Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 12

Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election – no consensus to overturn closure, default to endorse. However, as it is clear there is no real consensus to simply endorse per se I will userfy these upon request - interested parties may contact me at my talk page to indicate where they would like it to be userfied. I was tempted to relist this due to the lack of consensus but after reading the depth of the discussion here it seems to me that a simple relist will not generate a useful result and this should be allowed to be worked on in userspace prior to re-engaging in a deletion debate. – Shereth 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Because at least one editor has misinterpreted the transclusion, JJB recommends the following links for illustration. At deletion time the article consisted of a frame article plus most of two (Democratic and Republican) other transcluded articles; to understand the deletion-time article all three must be consulted. Compare an early draft prior to transclusion.

The creators and main editors of the article were not notified. It was nominated before and there was a strong concensus to keep. There was no OR or SYNTH, it was simply a presentation of facts. Straw polls are an important part of American elections, especially the coverage that follows such polls as the Texas Straw Poll and Ames Straw Poll. William S. Saturn (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and undelete! Reasons below. (Second choice, relist and undelete; third, userfy.) 00:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC) SUMMARY: The primary issue is that AfD was fatally tainted by multiple false allegations that were not sufficiently recognized during discussion. Accordingly, review should overturn or relist, to enable full discussion of the allegations. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Affirm this 100% as a primary editor; had been waiting to make the case myself. There were also 2 others deleted at the same time for Dem and Rep polls, which were transcluded into this one. If those links are not the final names they point to valid redirects, and I think Republican straw polls and Democratic straw polls were also redirects. The issues relevant to DRV are:

Deletion nom, Burzmali, knew very well the article history, but took care to nominate when both main contributors, Southern Texas and I, were absent from WP, and right at election day itself, hardly an appropriate time for determinations about the article, so the discussion ended up being slanted toward those already on record as favoring deletion, who were live (i.e., Orangemike, Niteshift36).
Count was 3 involved deletionists, 3 other deletes and 3 other keeps, and 1 transwiki. But even not counting the prior slanting, 6-3-1 is a nonconsensus vote, not a delete vote.
These editors made several misleading statements not directly challenged during discussion even though article talk belied each of them, as follows:
1. Since articles' inception we kept them scrupulously clean of synth and OR, which can be seen on the articles' talk pages (could we see those during this discussion please?); all specific concerns by these editors were dealt with promptly.
2. Results were not hand-picked; all straw polls that could be found were included.
3. The entire article was based on the fact that reliable sources had grouped bunches of straw polls together. All presentation methods found in the sources were included. Articles were patterned after opinion poll articles, and it's hardly a deletion argument that no (secondary) sources group together bunches of opinion polls, so the whole reason for claiming nonnotability is invalid.
4. The accusation of coatracking is unproven; I don't know that I ever used a campaign source as reliable, except occasionally as a convenience link to more detailed coverage that backed up coverage from an independent source. Every poll was independently reported.
5. Nom was called on these points generically and shifted his argument to WP:V, yet all sources were verifiable, and many of them listed large numbers of polls (of course not all polls), and were appropriately identified at section headings.
6. Niteshift's argument that there were never any standards is also belied by talk, in that standards were very carefully applied to overcome any presumption of inclusion/exclusion bias. In fact, though I had an admitted COI all this time, I was never once told by these editors that my COI influenced any of these edits.
Opinion poll articles abound in great numbers and are no different from these articles, yet they are not disqualified on such grounds. It is no deletion argument that lists of opinion polls are synthesis because we don't know which are true opinion polls and which are push polls; or which have been hand-picked for insertion by which editors; or that no secondary source includes a comprehensive list of opinion polls; or that opinion polls have convenience links to campaigns; or that opinion polls are unverifiable because they disappear quickly from pollster sites; or that there are no standards as to which to include.
The three uninvolved deletionists merely repeated the arguments of the involved ones, plus the inapplicable WP:IINFO and the irrelevant fact that straw polls do not always predict winners. OTOH, the three uninvolved inclusionists made good original (unprompted) arguments in favor of notability, interest, historicity, nom misrepresentation, nonoriginality, parallels in source-provided lists, and WP:SOFIXIT. In short, the better arguments should have won and did not.
