Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2009 Deletion review archives September 2009 >

31 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Bobby Schilling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed and the article was deleted because the deleter, Black Kite, said there was a consensus that it "failed" WP:POLITICIAN. There are two problems with this: First, that WP:PERPOLICY says an AfD discussion is NOT a vote. Second, as far as I can tell, Bobby Schilling clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN because he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the article. The deleter and the discussion participants all based their arguments on the idea that Schilling will not be notable until he has received coverage outside of the local media, but nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say this is a requirement. Schilling has received significant coverage in the media, as evidenced by Google News. Therefore, I request that the article be restored. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse my own close. Consensus at the AfD was quite clear, I believe. Four delete comments including the nom, against one Keep by the article creator (I ignored the IP SPA). An AfD is indeed not a vote, but it requires contributors to base their comments on policy. Those on the delete side pointed out that this person does not pass WP:POLITICIAN (and hence effectively WP:BIO) because they have not receieved significant coverage in third-party sources. After looking at this, I agreed with them. Ironically, the requester's Google News search actually backs this up, because the link they have provided shows a grand total of four GNews hits, all from local media. All the remaining hits are about other people called Schilling. This is not significant coverage. Black Kite 21:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close Seems consensus was clear that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Personally, I think we should hold off until after elections are over to delete such articles but there's no real policy issue here. He also doesn't seem to meet WP:N. Maybe userfy and work on a draft showing that he meets WP:BIO? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to userfy it. Personally, I think we should hold off creating such articles until elections are over - but this person isn't even a candidate for the election yet. My concern is always that such articles are acting as puff pieces for prospective candidates; we've had one quite high-profile one of these recently. Whilst assuming good faith, I also note that the article creator uploaded the campaign image of Schilling along with an OTRS ticket verifying it. Black Kite 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that we should generally hold off creating such articles until after elections are over. You are correct that the person isn't actually a candidate yet but just a candidate for the primary (which I hadn't noticed when I looked at the cached version earlier until you pointed it out now). Given that, it is very hard to see how this person will meet inclusion criteria anytime soon. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion (Disclaimer: I voted to "Delete" in the AFD). No notability outside the locality was presented and the consensus reflects this line of thought. Maybe USERFY it and have it moved back in case this guy wins the election? Corpx (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, valid reading of consensus, exclusively local coverage rarely establishes notability. Guest9999 (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, consensus was there to delete even before discounting !votes from SPAs, as is customary. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - no problems with the close. As a BTW he is not even a candidate for office but a candidate to be a candidate which is too far down the political food chain, anyway. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Again, he meets all the requirements for WP:POLITICIAN. This is why I never donate to Wikipedia, because it's run by hundreds of random people with no real authority who feel the need to shut down any article they don't find interesting. Wikipedia needs to establish credibility and trust, and automatically knocking down everything is not going to help. When will Wikipedians stop being so power hungry? I'm sorry to be a jerk, but I'm sick of the bureaucracy here. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me have a look at that statement.
      • "[Wikipedia is] run by hundreds of random people with no real authority" — no, it's run by everyone who comes by. A consensus gives authority.
      • "[Wikipedians] feel the need to shut down any article they don't find interesting" — Straw man. This has nothing to do with interesting or not; it's simply due to installing some minimal criteria (which we call notability) so that Wikipedia doesn't have an article for all of the 6.5bn (or thereabouts) people on Earth, plus innumerate people who have ever lived.
      • "Wikipedia needs to establish credibility and trust" — Why? I think we're doing pretty well as-is.
      • "automatically knocking down everything is not going to help" — Nobody's automatically knocking down anything. The people have considered the article at the AFD discussion and considered that the subject didn't meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. You then brought the matter to deletion review because you disagreed with the outcome, and people are endorsing the deletion because the deletion process was properly followed.
      • "When will Wikipedians stop being so power hungry?" — Fallacy of many questions.
    • In summary, please feel free to write about notable subjects. WP:RA has a list of suggestions. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and closure - badly failed our criteria of substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

30 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Melissa Palmer, M.D. (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|Prior DRV|restore)
  • This gastroenterologist is widely known throughout the US. She is a published author, whose books have been the NY Times best seller list in multiple years, having sold more than 20K copies in a year (the chief requirement to get on the best-seller list).
  • The article provides numerous citations from renown medical journals academic publications.
  • The subject is clearly notable. I mean, there is no gray area here. She has been cited by many other Wikipedia authors, all of whom are independent of the subject.
  • Furthermore, on the second AfD debate, the writer made every attempt to follow the editorial consensus is revising/wikifying the article, and it was still deleted.

Efactor1975 (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do we have sourcing saying that this individual was on the best seller list? I don't see much about her on this search of the NYT website. If she is an NYT best seller that would likely be a claim of notability. But I can't find any sources that seem to say she was an NYT best seller and I'd be highly skeptical of that claim given the moderate Amazon sales ranks. (Incidentally, being cited by Wikipedia articles really doesn't make one notable. Heck, I'm cited in Wikipedia articles). Finally note that if we do decide to overturn this deletion the article should be at Melissa Palmer since there is no other individual of that name who has an article. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: In my non-admin-ness, I can't see enough about this to make sense of it. Is the version speedily deleted on 29 August substantially identical to the version discussed at the AfD?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, there was a small (about 5%-10%) expansion. I am personally concerned with the amount of single-purpose accounts surrounding this article, but that shouldn't preclude the article from being kept. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I too ask what is the evidence for NYTimes best seller status? If there is none, it leads me to question some of the other assertions here. As I understand it, the NYT Best seller list is a ranked list, not a list of books selling more than a certain fixed number of copies, so I am not sure where the 20,000 figure comes from. --as it is a list prepared weekly, i do not see how the annual sales would in any case be relevant. DGG ( talk ) 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, nothing here besides rearguing the same rejected arguments about why the article should not be deleted. I would be tempted to list on WP:DEEPER if it shows up again. Per JoshuaZ, if this does end in an overturn, the article should be at Melissa Palmer, per WP:NCP. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist- in my view the closing admin was in error. There was not a clear case for deletion and it should have been closed as 'no consensus'. For fellow non-admins the article can be found at User:Augie58/Melissa Palmer. Having read the various comments, I think that there are enough issues that merit further discussion so I am not proposing a straight overturn. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – proper determination of a rough consensus by closing admin, less the commentary by the single-purpose accounts. This is not AFD round 2. MuZemike 17:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse Based on Material Factual Issue While I think that the discussion did end with a consensus to keep, it appears that the claim that Dr. Palmer's works have appeared on the New York Times Best-Seller lists appears to have been a major factor for retention. I have the same concerns as DGG, and my searches don't find anything to support the claim. This appears to be a material defect in the article and the deletion discussion that needs to be remedied one way or the other. I will reconsider once reliable sources support the NYT best seller claim. Alansohn (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse When you exclude the sock puppetry, consensus is clearly to delete Corpx (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum. I don't understand why you folks spend so much time looking at who did what, and who this one is and who that one is. All that should matter is: Is Dr. Palmer notable by virtue of Wikipedia standards? It seems you guys spend a lot of time arguing about things that aren't germane to that issue. And it seems to me - from WP:Notability - that she clearly is, regardless of the NYTimes best-seller claim. Ok. Throw that claim out. She still meets the criteria set forth in the notability guidelines. Who wrote the article, why I'm interested, etc., doesn't really matter all that much. It seesm like you folks are quick to penalize someone for not following all the "rules" (let alone the fact that "the rules" are not all in one place, are not easy to find, and are abstruse as hell when you do find them). You just want to penalize, to your own detriment, because what does it hurt to have an article about Melissa Palmer, so long as the info is true? How does that hurt Wikipedia? It's like, you folks want to cut off your noses to spite your faces? I don't get it. And there are so many lesser known doctors in here that have had articles for years, I mean, I just don't get it. Efactor1975 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per bridgeplayer. I don't particularly see a clear rough consensus here, especially since the deletion arguments in the debate were so weak. Anthony Appleyard doesn't even make one. Reading like an ad is fixable if the topic is appropriate, and Paul MacDonald makes the nonsensical claim that while the subject may be notable, the article is not. Counting all the SPAs as a single account, the count is 4-2 in favor of deletion with one "neutral" that is clearly not convinced by the deletion arguments. This should be a no consensus, except that all the SPAs muddled things. The issues need proper consideration and that means a new debate. Mangojuicetalk 17:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - I just don't seen the consensus to delete this one in the AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion With the puppets removed, there was a clear consensus to delete and thus nothing was out of process in the closing admin's decision here. Eusebeus (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect Judgment of Sockpuppetry. From my understanding, a sockpuppet is either
      1. A single person using multiple accounts, or
      2. Multiple persons using the same account
    • Several different people, all first-time voters/editors, who happen to be colleagues of the subject and who wish for the article to be kept, is not sockpuppetry - even if those persons only created an account for the sole purpose of voting in the AfD. There is no rule that states this is sockpuppetry. I think the bias against single-user accounts or accounts with little or no edit history goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Efactor1975 (talk) 14:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So it's meatpuppetry instead of sockpuppetry. So what? Either is against policy. Besides, it's hard to tell if it's sockpuppet or meatpuppet without a checkuser. And it doesn't matter, anyway. Tim Song (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of these protests have caused me to check. I've discovered that Efactor1975 is operated by the same sockpuppetteer who operated Voros1975, one of the several sockpuppets in the second AFD discussion. I've blocked the account. This sockpuppetteer is restricted to one account: the one that xe created during the AFD discussion, and which is currently unblocked. Uncle G (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a very good argument for deletion made in the first AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melissa Palmer (doctor), that is being overlooked here and that has not been refuted anywhere, here or in the second AFD discussion. Here it is. This rationale has a rock solid foundation in deletion policy: Efforts to find reliable sources to substantiate any of the claims made about this subject have failed. Note further that the claims were taken, in that first AFD discussion, from a copy of this person's autobiographical publicity blurb that had been copied and pasted into Wikipedia. That self-same publicity blurb is being cited as a source, and is the only source saying anything about this subject, several times over (via multiple copies on multiple WWW sites) in User:Augie58/Melissa Palmer.

    DGG and Alansohn are simply re-stating concerns for specific items that were stated for the entire subject in the first AFD discussion. Deletion policy was properly applied here. Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Whether or not the closer took into account the arguments at the previous AfD, it was not clear error to close as delete. Tim Song (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - sound reasoning, proper ignoring of invalid arguments and meat/sockpuppets. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The evidence for puppetry is clear, and such !votes do not enter into consensus. On the basis of that evidence, I think there's reason to close this early. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, and those keeping score will know that DGG and I rarely do. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blood of Angels (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This is the 6th of an 11 album discography from a notable band, Nox Arcana, who has charted in the Top Ten on the Billboard Holiday charts, and has coverage in national newspapers and international press. The vocalist Michelle Belanger is not a member of the band, but is likewise a notable author and has been the subject of several tv shows. This album is unique in that it is a collaborative work of Belanger and Nox Arcana. Belanger also performed as a guest vocalist on the 3rd album by Nox Arcana Winter's Knight which hit #8 on the Billboard Holiday charts.

According to WP:Music#Albums if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. This album is permitted to have an album page.
The album page (and subsequently the cover image) were deleted after sockpuppet Afd and votestacking (see SP case for User:MarkChase). In an attempt to save the album article, it was merged with the author's page. But the same editor who has been targeting the removal of all the other Nox Arcana albums, made a second attempt to Afd this album after it was already agreed to keep but merge with the author page.
After the deletion of the album page, I worked with admin SilkTork to bring the album up to standards, and it was agreed to keep and merge (see my talk page.
Then Chzz nominated the cover itself for Afd, claiming it to be a copyvio because it is NOT on a separate album article.
It would be more organized and correct to reinstate the album article itself, so that the album cover would not be in copyvio and so that the edit war that previously ensued over the vocalist's/book author's article would cease to spill over into other articles. Likewise, because it is a collaboration of the subjects of two separate articles, it just makes more sense to have a separate entry, which can be easily referenced by the other two articles.
Example of a cross-collaborative article: The Talisman a book written by two different authors, Peter Straub and Stephen King.
In this case, I would like to see this album Blood of Angels, which is written by Nox Arcana and Michelle Belanger, be reinstated on its own article page. Note: currently Blood of Angels redirects to Michelle Belanger Ebonyskye (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can you clarify what you are asking for? As far as I can see there's no procedural problem with the AfD closure; I checked the SPI report but can't see votestacking in the AfD on which the FfD closure depends. Are you saying that (1) the AfD was incorrectly closed; (2) new WP:RS now supports the album's notability (note that WP:NALBUMS says may, not will, and is quite clear that you still need to clear WP:GNG); or (3) something else? Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was merged as I said. The sources are now all included in the merged article at Michelle Belanger and some of the sources also supporting can be found on the Nox Arcana article. All of the sources are reliable and have already gone through scrutiny. The image file itself was deleted completely, so obviously there's no link to that. I followed DRV instructions. Please look at the history of Blood of Angels (without the redirect). I'm unsure how to get to the history after the merge and redirect was done. Perhaps the history can be found if the redirect from Blood of Angels to Michelle Belanger#Blood of Angels is removed. Also, you need to consider the policy at WP:Music#Albums which clearly supports having an album article. The requirement to be met is not of sources but of notability of the band, for which there are a good number of reliable sources (Cleveland Plain Dealer, Washington Post, Fangoria, Sideline, TV shows, and some international publications). Fair use is covered if the original album page Blood of Angels is undeleted. Also, the old article probably doesn't have all the newer cites that the merged one does, but I can easily copy cites from the merges into the undeleted article. As for the Afd being stacked, please read some of my talk archives; there's mention of it, but the actual voting I can't locate since the merge took place. Ebonyskye (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AfD page is right up there, under the XfD link. The page history is there, too. I tentatively endorse the AfD close and the FfD close because no procedural error has been demonstrated so far, and because, in the AfD case, the closer's assessment of the consensus was not clear error. I remain undecided as to the alleged new sources, as none has been presented to this DRV. I should note, however, that, if this revision and the section in Michelle Belanger are the best you can do with respect to notability, it does not look promising to me. You need to clear WP:GNG for the album per WP:NALBUM, and trivial mentions do not count. Tim Song (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Tentative endorsement changed to full endorsement, and undecided cmt struck, due to nom's failure to demonstrate any sort of error in the closures or a reasonable probability that the album would pass WP:GNG, warranting relist / permission to recreate. Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted I fail to see anything procedurally wrong with the AfD close, per Tim Song. I also fail to see any reference to increased notability of this album since the AfD close. Not everything produced by every notable artist is itself notable. Also, Ebonyskye; you've stated your case. Let the DRV run now please. You don't need to respond to everything here, and in fact doing so will likely weaken your case. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This entry should have been listed in August 29, not August 28. It is fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comments at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Deletion_review_for_Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2009_August_29.23Blood_of_Angels. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noting, but currently the article's history exists under the redirect. I restored the history after Ebonyskye pointed out that he'd merged content from the article already, to preserve author attribution (which we still need under CC-BY-SA, I believe). There is also a related thread at ANI here (until it gets archived). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 16:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I've merged the below DRV here, as there's no reason to have them separate. lifebaka++ 16:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both deletions. The AfD appears to have been closed properly, and if the article is deemed non-notable, then there's no use for the image. (ESkog)(Talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion There were viable arguments for both deletion and retention, but consensus for deletion was stronger. The material was properly merged into the article for the artist with no apparent loss of information. The sources that exist as of now are a bit on the weak side, and a combination of additional stronger coverage in reliable sources would be enough to justify recreation of the article in the future. Alansohn (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Also, can you please specify why this deletion of an article from nearly four months ago is being challenged only now? Stifle (talk) 15:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
    Because two different deletions were happening here: the album article was deleted after some spillover due to sockpuppetry on the Michelle Belanger page, (that all happened prior to me editing), then the merger took place, then the same person who AFd'd the album Afd'd to cover and has been Afding every album by this band. It was recommended by Hammersoft to go to DRV. Also, I couldn't find the history so it was a bit confusing at first. Ebonyskye (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what in that prevented you from contacting at least one of the deleting administrators, which is a significantly more straightforward task than opening a listing here. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems clear to me that Silk Tork's original deletion of the article was in accordance with the consensus at that time (or at least, within admin discretion based on that consensus). And it also seems clear to me that once the original article was deleted, the image (which is dependent on the article page) also had to go. If that was all that had happened, then this DRV would be very simple: endorse both closes. In this respect, I concur with the above users.

    But, it isn't all that happened. Based on subsequent talk-page discussion, Silk Tork seems to have reversed themself and gone for a merge, and Lifebaka has at least tacitly supported this by restoring the history (and I understand, and agree with, Lifebaka's licencing-based reasons to do so). Thus on the basis of a backdoor consensus, "merge" seems to have been the real outcome of the AfD, even though it says "delete".

    "Merge" is not a "delete" outcome. It is, in fact, just one of the various flavours of keep. The deleting admin has effectively reversed themself, and the nominator here now appears to want DRV to overturn the "merge" outcome into a "keep". I find it perplexing we have other users above saying "endorse deletion" despite the fact that the AfD closer themself has abandoned that outcome.

    In fact, the whole thing is a bloody mess and I think the consensus now (as opposed to the consensus at the time of the AfD) is genuinely unclear.

    DRV will not normally overturn a "merge" to a "keep". That's an editorial matter to be determined on the basis of talk page discussion, so this is not the right venue to consider the matter. But I would go for a relist the article at AfD to nail down what the consensus really is.

    The deletion of the image hangs on the outcome of that relisting. If there is a separate article on the album, then the image's deletion should be reversed. Otherwise, not.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are some AfD closes you just wish you'd never got involved in - this is one! There appear to be two issues here, though they have now been conflated into one, which I'm not sure is wise as I do think there are two distinct cases - one is the AfD for an article, and the other is an AfD FfD for an image.
Blood of Angels The article: I was the person who closed the AfD on the article. I've looked back at that, and I'm comfortable with my close. The article did not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. I offered to userfy the article on request, and when requested I did that. I also userfied the Michelle Belanger article (which did not exist at the time of the closure of the Blood of Angels AfD - see how complicated this all is!), and worked on that to bring it to standard. While doing this I felt it was appropriate to use some of the material from the Blood of Angels article in User:Ebonyskye/Michelle Belanger. I then restored that to mainspace and offered it for a second AfD which was closed with no consensus to delete. So this was not reversing the close or doing anything improper - it was a progressive development, designed to build the encyclopedia in the most appropriate way, and the material from Blood of Angels was presented in Michelle Belanger to the community for consideration. I have worked closely with the editors working on those articles, including clarifying and updating an ArbCom decision on two of the editors working on these and related articles when I discovered hidden in a talkpage history that one of the editors had been topic banned (this has just got deeper and deeper!). After monitoring the progress of the userfied Blood of Angels at User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels, and noting that no progress had been made, I deleted it. My mistake in this is that as the article and userification were both now deleted I should have merged the histories, and did not do that - I'm glad to see that someone has picked that up and done the history merge. I see no issue with the Blood of Angels AfD close or subsequent actions, apart from the failure to merge the histories. Endorse my close.
File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg The image: I am less certain with regards the AfD FfD close for File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg. A non-free image does not need a standalone article - the guideline says "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The argument that an image is permissible is there is a standalone article, but is not permissible if the content of that article are placed within another article is a misreading of the criteria. A non-free image may be deleted from a standalone article if that article is merely a place holder for the image, but it would be inappropriate to delete it if the image is supporting a section which is solely about commentating on the item the image is illustrating. The close of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_25#File:Blood-of-Angels.jpg was incorrect under the criteria. Added to which it was speedy closed inappropriately. The closer misunderstood Wikipedia:CSD_F7#F7 as none of the criteria there apply. I assume Gwen thought that "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately." applied - but it clearly does not, as the fair-use tag was appropriate - it had an album cover fur linked to the Michelle Belanger article. It's a clear mistake. The AfD has not run the full course, so my suggestion is undelete and relist. And it might be appropriate to reopen the DRV on the image, as that is an entirely separate issue to this one on the Blood of Angels article. Phew! I wrote a bunch there! Will this Blood of Angels never end? SilkTork *YES! 22:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant FfD - I have amended. SilkTork *YES! 06:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I stand by the CSD F7 close (invalid fair use claim), I'd say the thing to do here is begin a new AfD on Blood of Angels (yes, that would mean restoring the article). Editors should keep in mind that although with album and bookcovers, the outcome of policy is that wontedly, non-free images only wind up in stand-alone articles, that's not the policy and can't be cited. The snag here has been that sourced critical commentary (which is to say, crit/reviews) on Blood of Angels has been ever lacking and without that, the non-free cover image isn't fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is equally misleading. Whilst it is true to say that there is no actual policy which says that a non-free image cannot be used in an artist's article, there is WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since in very few cases would an album cover significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article - which is the artist, remember, not the album - then they nearly always fail this criteria. Regardless of whether the FFD had ended up Keep or Delete, that would still have been the case. Black Kite 11:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're citing the root rules here, not the CSD criteria I cited and yes, things can get misleading if one isn't careful. With sourced critical commentary in the text, a low-res, non-free image could likely enhance understanding in a meaningful way and be fair use. Without sourced critical commentary in the text, I'd say reaching a threshlold that cover art could otherwise "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" would be even more daunting. This, again, is why the wonted outcome of the policy is, non-free cover art won't often make it into an article which isn't about the work itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mis-indented there - my "misleading" comment was meant to be in reply to the original comments about the FFD. But you're right, anyway :) Black Kite 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I thought it may not have been indented as you meant it to be, but then thought it was worth speaking to anyway :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both – proper determination of a consensus for deletion by the closing admin in the AFD. This is not AFD round 2. Ebonyskye, a few words of advice: if you're going to argue keeping an article, please don't do so by launching ad hominem attacks at the opposition. All that does is piss off other editors and degenerate the entire discussion into a shoutfest. MuZemike 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean. I've attacked no one. I simply pointed out that the first Afd of the Michelle Belanger article was populated by socks (which I only became aware of after the fact), but then it effected the album article, and that's when I was notified.
Consistency and Band's Notability: I think that instead of considering the band's notability and the consistency of the discography, some of the opponents were only looking at the earlier sockpuppetry that had taken place on the Michelle Belanger page. I do not believe they were taking into consideration the added sources, the band's notability, or the disruption that pulling out the 6th album from an 11 album discography would cause. The album is unique in that it's a collaboration, and the best way to reference a collaboration between two different authors/artists is to reference that album on its own page. SilkTork and I worked to bring the album portion up to acceptable standards then merge it. But then Chzz took issue with the album cover (and has targeted other albums by the same band for deletion, making it 5 Afd's in all against Nox Arcana and their albums). It never made sense to merge the album with the author page in the first place, but I had no other choice. The cover can't stay unless the album has its own article, yet Chzz removed the article. And yet, the same excuses for removal of this album are being used to keep two other album articles by other less notable bands (see my talk below). It's a double standard. It is important to look at the BIG Picture.
This is what I posted earlier on Gwen Gales's talk page: Other Stuff Exists to provide for consistency in terms of keeping a consistant and well-organized discography. The discography has been in place for several years, since 2005 I think, with new additions being added as they are released. Until now, this was not a problem. Not, until one editor who is a sockpuppet decided to attack the Michelle Belanger article. However, this falls on deaf ears. To make my point, I proded two albums recently, and the prods were removed 1 and 2, both editors claiming that the band was notable. So, if this rationale is accepted for band x and y albums, then why not in this case? Nox Arcana, is clearly notable. In fact, moreso than the ones just de-proded. Nox Arcana is sold in many countries and reached #8 on Billboard (as opposed to the other bands, one of which never charted and the other only as high as #22). Also, unlike those bands, Nox Arcana is still together and still recording albums band news. To provide consistency and organization, I propose the re-creation of the Blood of Angels album article stub (sans the re-redirect). Ebonyskye (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other Afd talks to reference: I would like to point out that, so far, the consensus is to KEEP 2 other Nox Arcana albums that Chzz also nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackthorn Asylum, including re-listing Afd for the band's 2nd album Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necronomicon (album). The majority of votes for KEEP reference the notability of the band and agree the album has received coverage. I say ditto for the Blood of Angels album. I am now working on making the Michelle Belanger article (originally started as an author's page) look more like a bio article and clean it up some. I have also updated the album article, but obviously I can't yet post that. Ebonyskye (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every work produced by a notable artist is itself notable, even if we do not question the notability of the artist. It's not like an artist, upon once gaining fame, has the midas touch. That other album articles have been or are being kept is completely irrelevant and of no interest here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blood-of-Angels.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Please read discussion article undelete ABOVE Ebonyskye (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close this DRV I fail to see a reason to list this and recommend close of this DRV. If the album article is restored, then obviously the image can be restored too. But, we don't need to have TWO DRVs covering this concern. One is quite enough, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This entry should have been listed in August 29, not August 28. It is fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dr. Steel (album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Per direction from Skier Dude, representative from TSU would like to request this page be temporarily undeleted so that we may review this page in order to bring it in line with standard Wikipedia practices in an objective manner. Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been restored to User:Jonnybgoode44/Sandbox Steel - it was originally deleted with the note "‎ (G11: Blatant advertising: Part of the Dr. Steel "Operation Wikipedia" spam campaign)". Further comments requested... Skier Dude (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The article made no claims to any notability (it had no sources, claim that the album had been released by a major label, etc) and the past campaign of deliberate spamming (which, according to the above post, is continuing, albeit in a more subtle form) is a good reason to shoot these articles on sight. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have edited my previous statement here, because I believe I may have misunderstood Nick-D's objection. As I have re-read it, I believe Nick-D was not referring to the main Doctor Steel article, but specifically to this album. After reading Album Notability, I think I grasp his objection. If the Wikipedia admins deem that the albums themselves are not worthy of having their own pages, the links and subsequent pages can be removed, of course. Regarding the spam charge: nostra culpa; his fanbase admittedly spammed Wikipedia in the past. That ended a year ago, and they even had teams going through Wikipedia to make sure it was stopped and remove things that were put up. This is an entirely new effort to place objective content up regarding the actual band, rather than spam pages. We are open to input by Wikipedia admins on tailoring the content to be more objective and compliant with accepted guidelines. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the version in your sandbox does not appear to be suitable for speedy deletion. It appears to be a good faith article and I think permission should be granted for it to be moved to mainspace. This is not to indicate that it would survive the articles for deletion process involving community discussion, just that it's not suitable for speedy.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but permit recreation per WP:AGF. I think that it was within the admin's discretion to delete per G11 in the peculiar circumstances of this case, but that was more than a year ago. I'm willing to assume good faith and permit recreation, subject, of course, to the normal deletion processes. Like S Marshall, I don't think the current version is speedy-able. Tim Song (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: The album was released as a series of MP3 downloads. Doesn't this show lack of notability? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I reversed the edit I did there until I get confirmation on it, one way or the other. (However, it might be notable that this album and the two that followed are the only ones currently available, the others are out of print, nor are they available digitally...) Shouldn't take long; Doctor Steel is usually very fast at responding. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer received: Apparently the first three albums were released (and currently in re-release) as digital albums. (Dr. Steel prefers to work in the digital paradigm.) The fourth and fifth albums were compilations with extra tracks and remixes, and were released in CD form, but have since sold out and have not (as yet) been re-released. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too overly surprised by this. Doctor Steel is clearly outside the mass media traditions; he has said on several occasions that he prefers to work in the digital realm. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can somebody please tell me why we have an article at Doctor Steel despite numerous deletions and endorsements at many different titles? It was protected-deleted, so how did it arrive? Logs here. I note that it is sources form blogs, the subject's website, the subject's MySpace and the subject's YouTube channel. I don't see any evidence of non-trivial independent sources, I do see evidence of viral marketing and "Operation Wikipedia". Guy (Help!) 19:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the page history correctly, it was at Doctor Steel (band) (which wasn't protected) before an admin moved it to the current name, bypassing the protection. Tim Song (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hickory Springs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was speedy-deleted by User:Orangemike as G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion." Another editor, who may have had a conflict of interest, created the article. I recognized that the article was unreferenced, so I located and added some references. It's not a great article, but I think the subject is notable and the article should have been tagged for cleanup rather than being speedy-deleted. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion, qualifies as spam from what I can see. Recommend userfication if Eastmain will undertake to clean it up, with no further DRV necessary to move back to mainspace after doing so. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • response from deleting admin - while I recognize and appreciate Eastmain's efforts, this one was such a total advertising stinker (written by their advertising guy, apparently), parts in first person, that I felt it was a clearcut speedy. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. A very clear CSD case; my favourite bit was the little ™ and ® symbols every time the company's products were promoted mentioned. I also concur with Stifle that Eastmain may place an encyclopaedic rewrite in the mainspace without a further DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe userfy to Eastmain for now so he can work on a draft there? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Eastmain's version and let him work on it in mainspace. Certainly the original version was a G11, but it had already been fixed a good deal, and by a reliable editor. . I have this problem too when I'm trying to rescue an article, of making the improvements quickly enough. If I wait to make them all it gets deleted, if I don't do enough at first, it looks like I haven't solved the problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your efforts are seldom so problematic, David. The version I deleted was 90-95% undiluted spam, PR fluff (often in the first person) written by their ad agency rep. My advice to anybody working on a "rescue" is to hack it back to the stub, retaining only a reasonable assertion of notability; then regrow from the stub. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion but allow recreation – I'm certain we can get a neutral, encyclopedic article out of this. We could userfy to Eastmain's namespace so it can be worked on. MuZemike 06:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Eastmain's version - The newer version just didn't seem like blatant spam. The sources linked in the article indicates passing WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to Userspace I do think that the G11 close was precipitous in light of the efforts by Eastmain to correct the problems. Now that it has been deleted, the appropriate next step should be to restore it to Userspace for Eastmain where it can be gutted and reworked as needed. Alansohn (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Mainly for two reasons. Firstly, the Delete side was heavier than the Keep side. Secondly, the person is just another small brick in the bureaucratic wall of Pakistan. Hasn't done something notable himself except that he is holding a certain Cop job/position. Leaving the entire world aside there are several hundred such positions in Pakistan alone and Wikipedia can't afford to have separate pages for each of them, hence the reason for this review.  MARWAT  01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. While !vote was 9-7 to delete, the socking made the whole AfD a mess. It would be well within the closer's discretion to simply void this whole thing as irredeemably sock-tainted. On the merits of the arguments, I can't say that it's clear error to close as no consensus. As to your second point, DRV is not AfD redux. Tim Song (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't fault the close and I endorse it, but due to heavy sock involvement I would like to make it explicit that I would permit immediate relisting. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Not just "permit relisting", but actually do it. When there's evidence that an AfD has been tainted by sockpuppetry, the outcome may be unsafe.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, even the participation after the socks reveals no clear consensus either way. A relist may fix that, but I doubt it - I'd personally recommend leaving this as a valid no consensus close, and renominating later if necessary. ~ mazca talk 14:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.. Definitely clan rivalry.The gentleman has been nominating it again and again for deletion due to clan rivalry that exists in marwats. (119.73.6.224 (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Who is the above user? He is using the I.P address which has just contributed too less since August 27th, ofcourse by multiple users. He is just here to vote. Please declare his vote as null and void.

  • Overturn / Delete No reason to by-pass a clear-cut consensus built for its deleting. As per nom, the article doesn't qualifies Wikipedia's ticle. rules & regulations to exist. --WikipedianBug (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Ah, the beauty of ad hominem arguments again. I don't think there's a material difference between 39 edits in a week and a dozen or so edits in two days. So if we somehow declare his !vote null and void (by what authority, I might ask?), what should we do to yours? Tim Song (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now with no prejudice towards a relist at any time. That AFD was nothing short of a train wreck. Let's get a clearer discussion at the least. MuZemike 06:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It must be kept. (119.73.2.138 (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reminder to people unfamiliar with DRV - we are not discussing whether the page should be kept or deleted, but the much narrower question whether the AfD discussion was closed appropriately. We don't sit as some sort of super-AfD. Please limit your comments accordingly. Tim Song (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without a delay If the DRV is to know wether AfD discussion was concluded appropriately or not the AfD page was also to know the article was notable or not (it wasn't), it was not to count votes for un-notable article. Please overturn the decission and deletethe article, otherwise, atleast re-ominate it for Deletion. Warm Regards --LineofWisdom (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Since no consensus was achieved, it is advisable to keep this page. (115.186.142.102 (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. The subject has remained a police chief of largest district of north-western province of pakistan and thus merits a mention. (202.69.15.29 (talk) 16:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strange It is quite strange to see some Votes casted by I.P address to increase the tally. Administrators must have a watch on them. As far as largest district of NWFP is concerned, does it matters? What I am sure is that if the article, in any case, is allowed to exist, I myself, though not willingly, would created atleast 1000 more articles of different police officers around the world, who so far are non-notable. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can rest assured that the closing administrator will weigh this decision on the strength of the arguments and not the numerical tally. IP addresses are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia if they wish. And I think you would be well-advised not to threaten to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point; this will not help you.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was so, then why the closing administrator earlier seeked for a consensus, when it is proved and argued that the article is not notable. It is simply a polic officer's job as usually there is, in all cities of the world. --LineofWisdom (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was certainly asserted that the article is not notable. It was not, however, proved. Further, the discussion was severely tainted. There was sockpuppetry; a user took it upon themselves to strike out an administrator's good faith opinion; and there were a sequence of remarks entitled "note to admin", which is a red flag for bad faith; good faith users in a debate talk to each other in an attempt to reach consensus. Talking to the closing admin in an attempt to have other users' opinions disregarded is not a collaborative, consensus-based approach to debate, which is why experienced Wikipedians never resort to this.

    In short, this debate was not conducted correctly by either side and its conclusions are unsafe.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. An occasional "note to admin" on a procedural matter is perfectly acceptable. Using them to make arguments is not. Nonetheless, I'm still not persuaded that the closer clearly erred in deciding that the sock-free part of the discussion is sufficient to permit a merits closure, or that the closer clearly erred in assessing that part of the discussion. So, even though I would have probably voided this whole AfD, I am still of the opinion that the closure should be endorsed. Tim Song (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Admin. The admin is requested to look and consider the motive for nomination of this article for deletion and then a reappeal.. The persons have personal scores to settle. Thus, they are using these tactics to undermine the subject. (119.73.2.138 (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I am thankful for your comments S Marshall. They are really useful. To Mr. (talk, I would suggest to take part in debate, in favour of keeping or in suggestion of deleting, rather remarking something about user's faith. It, inny case, wouldn't make a notable into non-notable. Warm Regards, LineofWisdom (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
African admixture in Europe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An article was recently deleted. Soon after, someone recreated it. I nominated that one for deletion the regular way. I now realize that I should have nominated it for speedy deletion G4, which is in fact the action that Administrator RoySmith ended up taking on his own. But then he was forced to relist it due to a procedural error on my part. Inexplicably, the ensuing deletion discussion resulted in a decision to keep the article (though just barely). All of the people who voted "keep" completely ignored the fact that it's a recreation of a recently deleted article, even though I made that perfectly clear. And one voter looked suspiciously like a sock. So this article has been spared on a technicality (my stupid mistakes that other people went along with), which I don't think is a valid reason. The fact remains that it meets WP:CSD G4 and should be deleted. I tried convincing the Administrator who closed the discussion, but he told me to request a deletion review. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. This is absurd. DRV is for fixing procedural errors, not just a second chance to overturn a decision you didn't like. This is a content dispute between a small group of editors (possibly two?). They have been unable to resolve their differences and have taken the argument to AfD and now (twice) to DRV instead of working with each other to reach consensus. What makes this so absurd is that we're not even talking about deleting a topic; the entire debate is whether the topic should be covered as a distinct article or a section of a larger one. It doesn't matter. I'm starting to think the best solution here is to just slap a long block on both parties for being disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No procedural problems. The numbers are not close (I count 6-3 in favor of keep), so IMO you need a very strong showing that the closer committed a clear error in weighing the arguments. I can't even say that there was error, much less clear error. No opinion on the block suggestion; DRV is not the proper venue for that. Tim Song (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin - my only comment is that I can't countenance the idea that a speedy deletion can override an AfD consensus (with the standard exceptions like copyright, BLP, etc.), which is why I did not accept Small Victory's request to overturn to deletion. I believe I am correct in maintaining this assertion, though I'm willing to be told I'm wrong. No other comments to make regarding the correctness of the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse this accurate close. Fritzpoll could not have closed it in any other way. Also, I'm heartily sick of seeing this article at DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- Odd situation, one I admit to never having seen before, but I can't find fault with the way it was closed. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The point of G4 is only to weed out recreations that are not worth considering. If the article is improved enough that there is a consensus that it is good enough, that consensus holds. It's absurd to think we can never reconsider a decision to delete, but can reconsider a decision to keep as often as necessary. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with you people? This is a clear-cut case of an article that should have been deleted immediately. And in fact it was, until a silly procedural error brought it back from the dead. The deletion discussion you're all talking about is beside the point because it should never have taken place. This is the discussion that counts, where it was decided (9-1) that the material should be removed and merged into a preexisting article, which is what happened. The new article, which is nothing but a poorly disguised clone of the old one, was created two weeks later in direct violation of that consensus. None of the "keep" voters the second time around paid any attention whatsoever to these facts, and now neither are any of you. This is beyond ridiculous. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. As DGG explained quite clearly, G4 is designed to avoid repetitive discussions that serve little purpose. Since the discussion has already happened anyway, and resulted in a different consensus, the new discussion is the one that controls now. Besides, WP:CSD says that admins may, "at their discretion", bypass discussion and delete the article if it fits a CSD. It's within the admin's discretion to decline a G4 and bring a case to AfD even if it were a recreation (I haven't seen the original, so I can't tell). And, even if the article were deleted by G4, it probably would have been brought to DRV and restored/listed for AfD, if the !votes in this discussion are any indication, so at most, any error was harmless. This is at least wikilawyering that wastes everyone's time. Tim Song (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, if you guys can't even get something as straightforward as this right, then the deletion review process is officially worthless. Looks like I'll just have to nominate the article for deletion again until the "consensus changes" to the right decision. Nice work everybody. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It's not good for Wikipedia, and it's not good for you, either. Tim Song (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to "make a point". I'm trying to get rid of an article that doesn't belong. And after a reasonable amount of time passes, I have every right to renominate the article for deletion, which is exactly what I plan on doing. The user who recreated it is the one being disruptive, and the Administration's inability to recognize this and take the correct action is mind-boggling. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disillusion yourself of the notion that there is an all-powerful "administration" that can make these decisions. We read and enact community consensus - unless you can show that I misread the consensus at the AfD, there isn't anything we can do. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's been gene flow from Africa to everywhere in the world, so there's nothing notable about the gene flow to Europe. Furthermore, that's not the same thing as "African admixture". The field of population genetics is now at a point where admixture can be accurately quantified, and the studies doing so have found no more than a drop of African admixture in Europeans. Certainly not enough to justify a whole article on the subject, which is in large part why the previous article was deleted and merged (in shorter form) into Genetic history of Europe. It seems you've already come around to this way of thinking. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Andrew Lancaster, in a effort to resolve the edit war between Small Victory and others has moved content to the page in question from Genetic History of Europe. I think this improves the Genetic History of Europe. Therefore the reasons for keeping the page is greater than ever, Andrew is currently working on improving the page, and when I get some time I will help this process along.
  • As for small victory's Claim - The timeline for initial spread from Africa is currently between 70 and 135kya (Considering recent datings from Skhul cave, Israel), in this context there is notable contribution in the more recent time from (since human occupation Europe extends from 40kya in eastern Europe to 32 kya in western Europe) the introduction of genetic markers from North and Northwestern Africa is evident into the post settlement population, and not just from other areas of asia and information supporting that is presented on the page. Ergo, Small Victory is trying to engage in information suppression effort. The reason I voted for the deletion of the Sub-saharan admixture in Europe and for the African admixture page is that there is no strong evidence in support of the former page (other than what is known in the historic period), however there is strong evidence for support of the currently named page from the prehistoric period. While this may be a technical distinction, because historic documents suggest a displacement of negroid Africans from NW Africa prior to the 12th century, therefore by our standard of what is Subsaharan there may have been genetic contribution from the region, however technically once a person is born in North Africa, then any contribution to elsewhere would be consequence of North African ancestry.PB666 yap
  • As for Small Victory there has been both alert and incident reports filed against by two different individuals. I think if you read this and his talk page, you have more than enough information to make a decision.PB666 yap
  • My opinion here is that Small Victory's constant edit warring and deleting of material is highly disruptive, particular with regard to the genetic history of Europe page. I desire that this page should be improved and the editing climate of that page needs to improve for this to happen, this will not occur if the two sections that were on the page remain, since no matter how much effort was made, we cannot draw Small Victory into a consensus. The problem has been that people have been doing full revert jumps to edits that basic reverse several peoples edits, causeing other edits to the page to be lost. If this warring will end effort will be made to clean-up unnecessary material on the page, and there may actually be a mature and concensus oriented discussion of what material should be on the page. As I said in previous WP boards, I fell sorry for you guys, you will eventually block SV just as you have blocked SOPHIAN, however don't be surprised at all if sockpuppets appear.PB666 yap 15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 August 2009

[edit]
  • Category:MC Lyte – No consensus to overturn. After letting the debate simmer a bit in my head—and seeing the discussion devolve into something of a meta-debate—it seems clear that there is no consensus in this DRV. Specifically, there is no consensus that the closing admin's greater weighting of the semi-subjective WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL arguments was wholly inappropriate. Although it does not substantively affect my close of this discussion, there is considerable concern in the DRV regarding the CfD process. I strongly caution CfD closers to practice greater restraint in the future when the contentious CfDs they close repeatedly become contentious DRVs. This may raise concerns about the community's support (or lack thereof) for various processes and guidelines (such as those for overcategorization). Categories have little recourse once deleted, and extra care should therefore be taken. – IronGargoyle (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Also included are:

Category:MC Lyte (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The nom's rationale for deletion was overcategorization and "not needed." Meanwhile, the closing admin said nothing but "The result of the discussion was: Delete" for all of these, with no further explanation. Other comments were mixed. But all of these should have been kept because Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing pages, a guideline, states that "every category should be placed in at least one parent category," and all of these are exactly that, parent categories. Also, in practice, per WP:USELESS, "not needed" is considered to be a bad argument for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no-consensus. simply put, there wasn't any. Apparently equally good arguments in either direction. If the closer wants to help move the discussion in a particular direction, he should join it. He gets to judge consensus, and throw out arguments not based on policy. He doesn't get a casting vote to determine evenly balanced issues--and most certainly not without an explanation. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am abstaining from all CFD-related DRVs as the CFD process is utterly broken. Stifle (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's a fair point to make, though, isn't it? I mean, I wouldn't put it quite as strongly as Stifle (I don't think it's "utterly broken") but I do think there are substantial problems with CfD. At AfD, it's as easy to reverse a deletion as to perform it in the first place, there are a wide variety of intelligible criteria and rules on which to base a decision, and there's usually enough participation that it isn't a complete lottery which criterion prevails.

