Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 May 11
2010 May 13 >

12 May 2010

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

This pages was deleted in 2007, when the subject was just a prospective parliamentary candidate, with some comments that it could be restored if he is elected. Well, he was elected to represent Wolverhampton South West in the United Kingdom general election, 2010. I would create a new page, like I have for Kwasi Kwarteng, but I don't know whether the previous content is worth restoring. Jttw (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technically from a DRV point of view, this is an endorse because the original deletion decision was correct at the time. Hopefully a passing admin will userfy the page to you so you can judge for yourself if any content is reusable.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've started a stub article based on him being an MP. I suggest an admin provide you with the previous version of the article so that you can move any relevant content into the new article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the history, although there's not a whole lot there. This can be closed I think. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 12 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.
File:Jw-yr-voyage.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

inappropriate speedy, no reason to delete, image was being used on an article Watertower (talk) 13:09, 12 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.
  • Malamanteau – The redirect has been recreated during this DRV and an RfD on the redirect has been opened. Since no one here was arguing to restore the article, and since the outcome of the RfD would override any decision of this DRV, the matter is moot. – Tim Song (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Malamanteau (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was a redirect to xkcd which was deleted [1] and protected [2] by UtherSRG outside of process. I attempted to discuss this with UtherSRG [3] without resolution [4] before bringing this to DRV. Apparently I'm also not the only one questioning the out of process actions. [5] [6] [7] [8]
I ask that the deletion of the redirect to xkcd be Speedily Overturned as an incoming visitor seeing this deletion log [9] will be given a bad first impression. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I origainlly deleted it *before* it was recreated and then turned into a redirect. I "restored" it as a deletion and protected it. when I first deleted it, I was unaware of the very newly posted XKCD. I still stand by my actions that this is not worthy of an article nor a redirect. No one is going to come here looking for it that doesn't already know about XKCD. No one will benefit from the redirect, and such a redirect can only cause vandalism to the xkcd article. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't say the deletion log gives a bad first impression, but it does seem to be misleading visitors into thinking that there used to be an article there (before today). An unexplained redirect to xkcd might actually be less confusing than the status quo. Melchoir (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the deletion of the article, as per WP:N. I further agree with the no-redirect, as Malamanteau is not even notable in the xkcd context. It occurs in a single comic, and the xkcd page does not (and is not expected) to list every xkcd idea published. However, I suggest that the page is restored (and protected) for a period of 48 hours so that all the traffic from the xkcd site can get the joke. After 48 hours, the next edition of xkcd will be out, and no-one will come looking for the article. This would address most of the concerns raised in the deletion of the article.– RossJ81 | Talk 05:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and make it a fully protected redirect to XKCD. The argument that no one will ever look at it again after two weeks ignores reality--there will be people coming to see that article for a long, long time. Jclemens (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it should have been deleted, but if XKCD's implications that it had two difference sources was correct, it should've gone through AfD rather than deleted out of process; I vote for restore the original so that it may be nominated to AfD properly. "IAR" by itself is not a reason why the deletion rules should be circumvented; it only means that the deletion rules should be circumvented if good reasons are given, and I don't see any good reasons here. --Zarel (talk) 07:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn and protected redirect to xkcd, with optional listing at RFD. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore protected redirect to xkcd, redirects are cheap and there was nothing wrong with the original deletion (xkcd made it up, the article was a hoax and met G3). Hut 8.5 08:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect is usually a better idea than a redlink.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and take to WP:RfD at editor discretion. Although I feel the first two deletion were probably correct (although as a hoax rather than IAR) I think the deletion of the redirect probably wasn't. I certainly don't think the redirect was vandalism. Speedy deletions are meant to encompass pages that the community would certainly delete, the fact that some of the community have since opposed it should have made it clear that an IAR deletion was inappropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If I understand correctly, xkcd was just lying about there having been a fully referenced article here before; even on their own website the commenters seem to say that. If this is true I dont think it should remain, even as a redirect, because the content wouldnt exist in the target article and thus it would not educate anyone. —Soap— 11:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Useful info seems to exist on Talk:Malamanteau; I hope that doesnt get deleted by a bot as talkpages of nonexistent articles often do. I have saved it to my HD just in case —Soap— 11:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, The article here was created after and as a response to the XKCD comic. I have provided a screenshot of the edit history. for those of you who can't view the history, I'm posting it here, as well. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undelete and and put it through AfD A lot of entries are created after and in response to other events. Such an argument is nonsensical. The problem I have is the article did not go through proper deletion procedures after it was apparent it was getting attention.