Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 1

Administrator instructions

< January 31	Deletion review archives: 2009 February	February 2 >

1 February 2009

Topcity.org

Admin deleted article under A7, yet the article meets the stated criteria for notability and secondary sources.

I attempted to discuss the issue with the admin, but he would not provide a reasonable explanation for why the sources did not qualify. He ended the discussion by actually proving my argument. He said that "Wiki welcomes mainstream news sources" and then went on to dismiss my sources, which were from two established newspaper.

This is my first article, and I would be happy to fix any problems, but I reviewed the instructions before I posted it, and the reasons for deletion does not seem to fit the Wiki guidelines. Furthermore, I am a little put-out that the admin would be so quick too delete the article and refer it to DFR process instead of supporting his reasons for deletions in a reasonable manner.

Most people would not call defining the only daily newspaper for a state capital as "hardly significant" or not a "mainstream" news source.

I'm not sure how to link the discussion between myself and the admin, so I am pasting it verbatim:

Speedy Deletion of Topcity.org

The entry has two secondary sources from recognized publications. It meets the criteria for notability. Please reinstate it.

Thanks

Hairoddohtus (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) harioddohtus

   I'm sorry, no. The article read like a total promo piece, and as the site was only created in October, I hardly believe it has encyclopedic notability. The two sources you cite, one of which is a university newspaper, are hardly significant, and don't demonstrate encyclopedic notability. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but your reasoning is not supported by the criteria for secondary sources. The Wahburn Review has been in print for well over a century and has a weekly readership of over 5,000. The second source is from the Capital-Journal's radio program hosted by Jim Cates, a well-known local radio personality, and program is hosted on www.cjonline.com, a major website with over 300,000 unique reades a month, not to mention tens of thousands of daily print readers.

Since you're so quick on the gun to delete, please cite WHY how the sources do not meet Wikipedia's criteria as secondary sources. All you have done is given unsupported opinion to justify an arbitray deletion.

Secondly, I don't remember anything under the notability criteria that listed time as a determining factor for notability. Your logic seems to suggest that a subject cannot be notable unless it has been existence for a set period of time. Can you cite your source for that, so I can mark my calendar for when when the article should be reinstated?

Thirdly, I was coming back to to do a second draft when I saw the deletion. I'd be happy to tighten the writing, but frankly, your reasons for deletions are not credible. If you won't neutrally apply the wiki guidelines, please forward this conversation to whichever entity reviews contested articles.

Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

hairoddohtus

   You are welcome to take this to deletion review. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the deletion review guidelines, I am supposed to try and work it out with you. You are not being very helpful. Please tell me why the secondary sources aren't good. If you can demonstrate they are through the Wiki guidleines then I will graciously concede the matter.

However, you really should clarify why two established news sources are "hardly significant."

Thanks

Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC) hairoddohtus

   Our policy indicates "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as The Washington Post, The Times in Britain, and The Associated Press." What you've provided are two very minor, local news reports that cover a subject of local interest. I don't consider that to meet the bar. When I said that you're welcome to take it to DRV, that means you've met your obligation to try and work it out with me, and that you are free to post it there. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I messed up the code on the review page, so I am posting what I wrote here. Perhaps you can use your expansive admin powers to fix it for me?

Reason to Undelete ---------

Admin deleted article under A7, yet the article meets the stated criteria for notability and secondary sources.

I attempted to discuss the issue with the admin, but he would not provide a reasonable explanation for why the sources did not qualify. He ended the discussion by actually proving my argument. He said that "Wiki welcomes mainstream news sources" and then went on to dismiss my sources, which were from two established newspaper.

This is my first article, and I would be happy to fix any problems, but I reviewed the instructions before I posted it, and the reasons for deletion does not seem to fit the Wiki guidelines. Furthermore, I am a little put-out that the admin would be so quick to delete the article and refer it to deletion review process instead of supporting his reasons for deletion in a reasonable manner. That's actually an abuse of process, not to mention a waste of time and energy.

Most people would not call the admin's opinion that the only daily newspaper of a state capital is "hardly significant" and "not a mainstream news source" as reasonable or credible.

Thanks.

Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)"

Thanks. Hairoddohtus (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of common emoticons (closed)

Assyrian Christian Stele

The primary reason for the AFD was a complete lack of WP:RS and therefore a case of WP:OR. These serious problems were not addressed by those wanting to keep, merge, or redirect the article. The creating user still has not provided any reliable sources, and this violation stills hold true.

