Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4

4 September 2009

Template:Uw-spellcheck

Template:Uw-spellcheck (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not a candidate for speedy deletion; should have undergone community consensus and discussion before deletion, not at the immediate discretion of an administrator. Les there should be any worry, I do believe this is a valid template, with valid purposes for new users with awful/sloppy grammatical usage, but that discussion is not for here; we should have that on a TFD. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Prodego that we probably don't need a template for this, as a written-on-the-spot note will always work better, but I don't believe there's a good enough case to IAR speedy here. I've asked Prodego to self revert, but expect it'll take him a while to respond, as he's on break. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 23:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• speedy Restorewhether or not we need it is a discussion for CfD. If we keep templates for user messages, it could be said this is no worse than the others, except it's especially likely to be used for a beginner. But "(stupid template, promotes all sorts of bad robotic behavior. Write a note people) " is not a reason for speedy. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy restore - the template does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria, and the given "IAR" summary is not a good reason to delete anything speedily, as there are several subjective views that need community consensus demonstrated first Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Restore and send to TFD, obviously not a speedy. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

Ashida Kim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although I am sure that the closer acted in good faith, I think he mistakenly gave too much weight to the raw numbers of votes and not to the actual policy-based arguments (or lack thereof). The fundamental problem is that there is no way for this article to ever get beyond a short stub without violating WP:V and WP:BLP, and the article subject has said in the past that he wants it deleted. The article has been repeatedly used as a soapbox, and a source that has been deemed unreliable by consensus has been inserted numerous times — including after the most recent AFD closure (see [1]). Bottom line, this article is always going to suck, and is always going to be a magnet for BLP violations. Since the delete rationale was based in policy, and all the "keeps" amounted to either WP:ILIKEIT or "It's been nominated too many times before," the discussion should have been closed as delete. Note that two other users expressed concern about this closure on the closer's talk page. *** Crotalus *** 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. The closer accurately evaluated the arguments presented in the deletion discussion. Moreover, since Crotalus acknowledges here that it is possible to write an accetable "short stub" regarding the article subject, this boils down to a content dispute, which shouldn't be addressed as a deletion debate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that the closer evaluated the arguments correctly. I disagree when he says "a content dispute shouldn't be addressed at a deletion debate" because AfD and DRV are all about content. Indeed, together with the occasional RFC they are Wikipedia's main processes for resolving content disputes. But this isn't germane to the matter at hand.

  Even though I !voted "delete" in that AfD, I recognise that consensus is not on my side in this, so I think it behoves me to endorse the closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse 2 WP:Pointy noms from this user so far, even after he was told to wait one year before nominating it for deletion. consensus is against deletion, and it should not have been nominated so early regardless. The subject of the article has been proven to be notable in the previous 5 attempted deletions. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • No one has the authority to dictate a 1-year waiting period before renomination. The people asking for that were the same bullshidoistas who kept adding BLP-violating crap to the article. *** Crotalus *** 21:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Please could you take a more collegial tone?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • you should perhaps revise your false personal attack on admin DGG, crotalus. he was the editor who recommended a 1 year wait to avoid tendentious and pointy renominating, after it failed 5 times previously. if you are calling DGG a non-neutral party, you should probably take it up with him instead of attacking him here. see [[2]].Theserialcomma (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As I was not named or even alluded to except in the response immediately above, it's not a personal attack. Serialcomma, it unfortunately seems to be you who introduced my name into the discussion. it's a disagreement with something I said. But I've never edited the article, & I wouldn't know what a bullshidoista is unless I looked it up. As for whether it is reasonable to renominate an AfD at such speed, no I think it is not, and I believe I express the general consensus here--my comment at the AfD specifically gave it as my own opinion. As I said there, we have no fixed rule at present, except common sense. But if afds like this are going to done, perhaps we do need one. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn This article has, so far, survived quite a few Afds because there is a very vocal group of editors who are fans/participants in an internet forum that focuses (seemingly) exclusively on attacking or "debunking" article's subject. Article's subject fails to meet the notability requirements laid out at WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:AUTHOR. Furthermore, article has never included a reliable source beyond the primary source website of the subject. Article's subject is a fake ninja that advertises his wares in the back of comic books for cryin' out loud; it's time to excise this garbage. L0b0t (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment one reason that the "Keep" votes didn't contain as much detail as some might have liked is that some of us chose to refer to what we had written at previous AfDs (that had all been closed as Keeps) rather than copying it in to this one. That probably isn't the best strategy but one gets tired of the repeated AfDs. Perhaps if some of us had repeated those arguments and sources, this might've been closed as a Keep too. For example, one argument made there is that beyond the author, the phrase "Ashida Kim" has itself became synonymous with fraud in the martial arts and hence the term has some notability in that regard. JJL (talk) 21:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• exactly. the reason why the 'keep' arguments might seem weaker than the deletes are because this tendentious nomination was too soon and a waste of time for everyone. you could just refer to the previous 5 failed deletions for evidence. instead, the nominator for the deletion decided to afd without notifying anyone, possibly hoping that none of hte regular editors would notice, and then he canvassed sympathetic editors (the ones who voted delete) to come to this deletion review, without notifying the users who voted to keep [[3]] Theserialcomma (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Revise closing from "no consensus" to "keep" . Clear evidence of canvassing in a continued campaign against the subject. If the canvassed votes were removed, there would have been consensus to keep. I do not consider myself qualified to judge on the notability of the person, but I think I am about the behavior, and the recent AfDs and the Deletion Review come pretty close to qualifying as disruption. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And if I'd commented in the debate this time around there would not have been any such unanimity, because my opinion remains the same as it was in May 2007. No new sources have been brought forward, and the existing purported sources were evaluated at length and shown to wanting back then. But the same editors are still abusing the same bad sources to put bad content here — content that caused the subject to complain loudly about the article in the first place, nearly half a decade ago. I contend that editors who are and have been saying that we should now ignore these sourcing concerns on a biography of a living person (which I laid out at length in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd nomination), which Jimbo Wales asked in October 2005, and which remain unanswered three AFD discussions later) simply because the article has been renominated for deletion once again should seriously consider how poorly they are putting our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy into action.

