Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 September

< August 2011	Deletion review archives	October 2011 >

30 September 2011

Mahan Mitra – Opriginal Close endorsed but new information means that this now merits an article so restored. Further relisting at editorial discretion. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Mahan Mj (Mahan Mitra) has got Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award this year. He is one of the leading topologists in India. His page should be restored as soon as possible! 59.93.247.38 (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin's comment Although I was not contacted regarding this, I wouldn't have changed my decision anyway. I can't see how the AFD could be interpreted any different and I think the IP is misunderstanding what DRV is.--v/r - T P 01:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation . Without getting into all the ins-and-outs of the deletion process, it looks like the article subject indeed won the highest award for science in India earlier this week [1], pretty much rendering the earlier AFD discussion irrelevant. I'm assuming Mahan Mitra/Mahan Mj/Mahan Maharaj are different forms of the same name; the academic credentials seem to line up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Restore and add the new material. Obviously our checking was not sufficiently thorough. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
restore with no prejudice to a relist I think a discussion about this award might make sense, so no objection to an AfD. Hobit (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
restore/allow recreation New award makes for sufficient notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! 59.93.245.81 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- FWIW, I added articles this morning on the other recipients of the 2011 awards. There's a good deal of work still to be done for the earlier years. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Scott Dudelson – Deletion Endorsed as clearly no case has been made that the close or G4 deletions were incorrect. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

notable american executive / entrepreneur StanleyJean05 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-deleting admin's comment: The article in question was a recreation of an article deleted by unanimous consensus at AfD, without any siginificant changes in the article's content vis-a-vis the version that was AfD'd. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The page in question was at Scott Dudelson, not scott dudelson. I've corrected the link above to reflect this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have any new sources emerged that weren't discussed at the AfD? I would think that new sources would be the best way forward if we're to have an article with this title.—S Marshall T/C 19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the article contains a host of new articles from notable business news sources / publications like New York Times, Inc Magazine, Bnet.com and others, that were not discussed at the AfD. The original page which was deleted was poorly presented and lacked notable sources, my intention with the new article was to clean up previous editors article using these new and reliable sources. StanleyJean05 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at those sources before deleting. They refer, as far as I could tell, to companies founded by Dudelson - not with any significant coverage of Dudelson himself, beyond a "here's how I do business" interview. If it's desired, I can restore the article for the sources to be assessed by others without any problem though. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bushranger, as mentioned before, the challenge here - and my argument of notability- is that one cannot separate the achievements of a company vs the individual when the individual was leading the company (and the source material credits the individual for leading the org).... When it comes to industry leaders / entrepreneurs their notability comes from the success of the organization they've created.StanleyJean05 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"When it comes to industry leaders / entrepreneurs their notability comes..." erm nope, the point of the notability guidelines is to try and work out what the world at large considers notable and then we cover that. We get that indication from the coverage received. If your view that the world was taking note of the individual as a result of the success... then they'd still actually show some interest in that person and write about that person. There are many industry leaders/entrepreneurs for which that has happened, the world find the person interesting and so newspapers etc. write about the individual. For those who don't it does suggest that the world may well be interested in the creation but not in the person. (The same is true in many areas authors + books - book gets lots of press, reviews etc. and all mention the author but no real interest in the author as a person, film producers vs films... etc.). Given the low participation in the debate if any of the new references are up to anything I'd be tempted to let this be relisted, but if your argument is solely that, which has been rejected in many xFD discussions, It would seem a pointless exercise. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot of sense, however, to the point that sources should cover primarily the individual, a number of the source material referenced in the article was primarily about the individual and not about the company per se. I would suggest referencing the IdeaMensch, BNET, Mixergy and Loyalty360 (byline article), as examples, which favor coverage about the individual over their creation. Although not on-line, i've seen this individual speak at a number of conferences about the general state of the loyalty industry and he is generally considered a thought leader. StanleyJean05 (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest trying to make first an article for his principal companies, Prodege,orand Swagbucks.com or Music for Charity. for which it will be easier to show the notability. CEOs of sufficiently major companies are i think notable but it would be difficult to maintain the proposition that all companies that merit a Wikipedia articles are sufficiently notable for that purpose. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The catch is Swag bucks has already been deleted five, count 'em five times. (three G11, one A7, one G7) and has been salted. It seems the article can never be made without being promotional... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is normally a problem with articles for people who have done several things, each of them somewhat under the level for notability. I don't really have any solution. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 September 2011

Multiple signatures of living people – Undelete all. As the "undelete" !voters have pointed out, there is no consensus for mass deleting signatures like these, as evidenced by the discussion about WP:BLPSIGN. Such deletions are not inherently supported by WP:BLP policy, and so the images should be considered individually should anyone wish to delete them. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Multiple signatures of living people

I'm listing these files, all deleted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 12#Signatures of living persons. In my first DRV, the files were not undeleted, with no consensus. In the July 4 (second) discussion, Master of Puppets (talk · contribs) undeleted the files and said that the option to relist remains. In my third DRV, it was suggested that I take WP:BLPSIGN to RfC, and the third discussion was closed pending RfC. Now that the RfC has been rejected with the proposed policy being turned into an essay, I request these files be undeleted. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Could you clarify, please? Are these signatures ones where there is consensus that they should be included in their owners' articles or are you seeking undeletion so that future talk page discussions can be better informed and lead to effective action? I realise these requests hark back to a particular multiple deletion of signatures of living Indian citizens (which it has been asserted are copyright in India). What about File:Signature of Amitabh Bachchan.svg which does not seemed linked to even in Amitabh Bachchan? I realise you are not seeking undeletion of this file because it has already been undeleted[2] (!) but is this case in any other way different? Thincat (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to refer to the position I took in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 2. My view is that the risk of harm to a living person through misuse of their signature far outweighs the very small encyclopaedic value of using it in an article, and therefore our WP:BLP policy requires us to keep deleted.—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the RFC was closed as no consensus for making BLPSIGN policy or guideline, with the comment "Concern raised about potential misuse and general low encyclopaedic value, though there is a loose acceptance for some limited use in some instances - and this can be worked out on a case by case basis on the article talkpage". i.e. there was some sort of consensus there against general allowance of these. This request for a mass undeletion is not in line with "limited use" and "worked out on a case by case basis". --82.19.4.7 (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore files I've yet to see a good argument that hosting signatures on Wikipedia causes any harm to anyone. Anything important must be notarized, any forger will already have access to these signatures whether or not they exist on Wikipedia (and/or make their own), and the U.S. laws for repudiation of a signature favors the repudiator. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These people are Indian, and Wikipedia's perfectly visible from India. Are you under the impression that our BLP policy only applies to US law?—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Law is all we're really concerned about. Plenty of our content is illegal in other jurisdictions. BLP has little to do with the law, however, and far more to do with ethics: BLP doesn't demand we remove encyclopedic content when the removal won't reduce harm to anyone. Jclemens (talk) 00:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's saying it's illegal under Indian law. The concern is that harm to a living person could arise under it if someone's signature is duplicated on a document of some kind, and if that's possible under Indian law, then we have a potential BLP issue, even if it isn't under Florida law. You imply that a copy of someone's signature is "encyclopaedic content", but I don't see anything encyclopaedic about it. What I do see is an avoidable risk.—S Marshall T/C 18:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but that hypothetical harm is simply not convincing to me. The encyclopedic value is not something for DRV--the applicability of special BLP considerations, on the other hand, does concern me. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Why is DRV not allowed to consider the encyclopaedic value of the subject under review?—S Marshall T/C 13:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete all The proposed policy to remove them was not approved as a policy, but only as an essay. It is clear from this, that a mass deletion of such signatures would be invalid, and they should therefore be restored, and be discussed individually. The contention that they would in general violate BLP policy was not accepted. If one person thinks otherwise, it carries no weight over a general consensus. The way to interpret policies is always subject to consensus, and the consensus was that any possible violation would have to be discussed case by case. DGG ( talk ) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the original FFD close. The nomination for deletion at the original FFD (incorrect statement of licence) was made moot. Even at the time of the nomination, WP:BLPSIGN did not mandate deletion. In the discussion the reliability of the source (I think all came from a single source) was questioned but no discussion ensued over this. Signatures being copyright in India (the only files remaining in the nomination were of Indian signatures), was agreed to be irrelevant. I do not see the original close as justified by the discussion.

Other deletion arguments could have been presented. WP:CSD#F11 could have be cited — no evidence the (Indian) copyright holder has agreed — was not raised at all but could have been rebutted (to my mind unconscionably) by arguing the subjects do not hold copyright in the US. The matter of the files being unused (I think at that time they were) as a deletion rationale was not discussed but for free images this is regarded as a weak criterion on its own. Reliability of source could have been pursued. I do not think that these arguments would have necessarily altered anything.

The subsequent DRVs tended to continue discussion rather than analyse the FFD. WP:BLPSIGN and its RFC provide evidence of the view of the community but do not provide formal policy or guidance and do not address the hosting (rather than linking) of signature images. These discussions seem to have assumed publicly-available signatures of notable people which I think applies to all in the present batch. Whether some signatures are an unreasonable invasion of privacy (regardless of security concerns) seems to have been regarded as a matter for individual decisions and I can find no such discussions anywhere. Commons accepts signatures of living people unless the uploader or possibly the subject requests deletion, very notably for Jimbo.[3][4] [5]

Out of this I conclude that consensus has not changed and we should undelete all these files. I am unhappy about things and I have commented at WT:BLPSIGN. Thincat (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - this is not a hobby project - worthless autographs with no verification of reliability. Off2riorob (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all would love some elaboration/justification to your comment. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shekou Railway Station – Moot. You or other editors are allowed to recreate said pages. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I inadvertently recreated this page, which had been deleted. The original deletion rationale is "(Mass removal of pages added by Cnrail37592114)". I'm not sure its creator per se is a reason for the subject not to be covered by an article, even if said creator created bad-quality articles. The article is no less worthy of inclusion than, say, Qinghuayuan Railway Station. Qu e ntin Smith 11:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That user was blocked [6] apparently because of bulk article creation of some sort. Deletion of articles is not a never ever for the topic, so assuming you created a brand new article (rather than just restoring a copy of the original) then it's ok. It'll stand or fall on it's own merits but shouldn't be redeleted because of the original deletion. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the problem here? No one is clamoring for a deletion of this file, as far as I can tell, and just because a banned user created a file once, and it was deleted for that reason, doesn't mean that you have to request permission at DRV before creating it as a non-banned user. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 September 2011

Jeffrey H. Norwitz – Undeleted by deleting admin, now at AfD. – lifebaka++ 23:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Should a request for deletion from the subject of a BLP provide a justification for speedy deleting an article when the administrator who processes an OTRS ticket thinks the topic isn't notable?

I started an article on Jeffrey Norwitz, a professor at the Naval War College, who is the author or editor of several positively reviewed books. In addition to serving as a professor he is also an active NCIS agent. He is a specialist on counterterrorism. Shortly after I started the article I went to add more information to it, only to find that the article had been deleted.

The administrator who deleted it did so after processing OTRS ticket 2009011410017732. The deleting administrator and I corresponded. They acknowledged that the article had been neutrally written, otherwise complied with all our policies, that Norwitz had no actual complaints about the article. The deleting administrator told me Norwitz simply didn't want a wikipedia article. The deleting administrator told me that their interpretation of the role of an OTRS team member that they felt they were authorized to delete articles to comply with an outside individual's request, when, in their sole judgment, the individual was of marginal notability. I don't agree that Norwitz was of marginal notability in January 2009. Since the deletion Norwitz has published another book. He has broadcast youtube videos. He has made more public appearances. So I think his notability is even more clear cut now.

I am concerned that if the deleting administrator's interpretation of the mandate of an OTRS member is generally shared this represent a dangerous loophole for circumventing the criteria for speedy deletion. Articles that do not contain an indication of notability are subject to speedy deletion. But articles that assert notability are not subject to speedy deletion. Individuals who disagree whether an article is on a notable topic can still nominate those articles for deletion, via PROD or a full deletion discussion. But administrators are not usually authorized to delete articles on notability ground`s when the article does assert notability. It is the interpretation of the deleting administrator that they are allowed the exceptional power to delete articles when he thinks the topic isn't notable, on his sole authority, if the subject of the article requests its deletion.

For what it is worth there are lots of biographies of Norwitz scattered around the web. So it is not as if Norwitz was trying to reduce his online footprint in order to protect his privacy because he was an interrogator at Guantanamo. Rather Norwitz just doesn't want a biography on wikipedia. Geo Swan (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming there are no other factors involved, list at AfD. Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion says that If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. The policy at the time the article was deleted contained almost identical language. The policy goes on to say that summary deletion is appropriate if the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, but the article was well sourced, didn't say anything negative about the subject, and didn't have any other neutrality problems that I can see. Of course it may well be that the AfD comes to a consensus that Norwitz' notability is sufficiently borderline that his request should be enacted, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Hut 8.5 13:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Restore article and optionally list at AfD, where we have normally given very little weight to individuals who do not want to be written about if they are clearly notable, and he would appear to clearly meet WEP:PROF. It is not required that even with marginal notability that we delete the article on request, though in exceptional cases we have done so after consensus. Deleting an article on request is fatal to NPOV--individuals will request deletion if they do not like what we say, and only permit an article if the find it favorable. No reputable journalist or encyclopedia or work of reference can accept such conditions; that Who'sWho, for example, does accept them is why we regard them as not a Reliable Source for anything. Do no harm would not be relevant if he had a public career; a person who makes public appearances and publishes books in his own name cannot then claim anonymity or secrecy. The admin is furthermore wrong about the role of WP:OTRS--we at OTRS are not WP:OFFICE, and have no right to over-ride Wikipedia policy. We help individuals to be sure, but within the parameters of Wikipedia policy, but our only key function is that we have the ability to receive private information. This misinterpretation is sufficiently severe as to cause some concern for the continuation of the individual in OTRS. OTRS is to help our actions towards individuals meet policy, not to make policy. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)At first glance, I'm with Hut 8.5, but I don't see this article in the cache so I'm unwilling to use a word in bold quite yet.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restored at the time I did the deletion in 2009, I was the one that handled the OTRS ticket. My mindset at the time was to err on the side of caution and have short articles like this removed. Geo has been speaking to me off and on since the deletion and I agree that the content itself is neutral, but still at the time of deletion I was in that mindset. Now close to being the end of 2011, I was a n00b and realized it was not the best course of action now. After speaking to more OTRS staff since the DR was brought up, they felt that it would be wise to restore the material and let a regular AFD deal with the subject. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have created a procedural AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey H. Norwitz. Cunard (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeremy Reading – Closing admin ammended decision. – lifebaka++ 22:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

