Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 30: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m fix header
→‎[[Yellow Pigs Day]]: closing (del. endorsed)
Line 14: Line 14:
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
-->
-->
====[[Yellow Pigs Day]]====

: [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Pigs Day]]

This article was deleted despite absence of consensus and despite strong arguments in its favor.

The bulk of discussion participants favored keeping the article. The strongest argument in favor of deletion was a claim of unverifiability, which if true would have merited deletion under [[WP:DP]]. However, this argument was more than adequately rebutted in the discussion, with citations to internationally acclaimed sources such as the [[Association for Computing Machinery]] and the [[Harvard Crimson]], as well as to miscellaneous online sources. The subject of the article is not merely verifiable, but verified.

Deletion here seems not to be in accord with the "rough consensus to delete" requirement of [[WP:DP]] and [[WP:DGFA]]. Here, it seems to me that there was a rough consensus to ''keep'' ... or, at the very least, an utter ''absence'' of consensus to delete. Without such consensus, our policies & guidelines call for an article such as this to be kept.

Also note [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yellow Pig|WP:AFD/Yellow Pig]], which favored merging and redirecting ''that'' article to this title (which was done) rather than deleting. It is unfortunate that this previous consensus was not brought up in the discussion. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a consensus to merge that article to this one, and then to delete this one ''without'' a consensus. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 05:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*I'm happy that you brought this to DRV as it was a difficult decision, and I'd like to outline my reasoning for closing it a delete. The relevant AfD had a large number of new user/IP contributions/questionable single use account contributions, and I considered them on the weight of the arguments provided. It was shown that Yellow Pigs Day was verifiable. The citations above were used to confirm it. However, I did not see any contributor to the AfD refuting the nominator's argument that the holiday was ''non-notable''. There was also no convicing argument brought up in the AfD that suggested that a Harvard Crimson article from 1982 and articles by the AMS (that funds Yellow Pigs Day) effectively established notability. I thought that was overriding per [[WP:DGFA]]. I didn't have a doubt when I closed it; but, upon reading Fubar Obfusco's post above, I now have doubts, and would not object to undeletion and a second AfD for further consensus. -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 06:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
**For reference, this is the article recreated in userspace [[User:Samir (The Scope)/Yellow Pigs Day]] -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 06:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Samir. I'm not sure how to answer your notability concerns, though. Because notability isn't mentioned anywhere in our [[Wikipedia:deletion policy|deletion policy]], it isn't clear how much notability would be required here, or even what would suffice to demonstrate it. I have some idea of how notability should work here, which I'll mention below.

I did notice, as you did, that there was one first-time participant in the discussion, who favored keeping and who presented a number of citations of verifiability. First-time participants are generally met with suspicion -- for good reason, since usually they don't say anything useful but just insist on their way, or presage a herd of sock puppets. In this case, though, the first-time participant ''did not'' just insist on his way and bring in a swath of sock puppets. S/he presented what seemed to be good-faith, reasonable citations regarding verifiability. Not so bad ... even though this person was immediately attacked and insulted, which is unfortunate.

