Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 11

11 July 2007

Joy Basu

Joy Basu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Not a prroper application of speedy deletion criteria. As I pointed out at User_talk:CBM#Your_deletion_of_Joy_basu, the criteria cited (A7) explicitly states that it is not to be applied to articles where there is controversy about whether notability has been asserted or which have been put through AfD and kept. Both of these exmptions applied to this article. Concerns about referencing are to be handled at AfD, not by speedy deletion (this article did cite reputable sources to establish notability). I request a overturn as deletion was against established policy regarding speedy deletion. Loom91 21:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As the deleting admin, I considered merely removing the unsourced BLP information, but that left virtually nothing, so I chose to delete the article per common sense, the proposed deletion criteria for unsourced BLP articles, and this arbcom principle. I did so under the expectation that it would be recreated as an improved article. To explain myself, I left a detailed note on Talk:Joy Basu explaining my concerns, in which I explicitly pointed out that the article can be recreated.

Rather than complaining about the deletion, I would encourage interested editors to write a new, well sourced article. If the deletion is overturned, the result will be little different, as most of the short article was already unsourced BLP information that would need to be removed and then reinserted with sources.

It is also worth mentioning that Loom91 inserted a redlink into the article for a name that he has identified as his own. I suspect there is a conflict of interest in his editing of the article. This is not a deletion concern, but his opinions on the article should be evaluated with this in mind. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The deletion log entry cited first WP:CSD#A7 and then WP:BLP. To deal with these in order, The statement that a playwright has been both script writer and assistant director for a film that has been reviewed in a major newspaper is a claim of notability. it might not be enough at AfD, or it might, but it is enough to take this out of the realm of speedy deletion. As to BLP, the content here is neither negative nor contentious. If this sort of article can be speedy deleted under BLP for lack of sources, that is saying than any article deemed to have insufficient references (and note this did include multiple references to reliable sources, specifically two articles in the Calcutta, India Telegraph, here, and here: one of these describes him as "the writer-backbone of the film" and the other as "Calcutta playwright and critic") may be speedy deleted. There have been proposals before to speedy delete unreferenced articles, or unreferenced biological articles -- all of them failed. Note also recent discussion at WT:V#Blanking unsourced articles and tagging them for speedy deletion as empty suggested that removing content as unsourced, and then promptly tagging for speedy delete as empty was improper, or at least unwise. How much more unwise if the person removing content is also the deleting admin, and the whole process takes place withing a single edit. That is what User:CBM describes as "common sense". i find it not at all sensible, and i hope not very common on Wikipedia. Strong overturn as neither desirable nor supported by policy. DES ^(talk) 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree non-BLP articles should not be blanked and deleted, because they shouldn't be blanked. But in this case, after the hard pruning needed for BLP there was so little content left that there was little difference between deleting the article versus removing the content. That's the common sense part. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. It's unsourced in the cached version and almost everything is redlinked, but it does assert notability. Determining the notability of the material should be handled at AFD in a case like this. Being unreferenced is not the same as being unnotable. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's unsourced? There were multiple references! Loom91 07:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn has 3 sources in the last deleted version and asserts importance. BLP doesn't mean we nuke anything without an inline citation after every sentence. Nothing in the article seemed negative anyway. --W.marsh 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

