Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 1

1 July 2008

Myungbaksanseong

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

Admin Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) deleted the article of Myeongbaksanseong (명박산성) as referring the discussion result to as "delete" and Wikipedia:Coatrack, but I contest to the decision because the discussion is clearly in no consensus and not tilt toward urges for "deletion". The essay is not also Wikipolicy, so the admin just weights her thought to delete the page without plausible rationale. That's why I'm writing for overtune. The article holds not only a recent neologism pertaining structures, but also a current movement of South Korea political issue regarding US beef imports in South Korea. The name itself has been featured in notable South Korean media such as in MBC 9 news program on June 30 as a closing ment.video clip 1. In addtion, even KBS made a special programme regarding this.video clip 2. There are so many reliable articles on this as well[1]. Caspian blue (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - as a valid close. Although the summary could have been more clear and specific, this was clearly a "delete", based on the arguments presented and their basis in policy. The nom seems to think this should be a "no consensus" close based on !vote count, but in reality we make the judgement based on merit, not numbers. Doc Tropics 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, the AfD was closed properly. I also took a look at the cached version and came to the same conclusion as the delete !voters. I wouldn't say that the term itself is notable enough for inclusion, based on the relevant criteria. However, the AfD and the sources provided on the cached version have convinced me that a mention of it should probably go in US beef imports in South Korea or whichever other article covers the bulk of this controversy. I'd support a merge there or a transwiki to Wiktionary if you'd like, as well. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If you looked at the cached version via googling, then you viewed the unorgnazied one (clumsy and much poorer version than the latest one before the deletion). --Caspian blue (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I don't have another option. I can't view Special:Undelete and Deletionpedia doesn't have an entry. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Okay, now I can view Special:Undelete and the cached version looks pretty identical to the most recent deleted one. I'm afraid that I stand by my !vote on this one. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 19:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
        • Congratulation for your passing RFA, but the version is not identical. I kindly ask you to paste the info to my talk page fo me and other editors who put their effort in developing the article. Regardless of the deletion review, I need to put it to US beef imports in South Korea. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
          • I'd prefer to see a consensus here develop for it first. You should make a non-threaded comment that you'd like to merge the content, though, just to be sure everyone sees it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). This was a close call but the areguments for deletion were well-supported by policy and precedent (in particular WP:NEO). The comments arguing to keep the page never successfully addressed those concerns. This was within reasonable administrative discretion. Note: I would have no objection to a temporary undeletion in order to allow transwiki to Wiktionary. They do accept neologisms such as this. Rossami (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Relist; no consensus to delete. The nomination was difficult to understand (what is meant by "This word has been expired in Korea"?) and the vote was 6 keep to 9 delete, and the weight of the arguments for deletion was not significantly greater than the weight of the arguments to keep. Restoring the page temporarily and relisting it would allow for a more definite consensus to form. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, valid call and interpretation by the closing admin. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - OK, here's the skinny from Global voices. Myung Bak San Seong (Myung Bak Castle) was a barricade of container boxes built in Korea on June 10, 2008 to protest Lee Myung-bak, President of South Korea. According to the article, "Netizens named the barricade and put it in Wikipedia." And, here I am on July 3, 2008 reviewing the article's deletion from my tiny room in the middle of nowhere far away from Korea. They're right (cue music) "It is a small world after all." JohnABerring27A (talk) 01:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• More - It looks like most AfD participants got hung up on the name of the article being a neologisms. Political movements using Wikipedia's popularity to attach a negative, neologism to a government official is not the best way to create a Wikipedia article. Even so, the closer saw the article as a coatrack - a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on particular barricade protests. To get an idea of what Wikipedia looks for in barricade protest articles, see January 1991 events in Latvia, May 1968 in France, June 1990 Mineriad, etc. If you look at the South Korea article, the period of resistance from June 1987 is called the Resistance of June. The BBC covered the June 2008 event[2] so it may be likely there's enough info for an article or a section in an existing article. Perhaps consider developing an article June 2008 in South Korea or, even better, Resistance of June in South Korea in your user space. JohnABerring27A (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Further - There is no need for the Myungbaksanseong article. The information about the June 10, 2008 protest is contained in US beef imports in South Korea, which can be expanded as needed. Deletion review does not overturn AfD decisions merely because you want a particular article name for a topic. JohnABerring27A (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

Wikipedia Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

(Note Wikipedia Review is currently a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia.) This article has been deleted at AFD on two occasions - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia Review (2nd nomination). However, since these AFDs, a lot of time has passed. There are more reliable sources out there now. Given Encyclopedia Dramatica and Wikitruth, two other prominent anti-Wikipedia sites, have articles, I would say that the only thing stopping a Wikipedia Review article is whether suitable references that assert notability can now be found. I have found several, and have created a draft article at User:Neil/wr. This draft is referenced, neutrally written, all sources are reliable, and it asserts more than enough notability to meet WP:WEB. I am looking for an okay to move this into article space, after getting an initial thumbs up at WP:AN. I would appreciate keeping the drama to a minimum. Thanks. Neıl 龱 15:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oh yeah - move to article space. Neıl 龱 15:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Which part of WP:WEB are you saying it now meets? I ask because I can't see that it meets any one of the three criteria. RMHED (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Criterion 1, I think. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, "the content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". The articles in The Independent, InformationWeek, and The Guardian are particularly non-trivial. The citations in academic works are also considered an aide to notability, I believe. Neıl 龱 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  The Independent and Informatonweek mentions of Wikipedia Review are just in passing and are definitely trivial. The Guardian article wouldn't load for me, so can't comment on that. As for the Palo Alto Research Centre pdf, that just contained a very brief quote from Wikipedia Review on some new search facility, so again wholly trivial. RMHED (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  The PARC stuff is one of the "citation in academic works" I mentioned. Such a citation is never trivial. The Guardian reference ([3]) is entirely about WR and its relationship with Wikipedia, it's unfortunate you can't get it to work. Try this link, it's the printable version. I am surprised you consider the Independent (entirety of paras 3 and 4) mention to be "trivial". Neıl 龱 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Ok now got The Guardian' piece to load and yes that is non-trivial, even with that though, I'd still say it's at best borderline notable. RMHED (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - sufficiently notable now. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• I move that we accept this in article space. It's well written and sourced, and reasonably balanced. --Jenny 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Seems a little self referential... are all the things mentioned of general interest to the average general reader? (but of course, that question applies to most of our articles on esoteric topics). The article does seems balanced, well written, and well referenced. Overturn and move to articlespace. ++Lar: t/c 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

