ones".[4]

Morris Jastrow, Jr. mentions it in context "Again, it is Sargon who in consistent accord with his fondness for displaying his archaeological tastes, introduces Bel, the 'great mountain,' 'the lord of countries,' who dwells in E-khar-sag-kurkura, i.e., the sacred mountain on which the gods are born"[5].

Charles Boutiflower mentions "Sargon II king of Assyria, who was of an antiquarian turn, speaks of " The Great Mountain, Enlil, the lord of the lands, dwelling in E-kharsag-gal-kurkurra"[6].

Gerald Massey translates "Kharsag-Kalama" as the “mount of the nations.”[7]

Hermann Volrath Hilprecht translated the location as "O great mountain of Bel, Imkharsag".[8]

William F. Warren refers to it as "the vast mountain, Kharsag-kurkura" when disucssing Sumerian cosmology[9].

Grey Hubert Skipwith refers to this location as "the great mythological 'mountain of the world,' 'Kharsag-kzurcktra'"[10]

Robert William Rogers mentions it's use in Assyrian times as "the home of the great god Asshur, whose temple E-kharsag-kurkurra was erected by the earliest rulers of whom we know anything"[11].

Stephen Herbert Langdon translates "gar-sag-da" as "nether-world mountain" in context of a temple dedicated to the unsettled locations of Kêš in Erech[12].

Samuel Noah Kramer mentions Hur-sag and very specifically uses it in the context of a speech by Ninurta, son of Enlil to Ninhursag representing a singular location, a sacred mountain and home of the first recorded Gods. "Therefore, of the hill which I, the hero, have heaped up. Let it's name be Hursag (mountain), and thou be it's queen"[13]. Paul Bedson (talk) 11:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The problem is that this is all original research. Describing this at WP:FTHN he uses phrases such as 'clearly understand', 'I would argue', 'firmly believe', etc. and has said "It might help to explain that the actual ancient cuneiform these words are translated from is more like picture language than ours. The picture-sign translated as "khar" or "gar" (or for Kramer "hur") in many of these books is that of a garden or enclosure and that of "sag" is a picture sign of a head. Hence mountain in basic translations, but undeniably used in the context of the home or birthplace of the first Gods (Enlil, NinKharsag, etc.) by all these authors and professors as a singular location." Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not understand how all these noteable scholars research is anything original. It's all been well noted since at least 1918 and to the bulk of scholarly understanding a lot longer ago than that! I trust my explanations of the subject will provide editors assistance in making informed decisions. Apologies if my tone is somewhat argumentative, but that's not OR. Paul Bedson (talk) 12:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The conclusion you reach from these scholars is what is original research, or rather perhaps synthesis, see WP:SYN. None of them say that any particular word is the same as 'Kharsag' or that all the locations are the same. I'm not even sure if they all come from the same period, context, etc. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article was never taken to AfD. The only relevant AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kharsag Epics, which was closed as merge. Kharsag was then created which was turned into a redirect on the grounds it was basically the same subject. I agree with that, but another editor has removed the redirect so it may be necessary to take it to AfD. Dougweller (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I have to disagree and trust it is immediately obvious from all the cites that this Sumerian word refers to a single mythological location. That's great news about a fair deletion discussion though. I'll copy over the format above and even if we disagree over OR and SNTH, I feel sure you'll agree that the form of the article above is far more suitable than where we started on this. Regards Paul Bedson (talk) 12:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 April 2010

[edit]
  • International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash – overturn to no consensus. The closing admin's intention to close as "merge" definitely appeared to be a reasonable compromise, but the level of disagreement here seems to suggest that this is not a merge decision that can reasonably be enforced via AfD. This closure should not imply that a merge is necessarily a bad idea, but it's clear that no consensus exists of exactly how, why, and what needs merging - or indeed whether it should be merged at all. It seems there's sufficient consensus that some of this material belongs somewhere, so relisting for another AfD seems counterproductive as outright deletion seems unlikely. Given the difficulty in integrating the content into the target, though, the best way out of this seems to be to restore it to a separate article for now and encourage a merge discussion on the talk page, to see what agreement can be reached. AfD has historically mandated merges, and in many cases it's the best outcome: but here it seems it's just too complicated to force. – ~ mazca talk 08:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closure result given as "merge". I believe that it should have been closed as "no consensus", defaulting to keep. The merge of this article into the parent article has resulted in its deletion from the parent article, which was not what was decided at AfD. Closing editor is of the opinion that the closure result was correct. Discussion has taken place at Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Mjroots (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Relist so that further input may be obtained, and that the article may be improved by removing various forms of cruft, such as flagcruft. Mjroots (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I believe there was little support for merging this back. I also think the delete arguments far outweighed the keep arguments, and believe the correct outcome here is to delete this. I'm fine with a transwiki, as I suggested to list.wikia.com, but don't believe it appropriate to Wikisource (way out of scope) or Wikiquote (which is focused on quotes in works or by individuals, not collections re an event). A relist may be inevitable but will fursur be another huge bickerfest. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 19:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? - this was closed 2 (two) days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. I made a few comparisons at WP:ANI for those ignorant of AfD decisions users who are dissenting - just like with close result elections, those who lost can assemble a crowd but it doesn't mean that they have that narrow majority that the other side has (look at Italy, many huge protests involving millions of people but then the same ruling party wins again). This is like going to a polling station day after the election if you don't like the results to cast your vote and while doing that you also consider that this "vote" of yours is somehow able to override whatever was decided in a serious process of elections yesterday. So, accept that the decision of AfD was to merge this article into the article after a very very lengthy (65kb) discussion and that it was made two days ago. You can start this review over and over again hoping that other users will get bored and that you will manage to delete it but this is not the fair play.--Avala (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At DRV, for technical reasons there's a convention that we don't normally overturn a "merge" to a "keep" or a "no consensus". (It's because all three outcomes are effectively the same:- the article history is retained. In other words the redirect can be turned back into an article by any editor, using the standard WP:BRD technique, so a deletion review is unnecessary and the decision can be made on the redirect's talk page.) I do agree with Mjroots that that charlie foxtrot of a "debate" would probably better have been closed as "no consensus".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall, DRV is not an area I am familiar with. This may be an occasion where WP:IAR is applied in order for a fuller discussion to take place. As I understand it, those who have already made their contribution to the previous AfD debate do not get a second bite of the cherry. New eyes and fresh input to the discussion is the aim of a relist. Mjroots (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I must say again that doing that two days after the lengthy AfD makes no sense. Especially when it was such a difficult decision to make that requiered going through so many arguments. All this because some users "can't act like adults and respect the outcome of the Afd".--Avala (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with S Marshall. This is not a convention, but rather it is an unusual request. AfDs were not in the past considered capable to mandate merges, especially in contested cases. An AfD may well produce evidence for consensus to merge, but that is a different thing. Here, we have an administrative decision to mandate a merge, and S. Marshall suggests WP:BRD to undo the merge. This is a mistake. The merge should not happen by default. If there is disagreement, aka no consensus, then the articles should remain separate (for now). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonsense? The AFD closer said "The result was merge...". The article currently has a tag at the top that says "The debate was closed on 17 April 2010 with a consensus to merge". These statements are past tense and sound as definitive as any ever do. Your suggestion that the merge can be undone by a standard WP:BRD process is to accept that the merge is a fait accompli. Under BRD, the unmerge edit is trumped by the first reversion of it. The articles should be separate until there is a consensus to merge (which is not evident at the AfD). An AfD closer should not be allowed to (appear to) mandate an editorial decision. In this close, the closer appears to mandate a merge, and the text sounds like the decision is made. This is why the close needs to be overturned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I certainly don't accept the merge as a fait accompli! I understand the "merge" closure to mean "keep" with a recommendation to merge. If it was a fait accompli, the closing admin would perform the merge on closure.

    I think that you and I agree that the merge is not enforceable except by the usual talk page consensus route, and what we're actually disagreeing about is whether it's necessary to change the closing admin's choice of words.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, by "Overturn", I mean the close should be modified to "The result was merge to no consensus." ... "merging seems the most agreeable solution based on the discussion once the article has been sufficiently condensed and discussion on a merger should continue on the talk page." or similar. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. There needs to be an overall Rfc on the issue of reaction articles, and until then, keeping this content out of the way in a separate article is the only way to proceed to stop the juvenile edit warring and ACRONYM soup style debating the merge decision precipitated. Discussing a merge has rapidly turned into a waste of time and led to edit warring over a Main Page linked article. Inexcusible. What little consensus to merge that might have existed in the Afd has basically been spat on by the people who want to ignore the merge outcome, and give everyone else the finger. If they can't get over themselves and demonstrate they are willing to find a plausible way forward in this content dispute, that actually addresses the fact that there is not actually currently a consensus for wholesale deletion of this kind of information, then they can go and play in someone else's sandbox. I don't happen to think these laundry lists should be here either, but picking this particular article at this particular time to have that debate was simply a wrongheaded idea all round, it was only ever going to end in a train wreck, you only had to look at past Afd's and the scale of this event to know that. MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer: note that the discussion was closed as merge, but included a stipulation that the international response be "sufficiently condensed". The idea was that removing all of the news replications would create an article of a suitable merge size. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not clear for the keepers, who interpreted the closer as keeping all the data. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, policy-based consensus is that the list of formulaic "me too" messages from half the governments on the planet is not an encyclopaedic topic in its own right. Not liking the subsequent content edits after (s)merging does not invalidate the close. Guy (Help!) 20:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, if that were remotely true, the only right closure would have been delete, because it's not a valid redirect and we don't keep the histories of unencyclopoedic topics. The closure was merge, not delete and redirect, or even simply redirect. There was a reason for that which the closer has already explained about four times at my count now, and the only 'not liking' going on here is from the people who don't have a clue what that difference is, insist on NOTHEARING the closer, and want to pretend the outcome was delete. MickMacNee (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual problem here is that we don't all agree on what "merge" means. Some think it means you must copypaste the entire content; some think you only have to copypaste some content; still others think you don't have to copypaste at all, just condense and rephrase the information. Whatever the meaning, the decision is an editorial one. Administrators may close an AfD as merge, but it is up to editorial process to decide how to best do that. On the issue raised here, S Marshall is correct. Overturning this AfD to no consensus is a waste of time because the content can still be merged. A no consensus closure means exactly that: no consensus for anything and no consensus against anything. The default to keep only occurs because that's the only way to go—it does not mean the article has to remain. Even looking at the AfD, though, merge was the correct closure. So there is nothing at all actionable here; go back to the talk page and work the merge out. ÷seresin 20:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close The AfD got enough attention the first time around, but it's completely infeasible to think that all of that content -- flags and quotes from, what, 100 world leaders? -- should be placed in the main article. As the closing admin said, merge, after condensing the content. It goes without saying that "condensing" does not mean "put in a collapsible box". -- tariqabjotu 20:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the vapid keeps were rightly given less weight. This is like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama condolences; condolences by heads of state for tragedies is so commonplace as to be not newsworthy. Tarc (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. I want to say keep, because such articles can be of great encyclopaedic value, however, this one is more of a list of people and countries who expressed their condolences, as they would with such a horrific event. If it were expanded and a significant amount of prose was added which explained the international repercussions of this event, I would be inclined to say it could function well as a standalone article if enough information exists to build a well-structured article. Merging would also be a viable option, imho. While, if expanded and improved, this could be sustainable article, as it is though, I agree with Arbitrarily above, it would be better trimmed and merged. I think a relist would be in order to allow the possibilities of a merge to thrashed out fully and to allow for improvement of the article because it seems that nobody is satisfied by the status quo. My support of relisting, however, should not be seen as a criticism of Arbitrarily's close. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is that as it stands, this article is longer than the parent article - it will need a LOT of creative trimming to get it down to a sensible length to merge back in while keeping what we do add properly referenced - and that ignores any problems with getting everybody to accept the Merge.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question how is the closure result of merge acceptable given the original consensus of split from the main article? - see discussion at talk:2010_Polish_Air_Force_Tu-154_crash/Archive_1#International_response Mjroots (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - The separate article has no rationalization, and some of the data, namely the list of countries with official mourning, is notable. The article should be as it stands now with the list of condolences removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- per Seresin, who said it well. Reyk YO! 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The content itself fails notability guidelines. The consensus of the community has been carried out, and the article is (mostly) condensed. As several users have discussed, transferring the word-for-word content to another wiki project or moving the content off-wiki is a viable option to appease the dissenters. --N419BH (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: relist or keep as no consensus There is no precedent for AfD to force content onto an article from which it has been excluded by consensus. Merge is not a standard outcome – anyone coming to AfD asking for a merge would have the discussion closed as out of scope – and is only tolerated under IAR when it resolves problems, not when it relights problems which had already been resolved by consensus. The closer correctly noted that the the list would have to be trimmed before merger, but is that not simply a way to hide a major delete when there was no obvious consensus? Of course, and predictably, the trimming was not done and the list was reinserted verbatim, creating a huge list of policy problems on an article which is currently linked from the Main Page and an edit war which ended in full protection. If the content is non-notable, it should be deleted; if it is notable it should be kept as a separate list. Physchim62 (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus for merger and so the close was improper, seeming to impose a solution rather than recording the outcome of the discussion. This was contrary to WP:DGFA as it did not respect the judgement and feelings of the contributors to the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm not sure what the people who say "merge is not a standard outcome" are thinking. It's a very standard outcome, and has been viewed as more or less binding in the past. Failure to selectively merge in a reasonable time after a merge AfD outcome is grounds to simply copy and paste one article on the end of another to get the ball rolling. Gigs (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the page will be merged in the sense of putting all the information in a collapsed table then I think merging is a good idea, but if merging means doubling the length of the main page I would favour the no-consensus route of defaulting to keep and opening a general discussion about this type of article, of which there are many. Weakopedia (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC there was in no way consensus for anything. I don't personally see the value in the article, but A) it meets WP:N and B) there was no consensus. Hobit (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the closer's rationale was that many of the "keeps" were very weak; as more of those are discounted, the scales tip towards the side of the decision that was given. Looking through the "it's referenced", "it's interesting" type of opinions given at the time, I find it hard to disagree with the closer. Tarc (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's referenced" when it _is_ referenced, is a pretty solid argument really. Is this a NOTNEWS thing? Something this significant (the crash) isn't and spin out articles are reasonable when well sourced ("it's sourced"). I don't like this type of article and would probably !vote to delete them in general (though I'd not start with something so recent). But that view certainly doesn't seem to have consensus, at least with respect to this article. Hobit (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Solid argument for what? That something is referenced is no reason at all to keep it. Yes WP:NOTNEWS, WP:MEMORIAL, WP:NOTABOLITY, etc, etc, etc. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hobit, was anyone arguing that it wasn't referenced? Being referenced isn't the be all and end all of determining the worth of an article. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I could see the debate came down to an open question of should we have this type of article. The nom basically stated, without argument that it was NOTNEWS, unencyclopedic, and a memorial. The folks on the other side argued it was notable. The side arguing for deletion made a vague wave toward policies, but on the whole didn't explain why those issues applied. Face it, WP:N has the advantage of being fairly clear cut (multiple reliable sources exist or they don't and the fuzzy line is fairly small). Things like "unencyclopedic" are, by and large, a matter of opinion. Here the opinion was that it was worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. As I said, I personally don't think this article is a good idea but A) I don't see anything looking like a consensus to delete and B) Honestly deleting it at this point is potentially hurtful and bad for Wikipedia. Wait a few months or start with the similar 9/11 page or some other US-based one. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is actually a solid argument when there is risk of cultural bias or when there isn't a clear line being crossed and it thus isn't clear that the "OTHERSTUFF" should also go. Hobit (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What is "vague" with the links to the NUMEROUS policies that the list of condolences breaks? How it is vague? Each one of these policy breaks are by itself reason enough to delete it. However, the claim that it *is* notable is very vague. How is it notable that everyone says exactly the same thing? That a country offers condolences in a disaster is standard fare, how is that notable? Nobody has ever even *attempted* to answer that. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's vague because people are simply stating an opinion. "delete per NOTMEMORIAL" says nothing other than the person feels it's a memorial. Delete as encyclopedic says nothing other than the person feels the topic isn't encyclopedic. Keep as its sourcing meets WP:N is, in this case, a black-and-white truth. Given that the majority felt inclusion was proper and the only reasons to delete are based on opinions, I think deletion is clearly inappropriate. Just because you, or the closer, agree with those opinions isn't a valid reason to delete. WP:MEMORIAL doesn't clearly apply, and "not encyclopedic" is like saying "IDONTLIKEIT". Hobit (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, you've got it exactly backwards. The policies in question are not vague or emotional, the repeated claim that it's notable comes without argumentation whatsoever, and is obviously based on emotion/opinion and nothing else. Nobody has been able to explain *how* it's notable, while we have been able to explain exactly how it breaks these policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, as I say, I see it exactly the other way around. So let me do notable, and you explain how it breaks these policies. Mine's easy. It's notable because it vastly exceeds the requirements of WP:N. There are a large (dare I say massive) number of independent, reliable sources about this topic. Therefor it is presumed notable. I think the article sources speak for themselves, but I can enumerate them if you feel that's needed. Certainly it is only presumed notable, but that's all the notability guidelines can do. Now, could you show exactly how this breaks the policies in question without using opinions like "it's a memorial" and "it's not encyclopedic"? Neither of those policies provide an objective way of concluding when such a thing is true (and I for one, along with a significant majority of the AfD seem to think they don't apply). NOTNEWS and it's related hangers-on actually do (short burst of news coverage) but I don't see how that applies here. Hobit (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused by your interpretation of notability. For every newsworthy topic T you could create a separate article R about the reaction or response to T consisting of various sourced quotes about T. But surely for article R to have notability, there must be reliable sources commenting not on T but on R itself, that is, commenting about the reaction to topic T. And the amount of content we tolerate in article R would surely be proportionate to the amount of sourced commentary available about R, correct? Fletcher (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hobit: It's notable because it vastly exceeds the requirements of WP:N. - That's a tautology, and not an argument or explanation. You are just saying it's notable because it's notable. There are a large (dare I say massive) number of independent, reliable sources about this topic. Therefor it is presumed notable. - This is not a discussion about the crash, but the list of condolences. To claim that the list of condolences has WP:N and therefore should have it's own article you must find multiple independent sources for that list of condolences. Note, not one source per condolence, multiple independent sources that list many of these condolences. I guess multiple independent sources per condolence would work too. So you see how insane that is? It doesn't work. This list of condolences in NOT NOTABLE. Hence, it should NOT have it's own article. Hence the merge was the correct decision. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's notable because it' vastly exceeds the requirements of WP:N. That's not a tautology for the record, it's more along the lines of "7 is a prime number because it has no integer divisors other than 1". That's simply a true statement. I disagree with your sourcing requirements--as long as each one has a reliable source, I'm fine. The topic-as-a-whole is clearly notable and each element of the list is sourced, and that seems to be the general inclusion guideline for lists. Else we'd not have lists of coaches for certain sports teams (many of which are featured) and the like... Hobit (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's a tautology. You do not explain *how* it's notable, you just repeat your claim that it is. You have no argument. And I'm sure *you* are fine, but we are now discussing the fulfillment of Wikpedia Policy, and it's not fulfilled. The topic as a whole is clearly notable and has it's own article. Now we are discussing the "international reaction" article and more specifically the list of condolences. Your continued failure to understand the difference completely invalidates your argumentation as you clearly haven't read and understood WP:NOTABILITY. It's about if a topic is notable enough to have a separate article or not. You provide no argument for that except a baseless claim that it does which you are unable to back up. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I think you read WP:N wrongly. The subject is (clearly) notable in that sense, since it received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability is not the only criteria for inclusion to consider though, as the policy states (WP:GNG, fifth point 'presumed': "[notability] establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.", but the later is disctinct from notability considerations. Cenarium (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes of course. And this topic both do NOT have notability, as you will not find multiple independent sources on "international reactions" as a whole, nor each reaction separately, AND it breaks several other policies, yes. So the notability failure means there should not be a separate article, so the merge was correct. The other policies means that the list of condolences should be removed. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm inclined to the view that if there is no consensus to keep an article, and there would be a consensus to merge or delete but for the split of opinions between merge and delete, a merge is the appropriate close. That is because there is a clear consensus that a stand-alone article is not warranted, and a merge is the least drastic way of implementing that consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (no consensus). Merge was not the consensus result of the discussion. In fact, I see insufficient discussion or consensus building given the widely differing opinions offered. Anyway, merging is an editorial decision, and a one-week AfD is a poor way to make editorial decisions, especially for such a fresh topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to non-consensus I can see perfectly good arguments in several different directions, and since they're more a matter of article style than policy, I cant really choose between them--and neither could the community. When that happens, there's nothing to do but admit the impasse and se if the matter becomes clearer going forward. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge. If an AfD just involved counting "votes", then this would have resulted in a "keep". But AfDs don't just involve counting "votes"; they also involve which side has the better policy-based arguments. I believe that the delete and merge supporters had better policy-based arguments in this case. In particular, much of the content of the article consists of a repetitive listing stating that one president or prime minister after another sent their condolences, with some quotes from such statements, but substantially all having the same tone and general idea. Basically, this kind of list violates the policy that Wikipedia is not a memorial or a collection of news reports. I would recommend that the list of countries that declared official days of mourning be slightly merged into the main article, and that is all that mainly needs to be merged. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Afd proved anything, it's that people really don't undertsand MEMORIAL. It states, "Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others". Now, forgetting the rather pointless 'other', I very much doubt anybody involved in creating the article, was a friend, relative or acquaintance of anybody on the plane, and I finds it quite ludicrous to ascribe the wish to memorialise as the motive of all those editors. Quite bizarre. MickMacNee (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that the deceased were probably not friends, relatives, or acquaintances of the editors who wrote this article. But when I see an article that reads like this:
President of Abkhazia, Sergei Bagapsh expressed his condolences to the citizens of Poland.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his deep sorrow and condolence over the sudden death of Polish President and his entourage on Saturday.
Albanian President Bamir Topi expressed his deep sorrow for the loss of President Kaczyński. Albanian Prime Minister Sali Berisha, Parliament Speaker Jozefina Topalli and opposition leader Edi Rama also sent their condolences to the Polish People.
... well, it looks like a memorial to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, 'looks like'. Much like half the edits people label as vandalism just 'looks like' WP:VANDALISM, but surprisingly, isn't. Never just assume others see what you see if the cited policy wording doesn't back it up. That approach leads to outcomes like this related Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to "ascribe" it, the wish to make a memorial was explicitly stated by many keepers, although they didn't use the word memorial, but that's what they were proposing. Quotes:
"I think it will help future readers get a better perspective on this tragedy. "
"International responses are important for an historical basis"
"this was a major disaster for Poland and the international community."
"This article is important because this accident shocked the entire world. This IS history and its a big part of Polish history. This is where all the support from the entire world should be kept. As a Pole, i feel that this is the right thing to do and i want to thank all the people that have helped us get through this tragedy"
You may not have used that argument, but many others did. And as noted, the only other argument was WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone reads those statements as saying 'keep, its a memorial' as their primary meaning. Plenty of them are appeals to several of the ACRONYMS you keep throwing out to support your arguments, ironically. MickMacNee (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, it's more or less impossible to read those statements as any other way, which I'm sure you are well aware of. And none of them are appeals to any of the policies that I and others here is referring to, for the simple and obvious reason that a list of condolences *breaks* those policies. Which is why we bring them up, you see. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the WP:MEMORIAL policy indicates that it relates to deaths which are not notable and is no bar to content about deaths which are notable. The deaths in this case, the specific condolences and the more general reaction are all clearly notable and so there is no trace of a policy problem. Your objection seems to be either a misunderstanding of the policy or a different issue - that you don't think condolences belong here. That is a different argument which is usually considered an argument to avoid at AFD - WP:IDONTLIKEIT and/or WP:UNENCYC. It seems telling that the page which better fits the usual format of a public memorial - List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash - got a snow keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this isn't about the article or the deaths, which are clearly notable, but about the condolences, and those are NOT notable. But yes WP:MEMORIAL is just a special case of WP:NOTABILITY in general. Your comment about the list of casualties makes me wonder if you even know what a memorial is or it's purpose. a list of casualties (which you *admit* are notable) is not a memorial. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of the condolences is a matter of fact which is proven by the numerous indepedent and reliable sources. And, as another matter of plain fact, condolences are not a memorial - they are an expression of sympathy for the living. A public memorial is commonly a list of names of the deceased. If you want to go after memorials then your target should be List of casualties of the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a matter of fact. Condolences from heads of state are boilerplate expressions of sympathy, expressed for tragedies great and small. There is really little notable about what amounts to a routine governmental press release. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pah. We could delete it today and I bet you couldn't even come close to accurately, or even vaguely, recreating what was said by who, if the task were simply left to your apparently magical powers of prediction. It may or may not be appropriate content for Wikipedia, with NOTNEWS actually being the only vaguely plausible argument out of the many irrelevances being chucked around, but thankfully readers would not have to resort to their own magical powers of prediction to recreate the material if they wanted to, as plenty of sources have recorded this information for the historical record, and it is simply laughable that some people here would have you believe they only do so simply to create 'memorials'. It's a laughable idea. MickMacNee (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could accurately recreate it because everybody said the same thing: They all expressed their condolences. Small changes in the wording is not significant or notable. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This assertion is about as believable as everything else you've said on the topic. MickMacNee (talk) 12:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Especially in the light of that I just did it. It's not rocket science. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to no consensus or relist, I don't care). The "article" is silly as it is. Someone might theoretically turn it into something reasonable, but that's unlikely to happen. The only thing that matters is that the mess is swept under the carpet until its proponents cool down and it can get deleted or just zero-merged. Hans Adler 20:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And just in case this is closed by a bureaucratically-minded person: The technical reason for overturning is of course that hardly anybody was for merging, and merging was not (in this case) a compromise between keeping and deleting. Therefore the closer simply closed per their own opinion, and it needs to be overturned for that reason. Hans Adler 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actions like this are what is driving people away from Wikipedia. There was no consensus in the deletion discussion for deleting or merging. Other similiar articles have not been deleted. Karun1234 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Merging was a distant third place, and the recommendations were too divergent for a compromise to be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge, with clarification that a large compilation of repetitive quotations is not part of Wikipedia's mission, and that a small summary of the reaction is a better way of representing the material. The trouble with the original closing was that it was not clear enough to people what should occur, with the result that someone copied the entire table to the main article, and subsequent edit warring. Fletcher (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - No Consensus - AFD is not the place to mandate merges. That happens on talk pages. - hahnchen 13:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, so keep here. AFD should determine whether an article should be kept or deleted/redirected. Merging is an editorial matter which is - rather should be - out of AfD's scope. There should probably be a general discussion (again) on Afd's scope because it's still unclear and disputed. I explicitly reject the idea of merging as middle ground and even as a possible conclusion, because merging is an editorial matter for which AfD is not adapted at all; merging requires editing, often discussion, etc, while AfD should be a definitive, bright-line binary decision between keeping and deleting/redirecting; moreover in this case merging had not been specifically discussed so the closure was insufficiently supported by the discussion. There is a widespread confusion between merging and redirecting as afd conclusions too: AFD should determine if there is consensus or overriding policy reason to delete an article or if appropriate redirect it; and really a conclusion of redirection should be viewed similarly as one of deletion; and if there is no consensus or overriding policy reason for doing this, it should be kept. It may be that the article would be better off merged in another article, but's it's not in AFD's scope and should be discussed on talk pages. On the other hand, if consensus is found for redirection, it should be firm and only appealable at DRV as with deletions, but clearly there were no consensus for redirection here. Also, even if in an outcome of redirection, the target of the redirect may at times have some content of the article merged in, this is independent of AFD, even if a 'grace period' is given to merge the content. Now the idea has been put forward at times to allow admins to make merge decisions at afd which are reviewable on talk pages or subject to BRD, but I feel that this adds more confusion to an often contentious, convoluted area which needs clarification, not more confusion; I've seen cases where merge closures have result in massive disputes (in articles on fiction especially), so I feel this kind of conclusions should not be allowed and overturned when found. In short, no consensus or overriding policy reason for deletion or redirection, and not even consensus for the out-of-afd-scope-outcome 'merge', therefore overturn to keep; and discuss if a merge is the way to go on talk. Cenarium (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Christofascism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am requesting an undeletion of portions of the page history for Christofascism and Talk:Christofascism. The original version of the page was deleted via AFD in 2005, but it was later re-created anew and then survived a second AFD. I'd like to see the original, now-deleted article and Talk archives to see if there is anything that could help in improving the current version. *** Crotalus *** 17:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crotalus, I've restored the history. PhilKnight (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Phil! *** Crotalus *** 19:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Keyontyli Goffney (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I know it's been four days since the AfD closed, but i've been debating whether I wanted to make a DRV for this article. When GBataille asked me if I was interested, I decided that, yes, I was. The discussion itself was closed with two Delete and two Keep votes, with the main debate between the two being whether this porn actor should be deleted based on WP:BLP1E or if he had had enough merits from other contributions to warrant him being kept. When the discussion was closed, it ended with there having been no real discussion at all (as the question I asked one of the Delete voters was never answered). The closing admin was User:Shimeru and his closing statement was "The result was delete. I don't find "unique contributions" convincing; there's no source that shows that he had any impact on the genre. Seems like a BLP1E." The statement itself seems very much like an opinion that a voter in a discussion would have, an opinion of which closing admins should not have, as they are supposed to be following or determining consensus. When I discussed this closing with him and mentioned that his reasons seemed rather opinionated, he replied, "Of course. Otherwise I'd lose my "power-mad rogue admin" credentials." I'm pretty sure that he was just making a joke, but his talk page does show a rather large amount of people asking him about the reasons behind other closes, which worries me. I feel that the discussion should have closed as No Consensus, as one clearly had not been made. Can the community please determine if this is right or not and whether the closing admin made his decision based on personal opinion? A userfied copy of the article can be found here. Thank you. SilverserenC 21:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus. The question in this AFD was really whether the subject was separately notable from the "one event" of his legal difficulties. On that question, there was clearly no consensus. AfDs should be closed on the basis of strength of argument; but that is not to say that the closer essentially acts as an adjudicator and prefers the side of the debate that he or she finds most convincing. The keep arguments were reasoned and policy-based. If a potential closer disagrees with policy-based arguments, the better course of action is to refute them via a delete !vote rather than a delete close. Then another admin can come over the top and close as delete if they find a consensus. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the last 'half'-deletion review on this subject can be found here. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC I don't see any form of consensus there. The admin should have !voted rather than closed in this case. Hobit (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I think this would have benefitted from more discussion and since the closing admin discussed the merits of the article rather then analysed the discussion in their close it is understandable that an outside viewer could think they bypassed the discussion in reaching the outcome. (Not that I have no checked the sources or the deleted article because I am at work). Spartaz Humbug! 07:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't agree with Hobit or Mkativerata; the closing statement is an analysis of the arguments brought up at the AfD, and not a statement of the closer's personal preference. Shimeru correctly dismissed the "unique contributions" view, which does not hold water. Unique contributions to gay pornography involving twins, indeed. According to which source, exactly? Shimeru then correctly determined that all the significant coverage in reliable sources arose from the article subject's involvement in a burglary, and correctly decided that BLP1E argument should be given greater weight in the close.