    I think Stifle's remark does not hurt you, it is not disruptive behaviour to express an opinion, and he's entitled to make his point.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the reason for this DRV boils down to "every category should be placed in at least one parent category", then I'll have to endorse. I can think of many ideas for categories that can be placed in a parent category but have no right being on wikipedia. --Kbdank71 14:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that's not the argument; the argument i that the amount of material present in the category and its subcategories was sufficient, as contrasted to the delete argument that because almost all the material was in the subcategories there was no need for the parent category. Deleting a parent category because we have subcategories is not rational. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's "overturn this because this is a parent category"? If so, still endorse. Or am I missing something? --Kbdank71 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions - Arguments for the categories: needed as a parent category; needed for material that might be created in the future; aids in navigation. Arguments against: small categories with little likelihood of expansion; eponymous categories which should be avoided in the absence of the volume of material that warrants it. The arguments for the category are general and vague and the arguments against it are concretely rooted in the overcategorization guideline. Closing admin followed the clearly articulated guidelines, the hundreds of precedents for similar categories and the strength of the proffered arguments on both sides. The sub-categories in each of these, mostly categories for songs and albums, are parented in Category:Songs by artist and Category:Albums by artist so any concerns about them being unparented are unfounded. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all as keep / no consensus Any administrator who can justify deleting anything based on an argument of "not needed" and can offer a one word "Delete" without any explanation for why consensus should be disregarded is disrespecting any definition of consensus. A one-word "Delete" (or "Keep") should be summarily disregarded by a closing admin and a closing admin who can offer nothing more than that has cast a supervote that should be overturned. Consensus is an utterly worthless concept if we can allow closing admins to impose their personal biases. A helpful hint might be to consider "no consensus" as an option. As there is no semblance of policy having been observed here, the defective closes should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is simply untrue to say that the argument against the category was "not needed". As was pointed out to you when you falsely claimed it during the CFDs, and has been pointed out again here, the arguments against the category were WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. This continued insistence on misrepresenting the arguments of other editors is tiresome. Admins are not required to write detailed explanations of their closes just because you want them to. Closing as simply "delete" or "keep" (although I can't seem to recall you ever griping about a single-word "keep" close) is perfectly reasonable. If an editor has questions about how an admin closed a CFD that editor is advised to contact the admin before opening a DRV (in fact the instructions for this page state that DRVs should be opened only if the editor and the admin are unable to come to an understanding, but somehow that instruction is interpreted as voluntary). I note that no attempt was made to discuss this with the closing admin before opening this DRV, nor was the admin notified of the DRV, another instruction that has bizarrely been deemed voluntary. There is no evidence here that the closing administrator "impose[d] their personal biases" and accusing an admin of doing so without evidence constitutes yet another abject failure on your part to assume good faith. Claims of "supervotes" remain, of course, utter nonsense. Otto4711 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. At the very outset I will point out that no attempt has been made to draw any of these concerns to my attention, neither was I informed that this DRV had been raised against my decision. That was left to User:Otto4711, some 5 days after this process had been initiated. Very bad form all round.
Process aside, onto the substance. These categories were not deleted under the pretext of IDONTLIKEIT, USELESS, or any other spurious dictum. They were deleted as a result of the sound policy arguments based on WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:OC#SMALL. It is disingenuous to characterise the nomination as being grounded in nothing more than a vague sentiment of 'not needed'. These were only some of a long, long line of eponymous categories which have been deleted over the years (list available on application), all according to the guidelines in force and the broad consensus of editors.
If you don't like WP:OCAT then get involved and try and get consensus to change it. CFD discussions are closed according to policy and consensus. If you have a problem with the policy, then that is where you ought to be, not creating more heat than light here.
Xdamrtalk 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather "bad form" to close an XfD with nothing more than the single word "Delete" as a justification. A far more detailed explanation is necessary when there is an unclear consensus and especially where actual consensus is for retention as was the case here. Leaving editors trying to read the mind of the closing admin to figure out why consensus is being ignored is "bad form" at its most egregious. We are all familiar with WP:OCAT and none of those voting Keep deemed it an issue to justify deletion. AS Consensus Can Change, each XfD must be evaluated on its own merits. The fact that there is a "long, long line of eponymous categories which have been deleted over the years", built by arguing that XfD 2 must be closed as delete because a vaguely similar XfD 1 did before only shows that consensus is changing. That any closing admin believes he has been given the job of judge, jury and executioner, and can glibly disregard consensus is part of a long-festering problem at XfD and one that is a particular disaster at CfD. I do enjoy the line that "If you don't like WP:OCAT then get involved and try and get consensus to change it". How about if consensus was respected at CfD and we stop relying on your arbitrary interpretation of policy in disagreement with consensus. Playing by your own rules will be an effective means to earn respect for your closes rather than appearing as supervotes over and over again. Realizing that "no consensus" is a valid option and using it where appropriate here, would also add credibility to these closes. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I might like to believe otherwise, I am not infallible; in this case I am happy to concede that it would have been desirable to add a justification to my closure, but you will excuse me if I am vaguely incredulous at the idea of a situation where all and sundry are trying to "read the mind of the closing admin", noone thinks it remotely worthwhile to approach him and ask him for clarification.
I also do not recognise your characterisation of my position - I did not state that "XfD 2 must be closed as delete because a vaguely similar XfD 1 did before". Consensus, as informed by policy, was in favour of these closures - perhaps that is not what you wished consensus to be, but it was consensus nonetheless. Per WP:CONS, "consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons." It is not, as has been observed ad infinitum, a vote count - the reasons behind an editor's support for deletion/retention/renaming/merging are of as much importance as the fact of the support itself. As User:DGG has said above the closing admin "gets to judge consensus, and throw out arguments not based on policy" - my conclusion at the end of the debate was that the reasoning for the 'Keep' side was both flawed and not widely enough supported to rebut the case made for deletion and to depart from the accepted guidelines. This is exactly what was done.
Xdamrtalk 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are all familiar with WP:OCAT and none of those voting Keep deemed it an issue to justify deletion. So what? Should the closing admin have ignored the only arguments based in WP guidelines because those who favored the category decide they aren't "an issue"? Of the people suggesting the category be kept, only one, Debresser, addressed the proffered reasons for deletion, and he only addressed EPONYMOUS and not SMALL. He also acknowledged that EPONYMOUS cautions against creating such categories. So even if we accept arguendo that EPONYMOUS is fully refuted and rejected here (which it clearly is not), that still leaves SMALL unanswered. Most of those advocating for the categories simply failed to respond to the substance of the nomination, choosing instead to focus on the words "not needed" and misrepresent "not needed" as the sole argument being made for deletion.
The fact that there is a "long, long line of eponymous categories which have been deleted over the years", built by arguing that XfD 2 must be closed as delete because a vaguely similar XfD 1 did before only shows that consensus is changing. Um...what? Small eponymous categories continue to be deleted and this continued deletion means that the general consensus against small eponymous categories is changing? Even your ally in the discussions, Debresser, acknowledges that EPONYMOUS remains valid consensus and indeed !voted to delete several eponymous categories that were nominated at the same time as these (for Mopreme Shakur, Young Noble and from the above list Immortal Technique). Recent deletions include eponymous categories for the band Libido (August 13 CFD), the musicain Ann Hui and the company Skanska (both nominated August 8), the author Knut Hamsun, (July 27 CFD), the island Jethou and the company Jamba! (both July 22). Only two eponymous categories were kept over the past two months and in neither case was either EPONYMOUS or SMALL questioned as still being a valid guideline. The arguments centered on whether they applied in those particular instances. The supposed shift in consensus that you've claimed here...doesn't actually exist. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A category with large subcategories is not small, as has been pointed out repeatedly. It is easy to find categories with no articles, only subcats, that no-one would argue about deleting, eg Category:People (OK, it has 2 top-level articles). 'Ja rule' was not small. Occuli (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the discussion which established consensus that articles in a sub-cat are considered to be directly in the parent cat. I recall no such discussion and any number of musician, actor and other eponymous categories have been deleted with discussion that acknowledges that it holds sub-categories. There has never been consensus that having songs and albums sub-cats establishes the necessity of an eponymous category. Comparing Ja Rule to Category:People is ridiculous. Otto4711 (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here could not have been better stated than "As User:DGG has said above the closing admin 'gets to judge consensus, and throw out arguments not based on policy' - my conclusion at the end of the debate was that the reasoning for the 'Keep' side was both flawed and not widely enough supported to rebut the case made for deletion and to depart from the accepted guidelines. This is exactly what was done." Several active editors, fully knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy and guidelines in regard to categories -- including WP:OCAT and all its variations -- reviewed the categories under discussion and reached a consensus to keep most of the categories being considered. You cast your vote and deemed all those in disagreement with your personal bias in interpreting Wikipedia policy in regard to categories to be "both flawed and not widely enough supported" and therefore discarded as worthless. Most other admins only claim to give some unspecified lesser weight to votes they disagree with. At least you are willing to say flat out that you are actively throwing out in their entirety those arguments in conflict with your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Consensus needs to be determined by the participants, not by the vote of the closing admin, with adequate respect for the possibility that "no consensus" was reached, which seems to be the far more reasonable interpretation of consensus here than "delete". That there is such rampant disrespect for consensus and disregard for the considered opinions of those who dare to differ with a closing admin's personal biases is what is the cause for so much of why CfD is so utterly dysfunctional. Alansohn (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense - I repeat, my conclusion at the end of the debate was that the reasoning for the 'Keep' side was both flawed and not widely enough supported to rebut the case made for deletion and to depart from the accepted guidelines. Other than your own reasoned arguments, the 'Keep' side was consistently represented by one other editor, the substance of whose contribution was to repeatedly state that ""Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion." The assertion that the categories were 'not needed' was not the basis of the argument to delete, therefore the argument was flawed. Other than this there was a second editor, who supported retention for some of that day's nominated eponymous categories, and supported deletion for others. In each of the cases where he supported deletion, he accepted the basis of the WP:OCAT argument, accepting that the small size of the category in question had a bearing on viability. In the cases where he voted to keep, his argument was based on these categories having (in his view and by his calculations) sufficient contents to pass this test. Bearing in mind that the case for deletion, based on WP:OCAT, was in each case supported by a further 3 to 4 editors, I do not see these debates represent the sea-change in consensus which you hold them out to be.
Xdamrtalk 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It helps for all admins to be familiar with WP:CCC, which states that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, 'according to consensus' and 'violates consensus' are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." Appropriate respect for actual consensus, rather than casting a supervote, will go a long way. Alansohn (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I'm probably old enough and ugly enough to be aware of WP:CCC and what it mandates. Perhaps you could indicate your reasoning for believing that yourself and the flawed argument of a second editor constitute consensus over multiple other contributors who thought deletion appropriate on ground of WP:OCAT? --Xdamrtalk 01:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn all to no consensus keep as there was no consensus (either in votes or arguments) that I can perceive. Occuli (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. There was no consensus to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion And I suggest we find some solution in DR for Otto and Alans because we can't really sustain a DRV every week or so which is just another dispute about over/under categorization between the two editors. I'm close to taking Stifle's option. CfD has serious problems not least of which are a relatively high DRV nomination rate. Protonk (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I did not start this DRV or anything but a small fraction of the Deletion Reviews related to CfD. Any explanation for closing the previous DRV of Alan Roger Currie, while dealing with the "adminbacklog" issue by casting a vote almost four days after the previous one cast here. Why not just close both rather than pick and choose differing roles to play in two DRVs from the same day? Any explanation for the inconsistency would be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I didn't have a strong opinion about the article under discussion below and consensus (or lack thereof) seemed easy enough to suss out. Here I have an opinion and so I voiced it rather than close the debate. I'm sorry if that offends you in some way. You may petition to have my pay reduced if you like. Protonk (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not even going to comment on the "it's the Otto vs Alansohn show" aspect of the above because it's not worth dignifying. I will comment on the "CFD is broken because of all the DRVs it generates" business. I'm not going to do the actual math but in eyeballing the last month's worth of CFD pages it appears to average about 20 or so CFDs per day. Looking back over the same timeframe at DRV, I see a grand total of four CFDs filed. Four out of approximately 600, or 0.67% of CFDs resulted in DRVs. This hardly rises to the level of damage and destruction implied by either you or Stifle. If the process is broken, it's broken at the level of allowing DRVs to go forward when the nominator has made no attempt to resolve the issue with the closer, as instructed in two different places. Otto4711 (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not really intended as a personal slight. Each of these CfDs seems to be a proxy for the larger battle of "over/under" categorization, which is what makes seeing and debating them extremely tiresome--we aren't debating facts or policies, we are voicing our opinions about what wikipedia should be. It's just as frustrating as the run of fiction related DRVs last summer. The solution there was to tell the editors listing those DRVs that future spurious listings would make the community of folks editing on DRV likely to side against the lister on principle should they keep it up. DRV should be for when process breaks down, not when the correct application of process results in some outcome which offends some grand principle. Protonk (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue that brings CfD closures to DRV has nothing to do with over/undercategorization and everything to do with how consensus is interpreted by closing admins. For once I'd love to see admins closing based on the consensus of the individuals participating in the CfD, or the lack thereof, and not by casting a supervote that overrides all contradictory opinions, which are summarily tossed into the trash heap. Admins who are unable to separate their own voting biases from their responsibilities as an admin shouldn't be closing anything. My simple rule for these XfDs is that if another closing admin could reasonably come along and close the decision in the opposite direction (perhaps by tossing out the exact same votes the first admin wants to rely upon and accepting the votes that would have been been tossed out), then what we have is a "no consensus". A little bit more intellectual rigor in accepting this possibility will lead to fewer CfDs being taken to DRV. Alansohn (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alan Roger Currie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In the discussion there were 3 sources which were largely undisputed REes and some 8 others which were weaker. Two of the RSes are from the Post-Tribune ([1] has a reprint of the article in an Alum newsletter on page 9) and [2] is the first part of the 2nd article (rest is behind a pay wall). The other is a TV interview [3]. The !vote was 6 to 5 to delete. In light of the !votes being close and the existence of these RSes I think the best close would have been no consensus, with keep not being out of the question (it meets all of our inclusion guidelines after all). In the closing comments, discussion with the closer, and some of the !votes there seemed to be undue weight associated with the fact there was a recent AfD for the article (which was relisted due to a DrV action as more sources had been found). That fact isn't a reason to delete. Those !votes should have been discounted and certainly shouldn't have been a contributing factor in the admin's decision to delete. Hobit (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn- closer ignored the sourced provided in the article establishing notability when making their close. The consensus was for keep, and the sources provided backed up the consensus. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that was a good AfD, containing plenty of critical analysis of the sources, and there was a lot to review. Marc Kupper's discussion of the sources was both thorough and helpful. I agree that the debate genuinely failed to reach consensus, so I'll run with overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus There wasn't any. At the previous Deletion Review, I said there was enough new material to relist. The revised article was stronger, and the AfD after relisting certainly had much more reasonable keep arguments than the first one did. I did not comment in it because I cannot myself decide whether I think him notable. I think it's plain the community could not decide either. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus Not a clear cut case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I think the consensus was clear enough. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the first afd should have been clear enough. it was recreated and deleted again. the third party sources are weak and not widespread. the original afd voters barely returned for the second afd, and the original drv voters probably won't return for this one. critical examination of the sources shows trivial coverage at best. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erb? Other than the unsupported statement (by you or in the AfD) that "critical examination of the sources shows trivial coverage at best" none of that is policy-based reason to delete. We aren't required or expected to notify previous participants about AfDs or DrVs. In any case, the AfD concluded that of the 11 sources, 8 were trivial or not reliable and 3 were acceptable for purposes of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There's no indication of procedural error. As to the substantive issues, while it would have been well within the closer's discretion to close this as a no consensus, I don't think it's clear error to close as a delete, either. Tim Song (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if it's equally balanced between a delete and no-consensus, we can not say there is consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you meant that, when closing, if the closing admin finds, after assessing the various arguments, xe's on the fence between a delete close and a no consensus close, xe should close as no consensus. Fair enough, and I agree. But here obviously the closer didn't think so, and I cannot bring myself to say that xe clearly erred, which means that I'm not going to !vote to overturn, even if a no consensus close IMO would be better, a question on which I express no opinion. Tim Song (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - multiple AFDs have stated there's not enough consensus that he's notable, and I don't understand why we're going around and around and around on an article that's pretty much promotional, for pete's sake. Ridiculous. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I brought this here is that I object to the deletion of an article that clearly meets WP:N and where the discussion didn't show enough support for deletion to IAR. We've had admins delete articles (correctly IMO) against !vote consensus because sources don't exist. I don't see how we delete an article that does meet WP:N without clear consensus to do so. The only person who walked though every source in detail (and tossed out 8 of the 11) !voted to keep... Hobit (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus – I think the arguments for retention here were as valid and possibly outweighed the arguments for deletion in this case and showed more explicitly why the article should have been kept. MuZemike 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI Comment if anyone is curious as to why Chicago Smooth is so interested in this article, you might want to read this [[4]]. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • response to Theserialcomma - Contrary to what's being implied above by both Theserialcomma and earlier Davidwiz, I'm not an employee of Alan Roger Currie, Mode One Book Publishing, ScreenTime Films, Miller Genuine Draft Beer or Zane's Strebor Books. Anyone interested in further discussion of this can go to Chicago Smooth's Talk Page. Chicago Smooth (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment you've added alan roger currie's name to gary, indiana, indiana university, List of Kappa Alpha Psi brothers, and miller light comedy search even creating that article just to add his name. you are clearly here to promote this person. stop pretending otherwise. you've gotten these other editors to rally behind keeping this article which was deleted once, you immediately recreated it, and keep lying by saying i told you to do so, when i actually told you to USERFY it and WAITuntil it's notable. instead, you just recreated it within 24 hours, and then it was deleted again. this is a waste of everyone's time, and you are abusing wikipedia for promotional purposes. this Currie guy has TRIVIAL degrees of notability at best. the independent coverage is a joke, the reliable sources are not widespread or in depth, just trivial and self promoting. the one article that supposedly was evidence of his notability was just a self promotion, probably written by him. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i forgot another currie article you tried to add: Mode One, which was already deleted.
Administrators and other editors need to realize: This person, Theserialcomma, is out of control. Now, he or she is going around challenging every article I've started. This is not objective on his/her part, this is "personal." Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's not personal. i do think you're a COI user who is adding promotional content that lacks notability, but i'm not trying to delete them because of you specifically, but because i don't think they meet the requirements of wikipedia. i welcome other users' input. e.g. Tim Alexander (filmmaker) is another article you created. oh, what a surprise, there is a direct link between tim alexander and alan roger currie. coincidence! and what another coincidence, you create [[Tim Alexander (filmmaker) and 53 minutes later, a SPA comes in and starts editing it [[5]]. This unknown, unnotable person whom Alan Roger Currie is affiliated with gets his own article from you, and within minutes a new editor is working on the article? Very nice. Off-wiki collusion or sockpuppetry? we only need to go to the original AFD for alan roger currie to see what kind of meatpuppetry tricks you are up to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie Theserialcomma (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone beyond ridiculous Theserialcomma. You are single-handedly making a mockery out of the entire deletion and deletion review process. At this point, I'm not even sure someone of Mr. Currie's caliber would even want their name associated with a site that allows editors such as yourself to delete their articles on a whim. This is a joke. And if you're going to be searching for connections between Mr. Currie and other notable African-Americans, that would be extremely silly. Do you know how many "notable" types this man has interacted with in his career? Let me see. Gene Hackman, Damon Wayans, Bernie Mac, Robin Harris, Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey, Hill Harper, Michael Jordan, Nina Hartley, Tavis Smiley, D. L. Hughley, Jimmy Jean-Louis, Tyler Collins, Sheryl Underwood, Adele Givens, Walt "Baby" Love, Quincy Jones and Phil Donahue. Do I need to list others? Many celebrities know this guy. Mr. Currie worked in Hollywood, CA for six or seven years in the 90s. This guy has been an actor, stand-up comic, screenwriter, and now book author and dating expert. OF COURSE he's going to have a connection with many people already on here. DUH. Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A valid close. Contra Umbralcorax, the closer did not ignore the sources provided; rather, he or she considered the arguments for those sources carefully and concluded that they had been rebutted by others within the discussion. This sort of reasoned close, rather than mere vote-counting, should be encouraged, and is well within the authority permitted to the closer. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus and continue improvements I do appreciate the razor-thin logic that pushed the closing admin to delete, but the analysis used is more accurately reflective of the fact that there was no clear consensus and there do appear to be enough reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to merit a keep. When there is no clear consensus, the close should be "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Most of the sources were iffy and morning talk shows will interview anyone they can find. In AFDs, I really wish editors would just link to the "significant coverage" part from "reliable sources", instead of making it difficult by linking to trivial mentions + unreliable sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
    • Sure, but 3 of them were reliable sources that provided significant coverage. 10 bad sources don't reduce the impact of 3 good ones. In fact those bad sources help show that the 3 good ones are a part of on-going coverage... Hobit (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SOLAE (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was based on listing the mission of the organization. I attempted to reword it some but left a lot the same so as to not lose the intent of it. Canterbury Tail offered no help or suggestions just the Speedy Delete. All information in the article was new and not on the organizations website except the mission statement. Note: I find it tacky that Canterbury Tail also had to then go tag another of my articles for deletion. ToyCharlie (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I deleted article as copyright violation following a previous deletion by another admin on the same article for copyright violation. I took the second paragraph and found it to be lifted directly (with the insertion of a few words) from the organisation's bylaws PDF. I did not check the rest of the article. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, according to CSD A12, you should not have deleted the article unless you found the rest was copyvio also. It may have been. I admit that I have sometimes deleted in similar cases when the rest of the article seems written in the same manner, but here the style in the rest seems much less formal. . I think the thing to do here is simple, permit recreation in user space. If recreated, I remind ToyCharlie that he will need to show notability through references, according to WP:ORG--& I don't find the notability of this local festival very obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; copyright violations are copyright violations. Recreation is of course permissible if proper permission is sent in for the text or it is rewritten without the copyright violation. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment chiming in here: I was the first admin to delete the article (as it stood then, it was a definite copyvio). I echo DGG's suggestion. Lectonar (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – We will not restore a copyright violation into the mainspace. Also, they're not your articles. Once you hit that "save page" button, they become the community's articles. As it says right below the "save page" button, if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Thank you, MuZemike 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Without access to the article, it's hard to tell, but I'm inclined to defer to the judgment of the several admins that participated here that at least part of the article was copyvio. As such, it would never be restored due to legal concerns. There's no way this DRV will overturn. BTW, DGG, you meant G12, right? Tim Song (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Isola (fictional island) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As I mentioned to the closing admin, this article has one problem and one problem only: it does not establish its notability. User:A Nobody presented a number of straw man arguments throughout the AFD including its supposed multiple reliable sources and eventually resorting to WP:POINT-ily copying snippets of text from this article into others in order to keep it from being deleted because of GFDL concerns. WP:N is extremely clear about the requirement of significant coverage from multiple sources. Every single source cited in the article at present (and each and every Google News result mentioned by A Nobody) is a trivial name drop of the setting, with no further comment on its importance. The sole exception is the developer quotation, which really only says that it may or may not have been inspired by Lost--definitely not establishing notability. So yes, it is the common setting of a handful of games, but it is apparent that the setting itself is not a major aspect of the games, warranting an article. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have read only now the exchange between Axem Titanium and the closing admin. Perhaps in the case for the closure a little too importance has been given to the number of delete and keep "votes", rather than to their reasons, in my opinion. Goochelaar (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Axem Titanium's delete !vote was well-argued and carried considerable weight, but some of the other delete !voters were on less solid ground. That much discussion of whether the article "asserts" notability shows a confusion between AfD and CSD, which doesn't bode well for the contributors' understanding of the issues involved.

    I believe that the delete !voters established that the fictional article was not notable. However, A Nobody's counterarguments were effective. A Nobody has a very clear understanding of every single rule that might even hint in an article being kept at AfD, and he certainly employed most of them there. I believe that A Nobody failed to establish that the sources he used were reliable, but, I also believe his arguments that the article should be merged rather than deleted because of WP:PRESERVE were solid, policy-based, and not refuted.

    I think Backslash Forwardslash had no choice but to close that as "no consensus" and I endorse his closure.

    I hope the eventual outcome is that the article's content is trimmed and merged, but that's an editorial decision, not a matter for DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is precisely those underhanded WP:PRESERVE tactics that I object to most about this whole incident. Since A Nobody knew his sources weren't substantial enough, he copy and pasted a sentence from this article into a few other articles in order to invoke WP:PRESERVE, which seems to be a case of following solely the letter of the law and completely ignoring its spirit and what it was meant to be used for. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • DRV is not supposed to be AFD round 2. If we have information that multiple of your colleagues believes worthwhile, what is the big deal if they use it to actually improve other articles? Isn't that the whole purpose of what we are trying to do here, i.e. use content to make the most comprehensive encyclopedia in history? We know the material is not a hoax, we know it is not libelous, and on the reverse we know it can be used to improve other articles and has been used to improve other articles. That is not using underhanded tactics, an allegation that borders on insulting if not a personal attack, but rather it is doing what we are supposed to do here. We are only expected to use AfDs and especially DRVS as an extreme last resort when it has become apparent that the content is dangerous to include or when no merge or redirection options exist--neither of which are the case here. A fictional island that appears in a half dozen games and is mentioned in the mainstream press is not some patent absurdity that urgently must be expunged from the project. In fact, the content is notable to many of your colleagues and we have other options to use it and have indeed used it accordingly like we are urged by WP:BOLD, WP:PRESERVE, etc to do. I cannot imagine why anyone would be so fixated on trying to remove it so as to just disregard his fellow editors' desire to use it to improve Wikipedia's article that almost no editors would challenge including. You may not like me, but I have experience with DRVs and trust me in good faith when I say from experience that DRVs cannot and should not be used just because we disagree with the outcome. Any admin would reasonably close that one as no consensus or even merge and redirect. None would have cloed as delete and maybe only a few would have closed as keep. The administrator clearly acted within reason, ergo no justification for yet another discussion here. If you wish to participate in the proposed merge discussion that is fine. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. Article cannot be deleted due to merges, votes for deletion were not as persuasive as those to keep. Excellent close! Good job! Sinceerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't describe relying on WP:PRESERVE as "underhanded". WP:PRESERVE is policy (unlike notability, which is a guideline), and one of its most important purposes is to act as an obstacle for those people who would otherwise cut sourced content out of the encyclopaedia. I think an important principle is that when thinking about deleting an article for not being notable, editors should generally consider where to move any content that does have sources.

    When I first began to edit Wikipedia, WP:PRESERVE was very strongly-worded indeed, and because policy should normally trumps guidelines, it made a bit of a mockery of notability. I added the last two paragraphs of the current version (in this edit) so as to tone it down a bit, and now I think it reads roughly as it should.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse close [6] 11 people thought it was worth Keeping. Slightly less than that said delete. Everyone felt their own arguments were valid. It closed properly. Dream Focus 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It should be possible to figure out a good merge. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close The close was proper. The closer weighed the arguments and followed procedure. DRV is not to be AfD #2. Further, there is now no reason to undelete as the informations have been merged to where they do have context and notability. And I am saddened that any editor thinks preserving information is underhanded. Growth is the purpose of Wikipedia, and not its bane. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and figure out what to do with the info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, it's hard to get a delete consensus from that discussion, even though I probably would have !voted delete or merge myself. A no consensus doesn't mean that we can't work out a merge or figure out a better way of presenting this information, though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I can't find a consensus to delete here; much as it pains me to do so, I endorse the closure. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – I cannot see how it could have came out any other way from looking at the AFD. MuZemike 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete - a good example of how AfD is supposed to be an examination of the arguments, not bean counting. The nominator's point was never effectively countered in the discussion - instead we have a pile-on from the canvassed Rescue Squad (as above, again) which has made this piece of trivia a battlefront. Clearly a non-notable & trivial topic that has no real-world significance and should not stand independently as a spinout from the larger topic. A flawed close in my view. Eusebeus (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus Looking through the AfD there is no evidence of consensus to delete and where there is no evidence of consensus, a close of "no consensus" should be the result. Arguments based on how an individual would have voted at AfD are irrelevant in deciding whether the closing admin decided correctly, and there is no evidence of any issue with the close. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dil Jan Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Delete The consensus, tally, to delete the page was 5 to 1, still the article wasn't deleted. Not only the tally but the article itself lacks to be notable as the article is about a simple bureaucrat. I would request a speedy deletion of the article, in regard of overlooking the previous deletion nomination. --LineofWisdom (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That discussion was irretrievably sock-tainted, and Juliancolton's decision there was, effectively, to decline to close it. I don't blame him in the least.

    I think you can take the article back to AfD immediately, if you wish. I also think Juliancolton would have told you that, if you had asked him on his talk page before listing this DRV.

    I hope the next AfD is conducted in good faith.

    In the usual DRV argot, my !vote is endorse closure and permit immediate relisting.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K I agree and will nominate if for Afd. Regards. --LineofWisdom (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'm leaning towards overturning to delete. While there were a few socks involved, the only keep opinion doesn't bring up any points to refute the delete arguments, instead only saying that the nomination violates WP:POINT and should be ignored on those grounds. There are many delete arguments made by established users, and I am loathe to throw out their !votes just because of a little sockpuppetry. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete; I don't think the socks sufficiently tainted the discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am really disappointed by this second nomination by the same person who has some personal biases against this gentleman. Just to bring it on record the nominator of this AFD was banned for one week for using the same sock puppets who had tainted the earlier vote as his talk page is a witness to this. As for this AFD, I would like to reproduce a comment by Anarchangel in the earlier AFD as under;
"*Comment I sympathize with the nominator's apparent rare form of dyslexia that prevents them from reading the first line of an article, and print it here for him and any others afflicted with this condition, possibly a Cherry-picking work-related ailment. "Dil Jan Khan (Urdu: دل جان خان) (born April, 1934) is a former President of International Narcotics Control Board of UNODC." Having had a job at the United Nations is a big deal worldwide, and establishes a degree of notability for this article. The notability of Dil Jan Khan's cop job is quite irrelevant in comparison."
I would say once gain that its his ascend to the position of being the head of INCB of the UNODC which merits him a separate article. Smelling a clear cut personal grudge I would vote to Keep it.-- MARWAT  16:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I should add that president of an agency like that is notable -- just having "a job" at the UN isn't. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the closing easn;t keep, but "no-consensus" so it seems you actually do agree with it. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to those who may be unfamiliar with DRV- We're here to discuss whether or not the close was correct, not to re-hash whether or not the article should be kept. In this case, I endorse the closer's point that the discussion was irreparably tainted by the sock puppeting going on, and that a no-consensus close was correct. However, given that the discussion was screwy, allowing a relist is certainly a reasonable next step. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
correction- I meant to say "re-nomination", not "relist" above. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As users Stifle, lifebaka and MuZemike stated above that the consensus for deletion was made, despite the sockpuppets were involved who voted against my nomination (in favour of keeping the article), the decission be overturned and the article be deleted. I agree that sockpuppetry was involved but isn't there a overwhelming consensus made beside the sockpuppets' votes? Wasn't there a valuable discussion made to delete the article by users? I would also like to make some other comments that:

  • Why I am being personally attacked for nominating this article, instead of discussing the deletion/keeping, as per requirement and subject of this case? It is the article and person whose notability is challenged to be discussed not the nominator. It in any case wouldn't affect the consensus. Doesn't this means that Marwatt is having personal vandetta against me? But why?
  • My sockpuppetry is never proved. One of the operator / Administrator has himself stated that the other sockpuppet who voted against me was infact nothing but a taunt to my nick.
  • We must stuck ourselves to the subject / topic of the article, rather attacking each other personaly. If someone have something against me, he or she should contact an Administrator and adopt a procedure laid by Wikipedia, rather abusing me.
  • No more personal discussions here, please. Just relate to topic and subject!

I would request deletion of the article, as it is not meeting the notability criteria set by Wikipedia. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin - I'm not sure why I was not notified of this discussion, or even asked to explain my decision. That said, in my opinion, once a discussion is largely tainted by sockpuppets or other similar issues, it is impossible to fairly and reasonably form consensus. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with speedily renominating, but with a new discussion page. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close without prejudice to a renomination. The discussion is a complete mess with all the sock-puppetry. As such, there was no easy way to get a clear consensus and so a no-consensus decisions was correct. -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conclusion Though the article is re-nominated upon several suggestions and advices, I would like to request that the decission be made here if possible. As the tally was 15+/- the it is not hard to "drag-out" the comments and votes by sockpuppets. You could see, even here is a large consensus. --LineofWisdom (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse and I think if sufficient attention were paid to improving the article, it might be a clear keep. It is not "just a desk at UN, who he was head." It's an important intensation body that he's head of. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Since I have worked with UNOPS as a consultant for 2 years, I can safely say that the position which this gentleman was heading was an election by the member countries and every member to INCB is nominated by his or her country and is confirmed by the UN Secretary General. So it is a big deal for a person like him who came from a humble background. -- MARWAT  02:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying The osition is always held by bureaucrats from different countries. The position is not for the Ministers, Member Parliamnents or any higher position like those. Infact, a bureaucratic job. Tens of thousand of officers are heading UN Missions in entire world. Would wikipedia allow space for each of them? Only in Pakistan, theer are more than 29 missions of UN and 120+ missions of different countries. The Closing Admn must consult the UN's official site or could verify through an e-mauil the status of the position and job. Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, the existing discussion is too tainted by socks to draw any firm conclusions from it, I think it would be best to start from scratch and watch carefully to make sure that the second discussion is not derailed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice to speedy renomination from scratch. This is very well within the closer's discretion in these circumstances. Not even error, IMO. Absolutely not clear error. Tim Song (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn / Delete The consensus was clear, with the voting tally by frequent editors other than involved in persoanl war. In my hmble opinion, I would agree with the logic users expressed while writing in favour of Overtunr & Deletion. --WikipedianBug (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close but allow speedy renomination. The "good faith" delete !votes would normally be enough for a delete consensus but our deletion processes not only need to be fair but must appear to be fair. They can't be when there are obvious SPAs saying "delete". Julian made the right call but he should have added "with leave to speedy renominate" to his closing statement. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing Admin The user who nominated this article for deletion and was behind this appeal has been finally blocked indefinitely for multiple reasons including placing bad faith AFDs. -- MARWAT  17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete I would have voted to keep and agree that the claim of notability is valid and could be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. The article as it stands now is a bare paragraph unsupported by reliable sources to support the claims made therein. While the AfD was rather muddled by sockpuppetry and irrelevant allegations of bias, the consensus there was to delete the article. There should be no prejudice to the article's recreation once the claims can be backed up by the appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Delete Even with the sockpuppetry, I fail to see any arguments backed by policy to keep the article Corpx (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or void the entire discussion, I do not see how a decision to keep or remove content from Wikipedia could be based on that mess. Guest9999 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Exinda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was salted after multiple recreations and deletions per WP:CSD#G12 for copyright concerns. A non-infringing Stub now exists at User:Hass2009/Exinda. Requesting unsalting and move to article space. MLauba (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That may be a non-infringing stub, but I'm concerned about the sources. I think it could be questioned whether those sources are reliable; the second source is the company itself, and the fourth source seems to be talking about a company based in Melbourn, Australia (and if it's the same Exinda, then it's a little concerning that the sources can't agree on whether it's an American or Australian company). To me, all the sources read like infomercials rather than critical reviews.