closing admin is applying !supervote when 100% consensus for delete. redirects should only happen after an AfD is there is consensus LibStar (talk) 05:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin's comment: It seemed to be that having the article as a redirect would be logical, given that the page for the competition the person the page was about won existed, and (at least at the moment) doesn't seem to be controversial in its existence. Having the redirect in existence also reduces the possibility that somebody will come along and recreate the page because "oh, they don't have an article on him, I should write one", which I've seen happen on multiple occasions, with the resulting speedy and salting winding up ruffling feathers. In addition, redirects are cheap. That said, if DRV decides otherwise, that's not a problem. :) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete per consensus at the AfD. Then you can make a redirect if you like. Reyk _YO! 06:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was no consensus against redirecting. There is no evidence that the delete !voters considered it and rejected it as an option. In these cases, an admin should have the discretion to implement the consensus for removing the article either by deleting the article or converting it into a redirect. I would have done the former in this case: it is a thinly sourced, barely watched BLP. But doing the latter was a legitimate exercise of discretion. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree with that no one discussed a redirect being used to determine there was no-consensus against a redirect. If the clear outcome was "keep" since there would have been no discussion about a merge and redirect (which would have kept the content in line with the discussion), should an admin do that? No an admin's job is to read the consensus in the discussion not to make up alternate undiscussed options and implement those. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete There was clear consensus in the discussion to delete the article. A redirect was not even mentioned in the discussion. Therefore, the AfD participants, Mike3685 (talk · contribs), DonCalo (talk · contribs), and LibStar (talk · contribs), should not be mandated to address a redirect in their arguments. As Mkativerata notes above, the article is a "thinly sourced, barely watched BLP":
The first source is a dead link. Cached at http://web.archive.org/web/20070831190954/http://www.actjcl.org.au/actjcl/junior2004.htm by Internet Archive, the page is a list of statistics about the 2004 ACT Junior Championship from the ACT Junior Chess League's website. It is therefore a primary source. More about the chess league can be read at http://www.actjcl.org.au/actjcl/about_actjcl.php^WebCite
The second source^WebCite is a list of statistics; http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/^WebCite is a self-published unreliable source.
The third source^WebCite is from Guinness World Records, a primary source about the subject's record breaking.
The AfD participants decided not to retain this poorly sourced material in any form. The nominator wrote:
Many sources are almost impossibly to verify, especially content on high school and other academic achievements and balloon modelling.
The nominator invokes Wikipedia:Verifiability in his nomination statement, and I agree with him that the article fails that policy. The information about Jeremy Reading's birthdate violates WP:BLPPRIVACY, which states:
With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.
I performed several searches on Google and was unable to find a reliable source to confirm Reading's date of birth.
The article also provided Reading's Universities Admission Index (UAI), which was unsourced.
These two examples of unsourced, private material about a non-notable individual should not have been preserved under a redirect, which could be easily reverted.
By overriding these users' unanimous consensus to delete, the closing admin denied them the opportunity to present the case that the page's history should be deleted per Wikipedia:Verifiability instead of retained under a redirect. I ask The Bushranger to modify his close to "delete", after which he can create a redirect as an editorial decision. Cunard (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete, but with no objection to a redirect afterwards if desired. The consensus at that debate was that the content of the current article should be deleted, and creating the redirect without deleting the history seems to go against this. That said, a redirect isn't a bad idea, and I would be happy for one to be created after deletion. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what's wrong with Mkativerata's view here. At first glance, to delete the history seems both bureaucratic and needlessly destructive. What am I missing?—S Marshall T/C 15:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relistto discuss whether the redirect should be after deletion. A redirect is always an option as a compromise close, unless it was rejected by consensus at the discussion, which does not appear to be the case. Indeed, the nom didn't even ask for it: the nomination said "Nominated due to lack of notability. This person's achievements are not important enough to warrant a separate page", Everyone agreed with that. A redirect or a merge would be in accordance with the nomination. Normally I would say that if the redirect is thought inappropriate, then RfD is the proper action. The problem here is that the material in the history behind the redirect is really improperly promotional. and should be removed altogether--as I will say at a renewed discussion. (I agree that the closing admin should clearly have done that, which is why I'm saying relist, rather than endorse.). Alternatively, we have discretion here to correct errors in the best way possible. So perhaps the best close here would be delete history on the basis of finding the right solution, IAR if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete essentially per DGG. Despite DGG's different bolded "vote" I think the best way forward following his logic is to recognize that a delete was the best close of the AfD given the (limited) discussion. A redirect can be created as an editorial decision by anyone following an AfD (unless of course the AfD has established a clear consensus against such a page) and creation of one here is probably appropriate but after deletion rather than instead of it. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to the closing admin, I can't imagine why this redirect could conceivably be controversial in any way. I suppose this was technically against consensus though, so an Overturn to Delete and then redirecting might make sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closer should have !voted rather than redirected. I'd think the redirect would be uncontroversial but given that it isn't the right thing for the closer to do would be to retract the close, !vote, and let someone else close. So relist in effect. Hobit (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a redirect is uncontroversial. None of the "overturn" votes has opposed a redirect.
As DGG notes above, "The problem here is that the material in the history behind the redirect is really improperly promotional. and should be removed altogether." As I note above, the content contains private material that should be deleted per Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:BLPPRIVACY.
The Bushranger, I ask you to reconsider your close. If you disagree with myself and DGG that the content is problematic, then the discussion will have to be relisted. If, after re-reviewing the article's content, you agree with my and DGG's assessment, I ask you to delete the page per the consensus of the AfD and create a redirect with none of the problematic history under it ("delete and redirect to Beauty and the Geek Australia"). Cunard (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comment: I don't have a problem at all with deleting the articel then recreating a redirect. If that won't be a problem (what with the DRV in progress) I can go ahead and do that straightaway. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are the closing admin, there is no problem with your amending the close to "delete" while the DRV in progress. After you delete the article and create a redirect, the DRV can be speedy closed. Cunard (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Colin Craig – Closing (non) admin has agreed to a relist – v/r - T P 23:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Article was closed by a non-admin. I do not think there was a consensus on this discussion yet and I do not believe it was a non-controversial close. As the original submitter I believe the page still fails WP:POLITICIAN and GNG. I have raised it with the closer on his talk page and not received a response. Mattlore (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist- definitely not an uncontroversial close. Reyk _YO! 06:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs)'s close—"Being kept because extra references found"—invoked his personal opinion about the article, casting a supervote. It is not even clear what the "extra references" were. He utterly ignored requests on his talk page to explain his closure or to self-revert. If he plans to close discussions and not be prepared to justify his close, he best avoid closing AfDs until he understands what to close and what not to.
Clearly, there was no consensus for keeping the article. This AfD was definitely ineligible for a non-admin closure—it was not uncontroversial, as opinions were divided. Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions states, "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." Goodvac (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist, I was involved in the discussion and I think the article is a weak keep, but I do not think there was consensus for that when the discussion was closed. --Nuujinn (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. With no discussion about the new sources bar one comment and delete !votes still in the majority, this wasn't a justifiable NAC. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
relist clearly, outside the boundaries of non admin closure. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am the non-admin who closed it, I just thought that having the extra references would help justify the article and would produce a consensus as Keep. However, if you feel so, I would be all up for relisting and promise to keep out of it. Rcsprinter (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Goodvac and Libstar are entirely wrong, of course. Any experienced user in good standing may close a discussion, provided they have not participated in it or otherwise compromised their neutrality. And even if an administrator had made that close, we would still be overturning it here. The problem is not that it was a non-admin close, but that it was a bad close.—S Marshall T/C 15:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is contrary to WP:NAC. A non-admin shouldn't be within a mile of of closing a deletion discussion unless the outcome to keep or merge is abundantly clear. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find your faith and trust in our admin corps rather touching. :-)—S Marshall T/C 19:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is both the non-admin close, which violated the guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions, and the close itself. Goodvac (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if an administrator had made that close, we would still be overturning it here. The status of the closer is not relevant.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - Goodvac and Libstar are spot-on, this close completely flies in the face of WP:NAC. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAC is an essay, one that I rather agree with and it seems you do to, Tarc. However, others may quite properly disagree. Policy-based discussion is not required to be on the presumption that essays express Wikipedia policy. Thincat (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't actually claim that it was, your response is largely without merit. We have an guidelines that covers exactly the situation that this DRV resolves around. Editors are free to disagree with that, but I'd prefer to see an actual rationale as to why. Marhsall's response above, particularly, is weak. Tarc (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to cite the essay WP:NAC because the guideline Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions already covers this situation: "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." Goodvac (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Let's not start looking up to Wikipedia administrators as if they were authority figures. They're a bunch of generally sincere, earnest, and well-meaning people who make errors of judgment as much as the next guy. There are a number of children and self-confessed recreational drug users among them. Most people who spend any time at DRV come to see that the wisdom of Solomon is not one of the tools they get when they pass an RFA, except for Tarc of course.—S Marshall T/C 23:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misrepresent my comments—I have not said that admins are "authority figures" or that they are infallible or impeccable. I am merely quoting a relevant guideline that bars non-admins from closing controversial AfDs. You can derive whatever connotations from it that you wish, but it's a guideline that ought to be followed as much as the notability guidelines that are the basis of deletion discussions. Goodvac (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a misrepresentation to say that your comments set up administrators as authority figures. You're recommending following a guideline that does exactly that, and you don't seem to be giving any reasons for following the guideline except that it's a guideline and therefore, in your view, should be followed. Anyone can write anything in a Wikipedia guideline.—S Marshall T/C 09:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to policy WP:GUIDES, guidelines are "sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" (my bolding). I follow guidelines because they represent community consensus. I have yet to see any reason an exception should be made when applying Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions to the erroneous non-admin close in question. Goodvac (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

relist with the same comments as S. Marshall and Thincat. The problem isn't the NAC per se. It's the bad close. Hobit (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in case folks missed it, Rcsprinter explained his thought process and basically endorsed relisting. Why don't we just do that and get on with editing? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 September 2011

Jacobson Flare – Overturn and relist on AfD. The closer's dismissal of the "keep" !votes as "rumors of reliable sources" is simply incorrect. Concrete sources were presented in the AfD, specifically the Flight International article and the ARIC article. Based on Yunshui's research, the first article is likely to be significant coverage, while the second article is more doubtful. Hopefully a relisted AfD will clarify the status of the coverage. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closing admin for this page gave the following rationale for discounting "keep" opinions:

This one should probably be closed no consensus per !votes, but I feel the discussion very clearly argues that the keep !voter's rationale is all bark and no bite. Rumors of reliable sources do not help the discussion. WP:ONUS puts the responsibility on those who wish to keep the article to research the sources and include them. Further, Northamerica1000's copy/paste rationale refuting the delete !voters and article nominator's rationale is useless to this discussion and a waste of database space (yes, all 2kb of it). Had he read the nominator's statement he would've seen "Search for refs turns up only the proponent website".

This rationale simply doesn't fit the facts. The "keep" opinions were not based any rumours, but on specific reliable sources: a substantial article in Flight International about this precise topic, (abstract, and, during the discussion, the full text was available here) and an academic paper (abstract) that compares this aeroplane landing method with standard methods, clearly being significant coverage of the subject. Both of these sources were in the article, so the closer's invocation of WP:ONUS is irrelevant. I see no reason why the opinion of those advocating keeping this article should have been assigned any less weight than the "delete" opinions, as they were firmly based on the general notability guideline, so overturn, either to "keep" or "no consensus".

I would request that an admin restore the article for the purposes of this discussion, so that participants in this discussion can evaluate the closer's statement that these sources had not been cited. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep Here is the Google cache of the clearly notable coverage. [7] And linking to a guideline that says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" is meaningless, since that deals with adding things to the article itself. It has nothing to do with AFDs at all. Dream Focus 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own close I made the following comments on my talk page concerning this:

assertions were made that reliable sources did exist in articles. An attempt was made to find the sources and none could be produced. The one source that was found, in Flight International, emboldened the deletion opinion that Jacobson himself says that the technique is not noteworthy. The discussion was enough to change one keep !voter's mind (Yunshui). As I said in the closing, assertions were made by the keep !voters failed to produce any and add them to the article (more bark than bite). Keep rationales were directly disputed. Existing sources are passing mentions (trivial). AFD is not a !vote and even though this is 4-3, there is strong a strong case made by the delete !voters and a very weak case by yourself and the other keep !voters. I would be willing to userfy this article if you think you can find the sources.

your source won't open and regardless, it doesn't address User:Ahunt's concern that the two added refs (external links) were "are just passing mentions". I can't verify it myself but if I were to WP:AGF on Ahunt's part than the two added sources are trivial and not WP:RS and not passing WP:GNG

Ya'all can take it from here.--v/r - T P 20:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your assertion that reliable sources were not added to the article is just plain wrong. Please restore the article so that others can check whether it is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep This decision on TP's part was not made any easier by Northamerica1000's blanket-bombing cut-and-paste approach to Keep arguments, but I think it was the wrong call. The two sources cited are both significant mentions, in reliable, independent sources, and as such fulfill the basic requirement of WP:GNG. Rationale for deletion should therefore be based around other criteria than notability (WP:NOT, for example), but no such arguments were made. Yunshui (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, your strike of your keep !vote was more influential to the delete result than anything NA1K said. I took your strike to mean that you were convinced that keeping the article was not a supportable case and gave me reason to believe weight should be given to the delete rationale.--v/r - T P 21:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your reasoning. My strike of my original Keep vote was intended to indicate that I felt unsure on the matter either way, and at the time I didn't think I could !vote either Keep or Delete with conviction. As you can tell from my comments here, I've since decided to get of the fence. Sorry for being contrary, I realise it hasn't helped matters. Yunshui (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - it's not a head count. our article has gone from the google cashe and there is little in the results to assert anything reliable. I agree that "Rumors of reliable sources do not help the discussion" Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How are two specific, identified, sources "rumors"? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the links for the cache are broken - try this instead. I've some sympathy for the idea this needn't be a standalone article, but that's an editorial decision not requiring deletion --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The link to Flight International's article, which once contained the full text, seems to have gone dead; I've tried using the same URL that I cited in the article to no avail. Whether that affects the discussion or not I don't know; if TP is willing to AGF on Ahunt's part perhaps he might do the same for me and accept that, when I located it a few days ago, there was an article there which discussed Jacobson Flare in detail. Strangely, the issue containing the article (18-24 Feb 1998) is missing from the Flight International archive; it goes straight from the end of 11-17 Feb to 25 Feb-3 March, so I've no idea how we can view it again. Yunshui (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got it; try this cache. Extensive article that's not only entirely about Jacobson Flare, but also discusses the mechanics of the procedure as well. Thank Christ for that; I can finally go to bed. Yunshui (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've temporarily restored the article for DRV.--v/r - T P 21:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was quite overwhelmed with all these caches! Thincat (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - As the article stood no references were provided, there were some external links hinting to where they might be but on visiting them there was a title of an unreadable paper and a nod that it might have been mentioned in Flight, it's not other editors job to run around, decipher the references and turn them into inline citations (there were none as I remember). Now we have found the Flight article it is mostly regurgitating paragraphs from Mr Jacobson's own website (WP:SPS) in quotation marks with the disclaimer 'Jacobson asserts'. On a practical level, as a pilot and instructor in the art of landing I just don't see what the technique is and it's not surprising that the article could not explain it in encyclopaedic terms either. I have been lectured about adding weight to fringe theories in various articles over the years (reliably sourced I might add) and I believe this is a fringe theory that should not have the weight of its own article per that guideline. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At risk of adding to the confusion, this and this are the two references mentioned in this DRV in cached forms that work for me (they are extremely slow to load). We can agree with a close of delete if there was inadequate notability demonstrated at the time of the close but if new evidence has since been produced we can specifically recommend allowing recreation. Thincat (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - The two refs that were added to the article were just passing mentions and didn't establish notability. Before it disappeared I did read the Flight International article carefully and it says that Jacobson "stresses that he is not promoting any radical departure from current practice" and "Users affirm that it is in no way a radical departure from current practice - it defines what they are already doing, making it more precise." As I said in the AFD discussion I think this Flight International article provides enough detail to clearly state that the "Jacobson Flare" is just a minor refinement of normal airplane landing techniques and confirms that it should not have its own article, but as indicated above should be at most a sentence or two in the Landing article. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to restate opinions from the deletion discussion, but, as you have chosen to do so, I must point out that both of those sources have the Jacobson flare as their main topic, so can't be classed as "passing mentions". The point of this discussion is the validity or otherwise of the reasons given by the closer for discounting the "keep" opinions. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore - or, at the very least Restore history and redirect to Landing. If a Flight/Flight International link once existed, clearly it still exists in hard copy, I'd assume? And last I checked online sources weren't (and should never be, IMHO) strictly required. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the Flight International article still clings to life here. Thincat (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep Sufficient sources. Either the closer made an error in not realizing that, or he discounted some of the arguments through not approving of the arguer's style of or manner or working here. Either way, it's the closer's error. Once something comes here, we consider all factors. A closer makes an error if they keep an article that ought to be deleted, or delete one that ought to be kept, for whatever reason. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- One side claims "I'm sure there are sources out there somewhere". The other side says "prove it" while also pointing out that the sources we do have don't even give enough meaningful information for the subject to be properly described. Policy favours the latter. Correct close. Reyk _YO! 04:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The main argument against recreation seems to be that the two sources are insufficient and were not in the article at the time of deletion. This strikes me as erronous. Firstly, the two sources were in the article when it was deleted - I should know, I put them there! Admittedly one has since gone offline, but it could be easily replaced with the cached version linked to above. As to the accusataion of insufficiency, I believe these two sources provide all that is required under WP:GNG. To whit, they are:

~~:*Multiple There are two seperate sources, ie. multiple.~~

Independent The Flight International article has quotes from Jacobson ~~(so is arguably a secondary rather than tertiary source, but that's still acceptable)~~ but is not written by him; the ARIC abstract describes an independent comparison.
Reliable Flight International is the world's oldest aerospace publication and is widely read and highly regarded in the field; the ARIC is the main aerospace research institute in Korea.
Significant This seems to be the stumbling block, but I don't see how anyone could argue that this doesn't constitute significant coverage. The Flight International article is entirely concerned with Jacobson Flare, the ARIC project was looking at comparisons between Jacobson Flare and other landing techniques. It may not be "a radical departure from current practice", but who's to say what a "radical" departure might be in the minds of the writers - it's a subjective term.

Based on the above, I think arguing against notability is a losing battle - the requirements are met - minimally, but sufficiently. Yunshui (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the needs two and that's it comes from. The GNG just says "reliable sources" a plural, but even if it did explicitly state multiple, that's still not the same as it saying "two". The general view I've seen is that we generally concern ourselves with the overall "quality" of the sources, so two high quality sources may indeed be good enough, weaker sources we'd probably want more. Regarding the "Independant" you state that it's arguably secondary so still acceptable, in fact GNG specified that secondary are the the requirement (not tertiary). In this case I suspect it becomes a question of how much is of his input (direct quotes etc) and how much is evaluating the claims to determine where it sits between primary and secondary. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that an article is completely sourced with only two citations, merely that, per WP:GNG, "Multiple sources are generally expected". Two is the bare minimum required to meet the criteria of "multiple" - more would obviously be an asset. You have me bang to rights on the tertiary sources thing, not sure what I was thinking there. Yunshui (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the GNG meant two or more, it would say two or more. We don't generally work with really hard a fast rules, the requirement clearly needs some interpretation as to the overall quality coverage reached. I'm not saying this does or doesn't meet that, but reducing the requirement to a hard and fast two I don't believe is the way it's commonly applied. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Personally I take the GNG to imply that more than one significant source is required, and two significant sources is the bare minimum that fulfills that. I'm happy to continue this discussion, but since it threatens to derail this overall thread, let's carry on on my talkpage if you want to discuss it further. Yunshui (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close - the keep !votes were asked to show sources with significant coverage, none were forthcoming, saying that they exist does not cut it. Mt king ^(edits) 12:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the sources linked to above do not constitute significant coverage. We are not "saying they exist"; the sources have been provided and linked to, both in the article, during the course of this discussion and during the previous one. Yunshui (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC) who never thought he would be arguing quite so strenuously to keep an article on a subject that, frankly, he couldn't give a toss about[reply]

