Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 9

9 June 2009

[[:]]

[[:]] ([[|talk]]|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

75.128.238.73 (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a very good article on the subject of "Spanking Therapy" for adults. The problem I'm having is that I have no idea when it was deleted or how to identify the page, but it should certainly be undeleted.

The article you are looking for was deleted back in 2005. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanking therapy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Move this request to User talk:75.128.238.73. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg

File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I am afraid you have committed a mistake. The files were rather to be kept as they are, or shortened at worst, but nobody voted for their deletion, except the nominator. I doubt this is in accordance with Wikipedia rules...* The desire of Jaan Pärn to delete the contents and then the article Sofia Rotaru alltogether goes a little too far, even when users vote for keeping files. Do you think this deletion was done in accordance with the Wikipedia rules?--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC) --Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The key criterion here is WP:NFCC#3a: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." As the editor who !voted "Keep...sort of" noted, there are many clips in the article, and no especial need for the deleted clips was shown over other clips in the article. No argument was made in the FFD that overcame that.--Aervanath (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, first of all there were two or three "keeps" (week or strong) and one "delete". For me, not a rocket scientist, the consensus is clearly to keep. Second, the whole paragraph deals (or used to deal, since I cannot even follow anymore all of the deltions of Jaan Pärn on the article Sofia Rotaru about these songs where. It is for the intention to release an album with these songs with Sony BMG Music Entertainment, that Sofia Rotaru was forbidden to leave the USSR for 7 years. At the same time, Soviet power allowed her to sing the Circus song representing Soviet Union in India on Universal Youth Games. Circus was the major success of the Soviet delegation. Just listen to the observations of commentators on youtube (radio live recording). That's the whole controversy about certain and namely these songs in foreign languages of Sofia Rotaru, which changed her life, caused anger and satisfaction of the Soviet authorities at the same time. This was told in the article, but I guess later deleted by Jaan Pärn. --Rubikonchik (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate your argument, but please read all WP:NOTAVOTE; discussions are based on the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. Also, please read all of WP:NFCC. Near the bottom, it notes that "it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created". Even with these three deletions, there are still many sound clips on the article, and there was no "valid rationale" in the FFD to show why ALL of them were necessary. Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Your first argument should be dismissed, as if we are following the WP:NOTAVOTE, you should have noted that not only Jaan Pärn basically lied in his arguments, but also other users have counterargumented him. Your second argument should be dismissed as well, as these were unique recordings for a Western recording company, in foreign, back then (in the late 70's!!!! - it's not that far from the hottest point of the Cold War) of the leading Soviet singer... I think all of them are complied with. Which one is missing?--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

What is missing is an explanation why it is necessary that there be more than one sound clip in the article. According to WP:NFCC#3a (which I have already cited above), Wikipedia requires "minimal usage" of non-free media. Without a sufficient argument to show why multiple non-free sound clips are required to demonstrate the style of her music, there could have been no other outcome. So far, I have seen nothing to convince me of this necessity. For each file, it is necessary to show why that particular clip, and ONLY that particular clip, could add to the reader's understanding of a key fact in the article. I have seen nothing sufficiently specifically-worded in any of the discussions, including this one. If you can give me an individual explanation why each one is critical to reader understanding, then of course I will undelete the ones which are critical.--Aervanath (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a familiar reasonuing: "first I decide to delete, just because, then I try to find a reason why exactly did I delete. And if the reason does not work, I'll always invent another one." I have provided already a detailed explanation why these audio files were important and unique. You haven't addressed any of my concernes regarding the Wikipedia rules as far as the voting and number of "keep"s and "delete"s is concerned. I could revert to you with necessary links, proper wording etc., if that's what's missing... But you will probably find another reason... Therefore, please kindly indicate me where can we discuss this with a third party input? Thank you.--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You should go to WP:Deletion review and follow the instructions there, so that other users can review my reasoning.--Aervanath (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The argument applies to two more files

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26#Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg Rubikonchik (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