    I agree with Shimeru's analysis, applaud him for a succinct but effective closure summary, and endorse his close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse per S Marshall, to whose words I can add none. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Whether a subject is notable or not is not a matter of whether an editor believes that such notability is in fact warranted, or is based on what (s)he judges to be a genuine achievement; rather, it is a matter of whether multiple reliable sources attest to it. Thus, S Marshall's ironic comment is not helpful: "Unique contributions to gay pornography involving twins, indeed." Keyontyli Goffney's burglary would never have attracted the attention it has if he had not previously established a significant public visibility (or notability), both in mainstream media and in the subculture of gay pornography. His appearances with his twin brother are part of the attention that he attracted. Would the mainstream media have reported his (in itself) trivial burglary if he had not already become known as the gay model who appeared in erotic scenes with his twin brother? Clearly not. The claims I am making here can be verified by checking the selection of sources quoted in the article. These sources range from television channnels to newspapers and national magazines. GBataille (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per S Marshall. And, as one comment in the initial AFD aptly indicated, "news of the weird"-type coverage typically fails to satisfy the requirements of the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: closing admin correctly weighted the strength of the arguments based on present policy. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Timeline of the War on Terror – List at AfD. There is no consensus here that Jayjg's action is incorrect—but no consensus that it's correct, either. However, the point of the speedy criterion at issue, CSD G4, is that further discussion is unnecessary because there is an existing consensus w/r/t the article. The lack of consensus in this DRV brings into question whether that consensus exists, and so exercising my discretion as the DRV closer, I'm listing this at AfD for further discussion. – Tim Song (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Timeline of the War on Terror (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Greetings all! Jay and I have kindly been discussing this topic for a while now, but have reached no conclusion. The deletion which I would like to review is the most recent one, where the article was userfied (with the rationale "Not yet ready, per discussions on my Talk: page"). Since talk page discussions have been inconclusive, I thought deletion review to be the best place to continue. Because the version deleted with original research concerns in the deletion discussion contained zero sources, I thought that the article would at least deserve another deletion discussion since the draft version seems better cited. Cheers to you all! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article's name has changed slightly. The original AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the War on Terrorism. The discussion in question is at User talk:Jayjg#Timeline of the War on Terrorism. The article was originally deleted because the consensus was that it consisted of WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. I recommended to Arbitrarily0 that if he wished to overcome those objections, he needed to use sources that were reliable for this topic, and sources that specifically gave timelines of the War on Terror. As I put it to him on my Talk: page:

WP:SYNTH is putting together a bunch of things into a thesis. If random writer A says "x is part of the War on Terror", and random writer B says "y is part of the War on Terror", and then you go and put those two items into a "Timeline of the War on Terror", you are synthesizing material. This is particularly so if the authors themselves aren't experts on the topic, or particularly notable for their views - then it's more of a "Google search for anyone who mentions it, and throw them into a list".

Arbitrarily0 apparently disagreed, arguing that "the sheer number of references that can be found in each correlation helps prevent synthesis". He also had a much broader view of what might be considered a reliable source than me; for example, I objected to Kurtis Wheeler, because he is a high school history teacher, but Arbitrarily0 felt that he was appropriate because he was a "Field Historian, Marine Corps History Division", though neither of us were able to state exactly what the latter meant. Arbitrarily0 did bring what I felt were sources that were reliable timelines of the War on Terror to the article, but did not feel he needed to be restricted to using only them. He also suggested using some sources for timelines (e.g. http://timelines.com/) whose reliability I felt was unclear. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the synopsis Jay. My only further comment is that I am most welcome to any/all dubious sourcing being removed from the article/draft. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without being based on reliable sources of a timeline then it does seem this is going to be little more than a list of things people have referred to as being related to the war on terror. A quick look through it and it doesn't include things I'd have thought would be included, is that because we can't find references as such, or is it because they weren't related etc. How many sources would I need to find making such a link before I could reasonable include it? So I can't see that this has overcome the original reason for deletion, it's still a synthesis of multiple sources to put together a certain viewpoint. On the question about timelines.com, from a brief search I can't see how that could be reliable, it seems to be user generated content (I can go to any event and click to add a topic to it, so could add almost anything to the "War on Terror" timeline. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thought was that the citations under the "references" section (not "notes") contain the reliable sourcing for the events in the timeline. I would imagine that the list is not complete, so feel free to add (and cite reliably through a timeline) any relevant information. Note also that http://timelines.com/ has not been included in the article/draft, for good reason :) Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you miss my point. The references maybe reliable for the individual event but they aren't (necessarily) reliable for constructing a timeline. As it stands it's a list of things some writers have referred to as being related to the war on terror (though others have not), the significance and to if they form a timeline point is in essence a arbitary construction i.e. OR. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The purpose of this discussion, more or less, is to determine whether or not the draft merits a run-through at articles for deletion (on the basis of sources such as the "Encyclopedia of World Terrorism", which contains a fairly comprehensive timeline discriminating events in the War on Terror). The current inline citations are only to reinforce information already found in reliable 'terror war timelines'. Best regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
how does SYNTH apply to the concept that things that occur in specific times occur in a chronological sequence? That 2002 is followed by 2004 is not OR. Selecting what events belong in an article is not OR, but the basis of writing every Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
This DRV includes the numerous redirects deleted out of process by UtherSRG (talk · contribs). These redirects were incorrectly deleted under {{db-housekeeping}} and {{db-a2}} because the deleting admin believes that "English-language wiki article titles should be in Roman characters. This viewpoint is clearly wrong as seen by the existence of templates such as Template:R from alternative language and Category:Templates for redirects involving diacritics or language change. When UtherSRG was asked by Mathpianist93 (talk · contribs) to restore these redirects, UtherSRG responded, "I'm not going to discuss this."

A number of the deleted titles were not redirects but articles written in Chinese which already exist in English. Thus, I ask that DRV overturn the deletion of only the redirects that were improperly deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the G6 deletions and improper A2 deletions. A2 does not cover redirects, and from a handful I looked at they are all redirects, thus they do not fall under the speedy criteria. Additionally, the fact this has been listed here shows it is not non-controversial, thus G6 does also not apply. If they are problematic they should be taken to RfD, some may be deleted again, but they need to go through the correct process here as they don't fit speedy criteria. --Taelus (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all on the grounds that neither G6 nor A2 applied, but without prejudice to a debate at RFD, RFC, or any other proper place to establish or discuss conventions about redirects from foreign-language character sets.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all, but list after. In general, we shouldn't have redirects in Chinese. Not every page needs a Chinese-language redirect (for example, from 哈佛 to Harvard). However, when the English name is a transliteration derived from the official or preceding Chinese name, such a redirect should be kept (for example, from 重庆市 to Chongqing). Perhaps we need to codify this.
The specific redirects linked to should be restored until then. I checked a few and they seem to be reasonable. For example 揚子江 -> Yangtze River is completely logical. As the article says, "The name Yangtze River...is derived from [Yangtze Jiang (揚子江)]". To not have the original name that other English names were based off of would be rather strange, and I find it disturbing that these redirects were deleted under the claim that they are uncontroversial. They clearly aren't, and deleting them under CSD was an abuse of procedure. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is one problem that hasn't been addressed here. The Chinese characters in the redirects aren't understandable to most admins. They could mean anything, vandalism included, little would we know. Therefore, I understand the problem that admin Uther SRG has with these redirects. The innocuous example of the Yangtze River has been given above, but what if such a redirect goes to a BLP ? This could turn into a major problem. JoJan (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor who can read Chinese (and there are approximately 1111 users who have indicated they are native speakers, by categorising their user pages in Category:User zh-N, plus another around 1800 users who are non-native speakers, and an unknowable number of registered and unregistered users who have not so categorised themselves), can flag a redirect or other title as misleading or offensive. I don't see this as a significant problem. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the article itself will usually mention the original Chinese name (if not part of the infobox, then within the article). -Frazzydee|✍ 16:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And see below for why this a mostly irrelevant issue Nil Einne (talk) 05:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as invalid or out of process. There are at least two sysops I know who speak Chinese and if there are fears that the characters are vandalism, they can be referred on to them. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletions of the redirects, these do not meet any speedy deletion criteria. I'm also very concerned that an administrator is not willing to discuss their administrative actions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – it is disconcerting that an admin can say 'I am right and will not discuss this' when their actions appear to be contrary to policy. (Москва redirects to Moscow. Is Uther going to delete this or does the 'Uther-criterion' only apply to Chinese?) Occuli (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all redirect deletions as out of process. A2 clearly does not apply as it only applies to articles and G6 only applies to uncontroversial deletions. In my mind uncontroversial means they need to be backed by policy which these deletions clearly were not. Once the admin was made aware that someone was contesting them they should have immediately undeleted them as it should have been obvious they were not uncontroversial. Speedy delete criteria are meant to be interpreted narrowly to unsure deletions have the support of the community and this has not happened here. (As an aside my view on whether these redirects should exist pretty much mirrors Frazzydee - if the topic is about something whose native name is in Chinese these redirects make sense, else they should be deleted). Dpmuk (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm shaking my head in disbelief that an experienced admin could call this "G6" and continue with the deletions despite protests. This doesn't need to take any more of our time. Uther, how about if you speedy closed this review and undeleted the redirects in question, as a sign of goodwill? — Sebastian 01:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all per all the reasons already given. These very clearly did not meet any speedy criteria, and the unwillingness of the deleting admin to even listen to the concerns raised is concerning in itself. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all per Taelus, S Marshall, Dpmuk, Occuli, 日本穣 et al. Incidentally, the idea that Chinese characters pose a unique set of problems re: vandalism is mostly false, as it was when it came up with signatures. If I were to say or vandalise with pukimak or pōkokohua there's a fair chance far fewer admins or editors would recognise it as swearing then 屌你老母. I acknowledge that it's easier for an admin or editor who doesn't read Chinese to learn to recognise pukimak or pōkokohua as a swearing then 屌你老母 but in reality, the big problem is understanding not the ability to recognise a few select swear words since you can invent many swear words and there's no admin class to teach admins the many common swear words in different languages. If it is a common swear word, a simple search would usually reveal that which with modern browsers shouldn't pose much of a problem for Chinese, but the issue is most admins aren't going to search anyway unless they have reason to be suspicious. So either way when it comes to vandalism, there's little difference between Chinese characters and the roman alphabet. (The only possible issue is someone could perhaps claim 屌你老母 means George W. Bush but it'll be harder to get away with saying pukimak or pōkokohua means the same but it's questionable if we'll allow those.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all as does not qualify for CSD under A2, G6, and fails Noncriteria #16. And were "non-English titles" not acceptable, we have a lot of Eastern European and Icelandic articles that qualify for speedy deletion on that claim. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's getting snowy... Stifle (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Bulliten1.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This, as well as File:Bulliten2.jpg, File:Bulliten3.jpg and File:Bulletin4.jpg were uploaded for sourcing on Highway 400. I do not wish to use these images, but I need to read the content of them so I can source them and the information I am told they contain. Images will most likely be fine to delete again in 7 days unless I can find proper source/copyright information. Cheers - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC) ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 18:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
XpanD 3D (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

over 1000 cinemas currently using XpanD 3D.[14] It was also sourced as world leading in active shutter glasses.