    I specifically suggest that you go and look at the sourcing concerns that were explained for this BLP two years ago, and review all of the AFD discussions. You'll find a pattern of a small set of editors repeatedly votestacking to out-vote sourcing policy at AFD, as well as votestacking to repeatedly re-include badly sourced biographical content, that has been discussed and rejected by the rest of the community at large (see here for example), on the article's talk page (see here, for example). And you'll find practically everyone else, outside of this special-interest group, opining that the article should be deleted based upon the fact that our policies and guidelines are simply not satisfied. (And when you look at the user pages of that small set of editors, and note the WWW site of the purported source that they are repeatedly using, you'll discover what "bullshidoistas" is referring to.)

    Frankly: silliness about canvassing (One would think that I would be a prime candidate for canvassing if there were any canvassing done. In fact, I wasn't told about this latest AFD discussion. I only found out about it by accident, ironically from the closing administrator's talk page when I went there for a completely different reason.) and about not keeping to completely arbitrary re-listing deadlines (when a gap of 7 months isn't exactly pushing the issue without cease, is a lot longer than the 1 month gaps that we used to employ, and is nowhere near the "renominating an AfD at such speed" that you claim), when there are serious BLP concerns raised by the subject, by Jimbo Wales, by me, and by a lot of other editors in AFD discussion after AFD discussion, as well as on the BLP noticeboard and elsewhere over a period of years, is simple enabling more than anything else, and not something an administrator should be doing. Uncle G (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment by closer: In this DRV alone, we have people who want to overturn it to both keep and delete. Ironic, isn't it? \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Good close. No objections to changing from "no consensus" to "keep" per DGG. — Ched :  ?  07:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just a brief addendum: While I find no fault with the closing action or admin., upon review of the previous AfDs, the article itself, and sources both listed, and in search - I believe that there is a very strong case to delete this article. — Ched :  ?  09:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse The close but I will AFD the article I've come at this cold from the RS board - the sources simply don't exist and the AFDs to be over run with POV warriors on both sides. The best the article can come up with many years of existence is one reliable source. How do you write a BLP with one article which is simply an interview with the subject? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • One cannot. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (3rd nomination) where I refuted the sourcing claims in lengthy detail and explained how the PNC is simply not satisfied by the dearth of good sources here. The only counter to this analysis has been, from the same small set of votestacking editors, repetitions of ad hominem silliness such as this and this. You're asking the same question that Jimbo Wales asked in October 2005, that I attempted to answer and found could not be answered in the affirmative in May 2007, and that has been out-voted, with such strong votestacking that people are now buying into the foolish idea that we should now ignore the sourcing and notability concerns simply because they've been raised (by far more than one editor, at five AFD discussions and over several years) so many times. It really is time that we took a firmer stance with regard to our project policies against a small special-interest group, here. Uncle G (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse per DGG Thedarxide (talk) 08:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Virtually all of the keep !votes were based on a spurious notion that an article should be immune from deletion after it has been listed so many times. The issue of sourcing has been well made-out and not refuted. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse as no consensus- this was a clash between a nominator who doesn't know how to give it a rest, and people arguing for keep who didn't provide reasons other than pointing out the nominator couldn't give it a rest. Given the level of fail on both sides, there was not a convincing consensus for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I must, respectfully, disagree. Please read Uncle G's comments, this would have been deleted 3-4 years ago but for the Herculean efforts at vote stacking and ignoring BLP policy. I'll say it in bold for emphasis- This article has never, never, not even once contained a reliable source beyond the website of the article's subject. It exists (seemingly) solely to provide another forum for members/fans of Bullshido.net to "debunk" article's subject. This article and all the associated AFDs are a slap in the face to WP:BLP. L0b0t (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I must also, respectfully, disagree. There have been more sources provided, but as another editor pointed out during an earlier AfD, they're never good enough. Per [[4]] that was referred to earlier - it amazes me that Court records are not acceptable sources. There are further reviews on the web of his material, but they're also not good enough, etc. etc. I also resent the continued assertion that the individuals wanting to keep the article are fanboys of a particular martial arts website - I for one am not.Thedarxide (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of sources have been provided but none of those sources passes muster with WP:RS and they are certainly not reliable sources for the higher standard required of WP:BLP. Court records generally are reliable sources but they are often primary sources so for an editor to interpret the data therein is original research. A larger issue though is that the subject of the article fails to meet the inclusion criteria set forth at WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, WP:AUTHOR, etc.; the notability problem has yet to be addressed after 4 years and 7 AFDs. It's time for this article to be put out of its misery. L0b0t (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Witch (etymology)