But even disregarding that person, there still seems to have been substantial support for keeping, and certainly no consensus to delete. Now, there can be valid grounds to delete in the absence of rough consensus: [[WP:DGFA]] mentions copyright and verifiability, among others. But notability is not one of these grounds. My interpretation of this is that ''notability is meant to be judged by those discussing deletion, rather than overruling their discussion.'' If the discussion lacks consensus to delete, that is a statement in favor of the notability of the subject. --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 08:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*Just to clarify, there was one IP [[User:24.31.114.157]], one new user [[User:RVerser]], and two users who edited this AfD as a first edit after prolonged absences [[User:Qqwref]] and [[User:Fermatprime]]. All did, however, contribute effectively to the process. -- [[User:Samir_(The_Scope)|'''Samir''']] <small>[[User_talk:Samir_(The_Scope)|धर्म]]</small> 09:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''', local joke with no wider currency. Appropriate for the alumni website, not appropriate for a global general encyclopaedia. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 12:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' I can't see any valid keep arguments, and one of them (''"Keep - Yellow Pigs Day is an inside joke and a geek holiday (and thus would be unlikely to have reliable sources)"'') is the strongest argument ''for'' deletion in the AFD. [[User:Fan-1967|Fan-1967]] 13:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' per Fan-1967. A commendably bold and correctly reasoned close. --[[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning]]<sup>[[User talk:Samuel Blanning|(talk)]]</sup> 14:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' Note that the closer found the article to be verifiable, but non-notable. Doesn't that pretty much explode the arguments of editors who say that notability is just shorthand for verifiability, no original research, etc.? When the closer admits that the article is within policy, consensus should control. It's not the keep arguments that need to be strong at xfD, but rather the deletion arguments. [[WP:DGFA|The default is to keep]]. [[User:Vadder|Vadder]] 15:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
**'''???''' ''It's not the keep arguments that need to be strong at xfD, but rather the deletion arguments.'' Where do you get this from? The burden of proof for inclusion is always on the editor and in extension on keep voters. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
***I get that from the page I linked to, [[Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators]], where the section "Deciding whether to delete" ends with a boldfaced point: '''When in doubt, don't delete.''' The burden of making an article be within policy (i.e., verifiable, reliable sources, etc.) is on the editors of the article; the burden of establishing that the article is either outside policy or generally not wanted is on those arguing for delete. [[User:Vadder|Vadder]] 18:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
****Bit of a sweeping interpretation there but ok. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse Closure''' I still don't see a single reliable source to back the claim of notability. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 18:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' - Closing sysop has confirmed that the article is verifiable. From [[WP:N|notability essay]] : ''There is no official policy on notability. An article's failure to meet these suggested requirements is frequently used as an argument to delete said article on AfD, but bear in mind that the <u>only</u> requirement for material to be included in Wikipedia is that it is verifiable.''. IIRC consensus does not trump policy only when it fails [[WP:V|verifiably]] or [[WP:OR|no original research]]. - [[User:Mailer diablo|Mailer Diablo]] 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
**That does not relieve the editors from having to verify their claims to notability. "Yellow Pigs Day is an unofficial holiday" is not under dispute. What is under dispute is "Yellow Pigs Day is a holiday celebrated by thousands internationally." The claim that George Bush is the POTUS is not verified by existence of a birth certificate. The closing statement is clearly off on this, but that doesn't give the article a free pass on [[WP:RS|sourcing]]. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 06:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
**:Uhm ... you start out talking about notability, and end up talking about verifiability. Which one do you want to talk about? These are different things. Verifiability has been addressed over and over again here. The Harvard Crimson and the ACM are pretty strong sources, among others.
**:If the subject matter were unverifiable, there would be reason to delete despite the lack of consensus to delete. But the subject matter has been shown to be verifiable, so th
**:As for notability, it just plain isn't clear to me what would constitute a notability standard here. Notability is not mentioned anywhere in our deletion policy, so it seems to me that it's up to the deletion discussion to decide. And the result was no consensus, which defaults to "keep" -- not to "the closing admin decides". --[[User:Fubar Obfusco|FOo]] 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
:::There's two things. Using GWB's birth certificate I can verify ''George Bush is a man'' but not ''George Bush is the POTUS''. The first is a fairly uncontroversial fact but not enough to find entry into WP. The second is a claim to notability. Similarly, the sources establish that YPD originates at this camp, but they do not verify any of the other claims in the article, such as "has been celebrated at Princeton for 30 years." As such, even if I think the closing statement was off, this is a valid closure of the article. ~ [[User:Trialsanderrors|trialsanderrors]] 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn''' per F0o and Mailer Diablo. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Overturn and restore''' per MgM. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] 15:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse closure''' (keep deleted). All the evidence presented in the AFD discussion and the evidence rehashed here confirms that this is and remains "an inside joke and a geek holiday" as one AFD participant so eloquently put it. The links provided tangentially confirm the existence of this joke but do not qualify as [[Wikipedia:reliable source|reliable source]]s ''about'' the event nor do they confirm that this is a widespread or widely known joke which would be appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Reviewing the AFD discussion led me to the conclusion that it was fundamentally unsourcable. The closer correctly exercised admin discretion in this case. [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] <small>[[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]]</small> 16:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)





Revision as of 14:24, 4 September 2006

< August 29 August 31 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)

30 August 2006

Cherie Priest

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherie_Priest

Deletion was based on inaccurate data, examples, refutations, and other information follow:

  • "Non-notable author" - Subjective, and very much POV
  • "vanity book" - Incorrect, is publish by a large well respected publisher (Tor Books).
  • "book apparently based on a blog" - Incorrect. Author serialized first novel in a limited way on her LJ before publication.
  • "has an amazon.com SalesRank of 292,540" - Currently true, but peaked in the top 3 horror novels on Amazon, beating Anne Rice, Poppy Z Brite, and Stephen King.
  • "blog-based books aren't exactly a big enough genre (in my opinion) that being recognized within it means terribly much." - Opinion isn't fact, and should not be treated as such.

