Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 28: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:27, 29 October 2009

< 2009 October 27

Deletion review archives: 2009 October

2009 October 29 >

28 October 2009

getopt

I couldn't find a deletion discussion on getopt, a part of the C programming language on Unix. The admin who deleted it (Kungfuadam) wasn't familiar with the subject matter and appears to be unavailable. If the original article is still in the database I would like to have it restored. If not, I would like the go ahead to rewrite it. Pingveno 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic restore. Appears to be a contested prod. Deleting admin hasn't edited since May. Tim Song (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Maas (missionary)

The first "keep" comment in this AfD listed lots of points, only one of which potentially had any weight, which was that the subject was independently featured in a University of Pittsburgh alumni publication, the grand total of which content is "Johannes Maas ’67G is the international president of Worldwide Faith Missions, which builds and operates orphanages in India and Thailand". The next "keep" comment referred again to that alumni publication and mentioned some articles written by, rather than about, the subject in two newspapers, and the last "keep" was pure WP:ILIKEIT. I presented the results of exhaustive online searches for the subject's name in combination with any of the claims of importance in the article, and, apart from those 20 words and a name check in the Christian Herald, could find nothing. Nobody indicated the existence of any offline sources. After a friendly discussion with the closing admin I have come here to ask for the "no consensus" decision to be overturned to delete, as all of the arguments for keeping were either refuted or not based on policy or guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin – I saw, on the arguments for retention, assertions that the person would pass WP:BIO. Another user also suggested coverage in print sources. I thought those arguments were just as viable in this case as the arguments for deletion were. MuZemike 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give specifics of which assertions indicate that the subject would pass WP:BIO, and on what grounds, and of where it was suggested that there might be coverage of (rather than articles by) the subject in print sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete I think you might have misread something MuZemike, though it was an easy mistake to make. User:Jackie-thai said "I have read his aticles in "Bangkok Post" and "Nation" newspapers, whose editors considered his writings to be worthy of publication.", which is different than actually being covered by reliable sources. On the whole, I thought the arguments to delete were sufficiently stronger than the arguments to keep, which were refuted quite well. NW (Talk) 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - Can you point to (as is required by WP:BIO) any published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject? "Assertions" of notability merely make this article not eligible for speedy deletion. The standard at AFD is verifiability, which has not been established. Ἀλήθεια 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as the closure was not clearly in error. I see on no evidence that there was sufficient consensus for deletion here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've either made a typo there or misread the discussion - those two sentences contradict each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For "on" read "no".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Julian, not you. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was indeed a typo (sorry!) but otherwise my statement remains accurate. It's not contradictory as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and delete. This is a case where a thorough closing rationale analyzing the relative merits of the arguments would have been really helpful, because even with the closing admin's statement above I can't quite follow why this would be anything but delete. The number of arguers was balanced, but the deletion arguments appear to be much more carefully based on policy. The keep arguments seem to be either off-policy (e.g., "editors considered his writings to be worthy of publication") or not supported with sources. Perhaps this person really is notable, but if so I couldn't tell that from the article itself or the arguments made for it at AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, totally. It would take some serious doublethink to find a consensus in that discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what valid arguments did you see for keeping? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MuZemike's assessment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to seem to be badgering, but I'd still like clarification of what valid argument you think was given for keeping. It's no good referring to someone else's assessment when that assessment itself doesn't provide the answer to this question. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

just renominate in a few weeks. Personally, I doubt he's notable, and i don't think the arguments for keeping will hold up to more intensive scrutiny. But why bother about deletion review. It was closed non-consensus, which was a fair description of the AfD. I very rarely see the point of appealing a non-consensus close. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Juliancolton and the first two sentences of DGG's comment. I cannot bring myself to say that the closure was clearly erroneous. Tim Song (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 White House criticism of Fox News