Witch (etymology) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed with a consensus for "Keep", which while supported by a simple count of votes (5-3, including nominator) is not, I believe, the correct one. I say this because none of the keep !voters explained how this page does not violate the WP:NOTDIC policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary (that is Wiktionary's job), and how the article is not a Dictionary definition - the only part that is arguably encyclopaedic is the section about Wicca, which is unrelated to the etymology of the word "witch". The relationship between the two, and anything that could make the disucssion of the etymology encyclopaedic is or should be adequately covered at the Witch and/or Wicca articles.

This was initially raised on Cirt's talk page (Cirt closed the discussion) by user:LtPowers. The response was that the article has "a ton of sources, mostly having to do with the etymology" - I find this reasoning very odd, given that an etymology is still the province of a dictionary, no matter how well sourced it is; and the sourcing was not relevant to the deletion discussion.

The discussion can be summed up as three people citing policy that etymologies are not encyclopaedia articles in and of themselves vs five people saying "but its a good etymology" and "other words have articles" without citing any policy or other evidence to back up their assertions that some or all of the content could be encyclopaedic, despite requests, should be closed as anything other than "delete", "transwiki" or "no consensus" Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• This matter is actually quite complex.

  WP:NOTDICT is clear that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But then Witch (etymology) is not exactly a dictionary entry; it is an article about a word. There is no specific consensus on Wikipedia about whether articles about words are permissible or whether they fail WP:NOTDICT; but I find it persuasive that one article about a word, Thou, is a featured article. This strongly implies a consensus that articles about words are permissible.

  Also, I do not agree with the idea that the onus was on the "keep" !voters to "explain how this page does not violate the WP:NOTDIC policy". Actually there was an equal onus on the "delete" !voters to explain how the page did violate the WP:NOTDIC policy, which, during the debate, they failed to do. There were repeated assertions that the page violated WP:NOTDICT, but repeating an assertion does not make it true.

  Overall, I find Cirt correctly interpreted both the consensus and the weight of the argument, and I shall endorse his accurate close.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I will respectfully defer to the outcome of this deletion review discussion and the community consensus determined therein. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse keep A dictionary and an encyclopedia overlap, and the NOT rule has to be used with discretion. The community is entitled to decide how to interpret it and when to use it , as they did here. This is way beyond the information apparently considered proper content on wiktionary. I didn't !vote at the AfD, but i too would have said keep. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Whether Wiktionary would include this content is completely irrelevant. There is nothing here besides etymology and usage notes, all of which belongs in a dictionary (not specifically Wiktionary, but dictionaries in general). Powers ^T 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse keep per S Marshall and DGG. This article is not trying to be a usage guide for 'witch'. It is an article about a word that seems to have an interesting history. The !voters were under no obligation to explain in detail why this article is not a dictionary entry, and for Cirt to sum up a 5-3 majority close as Keep under those conditions was fair. As I look at WP:NOTDICT it seems a bit more anti-etymology than I would favor, but that's for another discussion. Take a look at Category:Etymologies to see a few dozen articles that are offered as etymology. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Most of which don't belong here as etymologies are not the province of encyclopedias. Powers ^T 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• I'd have preferred no-consensus to keep, but a deletion closure wasn't supported by the contributions to the AFD. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. I believe I did explain why the content violates WP:NOT -- it is entirely dictionary content, not encyclopedia content. Featured articles on words, such as Thou, contain encyclopedic information -- information that doesn't belong in a dictionary, primarily information on a word's cultural impact. This article does not, and therefore does not belong in an encyclopedia.