there are similar articles for RealD Cinema, Dolby 3D, MasterImage 3D and Disney Digital 3-D but this article get deleted over and over again. someone from pages for undeletion suggested to put a request here. --77.64.129.48 (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
吉林市 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Moved from RFD Frazzydee|✍ 05:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following was moved from RfD. Votes were made at RFD, not DRV

re-directs from native name are allowed and encouraged by many

Keep/Restore where applicable
Since Uther refuses to listen to me, I shall voice my complaint here. He has been off a rampage in deleting many, if not the majority of, the re-directs from Chinese (both simplified and Traditional) that I have created. Since the vast majority of these re-directs match up directly with their article titles (i.e. 吉林市 is Jilin City), they are not inaccurate. Furthermore, foreign-language re-directs are not mentioned under the 'reasons for deleting' subsection of WP:REDIRECT. They also satisfy the requirements for re-directs from foreign language. I do not have the patience to reverse all of Uther's pernicious deletions, so I ask another admin to do so. In the mean time, I will see whether other users create more Chinese re-directs. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 03:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no error here. There is no expectation that someone will stumble onto the English language Wikipedia and type in a non-Roman character set to search for an article. "Reasons for deleting" is not an exhaustive list. Further, WP:FORRED is an essay, nowhere near a commandment, and given the examples of what to keep and what not, I feel my deletions have been in keeping with the spirit if not the letter of the essay. I await assessment here before continuing. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the error is that there is a province named Jilin, as well as a city. There currently is a re-direct as follows: 吉林 ---> Jilin (the province). but you deleted the one for the city. 'no expectation that someone will stumble onto the English language Wikipedia and type in a non-Roman character set to search for an article.' did you look at the talk page? several people have commented specifically on non-Roman scripts; they have said that if they 'stumble' on a character representation somewhere (doesn't have to be on WIKI), then they would like to search it in the box and be able to re-directed. Obviously, if they knew how to 'type in a non-Roman character set to search for an article', then they would probably know the romanisation (pinyin is a major input method for Chinese), and would just go directly put the romanisation in; however, that fails in some cases, e.g. Hohhot (Huhehaote, without tone marks). I will allow a compromise with the 朝阳区 and 东方红, but refuse to compromise with the hundreds, if not thousands, of re-directs from non-Roman scripts. but thank you for pausing before continuing on your campaign. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
should we move this discussion elsewhere? this discussion is not limited to Jilin City, but rather to the thousands of non-Roman re-direcs that are potentially at risk. 华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want an RfC, but these have been discussed at RfD before, IIRC. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESTORE/KEEP These seem to have usually been kept at RfD, so deleting it would not be uncontroversial housekeeping. And I don't see why someone would not copy-paste some non-English word into wikipedia to search for it. It seems to be a rather obvious and likely thing to do. Further, Chinese named things usually have multiple romanizations, so it may be easier to search for it from the Chinese character name in the first place. We even have a disambiguation task force for Chinese lettering, WP:CJKV! The reasoning also fails "Noncriteria #16". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Restore as a valid redirect for the page mentioned. This has already been discussed and redirects are cheap, so there is no valid reason to delete them. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Despite being an experienced English Wikipedia contributor (4 years, 5 GAs) who is fairly fluent in English, I (a Chinese Singaporean) occasionally conduct searches in Chinese. For example, last week, I was looking for an article about a Mandopop singer and I knew her Chinese name, but not her name in English. I believe many other less experienced users who are not native speakers of English may find such redirects useful. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the only reason for deleting them is a pedantic "this is English wikipedia". As a sidenote, it is quite easy to make up a few examples where knowledge of the pinyin transliteration of a group of characters won't help you much, for example 陝西 or names like 欧阳修. It gets more complicated when you are looking up stuff outside the PRC, even for Chinese people like 韩瑞生. Yaan (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above votes/comments were from an RfD nomination. The following votes are from DRV


华钢琴49 (TALK) 14:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite. You were asked to contest deletion here and here is the appropriate place for contesting deletions (It isn't the correct place for arguing the merits or otherwise of the redirect, it's about the deletion process). What I believe S Marshall is suggeting is that the speedy deletion was incorrect so the redirect should be restored, after that if the original deleter (or anyone else) wants to argue for deletion of this or similar then RFD is the place. I'm not sure I'd totally agree with that, it's clearly a broader issue beyond this one redirect. If the deleter believes the community as a broader whole agrees these have no place here (rather than just RFD or DRV participants) then some sort of centralised discussion (like RFC) would be the way to go. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, that's exactly what I'm saying. The G6 is invalid and I think that as an overriding consideration, DRV must be seen to overturn bad speedy deletions. DRV must be seen to provide FairProcess on demand. But to say that the G6 is invalid -- as I believe we must do at DRV -- is not to say that the redirect must be kept. That decision properly belongs at RFD. Therefore, though the G6 must been overturned, that should not in itself be prejudicial to a RFD (about which I would be agnostic).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore G6 is for uncontroversial deletions, and this one is not. For the deleting admin to persist it it after it became very clear that it was controversial seems a little POINTY., when he could very easily have restored, and made the request at RfD. FWIW, as someone with no knowledge of Chinese at all, I was unaware that we were making these redirects from proper names; I can think of times I would have used it on a Chinese name I encountered, for anyone can copypaste unicode characters. 17:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Restore. If redirects from Chinese-language articles is "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup", then why do we have {{R from alternate language}} and Category:Redirects from Chinese-language terms? The official and most commonly-used city name is "吉林市". Why have only the English transliteration without even a redirect from the actual city name? The original deletion was a mistake, and in any case absolutely not in conformance with CSD policy. -Frazzydee|✍ 05:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Frazzydee (talk · contribs) and per my nomination of 173 redirects above. Cunard (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore. The page doesn't fall under a speedy criteria and thus should be taken to RfD if there are further concerns for deletion. --Taelus (talk) 09:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Several !votes above are merged from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 18. Tim Song (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Rich Villa Hotel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were only 3 comments on this AfD in total: me saying it should be kept, one who said it should be deleted on the basis that it only had 34 GHits, and one other who simply voted with that person but otherwise added no commentary. The article was about a historic hotel that closed down a long time ago. It is more likely a lot of sources about it are offline, yet they do exist. Obviously this is not a hoax. There is also no danger of this being advertising.

With so little comment, this is clearly not a consensus. This debate should either have been closed as "no consensus" defaulting to keep, or be relisted (with the article visible) so others should be able to comment and even be able to improve it. Dew Kane (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is unlikely that the outcome will change. It is also unlikely that sources exist offline, and the WP:Burden is on those wishing to keep an article to provide sources. That said, relisting would be acceptable, but did User:Dew Kane ask the closer to relist prior to coming to DR? Abductive (reasoning) 05:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I think the closing admin did not act improperly in deleting this article. There were three opinions to delete which seem to be to be grounded in policy. The sole keep opinion, on the other hand, made an unsupported assertion that it was notable and argued that advertising wasn't an issue- which is irrelevant because nobody mentioned that as a reason to delete. It was not unreasnable for the admin to interpret this discussion as consensus to delete. Reyk YO! 05:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I agree with Reyk's analysis. This wasn't exactly the most judicious AfD debate I've seen, but there was a rough consensus delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy/Incubate. Add new material from reliable offline sources and move back to mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I note that the editor who brought this to DRV has a habit of voting Keep on AfD discussions with a rationale of "there must be some sources out there" [38] [39] [40] That isn't good enough, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse This clearly is never going to be undeleted without sources and the deletion was correct under policy as there was a consensus the sources were lacking. Please can the nominator read up on our deletion guidence and try not to bring obviously hopeless DRVs forward in the future - this is the second obvious endorse that has been raised in recent days? If they need advice its always an idea to run a proposed listing past a DRV regular. Spartaz Humbug! 07:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think a closure summary would have been rather helpful in that case. Abductive's point was a good one, though, and I won't fault the close itself.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • userfy closing the debate as delete was acceptable considering there were no sources shown and so WP:N wasn't met. However [41] is a pretty good starting point given the topic and a number of in-passing references indicate that this place probably is notable. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly within closer's discretion, especially given the absence of a coherent assertion of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and allow return to mainspace once these references have been found. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was insufficient participation and unanimity for there to be a consensus to delete. The closer's assertion that the topic is not notable was false, e.g. see Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but incubate There was a clear consensus to delete in the AfD in that those supporting deletion had arguments that were superior to the arguments of those supporting retention. Incubating the article will allow interested users to use the sources presented here to work on the article so that it passes the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Tim Marriott (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Insufficient input to decide either way. The debate should have been relisted. This guy is barely any more notable than several other Brittas Empire actors with similar careers have recently been closed as merge at Afd, so leaving this as an outlier seems odd to me, on the strength of two plays put on in minor theatres. MickMacNee (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw This guy does not pass ENT in a million years to my eye, and this article does not, and likely never will, resemble a complete biographical article as required by BLP, that's 100% certain. And with one formal 'keep' and very little certainty on show, that Afd is not, and never will be, sustainable evidence of a rigourous examination of the article against either the relevant BLP policy or the relevant notability guideline, and should 100% have been relisted and examined properly, preferrably with some input by editors who have the first idea whether fringe productions of evidently zero lasting impact have in the past constituted evidence of significant work as defined by Wikipedia, rather than the entirely predictable but wholly deficient response of 'sourced, notable'. I'm unwatching the article as I have far too many of these irritating reminders of the broken-ness of Afd on it already, so I trust at least one of you will take responsibility for this decision. Watch out for that IP who was attempting to erase half the 'article', the bit that apparently shows he has been a signficiant playwright. I feel genuinely sorry now for the likes of Michael Burns, whose biography in comparison to Marriot, looks like Michael Caine's CV, yet he was quite rightly merged, as he does not pass ENT either. But that's Afd for you, totally pointless and predictably unpredictable. MickMacNee (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Spime (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD closed by sockmaster who also submitted the article to AfD with one of his socks. Most votes were "keep". Should be undeleted and reviewed. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lexie Marie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I performed a non-admin closure of the debate as keep. User:Hipocrite posted on my talk page, saying this closure was incorrect, saying "PORNBIO is not nearly unanimous." After I performed the closure of this debate, Hipocrite tagged WP:PORNBIO as disputed. I have no problem with PORNBIO changing, but I do feel that the closure I performed was correct. I present the case for scrutiny (I would like to know if I'm wrong). Jujutacular T · C 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A pointy abuse of DRV, but NAC is not acceptable for a 2d-3k close as keep. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, I'm truly not trying to disrupt. I would simply like to know if others agree that I am wrong. Jujutacular T · C 16:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were wrong. I re-opened the AfD. Tan | 39 16:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For future reference, was I wrong because of the PORNBIO dispute, or because it was 3 for keep, 2 for delete? Jujutacular T · C 17:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because NAC are for clearcut cases and 3K2D is always going to require interpretation. Spartaz Humbug! 17:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Crown Room Club Locations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

<REASON> Dew Kane (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Chinese_Division_Table.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Relist for deletion as all uses have now been removed. More information is available as described here Chrismiceli (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
cppcheck (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Several mentions in scholarly literature, here, here and here. Note that the master's thesis is probably not subject to peer review, but the two technical reports are of merit User A1 (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin's comment If you believe that the article can be re-written to assert notability, then you can do so without bringing it to WP:DRV. This venue is for discussion of whether the original AfD closure was correct. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original closure was appropriate. In these circumstances, i.e. where an article with this title has been deleted more than once, it often happens that the person wishing to create a new article writes their draft in userspace and then brings it to DRV for comment. I suggest doing that here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The masters thesis is the only of the three I'd say amounted to more than non-trivial coverage. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dragon Nest (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted once for notability and crystal balling and twice for WP:G4. Dragon Nest is a foreign online game developed in Asia and at the time of the first deletion, the game was still unreleased with very little released information. Since then, the game has been licensed and scheduled to be released to North American players by a notable game company Nexon Corporation. I recreated the article with sources after the licensing news was announced but it was speedy deleted for G4. When the article was recreated a second time, I asked the closing admin if she/he had access to the old version, but instead of responding to my request, the admin speedy deleted the article again claiming it was identical to the first deleted version. Having read all three deleted articles, the second and third versions of the article did not crystal ball at all. The game was scheduled to be released in North American this year, but it was delayed to next year. As the release date gets closer, the article will probably be recreated again. I believe the game has notability now, but admins will continue to delete it based on the first article for deletion discussion which was almost two years ago. Rezumop (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I haven't worked on the article since the second deletion last year. I only found out that someone recreated the article a few days ago and it got deleted the day after I requested for a backup of the version I wrote. My version did source an interview of the developers but I can't find it anymore. Just quickly looking on the net, these are some that I could use: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53] -Rezumop (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation I know bugger-all about computer games, so my opinion here is subject to someone with more knowledge beating that opinion senseless below. Normally a userspace draft is required for these kinds of articles to get through DRV. But that bureaucratic requirement shouldn't be applied here. The only real reason given for deletion was WP:CRYSTAL. This source shows that should no longer be a concern; if the game has already been played and reviewed it is in my view not a crystal ball case. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and await draft Its not immediately clear that the sources you provide are sufficiently reliable and indepth to qualify. There also seems to be a vast amount of crystal ball gazing in this. Personally I think its too soon to recreate unless the game has been published and there are reviews but I would prefer to see that debate happening at AFD. My advice is to get the thing userfied, rewrite it to incorporate the sources and then bring it back here for review. Subject to the quality of the draft we can either release it into the wild or relist it at AFD for discussion of the sourcing. Otherwise, as you say, its pretty meaningless to review a 2 year old deletion and its not clear cut that we should put it back up. Spartaz Humbug! 04:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would really help with the rewrite if an admin could access the first and second deleted versions of the article and copy them to my userpage. -Rezumop (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okies, your article is now at User:Rezumop/Dragon Nest. Spartaz Humbug! 09:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the deleting admin, I'm quite happy to userfy, rather than simply recreate the article. I don't agree with simply putting it back in mainspace, both versions of the article are still pretty crystal-ball ish, and I think it'd be much helped by a good solid draft. The reason I deleted it was that it was still much too crystally, and thus didn't fix the problems apparent in the original AfD. My not replying is simply me being away from my computer for long periods of time and not getting around to restoring the article to userspace yet - sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Meets WP:N. Even if the game didn't exist yet (and as Mkativerata indicates folks have played and reviewed it) it would still be fine as there are now what appear to be reliable sources. I'm not familiar with those sources (many of which aren't in English) but at least a handful appear to be reliable. Hobit (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this debate for the moment. Allow Rezumop to work on a userspace draft in his own time, and open a new DRV when there's an actual draft to consider.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jett Travolta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Has been a protected redirect for over a year now. Was made that way when he was subject of a current event. But the coverage has long been out of the media, so there is no such need anymore. Having this unprotected is necessary for minor maintenence changes, such as conveniently being able to change the target of the redirect of John Travolta is ever changed. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep protected. I suppose this is a valid DRV issue because while it is a question of protection, the protection arose as the outcome of a DRV. Anyway, There was a clear consensus for this outcome. It should only be unprotected if there is a need to, not just because of a vague assertion that there might be a need to in the future. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • moot. I can't see how John Travolta is ever going to change title and I can't see that we will ever need to change to redirect. If we do, it takes a click or two for any admin to change it round. Spartaz Humbug! 04:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep protected per Spartaz and Mkativerata. No need at the moment to unprotect, if there is a reason later, ask then. While I think an article about the event would be reasonable, that's not what the AfD concluded. Hobit (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect. This is a wiki, and the need for protection has passed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was consensus that no article is justified here. Given that the topic is unlikely to see additional coverage, what's the point of unprotecting? Again, I think there probably should be an article about the event (there was plenty of coverage and multiple issues involved) but why unprotect if any newly created draft will just get deleted? Hobit (talk) 13:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was such a consensus, but is there still? AfDs don't have precedential force except in the case of identical or near-identical copies of the same article (which come under CSD G4). In other words, the AfD applies to the specific article it considered, not to all articles with that title that could ever be written.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to test that consensus you just have to raise a DRV but I honestly can't believe that events will ever mean that there is ever a need to move the redirect or have a separate standalone article. Maybe I'm wrong but we really are arguing over something that never needs to change. Spartaz Humbug! 03:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have asked that it be unprotected before, and have been instructed to take it to DRV. Shaliya waya (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect Per Wikipedia:Make protection requests sparingly, a page should be protected if it is vandalized more than once daily, it is involved in an edit war with a lot of people, or if its purpose is seriously misunderstood. It does not appear this is the case with this one. For now, it should be unprotected. If it turns out to be a problem later, it can be reprotected. Dew Kane (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-emptive protection is allowed if there is a consensus for it and there was. *cough* there is a real risk of vandalism given that the father is a prominent member of a controversial religion and this is never going to need moving Spartaz Humbug! 06:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Protection policy states that pages should only be protected in the event of content dispute or vandalism, something this page has not faced either of in recent days.
    • Wikipedia:Make protection requests sparingly says protection requests are NOT made just because:
      1. The subject is part of a current event **#The subject is of a controversial nature **#The subject is of interest to a seemingly immature crowd
      • There does not appear to be much disruptive activity to John Travolta for that matter either. Dew Kane (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redirect protection as the outcome of an AfD is entirely different to page protection. A redirect protection essentially ensures that the article for which there was a consensus to get rid of can't be restored, and the community's consensus subverted, by a simple reversion of the redirect. I just came across an article today that had been improperly restored this way: Brett Ford. Unprotecting this redirect serves absolutely no useful purpose. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep protected "someone might need to change it someday" does not overcome BLP abuse possibilities. Jclemens (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, Jclemens, that it does. In our free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, every single unprotected page has "BLP abuse possibilities". If someone wants to use Wikipedia to insult John Travolta, then they will be able to find a way to do it. Protection just moves the vandalism somewhere else. See also WP:NO-PREEMPT.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 04:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, but since policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive, I'm advocating that the prior consensus be undone, and protection be used liberally, perhaps even wantonly, in the interest of BLP protection. The "anyone can edit" mission statement has long been thrown under the bus by the antics of anti-social yahoos, libelists with an axe to grind, and the like. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep protected until a reason besides wikidealism is presented. Several accepted {{editrequest}}s might show there's an actual need here. This is essentially a salting, not a preemptive protection against vandalism of content, so WP:NO-PREEMPT doesn't apply. —Korath (Talk) 10:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect - There is no BLP concern here that cannot be managed by simple watchlist vigilance, same as we do with Al Gore III (deleted, but not salted), Jeb Bush, Jr. (redirect but unprotected), and no doubt many others. No legitimate or specific BLP concern has been given here so far, only vague hand-waving of "potential" issues, which is true for articles in general. I find Jclemens' entry most peculiar, given his "Cry BLP" blocks proposal several months ago. I also question whether it was even within the purview of an XfD to decree a redirect be protected, seems like something that should have bene decided at WP:RPP. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep protected. I can't see how Jett Travolta could ever become accepted as a separate article, given that Jett had a relatively short life, was kept out of the public eye for most of that life, and is now deceased. There is not much to say about him other than his health issues, which are already mentioned in the coverage of him in his father's article. The reason for keeping this title as a protected redirect is to avoid having people use the article about Jett as a soapbox to express their own views about autism and Scientology. If there ever were a specific need to move the article John Travolta (say, a John Travolta other than the actor becomes president of the United States), we can deal with changing the redirect at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I don't see the general point in protecting unless we think that there's a serious danger in recreation against consensus? Is that a worry here? If so, keep protected. If not, don't. I'm not at all convinced by the BLP claim since a) Jeff Travolta is dead and 2) any attempt at problematic material concerning the mother or father will just end up in the main article section anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect Subject is not often in the news today, so there is no reason why this title would likely be vandalized or have any other disruptive activity. It only really needed protection at the time the subject was in the news. Now, this subject has been all but forgotten. In general, articles are only given full protection when absolutely needed, if it can be expected there would be continued vandalism or disruptive activity, but this is not the case here. And when articles are fully protected, it is rarely permanent. Why would permanent protection be needed for this? I have seen some arguments here in which some people say "unprotection is not needed because it can never become an article." But with that rationale, you might as well protect every currently unused title on the basis that it could "never become an article." Tatterfly (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep protected There is no need to create an article at this title. If the subject becomes notable posthumously and an article is warranted (very unlikely), a request can be filed at WP:RFPP. Unprotecting this title would not be of benefit to the encyclopedia. Cunard (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect Keeping this or anything else protected when there is no evidence there will be any harm lacks the assumption of good faith, a core Wikipedia value. 166.216.130.41 (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 April 2010