    I'd suggest finding a discussion about Exinda in something like the BBC or the New York Times, or some other rock-solid source, in order to prove that the company is notable.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • While sourcing at present may be light (but adequate for a stub), requesting the BBC or the New York Times is most certainly overkill in order to establish that this passes WP:CORP. Further sources include e-week, part of the Ziff-Davis network (RS), The Australian (RS, also highlights that the company operates an R&D center in Melbourne), or PC World magazine, also a RS, CNet.com, still an RS. All relevant to the field the company operates in, more than sufficient to establish WP:N. Regarding the second source, not all references quoted have to establish WP:N, referencing to a more complete product description is an adequate (if slightly spammy) use of primary sources. MLauba (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - Addendum: That the article needs close scrutiny against WP:PROMO, in particular since there is a WP:COI potential, is undeniable. That being said, the company passes WP:GNG and has its place here. The rest is a matter of cleanup. MLauba (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those extra sources would help a lot, if they were in the stub.

        The author's clearly more familiar with writing for marketing or promotional purposes than with writing for an encyclopaedia. That's not a crime, but some stylistic tweaks would help a lot. I'd like to see:

        "delivers WAN optimization and bandwidth management solutions" → "sells computer networking equipment"

        "has some 2,000 customers in a range of vertical markets" → "has 2000 customers"

        "is designed to help customers manage their bandwidth and network resources by providing a combination of application visibility, traffic control, network optimization and application acceleration" → "monitors and controls network traffic", and

        "markets its products through a global network of value added resellers" → anything written in intelligible English.

        Also, the VARS link doesn't go where the author expects it to go and should probably be redacted.

        With these changes being considered and the extra sources you list being included, I would recommend unsalt so this stub can go into the mainspace.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        •  Done I tweaked some of the sentences somewhat, and added the two stronger of the above sources to the article, also clarifying the (relative) uncertainty about the company's geographical location in the process. Please let me know if more is required at this stage. If this gets unsalted and moved while I'm asleep, I suggest that the mover also place {{Notable Wikipedian|Hass2009|editedhere=yes}} on the article's talk page, for full disclosure (assuming this can also be used if the contributor himself is, in practice, not notable himself). MLauba (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If every deletion was taken pursuant to G12, such that the community have never pronounced on the suitability of the topic (even if the copyright-violating content was theoretically G11able), it is not for DRV to evaluate whether the draft provides sourcing sufficient to meet WP:V and WP:N, or even whether the article would survive A7; unsalting, instead, should be automatic (and usually is, AFAIK; I have seen several admins summarily unprotect a page salted because of repeated copyvios when asked by an established user who intends to introduce a new version, and I’ve never understood that there is a consensus against that operation) upon an editor's offering that he/she has a draft that is not a copyvio (we unsalt/permit recreation generally when the community are satisfied that the issue from which deletion followed is resolved, or at least addressed to a point from which a new discussion on the merits of deletion might be had at XfD, but in copyvio cases the requisite showing is made on the face of the article, and no further inquiry is required). Joe (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest that you think about what Stifle wrote when concurring with you. S Marshall is doing a good job of trying to ensure that the draft, written by the same editor who wrote the copyright violations, doesn't get tagged for speedy deletion or sent to AFD as soon as it arrives in article space. "This isn't what DRV is about." wonkery entirely misses the point that two editors here are working productively on making a potential article better and ensuring that we don't waste time with future deletion discussions that we could prevent from occurring in the first place — the very future deletion discussions that the people agreeing with you are alluding to. And that's not even the only thing that you're missing. See below. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with Jahiegel and permit recreation. Of course, nothing prevents AFDing this article at a later stage. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • permit recreation per Jahiegel and Stifle's comments. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend that everyone here now look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exinda Networks, which is the prior AFD discussion that sets the sourcing hurdle that this new draft has to clear. This is not solely about satisfying copyright violation concerns. Applause to S Marshall and MLauba for reviewing these concerns at Deletion Review before even knowing that there was an AFD discussion that raised them. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, thanks, Uncle G. Nevertheless, the point Jahiegel and Stifle both raised is well-taken—and indeed, both those users stand very highly in my esteem. DRV is already a very powerful authority; Wikipedia has plenty of provision for addressing conduct disputes, but in terms of content disputes, DRV is the highest court in the land, in the sense that there is nowhere to appeal a DRV decision. (I've remarked, in jest, that for an editor who disagrees with a DRV closure, a direct appeal to the monarch is the only option.)

    It follows that DRV wields enormous power over the encyclopaedia, and that does need to be held in check by a strictly limited remit. I should have said explicitly that my remarks above are not intended as a condition of moving the article to the mainspace, and I omitted to do so, so I will say a mea culpa over this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darklore Manor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

NAC as redirect, then article effectively recreated with this edit, thus reinstating large amounts of unsourced material.  Chzz  ►  02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP -- Chzz, the material is sufficiently sourced. There are citations after almost every paragraph. Fangoria News, Google News, Legends Magazine, Ottaway Newspapers, The Day newspaper, even a book published on the haunted house story What exactly do you have issue with, and why? And the redirect was a total removal of ALL material. What you're doing is getting pretty darn close to vandalism. Ebonyskye (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious as to why you didn't !vote in the AFD. If you were to make the same argument there as you are making here and on my talk page, the result might have been different. It looked to me as if it were a dead discussion that nobody much cared about and that's why I closed it how I did. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer. I sometimes go through the logs for the previous 7 days to see if there are any relisted debates or withdrawn nominations that can be closed. While doing so I came across this debate that I have previously relisted and it appeared that it was headed either for a second relist (which I hate doing) or a "no consensus" close. As there was only one !vote and it was "redirect" that's what I did. As there was no consensus to delete in the original AFD and little participation, I would recommend that the nominator withdraw the DRV and renominate the article for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't have been non-admin closed; per WP:NAC non-admins should only close unanimous or almost unanimous keep results. However, redirecting as a result of an AFD is not generally considered binding, and may be changed by another user under the normal editorial process. If the question is on whether the page should be a redirect or not, the proper place for discussion is the article talk page. If the question is on whether the page should be deleted or not, the article may be relisted at AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It doesn't matter if the closer was an admin or not: there wasn't enough consensus for a trouble-free close. The most appropriate action would have been to go for a second relist, and if Ron wanted to help the process along then leaving a comment on the AfD that his view was that the article should be redirected would have been more helpful than actually doing so in those circumstances. Sometimes an article has to be relisted three times to get a result, but there is no hurry - better to get consensus for an action than to leave the door open to a challenge. SilkTork *YES! 08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I have been closing a lot of relisted debates like this, some as "no consensus". (with leave to speedy renominate, example) This IMHO is still in line with WP:NAC as they are "unanimous" in the sense that nobody but the nominator is advocating deletion. Yes the nominator might not be cool with it but he's free to renominate any time he wants which has the same effect as a relist. In this case I went with the suggestion of the only !voter in the discussion. This usually isn't a problem because usually if nobody !votes then nobody cares. AFD is now on a 7 day cycle which means a relisted debate is open for half a month. This minimizes the chance that an interested party may be out of town or something. The drawback is that you might have a situation like this where an interested party doesn't !vote in the AFD but objects after it's closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to reinterate here, so that it is clear: I have absolutely no problems with the NAC, and agree that in most cases it would have worked out fine. My motive in DRV was the most expedient way of sorting out the issue, that is all. Thanks everyone.  Chzz  ►  13:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Content question Discuss on the talk page. Del Rev does not have authority over this. You could try AfD again after a reasonable time. At that point, if the verdict is redirect, we can consider protecting the redirect. And there's another solution that might satisfy everyone: a merge. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)The thing about DRV is that "redirect" and "keep" are both effectively the same outcome: they are different flavours of "keep". By convention, DRV can overturn a keep (or redirect) to a delete, and it can overturn a delete to a keep. But turning a keep into a redirect (or vice versa) is not an administrative decision because it doesn't require use of administrative tools, so DRV would normally view this as a matter to be solved via the normal editing process (i.e. talk-page discussion).

    I therefore recommend a speedy close without an outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The West Wing presidential election, 2006 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although, admittedly, a consensus was effectively formed to delete the 1998 and 2002 election articles, I'm not convinced there was a consensus for the 2006 article. A few delete voters in the AfD said they regarded the 2006 election as a special case, as it contained some real world information. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correct interpretation of consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very hard to fault Backslash Forwardslash for closing that debate as "delete". Both the numerical !vote count and the weight of argument supported his decision there.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'd certainly have !voted to keep the 2006 one, but there is no other way to read that AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I, too, would have been a "keep" !vote, at least re 2006 (but then my Aaron Sorkin fandom is such that I'd want to keep anything with which he is associated), but no close but "delete" can be contemplated here; even if Kusma's and C mon's !votes, captioned "delete", are construed as "keep" with respect to the 2006 article, consensus is clear. Joe (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse such was the consensus, unfortunately. However, it might well have been better to relist 2006 separately, as having less consensus. I suggest simply recreation in a more compact form, and with references or additional references relating it to real life, which will meet the objections well enough to pass G4, hoping this time for a sensible decision. Alternatively, combine the three, emphasising the outside sources for 2006 & finding some for the others. There might also be some on the general topic. Or reduce in size and add to the list of episodes, in the parts discussing the whole seasons before getting to the individual ones. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 August 2009

[edit]
  • Outline of South Africa – Closure not endorsed, but discussion too stale to overturn. The general consensus here is that the original speedy close was not optimal, but given the time elapsed since the discussion explicitly overturning it seems unproductive. Should any editor feel it appropriate, a new AfD nomination is encouraged by this DRV, though it is not required. – ~ mazca talk 13:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Outline of South Africa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed "Per WP:WPOUTLINE". Thus it was closed "per a Wikiproject", and not in line with any policy or allowing for any reasonable discussion (indeed it was open only for 2 and a bit hours). I've spoken to the admin involved offwiki. The AfD was closed some months ago, but for the sake of clarity and process I suggest the DRV for the purpose of confirming that a Wikiproject's support for an article is not sufficient to speedily close an AfD. DRV would not be, and is not, the place to discuss the merits of Outlines of Knowledge. This page should be relisted (the decision made at AfD is relatively baseless, but DRV probably isn't the place to "overturn and delete" (without massive drama) in this case! Thanks Martinp23 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I wanted to do that, I would. The question is whether the deletion decision and reasoning were correct - personally I don't necessarily feel that the article should deleted hence have no desire to sponsor an AfD. Thanks. Martinp23 21:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's interesting, and unusual. DRV will typically consider one specific case. To the best of my knowledge DRV has never made a general ruling that has precedential force. Are you sure you're in the right place?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is indeed not for 'making policy' - at best it provides a limited insight into community consensus. In this case I'm contesting that the close on the AfD in question wasn't based within policy - DRV is the place to discuss that (a relisted AfD is not). DRVs don't have precedential force to my knowledge, but they can provide clarifications or pave the way for further AfDs without prejudice. I hope you see what I'm getting at - the Outline has, I think, changed little in the past few months so an AfD could easily be immediately dismissed on that basis and pointing to the older AfD. The overturn of the [alleged] incorrect closure is something that DRV is here for, to remove the potential precedential force of the AfD itself! Martinp23 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Thus it was closed "per a Wikiproject""

No, actually, it wasn't, and we discussed this, Martin. I actually hyperlinked wrong, and was intending to link to Wikipedia:OUTLINE, or Wikipedia:Outlines. One two three... 23:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't endorse this. Sorry, One, but that's not a valid closure.

    "Overturn" doesn't achieve what the nominator wants, so technically my response is speedy close per Stifle, with a side of trout.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth both the discussions you link came after this one. 80.47.149.6 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Challenging a speedy close 3 months after the event is a bit, well, pointless, but I would say that a speedy close per a wikiproject is, well, wrong. So I'd vote to overturn and relist on general principles. I'd say the practical thing is to just relist this given the time since the listing though. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn invalid speedy keep meeting none of the criteria. There is nothing to prevent a normal renomination, but explicitly allow renomination for clarity. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. "Per WP:WPOUTLINE" is not a valid speedy keep criterium. Very poor judgment on the closer's part. 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Overturn and allow renomination I can't see the point in reopening a three-month old discussion, but the closer is quite right that the existence of a Wikiproject on a subject is not a valid speedy keep criterion and this should be noted. Hut 8.5 16:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." This MFD discussion was incorrectly closed as "no consensus", despite the fact that it was clearly established that User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses violates Wikimedia Foundation policy regarding non-free content. Summary of argument:

(1) I initially requested the deletion of User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses on the grounds that it violated WP:NFCC#9, which prohibits non-free content in userspace.
(2) Milomedes argued that WP:NFCC#9 was inapplicable to text. What portion of the policy is applicable to text, according to him? Only the statement that "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." So, according to Milomedes, WP:NFCC imposes no limitation on non-free text in userspace at all.
(3) My response was threefold:
(a) As the express stated purpose of WP:NFCC is to "[limit] the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law", Milomedes' construction of WP:NFCC as permitting any use of non-free text that isn't an actual copyright violation in userspace is inconsistent with the intent of the policy.
(b) The "Other non-free content" to which the numbered non-free content criteria apply includes non-free text in userspace, since the term "other" is used in relation to "brief verbatim textual excerpts" in "articles".
(c) Even assuming, arguendo, that WP:NFCC does not specifically discuss non-free text in userspace, silence in this context is prohibitory, since, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content is only permitted as expressly allowed by projects' EDPs, which, for our purposes, is WP:NFCC
(4) Milomedes' response to (c) was a claim that non-free text is not considered to be "uploaded" within the meaning of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Thus ensued a discussion concerning the construction of the term "upload" as used in the context of the Foundation resolution. I now regard the precise interpretation of "upload" as moot, since wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy applies to "content", whose meaning clearly includes text, not "uploads" or "media": provision 1 states that "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License..." If there were any intent to exempt text from the application of the Resolution, it would state "All projects are expected to host only media which is under a Free Content License...", or otherwise clearly indicate the exception. The subsequent references to media in the policy do not render provisions 1, 2, and 3 inapplicable to text.

As User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses is in violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, its continued retention endangers Wikipedia's self-governance. An issue of this magnitude cannot be properly resolved with "no consensus". Erik9 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Erik9's reasoning 100%, and as I stated, I felt policy to be very clear. I did not count heads, and I did not count heads then, either. So when I made the closure the first time, too many people disagreed for my comfort. Enough people are dead convinced that an argument based out of US law despite Wikimedia law that it's actually meaningful, since consensus is the vox populi so to speak. With a more non-ambiguous situation like an image, we could easily get almost all of the people agreeing or disagreeing, since it's spelled out. However, as we learned from this MfD, it is not spelled out for whatever reason. Obviously for me to vote "endorse closure" is dumb, but before we subject more of these kinds of pages to deletion discussions, the situation must be clarified since enough experienced Wikipedians are defending the page. @harej 03:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When administrators retain non-free content that clearly violates Wikimedia Foundation policy because "too many people disagreed for my comfort", it's a dark day for Wikipedia. Administrators are expected to enforce WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to the best of their abilities, irrespective of the number of anti-policy arguments advanced, or the number of editors articulating them. Please don't do this again. Erik9 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a consensus on the policy but not a consensus on this special case which appears to be unique somehow. I'd like to know myself why this is considered to be an exception (aside from the reasons already articulated, of course). @harej 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "userspace loophole" for non-free content. Claims that you can have as much non-free text in your userspace as you want, subject only to legal limitations on fair use, are absurd, unsupported by policy, and purely smoke and mirrors. Erik9 (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, statements like "I did not count heads, and I did not count heads then, either. So when I made the closure the first time, too many people disagreed for my comfort. Enough people are dead convinced..." may easily be construed as self-contradictory. Erik9 (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, um, you consider the fact that the discussion had run for an adequate period of time, and that an administrator closed it, to reflect adherence to our deletion process, irrespective of the substantive incorrectness of the action taken? Erik9 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was nothing out of process about how it was closed. Disagreeing with a "no consensus" close isn't enough to overturn it. You have a particular point of view about how the policy should be applied in re:Jack's userpage. Other's disagreed. This isn't MFD part 2 (Thanks for that, Harej). UnitAnode 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being repetitive, per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." An MFD closure which is grossly contrary to policy, such as WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, is unacceptable. Erik9 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being repetitive, this is not MFD part 2. It is your opinion that Jack's userpage is "grossly contray to policy." I'm not going to reargue the MFD with you. I've endorsed the close as within guidelines for admins closing MFDs. That's all I have to say about it. UnitAnode 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per our deletion guidelines, XFD closures require substantive evaluation of the merits of the arguments advanced, which appears to have been missing here. Erik9 (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Agreed, but it is also not determined by admins choosing what they think is best. The closing admin felt that both sides had good arguments and that consensus was not reached. His/her closure was perfectly reasonable. And the "too many people disagreed for my comfort." merely reflects the fact that the admin is human. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec again)and for the record, endorse. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in a nutshell: is a good-faith belief by "The closing admin... that both sides had good arguments" enough, or is the question of whether "both sides had good arguments" subject to review here? I would argue for the latter, so that we are not at the mercy of bad closures merely because the closing administrator genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing. Erik9 (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we generally expect the judgments of administrators and the community regarding the merits of arguments to coincide; however, even an administrator with a overall favorable record of XFD closures might be wrong in a particular case. Erik9 (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--- "whether "both sides had good arguments" subject to review here" Thats where you're wrong. That would be MfD 2, not DRV. In light of that, I propose this DRV be closed as "wrong forum" or some such. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't accept that the evaluation of arguments an administrator performs in closing an XFD discussion is unreviewable -- administrators don't have such a level of autocratic authority. Deletion review may properly consider the substantive basis on which discussions were closed (and would have very little activity if it couldn't.) Erik9 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not what any of us are saying. All we're trying to say is that this isn't the place for it. Go to MFD and try get more (neutral) people to look at it this time around. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To renominate the user subpage for deletion, immediately after the closure of a previous MFD discussion, with no intervening changes of policy or other material facts would likely be seen as highly disruptive. Substantive review of XFDs shouldn't be shirked because "you can just keep renominating it until it gets deleted." Incidentally, though not relevant to the present case, your position makes it absolutely impossible for the community to restore a previously deleted article or other page when consensus changes, since deletion review would confined to the question of narrowly construed procedural correctness in closing the initial XFD. Erik9 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Eric about the mechanics of the process here... this DRV is appropriate and should be run to its conclusion. Taking this matter back to MfD, absent time passing or some policy change/clarification, would not likely result in a different outcome and would be pointless. ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close. The substance of Erik's argument here, as I understand it, is that this particular passage of text is so large that the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations) and the underlying EDP does not apply, and thus the normal consensus process does not apply either, that the closing admin erred in not summarily ruling in favor of deletion despite the lack of consensus. Erik has not conclusively demonstrated that to be the case. (it takes an extraordinary consensus, or extraordinarily clear cut and unambiguous policy statements, to agree not to use consensus) The next step here is to run an RfC to ask the community to clarify policy in this area, and then armed with a new, clarified and more precise policy, run the MfD again. If the community fails to come to consensus on this matter and fails to produce additional precision in the NFCC, that would be that, absent the WMF board itself stepping in to impose clarity by fiat, since Mike Godwin has apparently declined to do so. ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies then. I was under the impression that only deleted artciles, and non-deleted articles that where wrongly closed were DRV'd. That is the way the DRV page sounds to me, and probably others as well, so we may want to change the wording. - Drew Smith What I've done 07:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since policy represents far a broader consensus than a particular XFD discussion, such discussions should be closed in a manner consistent with policy, unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations) and the underlying EDP" is not policy, and does not, in any case, affect the application of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to issues not squarely within its remit, such as 617 words of non-free text in userspace. As there was no consensus not to delete the non-free content as mandated by WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, the policies should be upheld. Erik9 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You see this as clear cut, as a case where fiat-ed policy handed down from the WMF overrides, but others don't. You haven't shown that "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations)" isn't policy. Policy at en:wp is what we do, not what's written down, so in fact, it IS policy, and you have tacitly admitted it is. When what's written down lags, we fix it to match what we do. Until it's clear cut, and everyone agrees it is clear cut, you can't ask for a summary judgment this way. Get the RfC going so that it DOES become clear cut. That would be a good place to invest energy instead of rearguing the MfD. Once you do, you'll find me arguing there that the defacto exemption for one or two line quotes should be made official, and that quotes this large should be disallowed, by policy.++Lar: t/c 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming, arguendo, that "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations)" is policy whose meaning is elucidated by common practice, then the meaning of the "exemption" can be ascertained with reasonable precision by reference to common practice: as no evidence has been offered that we have ever permitted quotations anywhere near as large as 617 words of non-free content in userspace, the "exemption" may reasonably be construed as being restricted to cases with respect to which evidence of common practice was submitted: "one or two line quotations", and is thus inapplicable to Jack Merridew's 617 words of non-free text. You seem to be arguing that the "exemption" has some characteristics of policy, but not others: it's policy, to the extent that it effectually modifies the written policy at WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, but it's not policy, insofar as its dim and uncertain contours prevent its precise meaning from being determined. I don't support the recognition of "quasi-policy": either
(a) "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC" is policy, and is restricted by its own terms and justifying evidence to "one or two line quotations", in which case it is irrelevant to a 617-word non-free quotation in userspace, which may nonetheless be deleted per WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy or
(b) the "exemption" isn't policy, so a 617-word non-free quotation in userspace may be deleted per WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Erik9 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a courtroom. Using Latin words and phrases such as "arguendo" is unhelpful has been deprecated for some time. Please stop that practice, it reduces clarity, just say the English equivalent (and please remember that not everyone here speaks English as their first language). Also, you're putting up a straw dog here by arguing against something I do not advocate. Let me reiterate my closing sentence (that you were replying to): Once you do "[get an RfC going]", you'll find me arguing there that the defacto exemption for one or two line quotes should be made official, and that quotes this large should be disallowed, by policy... what was unclear about that, exactly? The MfD was closed properly as no consensus, there's a hole in written policy, and it needs fixing to match what we actually do here. Work to get it fixed instead of skirmishing. Unless skirmishing is what you enjoy more? ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you support the modification of policy such that 617-word non-free quotations would be prohibited in userspace does not refute my argument against the position you have taken in the MFD discussion and here regarding the acceptability of the quotation under current policy: you have argued for the retention of Jack Merridew's extensive non-free text since the beginning of the MFD[8], using the specious argument that since one-sentence quotations of non-free content have been permitted in userspace contrary to the letter of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, we should also retain Jack's multi-paragraph non-free userspace quotation, as if the quantity of non-free content used were of little significance. The prospect of an RFC regarding potential modifications to WP:NFCC does not by itself establish the legitimacy of retaining non-free content which violates both WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy as current written. Erik9 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much of that is rearguing the MfD. Given that you are not arguing that there actually was a consensus which the closing admin missed, you need to show that the close, no consensus was improper, that is, that under current policy, as written and more importantly as practiced, it is unambiguously clear that consensus does not apply in this case and that the closing admin was bound to find for deletion regardless of consensus. You have failed to do so. You are basing your argument on a difference in degree (length), not in kind. You are wasting time rearguing this, at length, when you could be spending that time getting policy changed. Ineffective as an approach, and likely to further alienate people who might be your allies if you showed reasonableness. ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, local consensus, where it exists, cannot override foundation-level policy requiring that non-free content be permitted by projects' exemption doctrine policy, and Wikipedia's EDP only applies to images. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of extremely small, one sentence, non-free quotations in userspace does not impugn the application of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to Jack Merridew's 617-word monstrosity -- there's no evidence that such significant quantities of non-free text have ever been permitted in userspace. Erik9 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1/2 of 1 percent of the total size of the work is one person's "monstrosity" and another person's de minimis, I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting DRV that raises some points I had not previously considered.

    I shall not fault the closer for deciding there was no consensus to delete the material. That was a correct reading of the consensus, so I endorse it.

    Also, I would like to praise Jack Merridew for finding an interesting, memorable and creative way of making his argument.

    However, the consensus was wrong. To the extent that the said material contributes to building an encyclopaedia, it could be phrased differently. In other words, the use of copyrighted text in that instance is not necessary and I do not think it is justified either. So I would like to overturn the consensus itself and delete the offending material.

    I would also like to make a general point here:- Everyone has freedom of speech, but freedom of speech does not include the right to write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is someone else's wall (specifically it's the property of the Wikimedia Foundation) and its use is granted subject to compliance with their rules. This includes userspace.

    In other words, your userspace is not your property and what you write in it still needs to comply with Wikipedian rules. This includes copyright.

    I want to warn DRV participants here that this decision could have far-reaching consequences. We must not establish a principle that it's okay to write whatever you like, even in your userspace.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • "We must not establish a principle that it's okay to write whatever you like, even in your userspace" I agree with you there. But I hope it's fairly clear by now that this case's outcome, whatever it may be, shouldn't set such a precedent. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I hope so too, Lar. I think most DRV regulars would agree.

        On the other hand, I still think the point should be made. DRV occupies a unique position. Wikipedia has many procedures for resolving conduct disputes, but in terms of resolving content disputes, DRV is "the highest court in the land", in the sense that if you disagree with a DRV closure, there's nowhere else to go to appeal it. In other words, DRV decisions are typically final. And this is a matter of content, not conduct, so our consensus here is really the end of the line.

        Also, we don't often see matters related to userspace at DRV, except in the special case where someone wishes to move a userfied article back into mainspace (which isn't really the same thing). Most of our decisions relate to XfD closures or speedy deletions of content bound for mainspace.

        I've found this DRV has helped shape my thoughts on what's appropriate in userspace and what isn't, and I should imagine that at least some others have had the same experience.

        And finally, DRV tends to be consistent. That is to say, where an issue has been decided one particular way, other issues of the same kind usually follow the established pattern—which isn't quite the same thing as establishing a precedent, but does have a similar effect. I think that's because the population of DRV regulars is relatively small and our views tend to crystallise more and more each time a similar discussion is repeated.

        So I do think that needed saying. Others will disagree, and quite rightly, they will disregard me.  :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Good point about DRV being the highest court, or just about. There's always a content RfC (which I've been advocating, anyone here not yet realise I think one on this topic to clarify and firm up the NFCC would be a good idea??? :) ) but it's not exactly the same, is it? ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think having the text is the wrong thing, but our policies don't address this. Per IAR I think this should be deleted. But if that's not going to happen, I think we should update polices and guidelines and _then_ delete this. That's what this close suggested, so endorse. Though I'd certainly have closed it as delete, I think that no consensus is also a reasonable close. It also pushes us to fix our polices ASAP. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse The consensus was right, that it does not violate reasonable fair use. If this particular use is not specified in NFCC, we can still accept it via IAR. Contra S Marshall, IAR runs both ways. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IAR may allow us to ignore our own, internal rules, but it does not allow us to ignore directives from the Wikimedia Foundation, especially one which says, quite bluntly, that it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. (italics in original, boldface/emphasis added by me) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that we have a policy limiting the fair use of material is a directive from the foundation; what precisely it says within broad limits is up to us. How we interpret it is up to us. If the foundation thinks we are blatantly wrong, they have the tools of office actions and instructions pr advice from the foundation attorney. And, more specifically, the Foundation does allow IAR: "Their use, with limited exception. must be..." Note the: "with limited exception". DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with IAR, DGG, is that it does hinge on "things that prevent you improving the encyclopaedia". I think it's a bit hard to apply that to a userspace page, because I do not think it would be possible to show that the said page was improving the encyclopaedia in any way.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the truth of "the said page was" [or wasn't] "improving the encyclopaedia in any way" is a matter of opinion, and I suspect that opinion may not be universally shared. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Fortunately, we have ways of resolving matters of opinion.

In the case of copyright, our way of resolving it is to place a burden on the editor wishing to use copyrighted material. That editor must produce a rationale for the community to discuss. In this case, I do not believe it possible to produce a rationale that would satisfy DRV that a userspace page that is not intended to become mainspace material contributes significantly to the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that unless you say that NO user page contributes significantly, you're making a value judgment. But I think some user pages in fact DO. Consider this pretty bauble: User:CatherineMunro/Bright Places, a wonderful commentary and inspiration, or this work page User:Lar/Liberal Semi... these pages contribute significantly, at least IMHO. Jack has advanced the theory that his quoting from that work is important commentary on the encyclopedia itself, commentary he wants folk to heed, and apparently commentary that can't be made as effectively without the quote itself. Others may not agree. I'm not sure I do myself, in fact, but to agree or disagree is a value judgment. So yes, the burden is on Jack to show that this quote, much larger than what is routinely accepted, is necessary. And that's what the MfD was supposed to address. Not to belabor the point, but we shouldn't revisit the MfD and the arguments... we should be deciding if the no consensus outcome should stand, or should be overturned because the NFCC and the EDB (and by extension upwards, the actions of the WMF board) override consensus in this case, despite precedent for smaller quotes. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely with you up until you get to "We shouldn't revisit the MfD and the arguments". Before that point, I agree with every word you say, and I would add that the various essays in S Marshall's userspace are models of enlightened thought that would instantly bring perfection to the encyclopaedia if only users would adhere to them religiously.

But when you say "We shouldn't revisit the MfD and the arguments", I start to disagree. Please look again at the nomination statement we are considering. How on Earth could we do that if we did not evaluate the strength of the arguments? And how could we discuss the matter without saying which arguments we think have greater weight, and why?

DRV closers typically allow wide latitude for such discussions for precisely this reason, and they usually allow discussion of which arguments should have been presented as well. In fact, I think any argument is permissible here providing its good faith purpose is to improve the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, on your user page, why no "edit of the year 2006"? Couldn't top Jimbo and ClueBot blocks?... Second, well I suppose you're right about what's arguable at DRV, to a point. But there are conflicting forces here. One being that what you say makes sense... IAR says we don't play moot court and say one can't advance certain arguments because it's too late, but the other side of that is that DRV isn't supposed to be MFD II... you need to advance something new not just re-re-re-rehash (which, truth be told, this DRV seems to be doing some of, as does any conversation of any length here, it seems). I wouldn't be dumping most of my free edit time today into this topic if I didn't think it was important and interesting... but the actual important question to me now is not the substance of the argument itself, but rather the meta one... how do you tell when (fiat based) policy must trump consensus (or the clear lack of it, as in this case, which is a special kind of consensus, the consensus to do nothing), which is one I've delved into before. Oddly, it was on the other side, arguing that a policy needed to trump consensus, and trying to show why. However I think that hasn't happened here, those saying trumping is needed haven't made their case clearly and unassailably in my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it best if I reply on your talk page, since the questions you raise are interesting and I would like to discuss them, but they do not seem immediately relevant to this DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly no consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endrose closure per Lar. As much as I feel that the page should be deleted (see my comments in the MfD), a "No Consensus" close was within admin discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully endorse I think that the page fails WP:NFCC#9 big time (non-free content is only allowed in articles, see also #7 and #8), but, regretfully, this is not MfD part 2. The commenters in the MfD really didn't agree on how to interpret the policy and they thought that "fair use" applied here, so the admin had the possibility of closing like this.
Editors pointed to the intro of WP:NFCC "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content (...) may be used (...) only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." arguing that WP:NFCC#9 didn't cover merridew's page because it's a verbatim quote. I think that "Articles may" clearly excludes non-article pages, but, then again, this was also discussed there, and this is not MfD part 2.
The main argument was that brief text quotes are covered by "fair use", which meant that they were automatically not covered by WP:NFCC#9, even if the policy didn't specify it. In other words, the WP:FAIRUSE policy does not invalidate the editor's right to apply the Fair Use doctrine to copyrighted text. Others said that, by the de minimis rule, this appliesonly to quotes of one or two sentences, and not to Merridew's quoting of several paragraphs (about 617 words). Others said that many users had quotes in userspace, so it was a de facto practice, with other saying that this went against the spirit of the Wikimedia's foundations policy in licensing policy which says that exemptions for non-free content must be minimal. I find the references to WP:CC-BY-SA to be a red herring, since the text is clearly quoted and attributed to the copyright holder so Merridew is not erroneously releasing this copyrighted text as his own.
IMO, the root problem here is that US law allows "fair use" of brief quotes, and our copyright policy doesn't explicitly allow or disallow them outside of articles. Wikipedia, as a private website, can decide to forbid all copyrighted material outside of articles including fair use material, but the current policy does not do that. Policy needs to clarify if it's allowing "fair use" brief quotes outside of articles, or these discussions will keep closing as "no consensus". (Good luck getting consensus for the change, mind you) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment; it's got a speedy tag on it, now.[9] Seems out-of-process, to me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful endorse It's a shame that people can read NFCC 9 and somehow miss that userspace==/== articlespace, but that's what happened. There is no point in coming by for another bite at the apple and obviously no point in getting folks to understand our non-free content policy. Protonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's more of a rules-lawyer problem. Our non-free content policy doesn't seem to address text in user space. I think it's painfully obvious that anything not acceptable for article space isn't acceptable for user space (and in fact we'd be much more conservative in user space), but it is a loophole that people are driving a truck through. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Whatever else the NFCC may be, they are not bright line rules with no ambiguity. Applying them requires judgment, and it is completely possible for reasonable editors to disagree on whether or not a given piece of content satisfies the criteria as used in a particular context. Accordingly, arguments asserting that content does not meet those criteria are not the sort of arguments that trump consensus. And it is transparently obvious that there was not a consensus in the MFD. So "no consensus" was the only viable closure of the MFD. GRBerry 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, in the hopes that this will force an improvement to the non-free content policy, that makes it address non-free text in user space more clearly. If everyone who argued to keep were misinterpreting the NFCC, then the effort should be put into improving the policy, not reversing the "no consensus" closure, which was correct. decltype (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Also see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 14#File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg

This picture was deleted even after relevant license was produced to justfy its authenticity. No one can determine the authenticity of the image unless and untill they are experts of the subject. An administrator and a stray editor assumed that the image was possibly not a free image, proposed speedy deletion. I do not endorse such a careless act by any editor or an administrator who delete an image without taking into account its credibility. Even after quoting the sources an image is deleted for some silly reasons. I also proposed that some administrator from Wikipedia:India look into the matter, cause a person naive about the picture and the subject cannot determine if the picture is to be deleted or to be restored. Nefirious (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I stand by what I said at the PUF from the 20th, I believe that the image is still a copyright violation and that sufficient evidence exists to prove it (I refer to my statement there and the images for such evidence). As has been explained to Nefirious before, the crux of the issue is that, while he is correct that the original black-and-white painting photo of Malik Ambar is in the public domain, the color version he has been uploading is a much more recent artist's rendition of the original, and as such is still copyrighted. The problem with ShaikhChandScan.jpg specifically is that it is not a scan of the original painting photo, but is instead the color version passed through a black-and-white digital filter. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a non-admin, I can't see anything at all that would make this discussion intelligible to me. It seems inappropriate to request a temporary undeletion of a copyright-violating file, though. Could someone please explain exactly what licence was produced and what justification was used for this image?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The license claimed is {{PD-old}}, which is true only of the original painting photo; in its original incarnation it had been claimed as {{PD-self}}. I've seen nothing indicating that the colored version is public domain, or licensed under a compatible license; if this can be shown I'd be happy to undelete any of the images (just one, to avoid duplication). The PD-self claim is rather silly, as is explained at this PUF thread. To summarize, File:Malik Ambar is a small portion of File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg, the front page of a newspaper (Copy of 12062009755.jpg is in no way low resolution enough to qualify for the nonfree use itself, as much of the text can be clearly read), which fails to cite where the image came from. The information that it is a colored copy an old black-and-white photograph (corrected above, I remembered incorrectly) comes from a previous DRV, where Exit2DOS2000 did some research. The solution there was the upload of this image, which was later disputed. I hope that between what I've said and the additional background linked, you can make some sense of this, and I apologize that this DRV requires admin tools as much as it does. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you. On reviewing that, I have two questions.

          1) I presume from what you say that the date on the newspaper is visible. What is it?

          2) Would I be right in thinking the newspaper is a normal tabloid or broadsheet, published by a private publisher (as opposed to a government organisation of some kind)?

          Thanks in advance—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • 1) I hadn't checked previously, but no, it is not. I assume it's cut off on the side, but I can't be certain. From the color of ink and paper, I assume it isn't too old, but don't count this as anything but an uninformed opinion.
            2) The paper is the "Aurangabad Plus", which is "Complimentary to the readers of the Times of India...". The Times of India is privately owned, so you are correct. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Times of India is the most reliable newspaper from India and it has a lot of credibility. I think the biggest mistake I made while uploading the first picture of Malik Ambar was tagging it with the wrong license. The picture itself was a colored version of the original image, which appeared in the Times of India's supplement. I guess it was your presumption that the image I uploaded again, went through the color filter. You are not sure, and unless one is not sure, he/she cannot delete the image I reckon. Nefirious (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that the newspaper is from after 1947, the matter seems simple enough.

    Just to sum things up for the nominator: Nobody doubts that the Times of India is a reliable source, and nobody doubts that the image is authentic. The question is of copyright.

    Copyright on Wikipedia is governed by the laws of the American state of Florida, which is where the servers are situated; and the relationship between an Indian copyright and use of it in America is governed by a treaty called the Berne Convention, which both India and the United States have signed.

    The only alternative will be to obtain a version of this image that is not protected by copyright. Unfortunately, a newspaper scan will not do.