So far only a single source works (WP:V) and no one has found the actual source from the abstract either.--v/r - T P 17:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're right, and they aren't going to. After a bit more digging, I discovered that the article of which we have the abstract - The Effect of Synthetic Vision Enhancements on Landing Flare, posted at ARIC - was actually a graduate presentation thesis. As such, the text was never published. I suppose we could contact the author and ask for the full text - I have his email address - but if it's not been published, it's notWP:RS, so the point is moot. Now that we have only the one source (and after spending so much time on research, I'm pretty sure it's the only unaffiliated source) in the form of Flight International, I'm moved to perform yet another of my frequent about-faces on this debate... so: Endorse, with apologies again to TP. Yunshui (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. Many of the delete/endorse !votes state that reliable sources haven't been provided, but this is flatly refuted by reading either the article or the discussion. Given that the close seems to have been based mostly on the same premise, I don't think it can be justified in the face of the sources provided. With reasonable arguments on both sides and roughly equal !vote counts, no consensus looks more convincing. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Close is well within admin discretion. Tarc (talk) 17:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I probably would have leaned towards keeping or merging the article, but I think that the closer's rationale was at least a somewhat reasonable evaluation of the discussion's consensus. A good way forward might be to draw up a draft of the article in user-space with inline citations once the full text of the articles is tracked down. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia probably ought to have an article called flare (aviation). (We don't. I know it's a bluelink, but it's currently a redirect.) If we had an article in that space, Jacobson Flare could and probably should be included as a sentence within it. It doesn't belong as a separate article.—S Marshall T/C 19:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - there seems to be some excellent sources out there for this interesting issue - how to time the flare of a big plane when you can't see the ground. See The Landing Flare, for example. Warden (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The closer stated clearly that there was no consensus in the discussion. He picked a winner regardless because of his understanding of the confused discussion about the sources. But towards the end of that discussion, the nominator stated "Adding that link was very helpful. I have read the article carefully and as the article itself says ... I think this Flight International article provides enough detail to clearly state that the "Jacobson Flare" is just a refinement of normal airplane landing techniques and confirms that it should not have its own article, but as indicated above should be a sentence or two in the Landing article.". This demonstrated that a detailed source did exist - it was not just a rumour. The nominator's position was then no longer deletion but was, in effect, merger - that the information should be included in another article. With the nominator wavering and confirming the existence of a detailed source, the guidance of WP:DGFA should have been followed: "When in doubt, don't delete.". Warden (talk) 17:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In re: your first sentence, I said "no consensus per !votes, but I feel the discussion very clearly...". If I were to count votes, there was no consensus. However, you said "there was no consensus in the discussion" and I felt there was consensus toward delete in the discussion.--v/r - T P 05:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I would've closed the same way. There might well be some decent sources out there, but none of them were pointed out in the AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Keep !voters arguments were factual and policy based. A clear supervote from the closer. Thparkth (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revert closing and reclose WP:ONUS has to do with content policy rather than notability guidelines, see WP:N#NNC, this is basic knowledge. Further, WP:N says, more than once, that wp:notability does not require that the sources be "included" in the article. Merge was mentioned as well as alluded to during the AfD and seems to be a likely candidate for the outcome of the AfD, yet the explanation of why merge was not the outcome is missing from the closing statement. The framing of the closing statement also implied that there was a special class of editors at the AfD, those who didn't wish to keep the article, and that these editors did not have the burden of doing research and providing evidence to support their viewpoint. Any one of these points is cause for concern in the closing, and the sum of these errors is sufficiently egregious that it seems proper to redo the closing. Unscintillating (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dr._Jayaprakash_Narayan.jpg – Undeleted after discussion with deleting admin. – lifebaka++ 14:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_September_17#File:Dr._Jayaprakash_Narayan.jpg In spite of me giving an explanation in the above link that the image is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, the file has been deleted. Please un-do the deletion. Townblight (talk) 04:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, before coming here it's courteous to discuss with the deleting admin. I see that you posted on Fastily's talk page, but you really should have waited longer than 8 minutes for a response; perhaps Fastily has not been online since you posted there. Regardless, as we're not a bureaucracy here, I'll go ahead and weigh in.
Overturn, the source of the image clearly lists it as being available under CC-BY 3.0. Please note that the image's licensing appears in the sidebar on the right side of the screen. The Google copyright at the bottom of the page is for the website, not the images on it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 05:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or close or something. The deleting admin has undeleted the file after being asked to read the FFD discussion[8]. So, this DRV was unnecessary. However, and I consider this to be to more substantial point, the original analysis of the deletion discussion was woefully unsatisfactory. Thincat (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 September 2011

25 September 2011

Jarrett Lee – Speedily restored after being asked to look at this by a participant. The original deletion was correctly closed, but it's quite clear from the press coverage alone that the subject is now notable enough for an article. – Sandstein 14:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Was deleted to years ago when Lee was a backup, for not meeting WP:ATHLETE. Now he's the starting QB of the No. 1 team in the country. That easily meets notability criteria. bender235 (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose undeletion per this guy beating my Oregon Ducks. No? Well fine, endorse speedy undeletion then.--v/r - T P 13:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
restore WP:GNG is trivially met at this point [9]. How has this article not be recreated already? Hobit (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nguyễn Xuân Minh (wikipedian) – Overturn and list on AfD – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This is an article that have references and formatted correctly as all the other articles, got deleted by an admin who refused to further discussion and didn't give me more reasons than just not notable enough. I have provided reasons in article talk page but it got deleted by another admin luckily i have saved it in my computer. For more reasons, you can read here, this where i went to before i know about this page.Trongphu (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Please give me more reasons why this person does not meet the important or significant to have an article on encyclopedia. He is a co-founder of the Vietnamese Wikipedia, which obviously proven by my sources. He was also mentioned by some Vietnamese news. I have included all the "references" of any information in the article. You guys have no idea how importance Wikipedia to Vietnamese people. It is almost like the only source that people can go look for stuffs unlike America as an example there are tons of other sources, websites that people can go on and look for things so Wikipedia doesn't seem like that big of the deal but in Vietnam Wikipedia is the "only" one. it ranked 20 in a nation, 20 may not seem that big but consider it's not an entertainment site it's a big deal. Vietnam is a poor country so therefore people don't really care much about education since they have more things to worry about like food, how to survive but i can tell that Wikipedia did something that most other "education project" can't do, it is a breakthrough. It made to top 20 most visited site in Vietnam is something that no other education related site can ever get. The founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia therefore must be notable enough. I'm strongly suggest whoever deleted this should undone the action. Try to prove to me why this person isn't notable enough??? And according to me, this person is "a lot" more notable than "a lot" of amateur players in variety of sports, writers and many more... Which already have articles in here. If this person should really deserves a speedy deletion then so do thousands thousands of articles should deserves the same.Trongphu (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

My last point is if this article should be delete so does Jimmy Wales article since Jimmy and this person are both notable for founding Wikipedia. Do you guys really think the founder of English Wikipedia is way more significant than founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia? I'm sure that in Vietnam this person play a more significant role than Jimmy Wales(i agreed the founder of English Wikipedia is more important but the founder of Vietnamese Wikipedia should be somewhat notable for an article here) And don't forget to include the factor that Wikipedia means a lot to Vietnamese people than English speakers people.Trongphu (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussion between me and that admin just started, you can see if interested.Trongphu (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For those people who think that i'm Nguyễn Xuân Minh then i can tell you that you are so wrong. You think he (Minh) is such of a person, who really thirsty for fame, and trying to disguise as someone else to defend for the article about himself and afraid that if he defends it himself he will get a bad reputation? If you think like that then you probably understand things as it is flip up side down. I already said it but i have to say it again. I'm not him, i'm not even his friend or something. I just know him as an admin, founder, one of the head of our system. We were just co-workers as i would call it, we and many others are trying build and developed the great encyclopedia in Vietnamese version. This is him and this is me as in Vietnamese Wikipedia, through many years of working, i'm sure i can prove with anyone that he and i are not the same person. (the whole Vietnamese community is a proof, i think i made my point) Anyway some may wonder why am i trying so hard to fight for this? I have no problem with article deletion that deserve one but this one is obvious not i have a right to strongly believe in my belief. I think you guys would react the same way if Jimmy Wales article got a speedy deletion. I respect him (Minh) through his characteristic, work... I just want to give people what they deserve, that's why i'm fighting hard and will continue to fight hard to the end.Trongphu (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion – There is no way this article would have possibly be considered relevant here. Just exclaiming he's notable tells us nothing. –MuZemike 02:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the everything in detail why he is notable enough? Read the whole thing before you vote please. It's not like i made things up and say oh yea he is notable.Trongphu (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion; the requester of this DRV would be advised to spend time actually providing references rather than exclaiming "he's just like Jimbo!" over and over again. Ironholds (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did i say directly he is like Jimbo? Don't make up words that i didn't say please. As what i said up there i do admit Jimmy Wales is more significant in Wikipedia in general but in Vietnamese Wikipedia only, this person plays a more significant role. I did have references and my exclaiming that he is notable is not base on vain. Please consider careful before you vote.Trongphu (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact i found 2 more information that mention him are the same but from different sources [10] [11]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trongphu (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion: FWIW, this article was also promptly deleted in the Vietnamese Wikipedia. DHN (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The deletions of vi:Nguyễn Xuân Minh to which DHN refers can be viewed here. The article was deleted via an AfD discussion at the Vietnamese Wikipedia at vi:Wikipedia:Biểu quyết xoá bài/2011/08#Nguyễn Xuân Minh.Cunard (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As admins voting above should already know this article included two sources: [12], [13]. I am a bit dubious about them as I can't read the language, but they might be reliable sources, in which case he would meet the wp:GNG. Are the admins voting endorse above doing so because they dispute the reliability of the sources given or because we tend to avoid articles about wikipedians when possible? Yoenit (talk) 06:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was there at the debate when they one admin decide to delete the version in Vietnamese language. His reason is simply he is not notable enough just like the admin above. The voting was taken place, more people vote for the deletion but don't misjudge the result by this. I think for many of the people that vote delete, they were just simply jealous of him because he has an article on Wikipedia and they don't. They want to be famous too but they can't so they just try to let no one get the place. And the admin, that was a main subject for the article, was too modest to vote keep his own article about him. The admin that want to delete the article end the voting very early compare to most of other voting. So some people didn't have chance to express their opinion. The voting only reflect the opinion of the few overall compare to the entire community. The voting was taken place when there aren't that many active members around. I was planning to bring it up in the community again when they are "enough" amount of members around and take a fair vote. I can tell you guys that it wasn't a fair voting at all base on every factors. After all, the reason it got deleted in other version doesn't change the fact that he is notable. Just forget the fact that this article got deleted in another version other than English and discuss about whether or not he is notable. For those people who support delete, give me more reasons than just like he is a Wikipedia so therefore he is not notable.Trongphu (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my point of view, if the voting took place within the attention of the entire Vietnamese Wikipedia community then "keep" would be the majority. Unfortunately, it took place when many of the jealous people around. As far as i know justice will be found eventually. You can delete it for now but if it should really be keep then eventually it will be.Trongphu (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first reference is hard to judge. VietBao appears to be an online newspaper. The content is fairly long and entirely about Minh, though, and certainly reads as though it's relatively reliable (via machine translation). The second reference is from VnExpress, which is a newspaper, and unless anyone knows otherwise I presume it's reliable. It's also entirely about Minh (again, read via machine translation). There's a good bit of fluff in both of them, but not to the point that they're unusable. Personally, I'd go so far as to say that these two make a good case, by themselves, of Minh meeting the WP:GNG. Cheers. lifebaka++ 08:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The two sources listed were reprints of articles from Tuổi Trẻ, Vietnam's largest daily, but the articles primarily paraphrase my user page (as it was) at the Vietnamese Wikipedia. There have been some interviews with me besides, but they were focused on Wikipedia, not me. Otherwise, I guess I shouldn't speak for or against my notability due to conflict of interest. :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would tend to complicate things, but still wouldn't make the page a good A7 candidate. On a separate note, Minh, we'd love to hear your opinions on the article, whether or not it belongs here, etc. We might take them with a grain of salt, due to your conflict of interest, but we try to respect the subject's wishes when it comes to WP:BLPs. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a good idea for him to involve in this discussion at all. First it would give people reasons to say he is thirsty for fame. Plus he is too modest for it anyway, he doesn't really care if there is article about him or not but i do care though. Either way, this is a hard situation for him. If i was him, i would just wait and see and not to involve in. As the matter of fact, i don't think it's that big of the deal, we can work this out without the article's main subject.Trongphu (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

overturn and list an article which has a reasonable claim to meeting the GNG isn't a ~~speedy~~ A7 case. And an article solely about the subject is certainly an assertion that someone finds him notable/important. Hobit (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and send to AFD. Founding the Vietnamese wikipedia looks to be enough of a claim of significance to survive A7, and the contested AFD there indicates this is not a straightforward, uncontroversial matter. This is more of a "not notable enough" than a "not significant enough" case, and such a case should be resolved by AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and preferably list at AfD. Co-founding a popular website in Vietnam does seem to be an indication of the significance of the subject. Hopefully at AfD we can get some more detailed examination of the sources, but this page probably deserves to be at least redirected to Vietnamese Wikipedia. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AFD A7 doesn't apply here because there was a clear claim of importance made in the deleted article. Whethere such a claim of importance amounts to being actually notable is a matter for discussion, which is what AFD is for. --Jayron32 20:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and AfD list. The article did have a claim to importance although I was not sure that I found it credible. The credibility concern was very much a matter of my opinion, depending on the reliability of the sources. AfD, not speedy, is appropriate in such cases. I see responsible opinions here that the article's deletion should be discussed and so the speedy should be overturned, regardless of my (or any deleting admin's) personal view of the article. Thincat (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn A7, because A7 did not apply. No objection to listing at AfD. I'm starting to get a bit concerned at the number of speedies we're seeing at DRV that are very obviously bad. Administrators are reminded that outside very narrow speedy deletion criteria, and outside the possibility of an expired prod, it is the community that makes deletion decisions. Individual administrators are not given that authority.—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that bad an A7, and I don't think it has much chance at AfD, but seeing as someone asks, undelete and list at AfD as a contested speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Bad application of CSD A7, all that is required for an article to not be eligible under A7 is that the article make a claim of importance, founding a wikipedia is enough for that. The proper place to discuss whether that is enough to justify an article is at the AfD discussion that will occur if this is undeleted. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted- yes, it was probably a poor candidate for CSD A7. But the general sentiment seems to be that the article would not survive an AfD. Reyk _YO! 04:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether article will survive in AfD or not has noting to do with this. Stop making excuse outside of the topic to keep delete. I'm fine if it is deleted by majority of the community but not speedy deletion. But well i doubt it will be delete in AfD since the notability is pretty much undeniable, it's just some people just too stubborn to admit that they have made a mistake.Trongphu (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn in order for more people to judge the claimed notability and sources. Lothar Klaic (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at AfD so more people can waste their time deleting an article that was a pretty obvious A7 but didn't quite fit into the ludicrously narrow definitions. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it's going to be delete? Don't assume things that you don't know for sure. You are not a prophecy, are you?Trongphu (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a sysop is going to close this??????? The result is pretty obvious now, stop making me waiting. Let start the AfD debate now!Trongphu (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jesus phone – Undeleted and listed at RfD by deleting admin. – lifebaka++ 20:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RfD was created at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 27#Jesus phone. Cunard (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Unilateral deletion of redirect already considered and kept at RfD in 2009. Deleted without any subsequent discussion by AlistairMcMillan who appears to believe his personal opinions over-rule those of the community. Crispmuncher (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

overturn not a speedy case (deletion of material retained at XfD). I personally think it's a strange and even offensive term, but looking on-line I'm seeing MSNBC [14], Gizmodo [15] and lots of others using the term. Redirects are cheap and I see no reason to delete this, even in process. Hobit (talk) 13:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. I'm really not very enthusiastic about having this redirect. However, it's true that this is material that was kept at RFD and that there is no speedy deletion criterion that applied. DRV's role in these things is to see that our deletion processes are correctly followed. Alistair MacMillan is reminded that administrators are not given discretion to delete material purely on the basis of their own opinion. There must be a consensus for deletion, a valid speedy criterion, or an expired prod.—S Marshall T/C 14:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leave deleted (I'm not sure of the correct phrase) There is no article that mentions the phrase "jesus phone" except when pointing to "articles" posted by TheRegister. For those that don't know TheRegister is a tabloid tech news site. They enjoy using excessive puns and "funny" made up names for things. The phrase has been picked up by a tiny handful of other sites that dislike Apple. The phrase is not in widespread use. I don't see why we should have redirects for any of TheRegister's juvenile made up names. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note the original RFD said delete, the page was deleted but it was then recreated two days later and no-one noticed for two years. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the logs of the page don't quite suggest that, however it's not that important since the most recent debate was closed as a keep outcome. As for the rest of your comment, this isn't RFD but about the process and since none of what you've said there meets any speedy deletion criteria it seems pretty much that this should be restored, it can always be debated at RFD again. FWIW I'm not sure I can see the more recent RfD as a "keep" - perhaps no-consensus, and personally I can't imagine this to be a useful redirect (anyone looking for the term likely knows it means iPhone anyway), though I'm uncomfortable with your characterisation of "sites which dislike apple" which doesn't send a good message about your objectivity in this, even if you are 100% correct you do understand what NPOV is about? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, neither of the sources I provided above point to the Register. They do point to "bloggers". I don't see how it matters where the term originated. Hobit (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn-I'm sympathetic to the reasons AlistairMcMillan has given for this deletion, but that's beside the point. This redirect was kept in an RfD discussion. For an admin to delete it simply because he doesn't like it is, quite frankly, outrageous. Passing an RfA does not grant authority to unilaterally delete any page an admin dislikes.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget, a redirect for a phrase that doesn't appear in any articles and isn't linked to by any articles. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. You're welcome to start a new RfD if you like, but you simply do not have the authority to unilaterally delete a page in this manner.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of making things obvious for non-admins commenting here, what follows is a full history of the (currently deleted) redirect.

Jesus phone was created as a redirect to iPhone on 29 June 2007.
About 9 minutes later, it was nominated for RfD, where it was deleted the same day.
The redirect was recreated on 14 July 2007.
It was deleted again, via G4 (though the deletion log references the RfD again) on 11 November 2007.
Two days later, on 13 November 2007, it was recreated.
After existing for nearly a year, it was deleted a third time on 9 July 2008.
It was recreated a fourth time on 9 October 2008, and went entirely unnoticed for the rest of the year.
It was nominated for RfD a second time on 29 January 2009, where it was kept.
It was vandalized a half dozen or so times during 2009, being made to point to other locations, all of which were fixed.
It was then deleted on 25 September 2011 by AlistairMcMillan, as noted above.