RESUME: The closing admin has not answered any of my queries regarding the proper application of rules as far as are concerned: (1) counting the keeps and deletes (obviously, only one delete was given - by the nominator, against two keeps, and (2) falsification of arguments by the nominator.--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin: the above conversation is actually a copy of the conversation from my talk page: User_talk:Aervanath#Sofia_Rotaru. That said, endorse my own closure as the nominator has still not given a reason what value each of these files individually adds to the article, meaning that there is still no justification to satisfy WP:NFCC#3a.--Aervanath (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Nominator: As far as the files File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg and File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg are concerned, the closing admin is addressing the issue slightly beside the point. The files are not missing WP:NFCC#3a as Rubikonchik has described the exact episode in the career of Sofia Rotaru what the clips aim to illustrate. However, these do miss WP:NFCC#8 - Significance - as the clips do not increase the readers' understanding on the topic, being the ban on Sofia Rotaru to travel outside the Soviet Union for recording abroad in foreign languages. I will stress that she did not receive the ban for her musical style nor anything else that one could understand only by listening to the tracks, but for recording abroad in foreign languages. The relevant facts are clear to the reader without the clips. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the track "Circus" reflected by the file File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg is not mentioned in the Sofia Rotaru article at all, and has never been mentioned in the history, so the talk pages are the only location where one can find the episodes in the singer's career that the clips should illustrate. Not that the inclusion of these facts would create a necessity for the clips to be included. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion; permit reuploading of a version that passes WP:NFCC#3b i.e. is 30s or shorter. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you aware that 2 of the 3 files listed here are already 30 seconds or shorter? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • So what? The original recordings are less than 5 min, so they need to be 10% of the original. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion of one, Overturn the other two. This DRV entry seems to cover three separate ogg files. The first, File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg, clearly violated NFCC#3, and several commenters said so. I think the closing admin was correct to delete it. But for the other two, File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Immensita.ogg and File:Sofia_Rotaru_-_Wer_liebe_sucht.ogg, I don't believe the closing admin interpreted consensus or policy correctly. The user who nominated these images for deletion claimed "1) The sampled recording is not discussed critically in Sofia Rotaru article, 2) The clip is considerably longer than the standard set in WP:FU, 3) The excerpt is not of reduced quality compared to the original.", but none of those three claims turn out to be true. The uploader, myself, and BQZip all opined that the files should be kept, and no one but the nominator argued that they should be deleted. It's true that BQZip also stated that there were too many sound files in the article, but one (Circus India) was going to be deleted anyway, and deleting all three missed the point. I don't believe that three sound clips is too many; consider the featured articles Gwen Stafani (four song clips), U2 (three clips), AC/DC (six clips), Mariah Carey (four), Frank Zappa (eight), Tool (band) (four), etc. I know other stuff exists, but having four sound clips in featured articles tends to be pretty non-controversial. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, BQZip01 stated in both the other FFDs that he felt only one clip was needed. His exact statemnt: "Keep...sort of... There are too many clips in the article to meet WP:NFCC#3a. Keep only one of the clips to show the musical style of the performer." Since there is still one clip on the article, after the deletion of these three, I took that as an argument for deletion.--Aervanath (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me stress yet again that technically, there is no problem for the two files to meet WP:NFCC#3a. However, these are by far not the best examples of Rotaru's musical style and therefore her other tracks should be used for that purpose. What the uploader was trying to achieve by the files was not describing her music style in general (as they are not discussed in a general context) but explaining the reasons why the Soviet concert administration banned her from travelling abroad. The main problem is meeting WP:NFCC#8 because the reader gains nothing from these clips. The major technical fault of the clips is they are considerably longer than 10% of the recordings. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Immenista and Wer Liebe sucht are not "considerably" longer, they are (were actually) only 1 second longer. So, let's say the truth here. Like I said, I was ready to develop the article, provide supplementary sources, citations, improve wording, etc. Circus song was also described in the article. It was, as far as I remember, beforeJaan Pärn started deleting portions of the article Sofia Rotaru, clearly described were it was sung and on what occasion and purpose. The live recording is very long, I have just checked it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=folFjsyNzKs it's actually 5:37 min. long... (and it does not even seem the full version anyway...)

The nominator has copy pasted the same reasons for all of the audio files: "1) The sampled recording is not discussed critically in Sofia Rotaru article, 2) The clip is considerably longer than the standard set in WP:FU, 3) The excerpt is not of reduced quality compared to the original.". Now, that is precisely why I said the reasons are falsified from the very beginning. All of the songs were talked about in the article, none of them is of good quality (especially Circus). I agree though that Circus should be truncated. How long? The closing admin made, in my humble opinon, a rather quick decision, for some other reasons, not the ones which were mentioned by the nominator. Moreover, closing admin, namely for Immensità and Wer Liebe sucht, did not corectly count the votes, what really shocked me.

Anyway, guys, I have said what I had to say. For those who ignore, listen to 1) the song which was aired most often in Moscow in 2008 according to the www.tophit.ru - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KL2fh-liRA 2) and here is the most recent song of Sofia Rotaru to listen to http://freshmp3.ru/gmp3.php?fid=184756 June 2009 (a 62 years old woman!!! - well, that's only eprsonal and has nothing to do with arguments here, just to cool off some hot spirits)--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Do some math. "L'immensita" and "Wer Liebe sucht" are originally about 3 min long. 10% of it is 18 sec. The clip you are pushing is 1.6 times longer than that. As far as the discussion on "Circus" is concerned, here is your version of Sofia Rotaru article. Show me the part what I deleted where "Circus" was discussed. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

and what about this as far as the length of the audio file is concerned?. Regarding Circus in the old version, you may see aready the description right next to the audio file--Rubikonchik (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What you indicated is an opinion of an editor, not representing a Wikipedia policy. Regarding "Circus", it needs to be critically discussed in the article. It never was even mentioned outside the file caption. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fictional Jews