  The "keep" recommendations essentially boiled down to, as Thrydulf paraphrased, "but it's a good etymology". Let's look at them one by one.

  1. "Beyond the scope of Wiktionary" is essentially irrelevant. Our inclusion criteria are not "everything that Wiktionary won't take". We include and exclude content based on our own criteria, not Wiktionary's. And when I say "this is dictionary content" I do not mean "this is Wiktionary content"; many commenters seem to conflate dictionaries in general with Wiktionary specifically. Wiktionary is a separate project and its policies should have no bearing on our own. Moving on, "Plenty of sources and encyclopedic content" is a mere assertion without explaining what content in the article is encyclopedic (per WP:NOT) and what isn't.
  2. "A whole article on the etymology of a word. Isn't this what makes Wikipedia a great resource?" This is essentially "I like it", isn't it? This isn't even remotely a policy-based argument. It should have been discounted completely; it is not a valid AfD argument at all.
  3. "There's easily enough referenced information here to support a stand alone article; it couldn't be merged back without either loss of data or undue emphasis; and the etymology is complicated enough to warrant a full treatment." Indeed, but that doesn't address the fact that etymologies are within the domain of dictionaries, not that of encyclopedias. That an etymology is complex does not make it encyclopedic, and there is no policy or guideline that says that it does.
  4. "Contested etymology of a culturally significant word." Again, yes, but doesn't address why that makes the etymology encyclopedic. Maybe if the etymology itself were culturally significant, but the article does not make that case, and neither did anyone in the AfD.
  5. "Notable information that seems to include content what would not be in included in its Wiktionary entry." Again, Wiktionary's inclusion practices are not our concern. I don't see any information in this article that wouldn't be included in a comprehensive dictionary article.

  It seems clear to me that at most two of the "keep" arguments were solid enough to hold any weight at all. The others were either non-sequiturs, or asserted that etymologies are okay if they're complex enough, which isn't supported by any policy or guideline. How the closer saw a consensus to keep in all that is quite frankly beyond me. Powers ^T 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  Powers ^T 15:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism

User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This deletion was a total mess. It was ostensibly removed both as a speedy deletion, and a snow closure of the Mfd, and was gone within a few hours of being begun.

It was not a G10 candiadate, it contained no slanderous or defamatory material, and the BLP material, while unsourced, was nothing more than what you can find right now in mainstream media. The title could, if massively assuming bad faith, be seen as an 'attack', yet that was easily fixable with a rename, such as Obama and the national socialism analogy.

The Mfd was SNOW closed based on nothing more than 'this will never be an article' to quote Spartaz. Really? sources suggest otherwise The nominator didn't even appear to have read the page, as he seemed to think, wrongly, that it was attacking Obama, when in fact if people read it, it was mostly an attack against unnamed American Conservatives, combining some recent political events with some essay type material.

This was not an unsaveable draft, and it was not as one person put it as, a 'Criticism of' article in all but name. There was adequate scope for improvement and sourcing, certainly until the end of the 7 day Mfd period.

The fast closure of this was nothing more than a total over-reaction to reading the title and jumping to conclusions, which is an assumption of bad faith, and an abuse of the principle that people are free to host drafts in their userspace for everybody to work on without being harassed and cowtowed.

