Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 6

6 July 2009

Category:Jewish surnames

Category:Jewish surnames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was clearly no consensus to delete this important category, the loss of which would hamper our users' navigation regarding this well-documented topic (see the long list of reputable sources in the deletion discussion); historic bias on the part of some editors and admins toward deletion of Jewish-related content at Wikipedia. Numerous surnames are verifiably Jewish in origin and historical association, and our encyclopedia should thus, as we always have, provide a category by which to locate such names. The closing admin often rules against consensus in support of his/her extremist position in favor of the huge deletion of valid, well-established and sourced ethnic group-related categories (even placing 14 thousand surnames in a single "Surnames" category last week following the hasty and poorly thought out elimination, against consensus, of dozens of valid subcategories), and is thus damaging our encyclopedia for our users and editors, as well as undermining the impartiality we expect of our admins. The "consensus" to delete this category was clearly only to be found in the imagination, hope, and wish of the closing admin--very improper for our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 22:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn The closing was not correct. If there was consensus, it was for keep. GO should not have closed; he has a known prior position about this type of category, as shown in a previous CfD. it is like my doing a keep closing of an AfD of a fictional character. We may in each case be right, but it shouldn't be us who's doing it. In this case, I think he was wrong in both instances, wrong about consensus in both, and wRrong about policy. I regret the issue of Jewish-related ethnic prejudice was raised, at the discussion and then here. The prejudice is not against material or categories on Jews--it is against all ethnic material or categories about whatever ethnic group. That we shouldn't use such categories is not policy. This may need wider attention. DGG (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - You've been at WP long enough to know that I am not imagining a bias, on the part of some editors, consistently and actively over a period of years, to edit WP primarily in an effort to remove Jewish-related content, including categories. Whether or not this closing admin is one of those editors has not been verified, yet his/her actions do seem indicative of such a bias, which is disturbing and destructive to our encyclopedia, and our users' effective navigation of such. Badagnani (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't the place to accuse other editors of antisemitism. DRV deals with content; antisemitism would be a conduct matter, and so would belong at WP:DR.