[edit]
  • Lenin's Hanging Order – Speedy overturn. No matter what the merits of the article are, the AfD is undeniably tainted by the fact that the closing admin essentially weighted his own opinions (from sock accounts) as being stronger than everyone else's. No prejudice towards future renomination at AfD. – NW (Talk) 22:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lenin's Hanging Order (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The majority of the delete arguments on this page are now identified as having been formed by the deleting administrator. With the exception of 1 delete !vote, all !votes were for keep. While I cannot see the contents of the page, it is apparent to me that the community consensus for this page was to keep, and thus ask that this deletion be overturned. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
London Buses route 331 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This debate was explicitly closed on the basis of a headcount, contrary to WP:NOTVOTE and to WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS which says "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)."
The closer completely discounted a "delete" !vote by Nagle[54], despite the grounds being a serious concern: that the article is a rehash of material in an unreliable source.
On the "keep side", the closer shows no sign of an attempt to weigh the strength of the arguments. He claims to have discounted procedural keeps, and then found "3 valid keep votes", but the rationale makes no attempt to assess the strength or validity of those votes.
Look at those 3 !votes: Dew Kane made a series of absolutely identical "keep" !votes to more than 12 London bus AFDs at a rate of of over one per minute: see the contribs list. Each of these "keep" !voters read, in full: *'''Keep''' all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable.. That sort of splattergun !vote should be discarded, because it is clearly not based on an assessment of the article under discussion, and even if DewKane had actually presented some evidence that the majority of the routes are notable, that would not establish whether this particular route is notable.
The "keep" from DGG made a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and also asserted that "All established bus routes are major features of the local geography, and if an article can be written, it should be". No evidence was offered for that assertion, and this is in effect a proposal to create a widespread exception to the WP:GNG. No other participant in the AFD supported this exemption from GNG, and no evidence was offered of support elsewhere for so completely setting aside the GNG when assessing bus routes.
The third keep was from Col Warden, whose argument for keeping the article was that a) he had added some trivial references, and b) an assertion that the 331 "will be covered by London bus scholars in their thorough documentation in due course". In other words, the route is not notable now, but keep it because Col W believes it will become notable in the future. Hundreds of similar arguments are routinely made at AFDs on all sorts of topics, and the response is consistently to delete but allow editors to recreate the article if and when notability is established.
So we are left with no solid arguments to keep the article, and lots or arguments in support of the policy WP:DEL#REASON: that a valid reason to delete is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". Fram noted in another DRV that "I can't imagine e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331 in its current state being closed as anything but a delete or a redirect", yet it was in the same state when closed 6 hours later as "no consensus" as a result of a bad vote count. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note I have not attempted to discuss this closure with the closing admin, because discussion with the same admin of another similar vote-counting closure was fruitless (see here). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete- as this is what the consensus was. Disregarding the obstructionist procedural keeps and the robotic copy&paste from Dew Kane leaves only DGG's vote and Colonel Warden's. DGG advocated establishing a blanket exemption to the WP:GNG for no good reason and CW presented nothing but insubstantial fluff and the forlorn hope that the bus route might become notable some day. BrownHairedGirl definitively refuted both at the AfD. Therefore no compelling reason to oppose deletion remained; consensus was to delete. Reyk YO! 10:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:NOTAGAIN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It is about as clear as it can be that there is no consensus for these articles to be deleted and we have pretty clear policy saying that they shouldn't be. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, it's about as clear as can be that Col W is one of a small but vocal minority of editors who reject both WP:GNG and the policy WP:DEL#REASON ... but no matter how many times they reject the policy, it stands until there is consensus to overturn it. Repeated attempts by Col W and others to claim trivia such as map listings as evidence of notability do not satisfy WP:GNG, and counting heads to accept such arguments is contrary to the policy WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
    Col W loves linking to WP:PRESERVE, but doesn't seem to have noticed that it explicitly says to preserve content "where appropriate", not to preserve in all cases. Col W's bizarre interpretation of WP:PRESERVE as "never delete anything" contradicts other policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse common sense says there will be sources in places such as local libraries and local history rooms. I'd posit that most districts of london have several books about them, where lots of minutiae are covered in great detail (suburbs of Sydney certainly have!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close could have gone either NC or delete, but I think NC was the right reading of that debate. Hobit (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable decision--there was no real consensus at this of most of the other bus route afds. As for following policy, WP:N is guideline not policy, and therefore necessarily admits of frequent exceptions--guideline are only "normally" followed, not always followed, or necessarily followed. (and even policy admits of exceptions in special cases, a special case being anything the community decides it is.) The community can define such exceptions on a group basis in special guidelines on an individual basis at afd. The claim that only a small minority support this is contrary to fact. Only a very few people here are willing to act as if WP:GNG were invariable policy--there are thousands of afd decisions that are in effect individual exceptions. Even the invariable aspects of BLP and copyright are subject to interpretation. In short, I challenge BHG to find evidence that we cannot interpret WP:N as the community pleases. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. It was not appropriate to disregard Stifle's remark (which is grounded in policy, specifically WP:IINFO). I am confident this is clear error on the closer's part.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closer's assessment of the discussion as "no consensus" seems reasonable to me although "delete" might have been satisfactory too. I have also considered the closer's rationale since this has been criticised here. The rationale explicitly stated the decision was not based on a count of votes (although a count was provided by way of preamble) and so the close seems fully within guidelines. Thincat (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not a single keep vote was based on policy. Aiken ♫ 00:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (no consensus). Unsurprising failure to reach a consensus with weak deletes facing off weak keeps, where this sort of thing almost always is better merged and redirected to the general topic (London bus routes), which incidentally redirects to a list that need prosification. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here seems to me to be strongly connected to the problem behind a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Changing_the_community.27s_view. Here we have information spun out from a list. Usually, lists are material spun out of bigger articles. What's lacking here is the real article, probably London bus routes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No consensus means there is not a consensus to delete. The best thing to do is to give the article the benefit of the doubt, especially that it is not BLP. Merging can be an editorial decision, and can be discussed on the article's talk page or done boldly. Sebwite (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A closer doesn't decide who wins the debate; he or she decides where the consensus lies. As much as I disagree with the keep opinions, they can't be discounted. It was open to find there was no consensus here. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse It's unfortunate when a consensus is based off of such fallacies as "inherited notability", but it happened here. I would suggest a merge into the wider article or a renomination in a few months if notability is not established according to the GNG. ThemFromSpace 09:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. Most of the other Bus routes AFDs were reasonable Keep or NC closes, but this wasn't. Keep votes that effectively amounted to WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should not have been given as much weight as Delete grounded in policy. Black Kite 13:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, all keeps were procedural, inherently weak, or refuted. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I give Dew Kane's recommendation very little weight because it asserts notability for a general "majority" without evidence or specifics. The copying-and-pasting merely highlights its weakness. Flatscan (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per Reyk. Whereas most of the "delete" opinions were well-grounded in policy, the "keep" votes were not. There was a clear consensus to delete in this AfD. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse based on the arguments of DGG and Themfromspace, but in this case the situation is borderline. Based on the article's merits, this is a rather unremarkable and thin route through the western parts of Outer London, so I don't think it has the same notability as the major trunk routes running through London's inner city. I would probably merge it into a list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Where a rough equality exists between the number of people supporting each side of a deletion debate, the closing administrator is to consider whether arguments are grounded in policy and whether any have been particularly refuted. While this was what took place on the surface, it appears to me that Scott Mac substituted his own opinion, which could and should have been expressed as a !vote of his own, for the legitimate outcome of the discussion, which was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The only valid reason to overturn so far is that of ignoring Dew Kane's vote. However, two of the Delete votes (from Crossmr and Karanacs) were also copy-and-pastes that could equally well be ignored. This would reduce the proportion of delete votes to 59% (four out of seven), so Scott's rationale would still be correct. I actually voted Redirect in this and was surprised to see it kept, but the reason given was valid so it should not be changed. Relisting would be a possibility as a consensus could well be reached. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with no prejudice to renomination--or to merging, per the close rationale. "No consensus" is a hard bar to overcome, and it's not overcome here. Jclemens (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: completely incorrect closure. Sceptre (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Correct closure. There was no consensus to delete. With many editors having many different interpretations of our endless self-contradicting policies and guidelines, some editors simply not liking half the arguments one way or another is not a reason to suddenly decide there was a consensus either way.--Oakshade (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, either to "merge" in order to ensure that the information is preserved, or to "delete." Like Black Kite, I believe that many of these bus route AfDs were correctly closed as "keep"; however, this one should have been closed as "delete" as (a) the closing admin ignored a valid argument based on WP:NOT and (b) those arguing to keep the article failed to successfully refute the arguments to delete. Colonel Warden, whose commentary I have considered carefully, freely admitted that this particular bus route lacked the "rich history" of older routes. He argued that it too had been noticed, but the news coverage he presented failed to establish notability under the general notability guideline and was rejected by consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete - there was clearly a consensus to delete. Also, I agree with comments by Reyk and S Marshall regarding the arguments presented. PhilKnight (talk) 10:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closer's decision was not not made on the basis of a simple headcount, but by measuring the policy-based level of support for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Joseph Patrick Dwyer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin for the discussion did not give a rationale, beyond stating that the result was "delete". Normally, this is not a problem, as most admins close discussions like that when consensus is clear. However, this case is not the same as most discussions. In terms of clear votes, it was even. But since Wikipedia is not a poll, it goes to the discussion and the policy discussed. We were still in the middle of discussing important points about notability and whether the general guidelines on notability should be taken or whether only military specific guidelines should be used. On that basis and taking the entire AfD discussion as a whole, it would have gone to a No Consensus determination, which does not default to delete except in rare cases. In this instance, I feel that it should have been relisted a second time to allow more discussion to take place, as questions still had to be answered for true consensus to be found. The BLP1E argument is not valid for Dwyer, as he has already died and WP:NOTNEWS, of which the only argument possible there is for the news reports section, doesn't apply because Dwyer is not breaking news. The sources span years and are not focused on just his death or just his photo or even just those two combined. Because of the variety of time period and coverage of the sources, it appears that he meets standards, of which were being discussed in the AfD. SilverserenC 04:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- Silverseren's assertion that discussion was still ongoing is false. The last comment was on March 30, the article was relisted on April 2 and deleted on April 10 with no further comments being added. There was no ongoing discussion, and it would obviously have been futile to relisit it a second time. The closing admin made a judgment call on what discussion there had been, and made a decision that I feel was well within his discretion. Reyk YO! 04:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I too see a consensus for deletion. I don't see that anyone was "still discussing" anything - the discussion was relisted 36 hours after the last comment ever, and in the subsequent eight days nobody said anything. Further relistings were unlikely to get anywhere - you (I don't mean to be personal, but given the numbers you must admit it was your lone voice arguing to keep) didn't really counter the claims brought mainly by bahamutt0013. Yes, Dwyer's death was covered but he wasn't. I'm not saying his death is notable but he isn't, rather trying to point out the intent of the sources. The picture of him was drummed-up in the early portion of the war, and his tragic death was drummed-up five years later. It makes for an interesting, personal interest story for CBS, but it isn't about Dwyer - it's an angle on the war. That was brought to the fore in the AfD - sources are a requirement for notability and are a good metric, but cannot guarantee it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus is measured on argument. The argument was all one way: delete per bahamutt0013. There were three very strong delete position that withstood scrutiny and only one valid keep that was indirectly refuted later in the discussion. Good close. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three? I only see two. Am I looking wrong? SilverserenC 20:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is standard to include the nominator as a delete opinion unless the nominator explicitly states otherwise. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. SilverserenC 20:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus the argument to delete, other than the nom, were weak at best. There was significant coverage, so WP:N is met. To argue that what he did wasn't important enough and WP:N should be ignored is a perfectly fine IARs argument, but shouldn't be given much weight. The only policy-based reason I saw for deletion was a one-event argument by the nom, which one keep !vote did a good job of addressing. A closing statement here would probably have helped. Hobit (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This does not seem to have gotten enough attention. There is an apparent conflict here between the GNG and NOT NEWS, which is not unusual, but what is unusual is the very large amount of international RS coverage -- a full story in Spiegel [55] and the Telegraph [56] as well as US major news sources [57] , [58] , [59]. There is generally accepted to be some point at which this sort of coverage does over-ride not news and BLP1E, and the issue needs more people discussing it. What I say here does not mean I will necessarily say !keep for the article--I am undecided about that, and I want to hear what others say to the point. DGG ( talk ) 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm I cannot see the cached copy (Qatar has blocked the site as unacceptable) so I'm going to have to abstain. Spartaz Humbug! 19:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undeleted the article, full protected it for a week, and added {{TempUndelete}}. NW (Talk) 19:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. Hmm, now I can see it I can understand the AFD properly. Okies, lets see. BLP1E does not apply to dead people but the principle is a good one. There is never going to be extensive coverage of this individual that doesn't focus on their death and I cannot see that we could ever properly cover the full story of their life, just one event in their military career and then their sad death. NOT News and BLP1E are both policies and trump GNG so the deletion arguments are better then the keep arguments but I have to say that it would have been just as reasonable to go no consensus as delete this but, given a range of valid outcomes, I can go with this under administrative discretion. Therefore weak endorse Spartaz Humbug! 19:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think it's about the GNG -v- BLP1E (the stated grounds for AfD) rather than the GNG -v- NOT.

    Clearly, "one event" fails as a deletion criterion if the event is notable enough, which is why we have articles on Monica Lewinsky and Lee Harvey Oswald. But equally clearly, if the event isn't notable enough to generate coverage of the people involved, then we should have an article on the event rather than the person. So there's a tension between the two that requires discussion and editorial judgment to resolve.

    In this case I don't see that there was a consensus to delete.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close correctly weighed the arguments. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not about only his death, so it is not a memorial. SilverserenC 20:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist This needs further discussion. The NOTNEWS claims need much more careful evaluation given that there are sources about Dwyer before his death. This also undermines the memorial claims substantially. Since he's not alive, BLP1E isn't relevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have updated the argument in my nomination lead, in relation to discussion made so far. SilverserenC 20:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - There was no consensus to delete this. Many users are under the impression that because somebody was in the news, WP:NOTNEWS suddenly supersedes all other guidelines when in fact there is a never-ending debate on when frequently contradicting NOTNEWS or GNG guidelines applies in specific cases.--Oakshade (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and relist. The deletion argument was grounded in policy but did not appear to have consensus. While I can understand the closing admin's decision, it would probably be worth getting more opinions on this article before deleting. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Difficult to see a consensus at AfD --Rumping (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The arguments for deletion don't mesh with the article's state at the point it was deleted. An administrator has a responsibility to at least validate that !votes are objectively reasonable. This was not such a case--The delete !votes do not take the sources in the article into account. This disconnect should not be surprising since the article was expanded threefold during the deletion discussion; one editor had noted that the article was tagged for rescue, so failure to check for such improvements is not consistent with best practices for closing administrators. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm actually not sure that it is best practise for admins to review articles when closing discussions as there could be a tendency to end up substituting their own views for those expressed in the discussion. There was a discussion about that at talk AFD where several frequent closers chimed in and I think that if there was substantial improvement its the responsibility of those discussing the article to flag that up and discuss. I personally do make allowances in closes where participants comment about improvement but the approach you advocate does have the risk of turning the admin into a "super voter" rather then simply evaluating the arguments and consensus of the discussion. No doubt there is a further discussion to be had on this but I did want to flag up that by no means is there a settled consensus that admins must check articles and article histories when closing deletion debates. Spartaz Humbug! 03:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion at WT:AD I am referencing is here. I note you were a dissenting voice there but there does seems to be far from any clear consensus on the level of due diligence an admin should do before closing a discussion. (personally I generally review articles myself if the discussion is not clear but I also get accused from time to time of super voting so I wonder if we just can't win)! Spartaz Humbug! 03:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've thought this through plenty of times: the benefits of looking to see which !votes actually apply to the article as closed outweighs any potential downside. We say admins should evaluate the policy basis of !votes? Great. But how on earth can a !vote based on an inaccuracy, regardless of its policy basis, weigh as much as one based on reality? Objective reality is the foundation on which !votes can be evaluated for policy compliance. "delete--no sources to meet the GNG" means three potential things: 1) If there were sources when that statement was made, the !vote is entirely invalid as that of someone who (assuming good faith) didn't even bother to actually examine the article. 2) If there weren't sources, but are sources by the time the AfD is closed, it's a vote that no longer reflects objective reality and should be weighed appropriately. 3) If there weren't any sources when the !vote was cast, and remain no sources upon examination by the closing admin, then full appropriate weight is given. What can be wrong with that? Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist This article merits a more thorough discussion, especially since the extant news coverage at the time of the subject's death undermines any WP:NOTMEMORIAL arguments, as JoshuaZ correctly noted above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the content of the article, since it appears that I was mistaken in my close. If any admin could just close this, it would be great. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 10:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The two references contain content that attests to the notability of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Delete was immediate following rediscovery of AfD 2. The policy for DRV was not in my knowledge at the time, and I can only apologise for this ignorance on my part. I request now, however, that the deletion be reconsidered. Significant third party coverage has been sourced, from publications both local and national. The claim has been made that the film is non-notable based on "small geographic following", but the article from the internationally esteemed Hot Press combined with the length of time between the film's debut and its writing at least warrant a further discussion of the article's notability. As well as this, nationwide network TG4 have featured both the film and its characters in not one, but two programmes. As such, it is proven that this film has far more than a mere localised following, as has been claimed. The film has also received significant coverage in a range of independent reliable sources. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. This film no longer seems to me to be the slam-dunk delete suggested by most contributors to the 2nd AFD. That AFD got off to a bad start with User:Imagi-King (who launched this DRV) arguing for its retention on grounds which are completely irrelevant to wikipedia's notability criteria, and continued in the same vein. I haven't checked which (if any) of the current refs were present for the 2nd AFD, but by the time of the 3rd AFD there were five references which may perhaps be to significant coverage:
  1. "Moving hip-hop film set to steal the show", Evening Echo, November 4, 2009.
  2. http://www.kerryman.ie/news/hip-hop-spoof-is-a-festival-hit-1932825.html
  3. O' Mahony, Don. "Who the hell goes to... Steamin' and Dreamin'", Evening Echo, November 12, 2009.
  4. Lucey, Evan "Grandmaster of Ceremonies", Cork News, November 13, 2009.
  5. Clark, Stuart, Hot Press, March 10, 2010.
Unfortunately, only one of those articles is online, and that's behind a paywall, but if even two of these refs to reliable sources are to significant coverage, the GNG is satisfied. The article should be relisted to allow proper examination of the significance of those refs. I suspect that the conclusion may be the same, but when an editor has gone to the trouble of seeking out sources, I think it's important not to be swayed by the complete absence of notability in earlier versions of the articles; instead we should assume good faith and see whether these refs check out. (To help sustain that assumption of good faith it would help considerably if User:Imagi-King were to familiarise himself with WP:NF, and provide some assessment of how significant the coverage is in these sources). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply [60] links the Hot Press article. Unfortunately this is also behind a paywall. At the time of addition, the Kerryman article was available freely. I was not aware it had changed. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment none of the available references can be counted as independent and reliable. Therefore we have to rely on unavailable references. Is there any one who can confirm that they are real and have significant coverage? Most are local only. So it seems to have about half of the notability requirement. The current userspace draft still looks identical to the version deleted in November after the second AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The Hot Press article is a new addition, as well as information regarding the TG4 coverage. One of the main reasons for deletion under the 2nd AfD was the "highly localised following" of the film. The references I have since added demonstrate it has developed, if not more, a national following. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hot press ref was there at the time of the second AFD. Reference expansion happened between 1st and 2nd AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)Actually hot press was added: 22:32, 19 March 2010 , sorry, but I am still of the opinion that this film is not notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold deletion in the strongest means possible. The person requesting this deletion review has tried in every way possible to circumvent the deletion of this article, which is about a film in which he has a personal involvement (though he hid that fact until the original AfD was decided in favor of deletion). He has recreated the article after the AfD decided for deletion, then feigned ignorance of WP policy. He has maintained a copy of the article in user space and cajoled admins into permitting this so that he might "improve" the article, then done little or nothing to do so. This is a short film about a subject of limited local interest, has apparently been shown only in a very limited geographical area (primarily at a film festival in Cork), and its current distribution appears to be limited to selling DVD copies out of someone's car. Independent coverage is limited at best. There is no way that this film meets any criteria of notability for films. Moreover, the author has acted in bad faith is his continued persistence in promoting this non-notable film through the article, despite his obvious conflict of interest. Deletion review should not even be considered, as there is nothing new that has been presented that dissuades me or anyone else that notability has since been proved. It's just another attempt by this disruptive author to spam Wikipedia for his own personal benefit. Not only should the article remain deleted, but also the user-space article should be deleted, the title should be salted, and the author blocked for a significant period of time for being disruptive and acting in bad faith. Be gone already! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Realkyhick, you really must stop your assumptions of bad faith. It's highly unproductive, infuriating, and downright rude. Sure, I've added the article a few times. Three, to be precise, each of which has been discussed in an Afd. The only incorrect thing I ever did was to return it to mainspace after the 2nd AfD: this after significant improvements which specifically addressed your concerns. Yes, that defies Wikipedia policy, but as I've said and apologised for more than once, that was due to my own ignorance. I've never feigned ignorance. Despite the length of my Wikipedia membership, I am not by any means an experienced editor, but a quick glance at my edit history will show that I am a faithful and undisruptive editor. In any case, this is nothing to do with the discussion at hand, so can we please get past it and debate what matters? Thank you. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My belief that you are acting in bad faith is well founded, and your reply is condescending and borders on being passive-aggressive. You have attempted every means possible to evade Wikipedia policies and somehow keep the article alive about this non-notable film in which you appear. In all my years at Wikipedia, I have never seen an editor who is so stubborn, and unwilling to accept the will of the rest of the community. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, like I said I've done one thing wrong. Assume bad faith if you wish; be uncivil. Your claim of passive-aggression is simply ridiculous. I don't think I've ever written something so mild-mannered. It's your opinion that this film is non-notable, which seems thusfar to be contradictory to the will of the community as put forth in this DRV. And that is what matters: the community consensus. Not my editing, nor your opinion thereof. So I'll reiterate, with all due respect but with equally due firmness. Get past it. My apologies to everybody else for this tangential nonsense, on both our parts. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're way out of line, mister. I'll apologize if and when I see fit. Get over yourself, and quit trying to publicize this non-notable film for yourself and your friends. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect the references listed above were added by Imagi-King. Is this the case? And if so, could you please characterize their length and depth, and provide some quotes from them, so that others may assess them? —Korath (Talk) 04:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply No problem, I can get those in the next day or two for you. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update this Userspace draft has a lot of the requested information. If that's not enough and you require any more, just let me know. Baron Ronan Doyle of Sealand (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and relist There was no need for a speedy close here. New sources can justify a new discussion. I can't see the article (or the cached copy) but given BHG's comments, I'll assume there is enough to at least discuss. Hobit (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the userspace draft is at User:Imagi-King/Steamin' and Dreamin': The Grandmaster Cash Story. JohnCD (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist at AfD – and, as a prerequisite, move this draft to the mainspace. I think this new version deserves a fresh evaluation at AfD, although I urge participants at prior AfDs to tone down any ire relating to bad blood over those AfDs. No ad hominem arguments, please. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". The addition of fives new sources (and I'm taking BHG at her word that there were five new sources as I can't see the article) means the page is not substantially identical and so a G4 speedy is inappropriate. How good the references are is irrelevant as that should be a community decision at AfD not the decision of a single admin when speeding. Similarly a COI should not be a consideration when deciding on a speedy, it's not mentioned in any of the criteria. I have seriously doubts that this article will survive another AfD but it wasn't a speedy candidate and the admin involved erred in deleting it as such. Dpmuk (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per BHG and Dpmuk. It seems to be far better sourced than it was, so it's worth giving it another chance per G4, regardless of the author's COI. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
9/11 Truth Movement (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The following information about Dr. Judy Wood is verifiable and accurate, and belongs on the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page.

Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page:

1. I think that Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research.

2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents section of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth.

3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court.


In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [61] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [62], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [63] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.


These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy.

Please help.