Anyways, it seems patently obvious to me that a redirect which was kept the last time it went through RfD should not be summarily deleted simply because it is stupid, nor is being stupid a valid reason to delete a long-standing redirect. This does not meet either the letter or the spirit of any of the speedy criteria, nor do I see any sort of case that the redirect was so immediately harmful that the rules shouldn't apply. Overturn the most recent deletion. Alistair, if you want this deleted, please take it to RfD. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 22:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting that - I was having difficulty myself. It is worth noting that the first RfD did not result in a delete decision: instead it was speedied with no rationale two minutes after the nomination. The normal consensus-building process had not even begun at RfD when it was closed to match five hours later. The second RfD was allowed to run its course and that gives the current consensus of keep. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn-since it survived a legit deletion discussion, there's no reason it should have been eligible for speedy. Send it to RFD if it bothers you that much, but without an overriding reason (and being potentially offensive isn't a reason), it should not be deleted without a new discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and preferably send to RfD. Certainly an odd redirect, but it does not appear to me that any Speedy Deletion criteria really applied here. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The deleting admin's rationale really doesn't conform to speedy deletion policy, and an article which survived its most recent deletion discussion shouldn't be speedied except in cases such as unsalvageable BLP or copyright violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, survived Rfd. Relist if you aren't happy (although I don't see why you'd care, its a redirect for crying out loud, what if someone searches for that phrase???), but don't try speedying. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 does not apply at all to things kept in XfD, and even the current proposals to change that do not envision G4 applying to material that was kept in its last XfD foray. Any user should be free to nominate it for XfD again, but "The Register is a tabloid site" does not trump an XfD discussion, even if it might be a perfectly valid thing to argue in the next one. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for wasting everyone's time with this. The redirect is restored and nominated. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 September 2011

23 September 2011

22 September 2011

Red link – Page moved. I edited the first definition to make this a little more obvious, and someone with a little more code-fu than I (S Marshall?) probably ought to submit a bug request. – NW (Talk) 19:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Unprotect, don't restore; move Red link (disambiguation) there; see further comments here.

The protecting admin decided not to routinely grant my unprotection requiest without broader discussion, because the page was deleted many times for various CSD/db reasons and discussed at WP:DRV, so I am posting the request here, per WP:SALT. Lothar Klaic (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal. Seems sensible.. and I don't think the disambig page idea has been tried before with this page. -- œ ^™ 05:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can't see it myself, it looks to me to be rather contrived. At least two of the destinations seem significantly different that I can't imagine you'd go to "red link" looking for them. The final variant the article mentions the term "red link" once, has no discussion on the term etc. and in context easily could have been something like "links from red nodes", again can't imagine anyone going to "red link" looking for it as it doesn't appear to be a ~~real~~ separate concept. As such we are left back with wikilink... --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are people for which a company and a breed of chicken are ~~real~~ separate concepts and who cannot care less about wikilinks. Lothar Klaic (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well picking on the comment about the final link and trying to apply it to the other seems a bit silly to me. The chickens - Red Sex Link - there seems no suggestion that anyone calls them Red link (that article actually says they are also called Red Stars), so it's not a disambiguation for that. The communications company is perhaps a better suggestion (particularly given the web address of the company in question). However that's still that company and wikilinks, we wouldn't put up a disambiguation page for two. Perhaps a better answer to this is have "Red Link" redirect to the communications company, and minor disambig from there may then be appropriate.--82.19.4.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  Well not understanding what you actually wrote is even sillier: your "at least two" and "left back with wikilink" parts made me to defend the whole non-wikilink part. Anyway, I did see them called "red link" as a professional abbreviated parlance (hence it is a valid disambig entry), as well as an adjective "red-linked". By the way, the fact that "red link" 'could have been something like "links from red nodes"' is precisely the purpose of disambiguation. Lothar Klaic (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  What I said is "The final variant..." i.e. that part of the comment applied to the final variant. Back to just wikilink was that none of them seemed particular good disambiguation but that one (I've changed my mind somewhat on the communications company). All I can see on the chickens is that the article we have makes no suggestion that they get called red link and it does rather specifically mention an alternate name. Regarding your final comment, that is nothing to do with the point in disambiguation. The whole point is that the term used there as "red link" is merely the way it happened to be written, it isn't a specific concept that someone is going to come and look for. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Yor opinions are noted and disagreed: you cannot speak for each and every "someone <who> is going <or not going> to come and look for". A red link in the red-black tree is of same relative importance of subjects as a Chair leg vs. chair in "Leg (disambiguation)". Lothar Klaic (talk) 17:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Your opinions are also noted and disagreed by common practice and WP:DISAMBIGUATION. We don't find random words in wikipedia articles to form disambiguations, we don't just pick every article which contains the word leg in it and it to your other mentioned disambiguation page, because it wouldn't help anyone find what they are looking for. Likewise red link in the context of that article, this is not me speaking for everyone (a school yard argument at it's finest) it's me looking to the available evidence and making an evaluation of it, in this case there is no evidence that "red link" is a common term to mean links from the red nodes in a red-black tree. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  re: "There is no evidence". Once again, please be careful what you write. Probably you wanted to write "I failed to find an evidence". Well, here are 4,000 cases of of evidence. Enjoy a trip to red-blackwood forests :-). Yes, for an average non-scientific American a "red link" is probably a kind of bratwurst. But for those 0.0000....2% of Earth population who talk RB-trees a "red link" does mean something else as well, especially if they were perusing a certain chapter from the Introduction to Algorithms yesterday. Also, it seems we have differing experience of and opinions about a "common practice". Lothar Klaic (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across this before and I've always been puzzled by it. I've never understood why "red link" has to be a redlink. I mean, it's mildly pleasing that when you type red link it comes up red, but that's easily achieved with wikimarkup if you want to do it. But a new editor wanting to understand what a red link on Wikipedia is, will naturally type "red link" in the search box. There are times when it's appropriate to cross namespaces, and this is one of them. Unsalt.—S Marshall T/C 14:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW if they did just that and typed it into the search box, the second result I get is Red Link (Wikipedia) - though that seems to have been created post the last DRV on this. Really this is getting messy, if that's ok, then it should probably be at Red link, though previous consensus seems to be against it so too probably shouldn't exist. I don't really see the argument that this is an exceptional case for a cross name space redirect, put any wikipedia terminology in the same context and you'd come to the same argument. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking on this a little further, maybe this is something the usability project could contemplate. It would seem useful/sensible to have project space and help space pages which are an exact match for search criteria presented for standard searches in a prominent position - perhaps a separate section, but certainly easily accessible from a basic search. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also should consider the large amount of project space pages that use red link as an instructional example. We would have to go through many of these and reformat using wikimarkup, as mentioned above. -- œ ^™ 15:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you are mistaken: vast majority of them are AfD pages, it which (like this one) turning red links blue makes perfect sense. The same holds for many remaining ones; e.g., it is nod good for a red link be red inWikipedia:Vandalism: this is a policy page hence no fancy please. Lothar Klaic (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's on AfD pages or whereever, turning those red links blue will not make much sense when they're being used as examples of what a red link looks like, or for other instructional purposes which require the link to be red, and which is actually a less "fancy" way to do it than wrapping the text in wikimarkup. -- œ ^™ 04:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the disambig page already exists and there's nothing at the un-disambiguated title, it would seem to make sense to unsalt and move the dab page to the simpler title. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It "already exists" less than an hour now, because I was rather retarded last 2-3 months. Lothar Klaic (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted We need a red link to use as an example of a red link, and I see no reason for this to not be it. Jclemens (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor point, but ~~wasn't it brought up the last time we went over this that~~ like this one is also a red link, can be used just as easily without breaking textual flow, and is already preferred on policy pages? Hell, WP:REDLINK uses it. lifebaka++ 00:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to my above, no it wasn't brought up last time, but the rest of my point still stands. The last DRV here was closed as keep deleted on a redirect to dead link, not a disambiguation page. I see no reason, either historical or simply because it works, that we shouldn't do this. "It's always worked" isn't a terribly good reason to object to the disambig. Move Red link (disambiguation) to Red link, since we've still got options to make links red, and it's a reasonable search term. lifebaka++ 01:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow disambiguation page. I don't think the example thing is all that important and the page does seem useful. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow disambiguation page but stick to real disambiguations. I removed Red sex link chicken because I can't find any evindence that these chickens are ever referred to as "Red links". Unless you can show me otherwise it should not be on that disambiguation page. I am also rather dubious about the inclusion of red Link (The Legend of Zelda), which seems to be included purely to buff up the page size, rather than being a serious search target. Yoenit (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure whether you are aware or not that 40% of wikipedia is Pokemon and Zelda, 30% is pornstars, 20% is biographies of minor politicians and professors, and 10% is serious stuff. Also run "Red Link"+Zelda google search to check whether it is a serious search target or not. Lothar Klaic (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense, we have 140 zelda articles and some 340 Pokemon articles. I have no idea why you making up bullshit like that. Red Link or Blue link or Purple link are still just Link (The Legend of Zelda), only with a different color suit. Anybody looking for them will just look for "Link". We can test this though, just create purple Link as a redirect and see how many hits it gets over a month. Yoenit (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there any oldtimer who remembers the link to the image with a diagram which is a bit more detailed than my tabulation, but essentially says the same? ? Yoenit, please look up the page "irony" and the read this comment further. <wait><wait> < Did you look it up yet? > <wait><wait> So?... OK, whatever. My comment that insulted your intelligence was a ~~slightly~~ (OK, OK, waaaaay too much) exaggerated remark that wikipedia is not restricted to serious stuff. People who want to look up Zek, Yuri Suvarov, etc. are just as deserving as those who are fond of Crataegus fontanesiana. By the way your idea about hit counting is interesting. Please explain how can I do it. I'd really like to compare the numbers of hits, e.g., for Yuri Suvarov and Phocodontia. 02:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Keep deleted - This topic is about ripe for a WP:PERENNIAL listing. Various XfDs (RfD and other venues have handy search boxes, I'm not going to link to all the old discussion) have discussed various ideas of what to do with the famous red link, and consensus has been fairly clear that it should not exist, should not redirect, should not disambig into anything. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is invalid since the premise is false. Consensus may change. As User:OlEnglish pointed out, the option of disambig page was not discussed before. Lothar Klaic (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop whining, it is not invalid. Bringing up the same topic again and again and again in order to force a different result is considered tendentious and disruptive. Tarc (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WHOA!!! <cringe><cringe><cringe><plonk> Lothar Klaic (talk) 02:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow move Whether the existence of a disambiguation page for Red Link terms is needed or not is a separate question, but as long as we have one I don't see why it shouldn't be located at Red link. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleted. "Red link" has no real world meaning. Red link has no incoming links from mainspace, but a huge number from elsewhere. The non-mainspace incoming links were surely written with the expectation that "Red link" will forever be red. Is someone offering to re-colour all those incoming links? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will. (This doesn't mean I'll manually copy/paste the code into the >500 pages involved. It means that I'll submit the bot request. It's a trivial job for a bot.) On your other point, the argument for creating this page has nothing to do with its real world meaning. It's about helping new editors, who will naturally try to learn about red links by typing "red link" into the search box. Basically, we want to do with red link what we already do with redirect.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're talking about a cross space redirect from mainspace here. We are normally loath to allow these. Any new editor should quickly learn about project space, and to not search for editorial support in mainspace. Mainspace is for readers. Any new editor searching for "red link" will quickly discover Wikipedia:Red link. Redirect exists because it does have a general real-world meaning. It is not a cross-space redirect. It does have a hat note pointing to WP:Redirect, which we are more amendable to. Red link (disambiguation) is best left where it is because none of the entries have a reasonable claim to a mainspace at Red link. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that the amount of support and help we give to new editors is appropriate? I don't. I think we filter out at least three quarters of them because our bizarre and inaccessible Wikimarkup and syntax, our makeshift and slipshod procedures with its bewildering variety of discussion pages each with their own population and culture, and our huge morass of mutually contradictory and incomprehensible policies and guidelines written by committees and repeatedly revised ad hoc in response to special situations.
We can safely assume that most people who look up "red link" on Wikipedia are at least potential wannabee Wikipedians, and we can do more to help them than provide a blank page.—S Marshall T/C 07:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel that new users are given a lot a support, especially when they ask or when they make a visible mistake. I do not feel that making Red link go blue will increase the net support. I think that it would decrease it. I think that it is informative, when pointed to the red link, for the newcomer to be shown the logs for a deleted page. It was for me. Soon after that, I discovered what it looks like when the page had never existed (it produces quite a nice simple editing page ready to save and go live immediately). I think that learning is easier and more effective with the demonstration, and less with being taken to a disambiguation page from where you can follow a link to Wikilink#Hyperlinks_in_wikis, a section in which I only found the answer by using the browser search function, which describes a “red link” without demonstration.
re:"Without demonstration?" Since May 13 2011 it demonstrates two common appearances of undefined links. Lothar Klaic (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about markup. I don’t think I am alone in wishing for the ability to edit directly, not through an edit window, but much like how I edit in Microsoft word.
I am quite sure that I disagree that a series of links to the sentence “If an internal wikilink leads to a page that does not exist, it usually have a distinct visual appearance. For example, in Wikipedia they are commonly displayed in red color, like this, and therefore they are called red links in Wikipedia.^[3]” is better than an immediate demonstration. When you say “… look up "red link" on Wikipedia … provide a blank page”, it makes me think you have not recently clicked on a red link. Whether page has a log or has never existed, the page is not blank and is actually quite informative. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that the page wikipedia:Red link is much less useless than the "red link" one. Sometimes you need just an example, sometimes you need a pointer to a guideline, and sometimes you just type [[redlink]], just as you type [[America]]n and cannot care less. And I see the latter case is 90% of the backlinks to Red link, and fixing them all (as suggested somewhere above) is just as pointless as fixing all 1000+ backlinks to "America". Lothar Klaic (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It suddenly comes to my mind that my English is weak enough and I don't know any other succinct technical term for "an intrawiki link that leads to a page that does not exist". And don't insult me with the suggestion that they are called dead links. Yes. In sloppy parlance. Any other usage? Lothar Klaic (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

21 September 2011

Frederick Glaysher – Deletion endorsed – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I am appealing the decision of Wikipedia to delete the article on me, “Frederick Glaysher,” in April of 2008 and 21 May 2010, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 21

Current: User:Radon Detection/Frederick Glaysher

Since May 2010, I have published another poem in a Swedish journal, mediterranean, at [16] "Perseus" (August 2010) and other material under Sources and Role in Renewing the Reform Bahai Faith, etc., and The Diplomat. New Emissary. Quoted on Nobel Laureate Kenzaburō Ōe's novel The Silent Cry, as a ‘very profound and provoking novel that goes deep into modern life, East and West." May 27, 2010. [17]

Because of the dominance of Wilmette-Haifan Baha’is, the largest Baha’i denomination on Wikipedia, I believe my appeal can not and will not receive a fair hearing through the normal procedure. Because of the increasing importance of Wikipedia during the last decade, and the Haifan Baha’i determination to keep any article about me off Wikipedia, I believe they have severely damaged the recognition and growth of my career, as a poet and writer, which should be entirely separate from my religious beliefs, though they are “guaranteed” by the First Amendment.

At the time the “Frederick Glaysher” article was under debate in 2008, Wjhonson observed, "The attacks imho are religion-based as this person is a vocal critic of certain Baha'i institutions. There is no evidence that his works are vanity-press publications. The article is fairly new and deserves new eyes to expand it, instead of this pressure by a vested group or a few individuals to suppress it. Wjhonson 4 April 2008" [18]

Wjhonson had also stated,"Their only purpose is to attack Glaysher. This del entry should be voided on that basis solely...."

In addition to Wjhonson, other Wikipedia participants also had misgivings about how the discussion and deletion were conducted. Please refer to the Wikipedia database for details.

The record of my being a “vocal critic of certain Baha’i institutions” can be found on my website The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: [19]

Wjhonson created a Wiki page for me on his County Historian Wiki at [20] which has some links to published material that is not on the Wikipedia Radon Dectection/Frederick Glaysher page. The “Frederick Glaysher” article on County Historian has had over 12,882 hits on it during the last 16 months, which I believe demonstrates there’s significant interest in who I am and my career, both as a poet and literary critic and as a reformer within the Bahai religious tradition. Significant new material has also made its way onto the Internet about my work as both a poet and Bahai reformer, though I believe previously sufficient material existed has it not met with fanatical Haifan Baha’i opposition.

In order to help Wikipedia understand the ferocity and deception involved in the treatment I have received from Baha’is who dominate discussion of articles that they perceive to be related to their interests, I believe it is necessary to describe in a few paragraphs the Bahai religious conflict that is taking place behind the scenes on Wikipedia, and which led to the deletion of the “Frederick Glaysher” article.

I have been publicly attacked by Baha’is and slandered in many venues, on and off-line, and as an “apostate” by Moojan Momen in a leading British academic journal: ‘Marginality and Apostasy in the Baha'i Community’" in Religion 37 [2007] 187–209. [21] My published “Response to Takfir” (denunciation of infidels) was published in Religion 38 No 4 2008: [22] Original journal source: [23]

Since the Reform Bahai Faith has often been attacked and slandered in the past by the larger denomination of the Baha'i Faith located in Haifa, Israel and Wilmette, Illinois, as have several other Baha'i denominations, I must point out that I believe the Reform Bahai Faith has also been misrepresented and suppressed on Wikipedia, whenever brief mention was permitted, by the Haifan Baha'is. For documentary evidence of the harassment that several Bahai denominations have regularly experienced from Haifan and Wilmette Bahais, including the Reform Bahai Faith, please visit the website of the Orthodox Bahais who are currently being sued by the dominant Baha’i denomination in the US Court of Appeals, along with two other small Bahai denominations. Contempt Motion by Wilmette NSA against Orthodox Bahá'í Faith: [24]

On February 20, 2009, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals of Northern Illinois vigorously questioned the Haifan Baha'is on their harassment of other denominations, including Reform Bahai. Judge Diane S. Sykes stated that their conduct "Clearly raises some Constitutional concerns." A brief 3-minute official court recording of the proceedings may be listened to at [25] A link is provided on the following page to the original 30-minute US Court recording from which the 3-minute excerpt above is taken, should you wish to verify its authenticity: [26] In either recording, from the Court record, Judge Bauer asked, “How about Reform Baha’i? Can they use that term?" (i.e., the word Bahai)

On November 23, 2010, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Wilmette-Haifan Baha’is in favor of religious freedom and the First Amendment. The Court’s Opinion may be read directly from its website at

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Public Access to Oral Argument recordings,Opinions 08-2306 : Nat'l Spiritual v. Nat'l Spiritual 2 02/20/2009 02/20/2009 Oral Argument 3 11/23/2010 11/23/2010 Opinion (SYKES) [27]

The Reform Bahai Faith is a peaceful, open, universal interpretation of the spiritual teachings of the founder Baha'u'llah. Knowing that the Reform Bahai Faith has been misrepresented on Wikipedia, when not completely suppressed, I ask you to consider our own understanding of who we are and what we believe, if necessary. About the Reform Bahai Faith [28]

All matters Baha’i aside, my career as a poet and writer is being adversely affected, and I appeal to Wikipedia on that basis for an impartial evaluation and decision. I wish to note that my two books of poems and prose received over twenty-five reviews, several of which are still available on the Internet. Many poets on Wikipedia have had nowhere near that number of reviews, including my other citations, for instance, in an interview with the Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow.