List of slang names for poker hands

List of slang names for poker hands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Was placed in a second nomination for AfD one day after the first AFD was closed as no consensus. First AFD is here, second is here. I have no opinion, so I am abstaining from any discussion. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Without offering whether the (my) close was proper, I feel I should at least explain why I closed the way I did. There's some perception that I editorialised in my close - in fact I explained the state of the discussion as I saw it, so it would be clear why I closed the way I did. Straight vote counting was 6-2 delete/keep, but discussion was something like 2 delete/4 transwiki/2 keep .... there may be a consensus for transwiki - which is essentially "keep and edit, follow with a delete as transwiki'd at the appropriate time" but I felt it wasn't clear. I've already discussed with User:kzollman that if he can show a consensus to do so at talk:List of slang names for poker hands, a transwiki and speedy per CSD:A5 is not out of the question. That might have a consensus (or one might develop) - a straight delete clearly does not. Cheers, WilyD 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - closing admin correctly interpreted the AFD and closed appropriately. Otto4711 21:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - I agree with the closing admin's summation of the AfD M2Ys4U 21:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse DRV isn't AfD2. Complaints about this article notwithstanding there was no problem with the closure. If the problems persist it might be suitable for nomination for deletion again down the line, but give it a little time, at least. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. This should have never been opened here. While the original closing admin obviously acted inappropriately by editorializing his opinion, and subsequently making blatantly untrue statements to cover his tracks, the fact remains that the strong consensus of the original afd is to get rid of this article that plainly violates policy. Besides an unsigned comment and one other on the original afd, the only other "opposition" to following policy has been wikilawyer trolls. Creating this entry is more of the same. "Bold" wikilawyer rudeness on the part of Dennis just makes things worse. the afd process should be allowed to work, not hijacked or sent off into wikilawyer land. If someone, anyone, wants to change what the wikipedia is not then take up that point. The consensus for deleting the article is plain. WilyD's frankly bizarre statements about transwiking are just too weird at this point. Whether the article is moved to the Wiktionary or not is irrelevant to the point that the article violates policy and should be deleted. 2005 23:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I don't object to people attacking me for the most part, but please restrict your comments about Dennis to civil, productive ones. Dennis certainly does not deserve to be the target of ad hominem attacks for following policy. Cheers, WilyD 23:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Good lord, spare us more of this lawyering. This mess is your fault. Denis' unfortunate circumventing normal procedure is sadly more of the same. Please don't make things worse. The afd consensus and policy should be followed. Normal procedure for deleting a blatantly inappropriate article should be allowed to continue without this tedious lawyering. If you want to apologize for your actions, fine, but please don't make things worse by extending this lawyering nonsense. 2005 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is not a request, it is a reminder that there are civility standards everyone must adhere to, and consequences if one does not. Don't take it for more or less. Dennis did the right thing (apart from which, the second AFD showed a clear policy based consensus for it) and there's no reason to slam him just because you're upset that I closed the first AfD as a discussion, rather than a vote. WilyD 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please stop. It is not uncivil to state someone acted inappropriately. Being "bold" is not a blank check for acting inappropriately, and then following that up with creating this entry, and the abstaining. These actions are poor choices, in my opinion. If you disagree, fine, but please do not make threatening posts again. Instead maybe you'd do well to read the civility standards you cited. 2005 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Having said that I will not comment, I am now commenting. I already told you in your talk page. As you have seemingly ignored it, I will tell you here: DRV is the place to go if you feel that the closure of AFD was done with the wrong interpretation of consensus. If you don't believe me, go to WP:DRV and click on the link for "Purpose". Line 2, read it. This is not lawyering, as you are so inclined to call it, this is following the procedure that you seem to be wishing to adhere to. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• And just so you can ignore it again, the original closing is not an issue. There is NO REASON a discussion should be here. YOU started it, for reasons known only to you. I opened an afd an an article that plainly violates policy. You closed it prematurely. That was your decision, as was bringing up this other trivial issue here. You of course could open a discussion here if YOU want to and have issues about it. I could not care less myself, and certainly don't care about the lawyering. I opened an afd. I was not the person who opened the other afd. I acted appropriately, in an attempt to see policy followed regarding that article and not waste editors times on silliness. 2005 23:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if you feel I closed the second AfD incorrectly, you can bring it to DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please Assume Good Faith people. WilyD did what they thought was best for the article/project by closing the AfD as no consensus. 2005 again did they thought was best by submitting another AfD and Dennis thought that following procedure was the best thing to do. Whether or not any and/or all of these were the best thing to do is of no importance now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M2Ys4U (talk • contribs)
• Endorse closure. WilyD acted appropriately and within policy. The community failed to speak with one voice. It's no emergency that an article managed to scrape through as a no-consensus keep, so give it a few months and come back with a better rationale or at least proof that it is not being substantively improved. --Dhartung | Talk 00:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Question It looks to me like there was consensus support for moving all relevant content to wiktionary and then deleting. On the first AfD here were 8 voters and 2 commenters in total. 4 delete votes mentioned moving to wiktionary explicitly, 1 comment suggested that it either be kept or moved to wiktionary, and 2 votes were consistent with that solution (straight delete votes). One of the keep votes (by Iowa13) only suggested that the information be kept and suggested moving to wiktionary as a solution (suggesting this user was not opposed to move and delete; reading the users rational also supports this). All told, only one voter (out of 8 to 10 contributors) was explicitly opposed to that solution. Adding to that two new delete votes during the brief life of the second afd (and no non-process-based keep votes), I think we can agree that the "move to wiktionary and delete" solution has consensus support. If there are no objections, I will speedy the article (A5) once the move is complete. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• I'm torn. I personally like the article... but objectively I don't think it meets standards. There is no criteria for the inclusion of terms and it simply begs people to be creative and come up with their own slang. Thus, I think it should be deleted. Do I think willy acted inappropriately? No, but I disagree with his conclusion or at least his rationale on the AFD. Thus, I agree with 2005's questioning the closure. I also agree with the move here for DVR---this is the appropriate place. So I am really torn... I think the page should be deleted---but I have to support the closure. If/when the page goes up for deletion again (in a few months) , I would like to be know. Thus, Endorse Closure.Balloonman 02:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism"

Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

• • • PLEASE NOTE that the nominator has engaged in one-sided canvassing in order to influence and "vote stack" this debate. >Radiant< 08:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No consensus for deletion. Opinion was evenly divided between Evolution/Creationism regulars (who were all for keeping) and CFD regulars (who were all for deletion). On a request for reconsideration, the closing Admin refused, claiming that the "delete" side had the stronger arguments, but the "keep" side dispute this claim, the basis for which is insufficiently clear-cut to count as anything more than the closing Admin's personal opinion. Hrafn42 17:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Controlling policies appear to be:

• WP:OCAT (the only 'overcategorisation' alleged was "not defining" and this allegation was disputed)
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion (requirement for rough consensus)
• WP:DGFA#Rough consensus

Hrafn42 18:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 July 5#Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" Hrafn42 18:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: as far as I can ascertain, none of the 'keep' arguments employed arguments contained in WP:AADD (even were that essay to be considered a policy or guideline), and so cannot be discounted for that reason. Hrafn42 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Question Could you please link to the discussion? I don't see a link here. Shalom ^Hello 18:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment Here's the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_5#Category:Signatory_of_.22A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism.22 Odd nature 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Deleted on shaky grounds. As noted there was no consensus for deletion, only by discounting a large number of comments from credible editors and admins did the closing admin justify deletion, citing an essay, WP:AADD, as trumping Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. As for the category itself, it is an appropriate category per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion. Odd nature 18:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse per the closing admin's explanation: Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it. If people think the list clutters the article, that is not automatic grounds for making a category out of the clutter. A list article would arguably be better, as it could e.g. include relevant degrees held by the signing people. The balance of arguments was clear to justify the deletion. --Kbdank71 18:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This argument for it not being defining amounts to little more than an argument from personal incredulity. Numerous arguments against a list were discussed including that it already exists on the DI website, and that most of the signatories of this full list aren't notable. Additionally, the DI full list only contains the degree of a small minorityhalf of signatories, making a list that comprehensively contains the "relevant degree" problematical. Hrafn42 18:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't understand. The reason against a list was that most of the signatories aren't notable? What was expected with a category, then? If a person isn't notable, they wouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and therefore wouldn't be in the category. Was the point of the category to have an incomplete list of signatories? At least with a list, you could add every signatory, notable or not. Ergo, a complete list. --Kbdank71 18:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A complete list exists on the DI website. Only those leaders of the movement or those who are otherwise noteworthy are included with separate articles on WP.--Filll 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And there is the defining characteristic argument again. If they are leaders of the movement or otherwise noteworthy, then they are defined by being leaders of the movement or being otherwise noteworthy. They aren't notable because they signed a document. Lots of people signed my high school yearbook, but there isn't a category about them. --Kbdank71 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kdbank, just a reminder that Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Instructions says "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information)." BTW, what the Discovery Institute does with the list (like running it in a full page ad in the New York Times) very much impacts the visibility and notability of those who sign it. That objection holds no water. Odd nature 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Was the point of the category to have an incomplete list of signatories?" As with any category on wikipedia, this category will only contain the members who both (1) fit the category criteria and (2) are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. A category of 'Chicago Politicians' would not contain some crank who ran for Chicago City Council in 1966, got one vote and died the next year in complete obscurity. If you want the full list, it already exists on the DI site (and may be subject to copyright), if you want to find out who on the list is notable (e.g. so you can read the articles on them, or so that you can interview them for