Other info:

  • Was recomended and pushed heavily by Warren Ellis, and many other well known authors.
  • Author has a 3 book deal with Tor books, and Four & Twenty Blackbirds is the first of a trilogy of which the second part will be published later this year.
  • Author has been published in short story compendiums with other famous genre (horror and fantasy) authors.
  • Author has worked with various Role Play companies to help produce fiction for fantasy worlds.
  • Won the Fiction Prize at the inaugural Blooker Awards.
  • Has been featured in many industry publications with glowing reviews.
  • Has sold two other full length novels to Tor for publication, aside from the trilogy.
  • Trilogy book all will have covers by John Jude Palencar, a artist of note and who has won awards.

Also the author and her work are featured in several other Wikipedia pages, if she is important enough to cite in multiple pages then it would make sense to have her own page. All in all: The article will get recreated soon anyway - probably by a fan after her next book release. It makes no sense to delete it, it makes more sense to expand it with more detail to prevent confusion based on lack of information that led to its deletion! Ignorance of a genres authors does not make that genres authors matter less! DarkCryst, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn, source & relist No fault with the closing admin but this is an AfD where the nom presented one side of the story and the editors all "per-nommed" without doing their own research. Article is still cached here and among the 200-odd Google hits is the Barnes & Noble listing which contains a good number of reader reviews plus three professional reviews. Also, as the last voter pointed out, Tor Books is not a vanity publisher but an imprint of Holtzbrinck, which is about as phat as it gets. For this to get by the next AfD I would ditch the Lulu Blook thingy though and stick with the professional reviews. ~ trialsanderrors 20:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). This is a bio of an author who has published only two books that I can find though there does seem to be a third on the way.
    - Four and Twenty Blackbirds has a current Amazon sales ranking of 412,704 or 764,869 depending on which edition you look at
    - Wings to the Kingdom has a current Amazon sales ranking of 103,209
    - Dreadful Skin has a presales Amazon sales ranking of 707,482
    The inclusion standards for authors reads "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". While this author did win one of the 2006 Lulu Blooker Prizes, this award is in it's first year and gave the author a mere $2,500. In my opinion, the Blooker Award does not yet have the stature to qualify as an award under this clause. The professional reviews that trialsanderrors cited are more interesting but a quick scan convinced me that almost all the books at B&N had equivalent reviews. They just wasn't enough for me to conclude that we should overturn the deletion decision. I can see the argument that we should overturn and relist but I can't convince myself that we'd reach a different decision. Give it some time for her other books to be published and see what the reaction is. We can always bring the article back later when it's no longer a borderline case. Rossami (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Overturn but Repost: this[1] seems to give multiple independent and high profile reviews. The award was covered by the Guardian[2] and the Hindustan Times[3] (honestly, no idea if that last one is a major or a minor publication). She has been interviewed by Sci Fi Wire (from the SciFi Channel) as well[4]. Second book is coming out soon, but I think that her first novel, published with a major publisher and receiving lots of attention, merits her inclusion. No overturn, as I haven't seen that the deletion was out of process, but a decent article with enough sources should easily survive a new AfD and ha its place on Wikipedia. Fram 14:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A repost would be deleted per CSD G4. You are allowed to overturn an AFD even if it was in process if it leads the result no matter how valid the process. - Mgm|(talk) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Publisher is with respected publisher and the price, while in its first year is backed by Lulu from which the price should at least get some credibility. And then there's the major press attention. - Mgm|(talk) 12:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong overturn. A published author with multiple books under one of the most well-known sci-fi/fantasy publishers? No evidence that the Tor books info was considered, and this shouldnt have been deleted anyway. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Tor Books is a real and respected publisher. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 13:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn most AfD "votes" were primarily based on the mistaken assumption that book was published by a vanity press and should be discounted. Eluchil404 17:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per claim of involvement with Tor Books, definitely a real publisher. This is a good example of new information coming to light, and an example of how DRV is supposed to work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Boston Massacre

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Boston Massacre

Contraversial page that had a game-by-game summary of the pivotal late-August series between the Yankees and Red Sox. I am posting this here because:

  • The page met all all the guidelines. It was verifiable, and it cited sources.
  • It's a very notable series between the teams.