I point out that I am an independent publisher and have received recognition as such from the Poetry Foundation for creatively seeking, advocating, and using the new means of Print On Demand and ebooks. Many of the most distinguished names in literature were self-publishers. Knowledgeable people have never confused self-publishing with vanity publishing. Relevant material may be found at

The Poetry Foundation Report by Rick Stevens: "Technology: Poetry and New Media." January 2009. "Frederick Glaysher, the founder of Earthrise Press, is a dynamic presence among the advocates of self-publishing and adopting the independent music model of direct purchase from artist to consumer." (search > Glaysher) [29]

The Mission of Earthrise Press [30]

Publishing in the Post-Gutenberg Age [31]

If Wikipedia consensus does choose to permit an article on me, I request that consideration be given to “locking” or handling it in some way that will prevent future abuse of it by continuing Baha’i fanaticism directed against me out of religious hatred, of which I’ve been a victim since as early as 1996, for the evidence of which I direct you again to

The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience [32]

Thank you for your careful reconsideration of my appeal.

Frederick Glaysher Books, poems, essays, reviews, interviews, blogs [33]

Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Documenting censorship and suppression of free speech and conscience within the Baha'i Faith since 1998: [34]

Reform Bahai Faith [35] --Radon Detection (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The proposed article is a huge puffary peice in complete violation of WP:SPAM. The excessive external links is unbearable. The prose is point of view. The "sources" largely either do not mention the subject, is authored by the subject, or is a trivial mention of the subject. I found an "about" page that appeared to be a primary source, and another "about" that was included as part of a poem. I don't think User:Radon Detection understands what Wikipedia is. His request for "protection" from future abuse is counter to Wikipedia's goals of an open encyclopedia. Protection is a direct result of, not preemptive of vandalism. I can't see any religious bias or suppression in the original AFD nor in the previous DRV. Subject simply isnt notable.--v/r - T P 22:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm not seeing any arguments that there was anything inappropriate about the closure; I further caution the subject that Wikipedia is not for personal publishing, CVs, or other self-promotion. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards – Relist on AfD. It is quite clear that in the AfD, the "keep" !votes were inferior to the "delete" !votes which were grounded in policy. However, a large amount of new evidence was introduced in this DRV, warranting further discussion of those sources. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted without true consensus (3/2 to delete), causes 300 redlinks Crisis.E X E 20:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse undeletionAgreed. The AFD should also have been relisted to produce a better consensus. This article should be restored without prejudice based on the fact that the deleting admin apparently took four delete !votes versus two as "consensus", which it is not. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nomination counts as a delete vote, so it was actually 4 v 2 in favour of deletion. Jenks24 (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse undeletion - No true consensus reached. No consensus should default to keeping the article without prejudice. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own close Really, the first keep !vote was not grounded in anything substantial, who did not even argue the central point which was a lack of notability. The second offered a grand, sweeping claim, but with not one shred of evidence to support it, and then argued that the awards could be verified by looking at the website of the body giving the awards. No evidence of any notability at all, the delete side showed this, and was by far the stronger. Courcelles 22:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I can't see how a list of what Wikipedia is not can somehow become notability criteria. WP:NOT does not say 'Wikipedia is everything not on this list'. The second keep is suitably argued against by another editor. All four deletes directly address WP:GNG by themselves and are not refuted. I can't see anyway this could end as a no consensus other than a vote count which it is clear the closing admin did not do. I hate to see 300 redlinks created by deleting this, but AWB can fix that in an hour or so.--v/r - T P 22:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse -- As a 4/2 vote (yes, we need to include the nominator), this could technically be viewed as no consensus, but the keep votes didn't really counter the rationale in the delete ones, and vaguely referred to the existence of sources without actually proving they exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion The Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards have been cited frequently by news publications and media outlets to describe a professional wrestler's accolades. Per a google news search,

Newsday described Chris Benoit as winning the Outstandig Wrestler of the Year and Wrestler of the Year awards
VH1 described Chris Jericho as "2009 Wrestler of the Year by the Wrestling Observer newsletter"[36]
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel discussed on January 2, 2004 whether or not Brock Lesnar should receive the Wrestling Observer Wrestler of the Year award for 2003.
The Montgomery Advertiser mentioned Mitsuhara Misawa as the Wrestling Observer's 1995, 1997, and 1999 Wrestler of the Year
The Toronto Star referred to Jumbo Tsuruta as The Wrestling Observer's 1991 Wrestler of the Year, also citing the magazine as "highly respected".
On November 1, 1991, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette described Ric Flair as an eight-time winner of the Wrestler of the Year award.
The Democrat and Chronicle out of Rochester also refers to Misawa, describing him as Wrestling Observer's Wrestler of the Year in 1995, 1997, and 1999.

The AFD didn't have any evidence presented because frankly I didn't know it was even nominated until after 300+ redlinks appeared all over wrestler pages. This evidence is more than enough to show that many reliable and notable sources cite the Wrestling Observer awards as a notable measure of a wrestler's accomplishments, enough that the article warrants staying on this site. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 23:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but saying that someone won an award, with no real deeper analysis, cannot count as anything even close to significant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure it does. Mentions of an award by RS are fine, though I wonder if it might not be brought back as a section of another article, if the individual notability of the awards are in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On December 30, 1988, The Chicago Sun-Times described Big Bubba Rogers, or the Big Bossman, as the Wrestling Observer's Most Improved Wrestler of 1987
The Sun (United Kingdom) described Bryan Danielson as four-time Most Outstanding Wrestler and five-time Best Technical Wrestler per the Wrestling Observer.[37]
The Montgomery Advertiser also mentioned Danielson's accolades above, as well as being owner of 2007's Match of the Year award.
UGO Networks also mentioned Danielson's Best Tech award.[38]
In the Philippine Star, they described MMA fighter Georges St. Pierre as "2008-2009 Most Outstanding Fighter by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter"[39]
Yahoo! Sports mentions Karo Parisyan vs Diego Sanchez was WON's 2006 MMA match of the year.[40]
A second article from Yahoo! Sports with another match of the year noted.[41]
Sports Illustrated also mentioned the awards. "Jackson's fight with Lindland placed seventh in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter's voting for fight of the year. Henderson is known for a more exciting style than Lindland, and Saturday's high stakes clash could be a classic confrontation."[42]

The Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards have been cited by tons of publications to describe a wrestler's accolades since the 1980s. If "well these are nothing" is all it takes to refute all the references I found, then I give up. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 00:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voters were asked by Suriel1981, "No offense, but who exactly considers these to be "the top wrestling awards given by a third party publication" and is there any evidence for it?" and I answered, which apparently fell on deaf ears to the editor that asked for the evidence in the first place below. If the Wrestling Observer's awards are not notable, then neither is Wrestling Observer Newsletter Hall of Fame, a list that was featured on the front page for Wikipedia. Admin Jclemens earlier agreed that these references should be accepted and not outright ignored, but if mob rule wants it deleted, there's nothing further I can possibly do to save this article. The WON Hall of Fame apparently did enough to pass WP:LISTN, and the mass variety of publications and media outlets that have over the years since as far back as 1988 specifically referred to WON's awards to describe a wrestler's career accomplishments is more than enough for me to satisfy LISTN. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 17:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards (2nd nomination) - WP:GNG not met. Almost all citations self-referential, the remainder were trivial mentions. Absolutely no evidence that the awards themselves have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This deletion review attempts to portray the opinions of a small group of like-minded editors as a "consensus" with the intention of overriding Wikipedia policies.
I am a longtime wrestling fan, I am not a deletionist and I am sufficiently impartial to see how notability policies apply to this article which was correctly deleted via AFD. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion - Deletions are judged by merit and consensus, not by the number of votes irregardless of majority (in the usual circumstances - WP:SNOWBALL aside). As has been said in the past, this is not a democracy. The article in questioned violated many principles of WP:BLP by it's very nature, not to mention it had been marked as in need of citations and references on the majority of its points - the majority of which had been tagged as needing a citation for over 2 years. Others would be continuously added without the addition of references to accompany them. The notability is in serious question as having undue weight given to them by editors rather than the industry themselves being as promotions such as WWE, TNA and ROH do not actually acknowledge the granting of these awards, let alone their existence. Per the totality of that, I must question the pertinence of the article and it's assertion of notability beyond that of a niche publication. With that accounted for, most of the article was in violation of WP:OR per lack of sourcing given which reduced verifiability, if not rendering it impossible. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 02:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse undeletion The Wrestling Observer's awards are considered the most (or second most, maybe Pro Wrestling Illustrated has a say) prestigious awards in pro wrestling. Agent Vodello has provided numerous non-wrestling sources, and here are some wrestling sources as well. When sources want to highlight a wrestler's credentials, they just mention that he won a WO award.

"The Wrestling Observer's awards are considered the most (or second most, maybe Pro Wrestling Illustrated has a say) prestigious awards in pro wrestling."
By who? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've already given my opinion above (endorse undeletion), but even if you don't see a problem with the AfD closure, common sense has to kick in at this point. 17 reliable sources have been identified in this DRV, which more than prove the case for notability. The case for restoration has been proven, so GNG indicates that the article should be restored. Maybe, according to the letter of the law, the closing administrator for this AfD might not agree that a DRV case has been proven. A case for re-creating the article has undoubtedly been proven, however, so restoring the article upon the condition that these sources are added is clearly the outcome endorsed by both the spirit of the law and Wikipedia notability guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"17 reliable sources ... more than prove the case for notability." you seem to be suffering the same problem. The standard in WP:GNG is non-trivial coverage. These don't provide non-trivial coverage, they provide passing mentions. You need some references where someone has written about the awards themselves, directly and in some level of detail, not sources which say x received one. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, these are awards here we're talking about. And the article is simply a list of awards given! So if the awardees receiving the award are mentioned in numerous reliable sources, that should be enough, because that's all that is going into the article, isn't it? Starship.paint (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The consensus of the xFD was that the awards themselves needed to be notable, that's the context of the DRV discussion. I guess the question would be why would we have a list of recipients of an award whilst not having an article on the award itself? I don't think you can separate the two. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coverage of professional wrestling on Wikipedia is dominated by tunnel vision and recentism, not to mention a "path of least resistance" approach, even though such complaints certainly aren't unique to PW-related articles. Obviously, it's far easier to dig up a listing of award winners and rehash it here than it is to actually research the history of the awards. When I first read this article, I couldn't help but notice that many of the wrestling promotions listed for the early award winners were just flat out incorrect. This may be due to the fact that I was watching pro wrestling in 1980, when the awards began. There's probably not too many contributors to PW-related articles on Wikipedia for whom the same could be said.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse undeletion There's nothing more to say really, I still can't believe it was deleted in the first place.--Deely talk 15:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, there is more to say. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist - IMO, the overall problem is rooted more in fanboy hatred of Dave Meltzer than in the notability of his body of work. Even though they're known as the Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards, the awards actually predate the existence of the WON, and prior discussions established that in spite of concerns, the WON qualifies as notable. I smelled a rat when the first I heard of the Afd was following the actual deletion of the article. The discussion the second time around centered around two editors, with very few of the editors participating the first time having been involved. I normally don't follow the list of wrestling-related deletion discussions, especially lately since it has been dominated by discussions of current WWE tag teams who no one will give a shit about ten or twenty years from now, being debated by individuals who refuse to acknowledge the notability of numerous truly historically important tag teams. Anyway, tangents aside, as for notability? I haven't reviewed any sources which may be cited here. I don't know about the present day, but historically, mentions of WON (and by extension, the awards) in "reliable sources" were mostly due to journalists with close personal or professional ties to Meltzer.RadioKAOS (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"IMO, the overall problem is rooted more in fanboy hatred of Dave Meltzer than in the notability of his body of work."
Well, there goes WP:AGF right out the window. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ ② 19:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense RadioKAOS, but could you clarify your vote? Do you wish to restore it or leave it deleted? Do you think it's notable? I don't exactly understand after reading what you wrote. Starship.paint (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be advocating a continuation of the AfD--maybe just revert the closure and let it run for another week so that a more clear-cut consensus can be reached. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of award lists (response to Starship.paint) - Compare and contrast with List of Academy Award-winning films. That too is just a list of awards but is an offshoot of a main article which provides background, history and thoroughly demonstrates the notability of the subject matter - the media write about the awards themselves, not just mentions of who won what. This is not the case for the Wrestling Observer awards. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the article is just that: a list. Why can't it exist without the main article? I looked at Academy Awards and a lot of the content in the article doesn't apply to this Wrestling Observer award... Statuette? Nomination? Ceremony? Venues? Associated Events? Starship.paint (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If awards themselves aren't demonstrated to be notable then a list of whom they've been awarded to isn't notable. That's fundamentally my stance. (i.e. the Oscars have been shown to be notable, so lists based on who they've been given to are fine) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the awards are not notable, I think they are notable due to all the reliable secondary sources mentioning them. It's just that I'm saying that a lot of the stuff from the Academy Award article cannot be 'transferred' to these awards, thus to compare them for one having a "main article" and this one doesn't have a "main article" therefore it cannot be a sub-article, I don't think it's quite fair. Point is a lot of the stuff that would go in the main article doesn't apply to the WO awards, that's why it doesn't have a main article, there's no statue to talk about, no ceremony... Starship.paint (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment step away from these particular awards for a second and consider the following examples (1) Many trade associations give awards to their members. These generally appear to be back-patting exercises and are of no real significance (e.g. best newcomer, when there was only one new member of the association during the period defined). The companies who receive these awards will often list them on their website and as part of a company description which may then be repeated elsewhere. Should wikipedia host a list of winners of those trade association awards? (2) Through my work I sometimes do training courses, these almost invariably end up issuing a certificate, just for turning up. If I started listing those out on my various profiles and so do others (assuming we are notable), would we have an article of winners of certificate x? I would hope everyone would agree for example (2) that not, and I suspect for example (1) most would agree not, so at what point would we think such a list was warranted? Surely it has to be related to the notability of the award itself? --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypothetical example is flawed because these examples you provided, they were never listed in Toronto Star, The Sun, Yahoo Sports, Sports Illustrated, SLAM! Wrestling, Phillippine Star, Pro Wrestling Torch and the Montgomery Adviser. You certainly have not considered the case for notability given that the awards have been given credit to by numerous reliable wrestling-focused (Pro Wrestling Torch) and mainly non-wrestling focused (Toronto Star) sources, . Starship.paint (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? So you've taken my hypothetical and rather than assuming that they would be included in mainstream media, you've decided that they won't and so can be shot down. A sort of reverse strawman, "I'll go against the common sense meaning of your hypothetical to suit my purpose". Industry awards often get tagged onto company details within magazine articles (say). Extracts of peoples resume incorporated into articles could easily include some award that person decides to ascribe. That sort of thing happens all the time. I already get your point, you think these awards are important and that's why people refer to them. I disagree, not that they are important (on that I have no opinion), but on the point that merely being mentioned makes them important, particularly in an area where hype and publicity are order of the day. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that a pat-on-the-back certificate from work is even relevant shows that you are unwilling to agree in a reasonable I don't know where you work, but it's obviously unimportant for the purposes of this discussion. Let's take a teenager working at Wal-Mart. He goes to a two-hour "training" session (get a booklet, read through it, talk about feelings, go home). Does his "accomplishment" get worldwide media coverage? Of course not, because you are just trying to derail the discussion. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards get worldwide media coverage, so they are obviously notable. This discussion should never have had to take place, and you're just being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So ignore half of the analogy, industry awards which appear everywhere. Then do the same as above and ignore the common sense meaning of the analogy and make up your own to make a strawman. No one has said some random kid in walmart that's your construction (so if anyone is trying to derail the discussion it's those trying to build the strawmen arguments rather than actually trying to understand where the difference in opinion lies). If there are people who are notable enough to get coverage in third party reliable sources and all of them include in their bio that particular walmart certificate, that's the closer analogy to the situation here. "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter awards get worldwide media coverage" - and that's the problem, everyone is asking you to show that coverage - i.e. coverage of the award where are the third party sources talking directly in detail about the awards (not lists of winners, not talking about people and noting they won the award, but coverage about the award itself). --82.19.4.7 (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a point which has still not been addressed by those in favour of restoration. I have yet to see any reliable secondary sources which say "The Wrestling Observer Newsletter Awards are this and they are important because of this". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Raymond A. Watson – Restore the page currently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Raymond A. Watson and forward to AFD for a fresh discussion based on new sources. – Courcelles 23:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Update version at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Incubator/Raymond_A._Watson. Closing administrator was in error in determining the consensus. Also new non-local sources have been added to meet some of the objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)