Thank you,

-Abe

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

  • Point of Parliamentary procedure - there is nothing to discuss here. This process is for articles that are deleted, it is not for debating individual bits of content. You have already been warned about spamming all over the place about this matter. The most suitable place for this discussion is the article talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
London Buses route 183 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was at best a perverse closure, labelled as "keep" even though the closer found no consensus. If there is no consensus, then the closure should be explicitly labelled as "no consensus"; the effect of "no consensus" is of course to keep the article, but it is misleading to summarise a debate as if the discussion had reached a conclusion. I tried to discuss this with the closer, who did add a rationale to his initial one-word closure, but we got nowhere in the discussion.
The rest of the rationale is even more bizarre: the closer says that "The GNG are guidelines, and whilst they may influence and guide those participating, they don't mandate deletion even if the article were thought to fail them". In other words, even if there had been complete unanimity that the article could never come with a million miles of meeting the GNG, the closer regards that as no grounds for deletion. If that was the case, then no article on even the most deeply obscure and non-notable topic would ever be deleted, and GNG should be deleted as irrelevant.
The closer's counting of the "keep" !votes is also perverse: he lists !votes by Dew Kane and Colonel Warden as "solid", but Dew Kane made a rapid-fire series of absolutely identical !votes to "keep" London buses articles at a rate of of over one per minute: see the contribs list. Each of these "keep" !voters read, in full: *'''Keep''' all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable.. That sort of splattergun !vote should be discarded, because it is clearly not based on an assessment of the article under discussion, and even if DewKane is right that the majority of the routes are notable, that does not establish whether this route is notable.
ColWarden's vote is based on references he added, one of which is to a map of all London bus routes, which he insists amounts to "significant coverage" ... and apart from that we have one badly-written local newspaper story whose text doesn't support the claim in the headline. So if we discard just those two votes, there is a clear consensus to delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The closer correctly followed the guidance of WP:DGFA in that:
  1. He determined that there was no consensus to delete
  2. He respected the judgement and feelings of the Wikipedia participants
  3. He correctly ruled that the lack of consensus meant that he should not delete the article
We could go over the finer points but this would tend to repeat the discussion to little purpose. I have researched the sources for this and similar articles in detail and have no doubt that they are sufficient to support reasonable articles. The opposing editors do not seem to have researched the topics and appear opposed to them on general principle, "you could have a million sources and it still wouldn't suddenly make it notable". This blind refusal to accept sources when they are presented in good faith is not supported by policy while we have policies which explicitly forbid such censorious attitudes. If BHG and others wish to construct a policy forbidding articles about buses they should please construct a draft guideline and conduct an RfC rather than generating all this procedural noise - multiple threads at ANI, numerous AFDs, and now DRV. The matter is vexatious and so should be done better. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All this bluster about "censorious attitudes" has been repeated by Col W across countless AFDs. His rants about vexatiousness were rejected at ANI, as was his gratuitous allegation of nationalist bias, and now it is accompanied by pointless hyperbole. Neither I nor any of the delete !voters were looking for "a million sources", or anything like that. We were looking for evidence of significant coverage per WP:GNG, and Col W's addition of a few trivial mentions does not amount to that: the closest he has to that is simply that route is mentioned on a route map. By any reasonable definition, that's trivial.
Col W hunted hard for evidence of notability, and hasn't got it. If he had produced it, Col W wouldn't need to waste his time with all this rhetoric; he'd have some solid evidence of notability. Instead, he has sources to verify a few minor points, which is much less that what GNG requires. Talk of possible guidelines is also irrelevant; we have an existing general guideline in the shape of WP:GNG, and it should be applied here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect/merge: notability is indeed a reason to delete, if one of the only reasons to delete an article, at least on the AfD stage. In a AfD, any concerns about notability should be brought front and center, and if an article can be demonstrated to be non-notable, then it should be deleted despite it being verifiable. In this case, the bus route does seem to be non-notable, and thus should've been deleted. However, it's a plausible search term, so a redirect/merge to a list article is acceptable. Sceptre (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and FWIW, system maps don't count for notability as they're usually commissioned by the transport executive, so would most likely be a primary source. The tube map doesn't make the District Line notable, after all. Sceptre (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to anything besides keep. Closer's rational clearly states he was vote counting! Abductive (reasoning) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If the closer had counted words of argument he would have closed as "delete". Happily he did not and concluded that policy-based views did not form a consensus. I agree with this. Thincat (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Thincat sums it up well above - Having done some local studies and seen places such as local tramway museums which produce stacks of information on transport, and seen lots of books on individual suburbs and municipalities, I don't doubt one could get significant coverage either. This will require some offweb searching as will many bus route and local history material. Anyone who has studied local history should be able to realise this. research does not merely equal what we find on google. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So there was no evidence of notability, and there is still no evidence of notability, but all the same the collection-of-unrelated-trivia article should be kept because some day someone may do some research which might turn it up. What happened to WP:BURDEN? It still seems to be policy, but even so we have a few editors demanding that articles be kept because others have failed to prove a negative. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Article quality is not a reason for deletion - there is a difference between researching on google and trotting on down to a local library or local history room somewhere in North London and digging up some more material oneself - it can't be done with the snap of a finger (or even two fingers). I have no idea where Col W is either, but if he isn't in North London it might be tricky for him too (I am on the other side of the globe...) And references 4 and 5 are significant mentions in secondary sources, hence it satisfies the GNG guidelines you quoted in the first place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please actually look at refs 4 and 5.
    ref #4 does not address the topic in detail; it doesn't even mention 183 in the body text, and merely lists the 183 in a sidebox on an article whose text is mostly about route 322.
    ref #5 is demonstrably unreliable: the headline "Bus thieves target elderly" and the lead "Vulnerable pensioners are being preyed upon by gangs of thieves on the 183 bus" are not supported by the text of the article, in which the bus company confirms only one incident.
    So WP:GNG is not satisfied; nowhere near it. If someone later does some research which establishes evidence of the notability of the route, then the article can of course be re-created ... but right now the case for keeping this article is based solely on the wishful thinking that if and when someone does some appropriate offline research, then some editors hope that new evidence will be found. If and when that happens, the evidence can presented at WP:REFUND, but right now we do not have that evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look at the refs - umm...ref 4, listed as 3rd of 5 worst bus routes. Okay so there are not alot of words, but it is the essence of what the article is about, and ref 5, okay there is alot of tabloid guff, but is still about the bus route. Essentially you want the article deleted (for whatever reason I don't know) and are going to be liberal with your interpretation of 'significant' in order to pursue your aim. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Ref 4 is about another route, and ref 5 is demonstrably unreliable, so neither helps establish notability per GNG.
    Instead of personalising the argument by making bad faith assumptions about motives, please can you stick to discussing the content rather than contributors? Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what your motives are and stated so above. Ref 4 is not just about another route, hence the nice-coloured box at the side, and interpreting ref 5 is subjective - I'd pay less attention to a tabloid discussing, say climatology or psychology, that is true... :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Determined by consensus to be notable. The GNG s the usual way of meeting the N guidelines, but not the only way. If the consensus wants to make an exception for certain articles or certain types of articles,it can do so--and do so without needingto invoke IAR, because a guideline by its very nature allows of exceptions, and WP:N goes even further in specifically providing for them. It is just plain false that the GNG is a rule which we must always follow, like we must always follow copyright and BLP. Such a view has been explicitly rejected by the community , for attempts to give it policy status have repeatedly failed. And even if it were policy, polices have exceptions too, they are merely "standards that all editors should normally follow." The word normally is there for a purpose. Only a very few policies must always be followed (BLP and COPYRiGHT--though even here there is room for interpretation, and the actual policies are written to allow for it). And WP:N is not even policy, just "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow" . attempt means something which is not expected to be always reached. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly there is no consensus here or at the AfD. What piece of information in the article seems encyclopedic to you? And how do you explain the fact that most of the other bus routes AfD'd at the same time were outright deleted? Consensus? That they were all an abberation and that people have determined them to be exceptions to the guideline? Finally, what is your opinion of vote counting? Abductive (reasoning) 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. No consensus either way. A number of the keep opinions were, in my view, very weak, but there still wasn't enough on the delete side to make a delete close the only close open to be made. Unless there is a fundamental WP:V issue, policy doesn't require deletion. I like to follow the WP:GNG rigorously, but it isn't policy and can validly be departed from if others disagree with me. However, I can't possibly follow DGG's assertion that there was a "consenus to be notable". That strikes me as an extraordinary disregard of the significant arguments presented on the delete side. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge/redirect- I think BHG has it exactly right. Reyk YO! 23:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse I think a no consensus close would have been better here, but keep is within admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (& merge) - inexplicable close. Eusebeus (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure insofar as the closing admin evaluating the discussion correctly and subsequently added a closing rationale which made a judgement that was within his discretion. However, as a matter of semantics, there was no consensus in this discussion and the close should have read "no consensus" rather than "keep." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not a single keep vote was based on policy. Aiken ♫ 00:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The closer had a very good explanation of why this should be kept. Even though deletes slightly outnumbered keep, there were enough that it is not a clear consensus to delete. A good alternative after this would be to merge the article, either boldly or with a discussion on the article's talk page. Sebwite (talk) 03:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Keep !votes were not grounded in policy to a large part. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to at least no consensus, looks like no consensus leaning delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn & delete, the weight of policy based argument was clearly on the side of deletion. Nancy talk 06:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. From the closing rationale, I interpret it as a "no consensus", which has the same effect as a keep. In the bygone era when I closed AFDs often, I would often write "keep (no consensus)", and Scott appears to have done something similar here. Since a "delete" result would not accurately reflect consensus, the end result is correct. No need to overturn anything. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A valid closure in the only fault is the use of the word "Keep". Unless we want to be picky and remove the word "Keep" from the closing statement, I see no reason to change this. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus (at least) - even the closing admin in their rationale, confirmed there was no consensus to keep, so why on earth they didn't close it as such, I do not know. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but calling it "no consensus" would not have been much/any different. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus at the very least, preferably overturn and delete. If AfDs were supposed to be closed as Scott Mac closed this one, we could hand the duties off to a bot. WP:V is not by itself valid reason for inclusion (I can verify that the fourth toe on my right foot exists); the article must also be WP:N. The fact that Scott Mac was swayed by such an argument speaks to the weakness of the close. Badger Drink (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Label no consensus. Calling it "overturn" when the end result is almost the same is a stretch. I guess it's slightly easier to renominate in a couple of months when it's labeled "no consensus", so that's worth doing. --GRuban (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's belated comments - sorry, been away for a week or so. Last time I noticed, we delete things for three reasons 1) they are unverifiable and fail the WP:V policy 2) the article cannot be neutrally written and inherently fails WP:NPOV policy. 3) A consensus determines that it is otherwise unsuitable for inclusion (generally this happens for lack of notability - but there can be other reasons). In this case, the subject is verifiable and neutral - so lacking a consensus to delete (which it evidently does) we keep it. I've redacted the close to "kept because it lacks a consensus to delete" - since the magic formula "no consensus" (which I'd already used in the close) seems only to work for some people if it is put in bold. What on earth is this DRV about? Look like a second bite at an afd. Why not go and find a consensus if you are so right.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because a relist relatively soon after a "no consensus" is not frowned upon, while a relist soon after a "keep" is in practice strongly discouraged. Similarly, merging or redirecting things for which there was no consensus to keep them in the AfD is less controversial than redirectigng something which was just clearly kept in an AfD. I don't know if these were the reasons for this DRV, but they are potential candidates. And sometimes it's just the ego of the nominator, where having a "no consensus" gives less the impression of being "wrong" than a straightforward "keep". When you nominate something for deletion, you want the article either to be deleted, or to be shown that you were wrong after serious umprovements to the article were made. To just be plain wrong (according to the AfD discussion) in your original nomination is not always easy to swallow, even though it happens regularly to most frequent nominators. Just a few thoughts... Fram (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Judy Wood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User that deleted my attempts to discuss the deletion of the 'Judy Wood' page: Someguy1221 User kept deleting my attempt to appeal and discuss the reasons for the deletion of page 'Judy Wood', so I kept reposting my discussion attempt in hopes of explaining why the reasons given for the page deletion were invalid. Each time I posted my attempt to discuss, it was deleted. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Response: No Article? WHAT?! - There WAS an article, but it was deleted, so I created a discussion post on the Talk Page within 15 minutes of it being deleted! There was indeed an article, but it was deleted, so that is why I started discussing my concerns about its deletion! This is UNFAIR! Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookzta (talk • contribs)
Once an article is deleted, the talkpage is deleted. If you want to appeal against that deletion, you come here to do it (as you have done so). You don't recreate the talkpage for the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: If that is true, then my mistake on recreating the Talk Page instead of coming here first. How does this process work now that I am here asking for a review? Is the final decision simply overturned by you all who are posting? Or does someone look over this then decide? Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If an article gets deleted, the talk page gets deleted along with it. If the article then gets restored, the talk page comes back too. There is no need for a seperate DRV. Reyk YO! 10:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: Yes, I understand that now thanks to Cameron Scott. But what I am asking, is how does the review process for the original page I created, entitled 'Judy Wood'. How is the final decision made? Are you all like the jury? Is there a judge that comes here and looks over all of this? How does this work? Thanks for any help and info you can provide. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookzta (talk • contribs)
From the page Wikipedia:Deletion review:
After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion process#Wikipedia:Deletion review discussions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.
Please read the information on Wikipedia:Deletion review. It includes a lot of relevant info about what is appropriate in a deletion review discussion. bonadea contributions talk 10:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Judy Wood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Invalid reasons given for deletion. Deleting user: Zscout370 Reasons given for deletion: User said Dr. Judy Wood is not a notable person and that my page had Copyright violations. Reasons I am appealing: Dr. Judy Wood is a notable person, because she is the ONLY 9/11 researcher to file her evidence in a court of law. One of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court! No other 9/11 researcher has accomplished so much in the pursuit of truth and justice, yet many other 9/11 researchers have their own Wikipedia pages. This is not fair. In addition, the material on her website is not only fair use since it is a public website (www.drjudywood.com), but also, I have personally contacted Dr. Judy Wood via email, and she has given me permission to use any and all of the information on her website. She has pledged to email the Wikipedia Permissions staff within 48 hours to inform them that I do indeed have permission to use the information on her webpage. Therefore, the two reasons given for deletion are invalid, and my attempts to discuss this deletion at the Talk:Judy Wood page, were also deleted! This is censorship, and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookzta (talk • contribs)

  • Endorse deletion - as far as I can, regardless of what is done in the future, it was a copyvio when deleted. Moreover, I see an article on this individual has already been deleted a number of times and also has subject to an AFD. I would salt the article space and tell anyone who wishes to make an article on this individual to do so in a sandbox and then get other people to assess the sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Notability: Considering Dr. Wood is the ONLY 9/11 Researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court in October 2009, she is MORE notable than many 9/11 researchers that have their own pages, yet only hers seems to be deleted. When I try to input her name into the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page, someone keeps deleting her name and any links to her research or court cases! This is UNFAIR, and this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Censorship and Unfairness are NOT what Wikipedia is about. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Response: References: In addition, 3 of the 5 references used are from EXTERNAL SOURCES. 1 is from a government website, and 2 are from Academic Universities. The only 2 sources used from her website are links to the legal documents she has scanned in. Please help Wikipedia, people are trying to censor Dr. Wood, and administrators have deleted the Wikipedia page that I created! This is unfair! Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Response: Copyright Violation: I am also NOT in Copyright violation, because her information and photos are FAIR USE and are posted Publicly, but in addition to that, she has also given me permission personally, and will be emailing the Wikipedia Permission email to alert them to this within 48 hours. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I also have donated to Wikipedia in the past, and plan on donating a lot more, once I get done with medical school (I am broke right now).
Thanks for your time and help,
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez
M1 Medical Student
B.S. Biology / Neurobiology
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless of what happens in the future, the page you want to use says © 2006-2008 Judy Wood and the author above. All rights reserved.. Leaving that aside, the individual is simply not notable with the sources you have presented. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - text taken from "public websites" is still considered to be copyrighted, fair use does not apply here. The page even has a copyright symbol on it (but note that copyright applies whether that symbol is present on the webpage or not, unless the site clearly states that its text is free for use under applicable policies.) That the copyright holder is going to email Wikipedia does not mean that copyright is invalidated. The permission must be there first. So that reason for deleting the article is valid. Concerning the other reason, notability, the AfD from 2007 ended in a consensus that the individual did not meet WP:PROF at the time, and the article that was deleted today did in fact not include sources that showed that notability is present now. You need sources that meet Wikipedia's standard of reliability. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Notability based on Sources: Here are the sources used, showing that she has accomplished far more than many 9/11 researchers and scientists that have their own Wikipedia pages, since she is the ONLY 9/11 researcher to ever file her evidence in a court of law, and one of her cases made it all the way to the SUPREME COURT:
1. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06072006-124140/
2. http://www.registrar.clemson.edu/publicat/catalog/2003/rr03_faculty.html
3. http://www.ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619
4. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/NIST_RFC.html
5. http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
and I planned on adding more references but the page was deleted within 24 hours, and I am a very busy medical student. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Response: Emailed Permission: Dr. Wood has personally given me permission to use the content of her website via email, and will be emailing the Wikipedia Permission email to alert them to this within 48 hours. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • The three external sources were [64] (nothing about her, just a link to her Ph D dissertation), [65] (a page listing faculty, verifying that she was an assistant professor) and [66], which shows that her requests for correction have been denied. These aren't sources about her, but links to things she has done but which have not received any attention. The sources are reliable, but are not independent reports about her. No sources have been provided to show that she has been the focus of significant attention in newspapers, books from reputable publishers, (truly) scientific journals, TV documentaries, ... She has written a dissertation, had a job that no one apart from her employee has remarked on, and has made an unsuccessful "request for correction" which is publicly available but which again has not received any outside attention. Solving the copyright problem will not help you at all, any article about here with those or similar sources will be deleted again and again. Fram (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agreed - the sources are worthless in determining notability and leaving the copyright problems aside, the article would be deleted anyway. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response: NOTABILITY: Other 9/11 researchers have also filed RFC's which were denied, yet they have Wikipedia pages! Heck, David Ray Griffin who is studies THEOLOGY has a Wikipedia page, just because he has gotten some media attention, even though he isn't even qualified to research 9/11! I had not gotten the chance to post more sources because the page was deleted so rapidly!
Response: Legal Efforts: More important than the RFC filing is Dr. Wood's Qui-Tam whistleblower case, because it made it all the way to the SUPREME COURT. Of course it has not received mainstream media coverage, we are talking about 9/11 here! Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Response: Media Coverage: Recent media coverage from March 2010 shows that Dr. Wood's research and legal efforts are finally starting to be recognized by the media. I cannot post the link because The Examiner is blacklisted by Wikipedia for some reason. The article is by TheExaminer and is titled 'Scientist: Directed energy weapons turned World Trade Center into nanoparticles on 9/11'
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Response: More Media Coverage:
1. Dr. Wood has given many presentations of her research. In 2007 she gave a presentation at a conference in Madison, WI. Here is a link to that presentation: http://atomicnewsreview.org/2010/03/06/911-the-new-hiroshima-dr-judy-wood/
2. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on the very popular radio show, 'We Ourselves', hosted by Ambrose Lane. The radio station is WPFW 89.3 - Washington, D.C. The interview is all over the internet, but a direct link to it is here: http://www.weourselves.org/wpfw/052308.html I planned on posting these things later on, but the page was deleted so rapidly!
3. Dr. Wood recently appeared on the Republic Broadcasting Network radio network: http://republicbroadcasting.org/
4. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on a very popular radio and TV show known as "Edge Media TV" See the interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_4NrRioRPU
5. Dr. Wood recently was presented her research on 'The Power Hour' radio show hosted by Genesis Communications Network. This is a very large radio show. The interview happened just a few weeks ago.
6. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research on 'The Veritas Show' with Mel Fabregas. Here is a recording of some of the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPXcoqrCBvw
7. Dr. Wood was invited to present her research at a huge conference in Seattle that discusses topics such as Free Energy and Military Energy Weapons. You can see the presentation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gf9WQl2m7fQ
8. There are lots more, I just haven't had time, because the article was deleted in under 24 hours!
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OVERTURN this please. Dr. Wood should be sending you an email giving me permission to use the content of her website within 24-48 hours. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 09:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