  Having said that, I do not even remotely see a consensus to delete in that CfD, and so my recommendation is overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I am not accusing anyone of anything, including anti-semitism. In fact, it seems that some of the editors mentioned above have attempted, as they have vigorously over a period of years, to delete Jewish-related content (including categories) for the opposite reason: that they do not wish people to be identified as Jewish for fear or some possible repercussions that might result from such exposure. Whether or not that idea has merit is a personal matter, not something that should be allowed to damage our encyclopedia, or its navigation and functionality for our users, who must always be foremost in our minds with every edit we make. Badagnani (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. The CfD participants offered detailed policy-based arguments for keeping the categories. Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators enjoins admins to respect the judgment of Wikipedia participants. That didn't happen here, the closer doesn't make as much as a passing allusion to the arguments of those recommending that the category should be kept. Haukur (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Is this DRV take two? If so, speedy close this. --Kbdank71 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - No, that was a highly improper close, less than one hour after the review was initiated. As per our policy, this review must be given five full days for comment and evaluation. Please check the history again. Badagnani (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, It seems that the original DRV was given more than five days. You even gave your opinion there. So what is with filing this duplicate DRV? --Kbdank71 02:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The close was highly improper. We must be able to trust our admins, yet again and again we have hasty and improper closes, often completely against consensus. In this case, CfD participants offered detailed policy-based arguments for keeping the categories, yet this was ignored, likely by one admin covering for another's improper behavior. We must insist on the impartial behavior on the part of our administrators, following our own community's rules. Badagnani (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and that DRV has already run and been closed. This is a duplicate DRV, filed presumably because you didn't like the outcome of the first. But since that isn't getting through to anyone, Endorse deletion and speedy close as duplicate DRV. --Kbdank71 10:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - the original CFD was long and detailed and this out-of-process "wah wah I want the category so I'll keep making it over and over again until I get my way" constant re-creation should be shut down now. There was nothing wrong with the original deletion and this continued "I want it, give it back" re-creation strategy should be recognized for what it is. Accusations of anti-Semitism on the part of those wanting the category are both unfounded and an abject failure to assume good faith. Appeals to bigotry should not be rewarded and the actions of editors who make such appeals should be considered highly questionable. Otto4711 (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and Recreate The CfD provided a dozen reliable and verifiable books on the subject demonstrating that this is beyond any doubt a defining characteristic and no argument has been offered to explain why they have been ignored this time. The only rationalization offered by the closing admin is that it had something to do with Category:Surnames by country, and "Jewish" is still not a country. It is truly disturbing that the same disruptive element at CfD that has no problem whatsoever with seeing categories nominated over and over and over for deletion until the only acceptable result of deletion is achieved, can possibly insist that any attempt to recreate -- or to deal with clear administrative misconduct in this case -- is somehow "out-of-process". The increasingly contrived efforts to concoct excuses for deletion have gone beyond any point of reasonableness. Admins who are pushing a personal agenda rather than objectively evaluating consensus have no place closing CfDs where they confuse closing discussions with casting a supervote in which any consensus or source can be ignored. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Accusing admins of acting improperly by casting so-called "supervotes" is quite serious. Accusations that admins are engaged in "misconduct" are even more serious. Do you have evidence that admins are casting such "supervotes"? Do you have evidence other than your personal opinion that admins are engaged in "misconduct"? Please present that evidence, either here or at an appropriate venue for discussing admin conduct. Please either present a foundation for your accusations or refrain from making them. Otto4711 (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Res ipsa loquitor. Read the CfD under discussion. Look at the votes. Look at the dozen book-length sources provided. Justify the close. I spent months working on the Otto problem. The problem was raised and ignored by many of the same admins with problems closing CfDs. Evidence was gathered, presented and a lengthy block was imposed. This CfD under discussion is but one unfortunate additional piece of evidence in dealing with a far more disruptive problem than mere chronic incivility. In due time the evidence will be presented. Alansohn (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for confirming the obsession that led you to spend months stalking me. And yet, for all those months of bizarre focus, you seem unable to present any evidence that the admin who closed this discussion acted improperly or that any admin has engaged in misconduct. I'm used to your obsessive conduct directed toward me, but your personal obsessions do not constitute evidence that this CFD was closed improperly or that any admin has engaged in misconduct. Either put up the evidence to support your wild accusations or stop making them. Otto4711 (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please refrain from strange personal attacks and keep to the issue: was the close of the discussion regarding the deletion of this category proper or improper, and exactly why (sticking to the various details brought up in the deletion discussion as much as possible)? Badagnani (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Calling a self-admitted stalker a stalker is not a personal attack. Please present actual evidence that the deletion was in error, rather than simply opening and re-opening DRVs in the hope that you'll get some admin to ignore history and agree with your "gimme gimme gimme the category" demands. Otto4711 (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Kindly read all the discussion here (not just skimming it), as well as examining the original discussion and close before posting such questions here, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy close. We just had an unnecessary DRV about this. Nothing here that shouldn't be able to be worked out at Category talk:Surnames, as closer of previous DRV noted. (I take any accusation of bias against me with a truckload of salt, since they are apparently sincere but misinformed.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The closing was highly improper, as you well know, as you have improperly closed several categories in quite similar manner in recent weeks. Such closing as admin "supervote" against consensus, always in a WP:POINTy effort, apparently made according to a misguided personal opinion that ethnicity "should not" matter in the real world, to damage and water down our categorization system as regards well-documented ethnicities, hampering our users' navigation of this largest, and in many ways best encyclopedia in the world, must not be allowed to continue. And "Jewish" is still not a country. Further, our damaged "Surnames" categorization system remains damaged as the editors insisting on the lumping of 14 thousand surname articles in a single "Surnames" category with no substitute system developed in advance have moved on to tasks they apparently find more enjoyable or less tedious, leading the unacceptable situation that the Korean-language surnames category contains a total of two surnames. This situation embarrasses all of us as editors and tarnishes and undermines our encyclopedia. Badagnani (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• More accusations of improper behaviour on the part of admins, still not backed up by the slightest shred of evidence. Otto4711 (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The evidence for an improper close may be found in the discussion and close itself, where the vast majority of comments supported the eminently reasonable idea of keeping the "Jewish surnames" category, based on a long list of reputable published sources, none of which was mentioned by the closer, or by the editor above who is attempting to harass editors voting to overturn this highly improper close. Reasonableness and community consensus must be respected by all editors, including the rank-and-file productive contributor, admins, and even Jimbo Wales. The unwillingness to acknowldge an improper close in light of clear evidence of such is extremely damaging to the trust we must have in one another as honest and up-front members of the WP community. The only explanation must be a fixation on deleting Jewish-related (and ethnic-related in general) categories, as over 100 have been deleted in recent months, always by the same three or four highly vocal editors, some of whom possess admin tools and back one another up when members of the rank and file raise objections based on grounds of reasonableness. Badagnani (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• More accusations of anti-Semitism without a shred of evidence to back them up. More accusations of bad-faith behaviour by admins without a shred of evidence to back them up. We all get that you want this category. Falsely accusing editors and admins isn't the way to get it. Screaming "prejudice" when no prejudice exists serves nothing other than making actual prejudice harder to address and combat. Shame on you for crying wolf and belittling real bigotry. Otto4711 (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Kindly read the above comments before responding. I don't know if it was anti- or pro-semitism that led to the vigorous campaign and abuse that has led to the damage to our project's navigation (in this case related to the insistent, vocal, and sustained campaign to eliminate the ability of our users to search for Jewish surnames via an entirely reasonable "Jewish surnames" category. What is the case here is that a close was made strongly against consensus, with the many well-reasoned comments and reliable sources ignored in favor of an admin "supervote" close quite against the consensus to "keep," by an admin who should not have closed due to his/her well-known biases in regard to ethnicity, and Jewish identity in particular. This trend must not continue-and Jewish is still not a country. Badagnani (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what my "well-known biases in regard to ethnicity" are and how you know they are well-known. Since I'm completely unaware of what they are, I'm interested in finding out. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

