Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 22

22 October 2011

The Risky Business

The Risky Business (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closer, King of Hearts has closed The discussion has been closed with results that may not have reflected inadequacy or insufficiency of arguments and consensus. There were three delete and one redirect. Also, the closer has been under the administrative review which puts his duties into question. Gh87 (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• A) I'd strongly suggest you strike the "under administrative review" part. That's voluntary and certainly doesn't say anything negative about the admin (the opposite in fact). At DrV it's wise to not comment on the closer, but rather on the close. B) Redirect is the standard outcome in situations like this and it was suggested in the AfD. So endorse Hobit (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per Hobit. I don't see even the hint of an argument here against redirection. postdlf (talk) 19:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse and suggest that other encouragement may be needed to get the nom here to actually read and understand the deletion policies. He's been on a campaign to delete--rather than just redirect--TV episodes. If an episode isn't notable, it should almost always redirected to the show or season article, regardless of the head-counting in the AfD, because of WP:ATD, which is policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• This nomination is totally without merit and should be closed.—S Marshall T/C 09:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Natalia Fowler

Natalia Fowler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Arguments from those who voted keep are based on knowledge of soap operas and their entities, NOT on establishing notability of this article's subject. However, it was a non-administrative closure by Rcsprinter123, and the arguments that favor merge have become less reliable in the wakes of recent events, such as removal of "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters" under WP:G12. Honestly, the latest keep argument points out merely the reject proposed policy on fictional characters. I thought: arguments appear insufficient to conclude a discussion; I demand a relist, and I demand to add more of my arguments, if possible, can help. --Gh87 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC) --Gh87 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. Gh87's deletion rationale in the AFD was invalid, as it was entirely based on the current state of the article contra WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP, and failed to consider alternatives to deletion. Jfgslo's !vote was the same unelaborated boilerplate in every pop culture-related AFD he participates in (one part WP:VAGUEWAVE, one part "it's just not notable"), and the other deletion !vote was also just a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which at a minimum leaves the deletion side without a compelling argument, just opinion, and at most means this could have been closed as "no consensus" given that the bare opinions in this AFD were split. However, DGG's comments were the most substantive and consistent with consensus, so together with the other keep !voters, it certainly wasn't unreasonable to close this as "keep" and that result is not contrary to any policy here.

  Re: the DRV rationale above, the deletion of a character list because it contained copyright infringements has absolutely no relevance to anything here. And Gh87 should take care not to "demand" anything. postdlf (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you thought my arguments are invalid and other deletion !votes vague, what about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of Passions, volume 1? That resulted a delete: isn't it to you premature to conclude? --Gh87 (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. This is a defensible closing, the AfD was already relisted once, and this is not a BLP or other page where incorrectly keeping it creates any real-world problems or risks. As a point of etiquette, in suggesting the outcome of an XfD or any other discussion on Wikipedia, the phrase "I demand" comes off sounding extremely strident and should generally not be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I have struck it right now for your request. --Gh87 (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse per the above. Nom has repeatedly demonstrated a basic failure to understand or abide by deletion policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
• This nomination is totally without merit and should be closed.—S Marshall T/C 09:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London)

Silver Medal (Zoological Society of London) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• wrongful speedy. not a recreation of deleted page, rather a new referenced list article based strictly on the model: Frink Medal.
• wrongful AfD. no before. list of notable scientists, who list on their CV's. in addition medal itself is listed in museums, [1] and auction houses.[2] Slowking4: 7@1|x 14:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• I believe that the article, as it was, was fairly flawed (wrong list of winners for example). I don't think the article can meet WP:GNG, but I'd certainly be willing to see if you can get it there. I think you can perhaps turn this into a "list of" for the winners (assuming a fair number of them are notable). In any case, I'd suggest you withdraw the DRV and ask for the article be moved to your user space. You could then fix it up. I'd suggest you only move it to mainspace after A) finding two solid reliable sources or B) getting permission from DRV or the deleting admin (neither of which would prevent someone from sending it off to AfD). Hobit (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• RestoreIt was deleted primarily for not being correct. The new one is properly sourced and is not. The G4 was donewithout sufficient checking of the anAfDd the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, could we get a temp restore of both the AfDed page and the Speedied page? Hobit (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)