a newspaper article on the SDFD), a category divides the chaff from the wheat nicely. Hrafn42 02:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reinstate: When this list is complete, I would expect 100 or more of the present 700 or so signatories to have WP web pages. The fact that signing the list is the defining characteristic of their careers, summarizing their outlook and prospects. They have decided, at substantial personal risk, to help the Discovery Institute with its public relations campaign. For a casual reader of Wikipedia, this identifier will enable them to understand the career trajectory and beliefs of the signatory. It will also easily direct the reader back to other signatories, and the Discovery Institute and their public relations campaigns. A list is good, but it is only valuable when the reader already knows about the campaign and the DI. A category is better or a useful adjunct to a list because it succinctly and clearly lets the reader understand the beliefs, orientation and agenda of a subject whose WP article they come across. This signing is not a trivial act, like joining the American Physical society, but an indication of the interests and commitment of the signatory to a special cause. Signing the list can end a career, effectively. Signing the list can mean one has to change jobs. Signing the list can mean persecution and ostracism. Signing the list can indicate the reliability of the scientific judgement of the signatory. I would therefore ask that this category be reinstated.--Filll 19:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn many arguments were given as to why this should be a category rather than a list which were simply ignored by the closing admin. As Fill has more than adequately explained above, this is a major issue and the signing of the list is very a very notable thing. Admins should not close anything based simply on their own lack of knowledge about a controversy in question. JoshuaZ 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly weighed the arguments on both sides. Keepers argued: if this is deleted then ID advocates and Discovery Institute fellows might be next; when everyone who signed has an article there will be lots of articles; it's useful; and signing the document is a defining characteristic of the signers. Contrary to what was said in the DRV nom, the majority of these arguments are indeed arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and while it's true that ATA is not policy it does correctly identify arguments that are not particularly persuasive, as these were not particularly persuasive. The only substantive argument, that it's a defining characteristic, was strongly disputed by a number of people and in the face of the valid arguments from the deletionators and the weak and disputed arguments from the keepers the closing admin correctly closed with a delete. Otto4711 22:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for admitting that ATA is not policy. The point remains that it correctly identifies arguments that are not persuasive is matter of opinion, not policy. In fact, the applicable guideline, Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, makes no such exceptions for the quality of the arguments as WP:ATA calls for. Again, policies and guidelines trump essays everytime. And whether the arguments made were not particularly persuasive is also a matter of personal opinion. Personal opinion is simply no justification for such sweeping discounts of so many comments from credible editors and admins. Odd nature 22:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  You really might want to give WP:3P a read. Especially since you seem to rely extremely heavily on policy, which is not the be all and end all of wikipedia. And you don't have to remind me, 3P is only an essay. But then again, WP:ONLYESSAY is only an essay also. Bit of a catch-22 if you ask me, but there you are. Bottom line, the closing admin's job is to determine the strength of the arguments, as not all arguments are of equal weight. If they were, this would be nothing more than a vote count, and that's not what we do. --Kbdank71 02:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment: Otto4711 stretches WP:AADD in an attempt to shoehorn 'keep' arguments into it:
    • "What about article x?" -- this was not employed as a basis for a 'keep' opinion, but rather as a counter-argument to 'delete' arguments.
    • "This number is big" -- this was not employed as an argument that the category is notable, but rather that a list would be unwieldy. The converse "this number is small" argument was employed by the 'delete' side.
    • "It's useful" -- I will concede that I missed this one in checking the 'keep' arguments. I will note however that only one editor employed this argument bare, as the basis for their 'keep' opinion (with one other editor basing their opinion on usability + notability), and that WP:AADD itself states "In spite of this, there are some times when "usefulness" can be at the base of a valid argument for inclusion, especially when referring to information that is not only of localized interest (as in the New York phone listing example) or a matter of opinion as in the restaurant guide example. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how broad a segment of the population will consider a piece of information "useful." Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader."