it's all worthless as far as reliable sources go - unless you have some sources from mainstream reliable sources, you will never be able to create an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Mainstream Sources:
Look up the recent article written by TheExaminer.com. Here is the url: examiner.com/x-2912-Seattle-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2010m3d23-Scientist--Directed-energy-weapons-turned-World-Trade-Center-into-nanoparticles-on-911
Also, The radio station is WPFW 89.3 in Washington, D.C is rather mainstream.
EdgeMediaTV is rather mainstream in the UK. Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 10:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The Examiner is not a reliable source. It is not a website with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; if it was it would not have people like Alfred Lambremont Webre writing for it. Glorified blog, basically. Reyk YO! 10:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What about the other Mainstream sources I mentioned?
Question: Why are so many people that have done so much less for our country able to have Wikipedia pages but Dr. Wood isn't? She is the ONLY person to have filed her 9/11 evidence with a court-of-law. She is the only person to create a law suit to bring about truth and justice regarding 9/11. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court! She is fighting for all of us here in America, and she deserves a Wikipedia page, don't you agree? '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The 2007 AfD was perfectly fine. The new article was a clear copyright violation. Even if Mr. Rodriguez can gain rights to the content in the (near) future via whatever proper channels there may be, it's clear that there were sufficient copyright concerns to justify the article's most recent deletions. I think the page has also rightly been protected from recreation...However, I would propose that Mr. Rodriguez be given a chance to make a userspace draft, that doesn't violate copyright and contains sufficient reliable sourcing, to be evaluated at a future DRV. — Scientizzle 12:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - non-notable Truther, no sources but fringe blogs and self-published websites, nothing wrong with closing admins interpretation of our policies on notability. Tarc (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - If the copyright issues are addressed via OTRS it is likely (from what people have said) that the article will be deleted again anyway. Seeing as there was already an AfD process which showed a clear delete consensus there seems to be no reason to reinstate this until it has been worked on in userspace. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My deletion reason was grossly misrepresented by User:Pookzta. I do not care if this woman is notable or not, I deleted the article twice because the article was a complete copy and paste from the website I cited in the deletion summary. This is the second time a copyvio was pasted for this article in a short period of time, so that is why I also locked the article until that permission from OTRS is received. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Tres Personajes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Unilaterally deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the logged reason "test page" (which DF67 admits on User talk:DragonflySixtyseven was incorrect) The complete content of the page was "Este es ridiculoso. No puedo encontrar nada importante sobre la obra por el internet porque cada sitio de web, en espanol o ingles, tiene el cuento de la obra deseperacido. Tengo que saber sobre los simbolos y el uso de colores y no hay nada provechoso." According to Google translate, this is Spanish for "This is ridiculous. I can not find anything important in the work over the Internet because every website, in Spanish or English, is the story of the work deseperacido. I have to know about the symbols and the use of colors and there is nothing helpful." DF67 says this is obviously a homework question. My point of view is that it is a request (less than ideally phrased) for the article Tres Personajes to include more information about the painting -- at the moment it is largely about the painting's theft. In any case this is clearly not a test page. "Request for help with homework" while discouraged, is not one of the WP:CSD, and it is IMO far from clear that this is what this is. I doubt seriously that an MFD would have deleted this page, which means that it should not have been unilaterally deleted -- speedy deletion is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions only. DES (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC) DES (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was a test page eligible for deletion under G2. Nakon 01:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't. Not in any way. It was a comment that the article focused more on the the theft of the painting than on the painting itself and thus very much appropriate for the talk page. Reyk YO! 01:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Test page, as i understand it, is a page qwhere an editor is experimenting with the wiki software, seeing what it can do, or where a user makes comments completely irrelevant to the subject or purpose of the page. An honest (see WP:AGF) attempt at commenting on an article, even if not highly useful or knowledgeable about Wikipedia, is not a test page as I understand things. Do you really, seriously contend that the above text was clearly and obviously not intended to comment on the substance of the wikipedia article? DES (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that the deleting admin stated in this edit "admittedly, 'test page' was not the correct reason". DES (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted after being ignored for over a month. Nakon 01:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware there was a time limit. Reyk YO! 01:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I agree with Reyk's interpretation. This is not a test page. There are piles of crap all over talk pages on this project. And yet this was not actually crap. Deletion here served no useful purpose and was out of process.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I don't see that this can be interpreted as a test page. Whether to call it a "homework question" or a request for the article to be improved which was perhaps motivated by a homework question is debatable - but we needn't debate it here since neither is a CSD criterion. (Nor is "talk page comment without replies for over a month", for that matter.) Olaf Davis (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I agree that this doesn't fall under any criterion for speedy deletion. But jeez, don't you guys have bigger battles to fight than to rescue a lone talkpage comment, in Spanish? Yes, CSD was misapplied here, but I don't see any reason to overturn this.--Atlan (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment every time speedy deletion is applied incorrectly it harms the project either directly (e.g. by deleting something that adds value) or indirectly (e.g. by driving off a potentially valuable contributor). I consider ensuring CSD is used only correctly is one of the most important things a Wikipedian can do.Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Thryduulf. Every time an administrator power is misused, a fairy dies. --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this could have been a speedy undelete. As restoration is not particularly controversial. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The speedy deletion criteria are to be applied narrowly. This meets none of them. Furthermore, it is in my opinion an appropriate use of a test page to ask for more information to be provided in the article. It was apparently motivated by someone looking for information to answer a school question, but using WP as a preliminary source in this manner is exactly what an encyclopedia is for--it is one of the core purposes. for good measure, a more detailed analysis of the painting would seem a very good idea for expanding the very scanty article. The user cvame in good faith, using the encyclopedia appropriately, and was met by this. This is a fine way to discourage potential editors, a process which can only lead to the decline of the encyclopedia through the inevitable attrition. The best course for the eleting admin to take at this point would be to revert his deletion. The reason for not doing it as speedy undelete at this point is because the admin refused to undelete. I agree it could have been simply done without consulting him at all, but AGF it was advisable to check whether this might have been an error, and since it was deliberate, sometimes it is necessary to bring out of process admin work to general attention. DGG ( talk ) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - WP:HOMEWORK is not a speedy deletion criteria. The talk page comment was neither offensive nor irrelevant, and fell within talk page guidelines. An editor raises a concern about an article's content, and instead of addressing it (or even ignoring it), we prefer to have it deleted? Euryalus (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per GRuban and the dead fairies. We don't speedy delete pages outside of policy. Hobit (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DES Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good God. This is the inclusionist cabals' punishment for BLPPROD passing? Go around looking for speedy deletion of completely useless pages and drag them to Deletion review? Can someone explain to me when Wikipedia became Yahoo!Answers or Twitter? Talk pages aren't a place to put random commentary and thoughts. They're an area for article collaboration and improvement efforts. And, this is the English Wikipedia. Delete the pages and pray that those voting overturn here leave Wikipedia altogether. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When i filed this DRV I didn't even know that BLPPROD had been proposed as a policy. I have been objecting to such things, as I happened to notice them, for years. Has noting to do with BLPPROD. DES (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this has nothing to do with the BLPPROD, except that I regard needing to comment here as a nuisance that takes me from the important work of trying to source the ones I can, and make sure the others get deleted--in fact, there are among them a good number with obvious reasons for speedy. But I did feel I needed to comment here, since the only hope of dealing properly with BLP prod or anything else, is people and especially admins following the rules for deletion, whether or not we like them. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me this has nothing to do with inclusionism and everything to do with process. There was no need to delete this, IAR doesn't even make sense as it doesn't help things one bit. Yes, restoring doesn't help so much either, but if the user posting this comes back and wonders what happened to his comment we may lose an editor for exactly no reason at all. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't honestly believe that restoring the history of this page is somehow useful. Ok, it won't do any harm either, but this seems to be taking 'process is important' too far. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This speedy deletion was out-of-process; the deleting admin admits that WP:CSD#G2 did not actually apply. However, I agree with MZMcBride's point that this one talk page comment – in Spanish, no less – is probably not worth this much discussion. This is the English Wikipedia, after all. I'm okay with DS's recreation of this talk page with the anonymous user's concerns conveyed in English. Those are my two cents, anyhow. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
PlaneShift (video game) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not think that AfD consensus was "delete" because of combination of two reasons:

  1. Two sources cited in the article where identified as independent and reliable (reviews in TUX Magazine and Linux Magazine Spain).
    This is enough to satisfy notability guidelines.
  2. The breakdown of votes was:
    4 editors voted "delete" (1 of them made few or no other edits outside)
    2 editors voted "week keep"
    7 editors voted "keep" (3 of them made few or no other edits outside)

So there was both enough sources, and the majority who voted "keep".

I contacted PeterSymonds, who closed the AfD, and he confirmed that those two sources where indeed found valid, but "consensus seemed to agree that this wasn't enough (discounting the single-purpose accounts)". I do not believe there was such consensus, and I ask to review this closure.

-- MagV (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-review your rating with the additional sources provided below. --79.40.27.216 (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- after reading the whole of the deletion discussion I see a lot of merit in PeterSymonds's closing rationale and agree that this falls within the bounds of administrator discretion. Reyk YO! 22:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-review your rating with the additional sources provided below. --79.40.27.216 (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done so, and see no reason to change my opinion. Reyk YO! 23:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the deletion discussion, there seems to be no convincing consensus either way on this article discounting any meatpuppetry that may have happened. In addition to the already-mentioned TUX Magazine, Linux Format, and linux-magazine.es sources (check the AfD), there is an about.com review[15], written by what seems to be an established writer (RSN/Archive27, AFAIK, does not make mention of About.com's reviews being unreliable, and WP is not a review site, WP:NOT, so I'll argue the "incestuous links" argument does not apply in this case). Also, does a satire/parody ([16]) written by a third party (SomethingAwful) count as a reliable source for the purposes of this discussion (namely, notability)? (p.s. answer = no on the last question)

As for the page in question: someone more experienced in Wikipedia writing than I should reconstruct it (probably as a stub to allow for WP:SOFIXIT) correctly. Given the relatively marginal notability of the topic, an extensive article would be inappropriate; HOWEVER, 4 reliable sources is worth a brief piece. The original deletion was made as a difficult, discretionary decision; however, this should not be interpreted as a "this topic does not belong on WP, period", but as a "this article would have needed such extensive rework to meet the WP criteria for notability that starting afresh may be the best thing to do."

K1llaB1rd (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC) K1llaB1rd[reply]

I can easily provide additional notable sources (magazine scans where PlaneShift has been mentioned). Is that enough to restore the article and stop this deletion fight? --79.30.201.16 (talk) 08:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCAction July 2003 - 4 full pages, here is the scan of the first one : http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/pcaction_page1.jpg
GameSurge July 2006 - article and screenshot of PlaneShift while speaking of mmorpg games http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/GameStar-LinuxExtra_July_2006.jpg
LinuxMagazine (not sure about date) - inside the Sourceforge project of the Month, speak of Crystal Space and PlaneShift, there is an actual PlaneShift screenshot: http://www.planeshift.it/pix/magazines/page2_scaled.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.27.216 (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion decision was based not only on lack of real progress since original AfD, but on the overal strength of arguments on both sides. Very weak "keep" arguments, some of which were from users possibly canvassed to join and vote. This "game" is not even a production version, and if/when it is official and notability is established, then an article can be made. Until then, WP:CSD any attempt at recreation, and WP:SALT as needed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there is no discussion possible in this forum, decisions are taken in an unilateral way. With the majority of the votes for Keep and three more notable sources provided, you still say that the article has to be deleted. Also your knowledge about the game being in production or not is wrong. The game is in production, it's just not complete, but plenty of players are using the game. More admins will have to look at this before saying if the article should not be added back. Being an admin doesn't allow to ignore notable sources and majority of votes. --79.40.27.216 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, valid close. Nakon 15:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think this should have been a "no consensus" close. The delete votes were strong enough, but there was not a strong enough consensus to delete - far from it. Aiken ♫ 15:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not fault the closer for closing that particular debate as he did. Sysops quite rightly have wide latitude in dealing with sock-tainted discussions, and while we're supposed to assume good faith with new users, there were reasonable grounds for thinking some attempt to stack the debate was being made.