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn without full protection. The only reason to protect is because of XKCD fans coming out of the woodwork, so I'd support semi-protection (and a close eye on 3RR violations) but not full protection. I agree that taking this to AfD or RfD would be best. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore redirect. Protect if/when it becomes a target of vandalism, not before. decltype (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, restore unprotected redirect. (It appears that this has already been done.) Go through AfD if it makes you feel better. Do we have criteria for when to delete a redirect? ...comments? ~BFizz 14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have recreated the redirect. I was unaware of this DRV at that time, so my apologies. Anyone who feels that this was out of prcess may redelete it. I will be mostly unavailable for a couple of days, so no need to contact me. I have also protected the redirect as being repeatedly recreated article. Fram (talk) 14:52, 12 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.
Julie Stoffer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I deleted and salted this back in 2007 (using cascading protection at that time). There were BLP concerns and it was considered borderline notable in any event. The subject had apparently contacted the nominator asking for her page to be deleted. A user has requested I at least unprotect on my talk page. Given the BLP concerns, I'd feel more comfortable with a consensus decision. Of course, this is not your typical DRV, especially in that we're really here about unprotection, but this arises from an AfD so I think this is within this page's ambit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I believe the decision whether or not to unprotect falls under administrator discretion. Deleting and salting was clearly the right decision at the time, so we're not exactly "reviewing" that decision - whether or not it still is does not appear to be the domain of DRV. --Zarel (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse protection as this was apparently a BLP causing real-life harm to the article subject, we shouldn't unprotect it without a spectacularly good reason, and preferably with the blessing of Wikimedia's attourney. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears as though she's given an interview quite recently (see the userspace draft below). Is that enough evidence that she's no longer actively avoiding coverage? Also, do we have any formal documentation she ever requested deletion? Hobit (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse protection per the subject's request in 2007 that her article be deleted. Marginable BLPs where the subject requested deletion should remain deleted and salted. Cunard (talk) 03:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, we ought to respect the outcome of the AfD that the article be deleted and salted. On the other hand, there was never a consensus that the subject was not notable and a person's request to have an article deleted is not permanently binding on the community. There may very well be a notable subject here and the prospect of creating a good non-problematic BLP. I think the way to balance those competing interests is to endorse the deletion and salting unless a properly sourced userspace draft can be presented to DRV. If that draft is acceptable, consideration should be given to indefinitely semi-protecting in the article space. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation Here's a userspace-draft. Stoffer appears to check out as a notable person.--The lorax (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose recreating this userspace draft. Plainly it is not sufficiently sourced. A trivial mention in one article isn't enough.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Allow recreation without prejudice to any future AfD. The sourcing has improved to the point that it can in my view be put on the mainspace. But I have no views on whether notablity is established. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also oppose unless you find more sources. Well done on writing it neutrally, but it needs at lot more source material before it meets WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, this seems to have improved a lot since I looked at it - it now has four sources as opposed to one. It seems to passing GNG now, so I'm inclined to agree with Hobit's view. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And another Oppose Recreation, possibly even Strong, based on that userspace draft and the subject's wishes. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article clearly meets GNG and two articles are are solely about the subject. I have worries about ONEEVENT however. Assuming there is a formal request by her for the article's deletion (which I've not seen evidence of), I'd say keep deleted (and protected). Otherwise I'd say restore. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Strikes per comment from Cunard Hobit (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Allow recreation I have reviewed the sources in the userspace draft and have determined that they provide significant coverage about the subject. Though I, like Hobit, believed that WP:BLP1E might apply, I think the following quote from OnMilwaukee.com indicates that BLP1E doesn't apply: Stoffer appeared on four MTV reality TV shows in the past four years, and currently, stars on a Canadian MTV show called "Electric Playground," which explores the technological side of the entertainment industry. (mine emphasized). Cunard (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: it's probably worth noting that a lot of !votes have been changed but not crossed out. Please look carefully at who is writing what when... Hobit (talk) 12:19, 20 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.
  • Muir Skate Longboard Shop – There is no consensus here (despite a numerical majority) that KoH's close was so incorrect that it exceeded the discretion afforded to AfD closers, especially given the canvassing, in which cases the closer has broad latitude to deal with the situation. As the DRV closer, I find that relist at AfD seems to be the best solution here; the page will be semiprotected for the duration of the discussion to prevent any canvassing. – Tim Song (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Muir Skate Longboard Shop (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