More unfounded accusations, this time of "abuse" coupled with the completely unsupportable notion of an admin "supervote". Still no evidence to show that anyone did anything improper in the course of the CFD. Bring us something new or stop bringing anything. Otto4711 (talk) 08:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I would appreciate it if Badagnani would stop implying (or outright suggesting) that my actions were done in bad faith or to make a "point". Rather than jumping to what he calls "the only explanation", he should perhaps try to imagine that it is possible that other editors can take good-faith actions in WP that he does not agree with. Comments like this and this are inappropriate, in my opinion. (Although it is amusing to hear that my "extreme, fringe positions on ethnic groups are well known". I'd be interested to know what they are, since I didn't know I had any!) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Your months-long campaign of comments, votes, and closes (even wildly and exaggeratedly against consensus), always leading to the elimination of literally hundreds of reasonable and essential categories which had allowed our users to properly navigate ethnic group-related (and Jewish-related in particular) articles, accompanied by comments stating your extreme reasons for doing so (which, for good reason, have little support in our community), speaks for itself. Perhaps you yourself could provide such a list for us. But this fixation on eliminating such navigation for our users is clearly to be found in your edit history. However, that is not the issue here; the issue is this close, which was quite against consensus, something absolutely unacceptable. And Jewish is still not a country. Badagnani (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Honestly, I don't know what kind of faith (good, bad, indifferent, none, or some mixture thereof) the closer engaged in, but what is clear from an examination of the close is that it was highly improper. Let's stick to facts (such as the multiple reliable, published book sources, mention of which has been studiously avoided by the pro-deletion editors). Finally, I will reiterate the the adherence to our own project's policies is fundamental and essential to preserving our community's spirit. Closing in such a manner, then failing to acknowledge such a terrible mistake, when admitting one's error in judgement would be so much more magnanimous makes this intolerable situation become worse and worse. Badagnani (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the previous DRV, I clarified the meaning of my close and stated that re-creation of this category was permissible if agreed to at Category talk:Surnames. I'm not sure what the further issue is to discuss here. I've said the category can be re-created, it has been re-created, and I'm happy about the situation. If you want to keep up a complaint about the other CfD on Surnames in general, that's your choice, but we've had a CfD and a DRV, and I don't think complaining about it further is going to be productive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Please do not continue to attempt to change the subject. Your close was entirely impermissible, against consensus, and conducted by an admin who should not have been allowed to conduct it due to clearly stated fringe beliefs as regards ethnicity, and Jewish identity in general. In regard to the damage done to our surnames navigation, our millions of users around the world for over one week have been forced to deal with all 14 thousand surnames being placed in a single Surnames category, before and without any substitute system being devised nor implemented. This damage, and the failure to repair it on behalf of the editors insisting on it, is unacceptable and must be rectified immediately. However, that is not the issue here; the issue is your highly improper close. And Jewish is still not a country. Badagnani (talk) 06:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't a change of topic; it's directly on point. Let me state it again: In the previous DRV, I clarified the meaning of my close and stated that re-creation of this category was permissible if agreed to at Category talk:Surnames. I'm not sure what the further issue is to discuss here. I've said the category can be re-created, it has been re-created, and I'm happy about the situation. Let me know what you may not understand about what I have said. (I'm not sure if there is a language barrier here or not.) By the way, I have no "clearly stated fringe beliefs as regards ethnicity, and Jewish identity in general." If you think I do, then you've either misunderstood something I have said or believed someone else who is misinformed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Please don't continue to attempt to change the subject. Your highly improper close and edit history speak clearly for themselves. Due to your efforts to eliminate, then not repair our categorization system as regards surnames, this system is still inoperable for our users (with 14 thousand surnames in the same "Surnames" category)--a situation that is entirely unreasonable and undermines our encyclopedia. And Jewish is still not a country. Keep in mind that the issue here is your highly improper close, exaggeratedly against consensus. Badagnani (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• As discussed in the previous DRV, the category has been re-created, as permitted by the close, so I'm not sure what else about the "close" you would like changed. It's already re-created. This is also not about the June 6 CfD, which you keep bringing up and which has had a DRV about it. To me, it sounds like you are trying to make this about me, rather than the category. This is not a process whereby you try to get the closer disciplined for having done something you disagree with. This is DRV, not DR. (I see someone else has mentioned this above, so maybe the message isn't registering here.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - You are essentially maintaining that you are not bound to abide by our project's policies, rules, and community norms, which places a high value on not abusing one's admin powers by "going over the head" of community consensus and following one's wishes and hopes instead in closing a discussion, ignoring evidence (and, in your case, substituting a little joke for the actual careful consideration of the consensus and evidence). Behaving in such a manner seriously undermines the ethos of our project. Requesting that an admin abide by our community's standards and policies is entirely reasonable and the above argument sounds like "protesting too much." Let's keep this discussion to the facts, as requested several times previously. And Jewish is still not a country. Badagnani (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