Thanks to the editor who cleaned up the mess I made just above. I am uncertain what to do next. To me, it is obvious that Mr. Watson is Notable. In the original discussion, it was said by others that he was not Notable because he was just a county supervisor and had no executive authority (or something like that: I am paraphrasing). You would have to go to the Discussion page for the closure to see both sides of the argument, but I don't know how to find that page. What happens now? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found it. You click on XFD above, and you get to that page. I'm sorry, but I didn't know what XFD meant until I blindly clicked there! Oh, well . . . GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comments I dont think I was in error closing that AFD. I'd be surprised if anyone disagreed. That said, there are 5 new sources and the user claims to have demonstrated more than local significance so I recommended he come here.--v/r - T P 13:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up. The criterion is "Just being an elected local official . . . does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article' ". I believe that the criterion is met and ask for the article to be made live. Oh, yes, if you look at the original discussion you will find others who agreed with me. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question there are a lot of sources in the article (which is of course a good thing). Could you provide 2-3 sources which you believe are significant and don't run afoul of WP:LOCAL? I'm not a fan of arguing that local sources aren't acceptable, but that seems to be the conclusion that was reached in the AfD so an overturn of that would ideally involve new non-local sources. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, how can mentions of a person run afoul of WP:LOCAL, which is about places? I've seen WP:LOCAL cited a number of times in this manner, which makes me wonder if maybe it should point to a different essay or guideline. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first line of that says "A community contains places and people, including but not limited to ... people...that may be well-known locally, but little-known outside the community in question."--v/r - TP 02:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, the problem is that A) the essay is supposed to be about "places of local interest" and B) it's an essay. But it seems to be the reason we deleted the article for that reason for better or for worse and it had a majority. The nom states they've added new non-local sources, I just want them to clearly indicate which new sources they view as non-local... Hobit (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well the in a nutshell box says "An article about a local place or person may be created...", that's the way things develop, it started off focussing on places and has morphed since, just like many other policies, guidelines or essays, can't see that as a big problem, merely a reason the page should be renamed. The real question in cases like this is how well does the logic being applied relate to general accepted standards (custom, policy, guidlines etc.) and the material in a given case. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nonlocal sources (not within Kern County) are: ^ Bureau of Land Management ^ Mark Grossi, "Air Fee Misses Dirtiest District," The Modesto Bee, October 29, 2010 ^ Steve Chawkins, "Panel Tells Mariposa to Give Up Cityhood," Los Angeles Times, June 10, 2011, page 1. ^ "County Starts Allocating Money for Prisoners' Shift," McClatchy-Tribune Business News, August 31, 2011

Non-Bakersfield sources, but still within Kern County, are:

^ Maggie Van Ostrand, "Local Personalities," Frazier Park Online ^ Patric Hedlund, "Election Results: Watson Keeps His Seat," The Mountain Enterprise, June 6, 2008 ^ Map, "Kern Supervisors District Being Redrawn," Taft Midway Driller, July 13, 2011 ^ "Kern Speaking Out Against Proposed Oil Tax," Taft Midway Driller, January 8, 2010 With photo. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McClatchy News Service. I might add that articles printed in The Californian are routinely fed to the McClatchy News Service, which transmits them all over the country. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of consensus. Looking back at the original discussion — certainly when two other editors agreed with the original editor (me) that the article should not have been deleted, well, there certainly was no consensus to delete. Just a thought. Thanks again. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - I was notified of this discussion by the RfC notification bot. I don't see any reason this is an RfC as opposed to a regular deletion review. Can someone explain that to me? LadyofShalott 06:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because GeorgeLouis feels a 6-2 !vote with discussion strongly favoring delete should have been closed as no consensus because two editors agreed with his position with passing comments while those opposed to his opinion strongly disputed it and is disappointed there have been few comments here opposing my delete close.--v/r - T P 14:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well, that's not really an appropriate use of RfC. LadyofShalott 19:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much. I've removed the tag above. lifebaka++ 21:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm borderline between endorse and relist at this point. I think the underling reason for deletion is fairly bogus (LOCAL is an essay) but the people have spoken and in large enough numbers closing as delete was the best choice. That said, there are new sources listed which might be enough and the probably should go to AfD. Hobit (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at the sources a bit more, I think there are enough new sources that this should really head back to AfD, so relist. I would encourage GeorgeLouis to try to reduce his bandwidth in any new AfD. The only issue that's going to matter is sources and people sometimes get a bit grumpy if you spam the discussion. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than one way to determine consensus

Some of my Wikipedia editing friends who have made denigrating comments about the inherent Un-Notability of county supervisors may have been unaware of the fact that the Notability of said supervisors has already been established by consensus, many times over, as witnessed by the following list of supervisors, none of whom were ever anointed with the grace of being elected to a higher position; that is to say, state legislator or Congress member. There is another a Kern County supervisor whom I have placed first on the following list; Mary K. Shell's proudest accomplishment was a diversion of funds to establish a lighted soccer field—and bless her for that. (I have simply ignored many other supervisors with separate articles, some extensive and some just stubs — Los Angeles County and Fairfield County, Virginia, apparently are blessed with a trove of WP editors who have favored us with separate stories on their favorite supervisor sons and daughters.)

Mary K. Shell, Kern County

John_Gioia Contra Costa County

Keith_Carson, Alameda County

Roberta_MacGlashan, Sacramento County

Don Nottoli, Sacramento County

Janet Nguyen, Orange County

Kenneth Hahn, Los Angeles County

Dave Pine, San Mateo County

Sidney T. Graves, Los Angeles County

Samuel Arbuckle, Los Angeles County

Julian A. Chavez, Los Angeles County

Francisco P. Temple, Los Angeles County

Manuel Requena, Los Angeles County

Juan Sepulveda, Los Angeles County

Ken Yeager, Santa Clara County

Linda Smyth. Fairield County, Virginia

Cathy Hudgins, Fairfield County, Virginia

Francis Mellus, Los Angeles County

Frank Koehn, Bayfield County, Wisconsin

Warren Widener, Alameda County

William Heeser, Mendocino County

Michael D. Antonovich, Los Angeles County

John Cook (Virginia politician), Faifield County, Virginia

Lee Holloway, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

Matt Gonzalez, San Francisco County

Ann Mallek, Albemarle County, Virginia

Ignazio Vella, Sonoma County

Gregg Moore, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin

Liz Kniss, Santa Clara County

Jimmie R. Yee, Sacramento County

Roger Hedgecock, San Diego County

Donna Smith, Dubuque County, Iowa

Anderson W. Brown, Oneida County, Wisconsin

John George (California politician), Alameda County

Jeff McKay, Fairfax County, Virginia

Ruben Barrales, San Mateo County

Sincerely, your faithful correspondent, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no "inherent unnotability" for county execs, or indeed for anything I can think of. But that doesn't mean they are inherently notable either. Sure, plenty of them pass the notability guidelines, but the difference between, say, a congressperson and a county official is that the congressperson's position proves they are notable regardless of coverage, while significant coverage is needed to prove the notability of the county official.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, my good Yaksar, you get my point; shall we keep the discussion then to a matter of whether Mr. Watson has received "significant coverage" instead of whether a county supervisor is worthy of WP inclusion? It is my opinion that, yes, he has received "significant coverage." What do you think? Because if there is more coverage needed to be deemed significant, I may be able to find some. Mind you, it will be in local news outlets and not in the New York Times. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Going down the list

Shell was mayor of Bakersfield, pop. 347,000; we've always considered mayors of cities of anywhere near that size as notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. Given that, the use of the soccer field might seem disingenuous, although, to be fair, she did in fact say just that herself. The article needs a little de-spamming. Gioia has significant coverage; Carson is I think borderline & if this is deleted, that should be nom. also; MacGlashan & Nottoli, should be deleted, unless we do think all holding such positions as notable; Nguyen cannot stand without further refs, which may be available--too much of it is uncited opinion; Hahn' is very notable as shown by the sources; Pine has sufficient refs but is rather over-written; Gravesis notable because of the conviction; Arbuckle is an historic figure but needs sources; Chavez,Temple , Requena, Sepulveda , Mellus are historic figures; Yeager is borderline; Smyth & Hudgins seem non-notable ; Koehn borderline; Widener mayor of Berkeley; Heeser historic ; Antonovich & Gonzalez sufficiently sourced ; Cook Holloway, Mallek, Moore borderline to different degrees; Kniss non-notable; Yee a mayor, Hedgecock despite insufficient sourcing notable, possibly independently of the position; Smith, Brown, George , McKay non-notable; Barrales independently notable. This gives 16 notable, 17 not.

Restore I think it depends on the county. In large California counties, such a high proportion are notable that perhaps they can all be assumed to be near enough for an article. Elsewhere, it seems not the case for Virginia. I think there is a very great advantage in consistency. But as for considering them all notable , there are 3,000 counties, with 3 to 5 commissioners (tho some have no executive bodies at all); this is about 10,000 people. We can deal with it , but I'm not sure we should. My suggestion is to set a population size, perhaps varying from state to state and period to period above which there is notability & below which is has to be shown. For mayors, I think we now do ≥25,000. country board can have the same powers, but there are more of them, so I'd say ≥100,000. As it happens, thats the avg. population of US counties. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, that is an argument appropriate for an WP:AFD. The AFD is over. Do you have an argument (like below) suggesting I determined it wrong? This isn't AFD part 2 here.--v/r - T P 18:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, I forgot this was a DRV with significant improvement/changes in a draft.--v/r - T P 18:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters, but I my comment below wasn't intended to suggest that you determined consensus incorrectly, but that the opinions you based the close on were no longer accurate/relevant. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Restore, and relist if desired. Never mind general principles about county commissioners, let's look at the specific case, There were seven delete arguments in that debate. The first two mention only WP:POLITICIAN, which nobody is arguing that he meets, and ignore WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC, while the fourth simply states that the "subject doesn't appear to meet" the guidelines without explaining why. The remaining four are more convincing, but all are based on the premise that the only coverage is local to the city. Since this has been shown not to be the case, I don't think these can be used as the basis for this article not to exist, although they were clearly stronger in this respect when the debate was closed. So that debate isn't enough to mean that the new improved article can't be restored. (Personally I think he meets WP:BASIC, but that's an argument for a future AfD.) Alzarian16 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph added, with sources

Watson keeps making news. I've added a new paragraph from a story that just broke, about methamphetamine, with two sources. You can see it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Conservatism/Incubator/Raymond_A._Watson#Highlights. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the Highlights list is remotely encyclopedic ... Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section isn't brilliant, but none of the content in it seems to fail any of the three bullet points of WP:NOTNEWS - it isn't first-hand journalism, or breaking news, and Watson certainly isn't notable for one event (whether or not he's notable at all is a point to debate, but not relevant to article content). If we drop the bolded headers, rename the section to something less POV and reduce the number of quotes most of it could probably be retained, although I agree that right now it's given undue weight. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restore AfD was excessively influenced by the idea that the topic was only a county supervisor, not acknowledging that he was also chairman of the board (for one year) with there being no county executive. Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 September 2011

Paul Pogba – A userspace draft has been moved to mainspace, this is now moot. – lifebaka++ 23:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The footballer player in question's article page was deleted because he was yet to make his professional debut. However he has now made is professional debut thus it is time for Administrator to release his article page from lockdown in order to create the article. [43]Supergunner08 (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a userspace draft was moved over shortly after this listing. This should probably be closed. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of killings of Muhammad – Relist on AfD. The main arguments for overturning are that there was no consensus on NPOV and NPOV is not a reason for deletion, and that there was no consensus on the sources. Proponents of endorsing, however, felt that there was consensus that the article was a POV coatrack and questioned the suitability of several sources. At this point, it may appear to be no consensus, but I believe a relist would be beneficial for these reasons: 1) More time should be given to develop the issues raised by DGG. 2) Wiqi55 and Mkativerata provide good arguments on how Guillaume's translation and Muir's book are not suitable as sources, but those were hardly mentioned in the original AfD. DRV is not AfD round 2, and AfD round 2-like comments belong in an actual AfD round 2. 3) There are other possibilities to consider, such as a smerge suggested by S Marshall. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The closing admin User:Spartaz was queried about this deletion decision last week. He responded with a request for sources, which were given (see User talk:Spartaz#List of killings of Muhammad). There has been no reply, so perhaps it's time to open this review.

Originally I intended to serve as the closing admin. However, after reviewing the article and the deletion rationale, I decided to participate in the debate instead. For the record, although I argued against the deletion rationale, I have no dog in this fight; I am fine with the article existing or not existing. My main concern here is the closure of the debate.

For contentious articles like this, there were the usual problems with single purpose accounts as well as improper SPA tagging of accounts. But in the end, it seemed that among trusted, high-volume contributors (including two admins who supported keeping), there was no consensus to delete.

The closing admin's rationale was: The killer arguments are NPOV and the need for sources to specifically discuss this as a separately notable subject.

Addressing those two points:

NPOV: There was no consensus regarding NPOV. Delete proponents claimed that the article promotes an agenda. Keep proponents claimed that the topic of assassination is not controversial among scholars of Arabian history, and Wikipedia isn't censored.
Sources: There was no consensus concerning whether the sources were sufficient. Delete proponents felt the sources were lacking. Keep proponents disagreed, claiming that the article contains sources discussing the topic, and offering sources in the debate (See also the closing admin's talk page).

Note to all: A deletion review IS NOT "AfD round 2". The purpose here is not to continue the original debate, but rather to determine if the closure reflected the consensus (or lack thereof) in consideration of the arguments already presented. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you to the nominator for so helpfully telling us how to conduct a DRV.
It seems to me that the questions here are: (1) Whether a local lack of consensus can overrule our NPOV policy and allow non-neutral material to be retained; (2) How much weight to give to arguments that do not address the reasons for the nomination; (3) How much weight to give to Roscolese's argument that the list constituted original research and a synthesis; and (4) Whether Biophys' merge suggestion was a reasonable alternative to deletion (given that WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD enjoin us to exhaust the alternatives before deleting material).
As for question 1, I think this one's crystal clear and simple to express. If something cannot be made into a NPOV article, then there is no place for it in Wikipedia. No matter how many sources there are. On question 2, I would say that there is no weight to be given to those arguments. It doesn't matter how many sources there are or how reliable the sources are, because the reason for deletion has nothing to do with sources. Thus Spartaz was quite right to disregard a very large number of !votes. On question 3, I would say that the WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH arguments were substantial and well-argued, but they effectively countered during the debate and should receive relatively little weight in the close. Question 4 opens a potential route to a compromise but I'm not overenamoured of it in this case. I don't think it's a good idea to create pointy articles about major religious figures.
All in all my position is endorse, with a barnstar to Spartaz for coming to a decision when it must have been tempting to come to a compromise.—S Marshall T/C 20:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I inserted that reminder because I have seen DRVs for highly contentious articles get out of hand in the past.