It shouldn't even be at DRV, but the ANI discussion was being derailed and the real policy issue was being shunted here probably in hope it just went away, so here it is. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Some background reading too. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as blatant attack page. G10 is not limited to the mainspace, nor is BLP. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  I have a copy of the draft. If you think it's 'blatant', please quote any part of it that meets this over the top reaction, or per G10, quote any part of it that is libelous or defamatory or a blatant BLP violation. MickMacNee (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Doing so would itself be a BLP violation. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Like I said, I have the draft, so you can give me a paragraph/line/word number if you feel you cannot repeat it here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse: I will put this in big letters to get the point across: there was no possible way this article could ever be NPOV compliant. Thus, per BLP, speedy deletion was not only warranted, it was mandated. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  You never even read the original content going by your initial comments, so how are your BIG LETTERS supposed to be any more convincing? And where is this idea coming from that this subject could never be NPOV? You simply can't say that without ever seeing a proposed article. It is not as if the proposed article was titled Obama is a Nazi, and if you are reading it thay way, then it is you who are not adhering to NPOV, not the article title. MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  WP:UNDUE. Even considering an article about a logical fallacy so old and idiotic you got made satirized when Hitler was still alive violates UNDUE. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  No idea what most of that alludes to, but regarding UNDUE, it is not beyond the realms of impossibility that an Afd on any proposed article could result in a merge result. There is no law either that userspace drafts are articles, it may merely have been a proposed section of say, Political positions of Barack Obama. The way you are going on it is as if this article was just about to be posted to main space, FA'd, and plonked on the main page. When in reality it was draft content a few hours old. MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  And to make it absolutely clear incase you get the wrong idea from that post, that proposed merge would be to add to the article the noted analogy about how some opponents see his proposed health reforms, and not to have Wikipedia state/imply/allege in a violation of BLP or UNDUE that Obama's political position was that of national socialism. I would normally assume I wouldn't have to make such qualifications, but given the reactions so far, I'm not so sure now so I'm being sure to make myself clear. MickMacNee (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, but AfD has a "keep" culture in which it's hard to get policy-violating material deleted once it hits mainspace. You know what? I'm going to move the goalposts: the "nazi" comparison in any context is so spurious, so idiotic, and so logically fallacious that any mention in an article would violate NPOV. There's a reason why it's an autoflagged word on the GameFAQs message boards: because, and I quote verbatim, "calling someone a "Nazi" shows that not only have you absolutely no grasp of history". Wikipedia does not, should not, and must not cater to such idiots. The only use for such a word in an encyclopedia is in discussing the ideology and adherents thereof. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, AfD has a delete culture, based on a/most afds closing as delete, and b/the frequently applied ability to continue nominating until something is deleted. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• What utter nonsense. But if you think that sort of attitude could ever fly as policy, WP:NAZI is free bizarrly. MickMacNee (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Wikipedia doesn't exist in a vacuum from common sense. There's no need to treat logical fallacies as sound arguments. Hell, their fallaciousness inherently implies that the argument is unsound. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  I have never been more convinced you aren't reading the draft at all. You honestly think this was a draft of Obama is a Nazi, rather than dealing with the coverage of the analogy, per the multiple sources that exist. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  I am taking into account the draft. There's no point in covering a fringe belief just to rebutt it. Inclusion in a mainstream encyclopedia only serves to give it a veneer credence it shouldn't have. And of course it's being covered! He's the President of the United States! I'd like to point you to the infamous "Michelle Obama's arms" AfD to prove that just because we can doesn't mean we must. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm well aware of her arms and related philosophical issues, as you'll see when you look up what I said in that debate. MickMacNee (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse - I am not a fan of Obama and many, many people can testify. I see no support for the page in the previous close or any shred that there could be a rationale for keeping the page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Personally, I'd go for reopening the MfD and letting it run its seven days as the low-drahmahz solution. However, that doesn't seem likely, given the controversial nature of the page, and the sentiment that G10 can apply to non-attack pages (we could try asking at WT:CSD, but I strongly believe the answer would be that it can't). So the best I can really hope for is to urge Stevertigo to see if he can work a small amount of the content into Barack Obama, or whatever other article it should go in. To that end I am willing to email him the content of the last version of the article, but not to restore it. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  There's no reason why we need to keep BLP-violating material (by virtue of it being NPOV-violating) online for seven days just for the sake of process. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  If the entire article had the same failing, I would agree with you, where BLP is concerned. However, quite a bit of it, while not NPOV, certainly doesn't violate BLP. WP:NPOV is a content policy, and to my knowledge it hasn't been extended into spaces other than the main. lifebaka++ 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  NPOV extends into metaspace when living people are involved, otherwise BLP would be ineffective in this regard. It's just normally not brought up. Even if the letter doesn't allow extension into metaspace, the spirit surely does. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Nothing that a {{noindex}} tag couldn't take care of in the meantime, I don't think. Regardless, it isn't like my opinion is anything but a small minority; consensus is in your favor. Cheers. lifebaka++ 18:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy endorse - 7 more days of what is a SNOW delete is bad enough, but 7 more days of libellious BLP violations against a major political figure? No. — neuro^(talk) 18:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Per my reply to Stifle, I have a copy of the text. If you can quote just a single part that is libellous, then I'll withdraw the DRV. I swear it. MickMacNee (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Or failing that, do you in your opinion think this article is libelous, or is it just useful source material for the draft that you want to get rid of? MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Vote retracted. — neuro^(talk) 17:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I despair of this, I really do.

  This is a conduct dispute as well as a content dispute; and Stevertigo is a victim as well as a perpetrator. I would personally have !voted "delete", but this is not the totally one-sided issue that the MfD portrays.