The article "Assyrian Christian Stele" was created on Jan. 5 by a user claiming it was the "correct" name for Nestorian Stele. He cited a source which supposedly used this name. Following AGF, I waited until I received a copy of the work cited through ILL, only to discover that the user was quite incorrect, and the author of this work used the term "Nestorian" was well. I then spent a considerable amount of time examining many other sources, including both online and many printed sources in my university library, and found not one single source using this term. Any uses of this name online are copies of this original Wikipedia article. I can't think of a more clear case of WP:OR. I almost listed it for speedy delete, but decided to go with AFD to give the user in question another chance to find just one source that uses this term.

The AFD was open for five days. The closing admin (MBisanz) claimed "consensus" existed for a redirect. This "consensus" is: 3 deletes (counting myself), 1 keep from the user who created the page (but has never provided sources), another keep only if the sources were correct (which they aren't) and 2 merges/redirects from users who seemed to think this was a naming dispute, and not a WP:OR violation. I discussed on MBisanz's talk page how the keep/merge/redirect votes failed to address the lack of sources (or seemed to assume there were sources and that this AFD was a naming dispute), and how the WP:OR and WP:RS issues were still not resolved. He claimed a redirect was better than a closure of "no consensus" - again, not addressing the OR problem here.

Even as a redirect, this article title completely fails WP:RS and clearly violates WP:OR. I would like to re-list to more clearly explain the problems with this title and the purpose for the AFD, and make sure that the resolution of these two serious issues, one way or another, is the focus of the AFD. Otebig (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

support relist per nom, this was clearly a delete-or-keep issue. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deleting editor has misrepresented the facts. The work cited, Henry Hill, Light from the East, was cited to prove the name "Nestorian" was pejorative. Hill does NOT use the term "Nestorian Stele" to describe the stone, or at least not in the 1988 edition I possess. Hill rightly corrects the misuse of the term "Nestorian" with respect to the Assyrian Church of the East, the church which is described on that stele. That is how Hill's work reads and that is correct. The scholarship the deleting editor refers to is from the first half of the 20th century or older and is now discredited in scholarly circles dealing with this topic as obsolete. The deleting editor was requested not to delete the article until the opportunity arose to consult with the national university library which was closed at the time. The deleting editor decided not to accede to that request and quickly deleted the article without consensus. The 1911 Britannica is hardly a reliable piece of up-to-date scholarship, and the anti-Assyrian propaganda of western European missionaries of the 19th and 20th century is certainly not NPOV. Kevin Baker, A History of the Orthodox Church in China, Korea, and Japan, Edwin Mellen Press, 2006, ISBN 0-7734-5886-7, p36-37, avoids the pejorative term "Nestorian" and instead says "This stele was discovered by a Jesuit archeologist in 1625, at a site near Xi'an, the current name for the ancient capital, and hence the reason for its appelation as the "Xi'an Stone", (or sometimes in the older spelling style "Hsi-an"). The more recent more reliable scholarship I have which describes the stone as the Assyrian Christian Stele is not written in English. Some is written in Syriac and some in Arabic. Finding English usages is problematic. Since the deleting editor is so fixed on removing the article at the earliest possible time without consensus, I suppose the article will be made to disappear again before the long and involved search is completed for a reliable, contemporary English scholarly presentation which does not use the word "Nestorian" to tag the stone. The article should remain to allow scholarly research to proceed rather than quick internet searches of obsolete discredited heresiology. Gubernatoria (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there's still a discussion to be had here, and I'd love to respond and deal with the issues in a re-list.Otebig (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was not a consensus to delete this page, but I think redirecting was entirely wrong here, and would overturn that and relist at AFD. Stifle (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ikariam

This article was speedily deleted under A7, though I don't believe it should have been. It indicated why the subject was notable, and was backed up by a numer of reliable secondary sources [1] [2] [3] [4]. The admin who deleted them says he doesn't regard them as reliable, though they meet the definition prescisely; Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. These reviews were published by well known and respected gaming web sites, who of course are trustworthy and authoritative in the subject at hand. Besides, even if it is decided that this isn't notable, this should have gone to AfD rather than been speedied, because it certainly doesn't meet A7. The article can be viewed here Patton^t/c 12:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list. If you are arguing about the sources then it requires discussion to delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While Accounting4Taste's talk message suggests that this article has been through two AFDs, I can't find them. As such, overturn and send to AFD. I'd be inclined to change if the previous AFDs were pointed out. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article clearly has enough sources to warrant at least an AfD. I'd even say, given this and this, DRV doesn't even need to mandate an AfD. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British National Party election results

Page was deleted with minimal discussion and spurious reasons from original nominator. One contributor even commented that "I can't think of what criteria this breaks." The page WAS unreferenced, but this could have been addressed in a matter of minutes and has now been done (see: User:Emeraude/British National Party election results). It was also described as unencyclopaedic (with no reason given) and as a violation of BLP policy - absolute nonsense that would mean the deletion of every article that named a candidate in any democratic election!