Regarding the neutrality of the material, that was one of the points of contention, and there was no clear consensus on that point, with the keep proponents arguing based on the sources. Spartaz's reason for deletion and followup question on his own talk page specifically focused on sources, so I don't see the logic in dismissing the arguments (on both sides) regarding sources, for which there was also no consensus. Finally, I personally wouldn't support a merge, in particular the Muhammad article is already too long and such a detailed review of his involvement in assassinations, while it may be worthy of a separate article, is a bit WP:UNDUE for the Muhammad article. I do think the title should use the word "assassinations" rather than "killings". I also congratulate Spartaz for tackling this difficult debate, although the closure still appears irregular to me. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really hard case. From an AfD viewpoint I'd !vote to delete on the basis that I view the list article as an attempt to include negative material about the Muhammad, just as a "list of people Jesus swindled" would be. If there were RSes that made it clear this is either A) a highly notable topic or B) had put together a list like this themselves, I'd say we should have the article. But if not, it feels like an OR COATRACK to me. I don't agree that the topic is so NPOV that we can't have such an article, I'd just want there to be a real body of work in the area. Now, from a DRV viewpoint, was there a basis for deletion? I'd have to say so. The keep arguments were, in my opinion, fairly weak and the large number of new/SPS accounts gives the closer a lot of room to discount !votes. I felt the sources that were proposed were weak and so the notability argument was weak. I feel the assertion that lists need not be notable was a fine argument (that I often agree with), but it's had mixed results at AfD/DrV. I never felt the COATRACK issue was addressed and the attempt at defeating the NOR arguments was a bit of a stretch. The sources provided seemed weak and only passing mentions. I'd say that NC would also have been a reasonable reading of the discussion, but delete was probably a better one. So endorse deletion. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to CMarshall, (1) there is no topic capable of being made into an article that cannot be made into a NPOV article. Any and everything, if it can be discussed at all, can be discussed in a NPOV fashion. NPOV does not mean "the POV that I and most of us approve of." Anything can be discussed if there are sufficient reliable sources for the discussion that permit the presentation of the various POVs. As there are sources for all sorts of different views on the religious and military career of Mohammed, any aspect of it can be discussed from a NPOV. If, for example, one has the POV of a devout Muslim, one would necessarily think any fair discussion of his career will lead an unprejudiced reader to a wholly positive view of him: if some sources are prejudiced against him, better sources will refute them. The argument here would have to be that by assembling these in a list, the impression given is inevitably negative, but I consider that the sort of judgement which we are not entitled to give. Another possible argument is the difficulty of making a distinction between political assassination and punishment for crime and normal" warfare; this can be dealt by giving the circumstances more fully (2) The issues raised by the nominator were discussed and refuted. (a)There were good modern secondary sources as well as historical sources; (b)almost all the historical sources used (and all the primary ones) were by authors favorable to Mohammed; (c)there were sources cited in the discussing discussing this particular topic as a topic, (d)even though that is not necessary for a list, (e)that there were somer erroneous entries is not an argument for deletion of this or any other list, but for editing; the final version of it should be pruned further: I would in particular remove Banu Qurayza tribe, & the "approved of" (f)the tone & wording indeed strikes me as NPOV, but can be corrected (3) by the "NPOV and OR arguments" you presumably mean the arguments that there was a failure of NPOV and a dependence on OR. Failure of NPOV is always correctable and is never a reason for deletion, though it can be a reason for change of title or drastic editing. OR is a reason for deletion if it impossible to find sources that will overcome it. But in this case it was shown that such sources are available. The assembly and collection of material is not OR, but a necessary and inevitable part of writing every Wikipedia article. No sourced encyclopedia can be written otherwise, (4). It is the community not the closer who decides if compromise is possible. The possibilities were not adequately discussed. If they were not discussed then, they can be discussed now, or at a second AfD. We tend to do a preliminary discussion here to see if there would be some reason for expecting a different result, & then follow it up at the AfD if it continues contentious.
As for the actual close, the first reason given is failure of NPOV. that reason is against policy; it is not ever a reason to delete an article. The second is OR. This is a matter for the community to judge, as it is a matter of degree. The community did not seem clear about it.
Was there an actual reason to delete? there might have been. NPOV is not a reason to delete, but a fork or split of an article to express a POV is a reason to delete or merge or redirect. I would return the article to AfD to have a discussion focused on this. I'm not sure at this point what I would say to it. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per DGG (yes, I know he didn't articulate a bolded vote. That doesn't mean that his contribution isn't worth reading thoroughly.) Jclemens (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is. My immediate reaction is that while it is technically possible to rewrite most things from a neutral point of view, there comes a point where a keep !vote makes no sense, even for the most rampant inclusionist, because what you would be !voting to keep would be entirely different content with an entirely different name. Such is the case here.
Admitting to my own bias, I must say that I do not think Wikipedia should host this content. There are places where it's appropriate to publish broadsides or polemics against major world religions, but an encyclopaedia isn't one of them. Our coverage of Muhammad needs to be very carefully balanced, such that we tell the whole truth while remaining neutral and factual. Devoting a separate list to the people Muhammad is alleged to have had killed is certainly not a necessary part of offering encyclopaedic coverage about him. And it certainly is guaranteed to cause (real or simulated) offence, attract tendentious editors like flies round a dead dog, and breed drama and contention.
This doesn't mean we can't cover the topic. What it means is that NPOV prevents us from covering the topic as a separate standalone list and WP:UNDUE implies that the topic needs to be covered in much less depth.
You might have been able to convince me that "overturn to smerge" would be an appropriate outcome, except for the fact that I can't see how to get to a smerge on the basis of that debate.—S Marshall T/C 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to S Marshall's thoughtful post, we are treading back into topics already discussed in the AfD, for which there was no consensus. Counterpoints to the statements above have already been made in the AfD (e.g. that the sources treat the topic in a neutral fashion, that historians accept that assassination has been an integral part of Arabian history, that Muhammad's involvement with assassination of notable individuals has been covered in depth by multiple sources, and so on). Those are all points on which there was no consensus. This discussion we're having here should be about whether the close was proper, based on that AfD discussion, not whether the close was proper based on personal perceptions about whether the topic is neutral. NPOV isn't a reason to delete, and NPOV doesn't prevent us from covering a topic that appears to be pretty well sourced. The potential to cause offense or attract drama isn't really relevant — plenty of contentious articles already exist on Wikipedia (the Muhammad article attracts offended Muslims on an almost daily basis). ~Amatulić (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By convention, DRV does have a certain amount of latitude to re-discuss the AfD. This is particularly true in this case, where DGG's view is that the debate should be relisted to consider specific points. There's no way to discuss the whys and wherefores of that without rehashing some of the previous AfD's content.—S Marshall T/C 20:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn, and re-present at AfD. Per DGG, the primary reason given for Deleting was NPOV which is not supported by the actual policy. NPOV provides grounds for rewriting and restructuring problematic articles (specifics are here), not deleting them. The secondary reason given at closure was lack of sufficient reliable sources which was strongly contested during the debate and has since been addressed by Amatulic (who provided scholarly and reliable references on the topic here). While I respect the closing admin for tackling a complex and controversial issue, it seems appropriate to bring this one back for deeper discussion. Doc Tropics 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NPOV is policy and articles can be deleted if they are nothing but policy violations, requiring a wholesale rewrite to salvage. Instead of debating whether POV is a reason to delete an article, we should consider if the article actually was POV. Them From Space 16:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree, we absolutely "should consider if the article actually was POV", that is exactly the point of overturning the deletion decision and returning the article to AfD for further discussion. As Amatulic pointed out in the nomination, this discussion is not "AfD Round 2", but an attempt to determine if "AfD Round 2" is appropriate. Based on the evidence presented above, it does seem to be. Doc Tropics 16:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, which is the opinion I came to after writing it out. Looking at S Marshall's reply to me, and Thenfromspace's comment a little above: Starting over would make sense if there were no usable fundamental structure. But at least the basic list and the references are usable. What I would like to see is a proper paragraph or two on each event, including a reference to secondary views of it from early & modern Moslem sources. In most cases, it's obvious what justification would be given, but there should still be a reference to discussions. This is beyond my ability and interests, however, and I don't really like making suggestions that some other people do a lot of work. I think the real objection to the article is that there is some reason from the general tone to think it was written with a biased intent, and this is something we should not tolerate. It may have been, and we shouldn't tolerate it--WP has in the past taken action against people writing a string of articles all having implied criticism of a particular religion. The few other articles of the original editor show no such bias, & nobody would even imagine such a thing of the ed. bringing the DelRev request. In any case, this is an article, & we can't really judge intent, and need to look only at what's actually there & what use can be made of it. DGG ( talk ) 16:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Once the infestation of banned socks and SPAs are discarded, and the "keep i like it", "keep it is interesting" calls weighted next to nothing, the consensus to delete is rather clear. Close is within admin discretion, no wrongdoing found, and "I disagree" is not a valid DRV filing reason. Tarc (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those alleged SPAs were somewhat ambitiously tagged, and shouldn't have been tagged as such according to WP:SPATG. A couple even objected, apparently regular contributors with dynamic IPs. One could as easily discard the "delete I don't like it" arguments as well. I took all that into account prior to listing this DRV. If an alleged SPA presents a thoughtful argument more than just "me too", the argument still matters. As such, the consensus was not clear to me. I agree the close was within admin discretion, but the closing admin's rationale about NPOV wasn't policy-based, and the rationale regarding sources seemed incorrect. Disagreeing with what appears to be a faulty rationale is a perfectly valid DRV filing reason. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist/Overturn. Invalid closing rationale.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it just is? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's explained succinctly right above. Not all of us who agree have to restate the obvious.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Spartaz did not weigh the !votes of obvious sockpuppets/meatpuppets and other single-purpose accounts, or other invalid arguments (ie. "it is interesting," "it is true," "it would be censorship to remove it," etc.), very heavily, which is both within hir discretion as an admin and also just good policy generally. Absent those, there's a very clear consensus to delete. Moreover, even the keep !voters who attempted to make policy-based arguments nevertheless failed, by and large, even to try to address the deletion rationale. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion rationale is summarized at the top of this DRV. Saying nobody tried to address it is a blatant mischaracterization. Rather than summarizing what the closing admin did, please address the deletion rationale as described above (using NPOV and sourcing to justify deletion). ~Amatulić (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what DRV is for. I made my argument for deletion at the AfD, and I'm not going to continue arguing for deletion on the basis of NPOV, SYN, etc.; I'm endorsing Spartaz's close because zie was correct to give little weight to sockpuppets, non-policy votes, and other !votes that did not attempt to engage with the ongoing discussion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No argument about the correctness of weights as you describe. However, this is exactly what DRV is for. The reasons you list for endorsing the close aren't Spartaz's rationale for deletion; those are just Spartaz's premises leading up to the actual deletion rationale, which cited NPOV and sourcing. This DRV was opened because the validity of that rationale is questionable, as others have eloquently explained above. Nobody expects you to restate arguments you have already presented. If you endorse a close, however, I'd like to see you explain how the actual closing rationale is valid. As others have eloquently explained above, this is not as clear-cut as you might think. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. An article about an important subject that was probably deleted out of political correctness. Conservative Philosopher (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is here purely because he is stalking me. Attempts to re-fight the AfD are generally invalid anyway, but this is a particularly poor specimen of a DRV !vote. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although allegations of stalking are irrelevant here also. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't help but notice, that dynamic-ip users are flagged as SPA without any regard for the issues they raise. This could be understood if they were just unbased “me too” votes with no rationale, but they aren't. Now other user's votes are being overturned because Roscelese doesn't like him, again, without considering any rationale. Since when Wikipedia is personal? I don't vote this time, since my IP didn't magically become static and I decided that making several hundreds of trivial contributions to random articles just to prove my point isn't worth my time. I strongly believe that votes must be taken neither by numbers nor by contribution of the users who cast them, but by the rationale they present. This wasn't and isn't the case here, unfortunately. 79.182.4.98 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that dishonest people sometimes attempt to influence discussions (not just AfDs, but a variety of other venues here. Some even ban IPs outright, such as votes for adminship and bureaucrats) by logging out of their real account to double-vote, banned/block users come to participate where they are prohibited, and so on. That is why there is an emphasis on not only established user accounts, but also users with a semblance of an edit history to demonstrate that they really are one person making one argument. Making an account is not a requirement and likely never will be, but doing so better establishes yourself as an actual persona within the community, if you really are a person who does not fall into the above scenarios. Tarc (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This logic is perfectly reasonable when sheer number of votes is what counts, e.g. elections, to prevent double voting. But if the important bit is the rationale, the argument that is presented, does it really matter who presents the arguments? If it does, I admit being unaware of that policy. I recognize the potential of abuse, but as I pointed out before, establishing an account with several non-trivial contributions is rather easy, and as long as this "verified account" matters more than the actual arguments presented by its owner, wikipedia's AfDs and DRVs will suffer from bias. 79.182.4.98 (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, but our community has set up certain rules, and among those rules is that misbehavior will result in one's editing privileges (both editing articles, and editing discussion pages) being taken away. It doesn't mean that the blocked editor doesn't have useful things to say, but they always have the option of improving their behavior and regaining their editing privileges. Evading the block through temporary accounts or IPs will only, as we see, mean that those contributions will be discarded, because the policies that allow us to maintain a safe, collegial, and productive editing environment become meaningless if we sacrifice them in the interest of hearing out every argument in a discussion. Similarly, a non-blocked user might have an argument worth hearing, but if they try to stack a discussion by using multiple accounts or IPs to post it more than once, they are circumventing the consensus-building process. These are both particularly true in articles related to conflicts between Jews and Muslims, in which many users have been blocked or topic-banned and which are generally acknowledged to be rife with sockpuppets and meatpuppets. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Deletion - I've already stated my case against the deletion of this list on the following link, if you care to read it. (please see : User talk:Spartaz#List of killings of Muhammad). In a nutshell, the article is salvageable, is reliable, and verifiable with plenty of both academic, religious, and historical texts both primary, secondary and everything in the middle. The subject in itself is notable as I explained on Spartaz's talk page. The deletion was conducted hastily with a clear majority interested in salvaging the list, and a small minority using populist tactics to censor it.

Lets not throw out the baby with the dirty water, but instead fix up the article where a consensus is reached. That position has been overwhelmingly supported by a multitude of arguments both based on logic and rules of Wikipedia. The few vocal opponents are spending their time attempting to discredit every single supporter of saving the article - calling some sock puppets and meat puppets, others are hate group forums trolls, and now even a mysterious 'stalker' made an appearance. Yet no clear argument comes out of their lips that have not already been addressed numerous times. Please overturn the deletion of this article. Thank you for your time. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're linking to your comment on Spartaz's talkpage as an example of sound policy-based reasoning that should get the article kept. Your argument was that a Libyan leader was recently assassinated, which shows that Muslims kill people a lot and that we thus need more articles on Muslims killing people. This is both POV and OR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roscelese, you have little credibility since your primary weapons are vilifying those who disagree with you and now blatantly making things up about what I wrote, since I can't believe you to be that ignorant. You use typical and quite transparent populist tactics - lie, deceive, twist and falsely accuse - all in the name of achieving your end goal, at any cost. I feel bad for the stalker now. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Per DGG's well-thought-out reasoning above. Also, if this is relisted, is it possible to semi-protect the AfD so we don't have to deal with the flood of SPAs? Mark Arsten (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since a lot of users here are claiming there were in fact lots of sources, I feel as though I should point out that exactly two sources were produced that discussed the topic: one (Gabriel) was borderline acceptable, but the other (Osborn) was an anti-Muslim tract that wouldn't have been an appropriate source if it were published on JihadWatch today and doesn't suddenly become acceptable because it was published in the nineteenth century in printed form. Other sources, like Muir, Glubb, primary religious texts, etc., may be reliable, but they are biographies of Muhammad and give these killings no more weight than any other incident of Muhammad's life, ie. cannot be said to discuss the topic. One might think, as DGG does, that it is not necessary for sources to discuss a topic in order to have an article on it, but please be aware that this is the argument you are making. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not necessarily necessary for a list article. That's what we're discussing here. I remind Roscelese and others that we are not here to debate the quality of the sources. Roscelese's characterization of the sources as "borderline" or "tract" are personal opinions that aren't something to be decided here; those are best discussed at WP:RSN. Muir and others devote significant space to the various assassinations; while not discussed as an overall topic, the assassinations are discussed. I remind everyone that this article is a list. We are here to determine if the closure rationale for a list article was proper. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If arguments for overturning the deletion are going to claim there were sources, it is proper to respond to those claims. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion: First, I did not see any reliable sources that establish the notability of this list. Compared to other notable lists about Muhammad (e.g., his wives), there are no academic books or chapters devoted to those who were assassinated. The lack of reliable secondary sources and the problematic nature of the primary sources would mean that any attempt to write such a list would have to rely on heavy OR and SYNTH.

Second, I agree with Roscelese's last comment with regards to the reliability of sources. I would also like to add that the most cited primary source in the article is Guillaume's translation, which specialists of Islamic history do not consider as reliable. In other words, any claim made about Ibn Ishaq based on such translation is dubious. For references, see Humphreys, R. Stephen (1991). Islamic History: A framework for Inquiry (Revised ed.). Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691008566., and Tibawi, Abdul Latif (1956). Ibn Isḥāq's Sīra, a critique of Guillaume's English translation: the life of Muhammad. OUP..

Another frequently cited source is a 19th-century book by William Muir, which Historian Carl W. Ernst describes as "A classic Christian missionary text attacking Muhammad"[44] often preferred by anti-Islam websites (see also Ernst's book). Promotional or extremist sources, or ones that are acknowledged by specialists to be so, are not useful for citing claims about third parties (per WP:V). The Gabriel's book is also a borderline case considering that he "brags" of having friends that can read Arabic (he obviously doesn't know the language, hence non-specialist). He further concludes that "responsibility for any errors rests with me alone" (p.xvi). I'm not sure what editorial policy is that, but I'm familiar with his book from another discussion and his lack of knowledge of the primary sources is evident. All in all, I have yet to a see any reliable source that establishes the notability of this list or concept. The sources we currently have do not actually list such assassinations, and most of which does not even refer to the discrepant primary sources. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 18:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the opinions of the sources, these are notable or classic sources of historical significance. If such a source discusses a topic, that should be sufficient for an article topic. This is certainly not a valid reason to delete a list article, particularly if the list article can be written to explain the sources in the proper context as Wiqi55 describes. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. Agree with DGG. Enough sources have been provided, no reason to delete. Nahum (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
endorse per S Marshall. I'm just not seeing grounds for overturning, with apologies to DGG. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
endorse the AfD became a cesspit and this deletion review has become a similar cesspit. Things we can't talk about we must remain silent on. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't AfD round 2. If you want to talk about other issues, the solution would be to overturn and relist in a second AfD, as others have suggested, no? :) ~Amatulić (talk) 01:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where Stuartyeates is making an AfD argument. A metacomment on the fact that the AfD was a mess and that this discussion is now a mess - with people trying to re-fight the AfD, crying censorship, etc. - is not a comment on the deleted article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I see no POV or RS issues, and deleting this would clearly be censorship. --Galassi (talk) 02:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't AfD, and "deleting an inappropriate article is censorship" wouldn't pass muster even if it were AfD. Please discuss the merits of the close. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. One only needs to read relevant tracts of the William Muir source -- relied on heavily in the aticle -- to see how correct the arguments for deletion were. On that note, Wiqi155's analysis above is most compelling. The analysis of those on the keep side here and at the AfD -- that the mere presence of sources is sufficient -- has been demonstrated to be lacking in rigour. For example, Amatulic responds above "If such a source discusses a topic, that should be sufficient for an article topic". That is an absurdly simplistic approach to editing that carries through into the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, so you're saying that if a notable or historically significant source might disparage a topic, it shouldn't be considered? You're advocating that Wikipedia adopt a specific POV, or represent the sources fairly? It doesn't matter to me whether this article is kept or deleted, but so far the arguments about NPOV, whether it be the sources or the article itself, are not valid arguments for deletion, as others have stated. That's why I opened this DRV, because the AfD closing rationale, based on NPOV and sourcing, are not valid reasons to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own deletion I can't see that the oveturn arguments have successfully challenged my close and many of them rehash the afd rather then discuss the closing statement. Just to confirm a closing admin has discretion to depreciate spa/ip votes and this fell enough within the admins closing discretion that I could choose nc or delete. NPOV issues with the sourcing clearly haven't been addressed and delete was therefore the correct close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 September 2011

Harry Brünjes – AfD closure endoresed, draft not moved to mainspace. – lifebaka++ 15:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hi, I have requested the deletion of the redirect of the Harry Brünjes page in order to update the page. Unfortunately the admin who deleted the page User:JForget is retired and no longer active on Wikipedia. Please can we re-open this discussion. I unfortunately am not able to find/provide the xfd page details. Shango3000 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you develop a draft in your userspace for us to review?--v/r - T P 14:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have developed a draft, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shango3000/Harry_Brunjes

Thanks Shango3000 (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like a lot of weight in that article is given to Premier Medical Group.--v/r - T P 14:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The xfd page is here. I won't comment on the draft article because it is entirely sourced to publications to which I do not have access.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There appears no notability separate from the company.A redirect would suffice. DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The draft article really doesn't add anything to the article that was deleted by firm community consensus. I think that consensus was correct. The userspace draft indicates the subject isn't notable in his own right. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 September 2011

Edward E. Kramer – no consensus, list at AFD. It is in no way possible to discern a consensus to either endorse or overturn this deletion. WP:DRV says admins have the discretion to treat a no consensus as either endorsing the decision by default, or compelling a (re)listing of the article. The latter course should be preferred here. First, the deletion was done summarily and, as admitted by many endorsers, out of process, so may be more readily disturbed than a deletion arising from a consensus process or the clear application of policy. Second, only some of the "endorse" !voters explicitly address the question why this article needed to be deleted summarily as opposed to through AfD. For example, Mark Arsten !votes "endorse" but concedes sending the article to AfD "might have been a better idea". Given the BLP concerns, the article will remain protected, and the material will be viewable in the article's history only, during the course of the AfD. – Mkativerata (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This BLP article, created in 2004, was deleted without community discussion on 12 September 2011 by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs),[45] after a strongly worded request on her talkpage.[46] Other editors have disagreed with the decision,[47][48][49] so the matter is being brought here to DRV for a wider discussion. It is my opinion that there are sufficient sources to justify the article's existence. However, it is worth noting that there have been a series of SPAs which have swept through the article over the years, periodically removing citations,[50][51][52][53] so it may be necessary to dig into the history to see the full situation. El on ka 21:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible ot have access to the deleted content? If not is the article to be undeleted or recreated from scratch? Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've undeleted the article for the duration of the DRV. This is the last version before the deletion and redirect.