    I hope this explains why my recommendation to DRV is endorse closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image has not alone been used in the Times of India but separate posters have been printed out and used during festivals in Aurangabad, thus I think that the image qualifies under the free license. The image has been published, not in the main supplement, which could have been subjected to copyright, but it was published in Aurangabad Plus, a weekly supplement which uses free images from the internet as well as research papers and other sources. I myself am a contributor of Auranghabad Plus. Nefirious (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 August 2009

[edit]

21 August 2009

[edit]
  • File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg – No consensus to overturn. The discussion got off-topic on both sides, with some editors expressing dissatisfaction with the laxity of, and some with the stringency of the non-free content criteria. These points may be well-taken on their own, but were off-topic for this discussion. Cutting through that part of the discussion, the remainder of the discussion boiled down to this question: Did the closing administrator err in the interpretation of the close by ignoring the superiority of policy-based arguments? This point cannot be resolved from the DRV alone. As mentioned, there are spurious arguments on both sides, but the remainder of the discussion is as split on the NFCC #8 issue, as was the Files for Deletion discussion with little further appeal to deletion policy or guidelines. NFCC #8, being ambiguous, rests on the discussion of community members to determine its applicability in individual cases. Although the NFCC states that it is the burden of those wishing to keep media to make the argument that media meets the NFCC, it is less clear on how to weigh those arguments once they are made (hence the recent policy discussion). NFCC #8 states: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This does not specify which readers' understanding must be increased. Iraq War Historians? Your grandparents? It seems entirely plausible that novice readers/editors whose understanding of a topic has been enhanced by a subject may not necessarily be able to easily describe precisely how their understanding has been enhanced (while still arguing that it does). Yet, the doctrine of assuming good faith indicates that their arguments for increased understanding should not be wholly discounted. Again, this DRV is a referendum on if the closer stepped outside of reasonable bounds in determining consensus. There are strong arguments on both sides and thus no consensus. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)2

The closing Admin preferred to count votes instead of considering policy based arguments. The nomination raised the question of why the Military History of New Zealand article would need an ordinary image of showing "soldiers doing minor engineering works" (i.e. WP:NFCC#8). One keep voter said the image was "historically significant", committing the usual fallacy of mistaking a "photo of a historically significant moment" by a "historically significant photo" (as can be seen by his line of argumentation in the vote), and argued about the image being "irreplaceable", committing the usual fallacy of believing irrepleceability is a sufficient criteria for justifying the use of non-free content (when it's just one of the 10 criteria that can bar the use of it). Two other editors voted keep talking about the image being "irreplaceable", repeating the mistakes, and the closing admin counted the votes and first closed it as keep, and when asked about his reasoning (after even trying to compare this image with the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima!), he closed it again no consensus - keep, later deleted it anyway and later restored it. Votes like "me too", "this photo is irreplaceable", "this photo is useful" and "this photo is historical" (when it isn't) are always discarded by experienced admins when closing deletion discussion about an image's suitability in regard to WP:NFCC#8. Damiens.rf 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin: "Votes like ... (when it isn't)" (emphasis added) - How can you be so sure it isn't? I think that we should just let the RfC take place. "It's decorative" is as weak as "it's useful." Therefore, I could not have closed it as anything other than "no consensus." Whether it ends up being kept or deleted is subject to debate. The image doesn't violate the legal definition of fair use, so there is WP:NODEADLINE for deciding the outcome. I am willing to delete it if there is consensus to do so in the RfC. Moreover, Damiens has referred this to another user, J Milburn, who then posted on my talk page about it. At that point, the RfC looked like a strong consensus to delete no-consensus non-free images, so I deleted it per WP:SNOW. However, consensus is no longer so clear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreover, I do not object to deleting it per the burden of proof clause in WP:NFCC. However, the RfC shows that what it exactly means is in dispute. Therefore, I think the issue should be put on hold until the RfC clears. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of what we do with non-free content which there is no consensus to include, this image should have been deleted. None of the keep arguments are at all valid, as they do not address the main point- no one has explained what this image actually adds to the article. I would be willing to debate the point, as with any image, but I actually chose not to reply to some of those posts when I first saw them simply because I thought it was obvious that what they were saying was not at all related to our NFCC, so would be discounted by a closing admin. J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first part of Nick-D's !vote is indeed unrelated (NFCC #1), but the second part shows what it adds to the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I still think that this image meets both NFCC #1 and #8 - the image can't be replaced with a free equivalent and its use in the Military history of New Zealand article helps readers understand what the Kiwi engineers were doing there. I do agree that it may be better to put this on ice until the RFC is completed though. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It is clearly both irriplaceable with a free equiv (NFCC #1) and is historically significant (NFCC #8) and this article, like many others, would be worse off without it. Equally the copyright holder has clearly released the image for use in just such circumstances—see the fair use rationale. If we are going to delete such content then we need to be prepared to delete thousands of similar ones and for the consequences of doing exactly that, i.e. a lot of articles with no illustration at all. Anotherclown (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The keep voters did not provide any reason why a picture of non-distinctive servicemen doing nothing important is necessary for understanding. The readers of the article do not need to see this picture to comprehend the subject, as no unique information is being imparted—it is merely several humans in uniform doing something that isn't even that clear. As such, the image is decorative, and fails the NFCC; overturn and delete. ÷seresin 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really want another bite of the apple, but come on. How did we keep what is effectively an example of unacceptable non-free image use (#4)? The policy is literally talking about pictures like this and the decision came down to keep it. Am I going to have to start hanging out at FFD again and commenting in each close debate so that we can get the right answer on this kind of thing? Protonk (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete Looks deciorative to me, I'm not getting any real sense that the image is adding some that text can't. Spartaz Humbug! 06:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keeping the image: even though I know that my opinion obviously doesn't matter and won't be counted as apparently every keep argument is invalid. Clearly an example of why no one should bother uploading any images to Wikipedia at all, because even when concensus showed the people wanted to keep it, those that nominate get their way in the end. Anyway, at the risk of wasting my time, here are my interpretations of the 10 criteria for non free content and why this image satisfies all of them. No doubt they will be picked apart and all found to be invalid.
    • 1. Non free equivalent: image is of soldiers in a combat zone. There are a number of reasons why no free equivalent would be available. Firstly, it is unlikely any civilians would be there taking photos and uploading to Wiki due to issues of safety. Secondly, I doubt if the Kiwis just let anyone take happy snaps while carrying out operations (its called operational security, hence the reason governments provide certain images to the public/media). Thirdly, the Kiwis were deployed in an area where the US wasn't operating so it is unlikely that any public domain photos were taken by US servicemen. Green tickY
    • 2. Respect for commerical opportunities: The copyright holder has released the image for use and is not seeking to obtain money by selling it. Green tickY
    • 3. Minimal usage and extent of use: Only used on the Military of History of New Zealand article. Green tickY
    • 4. Previous publication: previously published on the NZDF site from which it was obtained. Green tickY
    • 5. Content: Content is encyclopedic - it depicts something that readers might be interested in and does not show anything that is silly, frivolous, non notable etc. Green tickY
    • 6. Media specific policy: the article is appropriately tagged, specifies its source, there is a description of the image and it has a clear, detailed title and appropriate tags. Green tickY
    • 7. One article minimum: image was used in Military History of New Zealand article. Green tickY
    • 8. Significance: The image helps to illustrate what the New Zealand engineers were doing while deployed to Iraq. There are thousands of images depicting what US forces are doing there, but not that many of NZ's deployment (indeed this is the only one I've seen). Also, despite what one editor believes, the building of a bridge seems important to me (but then I used to a be combat engineer myself and know how much hard work goes into actually putting one together). Surely reconstruction is as important as warfighting? But that is an aside point. Green tickY
    • 9. Restrictions on location: The image was used in an article (allowed), and not on any disambig pages or other pages where it is not allowed. Green tickY
    • 10. Image description page: a). Identifies source, information about copyright holder. b). There is an appropriate copyright tag. c). The name of the article in which it was used (Military History of New Zealand) is mentioned in the Summary section. Green tickY

Also, I'd like to point out that deleting images like this, which do not breach copyright and for which no free equivalent can reasonably be expected to be found damages the encyclopedia. How is anyone meant to meet the criteria of the higher article ratings (which require supporting materials such as photos), if such images are not allowed?

Finally, as for arguments that the image is decorative, well you may as well delete 99% of the non free images on the encyclopedia, because there are unlikely to be many images that show things that text can't in some way illustrate (maybe a technical animation of how a complex piece of machinery works, or something like that, but even then text could probably explain that adequately too if written by someone that knows how to write technical information in a way that is easily understood by laymen). — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll focus on your interpretation of #8 above since that was the criteria that actualy mattered in the deletion: The gist of your argument seems to be that they did important (significant) work that that they presense was important and such. Unfortunately this completely misses the point. The question is not if the event or work was significant, the question is if this image significantly increase the understanding of the article. If it's possible to understand that the event was significant without seeing an image of it the image fail this test. You do assert that it helps illustrate the article but there is a significant difference between "help illustrate" and "significantly increse the understanding". Also a word of advice: Throwing up a wall of text explaining how the image satisfy all sorts of criteria that where never disputed in the first place doesn't nessesarily give you argument added weight, quite the opposite in most cases (no offence intended, but it can easily give others the impression that you are just flailing about fighting straw men instead trying to refute whatever relevant arguments where given to delete). --Sherool (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. My default position on non-free images of living people is "delete", because I think such images pose a significant threat to Wikipedia. However, in this case the image is subject to crown copyright, a matter that few non-Commonwealth residents understand, and upon which I shall at some point produce an essay, because I think it should have its own treatment in Wikipedia's rules.

    Suffice it to say that there is no risk of harm to Wikipedia, no risk of harm to any living person, and no damage to anyone's livelihood or rights from hosting this image. At that point, the benefits of retaining the image outweigh the drawbacks and it would be correct to keep it.

    Because Wikipedia does not have good rules governing the use of crown copyright at the moment, my !vote is an explicit invocation of WP:IAR.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The original result was keep and I did not remark on BLP. I spoke about non-free images of living people, which is what this is.

    I gave my reasons why I think the result should not be overturned to delete as the nominator wishes. This is not a response to the points raised, but instead a raising of counterarguments. I do not think there is anything wrong with that, so on reviewing my remark I shall let it stand.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you comment about the effects an image has on a living person, that's referring to BLP, whether you name it or not. Your arguments consist partly of saying that this is under a special type of copyright that nobody understands. If it is anything other than a free license, it's the same thing WRT our policy. Your other argument is that there is no harm to Wikipedia. This is wrong: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and hosting any non-free content other than that which is absolutely necessary is antithetical to our mission. ÷seresin 10:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On BLP: BLP policy refers to biographies of living people, and primarily concerns unsourced negative information about a living person. With all due respect for your ingenious arguments about it, it is clearly of very limited relevance to an image and I have specifically disavowed referring to BLP.

    On crown copyright: It is a special type of copyright, and very few non-Commonwealth contributors understand it. With all due respect for your well-phrased attempts to dismiss them, these facts are highly relevant to its use on Wikipedia.

    On Wikipedia's mission: We're here to produce an encyclopaedia. Promotion of free image content is Wikimedia commons' mission, not ours.

    So I'm afraid that while I recognise that you wish to exclude my comments because they do not suit the way you wish to frame the debate, I shall not defer to that desire in this instance.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crown copyright is still non-free for our purposes and that's all that matter for use on Wikipedia. We do not differenciate between degrees of non-freenes, even when a copyright holder have explicitly given permission to use an image on Wikipedia, all the non-free criteria still apply if he didn't actualy release the image under a free license. Crown Copyright is no different in this regard, it's not a free license, so WP:NFCC must be applied fully, regardles of how liberal the law may be. --Sherool (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is very little point in criticising my view for not complying with Wikipedian rules when I specifically invoked IAR in my very first remark. I am well aware of NFCC 8 and I think there are good reasons not to apply it.

    My position, which I have stated quite explicitly, is that NFCC 8 is baselessly obstructing an improvement to the encyclopaedia, because it is aimed at protecting commercial copyright users rather than crown copyright. NFCC 8 should therefore be ignored.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your question is puzzeling since I can't recall giving the impression that I believe there are cases where the criteria don't apply (well there are some legitimate exceptions to NFCC 9 for administrative purposes and such). If you intended to ask me for examples of images I believe satisfy the criteria however there are numerous examples. Most logos and cover art are significant enough when used in the primary articles about the organization or work they serve to identify. Same for images of most fictional characters that are notable enugh to have articles. Images used to illustrate a style of art and such will generaly pass the significance test (though people sometimes go overgoard and forget about minimal use), images that are notable in their own right with articles that are to a large degree about the image itself pass for use in those articles at least (File:Sharbat Gula on National Geographic cover.jpg, File:Nguyen.jpg, File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, and such). You know basicaly any kind of image you need to actualy see to get a good understanding of the article, I'm rely not that "hard core" on the issue as I might come across as in this debate, but since I do believe this particular image fail the criteria that will obviously be the focus of my arguments here. --Sherool (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete Very poor close with obvious head-counting and no consideration of strength of arguments. It was plausibly asserted that the image did not satisfy NFCC 8 and not one of the keep rationales even attempted to refute this. To keep this image, somebody needed to explain how this image significantly increase readers' understanding of some aspect of the Military History of New Zealand; no-one did at the AfD or in the FUR and no-one has in this deletion review. CIreland (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tons of people have. For example, "The image helps to illustrate what the New Zealand engineers were doing while deployed to Iraq. There are thousands of images depicting what US forces are doing there, but not that many of NZ's deployment (indeed this is the only one I've seen)." You might not think this does the job, but I don't see how you can claim this doesn't attempt to explain how NFCC8 was met. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well the stuff about the number of images of US forces is completely irrelevant naturally, those images are public domain and not subject to the same rules. As for illustrating what the forces where doing while in Iraq it is indeed a point, but not a particularly strong one. The test is not whether or not the image illustrate something, most do. The question is if that illustration is necessary for understanding the article (or secion). In this case the relevant section has the following to say about the troops role in Iraq: "New Zealand contributed a small engineering and support force to assist in post-war reconstruction and provision of humanitarian aid.". Does this fact rely become any harder to understand without seeing a photo of NZ troops building a bridge? --Sherool (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, I'm not arguing that it does the job (though I feel it does), I'm merely saying that people have attempted to refute the claim. Quite a lot actually. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I for one made a number of arguments attempting to refute that the image didn't satisfy NFCC # 8, as I know a number of other people did. Whether or not they were valid or not does not change the fact that a number of people "attempted" to refute the point that you said that no one even attempt to do. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per Protonk. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per nom and my varoius comments injected at various points above. Based on how the image was used, the provided non-free use rationale and the comments so far in the FFD and this review I don't see any convincing explanation of how this image significalty increase the understanding of the article it was used in. The article says they where there doing reconstruction and humanitarian aid, we don't need a photo of soldiers building stuff to understand this. It would look good in the article, and I would not have removed it if it was free licensed. However because of Wikipedia's free content focus there is a much higher bar for including non-free content, and having the article look better is not a strong enough reason to just ignore that policy as S Marshall advocate above. --Sherool (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The question of whether an image meets NFCC#8 or not is a question of fact for each image, to be determined by consensus, and I think there was consensus that the image did meet the criterion. It's becoming difficult, possibly unduly so, to defend a claim that an image fails NFCC#8, and overturning this decision would make that problem worse. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which of the keep rationales at the original FFD do you believe explained how the image satisfied NFCC 8? I'm not unsympathetic to the your point about the difficulties NFCC 8 can cause but I don't think we should go so far as to permit retention of images at FFD when the chief deletion rationale, NFCC 8, has been credibly raised yet not addressed by those advocating retention. CIreland (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep The discussion on whether the image is appropriate for the article belongs at the article. I can see this being used in various inappropriate ways, or in appropriate ones. If consensus there is that it is appropriate, then it can be used. This is the wrong forum. If they use it, and it meets the other requirements, the proper course is a RfC on the content there. The purpose of XfD is not to review the detailed content decisions in individual articles. If we do consider XfD an appropriate place, then the interpretation of the rule has to go by what the community thinks, and consensus is the only way to determine that. It's irrational to say that the consensus is against policy, when it is consensus that determines the specifics of policy. I see this is one of the relatively rare times I and Stifle agree. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I agree with DGG in this instance, I want to challenge one sentence of his response. DGG says "It's irrational to say that the consensus is against policy, when it is consensus that determines the specifics of policy". I feel this is overly general and open to misunderstanding, and I want to clarify that I think there are times when policy can and should overrule a local consensus—though this is not one of them.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, S.M, I did oversimplify. T On the one hand, there's no point in general consensus unless it has some controlling influence, but the interpretation in any one specific case will inevitably be local. The way to get local and general consensus to conform better is increased participation in processes. Alternatively, some means of highlighting the important discussions for a broader consensus. To some extent, Del Rev does serve for that. But IAR seems to say that one can always override any general consensus for a particular instance. I agree we need some such rule, but there should be a more precise way of applying it. Alternatively, we could change IAR, and that's one of the really basic policies. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I'd like to ask for your response to Protonk's argument above. I understand why S Marshall would not find that compelling (crown copyright), but I'd like to understand your view on that. Hobit (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which argument? His argument seems to be that his own interpretation is necessarily right. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That it is literally an example of the type of non-free images not to be used here [10] Image#4. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I often disagree with DGG in XfD discussions, but I fully endorse their above post. From my recent experience with this and related discussions, it seems that some editors believe that only they understand how the fair use policy should be applied, and anyone who has a different interpretation is so wrong that their views should be dismissed. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But DGG, this is the problem, not the solution. The reason so many NFCC centered deletion discussions are heated and involved isn't because editors and admins aren't properly applying the policy to their arguments. Rather it is because the policy and consensus are in conflict. If we had a vote tomorrow and could somehow summon and compel all registered users to vote on completely overturning NFC and allowing non-free media to be used in the same fashion that we allow free media, the outcome would not bode well for the NFC. The prevailing reaction to edits which reduce the number of non-free images on a page or reduce the use of non-free images is hostility. Not because the folks opposing the change are foolish or stupid but because the removal of the non-free images tends to diminish the article. If we had license to use a non-free image for identification of living persons, our biographies would be improved (Dramatically, if the NYT is to be believed), so the removal of a non-free image from those page, though necessary, generates resentment. The sentiment behind that resentment and the sentiment behind opposition to the NFC is noble. Wikipedia would be a dramatically better resource if the NFC were dispensed with tomorrow, but it would be a resource which could no longer be shared freely and without fear of legal issues. As such, the foundation has directed (And the community have built a policy around) that non-free content be limited, even in the presence of disagreement. And it is that disagreement which is the font of these sorts of discussions. It isn't, as Nick-D presumes, that I think those with a different interpretation are wrong by definition. They just happen to be wrong here. They are pushing for the inclusion of an image which is 'specifically proscribed by the NFCC because they want to improve the article. They wish that we could include images of troops taken under crown copyright just as we include images of american troops. That's not inherently wrong or foolish, but it is in conflict with the NFC and we need to acknowledge that. Protonk (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again, IAR gives us not merely permission to do so, but instructions to do so, in exactly that situation. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." What could be plainer? (I interpret "you" as us collectively; not an individual according to whim, because that's a suicide pact, but an individual backed by consensus for that action.) DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is time to reinterpret the policy so that Crown copyright images can be used. As another user has pointed out they are 'safe' to use and do not have the same potential legal problems of other categories of non-free images. Similar images are used extensively in American articles because they are clearly PD, but articles subject to Commonwealth crown copyright are not due to a technicality. Lets be practical. Anotherclown (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a technicality. Crown copyright is incompatible w/ the GFDL (or CC-by-sa). We don't control the license the materials are released under. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is and you're just being difficult if you cannot accept that. My point is that US images taken in exactly the same circumstances are PD whilst commonwealth images are copyright... and whilst this makes them suspect under the non-free image policy it is clearly a 'technicality' given the rationale behind attempting to exclude them. Anotherclown (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Protonk's "just being difficult", Anotherclown. From my experience with him, that isn't his practice at all. I think he's genuinely missed the point about crown copyright, likely based on a failure to understand its purpose, scope and intent, and I would like to think that if approached correctly, he is one of the "endorse" camp who would be open to re-examining his !vote.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to being told what makes crown copyrighted images different from images held by any other copyright, with respect to the encyclopedia. I'm absolutely certain, however, that 'crown copyright' isn't being used as a cover for some unspoken nefarious purpose like ridding the encyclopedia of pictures from New Zealand. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, crown copyright's a complex subject that it's hard to sum up in a short paragraph. Its provisions range from the extremely restrictive (as with for example maps from the Ordnance Survey, which may not be reproduced without a licencing agreement that I am positive neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation possess) to the extremely permissive (as with for example material taken from a government website, which is reproducible unless otherwise stated).

    My position is that in general, crown copyright material should be freely reusable on Wikipedia provided it is one of the types of material on this list (which does not cover the image, but keep reading).

    In the specific case of images of armed forces personnel, material "may be reproduced for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study and for the purposes of reporting current events only". In my opinion use on Wikipedia for recent conflicts (i.e. in the 21st Century) would be covered under "for the purposes of reporting current events" and viewed as "non-commercial"; and further, in my opinion the relevant government agencies will tacitly approve of this use, though they will be enjoined from approving it formally if asked.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ok. Here's where I feel there may be a misunderstanding. It is insufficient that an image be available for non-commercial reuse (See CSD F3). The image, in order to be considered 'free' for our purposes, has to be free for anyone to use, modify, profit from, etc. Something that is free only for us can't be used in an unrestricted fashion here. The section of our article on crown copyright describing its incompatibility with the GFDL does a reasonable job of explaining it (IMO). Protonk (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, and I accept that the image is not "considered 'free' for our purposes". What I'm challenging is these people who're doing the "considering", because they've managed to come up with a rule that prevents us from improving the encyclopaedia by using crown copyright material that is, in fact, available for us to reuse.

        My position is that this is why the current Wikipedian rules on crown copyright are dumb and need to be disregarded for the moment, and revised in time, in the encyclopaedia's best interests.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Well the people doing the considering are the foundation. The reason we can't use it like it is a free image is because it can't be reused like the rest of the encyclopedia--this is the reason fair use images were only accepted grudgingly. If the encyclopedia goes to print, that image won't be in it. If it gets packaged on a OLPC laptop and sent to a school somewhere, that image won't be on it. If I want to write a book about NZ's participation in the Iraq war, I can't use that image without permission. Etc. These aren't reasons why the image can't be included as a non-free image w/ a fair use rationale. These are just reasons why it would be inappropriate to include the image as though it were free just because it is free for us. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a fair use image, though, Protonk. It's an image where copyright has been waived for Wikipedia's purposes—which I think is an important distinction. Further, it's uncontroversial that relevant images improve the encyclopaedia.

            This is precisely the kind of situation IAR considers. It's an exact case in point. All these arguments about whether this is a "non-free image with a fair use rationale", alphabet soup about NFCC8, etc., are subordinate to our basic purpose of building an online encyclopaedia and IAR specifically enjoins us to disregard them.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

              • It is a fair use image. See CSD F3, please. Even though images say "can be used on wikiepdia" they are "non-free" as in they are not Free and open source. As a matter of fact, try uploading an image to wikipedia by selecting "I have permission to place this on wikipedia" from the dropdown menu. The image will automatically show up in the speedy deletion queue. I'm willing to say, based on the response here, that we can IAR and accept it as fair use, despite the fact that it is the poster child for what is not fair use. But it is wrong to say that it is a "free" image. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall explains his view by analogy. Hatted by the author.
I'm growing increasingly conscious of the amount of space I'm taking up in this DRV, so I'll hat myself as a courtesy to those uninterested in what I'm saying.

I'll try to explain my problem with Protonk's view by analogy.

Let's imagine a prehistoric fisherman, who draws up an octopus in his net. He's never seen an octopus before, so he brings it back to his tribe and asks: "What is this? Is it a spider or a fish?"

The tribe is divided. Some of them think the octopus is a spider, because it has eight arms. Others think it's a fish because it lives in the sea. They have a long argument about it, and the positions become increasingly entrenched. It is not until many years later that the tribe reluctantly agrees that octopi aren't really spiders or fish. They're octopi.

This is my point with crown copyright. It's not a spider, and it's not a fish. It's crown copyright: a separate kind of thing, in an entirely different category. It's not free to use, and it's not fair use. It's crown copyright. Fair use rules should not apply to it, and trying to apply fair use rules to it is inappropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is no shame in taking up space with constructive dialogue. I understand the point you are trying to make that crown copyright is neither fish nor fowl in terms of "copyrighted images". But the image policy and the foundation principles on copyright are pretty clear. the closest analogy we have to crown copyright is "free for non commercial use licenses" which are clearly not to be treated as free images. It isn't a matter of mischaracterisation on my part. Wikipedia:Crown copy indicates that the images are copyrighted until expiry. this email from a foundation board member spells things out. Protonk (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay then, I won't hat myself again.  :) However, we seem to be no further forward. To sum up our respective positions:

        You have explained what the rules are, and you have explained the reasons for the rules. Your position appears to be that the rules should be enforced because they are rules.

        My position is as it always has been: that crown copyright is the poster child for IAR. In other words, our rules in this case are needlessly presenting obstacles to improving the encyclopaedia. My position is that it's frankly silly to delete this image that we have permission to use and require someone else to go out and take a different photograph of substantially the same subject if an image is to be included.

        Before I try to build a bridge between these two viewpoints, have I misrepresented your position in any way?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Well, there are rules and there are rules. You are pretty much free to ignore anything except Wikipedia:Five pillars (note that IAR is among them). Ignoring the rules on the use of free content doesn't improve the encyclopedia, it makes it ethically and legally hazardous for reusers, a distinct net negative. I think it is an egregious misrepresentation of my position to say that I think rules should be enforced because they are rules. That's actually fairly insulting. I haven't been carrying on this conversation to do so. I've been attempting to provide a justification, grounded in the very purpose for the encyclopedia. Our goal, the end goal, is to provide a free resource (in every way) to the rest of the world. If we include non-free media as free media (even media that allows for non commercial use without permission) we foreclose the opportunity for derivative works, commercial ventures, or whatever someone can dream up 10-20 years down the road. Declaring that content limits don't exist for crown copyrighted works does just that. I'm open to (generally) the notion that a strong fair use rationale can be generated from this discussion, but I don't agree that crown copyrighted images should be treated as 'pseudo-free images'. Protonk (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It certainly wasn't my intention to be insulting, and I apologise for any offence I might have inadvertently caused.

            My position is that Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopaedia. It is Wikimedia Commons' mission to be a repository of free image content. Personally, I see myself as an encyclopaedia editor first, and a free content provider as an incidental byproduct.

            I am emphatically not suggesting that crown copyrighted images should be treated as 'pseudo-free images'. That would be disastrous (for example, it could lead to someone scanning and uploading an Ordnance Survey map, which could quite possibly lead to real world problems for Wikipedia).

            I do think, however, that in the case of this particular image, the situation goes beyond a "fair use rationale". A "fair use rationale" in this case means "delete me per NFCC8" because NFCC8 (which is designed to protect commercial copyright holders) is very strongly-worded and includes a fundamental presumption to remove content. That presumption is not appropriate given the crown copyright status.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • Well we may not be able to bridge that gap. I see folks here as editors of a free encyclopedia, equal stress on both words. As for the NFCC, NFCC 8 is not designed to help copyright holders (Look to 2,3,4 for that). NFCC 8 is there to provide a deliberately high bar for non-free content. NFCC 8 isn't about them, it is about us. It's there to make it hard for us to use crown copyrighted images of soldiers, even when we want to. The result is directly and deliberately in conflict with our goal to build an encyclopedia, because without NFCC 8, we would not be forced to find or make free content for images and files and downstream users of the encyclopedia would suffer. I'm not sure I understand you reasoning about why turning crown copyrighted images into 'pseudo-free' files would be dangerous. Surely the limiting factor in folks obtaining ordinance maps or what have you isn't their copyright status. US Navy reactor plant manuals are in the public domain (As they are written by DNR), but they certainly aren't publicly available--because they are classified. Protonk (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, let's see whether the gap can be bridged. My logic runs as follows:

                1) IAR tells us to ignore rules that prevent us improving the encyclopaedia.

                2) Using relevant images where possible improves the encyclopaedia.

                3) The image in question is available for us to use.

                4) The current rules on crown copyright are, as you correctly say, "in conflict with our goal to build an encyclopaedia".

                5) These rules are the only obstacle to using that image.

                I think this is the exact situation for which IAR was written, and I have rarely seen a clearer example. Policy says that rules and technicalities are not allowed to stop us improving the encyclopaedia.

                Where in my logic do you see a flaw?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

              • The flaw is that, regardless of our rules, using crown copyright images where possible conflict with our goal to build a free encyclopaedia. You stated it like it was the rule's fault, but the decision to block non-free content (e.g.: crown stuff) is not an arbitrary capricious rule. --Damiens.rf 12:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using images that we have permission to use doesn't conflict with that goal at all, Damiens.rf. What it conflicts with is a totally different goal, i.e. to supply material that other people can freely reuse.

    Whether or not it's the rule's fault, we have a core policy that any rule that prevents us from enhancing the encyclopaedia is to be disregarded.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Exactly what damiens said. The rule doesn't just incidentally block the free use of nfc. If intentionally blocks it because widespread use of non-free images damages downstream use and wikipedia is built for downstream use. Because there is a picture of NZ combat engineers, no one has any incentive to go out and get one themselves, which means that any reuser for the next 50 years will get a redlink instead of an image. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • More to the point, it isn't a technicality. The reason that people like Spartaz and Fut Perf and Damiens and me and Stifle all demand that images meet NFCC 8 isn't because we are bureaucratic jerks who hate images. It is because we believe that the foundation's goal to build a free encyclopedia rests on the use of free media. And that someone has to be "that guy" because using primarily free media sucks. The pictures aren't as good, they aren't up to the minute, professional shots are usually much better. If there were no bar set, non-free media would force out free media. How many free pictures of actors/actresses would we have if we could use headshots from publicists? It would be great for us, the immediate users, but if there was a content dispute with the subject, they could use (illegitimately) copyright law to force the image off their page in retaliation for page content problems. Any reuser would have to negotiate a second contract with the publicist. If you want a good example of why free is a guiding principle, go to Austrailia or NZ and watch south park or hulu on your computer. Tell me how that goes. Freeing ourselves from that morass is a guiding light for the encyclopedia. And limiting fair use pictures, especially when we wish we had them is part of it. Protonk (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would characterise the above arguments as follows:-

          1) Treating crown copyright as you would a fair use image swiped from a publicist, when in fact I thought we had established that a crown copyright image used under a waiver is an entirely different matter; and

          2) Treating downstream re-users as more important than encyclopaedia browsers, when in fact I thought we had established that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first and foremost, and providing a repository of free image content is really Wikimedia Commons' mission, not ours.

          I can't help thinking that both Protonk and Damiens.rf have not yet fully appreciated the difference between crown copyright and fair use, and I suspect we shall make no more progress in this discussion until the said difference is acknowledged.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • 1st, yes, Crown Copyright is different from Fair use, that is different from Creative Commons Non-Commercial, that is different of "All Rights Reserved" that is different from a lot of other non-free licenses. What they all have in common is that they forbid at-least one of a) Use for any purpose, b) Unrestricted distribution, c) Unrestricted modification, d) Distribution of modification. (and all that should be provided irrevocably and for anyone). Nobody is claiming that Crowns Copyright is the same as fair use. We're just following the Foundation determination of splitting all content in only two well defined categories, Free and Non-free. I'm affraid Crown's fits the second. 2nd Yes, downstream users are as important (or even more important) than encyclopaedia browsers. We're not building a website, for god's sake. We're building a freely available encyclopedia. We want it printed and sent to Africa among other goals, and these goals are not going to be corrupted for the benefit of web surfers. --Damiens.rf 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair use describes our justification for the picture. We have a fair use rationale for File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg despite the fact that we have explicit permission from the AP to use the photo on wikipedia. There are fair use justifications for CC-BY-NC pictures just as there are for all rights reserved pictures. Fair use is a right of re-use allowed to us by copyright law. The distinction between the two is immaterial for our use. Also, the bifurcation you have created between commons and wikipedia is a red herring. It is the wikimedia foundation that wants to create free content for the rest of the world to use without restriction. Images happen to be hosted on commons, whose job it is to be an image repository, but they are used in articles here. Mine and damiens' point is that the encyclopedia itself suffers when non-free images are treated as free images, that is used without fair use rationales and limitations, because non-free content displaces free content and downstream reusers of the encyclopedia will either have to renegotiate the rights or forgo use of the images. I'm getting good and tired of being told how rule bound and ignorant I am and I really would like to be able to engage in this debate without laboring under that characterization. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because each side is simply restating its position without moving in the slightest, each side is convinced the other is wrong, and we're starting to irritate each other. I don't want to go any further down that route, so it behoves me to disengage.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You'll have to agree that you're showing a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's goal when you say web-readers are more important than re-users. One have to understand what Wikipedia's really goals are before trying to implement the "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" part of IAR. --Damiens.rf 19:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep as per Nick-D. Buckshot06(prof) 02:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Of course you have the option to keep defending your understanding that web-readers are more important than re-users. If your whole argumentation above is somewhat dependent on that, let's see how much weight your opinion will be given. --Damiens.rf 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have serious qualms about the entire series of events. People on both sides have apparently assumed a self-righteous position. For instance, Nick Thorne's labeling of the FfD as a "spurious nomination" did not address the issue at hand; Damiens' nomination was highly valid. Then, on my talk page, Damiens has assumed that I counted the votes, and J Milburn even thought (above) that it was unnecessary to reply to the keep !votes (which were pertinent to NFCC #1 and #8 and no less valid than the arguments for deletion). Now Damiens is attempting to get it deleted by orphaning it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: For anyone arguing that the image is irreplaceable, has the New Zealand army been disbanded in the past five years? If it hasn't, it's quite possible to replace this image with a free-content image of soldiers doing work. --Carnildo (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What in a combat zone overseas? That was the point. It would not be a valid use of an image of NZ soldiers putting across a bridge in NZ and using it to illustrate what they were doing in Iraq. As I stated above, there are a number of reasons why it is not replaceable in the circumstances. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's certainly replaceable by text, for the same reason that we don't use non-free images of folks being interviewed on TV just to show that they were on TV. With all respect to the arduousness of deployment, it is trivial to take a free image of combat engineers and then say "combat engineers like these were in a place with loads more sand". Protonk (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having tried that before, I disagree as I was told by many editors at peer review that unless the image was specifically related to the topic it should not be there. The fact of the matter remains, however, that I doubt there are "free" images of NZ engineers doing their job in NZ, let alone Iraq. In the Australian Army we don't let just anyone take photos of us doing our job. Where possible they are strictly controlled, hence most images of Australian Army personnel on operations or even training are subject to Crown Copyright. I doubt (but admit to not knowing) that it is any different in NZ. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • From digging around in the Australian Navy/Army pages, it appears that most of our photos of them were taken by American service-members (and therefore pd). Haven't checked the NZ pages yet. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's right, most of the photos for Australian military articles after the Korean War have to rely mainly upon photos taken by US service personnel, because the majority of photos taken about these conflicts are governed by Crown Copyright. Thus by not accepting Crown Copyright photos as fair use contributors are constrained to finding the few US-PD photos that exist, thus creating the illusion that it is easy to illustrate such topics with US-PD images. As NZ does not excercise with the US, there are even less (if not none) that would be taken by US personnel. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Remember: The original nomination did not find fault with replaceability; it questioned whether the image added significantly to the reader's understanding. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think that we are constrained by the text of the original nomination. My point above (way above) was to express incredulity that we had reached a decision in a deletion discussion that was the opposite of the 'examples' offered in the non-free image guideline. Why the decision was wrong (or merely unfortunate, depending on your view of consensus vs. policy) involves more than just NFCC 8. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • On the topic of replacability, the NZ soldiers in Iraq operated in the British occupation zone, and hence are unlikely to have been photographed by US military personnel. There are a few photos of Australians as they tend to operate alongside Americans. As a result of NZ being suspended from the ANZUS treaty its very rare for NZ and US forces to train together, much less operate together, with the result that PD-US photos aren't available to anywhere near the same (limited) extent as they are for Australian military topics. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keeping of the image. Basically, it seems to me that most people who have read and understood the arguments here agree that it is not replaceable by a free image, and that if it meets NFCC #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." then in the case of this specific image, it can be used on Wikipedia. Like DGG, S Marshall, Australian Rupert and others, it is my belief that this does meet the criteria. The reason I believe this is because consensus time and time again at places like peer review, good article discussions and featured article discussions is that an article cannot be considered "good" or any higher standard without an image, even if that image conveys nothing that the text doesn't. Furthermore I will introduce into this discussion issues of systematic bias, namely that without allowing this type of fair use image, the only articles about the activity of 21st century militaries that can have "good" or "featured" status are (a) those about the United States military and (b) organisations the United States military has taken PD photographs of (and even these will not necessarily be representative, as discussed by Australian Rupert above). As has been noted, this typically does not include the New Zealand military, nor will it include other militaries the US does not come into contact with. I forget who it was who said it now, but I would endorse the call for separate treatment for Crown Copyright. The existing NFCC are designed for and generally doing a good job regarding non-free commercial works, are not suited for the qualitatively different non-commercial Crown Copyright works - this isn't about different degrees of non-free but about different types of non-free. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment could you be a bit more spesific as to exactly how the image significantly increase the readers understanding (of the three sentence section it was used in or for the whole article in general), I can respect your opinion that it does, but the policy require a bit more than people saying "yes it's significant", there is supposed to be a convincing rationale justifying the use of non-free images presicely so that it doesn't just turn into a "shouting match" between "yes it does" and "no it doesn't". As for the issue of Crown Copyright, systemic bias and good harticles beeing "required" to have images of some kind please, please don't turn this DRV into some kind of RfC on the validity of the current policy. The question here is (supposed to be) wether or not this deletion debate was closed in line with policy, not wehter or not the policy is valid. Those who wish to change the policy should start a seperate RfC at WP:CENT or WP:VPP, and if the consensus is to change the policy with regard to treatment of Crown Copyright we can revisit this and other images in light of that after the fact, but deletion debates should focus on policy as is and not try to overturn the policy itself in order to have something kept. --Sherool (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comments regarding NFCC and Crown Copyright were intended to support whoeveritwas's proposed application of IAR in this case rather than start an RFC about current policy here (although I would endorse someone who does start one in the proper place), and I generally agree with the current consensuses regarding photos in good and featured articles. As for the reasons I believe the image illustrates the role the NZ engineers were doing by showing the work, conditions, location and activity they were undertaking. It also adds value to the entire article by being an example illustration of this type of work that the forces do. I know this latter is possibly not a reason on its own that is valid for using non-free images, but given that its primary purpose is valid there is nothing wrong with it also being used in this manner. I say "possibly", because if it is not replaceable by a free image of the NZ engineers at work in a different combat zone (I do not know, but it has been established it is not replaceable by one of them working in this combat zone) then it might be a valid use, but this is not relevant to this discussion. I also endorse the better expressed statements of others regarding its value - indeed there seems to be consensus among the editors of the article that it does, and they are the ones who should know best. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete I do not think anyone contributing to the deletion discussion explained how the omission of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. No one made clear how the reader's understanding would be lessened. Guest9999 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and change venue At the time the XfD was closed, the consensus was to keep, the image was in use, and there was not an argument from overriding policy for deletion. My personal opinion is that the article it was being used in suffers in no way from the lack of this image - but that is an issue that is properly resolved at the talk page of the article, not at DRV. I appreciate that editors have chosen not to edit war over the use of the image during this DRV, so I take its current use/non-use status as not relevant. Editors should use Talk:Military history of New Zealand to reach a consensus on whether or not the image actually improves the article - and that discussion should focus on the article, not the NFCC. If there is consensus that it doesn't, then it will become an unused non-free image, and its fate will be clear. If there is consensus that it does, then it clearly should be kept. DRV is not the right venue for the discussion, given that the actual XfD discussion was properly closed given the discussion it contained and our policies. GRBerry 14:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure that's such a great idea. Since it appears in this DRV that the implicit argument is that the image improves the article, I don't know what good a recapitulation of that debate on the talk page would do. Beyond that, knowledge that removal of the image will lead to deletion will cause people to argue strategically. It appears, from my rough look above, that this DRV will be closed as endorse or no consensus to overturn. At that point the right answer is probably to leave the image and the page alone for a while. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
@icon sushi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article has been sourced and significantly improved during the AFD, and it's not clear whether these improvements have been taken into consideration or not. Most of the "Delete" votes (but one) apply to the version as of 04/08, whereas the article has been improved between 05/08 and 10/08 (when the AFD was closed). In particular, the ZDNet, Official Windows Magazine and the two Softonic sources are articles where the app is actually reviewed and not simply mentioned. For information, the latest version of the article can be seen here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLaurent (talk • contribs)

  • Relist the closing statement by the admin says "That several sources simply mention the topic is not usually enough to establish notability". This is false, the sources provided are not 'mentions', they are reviews and articles on the software itself.--Otterathome (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Request can we get a history only undelete? The cached version I'm seeing is from the 6th. Hobit (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - page was userfied.  Frank  |  talk  17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Seems like a correct interpretation of the discussion consensus. An improved article on the topic that allays these concerns can always be worked on elsewhere and moved into place. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 19:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are concerns, we need to know what they are so that we can work on them. The closing admin wrote that the app is only mentioned in the sources, but that's not true as there are at least three actual reviews. Also it's not clear whether the consensus to delete was based on an old version of the article, or on the latest. It seems to me that it was based on the old one since most of the comments where made before the 5th. Laurent (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or relist I really hate going against consensus as counted by !votes, but frankly the delete arguments either turned out to be wrong (no RSes) or were useless from the start "not notable". The closer's comments would lead me to believe that they didn't personally review the sources, but I can't really tell. One could imagine that the sources provided aren't acceptable for some reason but I don't see how. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. If consensus is that the new version is OK, then restore the history. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - I'm still confident the original decision was correct, but if the concerns raised during the discussion have been addressed, I see no problem with allowing recreation. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall not fault Juliancolton for closing in accordance with the consensus, which is after all his job, but I agree that the consensus was simply wrong in this instance.