  Not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as Lar has already indicated "overturn", more of an example - we have articles that aren't even of interest to the interested fan, let alone the average reader. Neıl 龱 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Not sure whether it's sufficiently notable (though the "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" factor would argue for it if this wasn't an invalid argument), but if it's decided that it isn't, at least it should get a brief mention in the Criticism of Wikipedia article, which the WR article currently redirects even though it doesn't mention the site (or at least it didn't the last time I looked, which is a while ago by now). This lack of mention is fallout from last year's BADSITES silliness. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - it's safe to say that Neil has significantly improved and expanded this article enough that it meets our WP:WEB notability standards while remaining decently WP:NPOV. --Dragon695 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• I move that we accept this in article space. It's well written and sourced, and reasonably balanced. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The article seems plenty good enough and the topic plenty notable enough for inclusion. Captain panda 19:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Create Article in Article space - this is an appropriate article for the encyclopedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Create in article space. I believe there is a redirect to delete here. Well done Neil! Miss Ann Thropie (talk) 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Note: Since this appears to be WP:SNOW to overturn, can we please restore the entire history of the article and talkpage as well. No need to keep it a secret. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn glad we've finally gotten some sense.128.112.203.68 (talk) 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted/Do not move Neil's version to article space Whilst hesitating to fly in the face of the unanimity above, I nonetheless believe that the assertion that Wikipedia Review is sufficiently notable is incorrect. I clicked on and read all the links to sources in Neil's article yet could not find one that was substantially about Wikipedia Review, in fact almost all of them seemed to mention it only in passing. WP:WEB is actually not entirely clear on the point but the general notability guidelines are:

  "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail

  Wikipedia Review has received no such coverage in the sources provided. Certainly there is no critical analysis of Wikipedia Review to be seen. A passing mention in an article or paper concerning Wikipedia is not substantial coverage. If this were an AfD on a business or biographical article such marginal coverage would not be sufficient for retention. CIreland (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The Guardian reference is almost entirely about Wikipedia Review, discussing its relationship with Wikipedia, which is certainly critical analysis. Did you read that one? Neıl 龱 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree; I don't see how one could even come close to contending that it is almost entirely about Wikipedia Review. The Finkelstein Guardian piece is about Wikipedia, events on Wikipedia and their aftermath. Wikipedia Review gets a couple of passing mentions as a place where people 'investigated' occurrences on Wikipedia, it is certainly not the subject of the article. CIreland (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Borderline, but has achieved a level of coverage. I'd prefer to see it covered in the Wikipedia article, where it should be set in the context of its very minor relevance. Let's put it into mainspace for now. --Jenny 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn obviouslt COI here - but I wouldnt be voting to overturn unless I was happy that there was a sufficient level of coverage for our content guidelines - in this case, WP:WEB Viridae^Talk 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• As a member of this site I suppose my opinion is not very relevant, but for what it's worth I think it's veryyy borderline and is just on the edge of being significant enough to be included. A few mentions does not notability make, but the Guardian article is just pushing it. I don't think an overturn would be inappropriate here. Naerii 22:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - site for banned users and their surrogates to harass users in good standing. Not to mention it's navel gazing and a non-notable website. Raul654 (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • OK cool. Now got a reason that isn't also navel gazing? (ie on the content of the article itself?) Viridae^Talk 22:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Since you have trouble comprehending perfectly good written english, perhaps I should write it out with a few more spaces this time so you can read it a bit better: i t i s n a v e l g a z i n g a n d n o n - n o t a b l e. Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Navel gazing isn't a reason for deletion, and it appears to be notable enough based on what usually passes through Afd. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • "banned users and their surrogates to harass users in good standing". Nice personal attack. This isn't BADSITES again. Achromatic (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Raul, as the "Featured Article Director", I'm sure you understand what is and what is not constructive criticism from all those FACs you oversee. I would also imagine you're au fait with "comment on the content, not the contributor". How is it "navel gazing"? Neıl 龱 07:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Raul hides now. I suppose the following articles would also be considered "navel gazing" and should be deleted: Dan K. Rosenthal, ArmchairGM, OpenServing, Simon_Pulsifer, Erin McKean... need I go on? -- Cool as a Cuke (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know how many times I have to say this: I am not Dan K. Rosenthal. Dan K. Rosenthal, as far as I know, has absolutely zero connection with anything even remotely connected to wikis.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and create Neil's version. It has more than enough reliable sources, and Wikipedia Review is more notable now than Wikitruth ever was. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 02:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn - meets notability, and appears sufficiently NPOV. Achromatic (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn/Move Neil's version to article space. Kudos first to Neil for dealing with the article in a sensitive manner, allowing consensus before attempting to move the article into article space. The earlier versions of this article may not have met notability, but it's clear that quite a few of the 14 sources used in this article help establish notability, and appear to verify the material used in the article. I personally would not use the Wikipedia Review site itself to source stuff (refs [1], [6], and [7]): seems too close to a primary source, but the rest of the material is verifiable through third-party sources independent of the subject. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are okay for non-contentious facts when discussing the source itself, see WP:SELFPUB. Neıl 龱 08:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and move to Neil's version - plenty notable now, plus with many media references - Alison ^❤ 05:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Allow Neil's version, obviously. —Giggy 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and use Neil's version. Borderline, but just about notable. I'd also comment that Raul's comments were inappropriate within the DRV context - aside from making a sweeping generalisation about people posting on said website, it could be construed as inflammatory. Stick to the article rather than attacking people on Wikipedia. Minkythecat (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Generates too much Wikidrama. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So, on that point, all Troubles articles, all ID articles, all Israel/Palestine articles will thus be nominated for AfD? Minkythecat (talk) 10:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And a number of administrators. Neıl 龱 12:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"all Troubles articles [...] will thus be nominated for AfD" - yayy!!! :) - Alison ^❤ 18:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Just enough notability to be had to allow an article. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and use Neil's version. Per Minkythecat and obvious notability from article. Picking to pieces clearly usable sources is not proper. If the sufficiently reliable sources justify the text referenced, and there is sufficient text for an article, and there is no other article to merge to, keeping all the sourced text, we practically must allow the article. Otherwise we are excluding verifiable "human knowledge." --Abd (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and post Neil's version to the article space. There are clearly enough references of coverage by independent sources to satisfy WP:N given there. Nsk92 (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Clearly notable. I'm glad we're getting some common sense about even the things that concern us. Raul's argument essentially is that nothing about Wikipedia can ever be notable. DGG (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted

In the current version [4], the majority of the quoted sources ([5], [6], [7], [8]) do not meet the web content notability standard, namely that the references to WR comprise a brief summary of the nature of the content, i.e. they basically say that WR was where some info was found, or info was posted to WR, or you can look at WR for further info. The focus of the cited stories is the controversy itself, not WR the website, or any specific content that it, and only it, had access to/published. Arguably the only story that focuses in depth on WR as an entity is the Register article [9], and this on its own does not meet the general notability guideline of multiple mentions, and doesn't look good credibility wise given the subjects of some of the Register's other articles. This raises the question, is any website inherently notable because it is a place where people talk about wikipedia? Answering yes would be an extreme case of navel gazing.

The cited sources are acting as a coatrack to justify the rest of the article content, which boils down to promotional content for a non-notable web forum. Contrasting similar forum articles, it doesn't look justified. The owners of WR, the unique existence of WR, or the web content they publish themselves (rather than stuff posted by users) is not the subject of any third party coverage. On the basis of mentions in this coverage, arguably Durova is more deserving of a wikipedia article than WR.

The cited factual content belongs at the current target of the WR redirect, where it is more than adequately covered. Any other article in wikipedia where this proposed article version might be linked from as a target, is not going to provide any further information than will be available at the origin article, and recreation will merely waste the reader's time in establishing they have read all noteworthy information at the previous article. (Unless it is the mission of wikipedia to document the email registration policies of WR or such like).

As a final thought, even without consideration of the above, I generally find that any article that specifically needs to refer to its own notability in its text, or as a header ("Notable involvement"), is not actually as notable as is being claimed. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To meet WP:WEB, multiple non-trivial references must be used. The Guardian and Register articles are both non-trivial. Neıl 龱 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a simplification and a half. The Guardian opinion piece lines, where it actually refers to WR directly and not to the wider story, comprises "a brief summary of the nature of the content ...[of WR]". I don't know how you can actually say that statement is not true. It makes clear, if it wasn't WR, it would be another site. On this basis, we need Durova (internet celebrity), because we're at the point where any entity that is simply name checked in an opinion piece about wikipedia, automaticaly gets an article. If this mention is enough justification for the padding out of the rest of the information in the draft article, rather than being inserted in the relevant other articles, then I'm bemused, and I then can't realy see the point of having such detailed policies like WP:WEB at all. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

In addition to Neil's comments, I personally feel that even if there are some legitimate questions about technically satisfying WP:WEB here, this is one of those rare cases where it is necessary to lower the notability bar a bit and maybe even apply a mild form of WP:IAR. Where criticism of Wikipedia is concerned, it is better to avoid any appearance of censorship and to acknowledge criticism, even if it is unfair or undeserved. To do otherwise would just give WP critics more ammunition and be detrimental to the public credibility of the project. Nsk92 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just plain wrong headed. I can see no justification in changing any of our established article notability standards just so that people won't criticize us. I think it does more damage when it appears our standards are apparently up for modification if the subject is wikipedia itself. It is the perceived variability in the application of these very standards that WR and the like seek to criticise often. Seriously, what information are we censoring here? What critical information in this article draft cannot be found in other already existing articles? Who is going to run the story in the press that Wikipedia denied web-space to the details of WR's email registration process, or what forum software it used, by sticking to their established rules? It's a non-story, that ironically would only merit mention in WR. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn/Move Neil's version per those above. LaraLove|Talk 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and move Neil's version to article-space. I believe the sources provided show that there is, at the very least, a reasonable claim to notability here which deserves our consideration. It will almost certainly be sent to AFD immediately, but that is only right - the existence of such a controversial article should be decided there, and hopefully a successful AFD would end the controversy over this article, as the one for Encyclopedia Dramatica has done. I actually argued for deleting both that article and Wikitruth, but since both of them have been found by the community to deserve our coverage, we have no grounds not to have an article on this website as well. Terraxos (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

As in other stuff exists MickMacNee (talk) 21:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Be nice. Your "keep deleted" could have been replied to with I don't like it. Neıl 龱 21:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And how is that? What possible part of that post has any element of personal opinion to it that isn't related to a specific policy or principle of Wikipedia? MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Clearly notable. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Neil's version is the best existing article and sufficiently establishes notability, although like any other article it needs improvement. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Three images used in Roller Coaster (video game)

File:RollerCoasterTitle.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

File:Rollercoasterscreen.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

File:DragonsLairTheLegendScreen.png (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache)

The fact that the above three images have been deleted from the Roller Coaster (video game) article is causing problems with said article; see its recent edit history.

I don't know if the fact that these deletions were done by BetaCommandBot, which has since been indefinitely blocked, has anything to do with anything. -- Korax1214 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it has nothing to do with anything. They were tagged by BCB for lacking appropriate non-free content rationales, they were deleted by various admins. If they were all used in the same article, that likely violates WP:NFCC criteria 3a - so judgment should be reached about which one is appropriate and can meet all of the criteria. GRBerry 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: BetaCommandBot never deleted anything, deletions are done by admins. Corvus cornix_talk 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have undeleted the main image and reinserted it in the article. Please fix the rationale or it will be deleted again. The other images fail WP:NFCC#3a and should not be undeleted. Rettetast (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn These images are non-free, and only have use on one article. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-1-2008 • 22:26:15
• Per WP:NFCC the non-free content policy, images must meet policy. those images failed to do so and where properly deleted. (note Im AfDing the article now for notability and sourcing issues) β^_command 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

An AfD which was rapidly dismissed on the grounds that the "non-notable" and "no sources" claims are both demonstrably nonsensical; and many of those in the debate felt (as I do) that this was a bad-faith nom. -- Korax1214 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - These images, when accompanied with an appropriate rationale (a trivial task), are an example of excellent use of non free images on Wikipedia. User:Krator (t c) 11:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn The screenshots only need a fair use rationale. BetaCommand's AFD for Roller Coaster (video game) also quickly failed with a Snowball Keep. SashaNein (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I requested restore of all three images in case this was feasible, but in fact it's the screenshot images (both of them) which are of particular importance to the article; I suspect the box art is probably on WoS if anyone wants to look at it (I admit, I haven't checked). I don't see how the two screenshots supposedly inherently fail the fair-use criteria, and especially not the speficic WP:NFCC#3a criterion:

"3a. Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." (Latter emphasis mine.) The article refers to two games for two different platforms, and the screenshots are one from each game; how does this fail 3a? Especially since part of the point of including the screenshots is to illustrate the otherwise non-obvious (and indeed seemingly implausible, hence the recent edits to the page) point that the Game Boy game is a port of the Spectrum one.