Category:Fictional Jews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Back in February 2008, a dozen categories related to fictional characters by religion were deleted in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_24#Category:Fictional_characters_by_religion this CfD with the closing administrator arguing that The strongest argument either way came from the last sentence of the nomination itself: It's pretty unlikely that someone looking for the Rocky, Michael Corleone, Scarlett O'Hara or Eric Cartman will look it up through fictional catholics. While true, these characters are fictional catholics, that is not what they are known for. And for those characters who religion is the main defining trait, as discussed, there are better categories that can be used. While all of these categories have been recreated -- and promptly deleted without discussion or explanation -- as a recreation of deleted material, the Category:Fictional Jews has been recreated almost a dozen times, more than any of the other categories. I believe this pattern of recreation reflects the belief of many different editors that this category should exist. I don't know much about what unites Catholic fictional characters, and I have little reason to believe that there is anything religious about fictional Anglicans or Methodists. But I do know that fictional Jews from William Shakespeare's Shylock to Rebecca from Ivanhoe to the title character Daniel Deronda by George Eliot to Philip Roth's Alexander Portnoy and even cartoon characters Kyle Broflovski and Krusty the Clown are distinguished by their Jewishness, for those who have appeared in print this is probably their most defining characteristic. While authors may select hair color, place of origin or even name on an entirely arbitrary basis, the choice to make a character Jewish is a quite often a rather deliberate and defining choice on the part of the author. It seems ludicrous, at best, to categorize Shylock, the quintessential Jewish character in fiction, solely in Category:Italian characters in written fiction after Act III, Scene I's famed speech from him that begins "Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, heal'd by the same means, warm'd and cool'd by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?", described in the Merchant of Venice article as one of Shakespeare's "most eloquent speeches". Even South Park's Kyle Broflovski would be more usefully put into Category:Fictional Jews than Category:Fictional characters from Colorado. Part of the problem with laundry list nominations at XfD is that useful articles and categories get deleted when the dross is collectively tossed out. While articles at AfD can be readily recreated with the addition of the sources and claims of notability that had been lacking, DRV is the only means of recreating deleted categories. Given the fact that the proffered explanation for deletion does not fit the world of Fictional Jews, and given that there have been numerous books, journal pieces, college courses, as well as newspaper and magazine articles on the subject, the proper action should be to allow recreation of the category. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• overturn The nominator summarizes things pretty well. There should be a general category to understand how Jews have been portrayed in fiction. It is a category which makes sense (and is indeed a subject which has had multiple PhD theses and books dedicated to it). JoshuaZ (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• What exactly are "jew eyes", anyway? Do you have better eyesight? Are your "jew hands" more supple? Do you laugh when I tickle you because you're a jew? And would you laugh harder if I had jew hands too? Just some things I wonder about when I hear that. Personally, I still stand by my close. I doubt that even you, Alan, if looking for Kyle Broflovski's article, would start under Cat:Fictional Jews. Well, ok, maybe you would, but most people probably wouldn't. Being a fictional jew is not what Kyle is mainly known for. Being a South Park character, yes. Rocky, known for being a fictional catholic, or a fictional boxer? Anyway, listen, even though I said I stand by my close, I don't have the energy or desire to go round and round in what might be a rather lengthy and contentious DRV, so if you want to recreate it, knock yourself out. --Kbdank71 20:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Kris, I took no objection to your close and still see none in anything I've written in the nomination, nor is your name mentioned at all in the nomination. While the rule of thumb that once you need to decide based on a "better argument" would have made "no consensus" the best close and while a close as "keep" would have been equally appropriate based on the same set of data, I still do not object to your close of the CfD in question. I only raised Kyle Broflovski as an example in response to the inclusion of Eric Cartman in your close. Cartman may have little in common as a Catholic with Rocky Balboa, but Kyle has far more in common with Shylock than with his neighbors J. B. Dix, Hawk (G.I. Joe), Parker Lee and Bob Russell (The West Wing) in Category:Fictional characters from Colorado. I don't see this DRV as "contentious" and expect little meaningful argument in opposition. I simply hope to restore a category that should exist and that hasn't for the past 15 months. If you have any other personal issue with me, Kris, you are free to take it elsewhere where it belongs. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No, I have no issue with you, Alan. I understand why you nominated it, and don't have a problem with it. As for being contentious, I've rarely come across a DRV or CFD that had anything to do with race, religion, or politics that wasn't lengthy and contentious. It was a mistake to imply you did that on purpose. I've refactored my comments above. --Kbdank71 20:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. I wouldn't say it's an "overturn" because the closer interpreted the consensus correctly; but I would say it's an "allow recreation on the basis of new arguments" because that nomination's fairly convincing.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure the nom has it wrong - can reliable sources be found that say that any of the characters he posits for a recreated category are famous for being (fictionally) Jewish or as I would suggest, they're famous for being in a famous work of fiction. It'll be an OR project: which of the Friends characters get put in here; some seemed like they were supposed to be Jewish - but was their notability based on that, or based on being in a highly rated TV show? Ditto, nearly every modern tv show or movie that has a broad array of characters from various (perceived) backgrounds to generate more opportunity for contrast, drama, etc. Looking back on nearly every show this could be done: Leonard Nimoy said he developed the Vulcan salute based on what his rabbi used to do, so is Spock now Jewish? Why or why not? And what RS'es tell us that he is or isn't Jewish when the actor who portrayed him seems to imply a Jewish element to Spock's character. If recreated, how is this sort of OR to be prevented? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • As I am often reminded, the question is if a fictional character being Jewish is a defining characteristic, not if it makes the character "famous". The standard that I use for inclusion, here and elsewhere, is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, a methodology that Wikipedia appears to enourage. this source from The New York Times describes "of course, there was the Jewish usurer Shylock, out for his pound of flesh, seeming to care more about his ducats than his daughter" in a 1998 performance of The Merchant of Venice. And as to another character, this from the pen of Charles Dickens and one that I had shamefully neglected to mention in my nomination, this source from The Independent in the UK notes that "Perhaps Shylock gives him a run for his money-lending. But there is almost no other character to compete with Fagin for the title of the most grotesque and villainous Jew in all of English literature." It seems hard to argue that these are not just two of many fictional characters for whom being Jewish is a defining characteristic. While I have seen a video in which Leonard Nimoy wraps himself in a tallit during a speech and describes his childhood recollections of being with his father in synagogue during the Priestly Blessing, in which a Kohen splits his fingers and blesses the congregation, and describes how this experience became his inspiration for the Vulcan salute, the character himself is never described as being Jewish. Reading reliable and verifiable sources is never OR. I invite you to deal with the inclusion of any particular entry in the talk page of that article; Here we are discussing whether Category:Fictional Jews captures a defining characteristic, and the reliable and verifiable sources say yes. Alansohn (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, interesting examples used in that there has been a lot of academic work comparing Shakespeare's Shylock to Dickens' Fagin precisely in regards to among other things changing stereotypes about Jews. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No doubt, there have been academic works on that as there has been on stereotyping of Asians (Charlie Chan), African-Americans (Steppinfetchit, Blaxploitation, Uncle Toms, Golliwogs, and far more), Central Asians (Borat) and Latinos (Frito Bandito) - that doesn't mean all characters who their authors have described (created) as Jewish/Asian/African-American/Latino etc. are among such stereotypes - I rather doubt that Jerry Seinfeld in character considered his character a shylock or fagin. It seems what you are proposing is a Category:Stereotypical fictional Jews which the academic research you mention might make that notable, but it would no doubt be entirely WP:OR decisions for inclusion or not, just look at the pathetic attempt at an article called Stereotypes of Jews. Which of the stereotypes would you apply to Jerry Seinfeld (character)? It's baloney, that's what it is... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem is that we actually accept arguments for deletion that rely on caricature without in any way addressing the actual argument, and that far too often we have such caricatures elevated as the "better" argument when adopting the distinctly non-Solomonic role of "weighing" votes. The caricature of "what do Rocky and Eric Cartman have in common" ended up tossing a dozen categories into the trash here. This is not Category:Fictional Jews by stereotype and I think that few other editors would have the same issue that you have with the title character in Seinfeld as being a fictional Jew. The fact that Seinfeld isn't often compared and contrasted to Shylock or Fagin in scholarly literature only demonstrates that all Jews in fiction need not be negatively portrayed in stereotypical fashion. The argument that deciding which entries to include constitutes verboten original research doesn't only destroy the entire category system, it requires that we dismantle all of Wikipedia. The decision to create an article (or list or category) or to expand it, requires editors to make decisions on what should or should not be added. Calling that process "original process" only turns the entire Wikipedia into a sorry joke. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and SALT -- long experience has shown this is better as an article Fictional Jews, perhaps with a fully fledged and annotated List of fictional Jews.
  1. There's no article, so all those "numerous books, journal pieces, college courses, as well as newspaper and magazine articles on the subject" have come to naught!
  2. Looking at the list, many entries are red-linked, or are characters that are only incidentally Jewish; or assumed or deduced or inferred, as no Jewish story line was ever developed.
  3. As a category, it would be yet another one that needed constant patrolling. Too little time, too many things to do....
• --William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there an argument here other than that categories are hard to police? JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• • All categories need patrolling. Why do we keep any category at all, when there is just so little time? Though, getting rid of the entire category system would end much needlessly-wasted time and effort, and force all of us involved there to build the encyclopedia by contributing to Wikipedia, which might have benefits of its own. There is no requirement for an article to exist in order to retain a category, and the list that does already exist can grow in parallel with the category, as WP:CLN encourages. I'm unsure how the presence of red links indicates that "characters that are only incidentally Jewish" are included and not simply that articles have not yet been created. We don't delete (or not allow recreation) based on the argument that it's too much work. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Who are the "petty tyrants" who "don't contribute to Wikipedia" you are referring to? --Kbdank71 15:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I've refactored my comments above. Alansohn (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I have it on good authority that the Petty racing family will be filing an indignant ANI shortly for the besmirchment of their name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recreate A category and a list go well together. I don't see why we have to have one and not the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recreate/overturn/etc There have been a lot of "Fictional X" categories that I've despised and had welcome their deletion for being frivolous. Being Jewish is often the defining/major characteristic of some fictional characters, which sets it apart from many of the others (such as "Fictional characters who like ham sandwiches"). -- Ned Scott 05:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recreate this one. The problem with bulk noms is that a plausible general argument is put forward which applies to most of the nom but not necessarily all. I doubt if a single cfd for Category:Fictional Jews would lead to a delete conclusion, particularly given the above arguments. Occuli (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recreate Consensus has changed--we now accept lists and categories both. It's really that simple. The argument "better as an article" is now consistently rejected at AfD. if we removed everything hard to maintain , nothing on controversial subjects would be left. The inclusion of individual characters is for the talk page of the list. DGG (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This is not a list being proposed, it's a category: and talk pages of categories are usually not patrolled by the regular editors of the articles dumped in them - yet another reason to have a list not a cat, as you rightly note. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the placement in a category is under the control of those involved with the article, and this is as careful as any other method. It can be argued interminably that one way is better than another, and the answer is to have both. In my experience, when the placement or listing of someone is challenged, the challenger very reasonably looks at both. DGG (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Well, now I don't feel so bad at not closing any more CFDs as "listify". I had a feeling that it was a waste because it would just get deleted at AFD. Although it is far easier to police a list than a category, just like it says at Wikipedia:CLN#Disadvantages_of_categories. You can watchlist a list to see what gets added or deleted. You can watchlist a category but that won't tell you what articles are added or removed from it. But hey, if AFD feels otherwise, we'll just end up with incorrectly filled categories, which will be Somebody Else's Problem. --Kbdank71 02:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Lists are truly God's perfect information presentation mechanism. Lists can be watchlisted and changes monitored; categories can't. For that matter, categories can't be edited directly to add or remove entries, category entries can't be annotated with references, searches can't be done against category contents, there is no way to sort entries other than in the order based on article-specified sort preferences, there's no single-step way to move a category and all its entries, there's no way to track changes, additions and removals from a category, you can't have a red link to show a potential article, you can't watchlist changes to category entries, there's no context for why the entry is in a category, new users don't understand categories, you can only see a maximum of 200 entries per page, and many more disadvantages. When you really think about it, categories suck. No, not this particular one; the whole system. Plain and simple, categories are the worst possible way of presenting information in Wikipedia, but for some bizarre reason we just keep on using them and their built-in design flaws. These negatives are all fantastic reasons to rip out the category system in its entirety and rely exclusively on lists and navboxes. But if you want to delete (or prevent recreation of) this or any other category, you need to do a far better job than to use a category system flaw as an argument for deletion of this and only this category. We can get rid of useful categories on a completely arbitrary basis based on IHATEIT, which will just force other people to edit and maintain a corresponding list as Somebody Else's Problem. We have standards and what we need to evaluate is if the category captures a defining characteristic. None of the arguments offered in response to DGG have any relevance at all to this particular category and its merits or lack thereof. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Glad to see you agree with what I wrote. (I didn't go any further than that, WP:TL;DR and all...) --Kbdank71 10:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

