Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 3: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:43, 4 July 2008

< July 2	Deletion review archives: 2008 July	July 4 >

3 July 2008

Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg

The closing admin enforced his personal opinion of WP:NFCC#8 to delete the image despite no consensus in the debate. Additionally, the nominator, Fasach Nua (talk · contribs), has a history for anti-fairuse disruption (remember, being right =/= being disruptive) and stifling discussion by not following IfD rules. See also, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_27#Image:FotD 007x.jpg, which is the same dispute, different image. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, please, leave the discussion on whether the image did pass NFCC or not out of it. DRV, especially this one, is supposed to review whether the correct procedure was followed. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that this is a pattern of DW episode image deletion. While this image discussion indicated a clear 7:5 consensus to keep, the image was deleted. I should know; I was one of the ones voting to delete. That the image was deleted - again, against consensus or precedent - displays a disturbing trend that should be discussed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I think Sceptre has a point. The closer's statement was "Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative. Cited commentary about the image needs to exist in the article and the image placed in context with that commentary in order to justify using the image under fair use." Whilst that is a defensible opinion, it is not an accurate expression of our current policy. Moreover the use was far from decorative. I will quote from my argument to keep, which demonstrates the significance of the picture (which is amply treated in the article): " A striking image of the Doctor's desperation to save the only other living Time Lord, whom he has known since childhood. The Tenth Doctor's extraordinary capacity for forgiveness towards The Master contrasts with his normally unforgiving, uncompromising nature ("No second chances, I'm that kind of man" -The Christmas Invasion, "You get one warning. That was it." -School Reunion). Despite all the evil things The Master has done, the Doctor forgives him and urges him to regenerate." One might legitimately argue that text could be used instead of the picture; that is not our policy. One might say that the use was purely decorative, but my description shows this to be incorrect. If the closer's feeling was that the image was not close enough to the text it was associated with, that was not a deletion matter at all: anyone could move the image to the relevant part of the plot summary. --Jenny 07:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - consensus was to keep the image, and there is no overriding policy violation that would require deletion. (The debate was whether the image satisfied the NFCC, and the consensus was that it did. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. To Stifle: No, whatever this IfD was, it was most definitely not a "consensus for keep". I count five carefully argued delete votes (Fasach Nua, pd_Thor, PhilKnight, Arcane, myself; one equally serious conditional delete vote (JohnABerring27A, worded as "keep" but essentially saying "delete unless improved"); five argued keep votes; one "as per" keep vote with no new arguments, and one keep vote (Sceptre) given for blatantly disruptive WP:POINT reasons ("keep" because he doesn't like the nominator.) That's a "no consensus" at best, but in fact it's within the domain where a deletion decision on a non-free-content related IfD falls into admin discretion, as in many similar cases. - As a general note, I notice that User:Sceptre has made it a habit of systematically opposing IfD nominations made by Fasach Nua regardless of the merits of the case, just because he finds him "disruptive", and he is even using that as an argument for this DRV nomination. This is blatantly disruptive behaviour in itself, and in fact constitutes blockable harassment. Fair warning given. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - He actually got blocked for being disruptive three weeks ago, and a RFC was opened on him six months ago. It isn't a huge logical jump to assume he is being disruptive (which is different from being right - people have been banned for disruptive improvement). Speedy keeping for disruption is allowed (WP:SK 2, especially iii) and is not harassment because I'm not wikistalking his nominations, I'm keeping an eye on the Doctor Who IFDs. If someone like Arcayne had nominated the image, I would've elected for a "weak delete". Sceptre ^(talk) 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (no consensus). Closer's rationale was a non-overriding new argument that he should have introduced as a new !vote. Also, the closer seemed to even suggest an editorial solution that would justfy keep. Closer is therefore just as unclear as the final consensus of the debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - for the reasons I noted above. The only serves to punctuate the problem I pointed out in another DRV over another Doctor Who image from yet another episodic article. Houston, I think we have a problem here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - image clearly met the requirements, as the consensus seemed to establish. ╟─Treasury Tag╬contribs─╢ 10:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Eibl