  Even though I think this content does not belong on Wikipedia, I deplore that a small number of very loud voices "won" that so-called "discussion" by shouting down the opposition, and the whole matter was very far from the standards of reasoned debate and collegial dispute I expect from Wikipedians. I'm saddened and disappointed by my Wikipedian colleagues.

  Regardless of the merits of the matter, it was inappropriate to snow-close, then for the same admin to be reverted and snow-close again. The second snow-closure should certainly have come from an uninvolved admin, and in my opinion there was no excuse for that.

  Looking at the wider picture surrounding that MfD and the history of its protagonists, I'm going to go with close without result and refer to Arbcom for them to enforce whatever remedy they believe appropriate, because the conduct issues outweigh the content issues here and DRV should refrain from prejudicing Arbcom's decision.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Unsure if "I despair of this" was directed at my !vote here or at the original MfD (if either), but either way, I assure you I wasn't intending to be part of any such troop of loud voices. I voiced my opinion, and I am not going to apologise for that. — neuro^(talk) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  None of the above was aimed at you personally, Neuro. "I despair of this" was aimed at the whole Obama article matter in general, and at that MfD in particular.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Oh whoops, ignore me. I was looking in edit view and it looked like you were replying to me. :) — neuro^(talk) 18:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  You make a good point about the participants, Sceptre tried to make this deletion and review as a fait accompli because Steve was a nasty end running POV pusher, when on investigation, they got the same remedy as each other in the arbcom case. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. First, procedurally. I had attempted to post a keep !vote to the Mfd discussion, but the Mfd was cut short while I was posting. When I asked to closer to reopen, he responded (as the AN/I discussion was spinning out of control) that he had "absolutely no interest in discussing this further while Stevertigo is behaving the way that he is." At that point Spartaz, although acting in good faith, should have recognized that he was no longer an "uninvolved" administrator, and therefore should have stepped back and either restored the MFD for more general review or directly requested that one or more other admins review the request.

Second, it is very clear that the draft article was not an attack page directed at Barack Obama, or at any identifiable person. It was, if anything, overly favorable to Obama (in terms of NPOV policy) in its debunking of the National Socialist/Nazi claims/analogies. Those claims border on the political equivalent of fringe nonsense, but given their widespread nature probably called for more careful treatment. However, whatever the NPOV problems, those problems were correctable, and correctable problems in a draft article have never, to my knowledge, been grounds for immediate deletion of a draft.

Third, the general subject is probably notable, even if the draft article is inadequately framed. In the last week or so, I recall seeing pieces in my local newspaper and the New York Times, as well as news or commentary on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News relating to the general subject: the unusually venomous, and unexpectedly widespread, attacks on Obama as a socialist/National Socialist/collectivist/communist/general totalitarian. There's a front-page piece in today's New York Times about organized efforts to block public schools from showing a planned national address by Obama to students as promoting "socialism." Stevertigo's draft was inadequate, but it addressed an at least arguably notable subject in good faith. We expect (or should expect) userspace drafts to be inadequate or flawed. If that's grounds for deletion, there's little point in allowing them at all.

Fourth, the draft itself was only a few hours old. The MFD was cut off after only three hours, and many of the delete !votes were not well-grounded in policy -- the idea that discussing partisan criticism of an important political figure inherently violates BLP is clearly wrong. While BLP is not limited to articlespace, the strict application of sourcing requirements to articles being actively worked on is contrary to the purposes of both the BLP policy and of userspace drafting. A fundamental principle of BLP is that "We must get the article right." Working up drafts of an article is an important step in getting the article right. Not everyone, to say the least, writes perfectly formed text in a first draft. Not everyone sees all the problems with a draft in their initial review. BLP recognizes such issues when it says, in discussing talk pages and userspace, that contentious unsourced material "not related or useful to making article content choices" is not allowed on talk pages or in userspace. That is, deliberately, a weaker standard than is applied to articlespace. Writing a draft article, in good faith, is obviously part of the process of "making article content choices." Absent clearly abusive content, or a hopeless NPOV violation, an article-in-progress should be left alone. And this draft article wasn't of the "Barack Obama: National Socialist Threat or Nazi Menace?" variety (to steal an often stolen line).

