Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 25

25 May 2012

Carnism

Carnism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article on carnism was deleted without any apparent attempts to determine whether or not the concept is credible, which it is. The primary reason for deletion was the claim that the term carnism is non-notable. But in reality, carnism is discussed all over the animal rights movement, referenced in psychological publications (including Psychology Today, June, 2011) in philosophical theory (Nature Ethics: An Ecofeminist Perspective, by Marti Kheel. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. (2007)), in The Guardian, by a journalist for the New York Times and Atlantic Monthly, and was even discussed in a beef industry journal. Therefore, I request that the page be restored. If editors have concerns over validating and relevant citations and references they can then be addressed. I have attempted to discuss the deletion with Davewild but received no response. --Biocentricegalitarian (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Membership

Template:Membership (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was not notified of this sizable deletion please undelete the work in progress. Over 100 templates were deleted with such minimal discussion. The template is intended to be more like {{Flag}} with minimalist input. Development is waiting for MediaWiki updates. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 20:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Jurij Moškon

Jurij Moškon (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think that the Vesna Award (the main film award in Slovenia)[1] makes him notable enough.[2] In this article [3], he is described as one of the most prominent Slovenian film editors. Some further biographical information is available at [4] and [5]. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD but allow recreation - The AfD close was over a year ago on 26 April 2011. The closer noted that "No references support inclusion," so the references in the above DRV request have not been AfD vetted. The reliable sources need to be independent of Jurij Moškon (see WP:GNG), so citing to Jurij Moškon's resume doesn't help the DRV nom. While the other four sources are sources, they may merely be website postings and not Wikipedia Reliable Sources (see WP:RS). Given the AfD was a year ago, no references were reviewed in the AfD, and the four other sources listed above are new information has come to light since the 26 April 2011 deletion, seems reasonable to allow recreation and let AfD review these new other-than-English sources and other sources that may come to light during the AfD process. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As regards the reliability of the other four postings, the first was set up under the supervision of the Slovenian Ministry of Culture, the second and the third are news articles from the Slovenian national radio and TV portal, the fourth is an article from a long-standing newspaper of Lower Carniola. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Unles I'm missing something the 1st one doesn't mention the subject in question. J04n(talk page) 14:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The first one illustrates the importance of the Vesna Award. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse AfD but allow recreation, per above. The closer correctly read the discussion, in which noone has raised arguments for keeping. Indeed, nothing against a recreation. Cavarrone (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
• Meh on my 2011 close; allow recreation (original closer) With regard to this close, the Vesna claim was in the article at the time of the discussion, but the text didn't assert the award's putative significance and was kind of muddled, and it's my sense that as a result the question of notability under ANYBIO (1)'s award clause wasn't seriously considered. As a result, with respect to recreation, we now have a new (to the argument) claim of notability, and a source. Yes, it's sourced from a web site, but if the Vesna award turns out to be significant, that we'd almost certainly consider the award-granting organization's web site reliable even if primary. As there's a new claim to notability, old precedent (right or wrong) isn't controlling, so allowing recreation seems a no-brainer.

Had I been asked before DRV, I likely would have just said the same. The article still might fail at AfD2, but, particularly in view of WP:SYSTEMIC, it deserves a more-than-fair shot to make its case. --joe decker^{talk to me} 14:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)