The same "debate" also resulted in deletion of British National Front election results; revised version is at User:Emeraude/British National Front election results. I would also like to include that in this request for reinstatement on the same grounds. Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first couple of sections only mention the paper and the date, a proper source also mentions page numbers and article headlines (or if it is online URL and headlines). The idea that there are no parallel entries for other parties is a faulty reason since if such article should exist, one has to be the first. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Minimal discussion for deletion and the page can easily be sourced. For example results from 1983 onwards are online here and results prior to that online here Valenciano (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation provided every entry is properly sourced. Unsourced content should be removed, and if the entire article is unsourced it should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Entire contents of both articles is sourced - see versions on my user pages indicated above. Emeraude (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:CITE. PhilKnight (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Minimal discussion for deletion. From what I have seen of the NF test page it would make a fine article, if the BNP article would be of the same quality then that too would be worthy. The NF article documents the rise and fall of a far-right British party, perhaps this could be better done with text or graphs but they could be added onto this skeleton article quite easily.-EchetusXe (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? I would also be grateful to have details of why this nomination was made only now for an AFD over four months ago. Stifle (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not omit a request to the admn: See User talk:MBisanz/Archive 4#Undeletion request. Why has it taken me a while? Come on, there is more to life than Wikipedia!! Emeraude (talk)
  - Thank you. Endorse deletion as a unanimous decision; nothing has been pointed out to indicate that the deletion policy wasn't followed. Stifle (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation of a reliably sourced version. There was a clear consensus to delete at AfD based on established policies including those on verifiablility and biographies of living people; a reliably sourced version would seem to largely satisfy the issues brought up and would require a new AfD discussion if a user thought the content should still be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Apart from the bizarre "I can't think of what criteria this breaks" (but let's delete it anyway), the only rationale offered was that the article was unsourced. The correct response to an unsourced article is to tag it as {{unreferenced}}, and move to deletion only if references are not forthcoming after a period of time. A few simple checks would have shown that the article could quite easily be sourced, and since there were only three responses to the nomination and none of them addressed this crucial question, the closing admin should have relisted rather than closing as "delete". Whether or not the original decision is overturned, I see no reason to oppose restoration of the version to which Emeraude has now added references. The article should use <ref></ref> tags rather than listing sources in the table, but that's a stylistic tweak. Congrats to Emeraude on rescuing this article, which serves an important encylopedic purpose of tracking the electoral fortunes of a highly controversial minority party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn per BrownHairedGirl.--John (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Power Chamber

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for less than four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, the closure was also erroneous in that the principal argument for deletion - the lack of independent reliable sources, as required by both WP:V as well as the proposed compromise guideline WP:FICT - was not addressed by any of the "keep" opinions and that accordingly, the discussion should have been closed as "delete". The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. In this case an early closure was inappropriate because fiction is a highly controversial topic and likely to attract people with another opinion if the discussion was left open. The keep voters also didn't address the fact none of the sources were independent. A certain degree of primary sourcing is unavoidable in fiction, but those sources shouldn't be the only thing an article relies on. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I messed up my days (hence my early closures on that particular day), but I still feel there was a clear consensus. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With only the nominator arguing for deletion there could have been no way to close as delete. Endorse current state of affairs, although perhaps not the way we got there. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mariah Carey tours

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that continued discussion would have resulted in a "merge" consensus instead of a "keep" that is not really supported by the three comments that were made. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep closure. The nominator nominated the page for being too short, and the commenters rightly said that it was appropriate to spin out material if it makes the main article too long. If this is going to be relisted, it needs to be for another reason, or after more than 2-3 months. In my view this is a proper application of IAR. (If the main article doesn't contain references, it could be renominated per WP:V) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse though trout slap closer for needlessly ignoring the correct debate timeframe. Endorse only on the basis that there is no valid reason for deletion in the nomination - Peripitus (Talk) 11:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. Stifle (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: The Health Impact of 9/11

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about three days instead of five days. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the almost two days the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. While it was appropriate to ignore the keep comments in this particular case, because they cited google hits instead of actual content, closing it 2 days early was a mistake because it doesn't allow people with proper keep arguments to make their case. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per MGM - contested Afd with 2 days cut from the debate - procedurally poor - Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist per above. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Fuck It?!