categories have two key advantages: they are automatically populated when an article is written, and they fit within a navigation system of hierarchal categories. This is why we have them as well as lists, they are in generally complementary, and wif we have one, we should almost always have the other. The question of inappropriate placement is dealt with by editing the article of the person involved. As for any particular person where there is doubt of appropriate placement in a category., the doubt will extend to the wording of the article also, then discussing it there makes sense. Browsing is part of the purpose of an encyclopedia, and all navigational techniques that facilitate it are justified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

This is why we have [categories] as well as lists, they are in generally complementary, and wif we have one, we should almost always have the other. This statement of opinion—particularly the final phrase—is contradicted by reams of discussions where the consensus has been otherwise. I suppose it would be nice if that were the consensus, since it would be easy to resolve disputes, but unfortunately it is not consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

We're here because what is tossed about as "consensus" far too often is just what the same three or four people think in an isolated corner of Wikipedia where every possible effort is made to keep outsiders away, especially if they disagree with dogma. The votes with the "listify" excuse that "it would make a better list" are in direct conflict with WP:CLN, and I must agree that even a modicum of respect for this guideline would end much needless wikidrama. That all categories would be better as a list is abundantly clear and forcing an end to the disruptive "listify" vote might force such editors (and the closing admins who improperly listen to them) to address retention and deletion based on Wikipedia policy. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to try to marginalise opinion you disagree with by alleging that it's just "the same three or four people" talking in "an isolated corner", but really doing so fails to recognise that there may be no consensus for the view you espouse. I like to consider all users' opinions, regardless of who it is or where it's discussed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The DRV overturn rate in general is spectacularly low while the overturn rate for CfD-related bad closes is disturbingly higher. The more outsiders who look at these CfD closes, the more they recognize that there's something disturbingly rotten going on, as SmokeyJoe pointed out below. The number of times at such DRVs where consensus among non-CfD participants is so utterly at odds with the CfD closing admins (and some of the other CfD habitues) sends a powerful message that those determining consensus on behalf of the community have a strong disconnect from real community consensus. There is, of course, the other possibility that everyone outside of the isolated CfD world has no idea of what they're talking about, but then again that's just restating the previous option but blaming actual community consensus for being wrong. Alansohn (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it's easy to marginalise any "group" you wish to. It's a bit of a provincial outlook on WP life, IMO, but whatever lifts your bucket. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, because of my anti-Semitism. Wait, no—that can't be right .... Perhaps to support the petty tyrants, then? ... hmmm, if re-created as the non-tyrannical masses of unwashed gravel seem to desire, patrol the hell out of it to avoid the inevitable inclusion of those characters for whom it's non-defining. Of course, nobody will want to do this consistently, which will result in a largely useless collection of trivia, which is probably why it was considered for deletion in the first place. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Is this a defining characteristic based on the evidence provided? If not, you might have an argument. If it is, then what relevance does the dreaded slippery slope of possible insufficient patrolling not addressing the possible inclusion of questionable entries have to do with this particular category and why would it not be an argument that covers deletion of each and every category in Wikipedia? In general at CfD, arbitrary personal bias is a far better explanation for why some categories are deleted and others are kept. What it boils down to is that there is no objective means to determine that a category should exist, regardless of reliable and verifiable source showing it as defining, certainly not if anyone is determined to use "well then who will patrol it on a consistent basis?" as an argument for deletion. When admins close based on "strength of argument", how does "who will patrol it" get any weight at all as a basis for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • To answer your first question—no—there are many characters who might be Jewish for which their Jewishness is not a defining characteristic. I'm too tired to respond to the rest of your inquiries, partly because I know it will probably be futile and my experience is that typically your questions are rhetorical and you're not really seeking answers. If you are truly seeking answers to your questions and don't know the answers yet, I encourage you to keep thinking about it, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I dream of one day hearing the answer to why these nonsensical rationalizations ("makes a better list", "won't be patrolled", etc.) are offered and (far worse) accepted by willing admins to justify deletion. One day, the truth will come out. Alansohn (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Are you channelling Mulder now? Probably the easiest answer you could find is that not everyone views every argument and every situation in exactly the same way that you do. Nuance is good—there is no unbiased "truth" when opinion is involved. If what you really mean is "I dream of one day hearing the answer that I agree with as to why these....", then maybe you should stop holding your breath. It may not exist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
          • There is no "truth", but then again nor is there any consistency in voting / closing at CfD from too many editors other than what can be predicted based on personal bias. It's hard to accept that anyone can actually believe that arguments on the order of "makes a better list" or "who will patrol it" could ever be accepted, let alone that there are any admins who are willing to act upon them, despite the complete and total irrelevance of such arguments in any CfD discussion. That you are unable or unwilling to answer what are non-rhetorical questions speaks volumes as to the sad reality of consensus by IHATEIT. Alansohn (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Unwilling mainly, for reasons stated above. Tired, futility, not able to provide answer you agree with, etc. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn (no consensus) Bad close. Note general impression that participation and deletions at CfD often don't reflect community consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

right, and unless we can think of some way of doing it--like recombining all the xfds except AfD and possibly files, we will have a great many more Deletion reviews of them. A close based on limited consensuss of a general topic is not a correct procedure--the discussion should instead be brought to general attention. DGG (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a structural problem here. CfD and FfD should be separate, because they are somewhat specialised (noting that anyone may participate). Their specialisation causes a problem in lask of breadth of participation. This in no one's fault. DRV is the appropriate forum to oversee CfD, and I don't think CfD reviews here are causing a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