reason for deletion is absolutely not clear - and the administrator admits to be a "deletionist" - but sure not a scientist in this rather new field of nanobiotechnology Robert Eibl pioniered. The whole discussion was too short and almost nobody really discussed on this page, mainly , one former Stanford computer scientist and no real scientist from the field was able to really judge "notability" of someone who may have ennemies in the field of biophysics who have good contacts to Wikipedia deletionists, but Robert Eibl demonstrated remarkable findings and approaches already acknowledged by a Crafoord prize winner (Eugene Butcher/Stanford University) and by a Nobel candidate (Irving Weissman, California scientist of the Year 2001, and Robert-Koch prize winner 2008), as everybody can see on the homepage www.robert-eibl.de . Therefore the reason for deletion should be discussed and the discussion for deletion should remain for at least one month to give real experts in the field a chance to confirm notability - Why does the administrator feels to be above Who's Who in Medicine and above Who's Who in the World? I would like to suggest that Wikipedia should take care of deletionists 62.104.72.16 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure (keep deleted). The AfD participants already appear to have considered the evidence presented here and concluded that this person does not meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for academics. The verifiable facts presented in the discussion by the anonymous participant(s?) appear to have been duly considered (though the opinion portion of the of the anon comments appropriately discounted in accordance with established standards given the risk of sockpuppetry). A person's own website can be a supporting source for some incidental information about the subject but is not considered an independent or reliable source for the purposes of determining notability. I see no process problems in the AfD discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uncertain I originally voted keep at that AfD, & changed it to a weak delete on the basis that only the early work was cited significantly, and is was not independent. Reading the Afd, it becomes clear that there is a good deal hidden beneath the surface here DGG (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uncertain The problem is that there is no real substantial evidence. I need to rely on the publicly available sources and facts like citations etc. From these, notability is not obvious. As DGG points out, the early work seems to be really established, but not independent. The newer work might be independent, notable and influential, but at the moment, it is not well documented by independent sources. Working together with truly influential people like Butcher or Weissman does not make a person influential himself. Furthermore, even this alleged cooperation is hardly verifiable. As it is, this independent newer work is only represented in non peer-reviewed books as chapters. Everyone who is slightly involved in the field can read the peer reviewed, original literature and write such a chapter, without being influential himself. The personal website is not very informative. Some accusations about not being cited, no CV, no publication record, no affiliation. Therefore, the website - beyond was Rossami was already pointing out - is not a good source for establishing notability. Perhaps one should wait until the newer work is well documented, and then include the article again. --Sisyphos happy man (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion, and would the IP please explain why he ignored the instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page"? Stifle (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Fair reading of the AfD. No evidence of independent secondary sources. Keep arguments focused on the subjects work, not the subject. Of the two wikipedia articles linked in the cached version (medulloblastomas and PNETs), on which a notability claim seems to be based, neither article contains Eibl's name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Black Kite

Was speedied by Black Kite under G7, but is not the work of one author. As I understand it, admins do not have the right to delete their talk pages simply because they are retiring. I have no problem with leaving the page blank, but the history should be retained. Father Goose (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Right to vanish, we each have the right to leave the project and that generally does include the removal of userpages and sub-pages (which includes Talk in my experience). We limit that right when the Talk page includes large numbers of warnings and other evidence of investigations into malicious activity or editing. I see no indications that this was a bad-faith edit or that Black Kite left the project under suspicious or malicious circumstances. He/she did not, for example, remove the Talk page archives. (See here for an example.) This speedy-deletion seems to me to be well within reasonable standards of acceptability.