    "Allow recreation" is not appropriate because of Wikipedia's content licencing provisions: the article's contributors must receive due credit for the material they wrote. This material must be restored with the contribution history intact.

    Therefore I wish to endorse Juliancolton's accurate reading of the consensus, but overturn the consensus itself to keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, but allow recreation without prejudice to renomination at AfD updated Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC); the poor sourcing was directly addressed by Pgallert at the AfD, and the newer sources are no better. Please excuse the AfD-like analysis, but my intent is to validate the delete rationales based on sourcing. The Official Windows Magazine ref is a how-to, in which icon sushi fills a prominent role, but it is not a product review. The four new sources:[reply]
    • The AllBusiness.com ref is one has only one relevant clarified Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC) sentence: "PC users can use Icon Sushi 1.19 to create and Iconoid 3.8.4 to manage their desktop icons; both popular programs are free and available by searching at www.download.com."[reply]
    • The VnExpress ref is a brief review and a download link.
    • The last two refs are Softonic.com download pages (.br, .fr), again with blurbs and download links.

      Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I wouldn't say Pgallert directly addressed the sourcing since he didn't even mention what source he was talking about. Which source is a "download link"? Which one is a "product discussion"? (or does he mean a review? - if so, why is not relevant?) The two Softonic sources are not just "download pages" but actual reviews. The ZDNet and VnExpress reviews are reliable. Also I fail to understand why it matters whether these reviews include a download link or not. Actually, it must be very hard to find a software review on the internet that doesn't include a download link. Laurent (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure which is which. The ZDNet ref (translation) has commentary, while the WinFuture one (translation) is one descriptive paragraph, a features list, and a change log. Summary of my main points:
          1. Some guy, Dennisthe2, and Pgallert all wrote rationales indicating examination of the sources and referencing specific weaknesses. I disagree that they should be discounted entirely.
          2. The newer sources are not substantial improvements, except perhaps in numbers. You're right that I overemphasized the download links; my intended point was that the new reviews are very brief, at best comparable to the ZDNet source. Further, Softonic.com is a primarily a download portal. I could not find a description of their editorial standards, and the search results for the editors of the references return over 900 total reviews each. I don't see enough here to justify relisting the AfD for missing pertinent information.

            Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • I agree that most of these reviews are short, however it's a very simple application so we can't expect to find long articles about it. The Softonic sources are frequently used on Wikipedia and, in my opinion, can be considered reliable. At least, I've never read a review from them which seemed blatantly wrong. How exactly do we establish what their editorial standards are? I've only found that on their FAQ: "Insightful reviews by our in-house editors available in Spanish, English and German. (...) The editors at Softonic take the time to evaluate the best software and each program is assigned a star rating." Overall, if we remove the weakest sources, these four remain:
            • ZDNet - I think everybody agree that it is reliable;
            • Clubic - (I've just added it) Reliable too;
            • VnExpress - seems reliable to me and it's apparently a rather big website in Vietnam;
            • Softonic - reliable? Also note that they wrote three different reviews about the app (French, English and Spanish) by three different editors.
          • Laurent (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Since I do not have experience with the sourcing norms in this topic area, and some of the deletes seemed partially satisfied with the ZDNet source, I have updated my recommendation above. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jay Jennings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was unfairly deleted at an AFD. The Consensus was to keep, not delete. keystoneridin! (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if it matters at this point, but Cptono will have copies of newspapers articles at his disposal to back-up reliable sources on the article and he will cite sources and enhance notabilty. If it works, great. If not, whatever. As a newbie editor, I tried my best to add filmmaker/author Mr. Jennings to this site. That's all I can do. Timemachine1967 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does matter because I see no reason to wait 7 days for this to close if we can fix and restore the article before that. By the same token it would be a shame to delay fixing it while we navel gaze here. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had been closing, I might have waited another week and notified (or re-notified ) appropriate workgroups to get additional opinions, but I think Spartaz' closing was a reasonable option also. But clearly fixing the article is the best course, then move to mainspace, and then renominate unless the additional material shows him so clearly notable nobody wants to nom. for deletion. If we need to have another AfD, it should be on the improved article. DGG ( talk ) 18:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (EC) Due to the fact that it looks like there's already productive dialogue in process about this article on Spartaz talk page I'd suggest the best thing to do would be to close this without predjudice. Let's let the discussion have a chance to work, and if there's still a dispute after, then it can be brought to DRV.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, proper closure. Stifle (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd endorse that too. The only thing I'd take issue with is discarding a keep !vote based on WP:ATA. ATA is an essay that users are perfectly free to disregard; in fact, it's basically a list of arguments that someone else thinks shouldn't count, and the reasoning is often pretty questionable. I think that !vote should have been given full weight.

    But it didn't affect the outcome, so I'll join the endorse chorus here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse It looks to me that the closing admin made a correct decision based on the arguments that most reflected policy. An admin citing an essay in AfD closure isn't a problem to me, an essay is just a shorthand way of saying a common sentiment that doesn't carry any weight above the user typing the same thing in manually. Closing decision weighted arguments in light of policy, and was proper. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being fixed. A bunch of newspaper articles and interviews have been e-mailed to cptnono. He will now look them over, edit the article, add what needs to be added, (along with the acceptable on-line refs) as well as, clarify the sourcing and summarise what's there. This will give an indication of the depth of coverage so the article can hopefully be restored very soon. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no hurry. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confident after cptono reworks the article with the verifiable sources I've sent him, it'll make a difference in the final decison. Timemachine1967 (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, it was obviously a tongue-in-cheek joke. It'll be interesting to see how much of a chance you give Cptono when he adds the new info. Timemachine1967 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I didn't come across as tongue in cheek to me. Text is a poor medium for humour so unless you use smilies your intent will frequently be misread to your detriment. And as for the chance? It will be exactly the chance I give everyone else that raises similar issues. If I wasn't going to be open I would have just told you to go to DRV from the outset. And that's another assumption of bad faith on your part or was that another badly flagged joke? We discourage that kind of thing round here because it poisons the atmosphere and makes collaborative editing harder. Spartaz Humbug! 07:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little concerned over the way this was brought to deletion review even though I understand the proposal. Several editors have fully crossed the line in regards to theWP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:DONTBITE, and WP:CIVIL guidelines. This goes for people working on the article, the original deletion discussion, talk pages, etc. I did it to when I first saw the article so can't be blameless and won't name any other names in the assumption that it won't help a thing.
In my opinion, this article could have met the basic criteria requirements of BIO since he has been the "subject of published secondary source material which...". His work has also won "critical attention" as laid out in the creative professionals guideline. The guidelines for including unlinked information were also followed to some extent. However, significant coverage and verifiability was a concern. Spartaz was willing to rereview it once some info was presented so lets relax and see if we can improve Wikipeida with an improved article. I'm working under the impression that this article can be improved and I hope anyone who has become stressed can just chill and see if it works.Cptnono (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BITE is not an excuse to jump up and down like a 5-year-old girl upon her parents taking her candy away. That's the impression I get in that AFD, at least. Even the newest users should have the most basic understanding of how to behave in a colloborative, collegial environment. MuZemike 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I didn't mention any names ;) Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz has been away for a couple days so thought I would update info here. The sources look to meet the requirements and the article is in my userspace getting cleaned up. The info can all be found at the first Jay Jennings discussion on Spartaz's talk page. Take a look if you get a chance and let us know if guidelines are met. User talk:Spartaz#Jay Jennings Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find time to review this later today but I have a very bust schedule this morning so it won't happen for a couple of hours. Spartaz Humbug! 05:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Thanks for getting back.Cptnono (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that i reviewed the sources this evening. Findings per souce below. Note that i am judging the sourcing per request following userfication.

1. ^ a b c Davidson, Ben (1999-09-10). "BH Resident's New Film Unearths Seedy Life of Loan Shark". The Beverly Hills Courier: pp.

  • I can't access this source so need to understand what it actually says about the Jennings rather then the film. As a local freesheet i don't know how far we would go to accept this as a reliable source.

2. ^ Bertoldo, Brian. (1999-09-06). "Loanshark Movie Review at FilmThreat.com". http://filmthreat.com/index.php?section=reviews&Id=579/. Retrieved 2009-08-07.

  • Doesn't discuss jennings at all. Its a website with user submitted reviews. i wouldnt accept this as a reliable source.

3. ^ a b Bernard, Ethan (2000-03-02). "A Life in the Movies: Beverly Hills director Jay Jennings shares secrets of his trade". Beverly Hills Weekly: pp. 8.

  • Again i can't see the article so I can't judge the source. Not clear that alocal free paper is a reliable source.

4. ^ Amiran, Eyal (2001-01-03). "Guerrilla Filmmaking". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 1.

  • Ditto about not being able to see the source.

5. ^ "Best Bet". Los Angeles Times: pp. pg 5 sec around the westside. 1999-08-03.

  • Ditto. Is there an on-line link to this anywhere?

6. ^ Amiran, Eyal (2000-09-20). "The Silver Screen comes to Silver Lake". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 2-3.

  • I can't see the source to judge it.

7. ^ Royale, Pinky. (2004-11-05). "Loanshark Movie Review at Exploitation Retrospect". http://www.dantenet.com/er/ERchives/reviews/l_reviews/loanshark.html. Retrieved 2009-08-10.

  • appears to be an online fanzine so i can't see really see that this is a reliable source. Review is pseudonoymous. No mention of jennings as a person.

8. ^ Engle, Marc. (2001-08). "Loanshark Movie Review at CULTCUTS.COM". http://web.archive.org/web/20011101093028/www.icehouse.net/cultcuts/loanshark.htm. Retrieved 2009-08-11.

  • Was this a personal website? Clearly not a reliable source and doesn't mention Jennings

9. ^ "Silver Lake Film Festival". (2002-09-16). http://web.archive.org/web/20040825103224/www.silverlakefilmfestival.org/archives/2002/shor.html. Retrieved 2009-08-12.

  • The film was shown but doesnt tell us antything about jennings

10. ^ "TromaDance Film Festival". (2005-01-27). http://news.tromadance.com/archives/2005/01/11/2005-official-selections/. Retrieved 2009-08-12.

  • ditto

11. ^ Weil, Marty. (2008-03-14). "Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector". http://ephemera.typepad.com/ephemera/2008/02/knotts-berry-fa.html. Retrieved 2009-08-07.

  • Blogs are not reliable sources.

12. ^ Berlin, Loreen (2009-08-07). "Knott’s Berry Farm: The Early Years", Buena Park Independent (pg 5). Retrieved on 2009-08-12.

  • Can't see the article to assess the sources but its a local weekly with no web presence. Can't really assess as reliable source as it stands.

13. ^ "Real Orange". Hosts: Maria Hall-Brown and Ed Arnold . Real Orange. PBS. KOCE-TV, Huntington Beach, CA. 2009-06-24.

  • Can't see to knwo what its about what it says about Jennings or what kind of programme it is.

Bottom line is that the new sources need to be verified, you can email to me at my username @gmail dot com but I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of individual notability through reliable sourcing here. Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I woke up this morning hoping for good news, Spartaz! I'll send them over via email in the next few minutes.Cptnono (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Email has been sent. Please let me know if you don't see it. Body of the message:
"I barely glanced at the user submitted websites. That is probably a good next step.
Attached are some of the copies Timemachine forwarded over to me. The concern I see is that it is coverage from lesser known free or local newspapers. The LA Times is a big name but it is just a featured listing. The PBS interview is linked. Real Orange looks to be their news show from looking at the official website and Wikipedia.
In regards to the coverage being about the movies and not him, the creative professional guidelines require work by the subject to receive significant critical attention. Significance is questioned but coverage on his films does assert some level of notability.
I still believe the minimum requirements for inclusion have been met. I hate to have to rely on barely reaching the benchmark but for now it looks like the sources are OK."Cptnono (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono...You've done a great job sourcing the article, which can be seen here: User:Cptnono/Jay Jennings. For some reason, Spartaz seems to dismiss everything you've presented to him when it comes to this article, no matter how many times you show him reliable sources. He dismissed the consensus to keep; He dismissed verifiable resource links; He dismissed reputable newspapers that interviewed Mr. Jennings; He dismissed reputable newspapers that cited Mr. Jennings' films. He keeps arrogantly dismissing all your proof of notability. As an example, the Beverly Hills Courier is a well respected newspaper of major circulation that interviewed Mr. Jennings about his film career, yet Spartaz dismissed it. Real Orange is a well-respected PBS news show on KOCE-TV that only interviews "notable" people, and they interviewed Mr. Jennings this past June about being an author and writing a book about Knott's Berry Farm, which Spartaz, once again dismissed. Another of Spartaz' disregard of facts is when he erroneously called the "Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector" at: [11] a blog. It's a legitimate website where serious memorabilia collectors are interviewed. For Spartaz to dismiss it as a blog is absurd. Cptnono, you did an astounding job, much better than I, in establishing notability. Spartaz, as well as others, have chosen to ignore WP:reliable sources, WP:BIO, WP:CITE WP:N, and WP:V even though Mr. Jennings' multiple sources of notability keeps staring them in the face. This is getting old. You've done your best. Timemachine1967 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, minimum requirements seem to be met. Content wise it is more than a stub. Please base the decision on that and not the discussion pages. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I must concur with Spartaz. The coverage that is there is weak and is mostly about the films rather than of Jennings. But it would be weak sourcing to establish notability even for an article about the films. This article is not yet ready to be in the mainspace. Jennings needs to get more serious coverage first. Gigs (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Jennings does have serious coverage, but they are blatanly being ignored even though they meet Wiki guidleines. It's truly astonishing how you Wiki vets don't even follow your own rules, completely ignoring notable sources when they're presented to you, even when the hard copy articles were e-mailed to Spartaz. Gigs, I thought your quest was to rescue articles, not join the bandwagon of ignoring sources of notability. It seems to me that this site is not, by any stretch, "new editor friendly" at all. BTW, these sources below are all about Mr. Jennings (all hard copies, plus others were sent to Spartaz) but just keep convincing yourselves they're not there. All the editors and administrators involved in this particular issue should just stop jerking around and either keep or delete the article. Spartaz has most of the actual articles, so after he's done with them, let him weigh in and you can all do your thing. Watching you people trying to show muscle and pull here is not what I expected when I signed up as a new editor. Mr. Jennings is well known in the Hollywood film community and is a published author. Cptnono and myself were simply trying to add him to Wiki. If he is, great. If not, life goes on. It's just the blatant disregard of his notability here, day after day is both laughable and sad.

1. Davidson, Ben (1999-09-10). "BH Resident's New Film Unearths Seedy Life of Loan Shark". The Beverly Hills Courier: pp.

3. Bernard, Ethan (2000-03-02). "A Life in the Movies: Beverly Hills director Jay Jennings shares secrets of his trade". Beverly Hills Weekly: pp. 8.

4. Amiran, Eyal (2001-01-03). "Guerrilla Filmmaking". Los Angeles Independent: pp. 1.

9. Berlin, Loreen (2009-08-07). "Knott’s Berry Farm: The Early Years", Buena Park Independent (pg 5). Retrieved on 2009-08-12.

10. "Real Orange: Book author segment". Hosts: Maria Hall-Brown and Ed Arnold . Real Orange. PBS. KOCE-TV, Huntington Beach, CA. 2009-06-24.

11. Weil, Marty. (2008-03-14). "Interview with Jay Jennings: Knott's Berry Farm Collector". http://ephemera.typepad.com/ephemera/2008/02/knotts-berry-fa.html. Retrieved 2009-08-07.

Timemachine1967 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article rescue is about rescuing article that are in bad shape, but that are about subjects that meet our inclusion criteria otherwise. Here we have a well written article about a subject that doesn't meet our notability requirements. And, no, we aren't friendly to people who refuse to get it, new or old. Gigs (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of consensus Gigs, plenty of editors thought this article should have been kept and someone even brought it to this review regardless of the ongoing attempt to meet the Spartaz's requests. Seen other articles kept since consensus was not met in the deletion discussion. This isn't a democracy and otherstuff sucks but I thought that was kind of funny : ).
The coverage is slightly more than trivial and the sources have now been verified by two editors. This goes far beyond the "or directly quoting the material on the talk page, briefly and in context" mentioned at WP:CITE. Does someone need to go to the UCLA library and see if they scanned it into the archives? The article has some content and isn't overly promotional. I would love to see more sources. I'll keep an eye out but an article that needs to be improved is better in this case than no article at all.Cptnono (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is more than just the consensus at the deletion discussion, which is a local and very limited consensus (usually not more than 5 people). The community-wide consensus basis of our inclusion policies generally overrides any local consensus, which is why admins weigh deletion arguments in light of how supported they are by policy, not just based on the sheer number of people advancing them, or how persistently they are advanced. There are several uninvolved editors at this DRV who took a look at this for the first time here, and concurred with the closing admin. We are judging whether the decision was in line with the larger community consensus reflected by our policies as much as we are judging whether the local consensus was followed. And the conclusion seems to be that this closure was in line with consensus and proper. Gigs (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gigs, did you just make a blanket statement, inferring that you and the entire Wiki community of editors and administrators, make a conscious decision to be unfriendly to people when they simply state their case on an issue? That looks like a blatant disregard for WP:DONTBITE and WP:Civility. You're a perfect example of the snobbish arrogance that perpetuates this site. Even Spartaz didn't go that far. Your response spoke volumes. I'm sure your fellow Wiki comrades are real proud of your statement. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are pissed Timemachine, but your comments have not fostered any warm and fuzzy feelings. Since this is a user contributed project you have to expect to work with others to reach goals (inclusion in this case) or at least not get knee-jerk reactions (at least some part of the deletion could be based on that). I was looking for a "don't poo where you eat" essay to Wikilink but could not find one.Cptnono (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono...You're on your own, my friend. These people only care about showing off their status and how many deletes they've made, Some of them even admit a disdain for newbies. What a negative atmosphere to be a part of. Best of luck to you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! I just found a blurb from the the oldest film publication in the United States mentioning the IFC channel. It isn't that special but it is something to follow-up on so maybe it will lead to something. In regards to the deletion that this discussion is reviewing, I disagree with the deletion to some extent since ripping out all of the poor sources and verifying the decent ones was all that was needed. That being said, requesting a review of the the deletion was premature on Keystoneridin's part since it was being worked on. I don't care if admins are mad at Timemachine's discussion page etiquette, if the review of the deletion shows that deletion was OK, if it looked like a fan page before, or anything else. If the article is up to par now it should be included. If the article is made better over the course of the next couple days then I hope it is considered on those merits and nothing else at that time. Apologies for the long winded back and forth. Hopefully this can get closed out soon. I think the article meets the requirements (Spartaz will have some input on that when he gets the chance) or will soon be OK. We do not need a review of the deletion since it the article has been altered after all the feedback.Cptnono (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Traditional marriage movement ‎ (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wikipedia doesn't run on simple majority voting. The admin's deletion guidelines confirm that "[c]onsensus is not determined by counting heads," and while a closing admin may "disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith, ... contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious," they are supposed to call AfDs based on their best judgment of the Rough consensus, i.e. the "sense of the group" or the "dominant view." Deletion requires affirmative consensus to delete; without it, the result defaults to a no consensus close.

That is not what happened when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional marriage movement was closed. Eighteen people !voted (i.e. made or joined arguments on either side). Ten supported the nomination, eight opposed. If we went by majority vote, the ayes had it, 55% to 45% - but we don't work by majority vote. We work by consensus, and there wasn't one favoring deletion. The closing admin's contrary conclusion was error (an incorrect interpretation of the debate in WP:DRV's argot), and it should be overturned here.

"An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus" (WP:WHATISCONSENSUS), and that "[i]f the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the article is kept by default" as a no consensus keep (WP:DPR#AFD). If 51% is not consensus to delete, how can it follow that 55% is consensus to delete? It does not. And other nominations confirm that the closing admin here found consensus where it is not commonly found. Here, the ratio of delete:keep was 5:4, which is typically well within the range where no consensus closes are the appropriate result. See, e.g. [12] (3:1); [13][14][15][16] (3:2); [17] (approx. 2:1); [18] (also 9:8); [19][20][21] (1:1). DRV has overturned mistaken delete closes with even more lopsided margins than 5:4, too; for instance, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Zealand – Pakistan relations, the tally was 2:1 to delete, and the closing admin closed as delete. But that was overturned on review and amended to a no consensus close, see [22][23]. From the other side of the looking glass, a 4:5 tally that was closed as delete was recently overturned to no consensus.[24][25]

Although the vote tally is not conclusive, it can be a proxy for rough consensus. (Indeed, it is impossible to decide which view is dominant without considering how many support or reject it.) If there are good arguments on both sides and the !vote tally is close, no consensus is usually the right answer. That was the case here, and a no consensus close was the correct outcome. To make the close yet more egregious, the closing admin made no effort to explain his/her disposition, offering only the perfunctory observation that "The result was delete." The closing admin made no effort to explain how they had reached that conclusion in the face of the deep (and roughly even) division over both the article's fate and the relative strengths of the arguments on either side among the editors who weighed in. To their credit, after being courteously invited to take a second look as DRV's rules require, the closing admin expanded their rationale, but still failed to overturn or (in my own view) adequately justify cutting a consensus from whole cloth rather than calling the existing consensus (or rather, lack thereof).

Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Regardless of which side had the better of this debate in abstracto, and regardless of which side the closing admin would have found more persuasive had s/he decided to participate, their task was to neutrally asses the consensus of the group, not to cast the deciding vote. That decision interpreted the debate incorrectly, and should be overturned to a no consensus close, the actual result. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted on the deletion page but I kept my argument short, because I did not see any clear consensus until Spartaz declared one. I stated there is no article that better treats this information. "Traditional Marriage MOvement" is not a neologism, it was meant as a cover all phrase for the issues we were debating on the deletion page. Edit wars forced editors to find citations using that exact phrase, enabling other editors to frame the argument that the article represented a neologism rather than an attempt to document an american political movement. Alternative titles that were suppressed by editting included "Traditional marriage", and POV titles such as "opponents of same-sex marriage". I prefer "Supporters of traditional marriage" which gets a universe of google hits, mostly relevant to the political movement [[26]]. Again. there is a very real political movement in the United states regarding traditional marriage and the issue was and should have been in the deletion argument what to call it, not whether to delete it. Spartaz acted without considering this information.Mrdthree (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The DRV nominator appears to underestimate the discount applied to !votes that are based on rhetoric rather than policy, despite citing the instruction to discount. --AndrewHowse (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "keep" !voters were wrong, and I personally feel this content does not belong on Wikipedia.

    Nevertheless, in response to the previous two arguments, I would reply that Wikipedia is all about consensus. It is consensus that establishes policy in the first place, consensus can revise policy, and it is perfectly permissible for a local (talk-page or AfD) consensus to decide to suspend a global consensus in the case of one particular page. That's why we have a discussion-based process, and it's a good reason not to discount good-faith !votes in deletion discussions.

    As a further consideration, there is a WP:BITE issue here. I think it is vital that we show new users and potential content contributors that we do not delete content without a consensus-based mandate to do so. Wikipedian processes exist to service them, and not the other way around. Our closes should show this.

    I therefore feel that Simon Dodd raises very good points in this instance, and I would recommend an outcome of overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • How can there be a local consensus to overrule basic guildelines when so many users said that the content was irredemibly flawed? Admittedly I concentrated on the notability aspects in my close as the secondary issues were not a clear consensus to delete otherwise but no way was there a consensus to overrule site guidelines. Usually when that happens you get comments like, "yeah fails WP:foo but keep anyway because.." comments.... Spartaz Humbug! 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have this completely bass-ackwards, Spartaz. The burden is on those who want to delete the article to form a consensus to delete. If the discussion shows no consensus to delete, the status quo prevails by default. That is the very essence of a no consensus close. Your argument above, however, seems to be that the burden was on the keep votes to form a consensus to keep lest the article be deleted. In point of fact, neither side developed a consensus for their position. That is why your ancillary argument that "many users" argued that the content was fatally flawed misses the mark: just as many users said that it wasn't fatally flawed. The arguments made for keeping were at least as strong as those for deleting, and only fractionally less people signed on to them than signed on to the arguments to delete. When there isn't consensus to delete, the correct result is a no consensus close, and since your close was at variance with that, DRV must overturn it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my own close Has anyone produced the requested non-trivial secondary sourcing discussing this movement? Please see the discussion on my talk page [27], my closing rationale and consider that despite all the assertions of notability, there were no google news hits for "Traditional Marriage Movement", nor was there anything in google scholar and the 3 or was it 4 books references appeared to be about something else. Compare that to the Civil Right Movement and we had 115,000 scholar citations and 40,000 amazon hits. There is no evidence provided that the Traditional Marriage Movement exists so basic notability of the concept for an article has not been demonstrated. Spartaz Humbug! 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially a concession that you became a late participant in the debate and filed an unfairly weighty delete vote, rather than closing the AfD in accordance with the consensus of the discussion. Instead of taking the temperature of the debate, as WP:Rough consensus required you to do, you did your own research, formed your own conclusions, and superimposed your own delete vote on the discussion rather than accepting the consensus vel non that had developed.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I assessed the consensus carefully discarding the weak arguments or assertions of notability without evidence and giving promience to arguments based on policy and guidelines. If you are suggesting that I have am or have become partisan because of my responses on my talk page, may I respectfully ask how I am supposed to answer well meaning but non-policy based assertions of notability without highlighting the disparity in readily available sources for one movement compared to the paucity of sources for the movement you want to keep. If the movement exists how about providing sources instead of wikilawyering about what my prejudices are or are not, because, unless you actually are me, you don't actually know that and failure to address the core issue of notability is becoming very wearying. Certainly, I would not willingly void what I consider to be a reasonable close without doing due diligence that valid sources actually exist.... Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing that indicates that you "assessed the consensus" at all. Indeed, the very phrasing of the point (specifically, the definite article) reveals the problem: if you thought there was a "the consensus," you misinterpreted the debate. There was no consensus.
Similarly revealing is the question of how you are "supposed to answer well meaning but non-policy based assertions of notability." The answer is simple: the closing admin isn't supposed to answer them at all. If you want to answer those assertions, you can answer them any way you like by participating - but once you participate, you waive your right to close the debate. If you are conceding that you sought to answer some of the arguments made, as you seem to be, then you are conceding that you intended to participate in the debate. And that, in turn, concedes impropriety in your having closed the debate at all. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too; in effect, you have articulated a second and independent basis for overturning your close.
Lastly, your repeated demand that we show more sources tells me that you don't understand the function of WP:DRV. DRV is to identify whether the closing admin misinterpreted the debate incorrectly. Your demands that we find additional evidence and make additional arguments, however, are pertinent only to continuing the debate, not to determining what the consensus was at the time of closing. Unless you propose to reverse time, nothing we say here is going to change what was and wasn't consensus at the AfD at the instant you closed it, which is the relevant inquiry here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • I'll respectfully disagree with your comments about suspending global consensus. While that might conceivably be possible in the case of minor guidelines (although still the start of a very slippery slope), I don't believe AfD is a place to allow ourselves to ignore the requirement of notability. --AndrewHowse (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was that aimed at me or S.Marhsall? Spartaz Humbug! 15:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should think it was aimed at me. I'll reply to each of the points in turn:

          1) The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy.

          2) Notability is one of the guidelines you mention. It is not, and will never be, policy. It is widely-recognised that there are times when notability should be disregarded (as, for example, in the case of geographical locations).

          This is not to say that I think the content in question belongs on Wikipedia; I've been quite clear that I do not think it does. But I think a local consensus can decide to suspend the notability guideline. I also think that in theory, a local consensus could decide to suspend a policy, though I think that would require a consensus of extraordinary magnitude and very strong reasoning.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right, and it highlights an important point. DRV is not a relisting. It is not a venue to rehash which arguments were better and which side one might have supported had one chosen to weigh in. Our task here is to decide what the AfD discussion actually decided and whether the closing admin called it right or wrong. The issue here is not whether the article should be deleted, but rather, whether there was consensus to delete at AfD to delete. Unless there was, the close decision must be overturned. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was indeed directed to S Marshall. Simon Dodd's interspersing of comments, plus my own slow typing, made this thread chronologically confusing.
Slippery slope - I don't say a dreadful thing will happen, only that confusion becomes more likely.
We cannot allow any random AfD to suspend whichever guidelines are inconvenient to the immediate participants' desired outcome.
And as for Simon Dodd's latest (16.27), how can one review the presence or absence of consensus without reviewing the arguments? !votes that are not grounded in policy or guidelines should be discounted. This isn't a popularity contest. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd respond to those three arguments as follows:

    1) Slippery slope and confusion—this is actually one of the big strengths of the Wiki model: decisions do not have precedential force. In other words, the fact that one selected group of editors on Wikipedia talk:Notability have come up with a general guideline does not prohibit another selected group of editors at the AfD from contradicting them. I understand the desire to drive a superhighway through the winding paths and lanes of collegial discussion between interested users, but I think it is a temptation to be avoided.

    2) We can and do allow local talk-page consensus to alter policies and guidelines. Indeed, policies and guidelines document the usual practice; they follow. They should not lead, because the consensus that alters a policy or guideline is often small or underattended. Besides, rules can evolve because consensus can change, and it is vital that we do not constrain this natural tendency.

    3) !votes that are not grounded in policy or guidelines should not automatically be discounted. The role of sysop in debate closure is to discount !votes made in bad faith, and then to determine what the consensus is. If the consensus is going in the "wrong" direction, then the sysop's role is to coach and guide users so that they reach the correct conclusion. It is certainly not to disregard the consensus in closing, nor to decide there was a consensus when in fact, there was none.

    I agree with Spartaz' reasoning, but I feel in the circumstances he should correctly have !voted rather than closing.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Article was a coatrack and a POV fork. There were 8 Keep comments, of which all but two (Simon Dodd's and Schrandit's) were various takes on WP:ITSNOTABLE. Schrandit's comment was reasonable but unfortunately based on WP:OSE, whilst Simon tried to debunk the NPOV argument but doesn't address the main problematic issues. There may well be an article to be written about this, perhaps - as pointed out in the AfD - under the title Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States - but there was nothing wrong with this close. Also, AfD law #416 says that anything that User:DGG !votes "Delete" on is irretrievable. Black Kite 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you should keep track better. I'm moving from 20% delete !votes to 40%, if you don't count the merges as being either of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually kept an article once that DGG voted to delete. I can't remember what article it was or why but I remember doing it. Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that happening too. Didn't it end up at DRV?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD that DGG closed as delete came here a few months ago. Flatscan (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I voted on the page, I left my argument brief because there was no apparent consensus. The notability of the political movement is well documented whether you want to title it "supporters of traditional marriage" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22supporters+of+traditional+marriage or "opponents of same sex marriage" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22opponents+of+same-sex+marriage%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= the title "traditional marriage movement" was a consensus title (or at least thats the consensus that was made with me), not an attempt to make a neologism. Once it became a consenus title, the edit warring began about whether it was a neologism. The editor that brought the deletion framed it as a neologism. Mrdthree (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine your consternation were this DRV to be closed right now with the words "consensus to overturn, because closing admin looked at the strength of the arguments not the vote count." Do you feel your argument is fatuous, AniMate, or do you feel it's a pretty good argument? You must think it's pretty good, or you presumably wouldn't have advanced it. If your argument was brusquely dismissed, no matter that several folks agreed with you, you'd feel that the closing admin was having an off day. The difference here is that right now consensus favors your position, a situation one hopes will be redeemed in coming days, while at the AfD, consensus didn't favor either position. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing administrator explained why the arguments in favor of retention were less persuasive than the arguments for deletion. You seem to think that having more bad arguments is a reason for keeping an article, but that's not the way it works. AniMatedraw 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable consensus. The sourcing issue cited in the first paragraph of the closing rationale was introduced in the nomination by Nat Gertler – Spartaz's examination of the sources was merely confirmation, not independent investigation. Flatscan (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Black Kite said it best... especially the part about DGG. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no clear consensus on the page until Spartaz declared one. If Spartaz saw a clear consensus, he should have warned the editors taking part so that might elaborate their arguments. I left mine brief since there was a 50-50 split and I had never before seen a consensus determined from a 50-50 split. The article should not have been deleted, at most it should have been retitled. There is a very real political movement in support of traditional marriage in the United States http://www.google.com/search?q=%22supporters+of+traditional+marriage and the current title was not initially meant as a neologism but was a consensus title that was edit warred into a literal title. Past attempts to deal with this issue included "Traditional marriage", and POV titles such as "opponents of same-sex marriage". I would like to see this page recovered and retitled. Mrdthree (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • regretful endorse I certainly think we should have an article on this topic, and I think the NPOV stuff is really bogus as we should allow groups to define the term used to refer to them as long as it is descriptive, and I think traditional marriage is. The problem is that no one I saw provided any reasonable sources about the movement under this name. I certainly believe that there are such sources, but I saw none in the AfD and I don't think the closer could do anything other than close as delete due to WP:N and WP:NNN. I would support userfication and a rewrite once sources are found. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The deleting admin is allowed to hold an opinion about policy. Protonk (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Userified to User:Schrandit/Traditional marriage movement at the moment. If the mainspace article is restored, please just move it from that userspace. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Looking at the debate, it largely centered on NPOV issues: whether the title is appropriate or implies a POV, et cetera. There was no consensus about those issues. Spartaz is right that the larger, more important issue is whether there really is such a "movement" as demonstrated by substantial coverage in reliable sources. And this was raised as a deletion issue and not responded to properly by proponents; moreover, I would believe a reconsideration of the issue would be in order if such sources were brought forward, but this hasn't happened either. Mangojuicetalk 17:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ambar Siar.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Reopening previous DRV, as current situation does not satisfy conditions of that DRV:

Attempts at compromise have been done several times. Starting on the Talk page. Then went to Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests (I believe the conversation ended here, but the archive confounds me somewhat). After File:Malik Amb.jpg was uploaded, File:Ambar Siar.jpg went to DRV at the uploaders request. At the DRV I attempted to explain the copyright problem of a uncited black and white image, being colourized by an unknown person then being published in a broadsheet without any Citations. DRV fizzeled out as original uploader assured they would scan a new image from a book (the book would be able to stand as the Citation for the image). Now a de-coloured version shows up File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg. I contend is the exact same picture (simply with the copyright fooled with even more again by unknown persons). Examination of the Metadata shows Date and time of data generation 20:49, April 13, 2009 for both images.

I no longer consider this an edit dispute, I will not restrain myself to conform to WP:3R as I have so far, it is covered by exception (Clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.) At this point it is even getting hard for me to assume good faith, as statements like The administrator who removed the picture admitted that it was a mistake & The Administrator claims it was not him who removed the picture are outright false, and careless editors like you shows no assumption of good faith in the first place. Now we find Images are being Altered in attempts to skirt Copyrights, and copies of files are being uploaded even before their deleted versions are DRV'd. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what action is wanted here. DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I think WP:FFD might be a better choice. lifebaka++ 02:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an additional note, I've deleted File:Malik Amb.jpg as clearly still a copyvio. To clarify, my suggestion is that you take File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg to FFD or WP:PUF. Cheers. lifebaka++ 02:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Punt it wherever you may feel. But it would be on my behalf. This Gnome is on WikiBreak. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, outside of DRV's purview. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture is clearly more than 100 years old and has the necessary license. One can check the original source in Sheikh Chand's book 'Malik Ambar'. This is where the picture comes from. Nominating this picture for speedy deletion won't be appropriate according to me. The guy who nominated the picture for speedy deletion is not even the editor for the article 'Malik Ambar'. So how can one start questioning about the authenticity of the image when he himself does not have the picture of Malik Ambar. I come from the very town that Malik Ambar erected and I am well aware of the authenticity part. Thanks Nefirious (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, as has been explained to you before, is that the photo you are referring to was taken in black and white. The color version is an artist's rendition, and as such is not public domain. Uploading a scan or some such of the original black and white photo would be fine, but File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg instead appears to just be the same colored image put through a black and white digital filter, and therefore would still not be a free image. Again, if you can upload the original image, instead of some variation on this artist's rendition, that would be acceptable. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the original image and a number of images on Wikipedia are an artist's imagination and they are never nominated for speedy deletion. The image I uploaded can still be seen on Sheikh Chand's book 'Malik Ambar'. The picture I uploaded File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg, is from the book. A renowned paper like Times of India too used the color picture of the same version. SO there is no doubt about its authenticity. I propose that the picture remain as it is, undisturbed for representational purpose. If you still do not believe, please have a look at the source mentioned, i'll be grateful. Nefirious (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LUPICIA (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Reason 1: Subject is not notable and discussion shows a clear consensus agreeing that it is not notable after four weeks on AfD. PROD takes less time than that! One crummy keep vote in a month, please? Reason 2: This is written like ad-copy by SPA only here to write about this tea store and didn't even bother to return to defend it. We have a history of removing this kind of crap sourced only to press releases. One drive-by keep vote argues only by assertion, not by actually citing sources, improving the article, removing the advertising, or doing anything useful. Reason 3: This is kind of a POINTy DRV. The burden on including material in Wikipedia is on those adding it. I'm a believer that WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS are a trifecta requirement to put up or shut up; articles without verification by multiple, independent, reliable sources mean a subject isn't notable. And if people can't be bothered to add sources to the article when saying it should be kept, then it should be deleted for failing our minimum requirements. Crummy sources and ILIKEIT votes should not overcome the minimum burden trifecta of V, N, RS.