Finally, deletion nom has had for years a deletion campaign, duly noted here, that is (see for yourself) a thoroughly one-sided attempt to delete material favorable to Ron Paul. In recent months nom became an WP:SPA, and then dropped off, as he (apparently) realized his wait-and-kill tactics were no longer working. Nom has stated his belief that I should not bring this point up in deletion discussions, as perhaps constituting an attack upon an editor, but the sheer volume of these edits would make it improper to omit this point. This argument's size could be tripled if I were to get specific. In fact there is so much that I am probably not done now, even considering only data appropriate to DRV.

At a minimum, I respectfully request immediate userfication to myself of all 3 articles, because the amount of good-faith compilation and collation effort alone on part of both myself and Southern Texas, undone by a few rogue edits, is worth at least that much. JJB 23:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC) ADD: I appreciate the restoration of the main article; I have asked the restorer also to restore the two transcluded articles, which had most of the content, as well as the two maps and talk. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

See below Possibly relist otherwise userfy. Can we have the artivle temporarily undeleted, the cache link is not working for me. There's a mix of opinions from respected editors - this one is interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Straw polls are worthless as predictors of primary election results. I voted 'keep' on the first AfD because I thought this article, which was skewed by enthusiasts of second- and third-tier candidates who had no hope of winning, inadvertently demonstrated this worthlessness. For example, the article showed Ron Paul winning all these straw polls, but the knowledgeable reader knows that when the actual primaries came around, Paul didn't do much of anything. I didn't see the second AfD, so I don't know what the article looked like at that point. But the conspiracy theory set out above as to the article's deletion is a bit unfounded. Southern Texas was "absent" from WP because he was indef blocked after having been discovered to have been running run a large-scale, prolonged sockpuppet operation. One of the side effects of getting blocked is that you can't be around to defend your articles. That in itself is not a reason to bring them back. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_12&action=edit&section=T-2[reply]

Hi Wasted, I respect you, but there was no "Paul winning all" going on: all polls were reported, and the fact that Paul, Romney, Thompson, Clinton, and Obama won arguable pluralities was a significant historical fact that it is exactly WP's mission to preserve. I'm sorry, but your observations about the "worthlessness" of straw polls as predictors, and your digression about an editor, are not relevant or only tangentially so, as the question of the appropriateness of the closure does not turn on either. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am the operator of the "Southern Texas" account, but the sockpuppet operation was run by Uga Man, an account that belonged to my sister. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Southern Texas says differently, and I remember the Southern Texas confession and apologies at the time ("once I got started with multiple accounts, I couldn't stop", "I tried to keep the bad users out of article space", etc.) before the User talk:Southern Texas page got wiped. I even remember some of the apologies towards editors that Southern Texas had worked with productively, including me. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Uga Man. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that story, it contradicts your prior confession. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "confession" was not made by me. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else doing pure socking and troublemaking wouldn't have bothered to confess. Regardless, if the powers that be have blessed the William S. Saturn account, then I have no quarrel with that. But my original point was that the whole episode doesn't give weight towards restoring the straw polls article. That has to be done on the article's own merit. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think much of this is immaterial to the discussion over the deletion. The nominations accusation of bad faith in the timing of the deletion debate doesn't help their case. However there is something of a contradiction in the sockpuppet stuff, the postings on the talk page of the account suggest the sockpuppeter had control of the account for a long time. Regardless it has no impact, the account was and is blocked as part of abusive sockpuppetry case, no amount of waiting to nominate the article for deletion would have changed that. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Closure & Demand Toaster: As the original nominator for deletion, the articles are a cluster of WP:COATRACKs for minor candidates. They include results from high schools, polls that had less than 30 votes and no sources that suggested that any of the polls were notable. I don't disagree that some specific straw polls are notable, but the way the article was written was mostly WP:OR. In addition, the article lacked sources that suggested that straw polls, pooled on a nation level, are notable. I failed to notify the originator of the article because he is a sockpuppet master, go figure. Also, I didn't read JJB's conspiracy theory, mostly because he posts it on every AFD and Admin's talk I come in contact with. Fundimentally, I believe I am suppose to get a toaster for deleting Ron Paul Fancruft. Therefore, since I was apparently successful in this case, I demand that the lords of wikipedia inform the masters of the international anti-Ron Paul campaign of my success so I can get that toaster! Burzmali (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for accepting my invite. As stated before, Burzmali has been an WP:SPA on this topic for months now, and has had self-disclosed bias for years. Corrections: Coatracking would involve promotion of candidates, not neutral reports of all polls, as occurred. Polls from (eligible students at) high schools, and polls under 30 votes, are just as significant as others, because there is no evidence of their being materially any different from others. Polls need not be individually notable as standard policy at WP:NNC. Any specific accusations of WP:OR (this one is generic) were summarily and rapidly dealt with. There were several independent sources indicating that pooling of straw polls was notable. This statement of my activity on "every" such page is a stretch, because if true it only relates to the last month or two (not the years of prior such activity) and only when relevant to discussion. Accusing me of conspiracy theory contradicts WP:NPA. The "toaster" running gag is either meaningless or further evidence of COI, if you care to hear. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Relist This is part of the historical record. The evidence that the debate was inadequate is simply there were very few people who showed up for what in one of the important election-related articlesIt should at least get another hearing. DGG (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted. Whether by votecounting or strength of argument, this was a correct closure. Few AFDs get as many as 9 participants. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes to your last, but aren't AFDs with vote patterns like 6-3-1 more often NCDK instead of delete? Thanks. JJB 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  - With the usual disclaimers of AFD is not a vote, my experience is that the threshold where no consensus changes to delete is a two-thirds vote, or when there are twice as many deletes than keeps. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Great, threshold, favoring relist, thank you. JJB 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Request temporary undeletion of Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election, as it is not clear what the !votes in the AfD are talking about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Seresin. The AfD votes are much easier to understand seeing the article, which was not about “Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election”, but was a repository of links of the “Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election”, with a lead section blandly covering “straw polls. It was indeed a WP:NOR/WP:N issue. The three references (# ^ "Vote on the Michigan Republican debate". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617. Retrieved on 2008-01-10. # ^ Harwood, John (2007-10-12). "My Open Letter To Ron Paul Supporters". CNBC. http://www.cnbc.com/id/21270546. Retrieved on 2008-01-10. # ^ "2008 Republican Debate Polls - Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani". http://www.usastrawpolls.com/debates/2008-republican-presidential-debate-polls.html.) are (1,3) not secondary sources or (2) a broken link. Potentially, the article could be justified as a spin out of United States presidential election, 2008, but not with the fact that the parent article doesn’t contain even the word “straw”. I find the nomination and Delete !votes sound and the three Keep !votes to use “notability” in a non-wikipedian, real-world sense, without objective evidence.

I endorse (deletion) and recommend userfy. If it is to be relisted, I suggest giving the article more time in userspace to address the lack of third party sources covering, not contributing to, the subject, and a lack of incoming links. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason you came to that conclusion was because the full article wasn't undeleted. The Republican and Democratic parts were transcluded and they remain red-links.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William is correct that you did not see the whole article; please review the links I just placed atop this page. Further, even if it were a "repository of links of", it would surely be "about". But if it were a repository of links, so would be all the numerous opinion-poll articles, upon which these were based. Instead, it was better style to use inline links (to the many secondary reliable sources), rather than endnote references, except where refs were desired to demonstrate in-text points and multipoll compilation methods. Notability and nonoriginality was amply demonstrated by the article set; would you care to be more specific? Links 1-2 are indeed secondary, but are not current (obviously link repair will be necessary at this stage); while 3 is primary but (like many others) was put in deliberately to combat the false charge that basically nobody was collecting compilations of poll results with particular presentation methods. Your proposed spinout point is not an argument; this was spun out of opinion polls anyway, as stated. "I find" the three Keep !votes to use "notability" in WP's sense, accepting their linking to WP:N in good faith, and as evidenced by nom Burzmali's agreement that WP:N was not the issue; there were literally a couple hundred sources in all. Finally, of course most incoming wikilinks have been pulled (though, e.g., one of this article's maps still appears with redlink at Dodd's article), though I don't know userfication would address this, unless you want me to link from main to userspace. Anyway, please let us know your thoughts after considering the links, thanks. JJB 22:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that Straw polls for the Republican Party 2008 presidential nomination is visible again, it's clear that straw polls were the key factor in President Paul's eventual election, so surely this article deserves to exist. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William, and JJB, I take many of your your points, but not enough for me to call for a simple “overturn”, but I do call for userfy, improve, move to mainspace, re-test at AfD if necessary I can see why people said “delete”. There is too much data and not enough prose directed to the specific subject. It looks like an illustrated appendix or technical report. It looks too much like it is entirely original research. There structure is wrong; it needs to be based on secondary sources. Now, there is some confusion, or something is very wrong, if you are telling me that http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21209617 is a secondary source. The secondary sources that will justify this as a stand-alone article will talk about “the straw polls of that election”, but not just about an individual straw poll, and not just about straw polls without reference to the 2008 election. There are many more references in the transposed sub-articles that I haven’t