-- Korax1214 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. If the above is correct then they are fair use, and only need FURs to comply. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheshire Cat in popular culture

Cheshire Cat in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD,2)

Black Kite closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheshire Cat in popular culture (2nd nomination) as a "delete"; however, regardless of whether any of us believe the article in question should or should not have been kept, the discussion itself did not have a clear consensus. Those arguing to keep and those arguing to delete went back and forth without convincing each other one way or the other. TEN editors in good standing argued to keep in this second AfD for an article that when previously AfDed closed as "no consensus". Three others argued to merge. As the discussion progressed editors actively worked to improve the article in question and thus some of those who initially argued to delete did not state whether or not the improvements were enough to change their stances. While AfDs may not be votes, such support for a keep or merge suggests insufficient reason or consensus for deleting. Moreover, given the back and forth nature of the discussion itself, I simply cannot see any other read of the discussion than "no consensus". I would certainly not say it resulted in "keep," even though I argued to "keep," but neither did it decisively result in an uncontroversial "delete". Please note as well that I am NOT the only one to have contested this AfD. Please see User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive16. Two editors asked the deleting admin about the close and yet neither one of us received a response. Please note that I waited three days for a response before starting the discussion and because a second editor had also questioned the close, I am taking that as justification for initiating this thread. You will notice that the close occurred alongside a close for another article that was contested and undone. As a side question of etiquette, the deleting admin has since deleted his userpage and regular talk page and so I am not sure if I should still put a DRV notice or if I should respect that the talk page was deleted? In any event, whether or not anyone us want the article kept or deleted, we should be able to acknowledge that the discussion itself did not result in either side convincing the other and had strong arguments and determined proponents on both sides so that the discussion did not decisively result in a clear consensus one way or the other. I am not sure that relisting would necessarily change that and therefore respectfully request that the close be overturned and instead closed as "no consensus." Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Restore as no consensus--which probably represents the state of things for the view on Wikipedia for most articles of this sort. When I applied for adminship, I was asked whether I would close afds according to my own view of the issue. I replied that of course I would not--that if I had a position on the matter I would argue, not close, and close only things where I was personally indifferent except where there was a really obvious consensus one way or another. and that's what I've done. i was confirmed almost without opposition, and if I had said otherwise, i would not have deserved to be confirmed at all. I recommend this attitude to other admins--in fact, I think it's the attitude required for all admins., The closer has made it abundantly clear at various discussions that he does not approve of IPC and fiction articles unless they meet very high requirements. A perfect defensible view, though I do not agree with it--but in that case it should have been argued, and someone else left to close. What would people have thought of me if I had closed this afd the way I wanted it to come out? DGG (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• If we count numbers, 9 supported keeping the article, and 18 (15 supporting deletion, 3 supporting merging) supported removal of the content as its own article (one supported keeping or merging). Removal of the content has the majority support here. If we then look at the number of people who, after LGRDSC's continued debate and arguments, remained in support of removal of the content, we see that the majority of people do not agree in this instance with LGRDC and others' interpretation of relevant policies and guidelines. Policies/Guidelines regarding fiction are much debated (as everyone in this conversation as of now knows very well); therefore, we cannot appeal to the "backed by policy" aspect of our purported consensus policy. Numbers will play a larger factor. When I consider that the majority (numbers) of the participants in this discussion clearly evaluated their interpretations of the P&Gs (by the never-ending discussions with LGRDC about them) as well as the interpretations of those who disagree, and maintained (policy) their support for deletion, I believe that this discussion has a consensus for deletion. As for the closer, (who has left the project for a while, and so will probably not be commenting here), his has merely made his opinions on articles such as these more public than some. Perhaps he should not have closed a debate about an article type of which he has made his opinion public. But administrators are selected because the community deems them able to use the tools in a judicious and neutral manner. If there are concerns that Black Kite does not use his position judiciously and neutrally, as the community has deemed him able to do, then they need to be addressed discussing his ability to be an administrator at all, not used as a tool to discredit a particular AfD closure. And, for the record, I have no such concerns. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Three supporting merging is still supporting some part of the content somewhere, and thus does not support outright deletion, which precludes merger under the GFDL. Even so, a supermajority is still not consensus, and ignoring arguments simply because they are in a minority, especially when that minority is made up of a significant number of established Wikipedians making reasoned arguments based on policy, is not a proper way to close an AfD. Finally, one cannot normally show that an administrator is acting improperly without showing a pattern of individual instances, and each of these instances need to first be judged in the normal way (i.e. AfDs judged through DRV). And since the administrator has already had himself desysopped, that point is moot anyway. DHowell (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • You are correct in stating that a supermajority is not consensus. This is because our consensus policy stipulates that comments must also be taken with respect to policy. Policy is not clear on this issue – else we would not be having this discussion. Numbers do play a significant role in consensus, especially when there is no clear-cut policy. I am not suggesting we "ignore" the arguments of a significant minority; however, there can still be a significant amount of dissension and have consensus (for instance, in RfAs with <75% support). If policy and guidelines are either not clear, or have differing interpretations (for which WP:N is notorious) numbers play a role. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't think an RfA is really analogus to an AfD. One (RfA) is for promoting someone; the other (AfD) is for a last resort. Something as decisive as an AfD when at worst a legitimate redirect location (Cheshire Cat) exists and when a good deal of editors had worked on the article and when admins and established editors argue to keep should not end as anything but "no consensus." Deletion is saying that there is absolutely no reasonable chance the article in question can or will be improved. The article was not a copy vio, was not completely unreferenced, was not libelous, etc. and thus there was no pressing immediate concern to delete the article altogether righ then and there. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • If we go by numbers in support of the article, then we need to include not just those who argued to delete in the AfD, but also the more numerous number of editors who created and worked on the article in question in good faith for over a year as also obviously believing the article sufficiently met our disputed policies and guidelines to be kept. Plus, it does not help when some of those who posted multiple times to delete in the discussion have stated that it is their mission to delete and that they will would not argue to keep in any AFDs and so if such accounts keep arguing to delete after improvements we cannot really take that as meaning the improvements were somehow insufficient. Thus, there was/is no reasonable way to see a consensus for deletion in that discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore as no consensus. The closer's stated rationale merely echoed the nominator's assertions, and seemed to reflect personal opinion, rather than showing any evidence that the decision was based on the rather lengthy discussion and policy. Merely stating something is "blatant original research" does not make it so, especially against clear and reasoned arguments to the contrary. The improvements made to the article and many reliable sources were simply ignored, rather than addressed in the closing. Ongoing arguments by established editors based on policy were being made on both sides, clearly showing no consensus. At the time of closing, the closer's own userpage also expressed concerns about Wikipedia becoming "a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written", which seems to reflect a personal view favoring one side of the debate. As DGG says, administrators should not close AfDs according to their own views, but should base closings on the actual discussion. And even the closer admitted there was some (even if "(very) little") encyclopedic content in this article, which should have at least resulted in a merge and redirect rather than deletion. DHowell (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore, there was no consensus here. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse DRV is not AFD2 and there is no substantial policy based reason why this deletion should not stand. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No one is approaching this discussion as "AfD2", but because the close did not follow deletion policy, i.e. the discussion totally lacked consensus and thus per deletion instructions it should have been closed as "no consensus". The additional concern here is that two editors (not just myself) requested clarification from the deleting admin who did not respond to either after a few days, who had improperly closed a different AfD at practically the same time that was also challenged, and who has since resigned his adminship. Plus, the close itself even says "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article," which is really a call for a merge and redirect without deletion as such material cannot be added as he suggests if the article is deleted and if it is added as the close suggests then per the GFDL, we need to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 07:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• While I disagree with the existence of any "in popular culture" articles and, with no ill-will or disrespect intended, LGRdC seems to be showing up very regularly here at DRV, I will have to say overturn and restore, no consensus was the correct result. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's been awhile since we've had such a passionate inclusionist emerge, but I personally welcome it. There are far too many deletionists not to have someone of LGRdC's nature around. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I've changed my mind. Endorse deletion but permit access to the content (restoring as a redirect as necessary) so that it can be merged to Cheshire cat. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
    • If we do that then we can't delete the contribution history per the GFDL. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse DRV is not AFD2 and deletion was based upon clear failings of the article to meet core content policies. --Allen3 ^talk 12:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • No one is approaching this discussion as "AfD2", but because the close did not follow deletion policy, i.e. the discussion totally lacked consensus and thus per deletion instructions it should have been closed as "no consensus". The additional concern here is that two editors (not just myself) requested clarification from the deleting admin who did not respond to either after a few days, who had improperly closed a different AfD at practically the same time that was also challenged, and who has since resigned his adminship. Plus, the close itself even says "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article," which is really a call for a merge and redirect without deletion as such material cannot be added as he suggests if the article is deleted and if it is added as the close suggests then per the GFDL, we need to keep the contribution history public. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment:This discussion may have been influenced by WP:CANVASing. Requester has notified a WikiProject which aims to preserve "In popular culture" and "Trivia"-type information[10] and a user which has previously expressed an opinion on this article supportive of the requestor's.[11] Corresponding notification effortss to the admin which closed the AfD, users which have expressed views differing from the requester's, or other locations such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Trivia Cleanup appear to not yet have occurred. --Allen3 ^talk 16:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
      • We typically notify relevant wikiprojects of deletion related discussions and notifying another editor who also asked the deleting admin about the discussion is also acceptable. I did not notify the deleting admin as he had deleted his talk page and if you read my nomination above you would have seen that I asked if in such a case we just respect that or if we post a message that is not likely to be responded to. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closure was a reasonable reading of consensus and not a breach of deletion policy. Deor (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Consensus wasn't there in this AFD, and unlike so many IPC AFDs, there was an attempt to demonstrate sources actually on the topic of "X in popular culture" - these are the relevant sources, so there is no reason for deletion from overriding policy. (The ability to engage in original research and cite "X appeared in media Z" is irrelvant.) However, my opinion is only a weak overturn because the article was not written from those sources and was not on its topic, it was merely yet another laundry list of "X appeared in media Z" claims. The only part of this article that a good article on the topic would have retained is the lead; the entire rest of the article was material for the cutting room floor, and its continued inclusion is going to lead to AFD#3 eventually. GRBerry 14:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - it's always a difficult task, closing these sorts of discussions and invariably someone is going to be upset and contest it in one way or another. It might have been nice to see a little more clarification in the closure, particularly when dealing with such contentious topics and debates, but ultimately I do not see where the closure was in error or a misreading of consensus. Shereth 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The close was in error, because the close rationale states that "information that could possibly be encyclopedic can be included in the main article." In order to merge such information, the article needs to be restored and redirected without deletion. Plus, the incredible difference in arguments on both sides of the discussion reveal a clear lack of consensus one way or the other. Deletion is a last resort and something that we do not do when there is significant opposition and when as in this case editors are actively working to improve the article in question. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Userfy in preparation for merge. It's pretty obvious that the merge = keep argument is only being pushed as it results in a keep, and is a gaming of the Afd process. As can be seen by the changes in the article between Afd 1 and 2, no one is activeley working on it to improve it without the impetus of a deletion threat, so to make sure it is trimmed down properly in preparation for the clear consensus for keeping as a start point for mergeing, it should be userfied. I sincerely doubt, given the principled nature of the debate here, that anyone is actually willing to volunteer to do this though, so if not, endorse. WP:NOTFINISHED cannot be gamed as a way to permanently keep what has been assessed as a poor quality list of trivia, with the same people turning up time and again on principle that wikipedia is a specialist trivia server, and then disappearing again until the next Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • if you want to argue that we should as a general matter of policy consider a merge decision as equivalent to a delete, I just might agree with you once we have a chance to explore all the ramifications. But as regards this particular situation, wikipedia is a server of a great many things in a comprehensive way, and that will necessarily include a good deal that any one person here will consider unjustifiable trivia. 128.112.203.68 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • 'Trivial relationship' is realy not a hard concept to define for a large number of rational and objective people. We are talking about an article linking a Japanese cartoon bus and a word uttered by a Prison Break character here. Anybody on the 'wikipedia can store anything' listification crusade surely has more important articles to make a fuss about than this. MickMacNee (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore This was an obvious failure to appropriately judge consensus. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore No consensus to delete. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore Did not seem to be closed in accordance with WP:DGFA#Deciding whether to delete, especially points 2 and 4. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding point two, whose feelings do you believe the closing admin did not take into account? The "losing" side of an AFD is probably always going to feel some level of upset with the decision; that does not demonstrate in the slightest that the closing admin ignored their feelings or concerns. As for point four "when in doubt, don't delete," unless you have the heretofore unrevealed ability to read minds, you have no standing for saying that the closing admin had any doubt in the closure. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The protracted discussion merited a reasonably judicious summing up but the closer gave no sign that he had even read the discussion and he did not address any of the points made. Instead, he just seemed to state his own opinion. Such a close is unsatisfactory since the losing side will feel that their statements have not been considered. This is the point of item 2 - that justice must only be done, it must be seen to be done. Regarding point 4, reasonable doubt clearly existed even if one only considers the closer's statement, which as noted above, stated that the article had some encyclopedic content. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• You are making assumptions about the closer's actions and intentions with no factual basis. You are also misrepresenting the closing statement. Black Kite did not say that the article had encyclopedic content. He said that some of the content "could possibly be" encyclopedic and that the amount of such information was "(very) small." Since that content was split from the main article, it can be restored from the main article's history. Otto4711 (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Or he could be referring to the new material added during the AfD that was not split off from the main article and that in order to merge, we would need to restore the article to retrieve it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Nonsense. Just add the material from the same sources again. The content doesn't have to be lifted word for word from the deleted article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's much easier and more considerate to other users to restore the article and redirect rather than forcing editors to relook for the material they had already worked on. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - Yes it was a very long and complex discussion, but the closing admin's conclusion seems to be as substantially correct as the topic allows. Procedure was followed properly and there is no valid reason to overturn. Doc Tropics 22:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The conclusion is that some of it could be merged, which can't be done if the article is deleted. Thus, there is no valid reason not to overturn. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore - no consensus is the proper answer. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - as Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles really ought to know by now, AFD is not a vote, so his arguments based on the number of editors who argued in favor of any particular action is irrelevant, as is the effort put into the article either before or during the AFD. A thousand editors can edit an article and a thousand more can argue in its favor at AFD, but it the strength of the arguments that counts. The fact that no one arguing for deletion voiced an opinion on whether the supposed improvements to the article were sufficient to change their minds is also irrelevant. Editors are not required to monitor the article for changes during the AFD and voice further opinion on them. And despite the effort put in during the AFD, the simple fact remains that not a single source was offered during its course that was substantively about the topic of the article, which was "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." Sourcing individual mentions of the Cheshire Cat in popular culture, or possible mentions of the Cheshire Cat, or uses of phrases like "Cheshire smile" or "chessy smile," does not demonstrate that the overall topic of the article, "Cheshire Cat in popular culture," is notable. The list of sightings is compiled and the sightings are used as the basis of the argument that "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" is a legitimate topic for Wikipedia because of all of the mentions or sort of mentions or possible mentions that might not be. This is original research by synthesis. The closing admin correctly deleted the article in the absence of any substantive response to the blatant policy violations set forth in the nomination. DRV, which Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles also ought to know by now, is not AFD round two. The article does not need to be restored for merger because the content was split from the main article in the first place, so it's already in the history. Otto4711 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• If you believe that the strongest argument should prevail, regardless of how much or how little support it has, then you don't believe in consensus. Everyking (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Naerii 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• So you'd suggest that an article that violates Wikipedia policy should be kept if enough people say it should be? Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article in question doesn't violate policy, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article in question violated WP:NOT and WP:OR. Otto4711 (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• It is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on popular culture (thus our First pillar) and was not original research as it contained references and did not advance a thesis. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, yes, you made this claim repeatedly in the AFD and now that it has been rejected there you're trying to fly it here. AFD round two. And has been pointed out to you so many times that it's pathetic that you still try to argue it, the Pillars are not policy. Let me repeat that one more time: The Pillars are not policy. Otto4711 (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• They don't fail any policies, however. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly, a number of editors and the closind admin disagreed. Otto4711 (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Which is why we clearly had "no consensus." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• What we clearly had was a failure of those wanting the article kept both to overcome the arguments in favor of deletion and in finding reliable sources substantively about the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." o here we are again, watching you try for another bite at the apple. Otto4711 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• The connection in reliable sources of the Cheshire Cat in popular culture had been made by many others prior to our article. The arguments in favor of deletion seemed to ignore this reality. We must be open-minded when sources are discovered and be willing to recognize that as I did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F.C. Prabis rather than focus simply on trying to win an argument. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just because a particular books contains all four of the words "Cheshire," "Cat," "popular" and "culture" does not mean that the book is a reliable source that established the notability of the concept "Cheshire Cat in popular culture. You can find a source that includes pretty much any combination of words. Look here's 299 sources that are about Hitler and his love of crochet. Oh wait, they aren't about that at all, they merely use the words "Hitler" and "crochet" at some point between their covers. There is a reason why the Google test is an unpersuasive argument and you've amply demonstrated that reason time and again. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• The particular books concerning the Cheshire cat and popular culture do not merely contain all four words but places them together in the context presented in the article in question, which is why your argument is unpersuasive. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Simply reading even the snippets from the books demonstrate that they are not substantively about the topic "Cheshire Cat in popular culture." They are the same old collection of single-sentence mentions in passing of the cat or comparing someone's smile to the cat's and the like. Still not one source that demonstrates the notability of "Cheshire Cat in popular culture" as a concept. Otto4711 (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I honestly don't know what to tell you then, as I can't see how you aren't seeing the connection and notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I whole-heartedly agree that this DRV is not AfD round two, as someone else (notice the edit summary) had already started that discussion several days ago... --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Restore, no consensus to delete. Naerii 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). While this was clearly a contentious discussion, the job of a closer is more than merely to count noses. Closers are expected to weight the expressed opinions based on a number of factors including the relevant policy(ies) and precedent. Even then, it can be a difficult call. This closure was just within the acceptable range of administrator discretion. I would, however, encourage the closer to explain his/her reasoning in greater detail when the case is this close. Rossami (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • He has retired. MickMacNee (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Closers should not calculate a weighted vote either. What they are to look for is consensus. Where opinion is deeply divided with many editors in both camps then we obviously do not have consensus. The closer does not get a casting vote or the unilateral right to impose his own interpretation of policy. Note also that we seem unlikely to get any kind of explanation since the closer seems disaffected and has started folding his tent. My impression is that his close was a Parthian shot, made in a pointy way - another reason to consider it defective. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree rather strongly about "consensus". It doesn't matter how many people agree about something in an AfD if it contradicts policy. If 100 editors claim an article should be kept because "we keep worse articles than this", and 3 editors make valid arguments based in relevant policy, guess who wins? Not consensus....Doc Tropics 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, but in this case the article satisfied policies and even the closer said some of it was encyclopedic (which is part of the issue here, the close rationale had elements of merge in it and was not an unambiguous delete). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The closer said that a "(very) small amount of information...could possibly be encyclopedic." And that very small amount of content can be restored from the history of the main article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• No it cannot, because that material was added to the article in question during the AfD and not split off from the main article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Since the closing admin did not specify what content he meant, you can't say with any degree of certainty that it was material added during AFD that was being referenced. Otto4711 (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Thus you can't say that it was the stuff spun out either. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Some additional thoughts. 1) The closer's retirement is irrelevant. (My comment about explaining the closure rationale in greater detail was intended as a general comment, not a specific admonition.) 2) Closers are required by policy and precedent to weight the opinions expressed. Opinions which are consistent with policy or demonstrated facts get greater weight than opinions which are not. 3) The question of whether the material which was added during the AFD discussion is encyclopedic deserves consideration. LGRdC believe that it is encyclopedic. Otto4711 disagrees. My interpretation of the closer's comments leads me to believe that he/she disagreed too and that the potentially encyclopedic content was to be found in other content. Having reviewed the deleted versions immediately before the addition of the AFD tag and immediately before deletion, I personally do not see any added content that I would consider encyclopedic or appropriate to merge to another article. 4) While merge and redirect is far and away the most common way to satisfy GFDL when content is moved, it is not the only option available to us. When only very small content is being moved, it is occasionally easier to satisfy GFDL by attributing the content either in the edit summary or via the destination article's Talk page. I am not sure whether that scenario applies here but it is a legal option to the project. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Just as a note, more than just Otto4711 and I disagree about the encyclopedic content. As the edit history shows, in addition to me, Colonel Warden, John Z, and DHowell were also in the process of improving the article in question prior to deletion and I believe they like me would still continue to improve of the relevant content. As you can see here, whether userfied or not, I still work on articles that I believe in after the deletion discussion ends and fortunately sometimes others help as well. Also, part of my concern with this close is that it occurred alongside another questionable close (closed an AfD as delete after two days when editors had argued to keep); that one was already successfully undone. Then when two users asked the deleting admin about the close, which could have prevented the deletion review discussion, neither received a response and shortly after the admin left, resigned the tools, and deleted userpage and talk page. I don't see any harm in say restoring and redirecting so that if those working on it do have additional sources then they can add them or if some content can be added then it will be. If we do that, then I see the potential to improve our coverage, whereas if we don't, I see no gain or benefit, but rather a lost opportunity. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I was one of the perpetrators of heated argument in that AfD. We can see that a count was made in the AfD as well as here, leaving us with 9 deletes and 15 deletes. We can add the "merge" votes in either column. I feel the editors voting "merge" did so in good faith, as did the editors exhorting people to merge. However, we cannot declare that this had no basis in policy nor no (rough) consensus. First, consensus. Consensus isn't unanimity. A simple majorty isn't consensus (neither is a supermajority). But somewhere along the continuum from majority to unanimity lies the judgment call for consensus. There were a range of opinions expressed in the AfD, some of whom commented and left. Some of whom continued the discussion until the end. Some of us might have been persuaded only by overwhelming evidence one way or the other. Some of us might have been on the edge. We can't know who was where without peering into their hearts. I cannot promise you with any more force that one editor would forever vote to delete than another editor could promise you that I would vote forever to keep. Despite this limitation, we cannot allow holdout votes to drive the debate. I would suspect that the best way to look at this would be to see which positions were independent, grounded in some appeal to policy (or some strong appeal to reason), and not perfunctory. Tally those up and see where you are. Second, policy. I stand by my policy arguments made in the afd and even though this isn't AfD2, I think they are valid here. The mentions of the article subject in reliable sources were thin at best and likely trivial. A number of the secondary sources cited and available to me through a university library service (I can't personally speak to the "Lewis Carroll in pop culture" volume, but other editors noted its tenuous connection to the article premise) either did not mention the subject at all (Cheshire Cat in popular culture) or mentioned it trivially in connection to another subject. as for the wording of the deletion rationale, that is an issue to take up with the admin, should he/she return. Mentioning that some of the less trivial information could make its way into the main article is not cause enough to overturn the deletion debate and bring about a similar kerfuffle about merging the few lines of content that might have some merit. Also, just because the closer didn't mention policy doesn't mean that the article met WP:NOT, WP:OR, or WP:N. The judgment on that one will have to be made by individuals with access to the page itself in the form in which it was deleted. Protonk (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This DRV is not AfD round two, as someone else (notice the edit summary) had already started that discussion several days ago... Wikipedia is foremost an encyclopedia and as such a compendium of encyclopedic knowledge. If editors believe in good faith that material can be merged as suggested even by the closing admin then we merge and redirect. Deletion is an extreme last resort and there is no urgent last resort need to delete in this case. The article met what Wikipedia is, was unoriginal research, and was a notable topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• There really is no need to respond to every single thing that every single person says, especially if all you're going to do is regurgitate the same "this is what Wikipedia is" stuff over and over again. It has been explained to you repeatedly that your collection of essays on "what Wikipedia is" has no force of policy or guideline but merely represent the opinions of the people who wrote them. I could write an essay that says Wikipedia is a balloon bouquet and it doesn't mean anyone has to pay any attention to it. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• You mean like what you did in the AfD with everyone who disagreed with you? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Over turn and merge to one of the suggested merge targets. The article doesn't meet notability guidelines, but some of this would be high quality content in if located in Works influenced by Alice in Wonderland. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
  • IIRC, none of it was with the possible exception of American McGee's alice, the entry for which contained little more than a mention that the Cheshire cat was gaunt and emaciated. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore Clearly there was no consensus. The discussion was active when it was aborted with arguments unresolved, and there were some possible avenues open to improve the article.John Z (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion was open for five days, which is how long AFD discussions run. That you feel the discussion was "aborted" by the expiration of the standard AFD timeframe is not relevant to the DRV. If you disagree with the five day timeframe, take it up at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• This is also the problem. The advocates of these trivial lists as part of wikipedia's mission as a specialist encyclopoedia only turn up to develop them when they are up for deletion, as explained in the nomination. Not that this topic is save-able as an article, but that's beside the point. This is wholly gaming the principle of WP:NOTFINISHED to extend the life of inherently unworthy topics. MickMacNee (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lets not spread misinformation about people interested in Popular culture content. Interested Wikipedians do more than just "turn up [...] when they are up for deletion". --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you should post that project. Looking at the member list, a lot of Afd comments and voting patterns now make even more sense. As for the not just turning up at Afd comment, I looked at the last two pages of the edit history of the project front page (back to 10 April), the overwhelming majority of edits involve updating the articles facing deletion/deletion review section, with a smattering of 'why we are here' type edits. The actual amount of activity in the article improvement section pales by comparison.