An underlying factor in the biased participation (not knowing where better to say this), I think is the deletion of nearly every user-category. This has resulted in most users, especially new users, being unfamiliar with the workings and capabilities of categories. Possibly, noting the importance of experimentation/play to learning, it would be a good thing if userspace categories, including play-categories were given the degree of leeway appropriate to userspace. We might then get braoder participation at CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and salt - I argued against the nomination but agree that the outcome was correct. There were no procedural errors with the original close and closing admin appropriately interpreted the discussion, giving appropriate weight to each side and determining the outcome on the basis of the strength of the arguments. No new information has come to light since the original CFD to indicate that anything's changed. Otto4711 (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• As if I needed any more evidence of the deep problems at CfD, I have to thank you for your vote. It is fascinating that you could argue so vehemently for retention (but bizarrely not vote to keep which might have swayed the result) and then insist that the category not only should not be recreated now, but should be prevented from being recreated at any time in the future by salting the categories under discussion. Even more bizarrely, User:Good Olfactory voted to Keep all at the original AfD, providing his support for the arguments for retention and adding his own evidence for keeping, but has similarly found the additional evidence provided reason to oppose recreation. It is quite telling that all of the endorsements come from CfD's regular naysayers and that not a single editor looking at this for the first time from outside the cloistered world of CfD sees any obstacle to recreation and sees the additional information provided as being adequate. This significant disconnect between the naysayers at CfD and the consensus of the rest of Wikipedia should raise deep and fundamental questions about the integrity of the entire CfD process, not just this one close. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Um, actually, I !voted in opposition to the original nomination, as a cursory reading of my comment clearly illustrates ("As for the nom, I oppose it."). So please, stop misrepresenting me and please, don't try to put the deletion off on me as part of your continuing campaign, m'kay? That people in good faith can disagree with an outcome yet still understand the legitimacy of that outcome is an indication of the strength of the process. All of your palaver about disconnects and dismissing those who disagree with you as "naysayers" is just another tactic in your ongoing efforts to undermine the process without actually stepping up to the forums where the process should be discussed. I don't believe for a second that you give a tinker's damn about whether this category gets recreated or not. I do believe that you see it as an opportunity to score a point against the, as you so often call it, 'CFD game'. Otto4711 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the fact that I initially thought the categories should be kept is irrelevant. I respect the outcome there. This should be an indication to Alansohn that not all editors abide strictly to what he always seems to oversimply as "IHATEIT" or "ILIKEIT" positions. Assuming for the sake of argument that I initially voted based on ILIKEIT, then why would I now be arguing to respect the CfD outcome on the basis of IHATEIT? Gad, I'm not that fickle. However, I suppose my pattern of comments could be viewed as "bizarre" if there is a lack of understanding of the different functions of CfD and DRV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• "I don't believe for a second that you give a tinker's damn about whether this category gets recreated or not." I saw the category deleted for about the tenth time, checked the CfD and realized that an excellent case could be made for recreation, and that once the slam-dunk recreation was complete it would make an extremely effective category. I didn't believe that there would be any meaningful opposition at all, and the fact that so many CfD regulars came out of the woodwork to express their opposition astounds me and only serves to highlight just how deep the problems are in assessing the validity of anything that comes out of CfD, not just the most egregious miscarriages of process that end up being discussed and reversed at DRV. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• the fact that so many CfD regulars came out of the woodwork to express their opposition astounds me and only serves to highlight just how deep the problems are in assessing the validity of anything that comes out of CfD: Last time I checked, any user who participates at CfD is still considered part of the WP "community", which is empowered to reach consensus decisions. Anyway, I don't know of any editor who participates in CfD and nothing else. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• I do agree that every editor is part of the community and empowered to reach consensus and I must also agree that there is not a single editor who has never edited anything in Wikipedia other than CfD. There are a very small handful of editors who spend a significant chunk of their time at CfD and whose edits outside of CfD are often primarily related to categories added, revised or removed from articles. As in the old adage that to one with only a hammer every problem looks like a nail, a narrow focus on categories appears to end up skewing viewpoints. That so many DRVS, as this one, have resulted in consensus from non-CfD regulars so starkly opposite to those of the CfD regulars raises the significant issue that the community consensus reached at CfDs does not reflect the views and opinions of the community as a whole. I agree that we don't have 100% of editors participating at AfD, but the larger participation, the broader notification of active discussions, the broad acceptance of reliable and verifiable sources as a basis for retention and the far clearer definition of "notability" versus that of "definingness" has resulted in far fewer discrepancies at AfD and results that are far more representative of the community as a whole. This and other such DRVs are telling us that we need to develop a mechanism to ensure that CfD starts to reflect community consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Given that the vast majority of categories that are discussed at CFD are never brought to WP:DRV in the first place, a handful of DRV reversals of CFDs can hardly be evidence of systemic failure of CFD to comply with community consensus. Because WP is entirely volunteer-run, people will edit content only where they are interested, and they will contribute to policy and content organization discussions only where they are interested. This means that at any given time, the only community consensus at play is that which bothered to show up. DRV exists in part to address that, by allowing for more eyes to review. But that isn't to say that the original community should be criticized for having come to a different conclusion. This is particularly true when the discussion involves categories that classify traits such as ethnicity or religion, which are bound to inspire more disagreement and more disparate views as to how (or whether) they should be categorized. And you overlook the different insight that comes from spending a lot of time at CFD, in that those participants have a greater opportunity to view the category system as a whole, to analyze how different pieces fit in, and to consider what kinds of categories do and do not work in practice. Just as the real world needs both writers and librarians, you shouldn't disparage individuals for choosing to volunteer more of their time on the latter just because you don't always agree with how some of those volunteers think it should be done. No CFD system is going to guarantee results you always like. Postdlf (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• If there exist “participants [who] have a greater opportunity to view the category system as a whole, to analyze how different pieces fit in”, who have information on “what kinds of categories do and do not work in practice.”, then their experience and knowledge needs to be better documented. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion has little in its header to help. Wikipedia:Category deletion policy doesn’t get into contentious issues. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) doesn’t really address deletion criteria. And they are all backwaters. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates sounds pretty relevant, as the place to start, but it doesn’t address deletion issues. There *is* a problem with WP:CfD. These recurring arguments are evidence of a problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• WP:OCAT is a good summary of CFD issues and practices, and there is a strong consensus for this even if not always a clear answer as to how it should be applied. Yes, it could be better codified, but we always need to be cautious about prescribing practice rather than describing it. Regardless, I'm optimistic about CFD principles becoming even more clearly expressed over time, just as there are now notability guidelines for different subject matter that are considered highly persuasive at AFD, while once there were still those who questioned whether notability should even be a criteria for deleting articles. Postdlf (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Just curious. With all this talk of "CFD is broken", "deep problems at CFD", "the overturn rate for CFD closes is disturbingly higher", I have to wonder. Can anyone tell me what percentage of CFD closes are brought to DRV, and of those, how many are actually overturned? I'm seeing an awful lot of talk, but no data to back it up. --Kbdank71 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn all There was no consensus to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Recreate as it suits the proper role of a category, which is to categorize information. Categories are of a wider scope than articles since articles aim to present verified material about notable subjects. Categories can be open and indiscriminate, as in this example. Most of these don't deserve to be the subject of an article, but they all fit as categories. ThemFromSpace 02:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, but no opinion on recreation. User:Kbdank71 definitely had it right at the time. However, I think enough time has passed that it can be recreated and then (almost certainly) sent to CFD where it can be debated anew, without any prejudice from the older discussion. I would certainly not reflexively delete it based on a year-and-a-half-old decision.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Diana Vickers