I think the page should be reposted. If you want to view the page, I have it here so you can take a look at what was removed. BaseballFan830 10:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion. Reggae Sanderz 10:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (of AfD, here). Not at all out of process, went through the whole AfD process and was deleted consequentially with quite a large consensus. — FireFox (talk) 10:51, 30 August 2006
  • Overturn or at least relist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.196 (talk • contribs) .
  • Endorse closure: Yankee cruft and the vote was about 2½-to-1 ratio in favor of deleting with a couple of the keep votes looking suspect. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion per request. I read the article and don't see why it should be deleted. If it's notable, then it's eligable for an article and this one certainly qualifies. The question is not whether it should be deleted. It's whether the details are accurate. Axiomm 12:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the question - how do you figure this is notable? It's a typical middle-of-August regular season sweep when the Yankees were already up by 1½ games. Is it notable because it's 5 games instead of 4? That only happened because of a rain delay - who cares? This is less notable than either the Angels collapse of 1995 or the Blue Jays collapse in 1987 - and neither of those have their own article. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this is Yankees vs. Red Sox. Fans will be talking about it for years. Why are you so against this page? Besides we have a 2004 ALCS article and the collapse of the Angels is detailed in 1995 in baseball. Beside, it's turning out to be a huge turning point as far as the Yankees are concerned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs) .
Thanks for making my point for me - this is perfect content for 2006 in baseball as well as the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry article. But it's unheard of that a single mid-August regular season series has its own article. Most of the article was about the whole second half of the Yankees season anyway. I say make a more generalized 2006 New York Yankees article and stick the content of this article in there. And please sign your talk page comments. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and undelete. The fact the someone blanked the page and made it read-only plus the back and forth deleting it and reposting shows how contraversial the page and the issue surrounding it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.117.8 (talk • contribs) .
    • Controversial as any other Yankee/Red Sox-related article deletion... —Wknight94 (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One or two anons completly disregarding policy and engaging in petty vandalism is a far different thing from controversy. Indrian 23:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Wknight... August series that is sooo important now but who will remember in a year? Valid AfD. However, this should probably be a protected redirect to the Yanks/Sox rivalry page. --W.marsh 13:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. 'Overturn'ers appear to have mistaken this page for Articles for Deletion - this is a review of process, not content. And that process was this AfD, which was correctly closed, and no compelling reasons have been given to overturn the consensus - in fact, no reasons have been given at all that weren't under consideration by the AfD. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The 1978 Boston Massacre isn't covered - what makes this sweep more notable? A game-by-game synopsis of a regular season series is something that ESPN needs to cover - not an encyclopedia. Enough information on the series is already available on the Yanks/Sox rivalry page. Yankees76 14:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - The original AfD was more than sufficient in procedure and the consensus to delete was pretty clear. Arguments concerning content were already made in the AfD. Note: Since the original deletion, a number of article recreations were made, all with subtle changes to the original title. I hope that an admin take a few minutes and protect those now empty pages appropriately. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Valid AFD, clear consensus. Fan-1967 15:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion As the closing admin, I think that due process was followed throughout.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Appears to be massive puppetry here on a nom from a banned user -- reccomend speedy close. Also see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Axiomm. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No greater notability. --Improv 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure I am a rather passionate baseball fan, but there are so many things that occur during a season, they belong on the teams page and not in a seperate article. Yanksox 16:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure Valid AfD. Also the protocol for individual games or series is usually that they are listed among "best of all times". It's far too early for this one. (A's fan, so no stake in this.) ~ trialsanderrors 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. I am the original nominator, so I am obviously biased, but this seems like a spurious deletion review of a properly conducted and concluded AfD that was only "controversial" in the view of one or two anons that continually attempted to subvert the process with petty vandalism. Indrian 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure Everything was in process: no grounds for review. Eusebeus 18:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closure – The AFD discussion was closed correctly, and the subsequent salting of the page was also done in process. The fact that the page was recreated by placing a dash or a period at the end and then reposted by several sockpuppet accounts is beyond anything that would show that the AFD was done incorrectly. The article was cruft and the subsequent repostings all over was pure vandalism. Ryūlóng 22:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure No grounds for review here. The series may indeed be notable in the future but it doesn't hold water as an historic event yet, which is what the AfD concluded, albeit after numerous instances of anon-vandalism to the page. Ansell 08:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure Agree entirely with closure. Newsworthy, but not notable enough for an encyclopedia -- Samir धर्म 15:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: would writing an article about the 1978 debacle be okay? Reggae Sanderz 20:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Non notable regular season baseball series. -- No Guru 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. AfD was closed properly, this regular season series is not notable enough for an article. BryanG(talk) 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per BryanG. This information belongs in 2006 in baseball or Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. Regular-season series just are not notable, regardless of the teams involved. Several years ago, the Marlins were swept by the Phillies in a five-game series; but I don't think that got its own article. Although the Yankees are by far my least favorite team in baseball, WP:NOT a memorial for the Red Sox' 2006 season. The AfD was closed as a delete with roughly 1/3 of its votes as keeps (at least one of the keeps was an anon), so I think it was closed properly. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spyderchat