Note: If the consensus is to overturn, please be sure only to overturn the most recent deletion. The removal of the personal attacks and threats (31 Mar - 1 April) were entirely appropriate and show admirable restraint on the part of this editor in the face of outrageous provocation.) Rossami (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well. I am changing my request to temporary undeletion, as certain comments made by Black Kite on his user talk page shortly before deleting it may have bearing on this other current deletion review.--Father Goose (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reviewed the deleted content. There were no comments relevant to that discussion in the history. There was a minor discussion that was moved to his last archive - that content is still visible. Rossami (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It finally occurred to me to look it up via Google's cache. The language in question was at the top of the page: "This was supposed to be a Free Encyclopedia - but is rapidly turning it into a compendium of every piece of trivia ever written, complemented with lashings of copyright abuse." This is relevant to the aforementioned DRV, and I would again like to request undeletion until that DRV is closed.--Father Goose (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't know what you're looking at when you refer to the Google cache but I have now double checked every version between the user's last archiving at 08:24, 28 June 2008 and the page deletion at 14:16, 30 June 2008. That comment is not in the deleted history of this page. I suggest that you look in his/her archives instead (pages which have not been deleted). Rossami (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I am willing to allow for a certain amount of leeway in a user's own subpages, particularly where there is no evidence of problems or wrongdoing. As that does not exist here I see no good reason to force the restoration of the page. Shereth 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete User talk pages should never be deleted for reasons of embarrassment. "Right to vanish" is not a right, but depends on the circumstances. I consider this circumstances here borderline at best, and I think permitting deletion in cases like this is a poor precedent. Incidentally, has he really vanished--does he still have admin rights?. Unless he gives them up, he has not vanished. What exactly is his status now? DGG (talk) 04:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete, courtesy blank, and protect. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete all non-libelous content. Faulty application of WP:CSD#G7. User:Black Kite was not the only author of the page. In the absence of compelling reasons, the talk page should remain accessible. I do not know what libelous, offending and non-offending content was deleted, but only libelous content should be deleted. Blanking is sufficient for things that are merely offensive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Osman Larussi

Speedy Deleted when it should have just been tagged asking for sources. It is a verifiable (brief) biography on a noted hostage-taker in the Beslan hostagetaking. I admit the sources used were subpar, but that means a concerned editor should ask me to add sources, or throw a tag requesting sources and drawing attention the to the problem to the article. They are even welcome to start an AfD on the matter. But not that they should wantonly use their admin powers to simply delete the article without discussion or review. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have sources in mind you could have added to the article? I doubt it'll be undeleted unless you have some. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just provide some sources we can access.-Wafulz (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the deleting editor. I was not the one who tagged it as an attack page, but the unsourced accusation was so drastic that I felt the better part of discretion was to delete it until it could be sourced. Especially after the Seigenthaler incident, we have to be extra careful about accusations of criminal activity. Even if WP:BLP didn't apply, I agreed with the nominating editor that a claim like this, without sourcing, constituted an attack page. I created a sandbox for the editor to recreate the article with proper sourcing. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear what "creating a sandbox" means in your context, it's not even like you copy/pasted over the information, you just created a page with the word "Sandbox". Two random sources that back up the claim Larussi was wanted in connection with the hostagetaking are the Guardian and the Centre for Security Studies. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought you might want to start from scratch. I've restored the prior version to the aforementioned sandbox in your userspace for your use. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense. This is not a request to have the cached text, I can take that from Google cache or elsewhere. It's a request to have the deletion undone so the article can be improved with the addition of sources, as it should have been in the first place. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as tagger - found it browsing Category:Terrorists, which is a warning light of an article's BLP passing. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion if content violated WP:BLP and encourage User:Sherurcij to read WP:BLP and WP:V before attempting to recreate the article in his userspace. If no BLP violation, then userfy to User:Sherurcij/Osman Larussi until it is properly sourced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cabal