...Obviously not registering .... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn closure against consensus — Would the world be a happier place if Wikipedia didn't have any surname categories at all? If it must do, the AfD convinces me that this is as policeable a surname category as any. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Would editors please take accusations of bad faith, bias, prejudice etc. to dispute resolution? DRV can't address those issues and they shouldn't be raised here, distracting attention as they do from the content.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The issue here is an improper close. As such, poor behavior on the part of the closer (closing according to his/her wish rather than actual consensus, in tandem with a failure to consider the arguments and many reputable book sources presented) is most certainly at issue in this case. Badagnani (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment (re: two comments immediately above). So I see it's not just me who's not getting through here. Comforting in a way for me personally, but a little troubling b/c it's a genuine failure to understand or give any heed to others' explanations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - It is troubling that your own highly improper close (the sole reason for this deletion review) failed to take into account the actual consensus, as well as the well-reasoned comments and multiple reliable, published book sources. It also failed to take into account the fact that "Jewish" is not a country. Your most recent endeavor was to WP:CANVASS in an apparent attempt to put a halt to this very review, which among all your other behaviors is perhaps most illustrative of your character. Keep in mind, however, that it is your close of the deletion of this category that is under consideration here, and please refrain from attempting to change the subject. Badagnani (talk) 09:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • My edit was not a canvass. It was a note to the admin who closed the previous DRV to have an initial look at this one, since I think that it is apparent that there are some misunderstandings about what DRV is for and whether it is appropriate to have one for a category that just had one. You don't seem to want to listen to any advice on the matter from anyone here, so it's not going to hurt to get another neutral user here to have a look. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Note to DRV closer. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_28. A DRV for this very CFD was run and just closed. When did policy change to allow two tries? Can I run a third once this has ended if I don't like the outcome of this? --Kbdank71 10:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn No consensus in the original discussion, if anything it tended in the other way.John Z (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close. DRV is not DRV round 2. It is unreasonable to open a new DRV because you didn't like the result of the first one. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Charlie the Unicorn

Charlie the Unicorn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This afd never reached consensus, as opinions were nearly split (disregarding those which appear not to have been constructive or thought out). The main problem is that the afd completely ignored the notability criteria which specifically apply to web content. Web-specific content is notable if it meets "any one" of the criteria including "he content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight." The afd provided sources, such as salon.com, which are good sources and don't allow random uploading (such as youtube, which would not be a good site). Objections included that the watchable videos on the linked, notable site, were too trivial, and basically needed entire articles about the subject in order to meet notability. However, the web content guidelines clearly state that distribution alone meets notability. See also comments in the afd regarding memes. In addition a major clothing retailer, Hot Topic, devoted an entire line of clothing to the subject of the article. The only source for this is the Hot Topic website itself, which still sells the clothing (major news outlets don't typically cover memes' inclusion in clothing lines, but it's no less notable that a major clothing chain sells an entire line of clothing based on Charlie the Unicorn). One particular editor continuously removed the link to hot topic, first claiming it was "advertising" and then that it was not notable, without allowing afd participants to judge that for themselves.