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the day the debate had still left to run, or that a merger would have been decided upon. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Almost everyone, including the nominator, only cited one of the numerous WP:MUSIC guidelines that indicate notability, which means they weren't thourough in assessing the article's potential. And with the nominator saying a merge is potentially possible that the idea that deletion should be a last resort wasn't applied. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Mgm.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse delete I endorse Julian's decision. The result of the debate is obvious, 4 days are enough, consensus has been determined correctly. No need for overturning. — Aitias // discussion 18:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is ignoring 11 criteria and cherrypicking one to support your view in any way proper? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, the closure is very clear. No one thought it should be kept; why would it be closed as such? Wizardman 04:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Center for Academic Excellence

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days and two hours instead of five days. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the 22 hours the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. There were multiple sources provided which several editors thought indicated notability for the center. Some didn't agree. The fact that opinions were divided amongst established editors and discussion was still ongoing are a clear sign that this shouldn't have been closed early. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen for the remainder of the debate (Mgm may be looking at the first Afd which was contested). This one was one nominator and 2 agreeing. While it is still likely that it will be closed delete, I agree with Sandstein that the early closure was unnecessary and possibly destructive - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now linked to the contested discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indus Center for Academic Excellence (2nd nomination). Sorry. Sandstein 12:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Yes, technically it should've been open another day, but the close was right. Wizardman 19:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Mayor(film)

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the day the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion and relist. In this case Julian isn't the only one to blame, what he deleted was a redirect to a page deleted by User:Woody, but Woody deleted American Mayor (film) as a G4 speedy when the new version didn't in the slightest resemble the originally deleted entry. In the discussion closed by Julian Two people mistakenly called it a hoax and only one editor bothred to research. One editor is not enough to establish consensus. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, the close is good, even though it was closed a little early. Outcome would've been the same. Wizardman 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nader bell

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only four days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that someone would have provided the sources needed for keeping the article during the day the debate had still left to run. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least one more day. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The debate was a tad on the short side, but the editors didn't just pile on. Comments were well-researched and it was a clear case of SNOW. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, restoring would be process wonky. If anyone actually has the sources (rather than saying someone might find them), I might be inclined to change my view. Stifle (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, DRV is the place to be process wonky, is it not? This is, after all, the place dedicated to reviewing violations of deletion process. If we don't do that, why do we bother with policy any more? Sandstein 15:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clearer, I don't see a point in relisting and putting the article through another deletion process only for it to be deleted again. Saying that there are sources is a lot different to citing them. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point is us confirming that our deletion policy is a policy, not just a suggestion. At the AN thread linked to above, somebody pointed out that a majority of AfDs seem to be closed early now, which is unfair to all editors who are not given a chance to comment, and which will tend to decrease the quality of AfD outcomes. If we don't overturn such out-of-process deletions here at DRV, we might just as well give up the pretension that this is not AfD round 2 conducted by an in-crowd. Sandstein 20:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - DRV works much like any appelate court, simple error doesn't demand reversal unless prejudice can be shown. Because we are not a beauracracy the threschold for prejudice is rather high but it's certainly possible to reach. If there is a reasonable chance that the outcome would be different following the correct process it should be relisted and done right, if not no point in taking up more time at AfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, it would've been the same outcome anyway. Wizardman 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes of Might and Magic IV: Winds of War

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about three and a half days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, is not inconceivable that continued discussion would have resulted in a "merge" consensus instead of a "keep" that is not really supported by the two comments that were made. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. It appears there was a prior consensus for a merge. If consensus merges are repeatedly undone, the resulting redirect can be protected. Either way, we don't need to reopen a deletion debate to establish whether a merge is appropriate. The important thing is that the material is kept and still available to merge if so desired (there's not a snowball's chance in hell of a deletion outcome since the history needs to be retained because of the previous merge. While a merge may be the outcome of a deletion debate, opening a debate to specifically discuss a merge is not what AFD is supposed to be used for. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, relisting would be process for process's sake. If the nominator, or anyone else, feels that a merger is in order, they can do so or start a discussion on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Stifle. Merge discussions should be taken up elsewhere. GlassCobra 17:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, closure is valid despite it being a lil early. Wizardman 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by Israel

This AfD (like several others closed by Juliancolton on that day) was open for only about three days instead of five. Juliancolton has declined to undo these closures, which is why I am bringing them here for review. Current policy (see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion) as well as current consensus (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) provide that AfD discussions must run for at least five days, and that this procedural rule should be strictly adhered to in order to ensure sufficient participation and the building of adequate consensus.