  • This deletion is in direct opposition to the consensus "vote", which was keep (3 keep to 2 delete).
  • The reason given for the delete was never mentioned in any of the delete comments and was never expressed prior to the delete.
  • The page itself went through significant revision during this process and is not sufficiently covered in a simple link to an external website.

Bottom Line: User:Samir (The Scope) deleted this article without any notice, without contributing to the consensus-building or discussion, and did so unilaterally in a manner contrary to the delete process and votes already made. It was purely blindsiding the article and those who have worked on it.

  • Thanks for the deletion review; I'm always happy to give my reasoning. This was an AfD of the Spyderchat website nominated for non-notability. The nominator (User:ERcheck), User:Trialsanderrors and User:Spartaz raised the point that notability was not established. No evidence that it met WP:WEB was found in the article (or in the revisions, which I reviewed), and no verifiable evidence was cited in the AfD by the other participants that it did. AfD is not a vote, but there was no majority even when counting votes (3-3 including nom), and I used discretion as above as the closing administrator. The reason for the delete was that the relevant notability guideline (WP:WEB) was not met. Regarding the bottom line: the AfD was appropriately closed after 9 days on AfD (thus notice was sufficient); AfD's should not be closed by administrators who've participated in the discussion; and as above, the decision was not unilateral. -- Samir धर्म 03:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The weight of the arguments is more important than the nose count, and arguments that cite policies, guidelines, and other standards are more weighty than those that ignore them. The nominator led the nomination with a reference to WP:WEB, the relevant standards, and none of those opining keep made any attempt to show how the article met it or even could meet it. The final opiner also demonstrated evidence of failing an attempt to get it to meet WP:WEB, making it rational to conclude that meeting WP:WEB was not possible. GRBerry 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Valid closure per strength of arguments:
    User:Samir (The Scope) deleted this article without any notice - There is no reqirement to notify anyone. If you're interersted in a discussion, monitor it. (Click on the "watch" tag above the AfD and check your watchlist frequently).
    without contributing to the consensus-building or discussion - The closing admin is required to remain neutral and not engage in the discussion.
    and did so unilaterally in a manner contrary to the delete process - The closing admin perfectly acted within the scope of WP:Deletion policy and WP:Deletion process.
    and votes already made - Closing an AfD is not a vote count. The closing admin has discretion to take strength of arguments and standing into account.
And finally, no attempt was made to source the claims of notability made in the article. Asserting notability is not the same as establishing notability. ~ trialsanderrors 17:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted). This was within reasonable admin discretion. The strongest "keep" argument was that this the largest chat site associated with a car. There was no assertion or evidence presented to show why any chat site about the car would be encyclopedic, much less evidence supporting this one. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, appropriate admin response to the discussion since only one of the keep votes had standing, and since there were no verifiable sources provided. If you can come up with something to prove that it's notable, write it up in User space then bring it back here for review. Until such a time, the close was completely appropriate. BTW, it's usually considered best if the closing admin does not participate in the AfD discussion. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I understand the above, I believe that the notability of the article was growing, and had the article been able to remain, would have been far more encompassing. There is a vast array of information on the actual car on the site, as well as non-forum areas with technical information, detailed guides to maintenance, modifications, etc. that go far beyond a simple BB system. The article was originally nominated for non-notability because it was less than a stub and not serious. That changed significantly. That was still in the process of changing. Wiki has many, many articles that are so much smaller, so much more hollow, so much more worthless, but with potential. I/we feel that the Spyderchat article had the same potential and in its final form already far outshone many of the stubs found on Wiki.
    • I accept, though grudgingly, the deletion decision st this time, but I would ask that the page's content be made available (forgot what it's called where one can make the content undeleted temporarily or something so one can see what had been deleted) so I may copy it locally for reference. (It took a lot of time and work to build up what I did and I'd at least to have that personally.) I would very much appreciate this assistance.
    • Lastly, in particular to Samir, I want to say that I hope I didn't sound to antagonistic or aggressive earlier. Admittedly, it was very late at night when I wrote that, so I may not have phrased it as best I could have. Please don't take offense as I didn't mean to offend. I felt that deleting it for a reason that had never been discussed was blindsiding those working to keep it, but I didn't mean that to be a personal attack, but rather a "receiving end" perspective of the deletion, not the deletor. I just wanted to make sure I was clear on that, and let you know that I appreciate your comments that elaborated on the situation.
    • VigilancePrime 04:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leave a note on any admin's Talk page and most will copy the deleted content into an email to you for any good-faith request such as this. I'd be happy to do it for you if you let me know where to send it. Rossami (talk) 12:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Didn't view anything as a personal attack, don't worry. I'd be happy to send you a copy of the text if you would like -- Samir धर्म 13:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, valid conclusion per policy and per guidelines. AfD is not a vote, no credible arguments were advanced for the encyclopaedic notability of this website. Just zis Guy you know? 14:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and give Dr. The Scope a gold star for refering to the relevant guideline in his closing comment. The non-notable website of the nom should probably be understood as website that doesn't mee the requirements of WP:WEB but actual links to policy/guiline pages are very usefull. Eluchil404 17:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured articles