Finally, a pure utilitarian argument. If editors can't work up articles on contentious subjects as userspace drafts, less examined articles that get dropped into articlespace are likely to be much more damaging than things like what's under discussion, which are likely to be seen only by experience Wikipedian editors who go looking for them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse - There wasn't a snowball's chance that the result would have wound up as anything but a delete, as this proposal for a mainspace article was just plain gutter trash, to put it mildly. There was no need to let this drag on for 7 days, as that would have created much more drama than this early closure did. A little bit of WP:BURO once in awhile is a good thing. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  If anything, it appears there is not a snowball's chance of anybody making these sorts of wild claims such as "plain gutter trash" are ever going to do anything other than make wild claims, every request for evidence of such is falling on deaf ears. Christ, the draft referenced real events, and there are sources given above for the basic topic, yet you still blindly claim you know for certain what's what. You are right, this whole incident is ignoring beurocracy, quite a bit. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Permission granted to tone it down a few notches, please. Protonk (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  Mick, calm down. You've been trying to convince everyone on this "but it wasn't rally an attack on Obama, it was really an attack on those making the Nazi accusations!", and honestly, no one is buying it. It is very coatrack-ish in nature to elevate these off-the-wall, fringe criticisms into a full-blown article. During the primaries, there were vague accusations that once upon a time Obama screwed a guy for coke in the back of a limo. Would you really see any merit in the creation of a Obama and accusations of gay drug use ? Even if the thrust (pun unintended) of the article was to thoroughly debunk the accusations and the accusers? No, because it brings a fringe conspiracy theory to the surface and gives it more coverage than it deserves. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  So you advocate speedy deleting user space drafts that are a few hours old based on content guidelines? And to quote part of that guideline: "Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents". MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  I never advocated a speedy deletion, actually. What I did advocate was the deletion of a userspace work in progress that, if it were put into article form, would have run afoul of various core editing policies. I also now advocate the endorsement of the closure of an AfD that was a forgone conclusion. Tarc (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Meh Looking at the content, it isn't strictly a a G10. It's close, because it has this weird quasi-coatrack quality. But it isn't close enough that I would have speedied it or tagged it. It appears...at least on face...to chronicle events surrounding the actual accusations of fascism towards liberals. But I would vote for it to be deleted in MfD. If it were an article I would vote for it to be deleted at AfD. Obviously those two things don't mean that the article would never exist. But I don't have much hope. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Endorse Don't know why this is even up here, its going to be endorsed, might as well have saved us all the manhours this drama-llama of an article will cause here and just let it die. BLP concerns are only the tip of the iceberg. --M^ask? 19:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I had actually previously (Talk:Presidency_of_Barack_Obama/Archive_3#Obama_and_race) proposed that this topic be covered (race + Hitler comparison - skim too quick and you'll miss the latter; couple of sources referenced). Obviously it needs to be done in an encyclopedic way, and obviously this deleted page isn't it. Maybe it should start out as a section anyway, perhaps at Public image of Barack Obama. Rd232 ^talk 20:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn The closure of this MfD made a mockery of Wikipedia's claims of impartiality, neutrality, and good faith. While I don't feel there is enough material here for a discrete article, there is certainly enough material to warrant inclusion in Public Image of Barack Obama or some such place. A link was even posted to a Guardian article mentioning the accusations of National Socialism and comparing them to the very same accusations that accompanied the creation of the National Health Service in 1948. Most, if not all of the delete votes were based upon misreading/misunderstanding the policies being quoted or simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it had both Obama and National Socialism in the title. Snow closing an MfD, especially when there was already a thread at ANI where it was suggested that it be allowed to run its course and not snowed just to avoid this drama was probably not the wisest move. L0b0t (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

  There is nothing biased in swiftly dealing with the coverage of unduly weighted libellious logical fallacies. And your post seems to support the "Nazi" accusation being in an article about healthcare instead of being in a coatrack about Obama (which this article basically was). And even then, I doubt it'd actually get in because of it's fallaciousness: consider that while they did kill fifteen million untermensch, they also poured a lot of resources in an efficient road infrastructure which was a precursor to similar schemes in the rest of the world and set up one of the biggest automobile companies in the world (not to mention that Hitler himself was an ardent animal rights advocate and a frequent sugar-eater). But hey, if you think that "the Nazis did it" is a valid argument to consider coverage of in Wikipedia, then perhaps you should stop watching the Herbie films or use back-roads whenever you travel. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn. The page has obvious NPOV problems, but it is not an attack page. We have to keep in mind that this page was created less than 24 hours ago. Give him some time to work on it. It probably doesn't merit it's own article, but it may fit somewhere. Evil saltine (talk) 23:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC) - vote retracted Evil saltine (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