In this particular case, the topic is a very controversial one, and while the deletion looks prima facie reasonable based on the discussion as it stands (though it is not clear why WP:POVFORK, invoked without further comment by many, is a reason to delete instead of, say, merge), many semi-regular editors who might have contributed better arguments for either retention or deletion have been deprived of that opportunity. The closure should be undone and the article relisted on AfD for at least two more days. Sandstein 09:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. It's inadvisable to speedy close discussions on controversial topics. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - the debate was not dead, the time was not up and the closure was inadvised - Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and good riddance. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist no grounds for closing early, especially on controversial topics we should ensure full time is allowed for discussion. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Davewild, and how can there be an article on this for the USA and not Israel? Only bias can possibly explain that, as for everytime the USA has been called a terrorist state Israel has been called a terrorist state another 50 times.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I don't think two more days would have rescued it. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - there was a clear consensus to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Pancake

Redirect was G10 deleted, despite multiple editors arguing that it was not solely an attack page. Black Kite has declined to undelete and has encouraged me to seek review here. Redirect should be restored and then listed at RfD. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Rachel Corrie is a controversial individual. Since her death, she has been called many impolite things. LittleGreenFootballs apparently started calling her Saint Pancake a goodly number of years ago, and the term has stuck. There's plenty examples of Corrie being called Saint Pancake on any number of right-wing blogs, user comments pages of Ha'aretz, and the like. The two redirects, Saint Pancake and St. Pancake each existed peacefully for over three years, before being spotted and tagged as G10's. The arguments in favor of or against the redirect being appropriate for Wikipedia are nuanced, and Wp:RfD is really the right place for them. The inappropriate and preemptive use of G10 against a redirect that exists as a redirect from an alternate (admittedly disparaging) name has quashed that debate.