    But in view of the new sources provided above, I don't think it's impossible to write a sourced stub with this title, and I recommend we invite the nominator to submit a userspace draft to DRV for review accordingly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was canvassed to comment here, but I have nothing much to add, except that one good published review in an accepted reliable source would deal with the problem, and the article should be resubmitted then. In view of this and the two afds, it surprises me to see the ip arguing that there is not sufficient discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable closure, evidence of astroturfing reduces weight given to simply counting sources. In the end Wikipedia is not about the precise number of namechecks on websites off your own domain, at the margins it's about judgement of significance. In this case it came down against. C'est la vie. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. As the closing admin said, it was a tricky close. It was within his discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist now that there are new sources. I'd have to say they make it a weak but pretty obvious keep at this point. Or just create a new stub per S Marshall. Hobit (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that interested parties write a new article from scratch, using two or three of the most solid sources (the two magazines mentioned above, if they are from reputable publishers, and I mentioned about.com in the AfD). The original article was pretty indiscriminate in its referencing. Marasmusine (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Good close, well within admin discretion. Eusebeus (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Kudos to PeterSymonds for this admittedly tricky close; I think he made the right call. While a majority of participants in the discussion supported keeping the article, many of those participants were single-purpose accounts whose arguments were not rooted in policy. In general, their arguments tended to be WP:BIG, WP:GHITS, and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, which are all considered arguments to avoid; size does not equal notability, and assertions that sources exist are not enough to prove notability. These are weak arguments, and in general, the "weak keep" arguments by Marasmusine and Rankiri were the only arguments on that side of the debate that added a lot to the discussion. Conversely, those arguing for deletion had solid reasoning based in Wikipedia policy. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I feel like I have not been eloquent enough to state my position. I will try one more time. Please, do not take this as an attempt to persuade anyone. This is an attempt to get comments on my specific reasoning.
The stated reason for deletion is lack of notability. Valid argument in favor of this claim where that the sources provided in the article are not reliable, not independent or lack significant coverage. For most of sources cited in the article this is true. However my (and several other) "keep" votes where based on the existence of multiple independent, reliable sources that show significant coverage: published reviews in TUX magazine and Linux Magazine Spain (about.com review was also cited as reliable by Marasmusine, but Rankiri expressed reservations, so let's ignore it for the moment; let's also ignore the possible RS provided a few comments above). This is exactly what WP:GNG requires, and this is what I claim was provided.
So far no-one argued that those two specific sources are not reliable, not independent or lack significant coverage (I specifically raised that question during the AfD). In fact PeterSymonds confirmed their validity (see his talk page). Therefore, the topic is notable per WP:GNG, and cannot be deleted per WP:DEL.
So my question is this: given that no policy provisions deletion of this article, also given that, discounting possible single-purpose accounts, the majority voted "keep" (6 vs 3), what is the valid reason for "delete" closure?
I ask everyone who voted here to point me to the specific reason and the corresponding policy, so I would not get confused in the future.
Thank you for your time. MagV (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Considering more reliable and notable sources have been provided, I think the article should be restored, so the new sources can be properly used to establish its notability. --Xyz231 (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse No new reliable sources have been provided, admin acted well within his judgement on the outcome of the AfD. SpigotMap 19:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you address the issues with the sources provided by 79.40.27.216? They appear to be reliable. I'm honestly lost on this one. There appears to be a fair number of reliable sources at this point. Not great ones, but certainly plenty in most AfDs. But lots of reasonable people think this should be deleted. What am I missing? Hobit (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There were more keeps than deletes, and therefore, it should either be a keep or no consensus. It should absolutely not be a delete. Dew Kane (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arg!!!! We've got an AfD that _was_ bad, but now we've got plenty of sources (a 4 page spread in a magazine being just the start). The endorses are ignoring the sourcing and focusing on the weakness of the keep !votes (which were weak, no doubt). yes, this isn't AfD2, but we're now we'll over the bar and we're still getting comments like SpigotMap's that there are no new reliable sources. The sources are just fine and I've not seen anyone argue otherwise. I'm fine with a relist (it's AfDs job to evaluate sources) but in the face of what looks like very solid sourcing, I'm confused. Are we just trying to punish someone for what looks like !vote stacking? Hobit (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to WP:INCUBATOR – (Full disclosure: I was considering closing this DRV, but I remembered having engaged in some off-wiki communication with those who may be involved in PlaneShift in one way or another, so I may not be impartial if I closed it.) Anyone would be able to work on the draft in the WP-space (i.e. no ownership issues) and place any additions/edits/etc under scrutiny before sending back to the mainspace, assuming those sources are reliable enough. This would save the need for any additional drama via going back to AFD or here. –MuZemike 20:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give me few days and I will do what you suggest by adding all the new notable sources found. --Xyz231 (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Talk:Danda nata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Unilaterally deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven with the logged reason "homework". That is not one of the speedy deletion criteria, nor does the page (which read "How do we know authencity of an event if it is belonged to ancient period?") fit any of the speedy criteria. Since Danda nata does not make it clear whether it is discussing a current or a historical even, and is currently unreferenced, the question seems at least possibly related to the subject of the article, and no more wrong headed than many talk page comments. Deleting it seems WP:BITEy to me, and in violation of WP:DEL and WP:CSD. Moreover DF67 did not choose to inform the editor that the page had been deleted or why, which would be useful even if this were a homework attempt. Restore as out of process speedy, which would not be likely to be deleted at an MfD if anyone had nominated it. DES (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Not eligible for speedy deletion. decltype (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The talk page question seems to be quite legitimate; in any case an unsound question does require the speedy deletion of a talk page. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for the simple reason that it does not meet any of our speedy delete criteria. I do think that, very occasionally, an WP:IAR speedy is appropriate but this should be clearly explained in the log. In this instance, especially given the log, it seems very unlikely to be the case (although as a non-admin I can't see the page) isn't the case and so the deletion should be overturned as out of process. Dpmuk (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The complete text is quoted in my nom above. I would add that I don't believe there is ever such a thing as an appropriate IAR speedy, DES (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have refactored my comment above based on this. Would add that even if we had a "homework" speedy delete criteria this wouldn't meet it as it's possible it's actually a question about sources and so not a clear cut case of "homework". Speedy delete criteria are tightly defined to ensure a) that admins don't step outside what the community have allowed and b) to ensure we don't delete useful pages. It is better to have to go through the full deletion process for pages that clearly should be deleted than have pages deleted that shouldn't be. To ensure this happens we need to enforce our own policies. Will reply on your talk page about the more general IAR point. Dpmuk (talk) 00:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely pointless to notify someone of something like that after the page is a month old. It's a homework question; the page is clearly in the present tense. For god's sake, DESiegel, do you have nothing better to do? DS (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually i can think of few better things to do than to make sure that pages are not deleted unilaterally out of process. Admins are trusted to use the delete button only in accordance with community consensus, which means either after a deletion discussion, or an expired prod, or in strict accord with the WP:CSD. Admins who aren't willing to limit themselves to that ought to resign the tools. And I might add that I don't see any clear-cut indication that this was "a homework question". Inded it might well have been an attempt, albeit poorly phrased, to ask about the basis for the article, which I remind you is and was unreferenced. I also would add that if a person logs back after a month, as many newcomers do, finding a note explaining why his page was deleted, or even a basic welcome, might be friendlier than to find the page missing with no explanation. Even better might have been to simply respond on the talk page, indicating why you thought the msg was inappropriate. This could have served to educate others as well as the poster, and would have taken little if any extra time beyond that needed to delete the page. DES (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see the point of restoring a page that simply contained a question unrelated to the main article from a user whose only contribution was the edit in question. It is most unlikely that said user will drop back to check the answer of said unrelated question or otherwise, and if he did, I'm sure DESiegel would be most happy to answer it on Nirudeep's own talk page, a much more appropriate place. Criteria are never an objective in their own right, but instruments in the pursuit of a goal, in our case the writing of a free encyclopedia, as the tagline on each page reminds us. Hence, the page should stay deleted, and we should all devote our time to more pressing backlogs. Snowolf How can I help? 23:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A minor point "Criteria" is plural, the singular is "criterion". And the Speedy deletion criteria are some of the most brightline and, in intent at least, objective, things on Wikipedia, IMO. I think the project is harmed by any unilateral deletion of a page not in accord with the CSD. (See my views at WP:PI.) I also do not see how you know that the editor is so unlikely to check back a month later -- I often see talk page comments followed up after a month or more, particularly from newcomers who don't log in all that often. I am also not as convinced as you are that this question is "unrelated to the main article". It may have been, but it also may have been an attempt to ask about the basis of the (unreferenced) statements in the article. There is no way to be sure, that I can see. Therefore "When in doubt, don't delete" seems a sound rule of thumb. DES (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A minor point, you seem to be so focused on correct my single grammar mistake (that was already corrected before you wrote your reply) that you misspelled it and wrote "criateria", as well as other 3 words misspelled in the original drv nomination. But that is hardly the point. As for WP:PI, I already glanced at it earlier, and I do not agree with it. There is no relation between the question and the article. There is no mention of any historical period, no statement about when the festival was first started, no claim that it's ancient, anywhere in the article, hence I fail to see how the question has anything to do with the article at all. For all that the articles states, it could have been created in 2001. Snowolf How can I help? 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How can you be so sure there's no relation between the question and the article. To me it seems perfectly plausible that the question is related by the article but it was asked by a non-native speaker of English and so not phrased the same way a native English speaker would. Given the rather poor language in the article itself it's even possible that the questioner thought the article referred to an historical event in which case the question makes sense given the lack of sources, it's effectively a poorly worded "How can we be sure this event actually happened given it happened in the past" (by implication for when sources are rare). As such I'd have assumed good faith and assumed it was intended as a proper question if badly worded and to do otherwise is bitey. [As it happens this is moot as the intention of the questioner is irrelevant - the page still did not meet any of the speedy criteria.] Dpmuk (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I shouldn't have mentioned the grammar issue, it was petty and irrelevant. My apologizes. Comment struck and my typing errors fixed. The article indeed does not mention a time period, ancient or modern, but it is written so that it might be assumed by a reader to be ancient. How do you know that was not the case? As to WP:PI, it is only an essay. Many people disagree with it, many others seem to agree at least in part. But it fairly clearly explains why it is my view that such matters are worth raising. DES (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- I'm not usually one for procedural wikilawyering but I think this speedy was unjustified. Not being an admin I can't see the deleted question but the opinion of other editors seems to be that it was at least vaguely related to the article in question and unlikely to be deleted at an MfD if it had been nominated there, so I simply cannot see any reason why this should have been deleted. Reyk YO! 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No reason for deletion at all. It might have been intended as a comment on the article., If so, it seems to the point: the article was unsourced, and to ask how we know about the subject is a sensible thing to do. AGF, I assume Nirudeep came for information about the festival, and was quite rightly disappointed in our article, and made a comment, although not as clear as it might have been, at the right place to do so. It seems related --the origin of the festival, like most religious festivals, probably does belong to an ancient period. How DS can tell it is a homework question I do not understand, unless by personal knowledge. I myself have left talk page comments and check months later to see if anyone paid attention. Apparently not, for the article is still unsourced. Of all the possible ways to treat new contributors, this is the most remarkable example I've seen. DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for principle as not meeting any speedy deletion criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- The CSDs are narrowly defined for a reason. Having passed an RfA does not give someone unilateral authority to delete pages they feel are inappropriate.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn These are getting old quickly. No speedy criteria applies. Hobit (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close - restored by deleting admin. PhilKnight (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn out-of-process speedy deletion with flimsy reasoning behind it. In deleting this talk page, DS violated WP:DP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jargon of the Rush Limbaugh Show (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was the 4th attempt to delete the article--the first 3 attempts were unsuccessful. BWilkins decided to merge the article with another. Was there sufficient consensus in the discussion to warrant this decision: there were 6 votes to keep, 10 votes to delete, and only 1 vote to merge? In addition, WP:DELETE states that: "articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists"--neither of which were true, so that doesn't seem to make it a candidate for merger.--Drrll (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse; close seems to reflect consensus and policy. Sceptre (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse own closure. Based on the strength of the arguments to keep and to delete, this would have been a clear-cut case (IMHO) of delete. I've never listened to the show, but I understand that his neologisms are colourful to say the least. In this regard, it appeared that it would make perfect sense to maintain a few of those neologisms, but a list of their own did not meet overall notability requirements. In light of preservation of the notable aspects of the article, merge of notable segments was the only valid close. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I nominated the article for deletion and obviously would have been happy with a deletion result, but working on the continuum of Deletion to Inclusion, a result of Merge is wholly appropriate given the comments of the debate. Bwilkins made a proper close. MBisanz talk 16:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. We need to see more of these closes. A merge was suggested during the AfD and the proposal was not discounted by any of the commenters. A merge outcome therefore correctly reflects the consensus that a stand-alone article was not warranted, but that there was content that could viably be preserved by a merger. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that the proposal to merge "was not discounted by any of the commenters" does not indicate a consensus to merge. In fact, quite the opposite. The fact that the majority of commenters expressed a definite Keep or Delete position, without endorsing the merge proposal, is indication that most thought a straight Keep or Delete result was the correct outcome, not a merger. My problem with this AfD decision is just that -- it seems to interpret the comments of the group to mean exactly the opposite of what they actually said. Ithizar (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and comment: Actually a lot of the "keep" votes were perfectly in line with the outcome... most of the arguments for "keep" centered on the notability of either Rush Limbaugh or his show, and did not discuss the notability of the jargon (the topic of the article in question) at all. We have to remember that AfD's are not simple a vote count. The closer is supposed to base closure on the comments made. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, close showed good weighing of policy-based arguments. We should be more active in rolling back split-outs of trivia like this, too often they are the result of people refusing to accept that not every little factoid belongs in Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There are two abuses in the process to discuss before I get to the substance of the deletion review: (1) The closing administrator arbitrarily decided Merge as a supervote. This is not a result that follows the AFD process. There process calls here for the outcome to be No consensus for the AFD and then editors, including administrator Bwilkins can make the case for merge in an actual merge proposal at parity with other editors on the article's talk page. (2) The administrator's closing edit inexplicably omitted my edits. This is the diff.. The AFD result should have been no consensus: If you review the debate, you will see that there were no new reasons given which we not identical to the first, second, and third AFD's. This was nothing more than a fourth bite at the apple. There was no response to my reasons why the conditions which were true for the first, second, and third AFD's failing were not likewise present in 2010. The suggestion that merge is an alternative to delete, probably will lead to a proposal in the not too distant future to split the jargon out of the article for pragmatic article size reasons. Will there be a fifth AFD then? patsw (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment: There should be no need for a fifth AfD... simply don't split the Jargon section off again. If the editors at the main article can resist the temptation to list every amusing bit of jargon that Rush has ever uttered... and can limit themselves to a short list of the best, most note worthy examples... there should be no need to split. Blueboar (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I count 11 deletes, 6 keeps, and 1 merge. I had also suggested merging, though I didn't put that in bold. It seems like a reasonable outcome considering there was significant opposition to the article's inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing rationale makes perfect sense. ThemFromSpace 06:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It was either this or delete and this was the best option. Guy's right, we should be more active on splits like this. One of Patsw's complaints is that similar articles that are less read escape our attention (this was being used as a justification for keeping this but of course it really means we need to be more vigilant). Dougweller (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, in reflection of the consensus. Second choice endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I can't believe so many are arguing this decision reflected consensus. There was absolutely no consensus to merge. There was hardly even discussion to merge. An administrator cannot simply announce a consensus based on what he or she believes the result of the discussion should have been, which seems to be what is happening here. If we're going purely on the number of votes, the result should have been Delete. If we want to look beyond the votes and say that enough editors felt there was material worthy of keeping, then the AfD should have been closed with no consensus and a merge discussion opened. The way this was handled is arbitrary and unilateral. Ithizar (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Stifle !voted twice, and the vast majority of the delete !voters are citing "indiscriminate"--which, when applied to a particular political topic, is essentially a WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. No substantial effort was made to address the documentation of the jargon which exists in the article... in other words, despite the "delete" numbers, the arguments were too weak to even legitimately consider this a no consensus close. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... Jclemens, are you discussing the same AdF? Several of the comments (on both sides) addressed sourcing issues. Blueboar (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per policy-based arguments and closing statement. Merging seems like the best solution, as much of the article content is clearly not notable. Kaldari (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think we should have this article, but the discussion didn't agree. A merge result, when delete is the other option, can be the right choice even if there wasn't a single !vote to merge as long as the discussion identified a target. We should merge/redirect more often rather than deleting... Hobit (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - clearly a standalone article does not reflect the consensus here (in fact, the topic has no notability outside of the radio program itself, and independent sourcing is problematical). Those who advocate the radio program itself be the cited source overlook that without access to an official transcription, the so-called sourcing would in fact be original research. It also can be argued that there wasn't consensus for either keeping or deleting, and that the appropriate "middle road" would be a merge. It is obvious that the article could not be kept as-is. B.Wind (talk) 17:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Access to official transcripts is available on the web site for the radio show, and many of the references in the article link directly to those transcripts. Ithizar (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure This was a fine close; consensus in the discussion was that this topic did not merit its own article. The closing admin correctly recognized that the information should have been preserved per Wikipedia editing policy and chose to merge the content and redirect. In response to Ithizar, who contends that a merger discussion should have been opened on the article talk page – that might have been appropriate if no consensus was reached in the discussion. However, there was a consensus, and it was that there should not be an article at this title. Therefore, a separate merger discussion was not necessary. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again, I don't see where the alleged consensus to merge is coming from. If anything, there was a clear consensus to delete the article. A merger proposal was made during the AfD discussion, and no one supported it. Instead, virtually every editor participating in the discussion explicitly advocated either keeping or deleting. It is not the job of an administrator to read the arguments on both sides and decide what is 'best' to do; it is the job of an administrator to follow the consensus. That was not done here. Again, if a consensus was reached, it was to delete, not merge. Ithizar (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're failing to read WP:PRESERVE, and also failing to realize that AfD is better thought of as "articles for discussion". The discussion consensus was "this article by itself does not need to remain", but almost everyone believed that some of the content was worth keeping - hence the closure of "merge some of this information (not all of it) into the source article". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, but I'm actually not failing to consider WP:PRESERVE. However, that does not take the place of consensus amongst editors on a particular article, nor does it give anyone -- even an admin -- carte blanche to ignore consensus. The clear consensus on this article was to delete. Not to merge. To delete. Yes, there was an occasional mention of merging in the discussion, but only one person in the entire discussion actually endorsed that as the best course of action. This still seems a clear case to me of an admin attempting to determine, despite consensus, what's 'best' for the article, which is not how the process is supposed to work. Ithizar (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The strength of PRESERVE would be a good discussion for WT:Articles for deletion. Flatscan (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn to delete, second choice "redirect, history available for merging", third choice merge. I see a strong consensus against a separate article, but none for merging. Merging was mentioned a few times and hinted at a few more. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse though I think delete was supported more than merge. In fact, if you read them, the true consensus of prior AfDs was to delete, and the closing admin failed to address the merit of the arguments. But anyhow, it's inaccurate to say that those supporting delete "don't like it." There's plenty of things I don't like that merit articles, and things I do like that don't and I'm sure that's true of the other editors and it's bordering on not assuming good faith to accuse otherwise. Delete, or merge, has strong support from policy and guidelines, whereas "keep" were in favor of ignoring policy and guidelines. I don't see any reason for challenging the closure, and the nom and some of those preferring keep here (including an admin!) are confused on the point of WP:NOTAVOTE. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If the result had been delete, it would still be reasonable to add selected entries back into the show's article. Thus, there's no real difference between outcomes, and so no reason to overturn, even though merging was not explicitly preferred in discussion. ReverendWayne (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point in that the outcome of delete vs. merge would not likely be much different in this case. However, it still troubles me than an administrator took it upon himself to ignore the consensus expressed and instead determine what he thought was a 'better' option. That seems to violate the spirit of these AfD discussions. Ithizar (talk) 16:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ithizar, look beyond the raw votes... and read the comments. A majority of the comments acknowledged that the Jargon is note worthy in the context of discussing Rush or his show (I am deliberately not using the term "notable" here). This can be seen as support for the merger. Blueboar (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Hi878/Secret Hidden Page (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page, and the other five pages listed in the MfD nomination, were deleted prematurely, and this is hindering the discussion. The deleting admins have contributed to the debate, and undeletion by an uninvolved admin would be preferable. Please undelete all six pages listed in the nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Susan Scholz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I strongly feel that this article was in need of more discussion, one which had started only one day ago. I have no stance on the article itself, any of the voters, or the admin who closed the discussion. But I would be happy to keep the article based on some policy-conforming argument (e.g., notability). And exactly that we were trying to find out in a discussion which was interrupted by this premature closure. I would very much appreciate a re-listing of the article for further discussion. Thanks, Nageh (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on your talk page, you were interrupting an ongoing discussion. Nothing forces you to relist, but a little bit more social sensitivity would be due. Nageh (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Social sensitivity doesn't come into closing AFDs - its hard enough trying to interpret discussions against policy without trying to avoid upsetting anyone - which is an impossibility in most cases anyway. There was enough discussion there to reach a rough consensus that there was no consensus so I endorse this close. Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose with premature closure. Although I hold great respect for Administrator Stifle and believe that he is one of the better administrators in Wikipedia, especially in term of judgment, I believe that the closure was premature. Note that I do acknowledge that WP:REFLIST specifies “only one or two commenters (including the nominator)” and “it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy”. However, given that Wikipedia has no firm rules besides the five pillars, I believe that because (1) there was no more than a handful of commentators and because (2) the comments were half–policy-based, a re-listing would have been a proper and warranted decision. Fleet Command (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. There had not been many contributions to the discussion, but the discussion was ongoing, exploring the central issues relating to deletion. The last of those contributions was only 29 minutes before the closure, replying to another a comment only one hour and 43 minutes before the closure. This discussion hadn't gone off on a tangent or descended into abuse, and it wasn't rehashing old ground.
    I am surprised that WP:RELIST doesn't address this situation, but since the overriding point of WP:CONSENUS is reasoned discussion to reach a reasoned conclusion. That process was still ongoing, and should not have been arbitrarily curtailed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist- Stifle's close was completely within the bounds of policy, specifically WP:RELIST. That said, I think the discussion could have benefited from ignoring that particular rule, and re-listing it for more discussion. Umbralcorax (talk)
  • Endorse. 7 days and six commenters is more than enough for a close. I don't think the tit-for-tat at the end of the discussion held out much hope for resolving anything. A "no consensus" close was therefore correct; it was the only close open to be made. If anyone feels strongly that the article should be deleted, it can of course be renominated. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It was borderline, and there were enough comments. The relevant standard for keeping was WP:PROF, the part about being an authority in one's subject. In the academic world, this is measured primarily by the extent of citations to one's work, and formalized by the award of academic rank. In this case, the academic level was Associate Professor at a good but not world-class research university, which is one step lower than is usual. However, the citations were quite sufficient considering the subject, accounting, which is not a field of very high citations. Speaking for myself, I did not comment until late in the discussion because upon first look , I was undecided. Upon seeing the 7 days were almost up, I gave my opinion, which was weak keep. I can understand relisting, for if so, I am prepared to make a full argument for why the citations should be decisive. We normally do close academic afds on that basis. The arguments against considering were in my opinion irrelevant, e.g. "every academic writes papers"--every academic does, but the papers are of very variable impact, and most do not come near writing 10 papers with more than 10 citations, as was the case here. The GNG is explicitly not the applicable guideline for academics, except as an alternative. DGG ( talk ) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The major issue here was how an ongoing discussion was dealt with. I am easily convinced that an article is indeed notable, and I was trying to find out exactly that, until this discussion was deliberately turned off. I understand that I was late in joining the discussion (not everybody has time to check the lists every day - I guess that's one of the reasons AfD discussion are kept open for at least 7 days), but it's a matter of attitude (I expect especially from an admin) to respect an ongoing discussion, despite of some policy (note WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY here), where the aim is to *improve* the quality of wikipedia. And four comments is not particularly a lot compared to many other AfD discussions which are relisted despite of several more comments present. Anyway, I did some personal research on the OP (in lack of an ongoing discussion), and while it could not find any clear signs of notability, it provides a sufficient answer to my open question in this closed discussion. Feel free to cancel this re-opening request, but keep in mind that people (freely) participating in a discussion are most likely trying to improve the quality and not drag it down, and therefore give them a chance to conclude with their arguments. Nageh (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse We get too many relistings at AFD. A no consensus result is better as it allows a pause for editors to work upon the article without the threat of it being immediately deleted, as can happen once the 7 days is up. This threat has a chilling effect and so it is better to close the proceedings. There is no bar to a further nomination after a reasonable time has elspased and there would then be a 7 day minimum period for the next round of debate, which provides a better basis for orderly discussion and improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. BLP is of borderline notability. Some were in favour of keep some of delete. No consensus is a reasonable assessment of debate. Off topic: It would be valuable to have a mechanism to notify automatically contributors to an AfD of any deletion review of it. I only came across this deletion review by accident when I was editing the talk page of Stifle to refute a false allegation he made about my editing conduct. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
@Colonel Warden and Xxanthippe: You did read what my issue was, right? Nageh (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Presently, it reads like someone's resume. It's all very well voting to keep every article under the sun, but someone needs to clean it up, as it's a mess. I'm not going to do it. As it happens though the result was no consensus but as hardly anyone commented a relist could be beneficial. Aiken ♫ 00:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A check of recent academic AfD debates shows a high deletion rate so "every article under the sun" is not being kept. 6 editors expressed opinions on this AfD, about an average number. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
"[i]t's all very well voting to keep every article under the sun" (Emphasis mine). Actually, only 4 expressed a bolded "!vote". The other two were the nominator, which is expected, and a commenter. As I say, it's all very well being an inclusionist and "saving" these articles, but they need attention from these people afterwards, otherwise they'll stay in a messy state forever. Afterall they are usually non-notable so nobody is going to go looking them up and fix them. These inclusionists need to take some responsibility for their actions - no wonder our reputation as a quality encyclopedia is non-existent. How can we be when so much trash is kept? </rant> Aiken ♫ 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The usual process for a No Consensus (which is not the same as a Keep) is for it to be left for a while to see if anybody improves it and if people feel that it is still inadequate, as you apparently do, they can prod it again at a later date. I don't see that further discussion will help at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
But the no consensus close is incorrect. It should have been relisted because the result is not clear, and had minimal participation. Aiken ♫ 01:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We agree to disagree. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse A relist would have also been reasonable, but a no-consensus clzoew is well within policy and the bounds of closer discretion. A no consensus close allows people to continue to work on the article or to research it, and is no bar to renomination after a relatively short period, say a month. Think of it as a deferred relisting if you like. DES (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – although the discussion was cut off, it was unlikely to affect the outcome. As written above, it may be continued at Talk:Susan Scholz or maybe WT:Notability (academics). Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse NC is pretty clearly the right close. A relist would have been a reasonable IARs move, but to fault someone for following policy is difficult. If you feel the relist policy should change, discuss it at WP:RELIST. Hobit (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - perfectly good close well within the bounds of admin discretion. Obviously the article can be renominated for deletion in due course. PhilKnight (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure It appears that the notion that no consensus was reached is uncontested; instead, the question presented is whether discussion was cut off inappropriately by the closing administrator. My response is that I do not feel that it was. Stifle's decision to close the discussion was in line with WP:RELIST, and while that aspect of the WP:DELPRO guideline can be, and is, frequently ignored to allow for continued discussion, it is within the closing admin's remit to decide whether any further discussion would bear fruit. Stifle decided that it would not, and I respect his decision. Discussion can be continued on the article's talk page or, if necessary, in a new AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
London Buses route 71 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71
London Buses route 66 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) – this article and the subsequent four were discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77. Their page histories were deleted and redirects were later created. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 67 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
London Buses route 70 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
London Buses route 72 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
London Buses route 77 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
London Buses route 79 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) —added 04:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC) by User:Dew Kane. Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
London Buses route 187 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
London Buses route 260 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
London Buses route 384 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
London Buses route 80 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
London Buses route 69 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)