There was no consensus (obvious or otherwise). Jwesley78 (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I nominated the AfD based on WP:NOTNEWS. I felt that the article was merely an indiscriminate collection (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) of common, non-notable (WP:N) exchanges between the White House and the press. I believe that the difficulty in arriving at a meaningful title for the article was a symptom of this condition. I believe the closing administrator clearly saw the non-notable aspect of this opinion and did not see compelling arguments to the contrary. I do believe that a more WP:ABSTRACT article entitled, say, U.S. Presidents and the media would be appropriate. HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contention between the White House and Fox News (and now also the Chamber Of Commerce, and others) appears to be a "change of strategy" taken by the Obama presidency. Instead of dealing with individual "falsehoods" they are directing their comments to whom they see as the source of these, i.e., Fox News. This "change of strategy" is notable within Obama's presidency. Jwesley78 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting take on it - but the article wasn't "White House's change of media strategy," nor was the article written with that in mind. HyperCapitalist (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let's just change the title. ;-) Jwesley78 (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That takes care of the first problem, now you just need to address the "nor was the article written with that in mind" part. ;-) HyperCapitalist (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Deletion policy is fairly clear as to how the deletion process should take place. (The more controversial a topic, the more closely policy should be followed.) My contention is simply that no consensus was formed. If measuring by number of votes (although not a valid way to measure consensus) it would clearly say keep the article. Since this is (at best) a case of "no consensus", the article should be kept. Jwesley78 (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The article was a farce. Its name alone hinted that other articles can and would be created for other years. It is very easy to place this information into the body of other articles and still respect WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Now lets all remember that any crictism article or otherwise that is aimed at the current occupant of the White House has been met with much resistance from many other users, yet I must point out that some of those same users have not only participated in the deletion discussion as wanting to keep this article, but also added information into the article as well. The same arguments they use on other pages to repress critcism, were somehow forgotten in this artcle. It is unfortunate that some users have used wikipedia to promote or otherwise encourage their political point of view. I not only commend Julian for making this difficult decision, but he deserves our gratitude for rising above the political mess that was created by this former article.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Are comments allowed?) Jojhutton, I haven't edited the Obama pages much lately so am ignorant of which Wikipedians' partisanship you're referring to. However, I noticed in the AfD that (as an example) User:Showtime2009 made an empty accusation about there being SPAs who had been editing the article in question; therefore, in the present case, I'd hope you'd either provide some names or more detailed explanations of your accusations -- perhaps even some diffs? (It's ironic that sometimes those who are actually overly partisan themselves tend to see partisanship where none really exists. Eg, I created the article, yet in real life I am an Obama supporter.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you one previous example and one possible future example. 1. There was a previous heated argument over the creation of a new article titled Criticism of Barack Obama. Many editors argued against the article based on WP:BLP, while ignoring that an article that some of them had previously worked on titled Criticism of George W. Bush did excist. When it was brought up to some of these editors that this other article excisted they would point out WP:OTHERSTUFF as a criteria for deleting the article about Obama. In the end, it was agreed to change the name of both articles to read "Public Perception....." in stead of criticism. 2. As far as future debates go. I would suggest trying to create the article Fox News Criticism of the White House. This article is the same thing as the other, only in reverse. I can almost see the sides switching on this one based on the partisian divide on wikipedia. Its all wait and see now.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the wording of Articles_for_deletion#How_an_AfD_discussion_is_closed should be changed to place less emphasis on determining an "obvious consensus"? Jwesley78 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - once again, a DRV nominee who forgets that AfDs are not a vote. The keep votes that simply consisted of "I saw it in a reliable source!" were weak. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does realize that it's "not a vote". The problem is that there was clearly no consensus. Please don't make false claims about me. Jwesley78 (talk) 04:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll at least try to concentrate on the closing administrator's application/lack of application of AfD policy moreso than any stuff that would be peripheral to that.)
Endorse I like our collectively allowing closing admins elbow room to make reasonable decisions. In this case, the decision could have gone either way, so....