examined, and I haven’t otherwise searched, but I am confident that such sources exist. As for incoming links, you are right, in userspace you can’t do this, but you could, if necessary, tell us some example sections of other articles would benefit from this article, (if it is not entirely justifiable by its own secondary sources). Importantly, however, I think you need to ensure that there is some mention of the straw polls to be made somewhere in the article United States presidential election, 2008. I think it is more than reasonable to ask for userfication, and the subject is in principle appropriate for an article. Historical articles are definitely appropriate for an encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of those sources was major impetuous for bringing it to AFD the second time around. I searched for sources for the role of straw polls in the 2008 election and came up empty. As soon as the Primaries season starts, the straw polls quickly take a second seat to the delegate counts and opinion polls in the news, if they get any mention at all. This makes the first few straw polls (like the Ames Straw Poll) notable, but the rest are rather insignificant, and since opinion polls are far more accurate predictors of an election, none of the major news outlets seem to care about aggregated results of straw polls. In the very best case, I could imagine an article along the lines of The Role of Straw Polls in the 2008 Election, but that is a very different article than the "also-ran" focused article that was deleted. Burzmali (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're being too generous. Straw polls mean nothing. Look at the Republican one – Ron Paul did best in the straw polls and did basically nothing in the primaries; John McCain did worst in the straw polls and won the nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's because the polls added to the page were plucked from biased sources like Dailypaul.com, as my other comment in the AFD, the article is a WP:COATRACK for any "also-ran" supporter out to "prove" his candidate was actually a serious contender. Burzmali (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely false, I am not a Ron Paul supporter and I worked on the article. It is just denial of fact to argue that Ron Paul did not do well in straw polls. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why articles, especially when contentious, should be constructed around reputable, independent, secondary sources. The deleted articles were not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree that you were not a Paulite editor. Who was responsible for the "scoring" section (head-to-head, Olympics, NASCAR, etc.)? That's the most embarrassing part of the article, churning statistically meaningless data ten different ways (possibly to show how wonderfully Paul was doing, but meaningless regardless of the motivation). Wasted Time R (talk) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't understand those numbers, and I'll allow for John J. Bulten to defend his edits. For the most part, the reasons listed above are not arguments for deletion but rather reasons for improvement of the article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the methodology used was cribbed from reference 30, Oklahomans' for Ron Paul. Burzmali (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I see now. That makes it even more embarrassing, flunks WP:RS, and makes the article look even more like its only reason for existence was Paul pushing. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose was simply to list all 2008 straw polls, period. Actually, all compilation methods were included (no matter whether they came from one partisan or another, since all partisan sources were considered); we always took care to preclude any charge that we were selecting only some compilation methods. Recall that I particularly was working not to let COI influence any presentation; perhaps I overshot and was too neutral? Further, there was never any method found on talk for excluding some presentations and allowing others, nor was there ever a bright line for knocking out what sources were unreliable (individual reliability challenges were promptly dealt with; this link was not one of them). This link was one of hundreds of sources. But of course since I wasn't doing OR and everything was sourced I suppose that means I can be accused of "cribbing", I like how that Hobson's choice works. JJB 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This article's only value is that it demonstrates how worthless straw poll results are, once a reader mentally compares the results to reality (primary results and the nomination). The raw results and colored states "winners map" are sufficient to do this. The other scoring methods are wretched churning of junk data. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly closed the discussion based on the debate and nothing new has been offered to indicate that consensus has changed or that discussion should be re-opened. "This is part of the historical record" is an irrelevant argument to DRV (it's also irrelevant to AFD but I digress). There is no minimum number of people who need to participate in the AFD for it to be valid. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is part of the historical record should be in an encyclopedia--it's pretty basic to the concept of having one in the first place. It's sufficient for notability of even living people, to defeat ONEEVENT, & by analogy should apply also to everything else, as BLP is where we are most stringent. The close was bad, in not taking full account of the arguments in a divided situation.The e3ntire nomination anddiscussion was contaminated by the sockpuppet issue. And what the orig. nom says here needs some elucidation: 1/ this includes other candidates than Ron Paul. 2/ -the nom even says himself that some straw polls are notable!!! If some are, a combination article on them certainly is 3/--more important--from what he says here the nom was politically motivated, though I cannot figure out in just what direction. DGG (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that is known to have happened in the universe is "part of the historical record" and there are all sorts of portions of the historical record that do not belong in this encyclopedia. It's a wretched argument at AFD and it's completely irrelevant at DRV. Otto4711 