Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 20

20 January 2010

Famat

Famat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I wrote the article FAMAT (Florida Association of Mu Alpha Theta) about a non-profit organization that hosts High School and Middle School Mathematics Competitions in Florida. It organizes over 20 competitions a year, including an extremely large state convention in April. Around 30 schools and over 1000 students participate in each competition. The records of such competitions are found on FAMAT Website (It lists only the competition from 2010, use the drop-down menu to view more). I can also show notability by supplying a few links of websites that cite their participation in FAMAT.

• Topica Listserve
• FAMAT at Stetson University
• Listing of FAMAT as an official division of National Mu Alpha Theta
• Buchholz High School in FAMAT
• Rickards High School in FAMAT
• St Edward's High School in FAMAT
• Lawton Chiles High School in FAMAT
• Palm Harbor University High School in FAMAT

There are many more schools who participate in FAMAT.

I am not promoting my own organization, I am merely a student participant who feels that this organization is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article.

I thank everyone very much for taking time to write opinions on this matter. Dragoneye776 (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Automatic restore as this is a contested prod. Cunard (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion as deleting admin -- this is merely a state affiliate of Mu Alpha Theta, and all of the cited sources merely show its existence, not its notability per WP:N. As far as the automatic restore, note that the original prod deletion was of a different article, two years before the recreation of the article in question. Famat (as opposed to the above-cited article) was speedily deleted per category A7. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree that an organization who organizes over 20 competitions a year (the records are in the link I provided initially) each of which attract about 1000 students from 30 schools across Florida (can be see in clicking the results) as well a large state convention, is considered "not notable". Dragoneye776 (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

ServerPronto

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

Consensus on delete not reached. Further discussion is warranted. 207.244.164.53 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was the nominator. I will only note that admins are allowed to give less weight to single-purpose accounts (although I wish they would bother explaining themselves! Sigh). One keep !voter had only worked on the deleted article, and the other had not made an edit since December 2008. Fences&Windows 13:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• I created this article with the intention of being solely informative and objective. I believe it was unfairly characterized as advertising. I believe the deletion was possibly unwarranted, and premature (pending further input in discussion). I would propose reinstating, and allowing further editing of the article to come in closer compliance with Wikipedia standards. --Prieur3 (talk) 15:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse - The AfD was open a full 7 days, and attracted at least 5 participants. Proper close. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. The six contributions (including the nomination) were sufficient for the admin to see a consensus. That consensus was clear: of the two keep !votes, one was not based on policy at all - the objectivity of the article is not relevant, only the notability of the subject is; the other merely asserted notability in a subjective way without any reference to policy. The delete votes, or at least three of them, were soundly based on policy and made convincing arguments that there was not significant coverage to demonstrate the notability of the subject. There was therefore a consensus to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Obama adminstration health care proposal

Obama administration health care proposal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

<new information, and admin misinterpreted the debate>

Reasons in chronological order:

Prior to the AfD, a series of deletions reduced the article to a straw man.

Then, the AfD began with an incorrect statement that the President had no plan and, therefore, there was no basis for an article. In reality, "The President Plan" is listed on the White House website[1] and reported by major news media.[2]

I was traveling at the time, and so my reply was delayed. By the time I could restore the content and add sources, some 'votes' had already been cast for deletion. (Stated reasons included that the article presented counter-arguments from secondary sources responding to The White House arguments in favor of the plan; the counter-arguments were published in reliable sources but some editors said they were "debunking the White House" and made the article seem biased.)

User:Jayjg then deleted more than 20 nominated articles including this one. I requested a second look, and User:Jayjg replied as follows: "I can only interpret the consensus of the AfD discussion, and the consensus was clearly to delete. If you want to contest this deletion, please feel free to do so at WP:DRV."

Since then, President Obama went to Massachusetts to help the Senate campaign of Attorney General Coakley, who had promised to vote for his plan. She lost by seven points, to a Republican who promised to provide the 41st vote against the President's plan; it's the first time Massachusetts has elected a Republican senator since 1972.[3] Nationally, the Congressional bills that reflect The President's Plan are trailing by 17 points,[4] i.e. 10 points more than the margin that defeated Coakley.

WP currently has no article on The President's Plan; the AfD was based on the misstatement that he has no plan. It is covered briefly in the more extensive article on the Health care reform debate in the United States, but that article is so long WP is automatically suggesting it should be broken into smaller articles. The article on The President's plan linked to 22 sources, including 19 secondary sources, and would contain more if it were there to add to. In my opinion, anyone who thought the article biased against the plan could simply have added more arguments in its favor, e.g. from The White House website. The fact that Americans, by a 17-point margin, think the arguments against the plan stronger than the arguments in favor, is not really the fault of the article. Deleting the article simply creates a gap in WP.TVC 15 (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse Looking at the AfD, the closing admin made the correct decision, the delete arguments were all based on policy that where never adequately refuted. The notability was never an issue, the facts that the information was covered elsewhere and that this article violated WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV were the issues. If TVC 15 wants the article userfied to address the WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV issues I would see no reason to object. J04n(talk page) 04:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't create the article or add most of the content, but seeing it userfied to address perceived issues would be better than losing it entirely. A list of specific examples of WP:SYNTH would help in that regard. As for WP:NPOV, the issue with covering a debate is that the arguments on one side may simply be stronger than the arguments on the other. A fair trial does not always result in a hung jury.TVC 15 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)