Hrafn42 02:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion - not only was there no consensus to delete, there is also no evidence that Radiant actually made any effort to understand the arguments made in favour of keeping the category. His closing comment echoes the deletion nom. The only explanation (only one I can find) that he gave when questioned WP:AADD; he does not bother to explain how the arguments in favour of a keep are "fallacious". A deletion made when there is no consensus to delete, and without a valid explanation, should be overturned. Guettarda 03:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per Guettarda and odd nature. Clearly there was no consensus, and I for one am alarmed to hear that my comment was discounted on specious grounds in the original CFD. I'm certain that if the majority of the community knew how essays like WP:ATA are being misapplied to subvert policy and discount their opinions, they'd have a similar feeling. This is indicative of a bigger problem that needs to be aired. FeloniousMonk 05:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and a challenge To the gainsayers of this category: Please explain to the community here how this category, Category:Signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", is any different from Category:Signers_of_the_U.S._Declaration_of_Independence. And before you try to make the argument, I'm going to quote Kdbank71 above: "Signing a document is not a defining characteristic, no matter how you twist it." So unless you're going to cede that point, don't bother making that argument or claiming that there's qualitative or quantitive differences between the two. Answer this convincingly, and I'll change my comment to 'endorse.' FeloniousMonk 05:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. >Radiant< 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Overturn. The admins decision was based on his personal, strongly subjective opinion about the merits of the arguments rather than an objective reading of the community consensus. The last thing we need is admins deciding their opinions are more important than the opinion of the community (unfortunately, we seem to have a noticable number of this undesirable thing). Loom91 07:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse self, because CFD is not a headcount. The "keep" side many arguments that are fallacious, not compelling, or "arguments to avoid". For instance,
  • "the article would get cluttered" (so make two articles) ... "There are also categories about... (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - Northfox
  • "When the list is complete, it will have many more than 30 entries." (so? category size is not an issue here)... "For most of these people, that is the only reason they are notable." (if that's the case they will likely be deleted on AFD) - Fill
  • "Being a signatory to this petition is a strong and verifiable indicator of affiliation to the Intelligent design movement." (so put those people in the cats for "intelligent design movement!) - Hrafn42
  • "This is critical reference material for several articles" (no, we reference articles with citations, not categories) - Orangemarlin
  • "It's useful" (WP:USEFUL) - Feloniousmonk, Oddnature
• And on the other hand, we have the WP:OCAT guideline, plus the more important fact that a LIST is a more comprehensive way of covering this information since it can include the degrees of the people on it, the places they work, and other relevant information, which of course the cat doesn't. Also, since not all of the signatory are notable enough to have articles, the list can be complete and the category by definition cannot. The full list is here, by the way. >Radiant< 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fran Mérida

Fran Mérida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The original article, Fran Merida, was created and deleted several times, using the rationale CSD G4. That section states: "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via a deletion discussion or deletion review, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted". Now when you compare the article that I created with the previous ones, there is a big difference - for example, the revision that was ultimately deleted in AFD consisted of an infobox and the following sentence: "Francisco Merida Perez (born March 4 1990) is a footballer, currently playing for Arsenal." The version I created, on the other hand, had reliable sources (including Sky Sports, an independent, reliable source) and also I feel that I asserted notability - but in any case it was significantly different from the version that was shot down in AFD, in my opinion. I think that if the article is relisted on AFD, I can provide sufficient arguments that the player is notable, but in any case it should not have been speedied. ugen64 08:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• overturn deletion very sloppy G4 deletion... Ugen64's version was vastly different than the version deleted at AFD. --W.marsh 14:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• overturn and relist Clearly fails the substantially identical test of G4. May or may not be notable, but deserves reconsideration. GRBerry 14:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics

List of songs whose title constitutes the entire lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I don't like putting up deletion reviews, but sometimes "no consensus" closes need more of a justification. There is a majority consensus for delete even if you were just to count !votes. But, alone, the discussions for delete rely on more tangible reasons (or interpretation of said) and, hence, show a stronger consensus for removal of the list even if they weren't a numeric majority. There were two legitimate "weak keeps", but the other "keep" !votes consisted of WP:INTERESTING, WP:ILIKEIT and "why delete it?" This list should have been deleted, and put with all its predecessors in the list of songs graveyard. Bulldog123 00:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn; I hate second-guessing the closing admin, but in this particular case I feel I must agree. While arguments for delete were admittedly somewhat weak (which the closing admin rightly pointed out), the keeps were even weaker, amounting to little more than WP:ILIKEIT. There might not have been consensus in numbers, but I feel there were no arguments for keep put forward that were supported by policy or guidelines. — Coren ^(talk) 02:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure: I have participated in the AfD and !voted delete there. — Coren ^(talk) 02:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse seems within admin discretion. --W.marsh 02:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse as closing admin (Am I allowed to? I'm new at this, remember? If not, just strike this through). As I told Coren on his talk page, it was late and I really should have provided an explanation. So let expand on what I told Bulldog on his talk page.

  Yes, a lot of the keep votes couldn't really put their finger on what it was that made it borderline notable. But if the delete voters are going to deride the keep votes as ILIKEIT, they should make sure their own arugments and counterarguments aren't correspondingly IDONTLIKEIT (or, in this case UNENCYC). And I see some of this emotionalism at work here: "There's an end to all this. There just has to be".

  This waters down the assessment of consensus. But I also took note of the context of the current open season on song lists (some of which do have to go). I had closed List of Halloween songs as a delete since it developed a clear consensus for it; similarly List of songs about masturbation was recently kept after a similarly robust discussion. In six days this AfD attracted rather few votes by comparison with the latter, nor a clear majority for one result as with the former, suggesting the community cares less about it.

  It also says something to me when one of the delete votes is changed to keep mid-AfD, one editor makes a very pro-keep comment after his "neutral" vote, and after a couple of "delete" votes pile up, we get a "strong keep" from a very prolific editor ... who then sees the legitimacy of his vote questioned by the nominator.

  I also see, in this DR and in the last delete vote, the implication that we should delete this because we're deleting lots of song lists. I would remind the delete voters that WP:WAX cuts both ways, further diluting a consensus for action. I do not feel that appealing to an article's status as a member of a marked category or class of articles is really a good argument for deletion; we decide these things on a case-by-case (ahem) basis.

  Basically, this discussion was all over the place: strong keeps, weak keeps, neutrals, weak deletes and strong deletes and one changed vote, and a community that generally didn't show much interest. That adds up to no consensus by my math. Daniel Case 03:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is all very true. Plenty of WP:WAX, WP:ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT, but honestly, what else could be said about this list? It seems like there's MUCH MUCH more effort needed to delete it than keep it. It doesn't seem very neutral. Two reasonable weak keeps, and three ILIKEIT keeps already default keeps this. I think there's just an unreasonable threshold put forth. There's simply not that much to say about the content of the list, which is why all the arguments were weak to begin with. Bulldog123 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete, such lists are trivial and borderline original research, and keep-arguments like "it's interesting" and "don't be so deletionists" are not very compelling. >Radiant< 08:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Reread the guidelines above that point out that DRV is not the place to fight it out again over the content of the article in question. Arguments are supposed to be limited to whether the closing admin made a proper decision as to consensus. I'd support relisting it to gain further consensus, though. Daniel Case 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per above. Half the arguments for keeping this were not based on any policy or guideline and were, as Radiant! points out, not compelling. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, we may want to consider just relisting this one to get some more consensus on the matter. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 15:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• endorse it will be easier to nominate this again in a few months--close within discretion. DGG (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse This is one of those cases where "no consensus" and "delete" were both correct decisions. A tie goes to the discretion of the closing admin. Shalom ^Hello 18:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete - "Stop being so deletionist" and "interesting" are uncompelling reasons for deletion. With those taken out, it's 8 to 2.5, easy concensus to delete. Will ^(talk) 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• endorse I would have closed this as delete but the close of no consensus was well within admin discretion. Admins are not robots. If someone has an objection they should wait a while and list it on AfD again, not try to change the forum here. JoshuaZ 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Meh. Personally I regard a "no consensus" close as permission to relist at any time anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. It could be relisted right now, for example. Chick Bowen 05:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC) addendum: I would have deleted it, though. Chick Bowen 05:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)