I tried to find out more about what was required of an article for it to meet featured article specifications but twice, a redirect has been deleted from Featured articles to Wikipedia:Featured article. Inclusion of the redirect would have saved me the great deal of time that it took me to get here and protest against its deletion and would also save future users the hassle of discovering the Wikipedia:Featured article page, particularly troublesome to newcomers. --Username132 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Was there an RfD for this? Looks like a cross-namespace redirect that was speedied. ~ trialsanderrors 18:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment RfD here. Whispering(talk/c) 21:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (undelete). The noses where counted properly in the RfD but the conclusion contradicts policy on When should we delete a redirect?. While that section does suggest that cross-namespace redirects may be deletable in some circumstances, the section immediately below covers the exceptions. Bullets 1 (useful history), 3 (aid searching), 5 (someone finds them useful) and probably 4 (breaking old links) in the "Avoid deleting such redirects" section apply to this case. Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects is the most comprehensive discussion of the relative merits and demerits of CNRs. The case for their deletion is, in my opinion, far from settled. Rossami (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlink, i.e. delete the {{deletedpage}}), as with prior cross-namespace redirects. Those who want to make sure it doesn't reappear can watchlist it. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlink, just like all other cross-namespace redirects. If you disagree with that policy, start a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Redirect. -Sean Curtin 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted, no opinion on deleted template vs Redlink - Cross namespace redirects should be deleted on sight. --Improv 02:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have nothing more to say than Improv already said. Keep deleted. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted as for all cross-namespace redirects. (Liberatore, 2006). 13:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Articles frequently have a cross-namespace link at the top (e.g. using the selfref template) incase someone was looking for Wikipedia help. Would it be acceptable to undelete the page and apply such a manually-operated link? --Username132 (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's one of the better solutions, but only if you can write an article about featured articles that would stand up at AfD (bearing WP:ASR in mind). I'm not sure that the phrase has enough relevance outside Wikipedia for that to be possible. --ais523 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redlink unless an article can be written. --ais523 11:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Redlink per WP:RfD. Eluchil404 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed compromise Can we set the redirects here → Article? I think cross namespace dab headers are fairly common and the best solution to article space searches for/links to WP space topics. As long as we can find something in the article space they can go to, adding a dab header there seems a far better solution than redlinking. ~ trialsanderrors 01:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted or redirect to an encyclopedic article. A cross-namespace redirect is unacceptable. --Cyde Weys 02:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopening for the purpose of gathering more opinion here. Xoloz 17:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_August_30&oldid=73760021"