In sum, arguments against were not properly based on web-specific notability guidelines, and the topic, which has been in a music video of a major band, and has a clothing line at a major retail outlet, and is distributed by major web magazines, is notable.  superβεεcat  21:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also, I did contact the closing admin, who concluded that my arguments may have merit, but decided (I believe erroneously) that there was, in fact, consensus, but supported me going to review. - superβεεcat  21:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, all those deletion discussions took a long time to read and evaluate, and after going through it, all I could really see was a godawful mess. Part of me sees merit in the "keep" arguments because, mindful though I am of WP:BIGNUMBER and WP:GOOGLEHITS, I think there's so much coverage that this is actually quite a likely search term. But that's a matter for AfD, not for DRV; our main role here is to decide whether the closer evaluated the consensus correctly.

  I find that "no consensus" would have been the preferable close, but "delete" was within admin discretion. So I'll default to endorse on this one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, Superbeecat did start a discussion with me, and I gave him the go-ahead to list it here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I endorse deletion as it seems to be reflective of the AFD consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. The AfD shows no clear consensus. That--regardless of my own opinion about the article--is what we're here to discuss. Arguments always sound more convincing if you are already predisposed to taking that side. The ubiquitous WP:NOTVOTE claim should be used with great caution. Owen× ☎ 14:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Many of the keep 'votes' amount to little more than "It's notable", whereas the delete 'votes' actually explain why it's non notable, and why it should be deleted. AfD is not a majority vote. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - "Charlie the Unicorn" is obviously a pet peeve for some people, but I feel that the latest AfD was carried out properly - as JulianColton says, the delete votes were much more detailed in their reasonings, while the keep votes seemed to be, more often than not, variations on WP:ILIKEIT. Superbeecat's claim that a blog post on Salon.com equals distribution is misinformed - had Salon actually hosted the short itself on Salon's servers, that might be a point. But all they did was link to a YouTube clip - that's not actual distribution, anymore than linking to the clip from Wikipedia could be considered distribution. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Battledawn

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

{{{reason}}} I wish to write a wikipedia article on the PBBG game "Battledawn" - and I have not been able to due to restrictions placed on the page due to previous edits and creations (Which I was neither aware of nor responsible for) with the reason of "Repeated Creation" - I understand the need to stop pages being created that have been repeatedly made badly and against the rules, but I wish to write about the history and development of one of the only, as well as the longest standing, graphically based Strategy PBBGs. I will be verifying any appropriate information with the creator, as I have established communications with him and hope to make this a informative and interesting page on Wikipedia.

Thanks. Chrs181818 (talk) 13:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, Chrs181818. You should write the article in your userspace, here: User:Chrs181818/Sandbox and present a draft to DRV so that we can verify that it complies with the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:RS, WP:V and WP:N are likely to be highly relevant). When you've done that, bring it back to DRV and, assuming the policies and guidelines are indeed met, it's likely that your draft will be moved into the mainspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Wowie this is an old AFD close of mine. I'd second Marshall's advice of creating a draft in userspace. The prior AFD was pretty clear on the topic and being able to evaluate the sources you have in mind would help things alot I think for other users. MBisanz ^talk 23:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul Cairney

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

This football player, who has played 87 league matches for Queen's Park F.C., 33 of which have occurred having been loaned back out by a full-time professional football team, Partick Thistle, has returned to PTFC. Since it is very likely that he will feature in the first team at Partick Thistle this season (he has already appeared in a behind closed doors friendly against Cowdenbeath) he will almost certainly fulfil the WP:ATHLETE criteria. For convenience over anything else, it would make sense to unprotect the creation of this article, so that as soon as he does participate in a competitive fixture for a fully professional Club, his article can be recreated.

Many thanks in advance, Partickfan (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The current protection expires in early August. When do the regular season games start? lifebaka++ 16:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just over a month's time. Stifle (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Then shouldn't it already expire at about the right time on its own? If so, I don't think we need to do anything here. lifebaka++ 01:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)