Diana Vickers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Afd is out of date (decision was redir). National tour, new record, passes WP:BAND #4. She has signed with RCA and also Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Biographies of contestants, she also passes notability (Yanks consider anyone making the live shows as a finalist) and passes WP:BIO basic criteria having been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject with numerous WP:REFS. Some feel it time to get on with article. Others are enforcing the redir without discussion and biting a poor new editor. That is not the wikiway. So I come here to get proper discussion and consensus. Triwbe (talk) 15:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Triwbe for a few references, so I'll hold off on !voting for the time being. I do have a few questions, however, the answers to which will hopefully help other participants:

1. Is the national tour part of the X Factor live, or as an individual artist?
2. Has the new record been released/charted yet?

If she's toured as independently, i.e. not as part of the X Factor, or if her record has charted I'd be happy for the article to be recreated.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep redirected until sources are found. When there's some decent coverage of her outside of X Factor (newspapers talking about her record deal or about her album would be best) then I will fully support restoring the article. Currently, all anyone is pointing at for notability outside of the show are fansites and her own Twitter profile. Until we have sources, she's just someone who lost on a gameshow and may or may not have had a fling with another contestant. (On a loosely related note, she's performing in my town in a few weeks, so I may have some pictures to share if I find myself at the performance...). J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources regarding Diana's album:
http://entertainment.stv.tv/tv/85079-diana-vickers-starts-work-on-debut-album
http://www.popjustice.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3388&Itemid=9
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/leisure/music/4088619.Real_deal_as_Diana_Vickers_signed_by_major_label/.

This source shows how popular Diana is:
http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/4139682.Diana_Vickers_more_popular_than_Britney_Spears_with_UK_internet_users -The source shows that Diana was seached for more than Britney Spears and came just after Barack Obama. -Sumeet_92

The following source refers to Diana being signed by RCA http://www.unrealitytv.co.uk/x-factor/diana-vickers-lands-record-dealbut-not-with-cowell/ . - T2h2o2m2a2s

Look at WP:BAND. Being "signed" doesn't factor into it at all. -- Smjg (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with J Milburn's comments. Moreover, unless I'm mistaken she still hasn't released anything, so the current news coverage is all about her forthcoming. While she may meet criterion 1 now, it's a grey area and, in the light of the edit wars that have gone on, I still feel that we should wait until she is more clearly notable (such as once an album or single has actually been released and charted) and the dust has had time to settle before trying to recreate it. Moreover, when/if we do recreate it, we probably ought to consider which of the many independently written versions in the edit history to start from or if we should make a clean start. -- Smjg (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more links that have been sent to me from members of www.diana-vickers.com

Sun newspaper:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article2423616.ece

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/article2331561.ece

Digital Spy links:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a145009/vickers-quigg-sign-to-rca.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/xfactor/a151030/vickers-ive-started-work-on-my-album.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a155593/wolf-bjork-to-write-songs-for-vickers.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a155810/vickers-works-with-freelance-hellraiser.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a157214/vickers-jls-lorenzo-to-play-live.html

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/a157920/diana-vickers-writes-hit-with-cass-lowe.html

I cannot see the point in further delaying the inevitable, personally.