the arguments put forward by the keep !voters fail to refute the general consensus of lack of significant in depth third party coverage. there is zero coverage in gnews and only 1 hit for the shop's former name. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems also to be heavily pushed. subsequent discussion with closing admin is here User_talk:King_of_Hearts#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FMuir_Skate_Longboard_Shop. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin: In my first pass through the discussion, I thought this was an easy "delete." However, after convincing myself to ignore the tainting effect of the canvassing, I found that the "keep" side had some merit. Bonadea is the only person to question the non-local sources; that does not show a consensus for deletion. For a no consensus closure, the "keep" side is not required to show that the article is notable; rather, the "delete" side must fail to show beyond reasonable doubt that the article is non-notable. LibStar, in your DRV statement you are ignoring the fact that Google News is not the only place to find reliable sources, and that no one used WP:OTHERSTUFF besides the SPAs. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Google news is not the sole way but the other sources cited do not qualify together for significant (ie a wide variety) of indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is what you believe. But there is no agreement on that fact in the AfD. The huge row of "delete" !votes saying "fails (insert TLA here)" or "eww canvassing" are hardly better than "It has more sources than Harvard Book Store." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    that is your opinion. the onus is on those who want to keep to demonstrate significant (ie a wide variety) of indepth third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This can go back in forth, and the burden can be on either side based on slight technicalities. (Trust me, I've been through this debate when discussing WP:NFC.) We have policies and guidelines stating that the burden is on those wishing to retain content, and ones that state just the opposite. But in any case, consider: If "delete" voters show unambiguously that the article is non-notable, then the result is "delete." If "keep" voters show unambiguously that the article is non-notable, then the result is "keep." But what if neither side is successful? According to your logic the article should be deleted since the burden is on those who want to keep. However, our deletion process clearly delineates that case as "no consensus," which defaults to keep. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is your opinion. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you show me where in my previous statement (dated 01:52, 12 May 2010) I included my personal opinion? I think everything is either facts or paraphrases of policies or guidelines. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that is your interpretation of closing this AfD. I'll let others contribute to this discussion now. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close- Close certainly seems within the realm of admin discretion. It wasn't an easy afd to close, I imagine. But then, that's why we pay the admins the big bucks. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close this was a tough one, I can see both sides, hence my agreement that there is no consensus. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Per Ron Ritzman. I'm not a big fan of this close but it was within discretion. I'm particularly loathe to disturb conservative "no consensus" calls. No consensus leaves it open to be renominated in the not too distant future and I would encourage that to happen. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I've changed my mind on a second reading of the AfD and of the closer's explanation here. I'm not saying "overturn" yet but I am noting problems with the close. The closer states that the delete side must show beyond reasonable doubt that the subject is not notable. That test is plainly wrong and it looks like it may have affected the outcome here. I see only two non-canvassed !votes to keep: Paeon and Dream Focus. Cptono then "leant keep". On the other hand there are 16 delete !votes. Headcounting is of course prohibited, but a numerical majority of experienced editors to that extent points very strongly towards a consensus position. It can't be said that the keep arguments were overwhelmingly stronger than the deletes. I think the closing admin may have read too much into this discussion and imposed a burden on the delete side of the debate that is unwarranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually said the delete side "must fail to show beyond reasonable doubt" for no consensus, which is not the same as "must show beyond reasonable doubt" for consensus to delete (inverse). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point is more the overlaying of concepts of who succeeded in the debate: see your question above regarding "what if neither side is successful?". Closing an AfD isn't a task of deciding who succeeded in establishing or denying notability; the task is to determine what the community's consensus was. So even if the closer believes that the delete votes haven't established non-notability, there can still be a community consensus that the subject is not notable. At 16-3, I think it would be quite unusual for such a consensus not to exist. Additionally, closing a discussion on the basis of whether notability was "established" runs the risk of over-fidelity to the notability guidelines. WP:CORP and WP:GNG are guidelines that only create presumptions of notability: it is open to the community to delete articles that do meet the guidelines and to keep those that don't. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, incubate or Relist. Even if both sides have reasonable rationales, a valid !vote count 16-2 is a very high slant to push to no consensus. More problematically, the one source posited by User:Dream Focus as a reason to keep is just a "surf shop opens" short piece, and for the other editor, the pieces in the skateboard magazine aren't visible and for all we know could be press blurb. The rest are in the USCD Guardian and are therefore both local and primary. There is nothing at all in Google News. The other Keep votes are not only SPAs, but also ITSNOTABLE and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I don't think this was quite in the range of discretion. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete; I can't find a rationale for a no-consensus closure here. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. My change of mind on this is complete. As I reasoned above, I am of the view that this AfD was closed on the wrong basis: not by asking where the community's rough consensus lay, but by asking whether the delete !voters had established non-notability in accordance with notability guidelines. That is the wrong question. To the correct question - whether there was a community consensus to delete the article - the only answer was "yes". It would take extraordinary circumstances (such as overwhelming strength of argument) to find that a 16-3 headcount of valid contributions did not represent a rough consensus. That was not the case here. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I think you've got it quite backwards. I feel that the "16-3" headcount to which you refer should not have swayed King of Hearts in this case. In closing a canvassing-tainted AfD he would, quite rightly, have disregarded the headcount and focused on the question you describe as "wrong"--in other words, whether notability or lack thereof has in fact been demonstrated.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I certainly don't think there's anything backwards. The proper response to canvassing is to ignore obvious canvassing: the 16-3 headcount is the result of that. We don't reward keep-canvassing by being reluctant to close the debate as delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per stifle and black kite - UtherSRG (talk) 08:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, totally. Our AfD processes are designed on the assumption that no canvassing or vote-stacking takes place. Where such activities do take place, it is absolutely right that administrators should have wide latitude to deal with the tainted AfDs as they see fit. It is unfortunate that in this case, the canvassing has been rewarded by achieving the result it desires, so I would urge the closer of this DRV to consider using their discretion to relist at AfD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm saying that I see the result as within the closer's discretion in a canvassing-tainted AfD, hence "endorse" the no-consensus outcome. I then went on to say that I'm a little uncomfortable because in this instance the canvassing has led to the outcome the canvassing party sought, and I would prefer to see a fresh discussion involving un-canvassed users. With a no-consensus outcome, there's nothing stopping an early relist, so I could simply "endorse" and then relist it myself, but I don't like the overtones of that—I prefer a more nuanced outcome in which this DRV decides:

    a) That an admin has discretion to close a canvassing-tainted AfD as he sees fit;

    b) That canvassing is deplored;

    c) That the nomination is not entirely without merit and an untainted AfD might well have had a different outcome; and

    d) That a fresh discussion untainted by canvassing should take place.

    I'm specifically anxious to see that DRV does not seem to admonish or disapprove of King of Hearts in this matter. Admins should be able to close canvassing-tainted AfDs in the knowledge that DRV is aware of, and sympathises with, the difficulties of doing this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We all know that AFD isn't a vote-counting exercise; indeed, an admin that treats them like that doesn't deserve to have the bit. But if you're going to go against such a large consensus, you need to explain why the minority viewpoint's arguments are stronger, and in this case they aren't - indeed they're actually weaker, amounting to "look! I found a reference on the Internet!". Black Kite (t) (c) 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Mkativerta is absolutely right. Furthermore, if a closing admin had encountered the same keep and delete votes in a discussion without the disgusting canvassing then it would certainly have been deleted- 16 policy based arguments against three is obvious and unequivocal consensus- so to somehow conjure up a "no consensus" close here is to send a clear message that canvassing works. Reyk YO! 10:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to incubate. There was more of a consensus to delete than keep, but given the nom's move to supporting incubation and the convaluted nature of the debate it's probably fairer to move it and give the keep supporters a chance to improve the article rather than deleting outright. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Looks like King of Hearts failed to accurately read consensus, and in particular to address the impact of canvassing to the debate. Suggest King of Hearts seriously considers stepping back from closing discussions, particularly contentious or complex ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe WP:N should address different types of local sources for notability or non-notability. I'm tired of hearing over and over again, "Where does it say that local sources don't show notability?". I thought that even without it saying that in WP:N, it would be obvious. This isn't a local newspaper, it's an encyclopedia. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be a good idea. We have a general notability guideline, topic-specific guidelines, and a guideline on reliable sources, but no page that specifically deals with which sources can be used to show notability. (Indeed, there are many types of sources that would be considered reliable enough to prove a statement in an already notable article, but not enough to show notability per se.) When I was closing the AfD, my personal opinion would have been delete, but in the end found the keep arguments quite convincing. If our consensus is "this can be used to show notability, that can't," etc., then we might as well make it more well-known through a guideline or an addition to an existing guideline. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have heard users bring up that the size of the community where the newspaper is printed or how many cities/towns they are printed in can show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this would be too much instruction creep. Let the community decide on a case by case basis. Reyk YO! 23:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a great idea. Maybe a caveat as simple as "In general, coverage should not be from local sources exclusively" would do the trick. Yilloslime TC 23:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is an example of technical compliance with GNG trumping common sense, and I think is good evidence why the GNG for some things has gotten inclusive beyond reason, even for me. Whether local sources show notability depends on what they are--if they are responsibly edited and do not automatically cover any local group or business in an indiscriminate way, they can show notability. In general, I do not accept a college newspaper covering a local business as sufficiently discriminate, but the UCSD article does discuss the shop in a substantial way in connection with a campus dispute about sponsorship, so the usual basis for ruling out local sources does not apply here. Nonetheless, a local business with nothing actually special about it is not suitable content for an encyclopedia. The proper place for this would be in some WP extension, which I call Wikipedia II to indicate it would deal with a lower order of notability, not just local. But I think the decision was realistic--there was no consensus on how we should handle this article, or this general situation. If renominated, i will vote to !delete on the basis that notability should mean something, and not be dependent on the accident of sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination) and semiprotect so that a discussion can be held about the local newspaper article not establishing notability, without the noise of people who are canvassed. Though, I cannot see how this could be closed as no consensus — I believe there was a clear consensus among the established editors to delete; contrary to the closing admin's assertion that only Bonadea discounted the local sources, Joe Chill, VernoWhitney, Reyk, and JamesBWatson also mentioned in their arguments that the local coverage in the article was insufficient to establish notability. — there likely won't be a consensus here to overturn to delete. As such, a second AfD will probably have to be held, and I have no doubt that that debate will be closed as delete. Cunard (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The admin's statement upon closing the discussion said all that needed to be said. A second deletion discussion (hopefully with less shenanigans) might be a good idea. He interpreted the debate and overall weird situation correctly so this may not be the correct venue.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Well-reasoned decision, clearly within the closer's discretion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete or go to a second AFD and semiprotect Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A messy discussion with with some dubious reasoning on both sides. The closing admin's reasoning is in my opinion perfectly valid. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:13, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_12&oldid=1142499386"