Nothing against Julian, the closing admin, because I'm trying to use this DRV to drive future AfD closes a little closer to policy. Our discussion with his reasoning is here User_talk:Juliancolton#Deletion_Review:_LUPICIA SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse The close was correct given the participation. No action is needed here (assuming there are in fact no better refs to be found, per WP:BEFORE) . Just renominate--it would have been easier than coming here. . The article did not get enough attention the first time. There are too many articles nominated for deletion for proper attention to be paid by the limited number of people who work there regularly. I've skipped a few days nominations this month, which is unusual for me. The solution is to attract more Wikipedians to join in, especially on articles that get few comments otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per the consensus at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm equivocal about how to respond to this DRV. Though I !voted delete at the AfD and I feel this content should be removed from our encyclopaedia, I find a number of matters raised in the nomination statement rather troubling. I would agree with Reason 1: to the extent that there was a consensus in that debate, it was for delete, though I think Juliancolton's close was within his discretion given the small amount of participation in the AfD. (As an aside, I want to note that I've always found Juliancolton's closes highly accurate and I do not recall ever !voting to overturn him.)

    Reason 2 does not constitute grounds to delete, and therefore not grounds to overturn.

    Reason 3 I totally disagree with in every respect. Searching for sources is everyone's responsibility. It is not an onus that rests purely on content creators and keep !voters. This is not merely my personal view; it is clearly enshrined in WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE.

    On balance, I find the nominator has brought a self-confessed "POINTy DRV" based on a misunderstanding of policy, and I endorse this close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Content is largely too promotional. Redirect to List of tea companies. Reasonable search term. Keeping the content available in the history hurts no one, and it can conceivably be used to help create a better article, should secondary sources turn up. Sorry for AfD !voting, but this DRV serves no purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturna dn delete There was a clear consensus in the discussion and the only keep vote was based on assertiona nd unevidenced. Spartaz Humbug! 06:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations of state terrorism by Russia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the page presented verifiable publications of the allegations. The article's title may sound shocking but I think it does not endorse the referenced points of view. ilgiz (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure by default because no argument is made how the closer erred in gauging consensus. (Which was not difficult to do correctly, given that the AfD was nearly unanimously for deletion.).  Sandstein  21:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Sandstein, DRV does consider other errors apart from mistakes in gauging consensus. On rare occasions, closes have been overturned because the consensus was simply wrong. However, I agree that it is very hard to criticise JForget for closing this discussion in that way and I feel the outcome was correct. So I endorse this appropriate close.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Seems a reasonable close to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse though I'd note that many of those involved felt that there was mergable material there and it therefor should be userfied upon request so that merging can happen. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Consensus was quite clear that the title was hopelessly biased and loaded, and this viewpoint was not an unreasonable one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – proper close and judgment of consensus by admin. But remember, in Soviet Russia, consensus gauges YOU! MuZemike 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per S Marshall. A closer is required to close according to policy, and if not, they are in error. They are not closing in accordance with policy if they close based on arguments that are against policy--because it is their duty to reject them, or against consensus without justifying it by correct policy. Therefore it will often be possible to argue here that a close is wrong based on the facts of the matter and the applicable policy. in this particular case the arguments were good, the consensus was right, the closing admin needed to give no special discussion because the consensus was obvious, and he did well. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Encourage userfication, and re-working to recreate under a title with more respect to WP:NPOV sensitivities. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 August 2009

[edit]
  • File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg – Deletion overturned to relist. There is obviously consensus here that the files for deletion discussion was closed as no consensus. The question at issue is whether no consensus defaults to delete where NFCC-related discussions are concerned. Guidance to this question is provided in the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no consensus regarding potential changes to this rule allowing no consensus discussions at Files for Deletion to be closed as delete. Although the NFCC are overriding, their interpretations (particularly for NFCC #8) must be taken on a case-by-case basis through community discussion. In close cases such as this, the closing administrator is given some latitude to consider the strength of arguments where one side's arguments have prima facie superiority through concordance with a wider community consensus (i.e. policy) while the other side does not. In my inspection of the FFD discussion itself, this closure could have been made (based on the grounds that arguments were not raised by those wishing to keep that the file that enhanced readers' understanding of the topic). Instead, the closure rested on the rationale that no consensus results in deletion. In the course of the DRV, however, more substantial and direct arguments by OrangeDog in favor of this image meeting NFCC #8 have been made, and so a new discussion seems warranted. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Fair use rationales given were not criticised, except by general statements that they do not apply. Direct questions were ignored. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - as nom OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Closure seems accurate- there was no clear consensus to retain the image, which defaults to a delete as per the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you explain where in the criteria it says that no consensus defauls for deletion for a non-free image? I wasn't aware of that policy and I don't see it in the policy page linked to. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Unique interpretation of CSD policy by nominator-for-deletion of "orphaning" the image, then attempting to have it deleted without discussion to get around NFCC 7; only vague answers given to direct questions, with even more vague references to "burden of proof "- no matter what argument was presented, it was "wrong"; deletion nom's claim that a "no consensus" close defaults to delete as per non-free content criteria, even though the only reference to "deletion criteria" on that page (the link he provided) links to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - and there's no mention of a close "defaulting" to any particular outcome there; deletion nom then appealed directly to the closing admin to change the close to "delete", rather than using conventional channels of appeal. Radiopathy •talk• 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep arguments for keep were much, much, stronger than to delete. 4 images on a list of 19 characters and pretty clearly in line with all guidelines and policies for list articles. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is missing the point. The question that needs to be answered that was not answered by those opining keep in the IFD: how is exclusion of this image detrimental to the user's understanding? One user complained that the nominator had previously nominated the image for speedy deletion (which is irrelevant in an IFD and a deletion review - that's like saying you shouldn't be able to get a hamburger at McDonald's because when you were there a year ago, you ordered a chicken sandwich.) One pointed out that Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles would seem to permit the use of the image, which has nothing to do with whether or not the image meets NFCC #8. One user said "failure to demonstrate how image fails NFCC 3 or 8", but the burden of proof is with those seeking to retain the non-free images, not on the person seeking to delete them. The singular question that needed to be answered in that IFD was whether or not excluding this image from the article is detrimental to the user's understanding. I don't see that question answered. As a note for the admin that closes this DRV, there are three more images on this page at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_30#File:Old_Gregg.jpg right below this one. Whoever closes this, please take the same action on the other three images there (keep them all, delete them all, whatever you decide here.) That saves us the trouble of four deletion reviews. --B (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The question is not whether the exclusion of the image is detrimental to the user's understanding. Where did you come up with that? Nothing in policy uses the term "detrimental". The question is not asked in the negative: NFCC 1 asks, ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" The answer to both, in this case, is no; thus, the image is allowed. This was argued quite effectively at the Ifd, and included in the revised fair use rationale.
Also, why do you feel that it's irrelevant for me to call the nominator on his underhanded tactics? He's bullied his way through the whole process, interpreting policy anyway he felt at the moment, and you don't think that needs to be part of this discussion? Radiopathy •talk• 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the policy says detrimental? WP:NFCC#Policy point 8 - "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." You have to meet all the NFCC criteria, you can't just select that you believe it passes one of them and ignore the rest. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I stand corrected, and it passes all of them, okay? No one has yet shown how this image doesn't meet all the criteria, but they've been shown conclusively, repeatedly, that it does. And how about logging in when you comment. Radiopathy •talk• 06:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about addressing the question of B? - "The question that needs to be answered that was not answered by those opining keep in the IFD: how is exclusion of this image detrimental to the user's understanding?" merely asserting that it passes all of them doesn't do that. Stating that it has been "shown conclusively and repeatedly that it does", doesn't make it so. I've looked through the debate and the only attempt towards that is one person saying it helps them understand it, given multiple other people opine it doesn't I can't see that as "conclusively" and given it's only one of them "repeatedly" either. As I look through the debate your keep says that no one has shown how it fails to meet 3 or 8, but the further commenter points to where the burden of proof lies which you fail to address. I'm not sure what me logging in or not logging in has to do with anything, but if it helps I don't have an account. Okay?--82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because one of the primary things that distinguishes The Mighty Boosh is its visual style. These characters were selected for illustration because they appear frequently in many media and display the most outlandish character design. Without these images the visual aspects cannot adequately described in prose alone. Thus excluding them is detrimental to the reader's understanding of both the specific appearances of these higher-profile characters, as well as the visual style of the Boosh brand overall. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 09:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other point is that we actually have explicit guidance on where the line is to be drawn here, namely Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles, which the closer seems to have wilfully ignored. That guidance takes as a given the proposition that showing what a character looks like adds (to some extent) to the understanding the article conveys, added understanding which is lost if the image is removed.
The question to be decided is if that additional understanding is sufficiently significant to justify the additional piece of NFC; and this is the issue the guidance then specifically discusses in detail. Now, as was set out in some detail at the IfD in remarks that were subsequently not questioned or disputed, these images are about as close as you could get to a paradigm case of following that guidance and getting it right. It's very hard to think what more an image could possibly do to be compliant than these ones. They have been carefully pared down to include only the four most significant out of nineteen. (And note the parallel "minor characters" article has no images at all). Of the recurring characters, these images are carefully selected as the guideline recommends to be only the most significant, that have most caught in viewers' imagination, and about which there is most content in the article; they are hardest to completely convey in words; they cannot be replaced by a group shot, because they also convey the extent of actor doubling up in the show, and the variety of makeup treatments applied all to the same performer; and, particularly, they give the best 'representative visual reference' of any of our articles on the Boosh for the "bizarre and surreal"-ness of the characters, discussed in the article, and which as OrangeDog has set out immediately above is such an important distinctive feature of the whole show.
When we have direct policy guidance on what factors contribute to the understanding conveyed by an image being sufficiently significant to justify its inclusion, and the article reflects that guidance, then it is not appropriate for FFD to simply ignore that guidance, and come to a decision which flies in the face of it. If these images don't satisfy the policy guidance, it's hard to think of any that would. Jheald (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, arguments which reflect the explicit guidance on that policy should be considered superior to those which ignore it. Jheald (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is utter nonsense. Seriously, what the Hell? To quote Hobit above, "4 images on a list of 19 characters and pretty clearly in line with all guidelines and policies for list articles". This is the kind of tripe that we have to put up with from long term editors. Seriously, if you don't like the fact we're a free content encyclopedia, go away, I'm sure there are plenty of other projects that could do with some help. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have an issue with the fact we allow fair use and have specific guidelines in place for list articles using images, then I suggest you avoid discussions on this topic or try to change those guidelines rather than arguing that "we are a free content encyclopedia" and (apparently) arguing that fair use of images is contrary to that even though we have policies and guidelines on the topic. Hobit (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no issue with the fact we allow non-free content in very strict circumstances- I think we're a far better work because of it. However, we already have our compromise between being a free content encyclopedia and allowing non-free content as we please, and they are the NFCC. Let us not water them down further. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that we need to watch the # of images in a list, (and unfortunately, unfamiliar with the source material), I'd have to edge out a bit in overturning the deletion -- but with the stipulation that there needs to be a revisit to improve the list article language and considerations for image removal. Right now, based on my reading of the list and the images, two of the non-frees are well and truly justified: the cast image (which, good, does the work of many images) and the image of Old Gregg, which appears to have significant outside of the show, and of course represents a heavily-made up actor. I'm hesitant to outright say the other non-frees (including this one) should be removed as they are describable in text (the Spirit of Jazz can be easily said to have a Haitian/Baron Samedi look, for example) and don't seem to have much more to say about the characters within the context of the show. But that's not a reason for outright deletion, as I have a hard time calling this overuse. Thus, I'd encourage an overturn to have improvements made to explain why the characters are shown, with some revisitation on the issue in a few weeks or so to see if there's better necessity to keep the images. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I'm going to say that the images should be restored and put back in the article - but there should be no prejudice against opening another bulk XfD to reconsider these images. The means by which they ended up deleted is questionable - I can see the acceptable process being: 1) remove extraneous images believed to be violating NFC 2) images replaced by another user 3) discussion at talk page 4) brought to XfD to evaluate. But here, there was the added step that the images were removed after the revert and then brought to XfD to be reviewed with the images having been deleted in the interim due to being orphaned by the removal. Restart the XfD with images in place and no image removal timer going to properly access them. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Hobit, I personally think "importance" plays a role when it comes to fair-use images of living people. On principle, I'm quite deletionist when it comes to fair-use images of living people because I think they potentially pose quite a serious threat to Wikipedia. I think retaining them requires a strong justification (just short of an actual "need"). I realise this is an exception to my habitually inclusionist stance.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never really thought of you as an inclusionist, more as a "rules-ist" if anything, which is why I think you'd be a good admin :-). In anycase, I'd need to see the deleted image to know if the claims of "bizarre" looks were actually the case. As this is DrV I generally accept any reasonable claim that no one disputed. If the looks are so bizarre that no image of the actual person could replace the character and still convey the sense of the character, I think it's not replaceable. If they aren't then I'd understand the deletion. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of who has the burden of proof in a discussion is unrelated to whether that discussion reaches a consensus, and what the outcome of it not reaching a consensus is.  Sandstein  21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof lies with those wishing to retain the image, meaning that the assumed position is that of not retaining the image. Therefore, if they are unable to demonstrate that the image should be retained (IE- not able to demonstrate there is a consensus in favour of the image's retention) then the assumed position is held- that the image should be deleted. Again, I don't mean to patronise, but taking a read of burden of proof may be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a lawyer and quite familiar with the concept. (I am also aware that Wikipedia is not a court and does not simply apply legal rules.) Policy does not simply state that "the burden of proof lies with those wishing to retain the image." It says that it is "the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". This does not change what happens if there is no consensus about whether they have provided a valid rationale. See also Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No_consensus for discussion of this point.  Sandstein  22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What constitutes a valid rationale is decided by consensus, though. Therefore, if there is no consensus that the rationale is valid... J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you might imagine, I think that's a huge and unsupported stretch. I agree with Sandstein. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a unique and tortured reading of the policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two policies that are based on Foundation mandates that err on removal instead of keep: NFC and BLP. That's not to say that removal should have been the default action here; the Foundation licensing policy only pushes for deletion when key objective factors of the rationale are not met, which we can take as lacking any rationale, lacking license info, and other details. Here is clearly a disputed rationale, which should be argued and aimed towards consensus, but that's something that's subjective, not objective. Clearly in this case, keeping the images should be done until a better consensus is made. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is "is a unique and tortured reading of the policy" that what constitutes a valid rationale is decided by consensus? Bullshit. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly what constitutes a valid rationale is decided by consensus. However, if there is no consensus as to if the rationale is valid or not we keep per WP:DEL. That includes BLP and NFC as far as I know. I'm willing to be wrong, and could imagine defaulting to delete could have consensus. But I don't think that has been demonstrated. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there have been proposals to change BLP in this regard, but they have not been accepted, at least not yet. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn it seems clear that the images meet the rules well enough, and there was consensus of the policy based arguments to close as keep. And if B really thought there was no consensus, he should have closed as keep. That was and remains policy until it gets changed, which I hope it never will. We should certainly reverse any closes based on the opposite of policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's looking likely to be changed based on current discussions at WT:FFD#No_consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - since when does "No consensus" default to delete? --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. - The enforcement section of WP:NFCC only covers cases where the rationale is so invalid that it can be speedily deleted... which is obviously not the case here. Otherwise, we should assume good faith, which means that we keep fair-use content unless there is consensus to remove it. — PyTom (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when has "assume good faith" meant "assume that people are correct"? Completely different issues. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • When someone makes a judgement call (like claiming an image meets our non-free content criteria), we should respect that judgement until such time as there emerges a consensus that judgement is wrong. It's a bad idea to assume, by default, that a user made the wrong decision. (Which is why procedures do make the opposite assumption.) — PyTom (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion: B had it right. Radiopathy is very wrong that there's no verbiage regarding detrimental. It's clearly in WP:NFCC #8. Nobody made any arguments that the removal of the image was detrimental to user's understanding of the subject of the article. Not one. In this DRV we see some arguments, but they're abstract, not specific to this image. Essentially, because the visual style of this series is unique all non-free images are ok. It doesn't work that way. Further, we have a text description of the character that adequately represents the character (WP:NFCC #1). Later in the text we see reference to his having tentacles, but we don't need a picture showing him with tentacles to understand he has tentacles. Also PyTom, WP:AGF asks us to assume people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. It doesn't ask us to assume people are right. That's why edits are routinely reverted with edit summaries like "revert good faith edits by ...". WP:AGFC supports this conclusion. Read it carefully please. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read my comments carefully, please, where I say, "Okay, I stand corrected..." Don't take an old comment that was later amended and attribute it as though it's still valid.
Could you draw a picture of Tony Harrison based on the text in the article? Is the text so precisely accurate that you can see Tony Harrison in your mind, making the absence of an image in the article of absolutely no consequence? Or in other words: define detrimental.
The arguments to endorse the deletion just keep getting more and more absurd, and it should be clear by now that rational discussion is taking a back seat to an almost desperate sort of deletionism. They need their fix and will go to any lengths.
Also, the arguments to keep are very specific to this TV show; no one is saying that this image sets a precedent for all non-free images. Please read the whole discussion carefully. Radiopathy •talk• 15:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characterizing people advocating deletion as "needing a fix" like we're some kind of crazed drug addicts is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Cut the bullshit and focus on responding to the arguments rather than trying to ridicule those making them. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut too close to the quick, then? Radiopathy •talk• 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read and understand WP:NPA. If you continue to insist on blatantly violating it, you will find yourself on the wrong end of a block for it. There isn't anything you can do to insult me that has any effect on me. If you disbelieve me, look at my userpage. I wouldn't give two piles of mouse shit to find out what you think of me. I do care about your behavior here. Referring to your co-editors as "needing a fix" is completely out of line and not in keeping with this project's policies. If you want to violate WP:NPA, that's your business. The only effect it will have is you being blocked and everyone else thinking less of your opinions for you thinking that descending to insults somehow buttresses your opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You made a statement that people opining for deletion were "needing a fix". Your words. I noted that this is an inference that we are crazed drug addicts. To that, you responded "Cut too close to the quick, then?" meaning that you felt I am a crazed drug addict. It has no relevance whatsoever to the debate at hand, and has every bit of relevance to me and the people opining for delete. I'm not going to argue further on this, as it is not germane to the discussion. You've been warned about violating WP:NPA. If you honestly feel that acting as you have isn't in violation of that, then by all means continue acting as you have, and call anyone who disagrees with you a crazed drug addict. See how long it takes before you are blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepting that there are arguments for inclusion of some image, but then refusing to accept any, is an inconsistent position. The reason that arguments are being presented for the first time in this DRV is that no-one asked for them in the IfD. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? You're suggesting no one should produce any arguments for keeping an image until it gets to deletion review???? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn Simply put, the notion that no consensus defaults to delete for non-free images is simply false. No consensus defaults to keep. Claims otherwise are a serious misreading of policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
African admixture in Europe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The editor who nominated the article for deletion did not fulfill all the steps required in the nomination process. The nominator did not list the AFD discussion in the deletion log Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 6. When I noticed the nomination process was incomplete, I listed the article, yesterday (16th August 2009). As a result the AFD went for 10 days without input from the wider community and in particular users who monitor the AFD discussions. I have discussed this with the administrator User:RoySmith, who deleted the article based on a limited discussions that took place. I am requesting the undeletion of the article, and relisting of the AFD, because the wider community was not given an opportunity to participate in the process. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reversing myself. Sigh. Ok, I took another look at the history logs. You are right about the original listing being faulty. I still think you're being silly here. Despite the listing error, the AdD got plenty of discussion over the course of 10 days. More to the point, even without the AfD, I think the two were similar enough that WP:CSD G4 could reasonably apply. If you had put the effort you've put into winning this argument into working with your fellow editors to reach consensus on editing the article into which this material had been merged, we would all be better off. But, rather than drag everybody through a long and loud DRV debate, I'll just put it back on AfD for another round. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for relisting the debate. The reason I think it may be necessary, is only one editor, who I have never known to edit the article or related article participated in the discussion. And he said "Keep. Sound and referenced. No valid rationale for deletion beyond animosity of certain editors". diff. Sometimes we get isolated in obscure corners of Wikipedia, and we don't know what independent editors will think. This independent editor felt we should keep the article, rather than delete it. I don't know what others would say, but I would be more comfortable with a wider participation. When relisting an AFD, do we need to keep the original thread or start a new one. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark_Prindle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

If someone saw him on Fox News, they should be able to find him on here Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)— Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The G4'd version has references, but nothing terribly great. Of the six, three are to Prindle's website, one is to a glam rock blog, one is to an interview of Prindle, and one is to the personal site of another author (who cites Prindle as an inspiration for starting writing). Godgaverockandrolltoyou, if you would like to work on a version of this article in your userspace, you can feel free to create one (at, say, User:Godgaverockandrolltoyou/Mark Prindle). Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean, where did the old page go? He was already referenced in say, The Melvins Book Neither Here Nor There and some Pavement book, he has tons of interviews with (relatively) famous people and he's even on Fox News late night program "redeye", not in passing, but as an announced guest. I see no good reason why he shouldn't be able to be on this site, and don't understand why he was ever deleted. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I'm new to this, am I missing something, can someone explain to me if I'm doing this wrong? The man has been on TV multiple times, on Fox News. He was in Spin magazine, he was referenced in a book by the Melvins, and according to the other delete page, he was referenced in the other material. His site is a veritable treasure trove of information on alternative rock artists of the 80s/90s, what with his many interviews of artists. He's cited in reputable online Music review sites like Pitchfrok Media. I'm not trying to foist some unknown blogger on Wikipedia, Prindle has been around since 1996. In internet terms, he's ancient. I really see no reason why he shouldn't be listed, as he was before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • yeah, basically notability is the standard for wikipedia articles and being on TV doesnt make you notable. You need people to write about you in detail in several reliable publications like books or broadsheet newspapers so what we write can be verifiable. Basically blogs or personal web-sites dont cut it. If you want to understand more you need to read WP:V; WP:RS, WP:N & WP:BIO. Spartaz Humbug! 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, Mark Prindle doesn't make it, but people like Andrew_Levy or Bill_Schulz do? Makes no sense, especially as we move further away from print media, who the heck is gonna be writing books/print articles on not so famous people. Something is flawed when a man who reguarly on TV, a valuable source of information about a ton of bands, and mentioned/namedropped/referenced by bands in print and legit websites is not allowed to be on this site. I'm not sure what it accomplishes. If someone turns on their TV, and wishes to look up a regular contributor, they aren't gonna be able to find him on here, it's absurd. Here look [[28]]Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I direct you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a small blurb on this topic. If you feel that the above articles do not meet notability guidelines, then feel free to list them for deletion - while trying not to run afoul of WP:POINT, which can cause all types of trouble. :-) I notice both those articles are flagged with sourcing warnings, hardly a good sign given requirements in WP:BLP. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion; nothing here shows how the deletion process was not properly followed. Nominator is welcome to nominate other articles at AFD if they do not meet notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there bias existing against this article since it was swamped by 4channers at one time? I fail to see any other reason why disallowing a man who has made many appearances on a national TV show, amongst other things, is being deleted. If someone were to see him, and then google his name, they would have to piece together information about him instead of coming to this site. It makes no sense at all. He's not some random blogger, he's a solid source of information himself, cited on a few other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original article, deleted via AfD, didn't have sources at all. The more recent deletion, by WP:CSD#G4, had six references which I summarized above (and which in my opinion don't go far in proving notability, either, and I'm happy to post them here if anyone feels it necessary). Do you have others, preferably something from a major news agency or peer-reviewed journal? Fox, perhaps? lifebaka++ 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have Greg Gutfeld announcing him as a guest (with platitudes), but he doesn't give DOB or anything like that. FoxNews.com doesn't list him on their site in a biographical sense. I have not been able to dig up a news story on the man in a peer reviewed journal. Won't this happen more and more and print media lessens in their scope and internet fame increases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
E-Ligion Movement (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<REASON>

We are not a hoax, E-ligion is a real movement just small at its current state. It feels almost as a religious discrimination to silence a movement that is just forming just because one has not heard of it, Just as many people have not heard of Eckankar , Bwiti, or Cao do. We only wish our message to be heard, and if the E-ligion Movement page is to be deleted then so should the page on vampires, werewolves, and other mythical creatures because they are not real. People will be hearing about us in the next few years as we plan to be active in the community so the truth may be heard. Censoring the message of love is a great injustice to humanity as a whole. The E-Ligion Webpage. While it is not finished it will be up and fully operational in about a week. Give us time this is not a made up one day thing, this has been an endeavor for about a year. We are slightly known with the temple of the true inner light as I was taught under a clergy, and we are known to a hindu temple in belton, tx as I also studied under them for a short time. We are known locally so please just give us a time limit and I promise we will meet it and have a second source of proof other than our webpage. I spend majority of my time reading on wikipedia, absorbing its knowledge. This place is almost my internet home, I just want the chance for other people who are wikipediholics who want to find a way that is right for them. -Blessed Be!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonichippie12 (talk • contribs)

  • Welcome to Wikipedia!

    Because this article has not been deleted and the deletion discussion has not finished, this page (Deletion Review) has no role here. This is where you would come after the discussion is finished if there were some procedural error in the AfD closure. You should participate in the discussion at AfD if you wish to challenge the proposed deletion.

    I must say that this article does not appear to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and I would very much expect it to be deleted at AfD on the grounds that the organisation is not notable enough for inclusion. What you need, before a Wikipedia article is appropriate, is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources—in other words, to have appeared as the subject of an article in reputable publications, on the national news, or in other such venues. This is not a matter of discrimination. I assure you that our policies and guidelines in this are objective and measurable.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close as vandalism/spam unless the comments at the AFD were false or independent actual sources can be found, it is unquestionably not for Wikipedia. User:Sonichippie12/Censorship of E-ligion Movement can also be deleted.--Otterathome (talk) 12:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, unquestionable speedy deletion. Wikipedia is for topics, subjects, organizations, etc. that are notable, not those that hope to make it. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pitbull discography (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Nearly two years after being deleted through AfD (and salted over a year ago), I created a subpage to hopefully get the article reinstated (it has become too large for the main article). I contacted the protecting admin, Stifle (talk · contribs), and he suggested bringing it here, due to the fact that he can't overturn that consensus of 2007. I'm confident that I've successfully brought the article to discography standards and it should now merit a separate article. — Σxplicit 04:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This doesn't appear to be too large for the main article to me. I agree that Pitbull is notable enough for his own article, but I don't yet understand why he needs two. Please could you clarify?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:MUSTARD#Discographies, it's regular practice to split discographies when it becomes disproportionately large in relation to the rest of the article. Granted, Pitbull (rapper) isn't large (nor small, at that matter; it's no stub), but the actual discography is about the same length as the rest of the main article. — Σxplicit 18:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the above. I would suggest merging any information in to main pitbull article that isn't already there, and making it a redirect to that section. If the main pitbull article was longer itself, then a separate page may be needed, but so far it's very short.--Otterathome (talk) 12:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion/consensus - it looks at a glance like everything that might reasonably be included in a discography is already at Pitbull (rapper) and I don't see the need for a separate discography. The suggestion of allowing re-creation as a redirect to the main article's discography section (possibly protected, possibly not) is reasonable. Otto4711 (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the size of the main page doesn't motivate a breakaway. The redirect meets the purposes just fine. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In cases like these, where the XfD is nearly two years old and the subject of the page has changed considerably, I am in favor of allowing re-creation with very little or no restriction. So I have no problem with Explicit's subpage being moved to the mainspace, with no comment about the suitability of the page. If another AfD decides that this iteration of the content still does not merit an article, well then that's fine. But deferring to a very old AfD which was about considerably different content is not what we should be doing. ÷seresin 04:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per Seresin. While reasonable editors can differ over whether the discography is quite large enough to warrant a split, this really is an editorial decision that we should not be enforcing with protection based on a two-year-old AfD. In my view, Explicit's revised article can be moved to article-space here and the decision can be made either via talk-page discussion or via a new AfD. The precise situation around Pitbull has clearly changed (among other things, notability is no longer in question) and I think a DRV decision based on a very old and very sparse consensus is unhelpful. ~ mazca talk 23:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Issues regarding WP:OC#OPINION were raised and considered by the participants at CfD and consensus was clear that the existing title of Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories was appropriate and within the confines of Wikipedia policy and the decision to rename it to Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists is out of process. I'm not sure what exactly a conspiracy theorist does for a living, but there are certainly those in the category who have not theorized any conspiracies regarding September 11, but whose role as a proponent of conspiracies theorized by others is a defining characteristic that falls into the "activist" label described by WP:OC#OPINION. The rename not only disregards consensus, but it imposes a definition on the category that does not match the consensus set at CfD. The escalating trend of closing admins casting their opinion as a supervote regardless of the discussion at XfD needs to be replaced by giving proper heed to actual consensus as a rule and overriding that consensus only in the rarest and most exceptional circumstances. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In this particular case, I think renaming the category was probably appropriate.

    I do not agree that there is an "escalating trend" of "closing admins casting their opinion as a supervote"—I rather think that was a historical trend, that peaked in late 2008, and is now on the decline. And I'm inclined to give the closer scrutiny at DRV since then some of the credit for this fortunate change.

    Where I do agree with Alansohn is that in this case, the closer admin implemented his opinion rather than the consensus. The fact that I think the closer was right should not matter, because that did represent a procedural anomaly that it's perfectly correct to bring to DRV, so I shall go with relist.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the closing admin I'm still inclined to endorse my closure. The rename had a non-trivial amount of support amongst the 'keep' crowd for various good and persuasive reasons (cf the debate) and wasn't simply plucked out of thin air on a whim of my own. Re. the mismatch between activists and theorists; as I noted to Alansohn in our pre-DRV discussion, activists should be reasonably categorisable within a subcat of Category:Activists by issue, which is much more tightly defined than a nebulous and anomalous 'Proponents' category.
Xdamrtalk 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - closing admin reasonably interpreted the debate and the relevant categorization and overcategorization guidelines. He did not simply make up this close, nor did he cast a "supervote" (whatever that even means). Otto4711 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm abstaining from all CFD DRVs because I think the CFD process is broken. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to endorse the close, despite technical problems. But the real problem here is that the category has been overused and libels people whose articles have no or insufficient support for it. The name change is good (more restrictive) in the long run and more consistent with overcategorization policy, but as "conspiracy theorist" is somewhat stronger than "proponent", it makes it even more BLP imperative to eliminate marginal and disputable cases immediately, in line with Otto4711's earlier comments.John Z (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally - I closed the cfd with 'Prune and Rename' and I think the first part of this is imperative. Theorists to the theorist category, activists to an activists category, and opinion-holders should not be categorised at all. --Xdamrtalk 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - 'rename' and 'keep' are not in my view inconsistent - a renamed category has been kept. The close seems to me a well-reasoned interpretation of the discussion, especially as there are no other 'proponents' categories. Occuli (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn So we are switching to a stricter category name that requires serious pruning of the category exactly why? I don't see any consensus to do that in the discussion at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This was a reasonable close that responded to a number of valid points raised by the discussion. No error or misinterpretation or "overriding" of consensus is evident to me here. I also agree with Occuli that "rename" and "keep" are not inconsistent or necessarily mutually exclusive. "Keep" is not the same as "do not rename". "Keep" ordinarily means "do not delete", especially when the original nomination proposal was to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New rename nomination The category was proposed for deletion, not for renaming. Thus some participants (and non-participants) may not have commented on the relevant aspects of the renaming questions. The current name "9/11 conspiracy theorists" seems to be interpreted as characterizing people in a way that raises serious BLP issues. See the discussion at Template talk:911ct#BLP is serious, and_policy. We should have such debates before deciding on renaming, not after a decision has been made. I support relisting the category for renaming.  Cs32en  08:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Admin made a good determination of the arguments. --Kbdank71 12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, disregarding consensus, the closing admin cast an excellent vote that meets your criteria of what the final result should be, in a process in which votes an admin disagrees with can be simply disregarded and tossed out as "not compelling". That any two admins can look at the same set of votes and come to two widely different conclusions means that what we're seeing here is an admin imposing his own personal biases and interpretations, a problem that sadly persists at CfD. Consensus is worthless as a concept if it can be conveniently ignored by the supervote of any one biased admin who has turned himself into judge, jury and executioner. Alansohn (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alan, if you're confused about what I said, asking for clarification is a good idea. In other words, don't use the term "in other words" to clarify anyone's words but your own. Per WP:CON, "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments". If you have a problem with an admin doing just that, perhaps you should take it up at WT:CON instead of assuming bad faith in stating a biased admin disregarded consensus with a supervote. --Kbdank71 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Kris, "Consider" does not mean that consensus can be ignored, especially when the concerns of the closing admin were considered and resoundingly rejected. If two admins can weigh the same results and come to radically different conclusions, we're just playing a charade in which everyone gets to vote, but the only vote that counts is that of the closing admin. I understand why any admin would be loath to relinquish that authority, but I fail to see how Wikipedia benefits from this kind of arbitrary interjection of personal bias to override rather clear consensus. Alansohn (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per arguments by Alansohn. Consensus was clear here. The right action would have been to keep and then discuss the change per the last !vote in the CfD. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

After this MFD discussion was correctly closed as delete, the closing administrator was bullied on his talk page about it. Caving in to the pressure, he inappropriately restored the page, in blatant violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy since our EDP, WP:NFCC, does not specifically permit non-free text in userspace, and relisted the discussion in a manner clearly contrary to WP:RELIST, which advises relisting only when extremely limited participation in a discussion prevents any conclusion from being reached, not as a substitute for the actual closure of discussions with substantial participation. We must not allow the machinations of editors who oppose the application of Foundation policy regarding non-free content to Wikipedia userspace to keep the MFD discussion open indefinitely simply by scaring off any administrator who would dare to delete the offending material. Erik9 (talk) 04:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what we are supposed to review, sine the MfD is still open and under active discussion.. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
template:indent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Template:I (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:I0 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:I2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:I5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
Template:Indent family usage (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

As the bot operator who would ordinarily convert these templates, I disagree with their deletion; the administrator who closed the TFD discussion has stated that he "would not be against" relisting and suggested raising the matter here [29]. Even the best available substitution of template:indent, for example, gives us ugly and unreadable wikicode like [30] and [31]; conversion to the standard template:spaces syntax would break uses of the template, since the "templates alternate HTML and unicode acceptable variations of ways to declaring spaces, forcing browsers to recognize each in turn, when their rendering would normally compact and eliminate successive spaces. In short, they force padding within, before, or after a field which includes them in a line (which in practice, is usually within a wikitable, to force alignments of long and short words, such as month names, etc.)" (from Template:Space/doc). I suggest relisting to more fully explore the technical considerations involved. Erik9 (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm obviously too non-technical to understand what the point of these templates are and whether they are needed or not but there was a reasonably clear consensus here although the participation was pretty slim. I'd be interested in someone being able to explain in very simple non-technical language for thickies like me what the consequences of deleting these things are but I wouldn't be averse to a relist if it is genuinely thought that a more expansive discussion might lead to a more conclusive outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 16:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, these templates are used to produce a newline, followed by indentation by a specified number of spaces. If we substitute template:indent, then instead of having "{{indent|15}}" as wikicode, we would have "<br />&nbsp; &emsp; &nbsp; &emsp; &nbsp; &emsp; &nbsp; &emsp;". We can't use template:spaces for the same purpose, because this template produces only a type of spaces which some web browsers compress into a single space. Erik9 (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason that it couldn't be replaced with a linebreak and the proper number of colons (eg., for {{indent|15}}, :::::::::::::::)? lifebaka++ 22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some combination of colons would produce the desired effect. However, the problem is that you would have to know the prior indent amount, since this indent is an increment on the previous indention, rather than an absolute amount of indent. It's a complete mess. However, I don't see it as being entirely critical to get it complete right if it's only on a talk page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a consideration like this is a pretty good reason to extend the discussion, personally. But I don't think the venue should be TFD. Is there some appropriate place where technically-minded users would naturally gather to talk about such matters?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, most of these are unused in article space? It appears that {{5}} has quite a few transclusions, but it's hard to see which template is actually using it. Note that, a common typo in template programming is to leave off an extra brace, in which case, this template is the result. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that getting the exact appearance right is not that critical if they are only used on talk pages. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of these templates is premised upon the project being somehow better off without them. To claim, then, that it's okay to break formatting by deleting the templates because only talk pages will be affected doesn't really explain how the deletion of the templates is beneficial. Erik9 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. However, I would say that deleting {{5}} would be beneficial. It's a common error in template programming to forget an extra brace. I just tracked down one such error in {{BS-header}}, which was causing {{5}} to be transcluded on thousands of articles. I don't know how long it takes for the "what links here" cache to update after such a fix. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:5 is a redirect to Template:I5. If the redirect's name is too simple to avoid a significant number of mistaken calls, then we could delete the redirect, replacing any transclusions thereof with calls to the base template. More generally, if any of these templates have problematic names, renaming is easily effectuated (my bot can replace every template call with the new names), and provides a viable alternative to deletion that preserves functionality. Erik9 (talk) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a reasonable resolution, and perhaps deprecate them all as well. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested resolution

Okay, the wikipedia cache has now caught up with the fix to the broken {{bs-header}}, and so the list of 'uses' should now be correct:

Template: indent has approximately 50 transclusions.
Template: I0 has approximately 25 transclusions.
Template: I2 has approximately 150 transclusions.
Template: I5 has approximately 15 transclusions.
Template: 5 has 2 transclusions.
Template:Indent family usage has 7 transclusions (all on the above template pages).

My vote would be to

  1. Replace {{I5}} and {{5}} by <br/>{{spaces|5}} or {{indent|5}}, and delete these two.
  2. Substitute/delete {{indent family usage}}
  3. Replace {{I0}} with <br />, and delete it.
  4. Replace {{I2}} with <br/>{{spaces|5}} or {{indent|2}}, and delete it.
  5. Keep {{indent}} for now and possibly send it back to TFD for more discussion.