--Sumeet 92 (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep redirect, until she releases an album or single, then she still isn't notable outside of the x-factor show. And assuming her album will be released would be violating WP:CRYSTAL. So until then, keep as redirect.--Otterathome (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

  Where does it say one needs to be notable "outside of X"? It's pretty darn clear she meets WP:N, so I'm not seeing the issue. Hobit (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• allow article Clearly the sun articles show she meets WP:N. Nothing else to see here, move along... Hobit (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep redirect. The requirement is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. One article in The Sun doesn't cut it. And I don't count the story about her outfit. That's not a claim to notability. As an aside, I took the liberty of removing the unnecessary and distracting bolding. لennavecia 04:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've never understood "that's not a claim to notability". If a RS covers it, then per WP:N it is a claim to notability (the way wikipedia defines notability). I don't see how "this kind of this isn't notable" arguments can be accepted when "this kind of thing is notable" arguments are commonly ignored as bogus. Ah well. Hobit (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Not quite. The general notability guide says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject..." and goes on to clarify "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail.... Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.". --Contributions/82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure, but if there is a story about her outfit, I think it's hard to argue it's not "significant coverage" about her. Hobit (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Not at all difficult, "address the subject direcgtly in detail", it addresses what the subject is wearing, that's not "directly in detail". It gives nothing we'd put in an encyclopedia article. Regardless if you and I agree or not, is not important, it was merely addressing the notion that any coverage in as RS is a claim to notability, it isn't, hence we can have discussions on such matters and hence why such arguments shouldn't just be said to be bogus without reasonable consideration. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
          • So if someone's writing, or art, or movie, or music is the sole topic of an article, that doesn't indicate notability of the person. That's a lot of BLPs you're suggesting we should delete by policy. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
            • That's not how I read it at all. If a newspaper article about Diane Vickers discussed her new album (music) in detail, that would establish notability. If it discussed her new dress, that wouldn't (and likewise for the interminable gossip columns about her and Eoghan Quigg). The IP has it right - we wouldn't discuss Vickers' dress in an article, so a newspaper article about her dress does not serve to establish notability. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
              • And I'd argue that if someone is important enough to have multiple articles written about them (passing WP:N and 1Event) they are pretty clearly important enough (notable) enough for an article. Hobit (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
                • This seems pretty circular. No one has said someone passing WP:N isn't notable, so I don't think there is any need for you to argue that. The issue being addressed (which I guess I wish I hadn't bothered now) stemmed from your original query about how someone could discount a source stating "If a RS covers it, then per WP:N it is a claim to notability", whereas WP:GNG does specify a threshold for sources (e.g. Significance, reliability etc.) for which there may be disagreement and debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Animal Crossing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

It is the habit of the project to preserve task force and wikiproject talk pages as a record of past history. See here for a related discussion. "Not useful" is not sufficient criteria for deletion. SharkD (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Undelete not a valid G8, and a prime example of where subjective instructions need reworking over at WP:CSD. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I stand partly corrected, G8 does mention talk archives being pages generally kept. Not sure why the deleting admin deleted the talk page, but then again I can't see the content of the page. -- Ned Scott 07:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Hearing Orange Mike's and Stifle's words I think it probably was a valid G8, but like S Marshall notes, it's not an unreasonable request, even if it's just two comments. -- Ned Scott 05:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Keep deleted, having viewed the talk page there are only two comments. The first is "I created this taskforce because..." and the second is "I don't agree, just go to the main project page". Stifle (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support my own action - as a historian, I am a fanatic about preserving archives; but Stifle sums up the entire content of the talk page pretty well - this was a cleanup, as much a G6 as G8, and nothing was lost of even the remotest value. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete. I accept the cleanup as a very valid point, but, we'll use more system resources arguing about it than we would by just undeleting it on reasonable request, which rather defeats the purpose of a deletion for cleanup reasons.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I suggest the page also be immediately moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive Animal Crossing, as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive RuneScape and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive_Neopets. SharkD (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Undelete and archive in the absence of a good reason to delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion following Stifle and Orangemike's comments. I really don't think there is any reason to keep it around according to Stifle's description of the page, and I trust their decision. Tavix |  Talk  20:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

File:F-GZCP.jpg

File:F-GZCP.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

• Discussion before deletion in favour of the image seemed valid. It would have been a nice touch to have an image of the actual craft attached to the article, so long as the image met fair use critieria (which it seemed to, if perhaps narrowly). Frei Hans (talk) 08:12, 9 June 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) 09:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Its copyright status was queried and no articles had links pointing to it. I have now undeleted it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Any reason this needs to remain open, then?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well things are in a twisted state no-doubt - Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 3#F-GZCP.jpg was auto-closed on the earlier speedy delete; it was probably headed toward delete... The image has been restored but more than likely will again be speedy deleted in a couple of days since it's still an orphan. Thanks/wangi (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The minority arguments to keep were basically metaphysical towards the end of the IFD, and had nothing to do with copyright rules or visual benefit to the reader. I am unsure why it has even been restored, and the whole issue of this DRV is moot, as it is overdue a speedy deletion as unused non-free content. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Woot Speedied again. I think the speedy rules need to be updated with "do not delete something being discussed in XfD or DrV unless the problem is dire. In that case, at least explain the action in said forum. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)