The debate leaned towards keep by 7 to 6 and the arguments were strongly for. This is actually a pretty important writer. This isn't a journalist who doesn't become a part of his work and simply writes articles. Cabal is well known and his work is filled to the brim with his personality. We put a lot of hard work into looking up references and vetting the article's facts. His work was cited by a university professor as a favorite quote, and the same article was noted by Arts & Letters Daily which is a yearly record of important articles. What more, he caused a huge controversy about his defense of the freedom of speech of Ernst Zundel. That's just what's available on the web. He has a whole oeuvre that can be found at the NYPL's archives of the New York Press. On top of that we were setting the record straight by offering a NPOV on the whole god damn Zundel controversy. That was something, this deletion is bad. To go on, he also interjected himself into the whole Matt Taibbi mess about the controversial upcoming-death-of-the-Pope article in 2005 at NYPress. He writes for other publications too. This is all recent stuff he's done that doesn't include his more or less offline past from the early days of the Internet which aren't always so well reflected on our World Wide Web. I mean, Jesus Christ, why does one have to make these damn impassioned arguments for a notable writer when so many junky articles freely roam around here (you know who you are). And kudos to God too, whatever good that may do. -Manhattan Samurai (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was fairly clear. I endorse Stifle's closure of it. As for the rest of your arguments, if you'd like I could userfy the article for you so you can add sources written about Mr. Cabal to the article. I doubt a little that any exist online, but offline sources would be fine. I also suggest you keep WP:CIVIL in mind when commenting, to avoid escalation. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeepers! Are you under the impression that there were no sources about Cabal? We had several and they were all from reliable sources. How could I call up the article again?-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn -- i have to agree. the people who wroeked on the article has a tleast five or six WP:RS reliable sources indicating both Alan Cabals existence, his notoriety, and the instances win which he interjected himself into the whole Matt Taibbi mess about the controversial upcoming-death-of-the-Pope article fr as well as his praise of Holocaust researcher Earnest Zundel. I personally find the deletion was just a little prematrue since this writer had at least a few notable controversies to his name which is more than several other articles writetn about other people (ie athletes, low-level politicons, etc). have. Smith Jones (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure - I don't see any procedural issues here. Shereth 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural issue: The writer is notable and the required reliable sources have been used. YET the article was deleted. This is a big procedural issue so let's wake up here. -Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I feel that the consensus among editors who demonstrated an understanding of guidelines was clearly to delete. There were no reliable sources produced demonstrating significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Overturn~~. Jesus Christ, do you have to be a superstar journalist to have an article here at Wikipedia? We showed sources quoting him as a favorite, notable articles, Zundel controversy, resignation following fiasco, & etc. What event has to occur (seriously, maybe Cabal will cause it to occur and write an article about it) so that he can remain here at Wikipedia? What? Does he have to win a Pulitzer?-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Your opinion that the decision should be overturned is clear from your nomination. It is acceptable to continue to participate in the discussion and to reply to other editors but please do not use the bulleted, bolded format at the front of your comment. It creates the impression that you are trying to have your opinion double-counted and creates potential confusion for the person who eventually has to close this discussion. Rossami (talk)
  - Take it easy with the hyperbole, it's not really helping to get your point across. Nor is the constant linking to Jesus Christ - I'm not really certain what you are trying to accomplish. Shereth 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I don't know what is with my odd usage of religious overtones either. Maybe it is the stress of seeing this maddening discussion still continuing down this same road of questioning Cabal's notability. I don't know WP:BIO that well but at its heart it has to be about keeping articles about notable journalists.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see a real danger here of this review discussion becoming as farcical as the deletion discussion that preceded it. This discussion is not about Cabal's notability, it's solely about the closing of the discussion.--Michig (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deeletion discussion was hardly a farce. both sidces for keeping an ddeleting raised well rationalized points and discussed them poolitely and respectfully. to casually dismiss the people who worked to present thei r case as to why the article should be kept or should be deleted deserve to have their optinions and their time respected. Thank you for your tme. Smith Jones (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There were arguments for keeping and arguments for deleting. If anything, the arguments put forward for notability are the ones working as VS changes from Delete to Keep, SilkTork changes from Delete to Keep, and The ed17 !votes for Keep based on the notability arguments. The actual !votes for delete were 7, and the !votes for keep were 7. The convention is that if there is no clear consensus to delete that the closing is normally "no consensus" and the status quo is retained. The closer's