Therefore, I believe it is most appropriate to overturn and send to Redirects for Discussion. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I was really quite surprised by the peremptory nature of the deletion even as discussion was ongoing as to its merits on several forums. I believe RfD is definitely the right place to hash it out. Ray (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List at RfD and discuss it properly. Not all that obvious a G10. Though I think I incline to delete at the moment, we need a discussion.DGG (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted and salt CSD G10 applies fully. We should nothave to reach consensus on this. Its an attack, and it doesn't belong here. Or are we playing Nomic and if we like an attack we ignore CSD G10?--Cerejota (talk) 07:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Saint Pancake was already unilateraly salted by Black Kite subsequent to its deletion. St. Pancake remains unsalted at this point. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted and salt. Shit like that has no place here. --TS 07:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The "Saint Pancake" epithet is not mentioned (let alone sourced) in the article Rachel Corrie, which makes the redirect disparaging and a legitimate G10 subject. Were it otherwise, though, a RfD would have been necessary. Sandstein 09:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a G10 deletion. We don't use blog-sourced only epithets as redirects - Peripitus (Talk) 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, which to choose? Pseudo-bureaucratic waffling in support of grotesque childish mockery of the dead, or simple human decency? Not hard, really. Endorse deletion and salt. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a G10 (note: my own deletion). WP:CSD#G10 clearly states "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage ... their subject or some other entity". Since the name only exists in unreliable sources (i.e. the blogosphere - it has no Google News hits whatsoever) and serves no purpose but to disparage Corrie, then the page can only exist for the same purpose, and therefore this is as clear a textbook G10 as I have ever seen. Black Kite 14:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is an excellent argument for an RfD, one that I will admit is the strongest one I've heard for deletion, and one of the reasons this redirect should get its "day in court" in RfD. Sourcing concerns are not properly the domain of CSD's. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted as a clear attack page. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether or not Saint Pancake is a legitimate G10 is not a conversation for DRV. The only thing necessary for a G10 CSD (or any CSD, for that matter) to be overturned is that editors disagree with the appropriateness of G10. None of the "keep deleted/endorse" votes address this fundamental flaw in process and should be discarded by the closing admin. DRV is not the place for arguments over reliable sources; RfD is. Jclemens (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So whether it's a legitimate G10 isn't an issue for DRV, but whether it's an inappropriate one is? Doesn't that strike you as pretty flawed? Regardless, most of the Endorse votes have commented that it was a legitimate G10 per policy, regardless of sourcing, and as such should not be discarded. Black Kite 16:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, come again? If I accept what you're saying, please explain what circumstances would lead "keep deleted/endorse" !votes to be valid. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Stifle, that would require a finding that every single editor who's objected to the G10 has been doing so in bad faith. I think that is an unreasonable finding, since I've made it clear that I believe it's a legitimate redirect, acknowledged its offensiveness, and argued at length on the NPOV noticeboard why the rationales given for deletion are inappropriate and not based on policy. Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jclemens seems to be saying that CSD should work like prod and any speedy deletion should be overturned based on a single good faith objection. This is, of course, not hoe the process actually works. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Eluchil404, thanks for actually understanding the issue. Yes, since three editors have argued that it should get a fair hearing at RfD, the WP:CSD "reasonable doubt" clause applies: "These criteria are worded narrowly, so that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does and does not meet a given criterion. Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead." Every !vote to keep this deleted is either an inappropriate deviation from policy, or an accusation that I am acting in bad faith. If it's the latter, I'd really rather people explicitly stated the latter--else I'm left to presume in good faith that the emotional reactions to the offensive nature of the redirect have blinded otherwise reasonable editors to the clear requirements that CSD's not be contested. Jclemens (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, I see the misunderstanding. A "contested CSD" is one where the CSD tag is removed before the deletion. If the page is actually deleted, then DRV is the correct venue, and Endorse, Overturn and Send to XfD are completely valid responses. Just because someone objects to a deletion at DRV does not make that CSD "contested". Black Kite 00:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To further amplify my response, if you look at WP:CSD or the section of it that I quoted above, the word "contested" is not used in that section, let alone used in the technical sense of removing a speedy tag. It merely speaks to a reasonable doubg existing. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Without accusing you of bad faith, since I honestly believe you did what you thought was best, I undeleted the redirect once. If that didn't demonstrate that it was appropriately contested, what would have? Note that G10's are often acted upon within seconds or minutes--requiring that someone notice and respond within that time period is unreasonable. Technically, re-deleting a redirect that another admin had restored is WP:Wheel warring. Again, I believe you did so in good faith, but there can be no inherent legitimacy for such an action. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I re-deleted a page deleted as an G10 attack page, which had been restored without consulting the deleting admin, with an edit summary that showed that you misunderstood the reason for deleting it (BLP is irrelevant). I'm still assuming good faith here, but adding that to your recent comments at ANI about "those who believe such disparagement should be accurately reflected in an NPOV encyclopedia" I have to ask (especially since you asked the question at ANI) - why do you think this redirect has merit? Black Kite 01:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        (ec) You re-deleted an article another admin (me) had undeleted: that's WP:wheel warring as is specifically called out on that page. Wheel warring is like 3RR--there's a clear definition of the boundary, and you crossed it--again, I'm not calling it a bad faith action, merely one not permitted by administrators' mutual expectation collegial respect for admin actions of others. I'd left comments amplifying my reasoning for both the G10 nominator and the deleting admin, (prior to your re-deletion, I believe) in addition to the space-limited edit summary. As far as my personal motivations, I happen to live in Washington State, where the term is probably better known than most places. It has a legitimate use as a redirect, such that if people go to Wikipedia looking for Saint Pancake, they can find her, while not actually being in the article such that people who hadn't previously been exposed to the name won't be unless they select "what links here". If you'll look at my contributions on Wikipedia, I think you'll find me very anti-censorship, and that politely opposing the removal of a perfectly good redirect is well within character. "Desparate" is an inappropriate characterization. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a G10. Also per CalendarWatcher. PhilKnight (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion "Whether or not Saint Pancake is a legitimate G10 is not a conversation for DRV. The only thing necessary for a G10 CSD (or any CSD, for that matter) to be overturned is that editors disagree with the appropriateness of G10" is self-contradictory. Keep deleted. GlassCobra 17:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification DRV should only need to establish that the G10 is contested to refer the redirect to RfD. The legitimacy of the G10 is contested, and the appropriate full review process, RfD, should be used to evaluate the validity of the arguments. Nothing contradictory about that, sorry if the wording was obtuse. Jclemens (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that isn't how DRV works in relation to CSD deletions, I'm afraid. See my comment above. Black Kite 00:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per GlassCobra. Just let it go. Wizardman 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]