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Michael Jordan is notable and McDonald's is notable, is an article about Michael Jordan eating at McDonald's notable? The Ames Straw Poll is notable, the Texas Straw Poll is notable, however an article combining the few notable straw polls with a bunch of hand-picked ones isn't notable it's original research. That was the finding of the AFD. As for an agenda, I'm still waiting for my toaster, as soon as the Anti-Paul alliance ships me mine, I'll confess. If you want an agenda, you really should look at the other folks in this debate as well. Burzmali (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Cute. Burzmali (talk) 22:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, a closure based on false allegations that are not recognized during debate (and partly due to editors affected by the allegations being absent) is tainted by those allegations and must be relisted at minimum. That does constitute "new information" not brought up in the debate. JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no false allegations in any of the three discussions. That one editor or another is away at a particular time and thus unable to participate in a particular discussion is unfortunate but does not rise to the level of reversible error. The first article I ever wrote got deleted while I was on vacation. It sucked and I was pissed about it (because it was nominated out of revenge for an article of his that I nominated) but it didn't constitute a reason to overturn or to relist. Otto4711 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, this is too blithe. William and I allege no OR or SYNTH, others allege OR and SYNTH without specifics. Are both allegations true? Would you be specific about why our evidence is "nothing new" or why there may specifically be OR or SYNTH? Thanks. JJB 18:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The time to address arguments raised at AFD is AFD, not DRV. DRV, as is often noted, is not AFD round two. The issues of OR and SYNTH, along with COATRACK, were raised in the nomination. There was ample time for those who supported the article to refute the issues raised in the nomination. Otto4711 (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burzmali's first argument is illogical, and his second is contradicted by the sources present in the article, as noted above. Further, an AFD does not make a finding of OR. And do you really want me to explain the toaster to everyone, Michael? Or do you want to flesh out your accusations of editor agenda? JJB 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

restore first the closer stated that no one addressed SYNTH issues when someone in fact did. Secondly many of the straw polls are notable and I'd view this as a list article. Seems to meet our inclusion guidelines. Hobit (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. Experiments may be notable. Articles containing the original data belong in journals, not an encyclopedia. The only way I could see keeping this is if there is some kind of precedent in social studies related encyclopedias (not journals) that include all of this information. I am not a social studies person, but I have read encyclopedias of history, and have never once seen strings of straw poll data. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your argument for deletion? WP:LISTS are acceptable in this encyclopedia, and straw polls are a notable aspect of American elections. You think that because you have never seen it in an encylopedia means it should be deleted? That's ridiculous. This article contains prose and gives great information about the American presidential election of 2008 at its grassroots level. And as a side note, this article was featured on the main page, and is linked in many articles. Its deletion was hasty and it should be overturned. I stand by my statement that it will one day be an FL. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - With due respect that I am not receiving fellow editor, I have made my argument. I am entitled to my interpretation of policy just as you are. You state that lists are acceptable. This is true, but as I stated, are there any lists in any encyclopedia that contain raw data of this nature? I have claimed to see none, and you have not offered any that would change my mind. Just because the article is well written, or was featured, does not mean it should be included as a separate article. You state that it gives great information. That may also be true. So do journals, newspapers, and a number of other sources which wikipedia is not. I remain unconvinced that this article should stay. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute your claim that it is simply a collection of raw data. Perhaps some parts are, but those can be removed. For the most part, this article is to comparable to most of the opinion poll articles for the election, the difference is that this article has much more prose.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for wider participation, this article does not strike me as something that needs to be removed, it seems well sourced, covers notable persons and events, speculation regarding motivations should not enter to the discussion. Unomi (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Personally, I detest straw polls, but the media seems to love them, as do high school and college students, who are, after all our constituency. The deletion was not made with sufficiently fair time to discuss. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Canvasing in process... [2][3] Burzmali (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain why you're accusing my limited, neutral, nonpartisan, open, two-hours-old notices of being "canvasing in process"? The first response to them was LonelyBeacon's delete. I'm sorry I didn't take time to formulate a notice for this page, but that's hardly worth such a charge. JJB 21:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
