Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19

19 November 2008

List of bow tie wearers

List of bow tie wearers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)|AfD 2|AfD 3|AfD 4)

There were basically two sets of arguments here. There were a number of votes to keep that argued that the article is based on reliable and verifiable sources from such publications as The New York Times (see "A Red Flag That Comes in Many Colors") and The Wall Street Journal which are among a number of articles that talk about bow tie wearers and the significance of wearing a bow tie. Without exception, the delete votes were variations of "I Don't Like It", such as "trivial", "Indiscriminate", etc., without regard to the arguments presented or the more than 100 sources provided in the article. The closing administrator has tossed in what would be a rather poorly-thought out vote for deletion and presented it as a rationalization to close as delete, allowing this to be sorted out at "the inevitable DRV". It is not articles like this that bring Wikipedia into disrepute. It is administrators who substitute their own personal biases and preferences in lieu of any semblance of Wikipedia policy that is the real problem. Overturn and whale slap is the appropriate action here. Alansohn (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore. The topic is not exactly weighty, but is treated in printed, reliable media. Perhaps the effort expended on this article is disproportionate to its importance, and perhaps from the quality of the rest of Wikipedia, we might expect at most a stub here. However, that does not necessarily mean that the minimum notability criteria were not met, as judged by coverage in secondary sources, and once those criteria are met, however marginally, then the article may be extended to any length justified by the quantity of material to cover the subject.

Further, I suggest that if the closing admin thought a DRV was "inevitable", then this reflects the lack of consensus to delete, and an inappropriate response, discarding the reasoned thoughts of both some who had not contributed to the article and some who had. You may disapprove of the NYT for running articles on this 'trivial' subject, but if they choose to do so, and in so doing reflect the significance of the topic in a particular specific field, then Wikipedia as a "specialised" encyclopaedia has every right to document the interest that some have in that topic, however obscure or how few they may be.

To clarify, my point is thus that the closing summary implies a strong consensus or clarity in the outcome of the debate which was not present, and insufficiently acknowledges, let alone address, the concerns of roughly half the debaters. The only actual argument given ("Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate.") is so utterly incomplete as to make it unclear whether the debate was even read or not. —Kan8eDie (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

At last count, there were 37 votes to keep, 30 to delete, 3 to merge, 2 to delete and/or merge. 37 is greater than 30 so how did the user get delete from that? Furthermore, they just had a deletion review and the result was keep. Even the original poster admitted that the article had been improved since the discussion.SPNic (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noting this, but the AfD process is not a vote, and instead we should be concerned that the strong views leading the majority to support the article were ignored. —Kan8eDie (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Restore - agree entirely with Alansohn - the closing admin exhibited no evidence of having even read the discussion. Occuli (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Staying neutral on the restoration, I don't think any action should be taken without a statement from the closing administrator. Assuming the discussion was ignored is on the edge of WP:AGF, but it's true there wasn't much of a rationale provided. I'm sure everyone would benefit from an elaboration. :-) --Koji† 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore That luxury is not available. He/she is either offline or merly reading (no recent posts). I believe this closure falls under criteria 4, given the contentious and seemingly un-admin-like nature of the closing comments. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's available if you have any patience (usually taught around preschool-ish, I got that lesson when I went back to school for my GED though). I'm not sure where you're getting the sense of urgency here, DRV isn't a snap of the finger; it's meant to further elaborate on the points taken into account (or perhaps lack thereof).--Koji† 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn - It was obvious from reading the discussion that no consensus for action had emerged; several alternatives had been proposed on the delete Talk page. Regardless of the merit of the article, it's clear that the results of the discussion were essentially ignored. --Clay Collier (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. The relevant policies are quite clear here, the debate was heading towards a 'no consensus'. However, policy always overrides consensus in these matters. I will reserve further comment until the closing administrator makes a statement. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Well (Church)

The Well (Church) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This article was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, although it contained very little, if any, promotional content. The deleting admin declined to restore it when I pointed this out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep deleted I was the deleting admin. When Phil nicely pointed out that it was no longer blatant advertising—which I agree with—I pointed out that it still fails WP:CSD#A7 (does not indicate why its subject is important or significant). I offered to restore to user space, but he indicated he doesn't know anything about the subject. Other contributors have few edits or are indefinitely blocked. —EncMstr (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. Doesn't really read like blatant advertising to me, and I can't at all support placing churches--or other places of worship--as A7-able (for the same reasons schools are exempt, it's likely to be contentious). Likely, however, an AfD is in order after restoration. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Allele (band)

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

While digging through the prod archive, I came across Point Of Origin (album) which said this band was deleted. The nominator in this deletion debate didn't explain why the band didn't meet the criteria in his opinion. All the commenters who supported deletion did not give a reason either while proponents of keeping the article cited Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles criterion number 6 (someone followed that up with claiming that criterion number 5 was required when the guideline clearly states that just one criterion needs to be met.) The final comment that mentioned Google news sources was never commented upon by the other people in the debate. I therefore believe that the comments made to support keeping the article where stronger than those for deletion and that the deletion should be overturned. Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. The AFD process attempts to gather a consensus, or in other words determine the feelings of the community concerning an article. It is not a competitive debate that is "won" or "lost" on the strength of arguments. When there is clearly more support for deleting an article than there is for keeping it, then deletion is the correct outcome. Stifle (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It might not be a competition for raw votes, but it is about the strength of the arguments (it's not called a debate for nothing). The arguments for deletion were non-existent and in the one case there was one, it wasn't rooted in policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn regarding the band article - Paul Erik's little independent third-party coverage comment was part of the AfD and does show third-party source material. However, the closer said " As of now no third-party source has been found," so it appears that the closer missed Paul Erik's comment. For what its worth, the band does maintain a press list at allelemusic.com/press, which might lead to some non press release, independent material. -- Suntag ☼ 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Original nom here. I haven't participated in a DRV before, and it's been 9 months since i tagged this article. Could an admin possibly restore it to my userspace so I can refresh my memory? Thanks! Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. As it's been nine months since the deletion then it's entirely possible that the band is now more notable. That is, you cannot rely on ghits now as evidence that the AfD missed evidence of notability. As far as I know recreation hasn't been prevented. Therefore, why don't you just create the article again or request userfication? Although technically time is no bar to a DRV I think in cases like this it is almost pointless debating the merits of a deletion so far in the past. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• The three hits in the linked Google news search are all from '05, so I think it's reasonable to assume they appeared there 9 months ago. I've put the AfD'd version into my userspace here, so that non-admins have access to it (lacks history, though). If anyone is willing to work on the article in their userspace, I'll be happy to userfy for them; Quite's correct that an article should be able to be written with the sources found so far. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)