I think that there is some advantage to removing these very short name templates as they often expose typos in template programming (especially true for Template: 5). Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm with spartaz. I don't have any desire to make some decision about something I don't understand. Can someone ping the deleting admin to see if he minds restoring them and opening some discussion at WP:VPT as to how they should be depreciated or moved (or whatever)? Protonk (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Jackson Davis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In the previous AFD over a year ago the article failed notability policies, it still fails now. All but one keep in this AFD was canvassed from an outside fan website. I saw no reasonable arguments that were put forward to suggest why this article passes our notability guidelines. So it should have been closed as delete. Relevant guidelines that the article fails: Wikipedia:Notability+Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. After discussing with the closing admin, they didn't believe either arguments in the afd were airtight. Otterathome (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Statement of Closing Admin The first AfD on this topic closed with overwhelming consensus for Keep; the statement that it "failed notability policies" is strictly the opinion of the editor bringing this discussion. I closed this AfD as No Consensus, with a specific request for the article's supporters to improve the text. DRV is not AfD do-over and I can understand Otterathome's disappointment at not seeing the AfD closed in the manner that s/he wanted. However, I have already recommended that those in favor of deletion revisit the article in the near-future. Thank you and be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not my opinion, it is fact. The only non-trivial source on the subject that was found was from a local newspaper. And unless you consider two webseries' from the same company as two separate "multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." then it also fails the actor criteria.--Otterathome (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very hard to fault Pastor Theo for closing that as "no consensus", you know.

    Just wait six weeks and re-nominate it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse close Looks like a proper reading. Seems like a no consensus. If the closer had closed as delete I'd probably see that as within closer discretion but there's no compelling argument made for overturning a no consensus close (such as say, a serious BLP problem). We can always nominate this for deletion in a 2 months (at which point, if the article has not changed much I am likely to argue for deletion or redirection). JoshuaZ (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Perhaps the discussion could have been relisted, but this is a perfectly reasonable close. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete Consensus is supposed to be measured against policy and the delete side were makinga rguments based on policy while the keep side basicically argued by assertion. Spartaz Humbug! 08:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question submitter's motives/endorse I have taken part in the deletion discussion about the page LG15: The Last (result: keep), which was also initiated by Otterathome. In the discussion, he was one of only two discussing people arguing for deletion, ignored all factual arguments, refused to even acknowledge the possibility of a merge or reorganization, and, when it became apparent that us others would agree on a merge even without his consent, he stopped taking part in the discussion and tried to discredit individual participants in order to make it look like keep/merge had less proponents. (Going as far as lying that one of the participants was part of the production staff and therefore ineligible to take part.)

    I actually asked in the discussion whether there was any place to report him for his behavior, but the AfD was closed before anyone could reply.
    This move now to overturn a perfectly reasonable admin decision to try to kill yet another LG15 article, despite the fact that everything went according to process, underlines the pattern already apparent in both deletion discussions: Otterathome has a personal vendetta against LG15 content on Wikipedia. He has no interest in improving Wikipedia, he's just trying to kill LG15 on it.

    If you go look at Otterathome's LG15-related AfD's, you'll find the same pattern again and again: Him all over the discussion, fanatically arguing against anyone who votes keep, accepting no other solution but delete.
    This man should be barred from editing/handling all LG15 content based on WP:COI and WP:NPOV concerns.

    Therefore, I not only endorse the decision to keep the page, as there was no problem with the process and Otterathome is simply unhappy he failed to kill the page, but I also strongly suggest to reject this review request based on questionable motives on the submitter's part, and to investigate Otterathome's behavior on LG15-related matters on Wikipedia.
~ Renegade - 213.39.203.11 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those who run around attacking pages they personally do not like on Wikipedia would do well to read this article:

And then, take a good looks at them self in the mirror. Wikipedia should not be a personal vendetta. Enough is enough. You know who you are. Let's get back to building a pedia that we all can enjoy and contribute to. OK?--Modelmotion (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, this is especially important in deletion discussion and review where personal opinions and policy interpretation often varies. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same kind of responses I've been getting at the AFDs. They can't prove notability so criticise and question Wikipedia and its users.--Otterathome (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says the one who went for the "You're either for deletion or you're not allowed to discuss."-approach.
Of course, claiming ad hominem attacks after you cheaply tried to get rid of milowent by inventing affiliations to the production is the pinnacle of hypocrisy, but hey *shrugs* - not expecting anything better from you by now.
But since you're having an audience now, how about you explain to all of us why merging, reorganization, improvement, etc. are not an option for LG15-related pages, and all them of must be deleted no matter what?
~ Renegade - 213.39.211.141 (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about me again instead of the notability issues of this article.--Otterathome (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wah Ming Estate (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non admin closed prior to full seven days, few enough comments that a relist might have happpened, keep arguments were of the ILIKEIT variety. Abductive (reasoning) 04:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse keep:
  1. There was a unanimous consensus to retain the article.
  2. While, technically, the AFD should have run for 7 days, I closed it after 6 days, 20 hours, and 35 minutes. Per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, this de minimis violation of AFD procedure does not, by itself, establish a basis for reversal: there is simply no compelling reason to believe that the discussion would have been in a substantially different state 3 hours and 25 minutes later.
  3. Abductive himself offered sources in the discussion which I believe to support the contention that the housing complex meets WP:GNG, and stated that "I think the first source is actually about the Wah Ming Estate, and so I would not have nominated this one for deletion. The ones that I did nominate do not have any such sources." [32]. Erik9 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the closer doesn't address the fact that there were very few comments.
Saying "I would not have nominated it for deletion" because it had one lousy source (in Chinese, saying prices in it and several other complexes were up 14%) was my way of countering a keep argument that claimed sources would be hard to find, and we should therefore keep this article because it can't be verified. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's comment, to which you responded, never claimed that "we should therefore keep this article because it can't be verified." -- please don't misrepresent it. The comment, in full:

*keep as with many other articles on Wikipedia in all cities. Large housing developments on this scale are always be notable--and there will always be references if they are looked for. The Googles are not appropriate for this sort of subject. Printed newspapers are. There is always enough steps in the planning to get articles in the appropriate general and specialized news sources. DGG (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[33]

Erik9 (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To address your claim that "there were very few comments", a review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wah Ming Estate clearly shows sufficient participation for a consensus to be inferred. Erik9 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't be verified by Google searching, then. Four keeps, one by DGG based on a claim of notability for all apartment buildings in the world, one by the article creator, one saying until a discussion on WP Hong Kong wraps up (a discussion that no member of that Wikiproject deigned to comment in besides the not votors in this AfD), and one by the user who set up said discussion. So a closing admin might have thought a relist was in order, or a delete even. Abductive (reasoning) 04:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's comment was "Large housing developments on this scale are always be notable", which is certainly not "a claim of notability for all apartment buildings in the world", but only for "Large housing developments on this scale" (emphasis added). Please don't continue your misrepresentations of fact. Erik9 (talk) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's argument is teleological. The metric for notability is reliable sources, not potential sources in offline newspapers, (which Hong Kong doesn't have) and the one source I talk about above was the best the place has. An experienced admin might have come to a different conclusion than keep, such as relist. Abductive (reasoning) 05:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AFD policy isn't "find WP:RS, sufficient to meet WP:GNG, in 7 days, or the article must be deleted" - in the absence of proof of notability, we use heuristics to determine whether sufficient sources to establish notability are likely to exist. You seem to be arguing against non-administrative closures of any AFD in which impeccable sources irrefutably proving notability haven't been offered, no matter how clear and unequivocal the consensus in favor of retention, which isn't consistent with policy or practice. Erik9 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A relist would be more appropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do this, either: endlessly relisting until impeccable sources irrefutably proving notability have been found would cause AFD to overflow with an excessive quantity of discussions. Erik9 (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong doesn't have offline newspapers? Then what are all those newspapers in List of newspapers in Hong Kong? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for an admin to close, because non-admin closure is for uncontroversial matters, and the act of raising this DRV shows that the closure was controversial, which I think would automatically invalidate the closure. So I think procedurally, we can't possibly endorse the closure.

    I would, however, add that I would find it very hard to endorse an admin who closed this debate as "delete".—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" is a quality of the AFD discussion itself, not any subsequent fuss raised over it at deletion review. Erik9 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think so? I think if it's controversial, it's controversial; I'm on record as saying (repeatedly) that I think non-admin closes at AfD can be reverted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a stretch of imagination that someone will disagree with every NAC (i.e. the nom of the AfD) but Erik9 could not possibly have known before he closed the discussion that it would go to DRV. A policy of automatic overturn of all NACs that someone objects to would all but invalidate NAC, increasing the strain on admins working to maintain DT. That said, see my comments below. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pattern of earlier than 7 day closes to me. Abductive (reasoning) 06:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC) —I wikilinked the list for convenience. Flatscan (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Are there actually any problems with these closes? Non admins actuallyc an't close to anything other then keep so the fact they they wereall kept is as expected. Spartaz Humbug! 09:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just thought it was something people needed to know about; out of the last 14 closures, 8 were early, some by more than just a few hours. I don't think any of them were wrong decisions, but people were jumping down my throat like I was wrong for daring to complain about a single incident. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll agree that this should be discouraged. These AfDs really should be getting closed "after seven days" rather than "on the seventh day". Every now and again is fine, but I'd strongly suggest Erik9 stop regularly closing things too early. ~ mazca talk 09:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. One of the arguments in favor of the article in the AfD was "sources are readily available online about this estate.... I would not have nominated this one for deletion". That's a good, non-ILIKEIT argument in favor of keeping the article, which is what happened. And that argument was made by Abductive -- the editor who is now requesting deletion review. I don't believe it's useful to request a deletion review when an editor gets the result they implied that they wanted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure Abductive will correct me if I'm wrong but perhaps he felt it would be a stronger close if the discussion ran the full 168 hours and was closed by a mopster. I've seen one AFD that was first snow closed by a non admin and re-opened by one of the "keep" !voters for a similar reason. However, I don't think that applies here. A unanimous "keep" consensus closed after 165 hours by a non-admin is just as "strong" as one closed closed after 168 hours by an admin, especially if endorsed by a deletion review as this one appears likely to be. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. While there is a pattern of early closes which should be strongly discouraged, I don't think it materially affected the result here. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, this would never have been a relist; WP:RELIST precludes doing do after more than two or three !votes. Stifle (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've relisted some with 4 divided !votes. Any more then that then I would follow up with a relisting comment saying why I relisted it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The last comment in this discussion was posted on the 10th of August so 3 hours was unlikely to make a difference. The only 2 choices a closer would have had at 03:26 GMT or 06:51 GMT would have been "keep" or "relist" and there were too many comments to justify a relist IMHO. If the AFD were a close discussion with divided !votes and comments still being posted when closed then we could discuss the 3 hours. We really don't need to in this case. If the nominator wishes to challenge the common practice of closing between day 6 and day 7 then the proper venue for that discussion would be WT:DELPRO or WT:AFD. Note that previous discussions on this issue have not lead to a consensus. Last one here and a more recent one at WP:AN here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining: I think the correct time to close is after 168 hours, and people should not close earlier, unless the situation is clear enough for an explicitly snow or speedy. But that does not mean I would upset a clear decision that was in violation by only a few hours, where it is very unlikely that further comments would have changed the course of things. Of course, one of the reasons to wait the full time is to avoid this sort of challenge. Erik would have done better to wait, and it would have prevented this needless discussion. It is not over-legalistic to challenge such a closing & I support Abductive in raising the issue. But whether to actually overturn the close is a matter of judgment about whether it would have made the least difference. In this case, I think the judgement is that it would not have. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse simply because this was how the AfD was going to end. That said, I don't like the creeping tendency towards earlier closures. NACs will not (or at least should not) be considered a badge, and certainly not a road to adminship. Obviously help is appreciated with closures but if the only way to "catch a close" is to close early, then maybe help isn't needed right now. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "creeping tendency", it's been this way for the past couple of years. I took a quick look at the AFD log for the 9th and the first 3 closes (all by admins) were closed before 168 hours have passed. I can't speak for other closers but I start going through the 7 day old log at 00:00GMT to see what needs relisting. When I do that it only makes sense to also close any obvious keeps. I'm not trying to "catch a close" or race anybody, it's just that I'm already there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Scottish surnames (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There has already been one inconclusive DRV on this debate. This DRV is made at the suggestion of the closing admin, with whom there has been extensive furher discussion. The CfD was not just for this category, but for over 100 categories, all of which were deleted and their contents upmerged. This request for review is focussed on the single category of Scottish surnames, without prejudice to any decision about the other categories concerned. The grounds for review are, first, that considering over 100 categories in a single discussion tended to prejudge the question of whether they should all be treated alike, and led to a discussion on excessively general terms, without adequate consideration of individual cases. Whereas many statements were made to the need for sourcing when allocating article to categoriees, no actual sources at all were cited in the original deletion discussion. Scottish surnames were not separately discussed. No mention, therefore, was made of relevant sources such as (amongst many others)

  • George Mackay (1998). Scottish Surnames. Lomond Books.
  • David Dorward (1995). Scottish Surnames. Collins.
  • Donald Whyte (1996). Scottish Surnames & Families. Birlinn.

all of which support the contention that there should be a category of Scottish surnames, and that "Scottish surnames" is a suitable name for it. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn I'll freely admit I didn't like the deletion as a whole the first time around. But I agree even more so with the points made by SamuelTheGhost. A) Mass noms do tend to cause people to assume all should be judged the same and B) This category looks darn well sourced, well defined, and probably useful. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Restore The closing administrator's zeal for deletion tends to get in the way of the facts which show this to be a defining characteristic in Scotland and in nations around the world. The mass nomination technique of "throw 'em all at the wall and see what gets deleted" works unfortunately all too well, allowing votes that argue for deletion based on a questionable entry in a category or two, without addressing the structure as a whole. The disruptive deletion of the entire structure at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 6#Category:Surnames by country which rather WP:POINTily dumped 14,000 articles into the catchall parent Category:Surnames needs to be overturned as well. Alansohn (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - despite the bad-faith accusations of zealotry on the part of the closing admin and the usual canard of "disruption", there is no indication that the close of this mass CFD was outside the bounds of the closer's discretion. That there are sources that identify one surname or another as "Scottish" ignores the fact, presented in the CFD, that names are not and cannot be bounded by nationality, ethnicity or culture. My understanding of the various discussions relating to these surname categories was that, rather than piecemeal attempts to re-create the previous structure, the goal should be to find a better way of sub-dividing the parent. The criticism of the mass nomination is ludicrous. Had the structure been nominated in smaller chunks, the same editor (based on past history) would complain that that was an underhanded attempt to manufacture consensus. Otto4711 (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not only can colored circles overlap, but the category system is robust enough to have multiple categories for the same family name
      Can you point to the guideline or policy that categories can only be formed for names "bounded by nationality, ethnicity or culture" and that any category that is not adequately "bounded" must be deleted? As I've shown with a Venn diagram (pictured), there is absolutely no issue with the fact that certain names may cross cultures. The rather simple solution of having multiple categories is far too obvious to deal with the manufactured "problem" the mass deletion is purported to solve. How many more reliable, book-length sources demonstrating that this is a defining characteristic can be ignored? Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "rather simple solution of having multiple categories", otherwise known as category clutter, is exactly the issue addressed by these discussions. A surname becomes a "Fooian surname" as soon as a Fooian person adopts it. When Angus McTavish of Scotland becomes a Chinese citizen, McTavish becomes a Chinese surname. What encyclopedic knowledge is imparted by categorizing McTavish as a Chinese surname? Otto4711 (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Otto4711 above:
  • "That there are sources that identify one surname or another as 'Scottish' ignores the fact ...". I must resist the temptation to explain the real facts about the origins of surnames, because that's beside the point. If Otto4711 will actually read the sources, this will become clear to him. The point is that in wikipedia we do not elevate alleged "fact"s above sources; sources win. The only counter to a source is a better source, so if he can produce one we'd all like to see it.
  • "the goal should be to find a better way of sub-dividing the parent" is a demand for WP:OR, which wikipedians are neither qualified nor permitted to carry out. If a "grand scheme" is necessary at all, it should be sought in the published classification schemes used by librarians, as has hitherto been advocated by nobody at all. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be attributing to me a view which I do not hold. Please have a look at this from the Library of Congress, to introduce some reality into your thinking. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A modicum of respect for reliable and verifiable sources would solve the problem. Not even Otto can actually believe that the Category:Scottish surnames is intended to track every surname of every person who has ever lived in Scotland, or that Category:Chinese Surnames would include "McTavish" solely because one person in a billion has that name. The three books listed above, which Otto studiously ignores, do not use this methodology nor does any self-respecting researcher. Suggesting the argument that "When Angus McTavish of Scotland becomes a Chinese citizen, McTavish becomes a Chinese surname. What encyclopedic knowledge is imparted by categorizing McTavish as a Chinese surname?" is so completely and utterly ludicrous that (to paraphrase Otto above) it indicates a fundamental failure to grasp what WP:CAT means. As I'm sure that there must be one McTavish who has ever lived in China, I hope Otto can provide a reliable source listing Chinese surnames that includes "McTavish" in that classification. Alansohn (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Endorse my own close, but acknowledge that re-creation of this one would be consistent with the comments made in the close if consensus here is in favour of having the category. In other words, I don't oppose the re-creation per se, and I neither support nor oppose the proposed category creation. I don't particularly appreciate the accusations of bad faith, and wish editors could keep personal grudges away from community discussion points. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think there wasn't a consensus in that debate, although I can see how come GO read it as "delete".

    As I understand the situation, once a category has been deleted, it's not actually possible—in a technical sense—to undo the deletion. In other words, once the category has been deleted, the only way to bring it back is to re-create it by hand or by bot. Is that correct? And if so, does a suitable bot exist?

    If the answers to those two questions are "yes" and "no" respectively, then I would think that we have a significant problem with overturning CfD's, so I just want to know what real options we have on the table.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • One of the juster criticisms of the old system was that hardly any of the allocations of articles to categories were supported by references, and any automatic reversal would still leave that issue to be dealt with. My intention, if common sense prevails in this case, is manually (and probably fairly slowly) to populate the category, providing proper referencing as I go. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Especially when the alternative is the very bad idea of mass and automatic repopulation. I'm neutral on the idea of doing it manually, as SamuelTheGhost suggests, adding references prior to categorization. --Kbdank71 13:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, allow recreation of the category manually.

    This raises a different consideration. The standards at AfD are applied because an AfD deletion is easy to reverse when the circumstances demand. A CfD deletion is, apparently, a great deal more challenging to reverse, which tells me there needs to be more thought about the CfD process. Until such thought has happened, I feel the bar for deletion of a category needs to be set higher and there should be a presumption against deletion unless the matter is absolutely unequivocal.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong Overturn An incorrect closing, against consensus and with no basis in policy for rejecting the consensus. The breakdown at the CfD was 6 deletes, including the nom, 18 keeps, and 12 people wanting to do other things. What other things to do had a variety of mutually incompatible suggestions. It is impossible to regard this as a consensus to delete. It can be regarded either as a consensus to keep while discussing how to handle the problem, or as no-consensus. Essentially, the closer was trying to solve the problem on his own, which is not the role of an admin. It was suggested that some keep votes were "useful", but a category is an organizing device,not an article, and useful is an applicable criteria--we want to categorize in ways that will be helpful for finding material, not in ways that will not be. The result, of destroying dozens of difficulty-to-reconstruct categories without any clear plan of what to do as an alternative, was about the worst possible way to handle it. The right way is to discuss how best to handle it until we reach a consensus. Myself, I do not know what the best way is,and would want to hear suggestions in an extended community-wide discussion. Breakdown of any topic by nationality or language is a recurrent problem, and we do not have a consistent solution. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, both based on the procedural argument (per DGG) and based on the content-based argument that independent academic research seems to have been done on the subject, so I'd !vote keep on the original discussion if I had known about it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Category:Fads – This is a truly difficult close, reflecting the zero-sum game of overturning or not overturning a deletion when there is fundamentally no consensus over multiple discussions. When the arguments to overturn (an overbroad application of the administrator's own judgment into what the "strong arguments" are) directly contradict the decision-making process of the DRV-closer (who seeks which arguments in the DRV seem fundamentally "stronger"), a seeming paradox results. Merely saying that consensus is not a vote is not helpful if it is not laid out clearly HOW consensus was found by fundamental and transparent differences in policy weight and quality of argument. After reading and re-reading the arguments in both the CfD and the DRV, the fact remains that the reference-based arguments are not unreasonable (as they ultimately stem from policies of WP:V and WP:RS). The arguments in the DRV that these arguments should not have been disregarded are much stronger in my opinion. The subjectivity concerns in the CfD were also quite reasonable, however, and were certainly based in established guidelines as some mention here. I don't feel there is sufficient consensus (even with somewhate stronger arguments) for me overturn the CfD on the strengh of the DRV arguments alone. I will, however, allow selective re-population of the category under the expectation that all category inclusions are referenced at the highest standard. Relisting of the category is at editorial discretion if editors feel that further discussion would be of assistance. – IronGargoyle (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fads (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

No consensus to delete; "at least a few of those recommending keep put forward reasonable arguments that were not fully refuted." --The lorax (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Clearly no consensus to delete. Quite possibly a consensus to keep, but at the very least this was no consensus. Absolutely should not have been deleted. As above, keep arguments were not refuted and advanced a valid, policy based case. Numerically, the keeps also had it. Cool3 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; closer has been consulted and there's no indication that he has misinterpreted anything. Consensus-finding is not a "vote count". The relevant policy states: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." I interpreted the closer's comments as indicating that he was not persuaded by the "keep" comments that core principles were not being violated. See also, related CfD. I have a feeling this will be the type of nomination that will essentially be turned into CfD Round 2, which of course is not the point here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin. Cfd is not a vote, but a determining of consensus based upon arguments made and informed by relevant policy. Arguments were made on both sides, with those for deletion raising significant questions at to the categories' viability in light of core policy. 'Keep' arguments consistently failed to satisfactorily address this issue and as such any advantage they gained in numbers was diminished by their shaky rationale. --Xdamrtalk 10:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While the closing admin is granted some leeway in evaluating the strength of arguments, I believe the closer discounted the "keep" arguments too easily in this case. Essentially, the closer imposed his or her judgment that the category was too subjective, rather than reading the arguments and trying to determine if the discussion participants believed the category was too subjective. From reading the discussion, it seems clear to me that there is no consensus that the category necessarily violates our guidelines; the "keep" arguments were not an attempt to "override community consensus on a wider scale", as Good Ol'factory claims, but rather an attempt to argue for a particular application of that consensus.
    More concisely, the question at hand was whether this category violated the consensus on what kinds of categories are appropriate; it was not a question of what kinds of categories are appropriate. Attempting to change the latter in that forum would be inappropriate as Good Ol'factory said; the former, however, is an area of legitimate community discussion. To that end, the closing admin must take into account whether the discussion participants were persuaded one way or the other; in this case, I maintain that there was no clear consensus either way.
    -- Powers T 13:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will further add that while "consensus is not a vote count," if the numbers are clearly leaning one way or another, that should increase the threshold for discounting the majority side's arguments. Just because consensus isn't a vote count doesn't mean that numbers don't matter. To exaggerate, if a discussion has fifteen people recommending "delete" and one recommending "keep", and the closer believes the "keep" reason is more solid, closing it as "keep" would require extraordinary justification. Something like all of the delete recommendations relying on completely irrelevant or inapplicable criteria. Obviously, this CfD discussion did not have such an imbalance in opinions, but neither were the "keep" recommendations as flimsy as in my example. Powers T 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – whether something is or is not a fad is subjective. If there were some globally acknowledged 'Fad of the year' award, then 'Fad of the year award winners' would be an objective category. We don't have a 'brilliant actor' category for actors described by someone somewhere as brilliant: we do have various Academy Award categories. Occuli (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not supposed to be a rehashing of the CfD discussion. Other users disagreed either that fads were necessarily subjective or that all subjective categories must be deleted. Why should their opinions be discounted? Powers T 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their arguments were not discounted out of hand, out of some personal prejudice. In all Xfd discussions, one of the key responsibilities of closing admins is to follow policy. The arguments for deletion were set against the arguments fore retention . The deletion arguments had a significant grounding in policy (WP:CAT and WP:OCAT). In judging the debate none of the 'keep' arguments convincingly reconciled these categories with these policies, hence the deletion.
Xdamrtalk 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you discounted them because you weren't convinced. I'm asking Occuli why he or she is discounting them now, because it appeared Occuli was giving reasons for deletion, rather than reasons to accept the closure. Powers T 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn frankly no delete arguments were advanced that weren't shot down (IMO) by the keep !votes. Further, by numbers is a pretty clear keep. So given that strength of argument goes the same direction as numbers, I don't see how this could be a delete. As far as citing WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, I just don't see "fad" being any more subjective than being a beginner or being a "Biologically based therapy" (both categories). This is different than being fat or thin, popular or not... Hobit (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus isn't a vote count. --Kbdank71 19:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - arguments against the category: subjective inclusion criterion; categorized articles have nothing in common beyond having been described at some point as a "fad" with no regard to the actual longevity of the product or action. Arguments for the category: there are reliable sources that describe things as fads; the categories aren't hurting anything; "A historical/societal human construct". Closing admin correctly weighed the relative strengths of these arguments and concluded that the arguments in favor of deletion were stronger. No indication that the close is outside the discretion of the closing admin, no indication of gross error on the part of the closing admin, no new information presented here compelling the overturning of the admin's decision. Otto4711 (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no widely-agreed-to positive definition for "definingness" that can be applied in every circumstance. This is not the same as saying there is "absolutely no criteria". There are a raft of criteria for which there's broad consensus and agreement that they constitute part of the negative definition of "definingness". Some of these criteria are found at WP:OCAT. There are even many criteria for which there is broad agreement and consensus that they constitute part of a positive definition of "definingness"—like a person's nationality, for instance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Delete arguments more compelling. Quantpole (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What we have is a case where the closer believes the weight of the argument is sufficient to overcome the numerical !vote. These pop up from time to time at DRV and they represent a difficult area, because whether to overturn or endorse depends on the DRV participant's reading of the debate, and it's hard to characterise such !votes as objective. A common outcome is to overturn, simply because DRV usually prefers a relist to a deletion that's open to legitimate doubt. I want to add that in cases where the closer acts in accordance with the !vote count, it is a great deal easier to endorse them.

    I'm satisfied that the closer had a good-faith opinion that "delete" had won the day, and I think the question before us is whether other closers would have read the debate the same way. My personal opinion is "no"—there are other closers who would have read the debate differently—but before actually !voting, I would be grateful for an answer to the question I posed in the other DRV for this day.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The said answer having arrived, I'm going to go with allow recreation.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The views at the cfd were 3 delete including the nom, 3 keep, and a variety of comments. How this can possibly be read as consensus to delete escapes me. The closer gave no clear reason for throwing out !votes, just for why he liked his own opinion. the opinion of an admin about the merits of a category is worth no more than anyone else's. The admin can rightly have an opinion about what people 's views were totally unsupported by policy and should be discarded, but he's not the president of the senate, and does not get the casting vote. The only correct close here would have been no-consensus. As this and the above CfD appeal make clear, the system for deciding what do do with categories is broken since we seem to have no clear standards. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The central argument to delete these categories is that whether something is or is not a fad is a subjective judgment. The closing admin points out WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE as well as WP:CAT, which back up that this is an important issue for categories. The arguments on the keep side do attempt to address this issue, but are ultimately unconvincing and clearly insufficient. The main effort against this deletion argument is to note that reliable sources can be used to determine what is and isn't a fad. First of all, this has no bearing on whether the description "fad" is or isn't subjective. This is an attempt to put a relatively objective test in place for inclusion in the category, but it does not change the fact that "fad" is still an objective judgment. Obviously categories must have clear inclusion criteria but that is not the same thing as avoiding subjective defining terms for categories. Looking at this keep argument another way: one can tell it must not be a good argument because any subjective term could be given the same treatment. WP:OC specifically mentions adjectives like "fat," "beautiful," "tall," "famous," et cetera, as examples of subjective terms to be avoided... but this argument for discounting the subjective nature of "fad" would work just as well for discounting the subjective nature of "fat" or "beautiful," yet those are exactly the types of adjectives that lead to categories being deleted all the time. I want to further note that this counterpoint to the keep argument was certainly brought up during the debate. On top of that, consider this: particularly for the term "fad" people often call something a fad when they are really predicting that in the future it will be regarded as a fad, others use the term fad in order to criticize the popularity of something, and still others use it in the truly proper sense, when critically and neutrally analyzing popular culture from a distance. This is my own argument, not in the debate, but it shows why ambiguous, subjective descriptions are best avoided for categories. Mangojuicetalk 17:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alan Roger Currie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I don't understand at all why the article for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie was deleted. This article has been in existence since early 2007, and has always been maintained despite challenges for deletion prior. To suggest that Currie is not notable within the field of dating and relationships as well as attraction and seduction is virtually laughable. Currie's talk radio show is about to be mentioned in the African-American business magazine, Black Enterprise.

I think the decision to delete Currie's page should be re-reviewed and overturned. If the current decision stands, it would be my most strong opinion that agents of the infamous Seduction Community were behind this, and this was to a degree a 'personal' decision. Currie is the #1 voice against the manipulative tactics of the Seduction Community 'experts' and 'gurus.' Chicago Smooth (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I don't see how you can categorize an appearance on national television [[34]] and an appearance in Essence (magazine) and Black Enterprise as "trivial." Whether or not Alan Roger Currie is validly 'notable' really depends on who you're comparing him to. Compared to Brad Pitt, Barack Obama, Lance Armstrong or Jamie Foxx? Probably not. But if you ask anyone who is familiar with dating and relationship authors, seduction gurus, dating coaches and those in similar fields, I doubt if anyone would attempt to challenge the 'notability' of Book Author Alan Roger Currie. If I were comparing him to others who have entries on Wikipedia, he is just as notable if not more notable than Tariq Nasheed, Ross Jeffries, Zan Perrion, Juggler and David DeAngelo. If the aforementioned didn't have entries, I would just let this issue die. But if editors are allowing these guys to maintain articles and entries, but choosing to delete Mr. Currie's entry is like having entries for Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Dwayne Wade and Dirk Nowitzki, but not having a page for Dwight Howard, Pau Gasol or Brandon Roy Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i explained to you at least 4 separate times what WP:N means and why it's not the same as the common usage of the word notable, and you ignored me every time. this is why we can't have nice things. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
response - Generally speaking Theserialcomma, you have been more objective than one or two of the other editors have been in the past, and for that, I applaud you; However, this is what I just don't get: When I first published this article in Spring 2007, Mr. Currie had virtually no credentials on his page. No TV appearance, no newspaper citations, no magazine citations, nothing. At least three or four editors examined his page, and said it was FINE. I even consulted with a couple of them, and they said the page looked fine. Then, a few months later, I had a deletion challenge. Nothing came of it. They just suggested that I didn't "sing his praises" so much, so I did some editing. Then, last Fall, the editor Davidwiz wanted it deleted. There was a big debate, but the final mediator said the same thing. That the page was worth being kept, but it just needed some editing to diminish the "press release" or "advertising" feel of the page. I deleted some more stuff. Now, when Mr. Currie is probably at his heighest degree of popularity since I first published his page, it's decided that it should be deleted. Using my NBA analogies again, it would be like me publishing a page of LeBron James when he's a Junior or Senior in high school, and the editors saying, "that's fine." Then, during his 2nd or 3rd year in the NBA, I get a challenge from editors saying he might not be notable enough. Then, after he's made numerous all-star appearances and an appearance in the NBA Finals, all of the sudden, I'm told that LeBron's page should be deleted. Would that make sense to you? This is pretty much how I feel about Mr. Currie's page being deleted. He has more citations and credentials than he's ever had since I published his page 30-33 months ago, and now all of the sudden, he's deleted. This might make sense to many of the Wikipedia editors, but I guarantee you, to Mr. Currie's fans, book readers, radio show listeners and others who are familiar with him, it makes no sense. It makes Wikipedia seem backwards, inconsistent and like the criteria for remaining on here is very subjective. Chicago Smooth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

comment / request - I beg of all of the editors to please reconsider this decision. If the content needs to be severely edited, I'm willing to adhere to that. But please don't let this deletion stand. Comparing fans of the Attraction & Seduction Community to U.S. politics, deleting Mr. Currie's article would be like letting a lot of Liberal Democractic voices be heard, but deleting notable Republicans, or vice versa. Currie is the "Un-Cola" so-to-speak to the Seduction Community's "Cola". Mr. Currie should definitely have a presence on Wikipedia, even if most of the content is basic. I'm pleading with Nja247!!! Chicago Smooth (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensous the SPA issues were distracting, but it looks like there are at least two news articles purely about the subject (no long on-line, but the bit that is certainly looks like he's the main topic). One could object to them as "local" but in fact no one did and no one addressed the articles at all that I noticed. Put that with the the other somewhat trivial mentions and I don't see an argument strong enough to merit deletion. All that said, it was a close call and the articles aren't available in full making us have to guess about their content. But any reasonable guess says the coverage is going to be plenty. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but looking over the closure again, there is little question in my mind that it's a delete and allowing a SPA to bypass proper procedures so that their article is reinstated is simply a ridiculous proposition. Nja247 09:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
response - When you say, "bypass proper procedures," what do you specifically mean by that? Chicago Smooth (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I was thinking of nominating this for review myself, but not for the reason given by Chicago Smooth. I think this should be redone because Chicago Smooth and the single purpose accounts shot themselves in the foot by drowning the nomination in arguments not based on our policies, and most contributors didn't actually read the real reasons the article should be kept. The article should be kept because there are four non-trivial articles from Wikipedia:Reliable sources covering Currie: From the Post-Tribune [35] [36] and the San Francisco Examiner [37] [38]. That clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability. All the other arguments are just getting in the way. There is no grand conspiracy from "the seduction community" here, and begging and pleading isn't necessary. (Wouldn't that be Mode 3 or something anyway?) :-) --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
these don't strike me as widespread or significant coverage. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
response - you Wikipedia editors (some, anyway) have a very good sense of humor. I might be starting to like you guys (re: GRuban's witty "Mode 3" comment). I don't know if Mr. Currie's mention in the Northwest Indiana TIMES or Post-Tribune would represent "widespread" coverage, but I think it at least makes him credible and notable. I do think the Examiner.com coverage is both "widespread" and "significant." I think Mr. Currie's most notable credential was his national TV talk show appearance on the "Relationship 101" segment of The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. That show was known for only inviting credible relationship authors and experts for that particular segment of their show. Secondly, would be Mr. Currie's brief quote / blurb in Essence (magazine). That magazine is not necessarily a 'top tier' magazine, but among African-Americans, and particularly African-American women, that magazine is very widespread and significant. Finally, if "Google Hits" count for anything (and realistically, they probably don't compared to general Wikipedia notability criteria), but if you look at Mr. Currie's hits compared to a few others on Wikipedia, he comes out with very respectable numbers (example, when you enter the the author/expert's name, Mr. Currie had approximately 497,000 hits; Same criteria used for other dating and relationship authors, experts and gurus: Tariq Nasheed - 66,300 hits; Zan Perrion - 79,000; David DeAngelo - 413,000; Ross Jeffries - 212,000 hits Chicago Smooth (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theserialcomma: The Examiner is a newspaper in California, the Post-Tribune is in Indiana, that's pretty widespread. Two articles per newspaper, devoted completely to Currie, that's pretty significant. Chicago Smooth: thank you for starting to relax a bit, and type less, but please go even more, please; if it looks like you're posting as much as everyone else put together, this will go the same way as the AFD did. --GRuban (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. Proper admin closure when you look past the baseless pleas by the single-purpose accounts. MuZemike 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see the points GRuban and Hobit are making, but I also have some sympathy for Nja, who should not be criticised for deleting in accordance with the consensus. I think we may have another situation like Category:Senior Wranglers, where the closer correctly implemented the consensus, but the consensus was simply wrong. There are actually tolerable sources for this article, a fact which was obfuscated by a debate that was characteristic of an article without good sources.

    I'm going to go with the somewhat unusual recommendation of endorse and relist. I would like to endorse Nja's accurate reading of the consensus, but I would also like to see the debate relisted on the grounds that it gave the wrong outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist, and try for a less confused debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse two local articles for someone claimed to be of nationwide significance is not significant coverage. We got it right the first name. I'll mention I have been lobbied to change my vote on this, but I think, if anything, we need to apply the criteria here with some degree of skepticism. (I will say, though, that the lobbying did give me reason to look at his entertaining but repetitive blog, which at least does make it clear that he thinks he's notable.) DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review Discussion about NEW article - The second, more improved article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie was NOT "identical" to the original article; The second article was written with significantly more citations and references, and had content supported by news articles; The criteria for a "G4" deletion reads as follows: A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes articles that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, articles that address the reasons for which the material was deleted, and Content moved to user space for explicit improvement. Material moved or copied to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy is not excluded). This also excludes content undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

editor Theserialcomma recommending that I write a new, more improved article with significantly more citations and references

between the editor Theserialcomma and myself regarding the new article

more improved article (with significantly more citations) about Book Author Alan Roger Currie

Chicago Smooth (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Usrnme h8er is referring to the new article. --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, I mistakenly formatted it my earlier response inappropriately; I have since modified it. Thank you. Chicago Smooth (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Diop Kamau (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Possible reason for unjustified deletion of 4-month-old article: Misunderstanding...a vandal apparently re-arranged the article, Accounting4Taste was appalled at the result and deleted the entire article without closely examining Page History. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the hoops to jump through and templates to fill out and include, I'll just include the discussion at Acccounting4Taste's Userpage, and I think anyone with common sense can figure out what the problem is. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell?

You deleted Diop Kamau = Police Complaint Center supposedly because it was an "attack Page"?! Here is the google-cached copy of the article which you eliminated.