No canvassing has taken place. JJB has simply notifed all involved users, regardless of their opinion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the closer of the first discussion and the consensus was relatively clear to keep it. Though in this case, I would at least give it another vote so relist. Needs more consensus then the second discussion had. Though the issue I have about this article is the Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JForget 00:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Scott Campbell (blogger) – Endorse Reasonable close, 'new' sources aren't what you would call detailed coverage of the subject. I'm not aware of any BLP provision that proscribes articles based on age, but that isn't primarily the concern. This is a marginally notable subject (no offense, Scott, just stating the facts) with little to no biographical coverage. Barring some extensive coverage in the press I'd say we don't have much cause to overturn the decision. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC) – Protonk (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I have many more media article sources to back up the article and to meet criteria for the notability guidelines. I have articles/appearances from The Guardian Online, BBC News Online, BBC Radio 2, BBC Radio 5 Live, The Independent, The Scotsman, Original 106, Real Radio and Northsound 1. The Press Association will also be putting out a video and wire story about it, so that is another reference source. --Scott (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of these different to sources posted in the AFD? if so can you post the links here. I notice you have a conflict of interest given you are the apparent subject. If you are so notable, why isn't someone else trying to write a wikipedia article about you? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I would suggest that you think very carefully about the implications of there being a Wikipedia article about you. If you do anything over the next few years that you come to regret, and it gets reported in the press, then it may be put in the article and be used against you at a later time in your life, for example when you are applying for a university place or for a job. Please discuss with your parents or another trusted adult whether you should really be fighting to have this article kept. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, eh? Let's see them. But also what Phil Bridger said. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the sources: The Scotsman Article and the bit about me is within this article on The Independent website. Both of these articles were also in the print editions. I don't have access to the PA wires, but the journalist said she would send me a DVD of it, and it will be online. Radio 2 I have no evidence, except people that heard me, or by phoning them. It was at 6.30pm on the Chris Evans show. --Scott (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, I think that's a relist. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. I know that this isn't laid down in policy, but I think that the policy on biographies of living people should have a very strong presumption against having articles about children (and, yes, Scott, however mature you may be, you are still a child for these purposes). We shouldn't make children live with the possible consequences of having an encyclopedia article about them that anyone can edit without extraordinarly strong reasons, which I don't see here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it fair to endorse deletion on a policy that does not exist? There is no age limit at which you are allowed a Wikipedia article, so I don't see why this restriction is being placed on me. --Scott (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse fair AfD. Scott, do not get involved in articles concerning yourself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist simply on the absurdity that one of the two founders of NetNewsDaily isn't notable. Absurd results are a violation of the policy to use common sense. I do not think age has anything to do with it, except that , though I am reluctant to pay respect to subjects' wishes to remove an article, I would probably make an exception for a child. But that's not the situation here. DGG (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, relist. The two sources Scottcampb presents are sufficient to merit further consideration and this isn't the right venue to do it. And Scottcampb's response to Phil Bridger is right on the money.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin - if new sources have come to light, then I would normally suggest userfication, addition of the material, and a return to article space without process. AfDs can only be judged on what is in the discussion at the time. DRV is not necessary for an article that is going to be substantially different since it will not be deletable under WP:CSD#G4. This process is unnecessary, and possibly counterproductive to Scott's goal. There are no process points raised here as yet, so I feel not need to comment further at this time. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the AfD, given the information at the time, was a fair close. Looking at sources now, however, I think another discussion is merited. So given that, I support allowing recreation. However, I think that we would be better served re-creating the NND article, and merging this content there. Given the subject's age, the COI, and the fact that his notability seems to be tied only to the website, I think not having an article on him, but some information in an article on the website is the best course of action at this time. I'm not sure if that's something a DRV may mandate, but it's my suggestion. ÷seresin 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion per Phil and Joe. Come the time he's unquestionably notable, someone else will (and should) write it. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ronnie Radke – create as protected redirect. – Shereth 22:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Should be unprotected and redirected to Escape the Fate, which is his primary reason for notability (and why the article kept getting recreated). He was their lead singer for their first two releases, and received a lot of media coverage. Chubbles (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as nom said, but then protect the re-direct to keep it from continuing to be re-created ad nauseam. StarM 12:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Reasonable request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, sounds reasonable. The redirect should be indef protected to stop the article being recreated or any BLP matters seeping into it though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect and fully protect. لenna vecia 04:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.