On a brief sample, I could not see a listing for this specific article anywhere in the front page history, other than regarding its imminent deletion. Granted the project wasn't even in existence after its first Afd, where assertions were made that it could and would be improved, but it was setup up just two months later. Surely someone should have listed it for improvement? Perhaps there was a project talk page discussion about how to improve it? I could not find it in the talk page or the archive (again, I did find a deletion alert about it though). I don't have any objection to well written articles, or improving articles with merit. I've even without knowing it edited a few of the project's articles.

So if you're going to simply use the existence of this project as a rebuttal to my analysis of what's going down here, I'm afraid I will have to reserve the right to spread my "misinformation" about the evident practice of the defence of specialist trivia list hosting on principle alone, in conjunction with gaming WP:NOTFINISHED/merge=keep at Afd, and how this practice compares to the treatment of content at Afd from the rest of the wiki. Maybe with more time in the improvement section on articles with merit, and less time at Afd for any arbitrary topic with the trigger phrase in the title, then the project might manage more than 2 GAs. 14:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this article hadn't even been tagged by the WikiProject or given an assessment when it was nominated for deletion, so it's no surprise to me that it didn't make the main project page. I don't want to deny your analysis, you make some good points, but you are not presenting an accurate reflection of everything the group does, only what you experience most often at AfD (did you go through the page histories of all the articles under the scope, maybe you'd see more work being done). EDIT And if editors are making arguments from "principle alone", then this is a practice that should stop. Having principles to guide your actions are good, but having nothing more substantial with which to follow is bad. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to see that list--I watchlist some pages of workgroups whose principles I do not altogether agree with in order to contribute my own views. All that's necessary to join a group is to not deliberately interfere, just as everywhere else at Wikipedia. A project devoted to improving articles facing deletion is a very good thing, whether or not I particularly like the sort of articles involved. I remind Mike once again of WP:Deletion policy-- deletion is the last resort. Everyone should want to improve articles if they are improvable. How can anyone oppose doing that? DGG (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and restore - No clear consensus. Besides, it appears to have just been a spin-off of the parent article, which would warrant a redirect/merge. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore - No clear consensus. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore. I'm going to be blunt about it: Black Kite's closure comes across every bit like a pronouncement -- a personal assessment of the article and not an assessment of consensus. At the time of the AfD, he was in the midst of on-again-off-again wikiretirement over frustration with other users over issues I believe were related those that were at stake in the AfD. (Evidence of this could be found in the recent history of User talk:Black Kite, except that he deleted that page on his way out. That deletion was also improper, as his talk page was not "the work of one author".)--Father Goose (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• I can't help but speculate that it might have been this type of action that drove him into retirement (I'm not smearing you or the nomination itself, rather he seemed put out by wikilawyering in general--being put out by wikilawyering is his problem not anyone else's). Protonk (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• To ask a meta question, what happens if the DRV fails to reach a consensus? :P Protonk (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • In a case like this, the AfD would instead be closed as "no consensus". Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Really? A no consensus DRV results in the reversal of the original decision? I'm not being confrontational here, I really don't know (DRV is kind of a new thing for me, so many layers!). Protonk (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, because there's even less consensus for the delete closure here than there was in the AfD. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - just beacuase the disscusion was long is not a reason to overturn (note: I origionally voted to delete) --T-rex 04:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • And no one is saying that is why it should be overturned. It should be overturned, because there was no consensus and the close rationale suggested merging some of the content for which the article would need to be restored. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - While several individual allusions to the Cat were cited, the article lacked substantiation for the claim that the overall mass of pop. culture allusions to the Cheshire Cat are together the topic of multiple, reliable, third-party sources. As such, ad admin.'s closing/deletion rationale of original research was correct. --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It was not original research as it contained references and did not advance a thesis. (Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, just erase this text and my signature and pop in your four tildes.) --EEMIV (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The article contained substantiation for the claim that the overall mass of popular culture allusions to the Cheshire Cat are indeed together the topic of multiple, reliable, third party sources, which is why the admin's rationale of deletion was incorrect, but the other aspect of his rationale to merge was indeed correct. There's more to Wikipedia than just trying to delete as much of it as possible. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • No shit. Why don't you write an essay about it and cite it 18 times per AfD? --EEMIV (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)