In other words, even though how I personally saw the AfD's consensus was that it was one supporting a merger of either all or at least some of the article's info -- to somewhere or another; what real diff does it make if the closing admin sees it as a delete? In the end, whatever would be deemed notable will end up being contributed elsewhere (...well, of course, I'd saved a copy of the deleted article in my user space) -- so, why make a big fuss over whether the original page was deleted or remains as a redirect?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn- I disagree that the strength of the arguments favored the delete side of that argument, and I don't feel there was any consensus in that discussion to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn Closer claimed "Indeed, many keep votes consist of essentially "It is notable" without any sort of explanation or reasoning. " As the article was very well sourced, deleting on the that basis is not reasonable in this case. Normally a "it's notable" !vote holds little value. But when the article is sourced in a way far past what WP:N requires, I can't see how it could be deleted on that basis. I personally would have leaned toward delete due to NOTNEWS with a dose of IAR had I seen the AfD, but I don't believe a consensus to delete can be found in that discussion. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - personally i thought it was heading towards no consensus. Sometimes keep !votes are simpler explanations then delete !votes, because the deletion rationales are more tortured. This, in fact, happens commonly when a clearly notable article is nominated for deletion. This article doesn't fall into that bucket neatly, though, and I'm neutral on the close decision here due to some discretion needing to be allowed the closing admin. This article's subject matter is no doubt going to appear in other articles as well.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close was within process and legitimate, only claims of votecounting seem to support any other close. Closing admins rationale seems perfectly fine to alleviate any concerns. --Jayron32 06:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I very rarely !vote to overturn Juliancolton. But in this case I didn't see a consensus in that debate. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Textbook case of WP:NOT#NEWS. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD's are, we sometimes forget, discussions not polls. The closing administrator seems to have properly taken account of that by making an assessment of the arguments presented rather than simply counting votes. I note the comments from Hobit in suggesting this decision is overturned. However, he doesn't seem to recognise that satisfying the notability guidelines does not mean an article on a particular subject is appropriate, merely that one might be. This is why simply saying the subject is notable is not adequate justification to keep this article. Adambro (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, it seems to me that many of the keep !voters were of the erroneous belief that everything that meets the verifiability and third-party coverage requirement of WP:V and WP:N required or guaranteed an article, with very few of them even trying to address the comments of those who were arguing for deletion. While a merge might have been a viable closure option, there was no consensus on where it should be merged to. This means that a merge outcome would effectively mean keeping the article indefinitely until such time as a place could be agreed (or even a suitable article written), and keeping the article in its current form was the option rejected most clearly by those expressing reasoned opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This line of reasoning of Thryduulf's is what I was trying, really (if lamely) to argue via my !vote above. (Also note that the language at WP:FANCRUFT: "Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial." -- while accurately pointing out that closes of this type are controversial, obviously does not say such closes are improper or disallowed.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn It is a notable event and there was no consensus. Wikipedia has an article on Balloon Boy, but not the WH battle against Fox? It makes Wikipedia editors look like leftists covering for the WH. As noted below, notable votes for a page with numerous cites can be succinct, while attempts to justify based on WP:NOTNEWS need more justification. No consensus was reached on the page by any means. GeorgPBurdell 10:09, 28 October 2009
Overturn. More Wikipedians supported Keep than supported Delete. Under these circumstances, it's absolutely farcical to claim that there was a rough consensus for deletion, which is what the policy calls for. The "AfD is not a vote" mantra has been perverted to the point of meaning, in practice, "AfD is nothing but a debating society that presents arguments for consideration, with the final decision made solely by one individual, namely whatever admin or other editor wanders by on the eighth day and decides to make his or her opinion the dispositive one." If that's to be the policy -- and some Wikipedians seem comfortable with that extreme version of "AfD is not a vote" -- then the policy should be rewritten to eliminate the word "consensus". There is no plausible meaning of the word "consensus" by which this closing, and others of the same ilk, reflected even a "rough consensus". Now, I realize that the policy doesn't make the consensus requirement absolute, but rather states, "Under most circumstances, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept...." (emphasis added) That wording allows for exceptions. It cannot, however, allow an exception on the basis that "the person closing the AfD happens to favor deletion and therefore feels like deleting regardless of the absence of consensus." If that were an allowable exception then we'd have no policy. JamesMLane t c 11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"More Wikipedians supported Keep than supported Delete" - Sorry, but how is this in any way relevant? Consensus is not bound by a vote count. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The numeric count does play a role. If 90% of the !voters invoked IAR to do something contrary to guidelines we generally follow that lead. Here the real debate (IMO) was NOTNEWS vs. WP:N. As both sides have perfectly valid arguments (NOTNEWS doesn't preclude the coverage of all news) and the !votes leaded keep there was no consensus to delete. Hobit (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Julian, read the rest of what he wrote. He explains why it's relevant. Jwesley78 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To explain why I consider it relevant, let me give you a hypothetical AfD in which fully 100 Wikipedians participate, none of them SPA's, none of them anon IP's, and none of them having been brought in through on- or off-wiki canvassing. The nominator and four others give varying thoughtful arguments for Delete. Five of the other participants give varying thoughtful arguments for Keep. The remaining 90 all find themselves persuaded by a comment already made, so each of them responds with some variation of "Delete per User X" or "Keep per User Y". The view of some AfD closers, which your comment suggests you may share, is that the person closing the AfD should read the ten reasoned arguments, examine the challenged article and the relevant policies, and decide which view he or she personally considers to be more sound. The 90 other participants can be ignored. The closer can delete the article even if all 90 said "Keep". The closer can keep it even if all 90 said "Delete". Is that your view? I personally think that would be a terrible system, but the more important point is that it's not the system we have. The policy repeatedly uses the word "consensus". You're asking me how the numeric count of responses is relevant to determining whether there's a rough consensus. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how to explain it any more clearly. It follows from the definition of the word. JamesMLane t c 21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of current events is hard to "prove" because we do not have the full context (yet) and we do not (yet) know what effect these events will have on the future. Since we don't fully know the effects, one possible measure of notability is how many sources can be found that covered the events. This article was clearly well cited with many sources. In addition, since the clear majority voted Keep or Merge, there should be some overwhelming reason to instead choose Delete. Jwesley78 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Hobit's comments, I don't see that it was "NOTNEWS vs. WP:N". That would assume that the two are mutually exclusive. I disagree. WP:N does not require us to have an article on a subject because the criteria are satisfied, and I would agree that they were, rather it says an article might be appropriate. The main question here in my opinion was not really whether the subject was notable according to WP:N, the multiple independent reliable sources meant it was fairly clear that it was, but rather was a standalone article the most appropriate way for us to deal with this subject. Meeting WP:N does not and should not mean an automatic new article, we have to assess each subject in the context of other articles we may have about similar subjects and consider the historical significance. We already have a Fox News Channel controversies article and so this particular topic can probably be appropriately covered in that and similar articles. I don't think we can speculate that this particular incident is going to be significant which is what I feel some may be doing. Adambro (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The close was not clearly erroneous. Obligatory disclosure: I !voted to delete in the AfD. Tim Song (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The keep supporters put forth a strong and well-sourced argument. Although the delete supporters believe the article is WP:NOT#NEWS, there was not a consensus on this. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - while the close was controversial, it wasn't definitely incorrect. Closer evaluated the strength of the arguments and decided that while it met the requirements for independent sourcing, it didn't meet the requiremets for WP:NOTNEWS. (Disclosure - !voted to delete.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the closer followed precedent by evaluating the strength of the opinions; I agree that many of the keeps were based on "it happened!" and had little basis to define why we should have this as a fork rather than in one of the relevant articles. A good close, not obviously erroneous. Unless we're going to make a policy change that states AfD is a numerical vote, no problem here. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't know whether I would have reached the same conclusion, but the closer provided a reasonable rationale based on policy and the content of the discussion. To overturn decisions without clear indications that the closer misinterpreted the discussion or committed some other important error, and without any new information about the subject of the article, just turns DRV into AFD round two. I don't see any such clear indications or new information, so I believe the closer's decision should stand. --RL0919 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, as the closer explicitly stated that he used WP:NOTNEWS as a rationale for deletion. This is not a case of NOTNEWS, as it is not a single event. Here is a story from June, where Obama slams Fox; here is another from September, discussing a separate, but related event; another from October 6th, discussing yet another incident; another, from October 14th, with a different Obama adminstration official attacking the network; another one, on October 19th, which quotes both the official from the previous link and another senior administration official; and a pair of pieces from The New York Times and CBS News, which mention yet another incident, while providing an overview of the whole topic. All of these are related, but they are not a single incident, and they encompass a span of at least six weeks (discounting the June attack from Obama). Therefore the topic of the article does not meet the criteria for NOTNEWS exclusion. NOTNEWS clearly states that it only applies to a single incident; this is not the case here. BTW, the Colorado balloon incident, which was retained after an AFD which also had many !votes citing NOTNEWS, has an article in Wikinews; this does not. Horologium (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't limit what Wikipedia articles should not be to only where a single event is involved. Unless I'm mistaken, the only reference made to a single event relates to individuals; "our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event". Where does clearly state "that it only applies to a single incident"? Adambro (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also find it odd that "Balloon Boy" incident was found worthy of an article, but this issue was not. Jwesley78 (talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One involved a significant hoax resulting in sizeable search and rescue resources being mobilised, flights being rerouted, an airport being temporarily shut, and an apparent life