  The BLP policy mandates that any content about a living person that can not be neutral must be deleted; see WP:BLPDEL. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the policy you linked to says at all. Rather it says-"Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed....Page deletion is normally a last resort." Now for the umpteenth time can you please point out exactly where in the article these libelous passages are to be found? I'm looking at the draft right now and there is nothing here that violates BLP or constitutes an attack page. L0b0t (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Looking at the page again, even though most of the article is discounting the claims made about Obama, the first two paragraphs still state those claims without attribution. I think a well-sourced rewrite would be acceptable. Evil saltine (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Attribution can easily be done. This is exactly the type of discussion we should have been having in the MfD, that way we could actually be working on these issues. But now, because someone had a burr under their blanket and snowed the discussion then snowed the discussion again after it was reopened, we're here at DRV with people trying to bring The Love Bug and Beavis & Butthead into this[5]. L0b0t (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse The problem was that this barely had any weight to include it's own article, it would have easily ventured into BLP problems, it would have been hard to keep the addition/article NPOV, and there probably be other policies that it would have violated too. Endorse the deletion. Brothejr (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist in the hope of a better discussion. It's probably a vain hope, in the view of some of the comments above, but we should at least try. The present page is not a BLP violation nor an attack page. That it might "easily venture into BLP problems" can be said of any BLP. In my own opinion, I think the peculiar meme that calls Obama a nazi (or alternatively a socialist) is certainly worth an encyclopedia article, though I personally would not attempt to write one here. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Return to MFD. It looks very much like any MFD would duplicate the points being made here, so I'm not sure that a new discussion would add any light to the issue - but I'm equally certain that it would add heat. This is already a hotly contested issue, both for the subject(s), and for the ZOMG Wheel War. But I can't really endorse the deletion, either. So we'll sacrifice 10 days of our lives on the alter of process, then likely end up deleting the page anyway. There are good points to be made here, but I can't shake an uneasy feeling that the whole thing has already Godwin'd itself. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - DGG's argument is valid. If it is not an attack page, it should not be speedy deleted. And given the quality of comments on this page, it is clear that a consensus could easily favor keep. Although I have never been a fan of these some argue articles. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn There are many things to evaluate here, not the least of which are the points brought forth by DGG, Magog, and Ultraexactzz. Having read through the article several times, I'm simply not seeing a violation of NPA. Perhaps it would have been more prudent to organize the prose in a text file, then add the {{noindex}}, and include some of the 6,000+ "obamacare" and 7,000+ "obama socialism" news.google.com references prior to posting to user space. While the article "as it stood" certainly read more like a op-ed piece than an encyclopedic entry, and did show signs of pointyness, the topic is indeed a viable candidate for inclusion. User space sandboxes are designed to flesh-out these problems prior to movement to article space, and I find it rather disturbing that an editor's efforts would be chilled in a mere 4-hour MfD window. At the very least, the MfD should have been allowed to span a full 24-hour day, and preferably the full 7-day discussion. We're talking about user-space here folks, and I'm not partial to shutting people out before they've had a chance to work through the kinks in their efforts. — Ched :  ?  05:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. From this discussion, it seems clear that using G10 to delete this article is a stretch. The snow close was by definition a procedural irregularity, leaving only the question whether the irregularity was material to the outcome. Given the !votes here, I think that there's a reasonable probability that, had the discussion been allowed to run for at least 24 hours, or preferably 7 days, the outcome would have been different, especially since we give substantial leeway to pages in userspace. Tim Song (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. It is clear from the varied opinions expressed in this DRV that a WP:SNOW closure of the MfD was clearly inappropriate. For one administrator to snow close, be reverted and then snow close again is inexcusable behaviour and deserves censure. There has been no evidence presented this met the criteria of WP:CSD#G10 (and I can't see any in the draft myself). Had this been in article space, then it would not have been an appropriate article - which is exactly why it was in userspace so that a verified, NPOV article could be developed, for a controversial topic with this many potential references (>6000) this takes a lot longer than the few hours it was given. The entire deletion episode has been a disgrace to Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist notably per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and DGG. A poor draft (hence still a draft) of a notable topic, and by no means a speedily deletable attack page or BLP violation.  Sandstein  10:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - and please wait before relisting. Having reviewed the article in question it is certainly not a snowball. Although it is true that it is unsourced, it was only a few hours old and seemed cogent and sourceable. The subject matter apears notable, and it is plausible that this subject matter can be addressed in a stand-alone article. Laying out the sections and structure, then adding sources, is a reasonable way to compose an article. Surely an editor allowed a little time to bring articles under construction in their own user space up to verifiability standards. That's why people edit articles on their own pages in the first place. In the long run, either the article has to be finished then introduced to article space, or else it's not going to serve any purpose and could be deleted as a maintenance matter. Once it's proposed, it may or may not meet the community's approval. But we can't reasonably speculate in advance that the finished article will not be acceptable. Wikidemon (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• OK I can see where this is going I suppose someone should just snow this, restore and relist the MFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)