argument is that despite the article following policy ("the articles provided as references prove that he exists"), that the references "do not confer notability", so closed on a personal interpretation of the guideline - which, in a sense, got the closer a little too involved in the !voting and decision making - a natural tendency we are not always aware of. There is no clear consensus in the discussion from which to make a delete decision. SilkTork *^YES! 21:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify the issue. The article meets policy as regards Verifiability (the closing admin confirms that in his closing statement), Original Research and NPOV. The discussion is regarding notability guidelines. Notability guidelines are drawn up and informed by the consensus found in AfD debates, and this consensus changes. In this particular case, no clear consensus emerged. The guidelines are not policy, and do not determine policy, they help guide us toward a decision based on past consensus. The WP:BIO guideline formed part of the discussion and a number of those taking part in the AfD discussion were aware of it. It would be inappropriate to close as Delete through a feeling that some people did not fully understand the nature of that guideline. As one of those involved in the AfD discussion I am fully aware of the WP:BIO guideline as I have helped structure it. SilkTork *^YES! 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some contributors to the deletion discussion clearly did not understand what constitutes an independent source (citing articles written by Cabal as sources about him), a reliable source (citing a mirror of Wikipedia as a source), or significant coverage (brief mentions put forward as evidence of notability). The closure was, I believe, correctly based on the valid arguments put forward by both sides. It's not a question of whether WP:BIO should be slavishly followed. The article did not meet policy as regards notability or verifiability of facts about Cabal.--Michig (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Noooooooo!! Those were early efforts. The article was SIGNIFICANTLY improved and reliable sources were found here and there (in fact it was Cabal himself, who has been following somewhat this discussion, who pointed some of them out). In my researches I've come across this article about a restaurant called Mzoli's, which ended up being kept. A restaurant! This is different: Cabal is a notable journalist!-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But seriously, this has become a farce. A good one though.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Zlan Cabal is a journalist and the deletion of hs article is a mistake. Deleting his article just beuase he is a journalist is bad as deleting the Tim Russert article or the Brian williams aryicle. Smith Jones (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore inaccurate reading of consensus.The closer should have jined in the debate instead of choosing to close on his personal view. DGG (talk) 04:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure (keep deleted). The discussion makes clear that the sources listed in the discussion were considered by the participants and ultimately determined to be inadequate to demonstrate that this person met Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies. Sources were added during the discussion and while they convinced one editor to change his/her opinion, the majority of subsequent editors evaluated them and still found them to be insufficient. The arguments which were based on incorrect interpretations of Wikipedia's policy on reliable sourcing or were variations of WP:OTHERSTUFF were appropriately weighted by the closer. I see no procedural problems in this discussion. This closure was within reasonable administrator discretion. Rossami (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point was raised during the discussion that the wording of the Verifiability policy does allow sources that are appropriate to the topic: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." My point here is that there is no clear clarity of consensus in the interpretation of notability sources arising from the discussion. The article appears to fulfill Wikipedia policy as regards sources - but it was not certain. So the dispute was about the nature of the sources - are the sources good enough? Unfortunately for everyone concerned in the discussion, no consensus emerged. As it is not clear that consensus felt that the article failed, then the process defaults to Keep. It would be inappropriate to continue the argument here about the nature of the sources. The point here is to decide if a consensus emerged from the discussion to delete the article. I see no such consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 07:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own deletion. The killer bit was that the sources only prove he exists, and don't make out his notability in any way. AFD isn't a vote count. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus which had to emerge from the debate. You've injected your own opinion about the quality of the sources without looking at the debate.