Most of the recent London Bus Route deletions were closed as keep. For those that were deleted, the lack of notability was claimed. But at the very worst, they should have been closed as a merge/redirect to a parent article, with edit history retained, so in the future, in the event sources are provided (which is very likely given some arguments), the last version can be pulled up, and improved from there. Dew Kane (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've organized the links for easier viewing of the deletion debates. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If in the future sources are provided why can't the articles go to WP:REFUND as required, why are these articles special such that we wouldn't treat them the same way as others? (See Wikipedia:Pure_wiki_deletion_system for the rejected proposal to implement deletion as blanking of pages) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (closer's comment) I don't really care whether most of the other recent debates were closed as keep or not, I can't imagine e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331 in its current state being closed as anything but a delete or a redirect (not a merge, not much use in "merging" to List of bus routes in London). The articles I deleted are now redirected, which is fine by me. If anyone wants in the future to recreate these articles when more and better sources have become available, then I have no problem with userfying them at that time. Fram (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close Nothing out of process here. Eusebeus (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - At worst this was no consensus. The fact that the closing admin stated that most of the keeps were procedural makes me question the judgement. There were only 2 procedural keeps out of 10, compared to 4 delete comments. Jeni (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were two that explicitly stated "procedural keep", and different others that were implicit procedural ones, e.g. "Speedy Keep All The nomination is frivolous and vexatious as well explained by User:MickMacNee." or "to give the road project a fair chance the articles should at worst be nominated at a rate of one per week. " And then there are keeps that give e.g. flickr as a reliable, useful source... And ignoring for a moment that it is not a votecount, where do you get 4 delete comments? Apart from the nomination, there are 6 deletes, with two of them also endorsing a redirect as an alternative. Discounting those seems a rather deliberate way to misrepresent the discussion. (and I cound 9 deletes, not 10...) Fram (talk) 10:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correct and courageous closures. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The closing admin's job is to weigh arguments, not to count votes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PS Note that Dew Kane, who lodged this request for deletion review, made a rapid-fire series of absolutely identical !votes to "keep" London buses articles at a rate of of over one per minute: see the contribs list. Each of these "keep" !voters read, in full: *'''Keep''' all information contained in this article is verifiable. The majority of London bus routes are notable, and the system is notable.
    It is deeply implausible to Dew Kane checked the verifiability of all these articles at a rate of over one per minute, so that argument should be discounted as implausible. The second part of Dew Kane's argument is that "majority of London bus routes are notable"; but no evidence was offered for that assertion. Even if there was evidence that the "majority of X are notable", that it is not evidence that any individual instance of X is notable.
    Faced with !votes such as these, a closing admin should simply discount them as irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- nothing wrong with these closes. Reyk YO! 14:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - and I might note that some of those voting keep did so in a very disruptive, battleground manner, without any policy-based argument. Aiken ♫ 15:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The deletes were an exceptionally bad close, based presumably on the closers own view, not the consensus of the discussion. There is no possible reason why at least the content should not have been merged, and no valid reason was suggested in any of the discussions. The only valid closes of the ones that were closed delete would have been either merge, as a compromise close, or the more explicit compromise close of no consensus. (actually, perhaps some of the keeps should also have been no consensus). It is not the role of an admin to decide which of various WP policies apply; that is a matter for the community. The !votes to close as procedural and discuss it elsewhere were perfectly in accordance with policy as one of the accepted ways of dealing with complicated issues, and throwing them out was outside reasonable limits to individual judgment.
More generally. I directly deny the position that "the job of an admin is to weigh arguments." The job of an admin is not to weigh arguments, but discard the arguments unrelated to policy or from SPAs, and then determine the consensus of the community. We are selected as admins by the community for our rough knowledge of what is or is not policy, not for our ability to have mastered the merits of competing arguments where the community is divided. I would say no admin in any circumstance has the right to do that, at AfD or elsewhere. We serve the community, we do not lead it. Anyone who wants to be a judge of policy or lead the community should not be doing it at WP--we are not an hierarchy. How could it be otherwise , when admins as well as others disagree about what the policy should be on most disputed questions--how can any admin pronounce that they are right, but not their fellows? My own view is that the policy that WP is an encyclopedia with elements of a gazetteer means that all bus routes are notable, and whether they should be in separate or combination articles is a matter of style, but i would only try to convince the community of that, not decide it for them. DGG ( talk ) 18:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." (from the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators). This is how I close deletion discussions. "Looking at strength of arguments" = "weighing arguments": you can directly deny this, but I prefer to follow our policies and guidelines instead. When someone suggests that articles should be kept and presents flickr as a "reliable source" asa justification, then such arguments should be weighed and ignored. It is obvious that what you describe as an "exceptionally bad close" is endorsed by a fair number of people... Fram (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do not simply count heads, we discount the views of spas and those without a policy based argument. Then we determine the rough consensus, which is not quite a count: 5-4 can determine an election, but most of us would call it non-consensus. Looking at strengths of arguments means looking for those which are non policy, or irrelevant to the situation, and also looking for those that might be controlling, some as copyvio. There will also be cases where one argument will If , in a recurrent situation, one person thinks A is a better argument than B, and another thinks B better than A, the decision will depend which happens to close first, which is not a rational basis. That rule only works in situations where essentially all admins would agree, as in speedy. Similarly, in your exmple, all admins would agree: I too would discount that argument, because using flickr as a reliable source is not based on policy. I agree the statement of policy there is misleading as to what usually happens, and was intended to differentiate us from the practice of decision by direct vote count used by some other WPdias. The wording needs to be , not reversed, but adjusted. It will be added to my list of desirable changes. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that many (maybe most) established editors have wishlists of policy changes ... but the only way for decision-making processes to function sanely is to use policy as it exists now, rather than policy changes for which editors hope to establish a consensus in the future. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse any merges and deletions: were the vast majority put up for merging, I'd think they'd be merged for being hopelessly short, and if put up for deletion without a current discussion, be deleted/merged (NOTDIRECTORY, NOTTRAVEL, NOTINFO, etc), with the exception of a few like the 30, which was famously bombed five years ago, or the 9 and the 15, which have heritage routes, hence I feel why deletion with a possible redirect is acceptable here. I also don't think the notability arguments were convincing, especially seeing as the sources seemed to be to those that just listed the routes, without any commentary on their own. Sceptre (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was clearly no consensus for deletion and the closer failed to follow the guidance of WP:DGFA: "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants...When in doubt, don't delete". On the facts of the matter, there are clearly lots of substantial sources for these London bus routes. Last week there was a full page article about route 22 in the Standard and tonight there's a two page article about route 88. There's a journal specifically dedicated to London buses: London Bus Magazine and there are other journals about buses in general which have plenty to say about London. There are numerous books on the subject which go into considerable detail about particular routes. For example, route 71 has a full page (page 146) in the Routemaster Omnibus while route 77 has several pages (109, 136, 146) and other routes have entire chapters. To be openly called a liar when one finds and presents substantial sources of this kind is quite uncivil and makes a mockery of the process. The judgement of editors who have not inspected the sources is obviously weaker than those who have seen the evidence and so should be discounted accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's all very well discussing sources that discuss other routes, such as the 22 and 88 - but neither of them are here! It's like comparing apples and oranges - just because those two might be notable does not make every route automatically the same!
Your point regarding London Buses - yes, London Buses are notable, but is each and every individual route? Of course not! When a route is discussed significantly (I think your definition of significantly differs significantly to mine :]) in multiple reliable sources then of course it can be considered for inclusion. However, just because something is written down doesn't make it notable. We all know this - I could dig up the electoral rolls and claim I am notable - after all, I'm on every single electoral roll for the past few years. I must be notable in that respect! Same with bus routes - they're on maps, timetables etc. Other than the obviously notable ones, you seem to be missing the point that they are as common as common can be. Should every building have an article? Routes are simply a way to get from A to B, on a bus. If I dug around hard enough, I could get more citations for my street (in fact, every street) in the country. Same for people. Every person has a story to tell, right? You see where this is going? Just because something is mentioned it doesn't make it automatically worth an article. London Buses as a whole are very notable, in fact probably the most iconic. But the individual routes aren't, with exceptions of course, such as the 30. You have not proven the case with many of the examples, despite your claims. You have done admirable work on finding sources, but you could have a million sources and it still wouldn't suddenly make it notable for an encyclopedia.
Finally, please stop trying to get the closer to discount comments because you don't agree with them. It's really rude. By all means, ask questions, engage in discussion, and disagree. But please don't go on the attack on the nominator/delete voters, because it helps nobody, least of all yourself. Aiken ♫ 01:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some routes are more notable than others but the London routes with numbers in the 0-99 range are all quite notable because they have been around for about a century and run through a cultural hub of the English-speaking world. And it is these routes that we are discussing here, not the high numbered or regional ones, which bizarrely seem to have been kept in this perverse process. And I'm not guessing — I know it because I'm holding a substantial source which documents the detailed history of these routes in the period 1908-1912, when the route numbers first appeared. This work (Motor Omnibus Routes in London vol. 2) is 78 pages long and is just the second volume of a large series. It has appeared in multiple editions and is still in print and is on sale - I bought a copy when this fuss started but seem to have been the only editor to have done due diligence on the sources in this way. This series has a bibliography - yet more sources which support the notability of these topics. Other editors have been aware that these numerous sources existed but have either ignored them or could not afford the time and expense of consulting them. (there was another editor who started to consult his comprehensive library of journals but then he went on holiday and has still not returned, alas)
Substantial sources of this kind are the essence of a notability discussion but these discussions have been disrupted by editors like yourself for whom no amount of sources is enough. Your position that all bus route article should be deleted just because of their topic is unsupported by any policy and is not consistent with our general practise for transportation routes - railways, highways, canals, etc - which is to have articles about them because of their rich history and importance to the community. Because your position is so at odds with our general practise and policy, there needs to be a better process than these haphazard and pointy nominations. A better process of sensible discussion is taking place at relevant transportion projects, which are able to survey the scene as a whole and bring good expertise to bear. The AFDs should be dismissed to allow reasonable time for these discussions to complete. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. I voted to keep several of the notable routes. I only voted to delete the non-notable ones, as could be expected :-) You seem to misunderstand that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of everything that ever existed. Aiken ♫ 09:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comments mainly address the bundle 71-77 in which you did not seem to participate. Good work was done myself and others to demonstrate notability in these cases. If you missed that bundle in the hurly-burly, this is good evidence that the matter was not handled in an orderly way. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not miss any of them, I just chose not to take part. It is not proof of anything, though I must say I would have handled the AFDs differently. Aiken ♫ 13:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have added 6 more routes of recently closed deletes to this debate. In any case, what is so bad about keeping the edit histories behind when they are inevitably going to be recreated as redirects? Dew Kane (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • One possible reason might be to prevent people from sneaking back later when nobody's looking and restoring the articles. Not sure how likely that is here though. Reyk YO! 04:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why bother? It doesn't making creating the redirect any easier, there is no license issue and as above pure wiki deletion has been rejected by the community. What makes these so special we'd treat them differently to other similar deletions? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't you love the irony of starting the DRV with "Most of the recent London Bus Route deletions were closed as keep.", and then later adding six more deletes? It seems that "delete" is not such an unusual outcome after all... Fram (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the articles in question were deleted by yourself. Your user page describes you as a "Belgian comic addict" and that English is not your first language. Please explain your competence to judge this matter and your reasons for choosing these articles to close. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The six that were added were not deleted by me, I was not even involved in these discussions. The rest of your argument is largely irrelevant, as any ARS member should know (i.e. that the ARS doesn't choose to "rescue" articles based on their knowledge of the topic, the language, ... but on general principles, just like people closing AfD's do). Fram (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My participation in this matter arose principally from my having lived and worked in London for many years where I have encountered groups such as the London Omnibus Traction Society and good sources of information such as the London Transport Museum. I have not had great interest in buses hitherto but thought this a good outlet for my desire to improve articles. The more I have engaged with the topic, the more merit I have seen in it. In such work, one soon learns to separate the sheep and the goats as it is a great waste of time to try to rescue worthless topics. These topics have great merit in my considered view and if you have discounted this view on account of my association with the ARS, this seems an improper prejudice. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is obvious from this reply and the ones above that you are not really interested in a fair discussion of the deletion debate, but are trying to personalise this, even if it means that you have to consistently misread posts and miscount things, I will not bother to reply to you any more. Fram (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say overturn to merge but could be convinced otherwise. Accepting that there was a consensus to delete (I think this was within administrative discretion), in my view that consensus only went so far as to say that stand-alone articles were not warranted. A merge outcome was perfectly consistent with that consensus. If I recall a number of my own delete !votes explicitly offered a merge as an alternative. The difficulty of course with a merge is finding suitable parent articles. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - as Fram notes, admins should close discussions not by counting heads, but by looking at strength of arguments. Also, I agree with Sceptre regarding the quality of keep arguments - in general they were unconvincing as to why the subject was notable. PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep votes were very weak (such as "it exists" or "automatic notability") while the delete opinions fit more closely in line with the project-wide consensus on notability. None of the closes appear out of place or biased. ThemFromSpace 06:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, these bus route articles have been annoying me for years with their clear non-notability. In any case, if a particular route has secondary sources, it should have been listed at DRV alone. Having a mass DRV isn't appropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 18:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletions to redirects, overturn Route 66 to keep There is frankly, no policy-based reason not to redirect. These are reasonable search terms and I buy that they are probably notable. No reason to make people request undeletion once sources are found. Also overturn route 66 and close as no consensus. I don't see consensus to delete in that one. Hobit (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC) (updated with route 66 comment 01:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    Anyone can go and create the redirects, the argument regarding no reason for people to request undeletion when the required standards are met can be applied to any deletion discussion, as above it's been proposed as pure wiki deletion and rejected by the community, so there is your reason. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we are talking past each other. #1 I believe these almost certainly can meet WP:N, so leaving the article history around is useful as we probably should have an article on it. #2 I almost always prefer to have a redirect to a list article when the topic is in a list unless the term is hugely implausible as search term. #3 There was no reason given, that I saw, not to have a redirect. Thus I'd prefer restoring the articles and replacing them with redirects for now. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closures I believe that "delete" was the correct close in these discussions, as the rough consensuses in these discussions were that the bus routes in question failed to meet the general notability guideline. While it is true that the community can choose to override the GNG in any AfD, those proposing to do so ought to provide compelling reasons for overriding the guideline. I think the closing admins made the correct decisions when they discounted votes for "procedural keep" and "keep" votes that asserted notability without providing sources, as such votes failed to convince others to override the GNG. Now, WP:PRESERVE would suggest that a merger and/or a redirect with the page history retained is the most policy-compliant way of proceeding. However, I don't fault the closing admins in this case for evaluating the consensus simply as "delete." Redirects should be created where they haven't been, and if any editor wants to merge deleted content to the target article, the admin in question ought to be willing to restore the history in question. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge - to List of bus routes in London per WP:CHEAP. Merging would retain the edit history and make it easily accessible to others. There is a good chance that someone may be able to turn these into qualifying articles in the future, and making the edit history available would make this task a lot easier than requiring one who does this to start over from scratch. (Note that in the past, I have changed quite a lot of bus route articles in other cities that had previously been merged back into individual articles with references with verifiable information, so this is possible). Sebwite (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on 66 I can just about accept the others being deleted, but the AfD shows that most Keep !votes and even a few Delete !votes singled out the 66 for praise. It contained 9 references, five of them to reliable sources, so surely an exception can be made in this one case. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all deletions after appropriate weighing. 66 is a possible no consensus. No objection to userfication, incubation, or projectification for any of them – as long as they aren't restored unchanged. Whether WP:PRESERVE should heavily influence closing decisions is a discussion appropriate for WT:Articles for deletion or WT:Deletion guidelines for administrators. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that there is a merge target, can anyone explain why it makes more sense to delete and redirect rather than just redirect? Hobit (talk) 02:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Squared Circle Wrestling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is no longer a small wrestling company and is reference throughout wiki and desrves an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.178.124 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article was deleted over three years ago; just recreate it if it's notable now. Speedy close. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy permit recreation per Stifle. The deleted version was unreferenced, and all the information in it will be three years out of date so it wont help you write a new article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation as per Stifle and Thryduulf. If any registered user wants the old article as a basis to start work from -- although as Thryduulf says it will be out of date -- I will restore and userfy on request. Meanwhile this DRV can be closed as unneeded. DES (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 April 2010

[edit]

5 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
San Andreas Multiplayer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion failed on 2 reviews, was then silently deleted later on a 3rd attempt once it was believed to be safe. In addition, the modification has reached even higher status in subsequent years after the delete. Has not been discussed with person who deleted it due to how long ago it occured, and the fact their profile states they have left. The article also features on various other language Wikipedias, eg http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Andreas_Multiplayer f3llah1n (talk) 01:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Human Design System (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

deleted without understanding the topic, and false reasons and reasoning in the deletion discussion from lack of awareness or knowledge of the topic


Although I do see the article on Human DEsign System had some problems, my point is that wiki does need to have some entry on this topic .

There are many many people in the world today interested in Human Design and nowhere to look for INDEPENDENT assessments of what it actually is.


I agree with some of the criticism, it is not a "system", and today the topic is more often called Human Design, nobody bothers with the three words Human Design System. But there is a further problem, if you define "system" so narrowly that this is not such a thing, what word is there for Human Design. Ah, from that perspective, there is no alternative word, it is loosely a system BECAUSE there is no more suitable word. It is something we never quite had to label before, ok.

SEcondly it does make money for the rights owner. So what. I cannot change that. But I can remind everyone that EMPIRICAL SCIENCE is legally public, and wherever Human Design claims to be empirical, it cannot also claim copyright. If there is also evidence that it is empirical, and I have found that over and over and over for the past 7 years, then, the empirical nature is PUBLIC and not itself subject to license fees. I want the empiricism to be clear, is it is it not, I think it is.

Clearly Human Design is unlike anything that every existed before, and you cannot dismiss it as in this or that box.

Enough words, I say, undelete the original article and contact me with specific problems, if there is no obvious way to correct faults in that original, I can take each challenge one by one and I am motivated to be part of taking HD from private and I have to say dubious, inaccurate, ownership into the pulic domain now.

Please be gentle with any messages to me, I am new here, I am not a wiki geek, I am just concerned primarily on this specific omission from wiki Mikemahalo (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your talk page comment here, you state "The lack of external references will continue..." and your above comment that there is nowhere to look for independant assesments - that means it's unsuitable for a wikipedia article. Please see no original research and wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. All the material in wikipedia should be primarily based on reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia also has some inclusion crtieria most normally "notability". It doesn't matter if this fits in a given box or not, the criteria are more objective that wikipedia editors just deciding, the general notability guide is simply that the rest of the world at large cares enough about it to write about it in a non-trivial manner in independant third party reliable sources, which again if you've no sources this fails. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone your changing of your original comments, since I'd already replied it is inappropriate to lose context. If you want to retract parts, then strikethough them, if you want to add additional, then add another signed and dated comment. This helps people see the true flow of the discussion and keeps replies etc. in the correct context of the discussion as they were at the time made. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The participation at AFD was limited, but the argument for deletion was clearly founded in our verifiability and notability policies. If there really are independent sources about this subject, then by all means create a sourced, NPOV draft for consideration, but the deletion of what was brought to AFD was entirely justified. --RL0919 (talk) 16:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm reading things right, this was deleted in February 2008 - two years ago - with little fanfare or discussion. Looking at the deleted article, it was a disaster area of synthesis and questionable referencing. Endorse and suggest that the editor making this request create a new version in userspace with good references and have it reviewed by experienced editors to see if there really is a valid, viable article to be written here. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this anything to do with Human Design which was deleted more recently? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really. Back in 2008, Human Design was a redirect to this article, but the name has since been reused twice for unrelated subjects (a band and a company), both of which were speedy deleted. --RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The central reason this was deleted was that the article was overly promotional. Not much consideration was given to the subject's notability. Accordingly the article can be restored, but only if a well-sourced userdraft is created. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was deleted over two years ago, just recreate it if you can overcome the reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • RECREATING STARTED.I very much appreciate the comments here, and have now written a very minimal attempt on my own userspace here - User:Mikemahalo/Human Design. I found it quite a challenge to pick out what is VERIFIABLE and NOTABLE, and decided that basically for now, there is very little to say that satisfies both criteria. Nevertheless, the extraordinary growth of public interest is notable in itself, and verifiable by the sheer number of rival websites springing up across the globe. Harper Collins have published an independent author on Human Design, I think that counts for something. Mikemahalo (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the recreated article now? How come it has disappeared? Why is the topic removed from use now? there are indeed multiple secondary sources, including mainstream publisher Harper Collins http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/Pages/SearchResultsTitles.aspx?page=2&sdt=1&tts=human%20design, so what is the problem exactly?--Digital witchdoctor (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fresh Concepts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I understand that the newspaper and the website are the only two things referencing our organisation as of right now. But we've been existing for over 14 years, and we'd really like to keep this page. How can we fix this? After all, WMCN (our college radio station) and The Mac Weekly are just student organisations, just like us, and there doesn't seem to be a difference between us and them, at least as far as the Wikipedia rules are concerned. Those student organisations aren't any more or less notable than we are. We think that Fresh Concepts deserves a Wikipedia page just as much as WMCN and The Mac Weekly do. Thank you in advance! Oxenbrigg (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Robert Webb (MP) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requested article which was protected from creation - individual concerned is notable enough to have at least a stub - in brief, as per Bussgang method &dorno rocks. (talk) 15:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was twice created as an attack page with no useful content about the subject -- pure vandalism. If you want to write a proper articel on this subject, create a user space draft and ask an admin to move it into articel space -- if it is a reasonable articel any admin should be willing to help. Or come back here with a draft. DES (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bussgang method (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requested article which has been protected from creation: should be a redirect to Blind_equalization#Bussgang methods in my opinion &dorno rocks. (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Murder at the Cannes Film Festival (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is unlike most postings at DRV - below are four articles that have been sporting speedy delete tags for at least 10 days. Even if the tags had been removed within the first 24 hours, all four of them would have (likely) been deleted a week ago for being empty via AfD.

Tagged 25 March 2010: Murder at the Cannes Film Festival
Tagged 25 March 2010: Computer University, Pathein
Tagged 25 March 2010: Computer University, Hinthada
Tagged 25 March 2010: Computer University, Maubin

I'm bringing this to DRV as this is actually an appeal of the lack of action on these articles - the only actions have been an attempt by yours truly to alert an admin on recent changes patrol after six days. I still urge the deletion of these as being empty save one external link for the university articles and heading(s) for Murder at the Cannes Film Festival. Should there not be deletion, I'd strongly urge listing at AfD - either way, action is long overdue for these four articles. B.Wind (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well what is an appeal of the lack of action? What's the expected outcome? I doubt this is really a DRV issue. Looking at it, it looks like the template you used {{db-empty}} isn't placing the pages in the speedy category correctly Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion_as_empty_pages, I can't see immediately whats wrong so it might take someone with more knowledge of templates to resolve this. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am asking that this reason for closure be changed.

  1. I requested this page be blanked, and Scott MacDonald deleted the page, and closed the MFD discussion. Scott MacDonald and I have an extremely poisoned relationship, on 17 February 2010 calling me "a scoundrel and a coward".[67]
  2. His closing reason stated:
    "The result was Delete Blatantly disruptive attempt to game the system, and now blanked by its own creator."
  3. I attempted to revert these comments to this: "The result was Delete now blanked by its own creator."[68]
  4. Scott MacDonald reverted this.[69]
  5. I then attempted to explain our history, and like-minded editor Tarc reverted me.[70]

First of all, this MfD was only open less than 4 hours so as an admin, Scott Macdonald would not regularly close and make a decision unless I had blanked the page. Second, this closing is simply a new pot shot at me by Scott MacDonald. I ask that the wording be changed to reflect the reality of this closure, and without the attacks on me. Okip 22:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is this at DRV? The page was blatantly unhelpful as even the creator seemed to have accepted that by deleting it.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't try to read my mind Scott, I closed it because it was reflecting badly on the wikiproject, the actual content is helpful. I don't want to have continued arguments with you, and have pretty much abandoned all pages we were previously arguing on. You are an incredibly involved editor, please change the wording, as DGG has now asked you to do, and this goes away. Okip 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quod scripsi scripsi. Editing my comments to make the close say something different was bad form. The article was deleted as being disruptive - I would have speedy closed the same even without the blanking. However, the result is the same. And frankly, you can't go about engaging in blatant personal attacks (which is what Tarc reverted - it was not a neutral attempt to "explain our history", that's just dissembling) and then pretend to be thin skinned because a close was worded in a manner that reflected badly on you. Grow up.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I wrote:
"This AFD was only live for a couple of hours, and it is closed by an extremely disruptive and involved editor who I have been involved with recently. I attempted to revert this editors opinion, but he reverted it."[71]
I am referring to the same issue which the Signpost called "BLP madness" and which led to at least 5 requests for arbitration, and several ANI's, actions which you and other editors expected to be blocked about. If this is not "extremely disruptive" I don't know what is. If my calling your actions "extremely disruptive" is a "blatant personal attack" what is your comments to me? Your wikilawyering about what the definition of "extremely disruptive" does not hide the patent fact that I have never even come close to telling you to "grow up" or that you are "a scoundrel and a coward".[72] Again, I don't want to have continued arguments with you, please change the closing rational. thank you. You are clearly a non partisan on this MFD. Okip 22:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue was disruptive, my own involvement was, I believe, commended. Please don't twist everything. Look, I'm unwatching this - it isn't helpful. I could ask you to go and change every critical or downright dishonest comment you've made about me - but what's the use.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, WP:DR is thata' way. DRV only covers changes in outcome, so unless you want the outcome changed please just withdraw this and deal with it through talk page discussion. Also, I note that I closed this as not a DRV issue, but it was reopened in this edit. I have not reclosed so as to avoid an edit war. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for reverting you :/ This is an involved editor who closed a AFD. It can always be reclosed by a nonpartial editor. I recall that closing reasons are regularly discussed in MFDs. I will look for examples now. Okip 23:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 April 2010

[edit]

1 April 2010

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia logo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Recently on Jimbo's talk page, a user expressed that they would like to create Wikipedia logo, but they couldn't, as it has been protected from editing from non-admins. I then directed them to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos, saying that a page already existed on the topic. I'm now requesting that the deleted article be made into a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. According to WP:CNR, consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects should be deleted. However, I believe that this should be an exception, which is why I brought it here to get a consensus. If someone entered Wikipedia logo in the search box, as the aforementioned user did, the content they would be looking for would be at Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. However, the user is taken to the search results, where the WP page cannot be readily found because it is in the Wikipedia namespace; thus, it would never be found. One reasoning that CNRs are bad, as quoted from WP:CNR, is that "CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around." However, this project page is not just useful to the editors, as most other Wikipedia namespace pages are; it is also what the reader would be looking for, which is an informative article in an encyclopedic sense as compared to other pages that aren't, such as WP:N and WP:Afd (just to throw out a few). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the page were to be fixed up to have reliable and secondary sources, would you consider creating the redirect to be appropriate? (I may do it in the future, if it is even possible to find reliable sources covering the information in the article - but don't quote me on that). I just want to get an idea if it is even worth it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about a short article in the mainspace containing only sourced content with images of the logo during its evolution, with a "See also", or "Main article" to the "Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos" article? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions by George A. Barton, 1918, Yale University Press, P. 4
  2. ^ Cook, Arthur Bernard. Zeus: A Study in Ancient Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914
  3. ^ Miscellaneous Babylonian Inscriptions by George A. Barton, 1918, Yale University Press
  4. ^ Kharsag Epic 1 translated by Christian O'Brien
  5. ^ The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria by Morris Jastrow
  6. ^ IN AND AROUND THE BOOK OF DANIEL, CHARLES BOUTFLOWER, M.A., LATE VICAR OF TERLING, ESSEX
  7. ^ Massey, Gerald. Ancient Egypt - The Light of The World, Vol. 2
  8. ^ Old Babylonian Texts Chiefly from Nippur, by Hermann Volrath Hilprecht
  9. ^ Babylonian and Pre-Babylinian Cosmology by William F. Warren, Boston University
  10. ^ The Origins of the Religion of Israel, by Grey Hubert Skipwith, 1908
  11. ^ A History of Babylonia and Assyria, Volume I by Robert William Rogers
  12. ^ Sumerian and Semitic religious and historical texts. Oxford editions of cuneiform inscriptions, v. 1. London: Oxford University Press. 1923., P.50-57]
  13. ^ Sumerian Mythology By Samuel Noah Kramer
  14. ^ "The best is yet to come: 3D technology continues to evolve and win audience approval", Jan. 1, 2010
  15. ^ http://linux.about.com/od/softgame/fr/fr_PlaneShift.htm
  16. ^ http://www.somethingawful.com/d/mmo-roulette/planeshift.php
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_April&oldid=420278607"