and death situation involving a child which looks set to result in criminal charges. The other incident concerns a petty dispute between some in the White House and Fox News. I don't see how the incidents are comparable. Adambro (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you would feel differently if Gordon Brown's government were to mount a similar offensive against Sky News, with multiple high-level officials stating that they were not a legitimate news outlet. This is not a couple of staffers spouting off; this is a sustained and coordinated effort, something that has never happened before on this scale in the United States. Previous administrations have squawked about biased coverage (and publicly ended White House subscriptions to specific newspapers) and complained about specific stories, but never has any administration stated that one of the major news outlets is in fact, not a news outlet at all. FNC is not an obscure cable outfit; it is the largest cable news channel in North America (probably in the Western Hemisphere), and six weeks of direct attacks against its legitimacy is a lot more than a petty dispute. Horologium (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why might I feel differently if Gordon Brown's government was involved in a similar incident? Adambro (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I claim that this was more than a "petty dispute". This kind of attack on a media outlet is largely unprecedented, and was interpreted by some as an attempt to "manipulate" the media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwesley78 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – I'd argue that this isn't about notability but whether or not this went against WP:NOT, in which the arguments for deletion on those grounds made it very clear. MuZemike 20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete; I think that the keep voters made a satisfactory demonstration of notability. Ultimately, I think this material better belongs in an article or series of articles discussing the Obama administration's media relations strategy. In the moment it is difficult to achieve that kind of coherence/synthesis and the material appears in smaller chunks; that's okay so long as severe NPOV and weight problems are avoided. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. There was ample RS coverage. There was absolutely no reason to delete it. Trilemma (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion discussion was never simply concerned with whether or not there were adequate reliable sources to satisfy WP:NOTE. As such, it isn't clear why you are suggesting the decision to close the AfD in this way was incorrect. Adambro (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this review were to be controversially closed some other way than "no consensus to overturn," wouldn't that be ironic? ;^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - I just don't see how this deletion is based in policy. There is no question of compliance with WP:N, as acknowledged by the closing admin. Several editors (myself included) pointed out that the remaining rationale, based on WP:NOTNEWS, in which the interpretation being applied is prima facie invalid and is in fact directly addressed within WP:NOTNEWS. The closing admin didn't address this point of order; it should also be noted that there are just as many "keep" !votes based solely on WP:N as there are "delete" !votes that seem solely based upon the policy name "NOTNEWS". If you boil out those two vaporous arguments, any remaining policy objections are focused around content issues (WP:NPOV, WP:OR/WP:SYN, etc.), for which the remedy is certainly not deletion. It seems clear to me that this deletion should be overturned. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse WP:NOTNEWS at its finest. Soxwon (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn not at it's finest, at it's most expansive and worst. Clear misinterpretation of NOT NEWS, by the people in the debate and the closing admin. There needs to be an undetrstanding that the sort of events which would reasonably be in history books is more than transient news. It would have been much better to either interpret NOT NEWS to mean NOT TABLOID, or, if these misunderstandings persist, reword the rule to make it explicit. But in any case there have been continuing additional publications, and it should easily be possible for a more extended article to be written. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 *'''Overturn''' - I just don't see how this deletion is based in policy.  There is no question of compliance with [[WP:N]], as acknowledged by the closing admin.  Several editors (myself included) pointed out that the remaining rationale, based on [[WP:NOTNEWS]], in which the interpretation being applied is ''[[prima facie]]'' invalid and is in fact directly addressed within [[WP:NOTNEWS]].  The closing admin didn't address this point of order; it should also be noted that there are just as many "keep" !votes based solely on [[WP:N]] as there are "delete" !votes that seem solely based upon the policy name "NOTNEWS".  If you boil out those two vaporous arguments, any remaining policy objections are focused around ''content'' issues ([[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:OR]]/[[WP:SYN]], etc.), for which the remedy is certainly not deletion.  It seems clear to me that this deletion should be overturned.  //[[USER:Blaxthos|Blaxthos]] <small>( [[User Talk:Blaxthos|t]] / [[Special:Contributions/Blaxthos|c]] )</small> 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse''' [[WP:NOTNEWS]] at its finest. [[User:Soxwon|Soxwon]] ([[User talk:Soxwon|talk]]) 00:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Overturn''' not at it's finest, at it's most expansive and worst. Clear misinterpretation of NOT NEWS, by the people in the debate and the closing admin. There needs to be an undetrstanding that the sort of events which would reasonably be in history books is more than transient news. It would have been much better to either interpret NOT NEWS to mean NOT TABLOID, or, if these misunderstandings persist, reword the rule to make it explicit. But in any case there have been continuing additional publications, and it should easily be possible for a more extended article to be written.   '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 00:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)