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the deletion. The killer bit was that the sources kept getting better and we had established notability in many ways. Our argument was by far the stronger one. AFD isn't a vote count. Manhattan Samurai (talk) 08:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No evidence of sources that are about the subject. There were lots of mentions of the subject in sources, and sources authored by the subject, but Wikipedia should only cover things where reliable sources contain coverage of the subject. None of the keep !votes seemed to appreciate this, and accordingly they were correctly discounted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been slamming your head against the wall one too many times? The entire "Zundel controversy" was about Cabal's defense of the guy's freedom of speech. Cabal instigated that. No, it wasn't about how Cabal was a part-time vegan who happened to defend someone's freedom of speech one afternoon in an article, it was mostly about the article with occasional remarks that Cabal was an anti-Semite & etc. If you want a source written about the man then you have one here [1]. You have a whole spectrum or variety of sources about Cabal. Yet, I'm sure for every one I bring up Wikipedia's "lofty standards" will show up and put it down. Isn't there a disturbing amount of articles about Pokemon (whatever the fuck that is) around here and other stuff? You do realize that journalism is a very serious endeavor and should be given more respect than it is receiving here.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Davis for Freedom campaign

this afd discussion was closed by a non-admin less than 24 hours after it had been opened. The article is the worst example of wp:soap I have seen and the content is adequately covered in both Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 and David Davis (British politician) B1atv (talk) 15:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AFD was opened in June. If it was a recent early closure I would reopen it but really, you should just relist the page on a new AFD. That's all that this DRV will suggest doing anyway. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... While the usual guidelines for non-admin closures say that non-admins shouldn't do closes like this (since they're not excessively obvious), I'd have to say that he hit the nail on the head for what the debate was like at the time. I agree that the closure was a bit early (given that some delete !votes had been given later in the AfD), but I can't fault the closer's judgment otherwise. I'd say we ought smack him with a trout lightly for being a bit too bold, then relist. Reopening is an option, since it hasn't substantially changed since the closure, or you could just carry on with the merge discussion already going on. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or reopen If non-admins are going to close like this, we should stop non-admin closes altogether. I agree with the view that is downright political spam. The advantage of going through Deletion Review is to publicise this sort of bad close so people will know not to do the like. DGG (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or reopen. Was not an appropriate close. Neither Speedy nor snowball applied. The allegation "Not one of the cited references mentions the David Davis for Freedom Campaign" is serious and was not countered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 *'''Overturn''' - consensus was to keep the image, and there is no overriding policy violation that would require deletion. (The debate was whether the image satisfied the NFCC, and the consensus was that it did. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 **'''Endorse'''. To Stifle: No, whatever this IfD was, it was most definitely not a "consensus for keep". I count five carefully argued delete votes (Fasach Nua, pd_Thor, PhilKnight, Arcane, myself; one equally serious conditional delete vote (JohnABerring27A, worded as "keep" but essentially saying "delete unless improved"); five argued keep votes; one "as per" keep vote with no new arguments, and one keep vote (Sceptre) given for blatantly disruptive [[WP:POINT]] reasons ("keep" because he doesn't like the nominator.) That's a "no consensus" at best, but in fact it's within the domain where a deletion decision on a non-free-content related IfD falls into admin discretion, as in many similar cases. - As a general note, I notice that [[User:Sceptre]] has made it a habit of systematically opposing IfD nominations made by Fasach Nua regardless of the merits of the case, just because he finds him "disruptive", and he is even using that as an argument for this DRV nomination. This is blatantly disruptive behaviour in itself, and in fact constitutes blockable harassment. Fair warning given. [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 10:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
+***[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive439#User:Fasach_Nua He actually got blocked for being disruptive] three weeks ago, and [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fasach Nua|a RFC was opened on him six months ago]]. It isn't a huge logical jump to assume he is being disruptive (which is different from being right - people have been banned for disruptive improvement). Speedy keeping for disruption is allowed (WP:SK 2, especially iii) and is not harassment because I'm not wikistalking ''his nominations'', I'm keeping an eye on the Doctor Who IFDs. If someone like Arcayne had nominated the image, I would've elected for a "weak delete". '''[[User:Sceptre|Sceptre]]''' <sup>([[User talk:Sceptre|talk]])</sup> 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn''' (no consensus).  Closer's rationale was a non-overriding new argument that he should have introduced as a new !vote.  Also, the closer seemed to even suggest an editorial solution that would justfy keep.  Closer is therefore just as unclear as the final consensus of the debate.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 09:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn''' - for the reasons I noted above. The only serves to punctuate the problem I pointed out [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_27#Image:FotD_007x.jpg in ''another'' DRV] over ''another'' Doctor Who image from yet ''another'' episodic article. Houston, I think we have a problem here. - [[User:Arcayne|<span style="color:black">'''Arcayne'''</span>]] [[User talk:Arcayne|<small><span style="color:gray">(<sup>'''cast a spell'''</sup>)</span></small>]] 09:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)