  1. 21:14, 5 August 2009 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "Diop Kamau" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP (CSD G10))
  2. 21:07, 5 August 2009 Accounting4Taste (talk | contribs) deleted "Diop Kamau" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP (CSD G10))

-- and yet nothing in the article was disparaging of Diop Kamau or the Police Complaint Center. And you did so without any discussion or consensus. It seems you deleted the page because you are disparaging of the subject of the article. If not, how about explaining one single thing in the article that was negative and or unsourced, or which constituted an attack of the articles' subject? 70.246.244.4 (talk) 11:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid that I regard suggestions that the individual in question blackmailed another, or that he was mentally unfit for duty, and many other such suggestions, without a specific reference directly attached to each and every such assertion, as having the potential to expose Wikipedia to a suit for libel. Since I work in the legal profession, perhaps you'll accept that I know potentially libellous statements when I encounter them. To quote from the relevant policy page, found at WP:BLP, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I believe I've followed that policy, and that I haven't been unduly insistent upon the provision of high quality references. However, if you feel this material should somehow be returned to Wikipedia, I recommend WP:Deletion review. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying to my note. I honestly don't know to what you're referring when you wrote: "I'm afraid that I regard suggestions that the individual in question blackmailed another, or that he was mentally unfit for duty, and many other such suggestions, without a specific reference directly attached to each and every such assertion, as having the potential to expose Wikipedia to a suit for libel...." --but you're not referring to this article you removed, because it has no mention of any of that or any of that kind of stuff in it. What are you talking about, then? The article was reviewed and approved by Diop Kamau before it was published, to ensure that it was accurate and not libelous. He's involved in the legal profession too. He may be curious too...what are you talking about when you wrote: "I'm afraid that I regard suggestions that the individual in question blackmailed another, or that he was mentally unfit for duty, and many other such suggestions, without a specific reference directly attached to each and every such assertion, as having the potential to expose Wikipedia to a suit for libel...." Of course, several people "feel this material should somehow be returned to Wikipedia," and it should be submitted to WP:Deletion review* in lieu of you restoring it ASAP. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that you have not speedily replied (even though you speedily removed the article without consulting with anyone), I figure it is because you have not reviewed my reply to you here on this page. So I have moved it "up the page" (downward literally) to try and ensure that you see my reply and respond ASAP. I would prefer you explain yourself as quickly as you completely erased an article which was fully documented about a notable person and organization. I would prefer you not evade the issue, or express weird convoluted unsubstantiated claims, and that you restore the article ASAP. Something's fishy about this: You removed an article about a controversial human rights/civil rights advocate, made bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about the article and the person(s) described in the article...and then when you are asked about it, you make more unsubstantiated and bizarre claims and then don't respond to a request that you explain why the information was completely erased. Tell me, what do you think of Diop Kamau and the Police Complaint Center? Are you irritated that he is an African-American? Annoyed that he and his organization oppose and expose violations of civil rights? You didn't drag your feet when you erased the information about the Police Complaint Center...why are you dragging your feet about restoring it? 70.246.244.4 (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have your response above. If you still disagree with the deletion decision, you are welcome to request a review at WP:DRV at this time. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 06:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I received "my" response above too, but for reasons I carefully explained, I don't find the response rational nor satisfactory. Seeing as you are are evidently satisfied with a garbled and evasive non-answer, I'm deciding it is a waste of time to ask Diop Kamau's detractor to explain himself. I'll take this to WP:DRV now...let's see if they are any more rational than you and Accounting4Taste. By the way, what do you think of African-American civil rights activists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Diop Kamau? Do you dislike them? Willing to censor them? I'm just curious, no problem if you don't feel like responding. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Decltype and also Accounting4Taste did the right thing, considering the volatile and confusing circumstances. I expressed a mea culpa at Accounting4Taste's Userpage. You can close this case and archive this baby as far as I'm concerned, I'm pleased with the outcome, with Accounting4Taste and Decltype...and with Wikipedia. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Apollo 12 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

MBK004 is abusing his power. He makes objective decisions to delete an article based on his uneducated point of view. Contributions should be discussed by knowledgeable people before being deleted at someone's whim.Sahlomee (talk) 04:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this reversion MBK004 made to your edit? If so, this is not a deletion issue, no article was deleted nor nominated for deletion, it is purely an editing dispute. A dispute in which, I suspect, you are unlikely to find anyone taking your side. --Stormie (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Hi, there is this user who is editing/deleting facts that have a secondary independent source on the Stoern page. His name is McGeddon.

Please help his stop his unjustified deletions.

For example, according to the University of Alberta Ian McDonald is a family doctor. I cited this source to demonstrate who the head of Stoern's jury is and McGeddon and his sockpuppet deleted my addition.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of Pokémon (461–480) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed prematurely in less than a day rather than 7 days. The reason given was snow but the discussion was not unanimous and the majority opinion had made little reference to policy or the merits of the article in question. The closer's rationale was discussed at his talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As closer, I think that 14 keeps, 1 delete (in addition to the nominator), and 1 merge make for a pretty obvious close. The notability of lists arguments were not particularly compelling on the delete side, especially given the WP:Pokémon test history that Wikipedia has been through in the past. I declined to reopen because I see no reasonable way the outcome can be anything other than keep. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was not a snowball's chance in hell of that article being deleted based on the discussion that was unfolding there. This was a perfectly valid snow close; even though I rather agree with the nomination myself! Wide consensus at the moment seems to hold that covering Pokemon in batches is the way to go... and that consensus seems to have been strongly upheld there. ~ mazca talk 09:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mazca puts it well. I mean, to someone who doesn't know the history of the Wikipedia Pokéwars, that was an incomprehensible response to a perfectly reasonable nomination; but in the context of all the previous issues and discussions and, well, drama that we've had about those bloody stupid Pokémon, and in view of the long, hard struggle we had to reach the (rather silly) compromise currently in force, it was pretty clear the compromise was going to prevail.

    So, while I think Colonel Warden is undoubtedly right and the number of Pokémon-related articles should drastically be reduced, I think in this case the mountain won't come to Mohammed and we have to endorse the snow closure.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse', reasonable close, proper use of WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – this is EXACTLY how the snowball clause, a direct application of the ignore all rules policy, is supposed to be used. I don't know what point this user is trying to make with the AFD and this DRV, but I don't like it. The AFD is done, stop dwelling on it and move on to more fruitful, productive venues. MuZemike 13:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I the only one wondering what is going on with an arch inclusionist (the worthy Col Warden) nominating something for deletion only for it to be defended by an arch deletionist accompanied by his hammers and otters? Oh and I doubt very much this was going to lead to deletion so snow was probably appropriate although the drama from letting it run would undoubtedly have been amusing. Spartaz Humbug! 14:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my case, there's a simple explanation: I've just started using a browser which supports Twinkle. When done manually, nominating articles for deletion is quite a chore and so I've preferred to use my wikitime more productively. Now that such actions are easy, you will find me taking them more. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, I have almost simultaneously started doing so for an analogous reason. The Col. & I are only inclusionists for articles that we think should be reasonably included, and there are a great many here that should not. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Continued discussion could not rationally have been expected to lead to a "delete" outcome, but might have led to much time-wasting and unnecessary acrimony. No nonroutine substantive issues involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Whether we agree with the Keep or Delete votes, we've got to agree that the page pretty much defined a WP:SNOW close. It doesn't need to be unanimous, just that there's no way it was going to get deleted. It can be renominated at a (much) later date after things have been altered to see if consensus changed, but I absolutely agree with Jclemens' close. The irony, of course, is that this very discussion is itself a candidate for a snowclose. And, FWIW, pestering the closing admin on unrelated matters is counterproductive. Shameless self-plug - called it! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Not strictly within defined limits, but there really was no way this page would have been deleted. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Proper application of WP:SNOW. --Smashvilletalk 19:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist for full 7 days. (or let another admin do the snowball close). For closure is not clearly impartial, quite possibly related to other Jclemens activities such as this comment, which seems to me to indirectly or directly undermine another admins view that "Also, please keep in mind, you can't wikilawyer your way out of heeding the policy against personal attacks.". --Firefly322 (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, but... what? I have no idea how my conversations with Hrafn bear on this. I've never edited a Pokemon article in my life, nor has he, to the best of my knowledge. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I certainly endorse the result, but in this circumstance it would have been much better to wait the full time. For one thing, it would have avoided this entire discussion. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know I respect your opinion greatly, DGG, but on this one, I differ a bit. Allowing a pointlessly lopsided process to continue is a WP:BURO violation, albeit a passive one--that is, the admin who sees a process where the consensus is obvious, and fails to close it because some editors may protest on process grounds, tacitly accepts the value of process over outcome. I am of the opinion that the community has been too tolerant of process for process' sake, and not BOLD enough to just shut down pointless discussions. To that end, I'm willing to endure the scrutiny that follows such closes. The day I make a SNOW call the community doesn't back me up on is the day I stop, however, since my intent is to demonstrate the appropriateness (and survivability) of BOLDness in such circumstances to other admins, not create extra work or drama. Needless to say, I have no intention to ever SNOW any truly undecided outcome, just the ones that should be, but haven't yet been. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I endorsed you, Jclemens, because you were right, but I would just like to ask you to take DGG's words to heart there and allow them to influence your future closes a bit. The result was never in doubt, but I do think the snow closure was perhaps a bit overenthusiastic; it's a mistake to terminate discussion prematurely.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse outcome, with reservations. The extensive previous Pokémon discussions, the compromise status quo implemented by multiple lists, and the Blastoise merger dispute preceding the nomination all sway my opinion towards keep and endorse, but none apply to the other contested AfD. Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a proper application of WP:SNOW. There was no chance the AfD would end other than in a keep. Letting it run wouldn't have killed anyone, but closing it did no harm. Cool3 (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Reasonable snow close. this is the grand paradox of the snow close: if we wait until it would be wholly uncontroversial to make the close (distinct from keeping/deleting the article), it isn't a snow close and so therefore loses all value, but if we close a debate early we run the risk of generating complaints about the close rather than the outcome--something the snow close is specifically designed to avoid. I think we can and should be adult enough to handle that inherent set of contradictions and when we grow too process bound to do so, wikipedia will be a less fun place to edit. Protonk (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This is just a puddle of water by now, well on it's way to becoming steam. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Web television (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Web television and Internet television are two separate and distinct ideas. Both Internet television and Web television have separate articles that clearly refer to different concepts. I would recommend a restoration of the category. If there is a concern that the two categories have duplicate content, we should properly categorize articles, not delete one of the categories entirely. Bradybd (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exactly what part of no objections in the the discussion is a reason to overturn? This appears to be an objection after the fact to a valid close, or am I missing something? For everyone, the discussion is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'd wait and see what happens to the merge discussion on the two articles. At this point in time, it is not clear if these are one in the same or two different things. If there is a clear consensus that they are in fact different, then recreation of the category would be reasonable. But without a clear consensus in the merge discussion I would hold off on recreating the deleted category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Midnight Sun (novel) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Midnight Sun (novel) article is based around a novel that was never completed due to a supposed leaked draft of the book. The author stated after said leak that they were putting the book on the back burner. Recently the author has revealed in interviews that she had originally intended to write the novel entirely, but decided to purposely leak a portion to garner more news coverage of her series. She then states that she decided to use the circumstance to put off the work, and by this point she has no desire to complete the unfinished and unpublished book. Thus, the article refers to at most an 'intended book' and in the least a PR stunt. I believe that an entire article devoted to a book that was never published (and looks to never be), and served only as a PR stunt is stretching the notability guidelines. I suggest deletion of the standalone page and possibly an expansion of the subject on the pre-existing Series Page. MasteroftheWord (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Possessions (film 2009) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article meets the notability criteria and shuold not be deleted. I being a new page patroller checked the sources and found them to be reliable. However, a user placed an afd tag on the article. Please review the article and check whether it qualifies for deletion. Nefirious (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close it hasn't been deleted yet, so there is nothing to review. You should just comment in the AFD as the correct venue to decide if the notability criteria are met. It sounds like you need to brush up on what constitutes a reliable source and what constitutes notability (more specifically for future films WP:NFF). The article as it stands has two sources IMDB and Fluge, the latter is a user editable resource, so I can go there now and type in any old crap - it isn't reliable. IMDB is reliable for some information (and other stuff is again user contributed so again me their adding any old garbage) but generally only as a directory listing which isn't sufficient for establishing notability. See also Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Resources point 1 is specifically about IMDB --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actors, the people behind the film seem to be authentic. The film seems to be in Post Production. I am a member of Wikipedia:Films and henceforth its my duty to see that the right kind of stuff is put up. Atleast, the article does not qualify for deletion. It may require a bit of polishing though, the guy who created the article needs to be informed. Nefirious (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is little point in posting here, it's been closed. Why don't you comment on the AFD itself? I'll also note your comment "film seem to be authentic", "film seems to be in post production". Notabilty is not the same as existance, and wikipedia doesn't deal with "seems" it deals with verifiable fact from reliable sources --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Shona Holmes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was complete consensus on the fact the article should not be under Shona Holmes and either should be renamed or merged. We didn't even get to decide where because the closing administrator closed it before we could even argue to where we should put it. I support merging it with Health care reform in the United States and deleting the article others have the idea, but haven't said where to put it. They are was another user saying to rename it Holmes-advertisement controversy. The only real person saying to keep it as it is was User:Geo Swan (the creator of the article). We needed more time to discuss it and the discussion was clearly not done, yet the administrator closed it. PS I've emailed the admin, but haven't gotten a response. I believe this user is taking a break because of the message on his user page, so I'm going ahead and doing this.--Fire 55 (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merging or moving are editorial decisions and require no administrative intervention. So just start a discussion on merging or renaming on the articles talk page, once consensus is reached the relevant editiorial action can be done. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were keeps from 69.134.163.9 and User:BalthCat. Not too many merges, not too many deletes. No consensus seems reasonable, and as 82.7.40.7 says, merge debates should take place on talk pages. This isn't really a matter for Deletion Review.John Z (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see substantial opposition to a standalone article (deletes and merges together), but no consensus to delete is correct, and non-specific no consensus is within admin discretion. WP:N3D may be useful reading. The questions of whether to merge or rename and where should be resolved before acting. Flatscan (talk) 04:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

i think that the page should be deleted because their ain't that much information to make a full article and the movie was never made i want it to be deleted i serched not that much inforation to come to a full article i don't think a full article will help who agrees with me that i should'nt have a full page i would have liked to see it but it never happened so it does not disurve a full page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloverbeatme!! (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
My Tomato Pie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I don't know how to work this deletion review, however I have figured out how to make an artical with relevancy. My Tomato Pie was cited for not showing its the business's significance, however, it was my first article, and I didn't realize the "sandbox" option, so I continued to make the article, even after it was deleted. It was deleted repeatedly, so now I'm not able to make the article. It is a business that people are curious to the history of it. Anyway, I would like this article available to be made again, so the public can have wikipedia to learn about the company. Thank you. If you need some reputable sources, here is an example; [39] --JamesLTIII (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • perhaps you should rewrite the article in your sandbox with sources and them bring it here for discussion. Please read WP:N WP:RS & WP:CORP before taking in the draft. Spartaz Humbug! 09:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic appears to have a fair bit of coverage, mostly local and "bizjournal" but IMO is probably notable enough for an article. That said, a draft would be a good idea. [40]Hobit (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a user has chosen not to follow Wikipedia's processes for contesting a deletion and recreated the article so repeatedly that an administrator has felt it necessary to prevent the page from being recreated, I think a minimum requirement for lodging a deletion review request is (or should be) to present a sourced, neutral draft in userspace (see WP:SUBPAGE) which overcomes the main reasons for deletion. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And in case it wasn't clear, keep deleted pending such a draft. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hank Green (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Hank Green article has a long history of notability issues, vandalism, etc. The last Afd was in December 2008 Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_green. The issue at point there was wrong capitalization to avoid protection, so notability wasn't talked about that much. But I did get some positive response there even though the article wasn't quite ready yet. (The last full blown Afd is over a year old. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hank_Green_(2nd_nomination)) Since those reviews, the most important new source is the ranking on a Billboard chart of Mr. Green's first studio album. As per WP:MUSICBIO#2, this provides some notability. In my opinion enough to, together with the rest of the sources, establish Mr. Green's notability.

  • A draft of the proposed article can be found here. (Sources are listed in the reflist, numbers 14,15,16,18,25 and 27 are the most important sources.)

I would like to call for a new deletion discussion; i.e. relisting at WP:AfD.
Any input is much appreciated. JoinTheMadVender (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 August 2009

[edit]

6 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Gawrsh! (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No consensus to delete this redirect that is in the category catchphrases and there was data showing it is the canonical spelling of the catchphrase Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus because there wasn't one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, while there was a decent consensus to delete some of the other catchphrase redirects (particularly those with arbitrary spellings), there was no such consensus here, and the general consensus elsewhere cannot really be seen to apply given the strong evidence for this being a specific, canonical spelling. ~ mazca talk 11:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - the arguments to delete were much more solid and intelligent than those to retain this adolescent and frankly incomprehensible redirect. ... Hmmm, now what's that character that says gawrsh with a superfluous 'w' and followed by an exclamation point....? Yea right. Eusebeus (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided show it is the canonical spelling. It is no different than Do'h! or any other nonsensical catchphrase, they don't have to make sense, just have the one, or possibly a few, spellings used by reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was "non-intuitive, [and] obscurely spelled". Albany as the capital of New York in non intuitive, and the spelling of Mississippi and Massachusetts are obscure, yet they are accurate and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the evidence that this is the canonical spelling per:
  • "Gawrsh! Goofy and Elmo Are Wanted for Robbery" in New York Times - Aug 15, 2000
  • "Gawrsh! Goofy's Right on the Money! Disneyland to Print Pastel ...
  • "Gawrsh! Goofy's good Fort Worth Star-Telegram" in Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Apr 13, 1995

You may not have heard of it, but at least do a Google search. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It remains a non-intuitive and obscure search term because it's extremely doubtful that there's anyone who can't remember "Goofy" but can remember "G-A-W-R-S-H-exclamation point". Even assuming that there actually is someone who can't remember "Goofy" but can remember "Gawrsh!", searching for Gawrsh! yields Goofy as the second result. The redirect is not useful, the arguments against it were based on the redirect deletion guideline and this all remains second-bite-at-the-apple argumentation. Do some people disagree with the closing admin? Yes. Was the close outside the discretion of the closing admin? Absolutely not. And...you know what I did and didn't Google how exactly? Otto4711 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is 100% subjective, a bit a crystal balling, and pure speculation. All should be avoided. We shouldn't speculate on what terms people use to search, since its just a guess. We don't delete all the articles that are obscure or under-read. What your saying is you find it not intuitive, yet it is canonical spelling, and is linked in 4 other articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - RAN waited a whopping three minutes after asking the closing admin about the deletion before opening this DRV. He has not since notified the closing admin about this DRV. RAN has been around more than long enough to know exactly how abusive of process this is. Is trying to restore this redirect really so important that the closing admin could not be allowed an opportunity to respond or be notified of the discussion? Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a requirement. Some people think it's a "courtesy guideline", but I'm not one of them. We don't need notify an article's creator when nominating for AfD, right? Same logic at DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He refused to consider restoration when asked, and wrote me that "one of the keep votes just cited some random person's essay, which really had no value in the discussion, so it was more of a 2d-1k situation. RfD's not a vote, and the deleters had better rationales."
  • Step 3 of the instructions for listing a DRV is to notify the closing admin. It says nothing about its being an optional step or a courtesy. Contrast that with AFD instructions, which merely state that it is considered courteous to notify the article creator. As far as the closer's rationale provided above (I assume by RAN), it is a perfectly reasonable and valid reading of the discussion, technically correct in every point. No new information has been provided here indicating that anything's changed. The majority of the "overturn" comments here are RFD round two. Otto4711 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a recent discussion about this very issue on the DRV talk page.

    Nominating something for DRV is not disruptive behaviour. The closer of the AfD is not the "gatekeeper" for DRV. If you're unhappy with a close, you can bring it here without jumping through any hoops. Contacting the closer is highly recommended, but it's not a requirement.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn as Keep Reliable and verifiable sources were provided to show that the term is used as a reference to Goofy, while arguments for deletion amounted to "is not". There was no consensus for deletion here. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. One editor saying keep simply linked to an essay about 'More redirects being better', which is hardly a policy based reason. Other than that I do not see that the arguments for Keep, 'beat' the arguments to Delete. Well within the bounds of admin disgression. Quantpole (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some unconstructive wrangling and accusations of bad faith hatted here—take it to dispute resolution please folks
  • It's good to see you branching out. Instead of mischaracterizing arguments to guidelines as "I hate it" you switched to "is not". It's still a complete mischaracterization of the arguments but at least it's variety. Otto4711 (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otto, you do realize that your personal attacks accomplish nothing and only do further harm to you and your reputation. If you have absolutely nothing to say other than to attack another editor, why bother responding and further building a track record of incivility? Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And on cue, we have the incivility/personal attack canard in place of actually addressing the statement that you are misrepresenting the opinions of others when you dismiss arguments that are based in procedural guidelines with a flippant comment like "it's not". You constantly, constantly do this and whenever you are called on it you immediately play the "stop picking on me!" card, as if when it suits your purposes the fabled civility you demand from everyone else doesn't go right out your window. And it is irrelevant to this process whether there exist sources which confirm that Goofy says "gawrsh" since the question here is whether the closing admin acted appropriately in closing the CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, pipe down please, you started the finger pointing and are adding fuel to the flames. Disruptive behaviour and drama-mongering are not appreciated at DRV and will damage your case. More then one nomination as been closed early because of misbehaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, please. You stated above that "it is irrelevant to this process whether there exist sources which confirm that Goofy says "gawrsh" since the question here is whether the closing admin acted appropriately in closing the CFD". I did directly address the RfD discussion, emphasizing in the past tense that "Reliable and verifiable sources were provided to show that the term is used as a reference to Goofy" and stated that there was no consensus for deletion in the discussion that took place. Even if the sources had never been provided at RfD, the WP:DRV process is intended to be used where editors "have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate". Reliable and verifiable sources are always relevant. I have addressed my justification under policy, showing why there were strong arguments for retention and no consensus for deletion, and "since the question here is whether the closing admin acted appropriately in closing the CFD" I'm far from the only editor here who sees problems here with this close. In turn, all you've done is toss out uncivil personal attacks. It's well past time that your ceaseless argumentative personal attacks end once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Take it one step at a time (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closing admin participated in the review before closing the review; this is forbidden. The admin involved claimed that he hadn't used his admin powers as if this made it all right, but I checked the policy, and it's illegal for users to comment and close a review as well. Additionally, the review was closed very, very early but nobody even voted for speedy delete. I complained to the admin involved, but he then additionally claimed that the topic was not verifiable. However he had redirected the page to a wikipedia article about a book on the subject; one the article already referred to. According to the AFD policy admins are not to be all three of: judge, jury and executioner. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 00:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... However the wikipedia does have: Category:Phrases which is reasonably extensive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After reviewing the AfD policies I see that I was not in keeping with how these things should be handled. I wasn't entirely comfortable with WP:SNOW either, but for the sake of beating a dead horse, I'll relist this and allow the consensus on this topic to play out as I expect it to. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Delta_Tao_Software (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

History-only undeletion (article was deleted as it wasnt "noteworthy" enaugh even though the article predated the policy by years. And if possible put the deleted history of Delta Tao in too if you could be so kind. Zarutian (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Conrad Murray (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Yes, I consulted with the closing administrator already. Also, I voted to merge & redirect the article during the AfD.

I felt that overall during this AfD, a good portion of the "Keeps" completely missed the point of BLP1E and failed to adequately argue against it. For example:

  • "Keep I wonder which wiki 'super' editor came up with this AFD. I suppose you are considering AFD because he this guy is 'not-notable' right? ;-) He who dies with the most deletes wins! This is exactly the kind of case that demonstrates the lunacy of the wikipedia AFD patrol. If you guys cant agree what makes a living person notable and create a written policy, then every single article in wikipedia about a living person can be considered for AFD. Clearly in this case daily top billing on google news and almost every other daily news outlet for more than a month is still not notable?" – I don't really consider that a valid Keep, as the majority of it is railing on Wikipedia policy and the last sentence just mentions hitting Google News daily, which does not address BLP.
  • " Strong Keep Dr. Murray has emerged as a central figure in the Michael Jackson investigation. There are thousands upon thousands of news articles about him, and that has increased dramatically in the past few days as he becomes the main suspect in Michael Jackson's death. KEEP! Michaelh2001 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" – Same issue as the above vote; thousands of news articles means nothing if they are all about one event.
  • "Keep - Keep it until the toxicology results are revealed, The investigators suspect some Elvis-Quality drug abuse relating to the death of Michael Jackson Darbacour (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)" – We don't keep BLPs because they might become notable in the future.
  • "Comment I would have to agree and wait until the whole thing unfolds. Once his culpability is revealed one way or another, we could always simply merge. To delete it now would definitely be premature.--Hourick (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)" – Again, we don't keep BLPs because they might become notable in the future.
  • "Keep: Notability established. Evan1975 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)" – Exactly the opposite of WP:JNN.

On the other hand, all the deletes/redirects had solid, reasonable arguments about enforcing BLP by not having an article solely because he is under investigation. To me, those arguments are more solid and should have been given more weight when closing. NW (Talk) 17:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Crotalus horridus and Pyrrhus16 are currently in conflict over whether this should be a redirect. You clearly want it to be a redirect. I am of the opinion that it should be a redirect (since that's what I created here in the first place). The proper place for discussion of whether this should be a redirect is Talk:Conrad Murray. This is not a matter for deletion review. No deletion has occurred. What we have here are editors that are forum shopping (to Deletion Review) and edit warring (see recent edit history) rather than using the article's talk page. If you want to make a case for an ordinary editorial action that has already been enacted and reverted several times, then use the talk page. It's what it's there for. Bold, revert, discuss. Uncle G (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion review is for challenging the outcome of deletion decisions. In other words, if the article is deleted and you want it kept, DRV is the right place; or if the article is kept and you want it deleted, DRV is the right place.

    The important thing to understand is that in terms of DRV, "merge", "redirect", and "keep" are all effectively the same outcome. They're just different "flavours" of keep. ("Userfy" and "delete" are also effectively the same outcome: two "flavours" of delete.)

    Whether to turn an article into a merge, a redirect, a disambiguation page, etc. is an editorial decision rather than an administrative one, in the sense that any ordinary editor can do it. That means that the proper venue for discussing such a change is the article's talk page, not a deletion review.

    In short, I totally agree with Uncle G and recommend this is speedily closed as wrong venue.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just checked back here. The reason why I brought it to DRV in the first place was because one editor claimed there was consensus to keep the article in its entirety because of the AfD, and I figured that sort of thing should be challenged, because to me, a redirect outcome is more on the flavor of a delete outcome than a keep. I see both your points, however, and I will go bring this issue up on the talk page of the article. Could someone else please close this per my request? Thank you, NW (Talk) 15:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpreted the outcome of the discussion as keep, by consensus, and not to merge or redirect it. If I was wrong, please tell me, and allow another editor to redirect it. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the most proper discussion location was the article's Talk page. Any urgent BLP issue could be handled by simple blanking. However, I think that once the AfD was closed keep with a clear implication of as a separate article, DRV became the proper forum for appealing the correctness of the close. There is relevant discussion at WT:Deletion review#Wikipedia:Merges and Redirects after Deletion Discussions with some support for my position. While this DRV may overturn to redirect, that outcome is unlikely, and NuclearWarfare's effort is best spent at Talk:Conrad Murray#Redirect. Briefly: I agree with withdrawal, but not an involuntary procedural close. Flatscan (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ick. I think that redirecting an article which was just kept was probably a poor idea. Personally I'd have undone the redirect and discussed on the talk page. But I do think Uncle G is pushing the bounds a bit here and a DRV might be the best way to handle it. In any case, I'd move to leave this as a real article and not a redirect due to the AfD result (though I'd have !voted to redirect in the AfD myself). Hobit (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dave_Szulborski (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Notability is more easily proved through third-party sources now, including curricula and other works citing Szulborski's books, etc. I'd like this page restored to my namespace so I can do a rewrite addressing the notability issue. Andrhia (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hamish_Rosser (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

subject does not meet WP:N WP:BAND WP:MUSIC Entire section on Skinny Blonde uses an opinion article from tabloid newspaper as a source. The claim of national controversy in unverifiable anywhere else. 203.153.202.40 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — 203.153.202.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Overturn and delete, The keep arguments were weak and not backed up with refutable facts. This article is a house of cards supported by weak and unreliable sources from a Google search. Also should note that User:Spartaz did not supply a reason for his "closed as keep" decision. 203.153.201.78 (talk) 23:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)— 203.153.201.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Endorse Spartaz' accurate reading of the consensus. "Delete" arguments were correctly given less weight because User:The-Pope refuted them. (How come he could find the sources the previous debate contributors couldn't?) Single-purpose account tags may have had an impact, as well; you may wish to consider registering an account.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - before raising a DRV it is customary to discuss the close with the admin concerned and, if you bothered to visit my talk page, you would have seen that I am very open and cooperative about working with users over AFD closes. My function is to read the consensus against policy not headcount and I do not generally discriminate against ip comments vs user comments. the keep side produced sources that were not refuted and asserted the subject meets music my membership of another group that was subject to controversy which would be another way to meet MUSIC. Really I had no choice in reading the consensus here. Spartaz Humbug! 06:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the IP who raised this review, nominated it initially for deletion, and who engaged in the most over the top tag attack I've yet seen here, seems to have some sort of vendetta or personal distaste for the article subject. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion, and it's not a valid reason to overturn a clear keep consensus, either. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - stunning that such experienced editors would focus so overtly on the fact that "an IP" is raising legitimate issues without actually responding to the legitimate issues raised. It is clear upon reasonable examination and multiple Wiki standards of rationale that the subject, as a replacement drummer of a moderately known garage band which peaked way before he joined:
1. does not meet WP:N because drummer had done nothing notable as a drummer, won no awards as drummer, nor has any reliable non-POV media coverage about him as a drummer, nor has his band achieved either of the above since he joined. 2. For the same reasons does not meet WP:BAND or WP:MUSIC because as a drummer, simply being associated with a band which may or may not be notable is not qualification enough for an entire article about him.
The issue was raised by User_talk:Florrie (and echoed by a few others) that simply because he manufactured a beer which received tabloid media coverage that this somehow legitimises his notability as a drummer. A circular argument which holds no weight. Evidence nor rationale has ever been offered whether his status as a mere drummer makes him notable. As for the issue of having a beer company, I wasn't aware that company employees throughout Australia deserve their own Wiki article. Shouldn't there be a notability standard? WP:N applies equally in both cases as drummer and employee, and the combination of the two does not make the subject suddenly notable.
Finally, editors are making a WP:OR claim that Skinny Blonde had some sort of "national controversy" yet NO SOURCE they have provided has made the claim that there was indeed a national controversy. Having a couple of articles in a tabloid Herald_Sun newspaper, one clearly an opinion column, does not comprise a national controversy. Not a WP:RS Reliable Source. Australia has hundreds of media outlets and not one other mentioned this contrived controversy. In fact, editors at Crikey [[41]] have pointed out the "controversy" was designed by Hamish himself to increase sales. This source was omitted conveniently by the "KEEP" editors. 203.153.201.197 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)— 203.153.201.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack - Children of Earth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
(result was No consensus, and I wish this to be overturned to Delete.)

This page, at the time of listing, had no reliable, third-party sources to establish any notability. The only sources were from the producer's website. Now, well over a fortnight since the AfD was closed, there is still no indication that this is notable.

The AfD was pulled off-track by a trolling IP, who inflamed discussion with 'helpful' comments such as, "Maybe you're doing this because you don't like this page for whatever reason," "I'm a third party and I'm backing up its notability," and "You don't want to keep things that one day may be really useful to some historian in the future."

I tried to simply re-list the article to try and garner a more genuine consensus, not one which was distracted and disrupted by such stupid remarks as the ones above, but was told to come here. Note that I don't blame the closing admin at all; I was initially reluctant to resort to DRV because it may look like I did. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 10:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my previous comment. My vote does not change to overturn, consider it a no-vote. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it was raised by someone supporting the article, but the probability of there being sources after release are so much greater that relist remains appropriate. DGG (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pace won (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Im not sure why the page had been rejected as i followed all of the guidelines, quoting reliable internet sources where the text visible is solely available to be edited the owner of the page and not open to discussion in a public domain. The actual Hip Hop artist, Pace Won, of whom i did the article on, is in no way connected to me personally and i have no reason to try and promote his material with any form of personal incentive. The reason i created the page was because you have a great article on one of Americas most influential underground hip hop acts of the 90's, called 'Outsidaz,' the head man of this group BEING Pace Won himself. i wanted to create a page about him because he was one of the most respected artists in the underground in the 1990's and was thought to be the "next hip hop star" in the 90's, being the only member of the hip hop group to launch such a successful solo career, for which he expressed his views during interviews for pages carrying out well respected hip hop articles (of which i have referenced their pages) and also a discography of his solo work to date (leaving out his work with former hip hop group 'Outsidaz' as you already have their prior works on their own page). There are also many aspects that i am yet to add to the Pace Won page garnering much interest in the hip hop world. For example, being part of a group with the Outsidaz, he worked with Eminem (before Eminem got famous) and claims that Eminem "came to them with his own style, stole theirs, then left the group to commercialize the soul of their music." there is still an ongoing dispute between Eminem and Pace Won. There are many other aspects to include on this page that i was going to research but found it has been deleted for reasons i cant imagine. He has worked with worldwide respected superstars and underground artists alike and i believe he deserves his own page on the Wikipedia website. Demolisten (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chrishan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I believe that at the time of this article's creation, then re-creation (several times by various users), the artist had no real notability. I have been following a lot of music acts gaining buzz on the internet and his stature exceeds others by far. He supposedly is now signed to a major label which was stated in an interview (that didn't state the label), has a single with Lil Wayne that was a huge success, and a newly released single with T.I.. A Google search of Chrishan brings up the single with Lil Wayne as the first listing. Obviously I would like to see the deletion overturned due to his new-found notoriety, and I will have the page created from the Article Creation page. Also if this is overturned and they do create the page can I ask for a lock so that un-sourced editing doesn't occur? Thanks 192.231.160.6 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 August 2009

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pain Hertz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was never even flagged for speedy deletion - it was deleted right out from under me while I was still making edits. The reason listed was "A7: non notable". I've been told by wikipedia admins in the past that non-notable is not sufficient grounds for an A7 removal (and that many overzealous people wrongly flag things for deletion that should not be - with newbies coming along and not realizing the policy) - and I looked it up myself to confirm it. I contested this with the wikipedia admin - quoting relevant policies - but he still demands notability, despite the fact that policy explicitly states that notability is not grounds for SPEEDY delete. I even asked for the admin to replace it with AfD if they like. The admin has archived the discussion without following up with me at this point, so I felt I needed to go here. I DID try and go out of my way to show importance in the article... Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 14:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. The article stated the band had released six albums, which is sufficient enough to assert notability and avoid an A7 deletion. Optionally list at AFD. Stifle (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not because of the immediate speedy without tagging (there is no requirement that an article be tagged before speedy deletion) but because of what Stifle says, the number of released albums creates too much of a presumption of significance for an A7 speedy. No prejudice against anyone starting an AfD if this is overturned, but I don't see that as a necessary outcome of this review. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per my essay on this issue.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - six albums is nice, but I could put out six albums using a home studio and a CD burner, and I wouldn't be notable. That, to me, is not an assertion of notability - an assertion of notability is multiple albums on a notable record label, coverage in the media, et al. There was no indication of any of that in the article. An AFD might have been appropriate, but in this case I don't see the problem with the deletion. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The speedy deletion policy specifically says that notability does not need to be established - merely importance, which is less strict than notability. I'm not sure how this article fails to suggest importance. This is why wikipedia has many different deletion policies - different situations, which are not interchangable. The intent (as stated in the policies) is to allow multiple contributors to establish true wikipedia-worthy notability. Luminifer (talk) 05:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I just noticed this odd behavior on my watchlist : 08:17, 4 August 2009 Academic Challenger (talk | contribs) deleted "Pain Hertz" ‎ (G1: Patent nonsense, meaningless, or incomprehensible) -- I guess someone else created a page for them, although I don't know of a way to get to whatever it was that they created. Anyway, I wanted to make sure people looked at _my_ version of this page before commenting, not the "patent nonsense" version. :) Luminifer (talk) 12:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn as invalid speedy. Likely belongs at AfD though. Hobit (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Lack of notability is an insufficient basis for A7 speedy deletion; community consensus must be determined for such a claim, and an opportunity for rescue allowed while discussion goes on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Article made clear and credible claims of notability, in direct conflict with the justifications required for WP:CSD#A7. If there are legitimate questions regarding notability once it has been restored, process dictates that the community be given the opportunity to assess notability at WP:AFD. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Clearly inappropriate closure. Closed after 3 days instead of the normal seven as keep even though 11 people voted delete, 8 people voted keep, with 2 of those being conflicted editors of the page and 1 acting as a pseudo meatpuppet. Closer's statements are factually inaccurate and show a lack of actually reading the page. Closer has a bad habit of closing pages 4 days before they are to be closed and should be desysopped. This should be a speedy unclose and restoration of the standard AfD, but people are edit warring when it was rightfully reopened. They should be blocked for edit warring and disruption as with the closer as there was no evidence that this was a mistake and the rationale shows that this was purposefully done. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist - An AfD as contentious as this (split pretty evenly) shouldn't be closed early. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    11 to 8 is not split evenly - 58% delete as is, 65% delete when the two editors from the page are removed, and 69% when the joint vote is counted properly. The 58% is appropriate delete consensus. The 65 and 69 percent are a strong delete consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist - Given that there was no need for an early closure, the AfD should normally (IMO) be reopened. However, new information has come to light about the subject since the AfD began, so the article should be relisted so that everyone can start fresh with the new information. NW (Talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see; thank you for noting this. I agree with JC below though; there was no reason to close this debate early, and so I believe that the AfD should be reopened/relisted (really, either is fine to me). NW (Talk) 02:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from closing admin I believe my only mistake may have been closing the debate early--granted, there were more deletes than keeps, but my thinking was that the sourcing had been improved enough that the main problem expressed in the deletion rationale had been addressed. I had no stake whatsoever in this article--in fact, I only saw this when I moseyed over to AfD today. However, I have no objection to reopening the debate. Blueboy96 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a habit of closing pages like this too early. The Sam Blacketer close is another egregious example. Furthermore, your rationale is completely flawed. As pointed out, the other sources were added by the second comment, and were already dismissed as being unreliable, used to talk about original research that was off topic, or were merely stating a few sentences of facts and not enough to warrant a whole page. Furthermore, BLP applied regardless, and "sourcing" isn't good enough for BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Agree that there was no compelling reason for closing the discussion early, but I can understand the motives behind Blueboy's decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why bother? If one thing is evident from the comments so far, it is that this will only end in a no consensus close, no matter how badly it fails WP:NOTNEWS. Process for the sake of process will only add even more drama in this case. Resolute 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist - No reason this should have been closed earlier than the normal 7 day period. Note: When I got back to my computer this evening, I created a thread on ANI about the closure of this AfD, not knowing this deletion review had been created. My apologies, I was unaware. Killiondude (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article If I'm reading this right, wikipedia defended its alleged right to lift these images, which by doing so could harm the art gallery. Yet wikipedians go ballistic about "excessive" use of team logos, which can only help those teams by giving them free advertising. It is this schizoid approach to images that's the issue here, more than just this article - which needs to be kept rather than being hidden. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August&oldid=420278190"