I deleted the article on September 12 under BLPDELETE because it is inherently problematic, the subject is borderline notable, and he has requested deletion. I informed OTRS after the deletion.

Kramer is a science fiction editor known for having founded Dragon Con in the 1980s. Except for Dragon Con, he doesn't appear to be notable in Wikipedia's terms. In 2000, he was charged with molesting three teenage boys. Since then, his trial has been postponed numerous times because he says he is too ill to defend himself; see these articles for more details. [54] [55]

The Wikipedia article has been troubled by people extending the criminal allegations section, and by single-purpose accounts—possibly Kramer—removing them, or adding BLP violations about one of the judges. I became briefly involved as an admin in February this year after a request for page protection at RfPP, and after protecting it I tried to tidy the article to make it BLP compliant. I also asked one of the SPAs, User:NYlegal1, to stop editing the article. [56] [57]

Last week, on September 12, NYlegal1 requested deletion, [58] which I did under BLPDELETE. On September 16, newspapers reported that Kramer had recently been arrested after being found in a motel room with a teenage boy. [59] This last episode seems to underline how problematic this article is, and that the problems may continue to get worse. Given that he seems to be notable only for Dragon Con and the criminal allegations, I believe the most appropriate action per BLP is to delete the article, and either have no redirect from the name, or a redirect to Dragon Con. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I'm neutral about whether or not we allow re-creation of this material but it's not appropriate to have a trial by Wikipedia. My position is that we must omit the child abuse allegations unless he's convicted, and we should enforce that. Fully protect if recreated. If he's convicted in the future, then we can report that.—S Marshall T/C 22:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm less sure on this. He's not been convicted, but we aren't saying he has been and this is a major part of his life now (and has been for 11 years). We normally _do_ have pending charges in an article (or even dropped charges) when they have seen coverage in reliable sources (extreme example: Dominique Strauss-Kahn#New York v. Strauss-Kahn which has a whole article on the now dropped charges). I'm not sure what makes this different than most articles unless it's borderline notability issues. Hobit (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bad example; Strauss-Kahn was splashed across the front of newspapers for a number of weeks (at least on two occasions), and is now dragging it back up again. So it's claim to standalone notability is at least legitimate. In actual fact; for the vast majority of articles we tend to omit pending charges or investigations - or at least leave them to a single line. Especially if it is not the primary aspect of notability. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I see the difference in scale: I took an extreme example showing that we'd be crazy to have a blanket statement against not covering pending charges. Given that these charges in this case have resulted in non-trivial coverage (entire articles on the subject, perhaps enough to meet WP:N for the charges themselves), I think that not covering it at all would be akin to fibbing or whitewashing on our part. The amount of space we should spend on this without violating UNDUE is unclear. I'd say a single short paragraph is reasonable in the context, but I can see arguments for making it smaller. Hobit (talk) 11:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion (as nominator). The deleting admin cited WP:BLPDELETE as a rationale, but this was not in accordance with policy. WP:BLPDELETE very clearly states, "If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion." This was a longstanding article which had been in existence since 2004, it should not have been deleted without a discussion. --El on ka 01:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list not a speedy case per Elonka. It's been there since 2004, there's not even a need for IAR--the normal week or so this would take seems reasonable. In any case, I generally oppose cutting topics and material out of Wikipedia to protect people when a simple web search on their name will turn up the same thing. I do think there is a potential case for deletion as the subject's notability may be borderline and they have apparently requested deletion. Hobit (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list Yes, the article should not have been deleted without community discussion for which we are now getting a belated opportunity. I do not think reporting of the arrest and allegations is appropriate in this case unless there is evidence the subject is willing for such publicity: I realise this may not be wiki-policy. I am nervous of reporting criminal allegations (but I have a British bias) but even I can see that after DSK had been filmed being marched around by the police that this was reportable here. There is at least an arguable case that the subject is notable other than for the allegations (I think he is). If the subject has requested deletion (has he?) this is a request worthy of proper consideration. The article, less the "allegations" section, could well be acceptable (fully-protected if necessary). These matters are appropriate for AfD (which is where the discussion should have been in the first place), rather than DRV. Thincat (talk) 08:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion; marginally notable individual, but with extant and serious BLP concerns relating to the content - deletion was a sensible (if slightly out of process) move. Going through the rigmarole of deletion is process wankery and largely pointless. (disclaimer: SV asked for a BLP person to take a look, prior to the DRV, and check on her actions - which I did, and at the time agreed they were the sensible approach). --Errant ^(chat!) 09:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In general speedy criteria are pretty strict. Could you explain why a typical AfD wouldn't be a good idea here? The page has been here for more than 6 years, I'm not seeing the sudden need for a rush. IAR is great, but it should only be used where there is clear need or clear consensus. I'm not seeing either. And the "slightly out of process" feels a lot like "slightly pregnant" to me. Hobit (talk) 10:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because an AfD would be a tired mess of "I saw his name in a reliable source, so KEEP KEEP KEEP!" gadflies. Avoid the drama and deal with a marginal BLP via speedy if subj requests. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yep, I hate it when people use WP:N to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Hobit (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Probably not as much as I hate thoughtless, knee-jerk "I saw it in the newspaper, and fuck all other considerations" votes. Tarc (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hobit; I do take your point. On the other hand the article looks to be a mess of COI and POV editing and serious undue weight issues relating to the legal matters. Recently I've come to think that often the best way is to scrap what we have for a bit, and come back in time. There is no rush. At the end of the day, if an article subject is really upset about the content, and their notability for inclusion isn't strong (I did some source searching, it's nothing deep and spectacular) then there is no harm putting it to one side for the moment. As you say; it has been there 6 years - and appears to have been causing issues for that time. We clearly are doing something wrong, lets try again :) I've never been a fan of the whole "ye must follow the letter of the deletion process" in cases where common sense and good judgement (which SV has in oooooodles :)) suffice. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        ErrantX, I appreciate the comments. I'll simply remind you that we have policies in place for dealing with this type of thing (WP:BLPDELETE). There should be a good reason supplied when we ignore them. As far as I can tell no one has provided such a reason. There was no rush or exceptional reason to speedy this rather then send to AfD. At least not one I've seen so far. Do you think WP:BLPDELETE is wrong? Do you think there is something special about this case? Something else? I'm just not seeing anyone really try to justify this out-of-process action. Hobit (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - sometimes a speedy out of process deletion is the way to go. - Less drama. Low notable person , BLP with long term content issues regarding allegations and charges. Off2riorob (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - For marginal/fringe notability subjects who request deletion, this is the way to go. This is why we empower admins to make decisions. Tarc (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per ErrantX, since he is a "marginally notable individual...with extant and serious BLP concerns" we might be better off without this page. We could still include mention of his convention activities (which he's most notable for) on related pages. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I ask how you know he's "marginally notable"? Is this simply your opinion or do you have evidence? The reason I ask is that if this deletion is allowed to stand, we're going to be turning DrV into AfD as without a discussion you're leaving it to a single admin to determine "marginally notable" and anyone objecting will have to come here. Speedy deletion is, after all, only for non-controversial decisions. It seems more reasonable to let the community figure it out in AfD. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I described him as "marginally notable" because he seemed to be a case of WP:BLP1E in my mind (I guess this is simply my opinion, though). I basically agree that sending it to AfD instead of speedying it might have been the better idea, but given the potential BLP issues I'm thinking maybe we'd be better of letting this one rest and spending our time elsewhere. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Interesting. I think a full-fledged AfD makes more sense still at this point. I am curious what you feel the one event of the BLP1E would be however. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am also neutral about whether or not we allow re-creation of this material. However, there should be no forced redirects to any group formerly associated with the subject. Either let the material stand alone or remove it without redirects. Sirfracas (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate without the allegations and optionally AfD There is notability , and if questioned it can be dealt with at an AfD on a proper article. I am not in favor of an expansive use of BLP, but when it does apply, we should use it firmly: I think it wrong to include allegations of this sort in articles about people with relatively minor notability without an actual conviction or public admission. The principle of DO NO HARM is am excellent basis for decision, and this is a good example of why we need it. The speedy, leading to this DRV has been counterproductive in that regard--the matter is now much more public than if it had simply been removed from the article, or even if we had had an ordinary AfD . I said, optionally AfD, because those who support deletion ought to consider whether going through this discussion again would now have more harm than benefit. DO NO HARM is not a matter of following technical procedures, but of doing whatever is best to minimize the damage our prominence can do to individuals when there is no countervailing encyclopedic benefit. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse out of respect of the person who requested deletion; if this is to be recreated, then I strongly recommend indefinite semi- or even long-term full-protection. Given marginal notability at best, such information about any criminal allegations should not be added here. We are not "transcription monkeys"; we do have a moral obligation to not far and feather individuals via Wikipedia. –MuZemike 15:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a fine argument for deletion. But isn't that what WP:BLPDELETE is for? Is there a reason in this case not to follow it? Or is it that it needs to be changed? I think you need to be claiming that either the policy is wrong (and should ideally be changed) or there is a reason to ignore the policy in this case. Or is there some third case I'm missing? Hobit (talk) 07:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
overturn/restore and list There's a strong argument here for notability. Send it to AfD and decide it that way. Deletion does not follow current policy. Note that if BLP is about trying not to do harm then the deletion doesn't make sense since the top google hits for this individual are highly negative. Nor is there any libel or similar issue since the matter in question has been widely reported in a variety of reliable sources including mainstream news sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 September 2011

Brett Kimberlin – Semiprotected and recreation allowed. Consensus is that the subject is notable enough for an article. But considering that the two deleted versions of the article were created, in the judgment of the deleting admin, in bad faith (see also Ticket:2010031110064798) and that their creators are now indefinitely blocked, many contributors note that the deleted version of the article should not be restored as is. It is, however, unprotected to allow recreation by a responsible editor. The deleted version(s) can be sent by e-mail, or restored once a valid stub is in place, to aid with writing the article if needed. – Sandstein 08:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This page was speedily deleted twice by the same administrator, once in 2010 and the other time in 2011, both times for being a negative unsourced biography of a living person. (The second time, the article was protected against re-creation.) However, the page was in fact sourced to reliable sources such as this Time magazine article. I asked the admin about this, and he responded that the article "was quite well-referenced" but that there was "a rather large back story involving a harassment campaign against Mr Kimberlin" and the fact that the editor who re-created the article in 2011 was banned, and that he could not explain further in public. Regardless of any back story, though, I believe that the article ought to be judged on its own merits and the reliable sources it cites. I note that the 2010 deletion was based on an OTRS ticket; therefore, I would be satisfied just to have the 2011 revisions of this page restored and leave the pre-2011 revisions (the ones implicated by the OTRS ticket) deleted, if necessary. Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume as a sysop you have reviewed the deleted article. I'm slightly surprised you would countenance undeleting such an unbalanced article that only reflects on the negative elements of this man's life. I would be willing to consider a draft article that puts the negative aspects into some context in the totality of their life and works, but a page that just highlights negative elements is pretty much a classic case of WP:COATRACK, WP:BLPVIO and WP:UNDUEviolation. Sorry but I can't agree to this material being restored. By the way, I also reviewed the OTRS ticket and I believe that the OTRS deletion is undoubtedly relevant to the current deletion too. Endorse. Since this has been deleted as an attackpage, I hope noone restores this for the purposes of the DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read the deleted article. Regarding its most recent version, I would not say that it does not only reflect on the negative aspects of Kimberlin's life. It mentioned his two current activism projects and had links to them. It mentioned that he was once represented by former Harvard Law School dean and Solicitor General Erwin Griswold in his legal defense and suggested that the accuracy of the witnesses against him could be called into question because they had been hypnotized. It listed Kimberlin in Category:American activists. Yes, the article also discussed Kimberlin's criminal convictions, but it would be hard to write an article about him without explaining that. Otherwise, for example, it would be impossible to explain what he was doing filing a lawsuit against prison officials that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. WP:BLP doesn't mean that the negative aspects of people's lives -- especially people who have sought to thrust themselves into public controversies -- are supposed to be covered up by Wikipedia. It means that when we write about living people, we need to do so with attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore This is negative, but sourced. The subject of a book is notable enough to justify an article. The proposed criterion would prevent all articles about living criminals. Unfortunately, I agree with Spartaz that this cannot be restored for purposes of discussion here, so I urge other admins to look at it. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article needs to be fundamentally rewritten if we are going to post it in the encyclopedia. The way it is written is just not at all how we should be writing articles on Wikipedia. There's no real policy I can point to to explain what I'm saying; you just have to read it for yourself. I think it would be OK to provide a copy of the article to experienced non-admins who wish to view the article during this DRV, so if anyone wants to, drop a note on my talk page. NW (Talk) 03:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the page is currently protected against re-creation. I would appreciate it if those editors who oppose restoration of the article as it was would indicate whether they would at least support unprotecting the page to allow any interested editor to write a new, neutral version. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore There was no cause for deleting this as G10--several problematic phrasings could have been cleaned up, and I agree that the net overall tone was negative, but the sourcing looked either appropriate for the allegations listed, or sufficiently close that a discussion and repair would be appropriate. Note that I'm not commenting on the initially deleted version. Fact is, the man appears to be a notable criminal, so per NPOV, he should be portrayed negatively to the extent that reliable sources portray him negatively--even in such circumstances, it's still possible to write an appropriate article that meets our standards. Jclemens (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen the deleted article, but even a cursory search for sources turns up this and this, which implies that there's an article to be written. Our BLP policy is about negative unsourced information concerning a living person. BLP policy does not say "whitewash everything" or "protect convicted criminals from the consequences of their actions". Therefore there's clearly a strong case to unprotect. Nevertheless, any hypothetical article would need to be sensitively written by experienced editors.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NW was kind enough to send me a copy. I didn't run down all the sources, but it does appear that while a quite negative BLP it is sourced. And doing a news search, I'm not seeing a whole lot of non-negative stuff to add. I think we should have an article as he's clearly way past "notable". I think the deleted version is acceptable as long as all facts are in fact sourced as they seem to be. A bit more of an introduction about where he was born, etc. would be welcome of course. So basically restore and trim as needed or allow recreation if there is some specific problem with the current article that causes it to violate our own policies and that information is hidden from us because of OTRS. If the OTRS issue is solely that someone doesn't want this article, or a mainly negative article, to exist, that I have little sympathy for. As long as we are accurately citing sources and we don't put UNDUE weight on anything, I think a generic complaint shouldn't prevent us from covering the topic. If there is a specific problem with a source or sources or something else that is unambiguously an issue with our own policies/guidelines I'd hope those with OTRS could repair rather than delete the whole article. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the deleting administrator, I don't have a problem with an article about the subject per se - however, it is a nearly-all-negative BLP created once by a stalker and once by a banned user. As such, I think it should be started from scratch. There's no doubt that he is notable, however. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that both deletions were based (mostly) on the same OTRS ticket. The Cavalry (Message me) 17:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quibble. I would like to point out that this wasn't an unsourced article and so deleting it with a comment indicating that it was is fairly problematic. I realize edit summaries are optional but they shouldn't be misleading, especially for things that non-admins can't double check. Hobit (talk) 12:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation. I've read the emailed content (thanks NW). I do not think it meets CSD#G10. It does not disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. It is a sourced, negative BLP. There may well be NPOV issues. An attempt at a balanced fresh restart is probably a good way to go. I'm not surprised that someone associated with the subject would write to OTRS and request deletion. This takes us into the area of how much we listen to BLP subjects who don't want to be covered. There was once discussion on this, but I don't know what happened to that discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore This is an undoubtedly notable individual for whom an article should exist, and where there are ample reliable and verifiable sources to support its restoration. Issues with content should be addressed at the article level, not through deletion. Alansohn (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. WP:NPOV does not require equal weight to positive and negative statements. The coverage of the subject of this article appears to be mostly negative. I agree that there are some sentences in the article that could be stated with more neutral language, but I see no reason to delete a negative BLP that appears to reflect the weight of the sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an article to be written here. The deleted one, however, is not it. NW is entirely correct. Keep deleted. T. Canens (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, since the creator of the most recent version (ZHurlihee (talk · contribs)) has been blocked for block evasion, WP:CSD#G5 applies as well. T. Canens (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm with T. Canens and NW here. Yes, the article is sourced. But at the same time it is an unduly negative BLP. Mini-phrases like "is a felon" (the opening phrase), "was back in the news", "gained notoriety" and "became something of a cause célèbre once in prison" demonstrate the thinly disguised hit job that this article is. Additionally, given the back story alluded to above, the OTRS complaint (which I haven't seen) and the fact that the creator of the article has been blocked by Arbcom without public reason suggests that we ought to trust the judgement of those who have taken action here.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People of Jewish descent – Deletion endorsed, DRV is not CfD2, no arguments are given about why the CfD close was an incorrect representation of the consensus of the CfD or of policy. – Fram (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Deletion of a necessary needing category which would include / cover the following ones:
Category:Christians of Jewish descent
Category:American people of Jewish descent etc.
There are other categories for other ethnicities which begin with the same words: "People of X descent" I think two flawed arguments for deletion isn't compelling enough to delete this category, there are so many articles that can be added to it, just to like other categories designated for other ethnicities. Jewishness is also inherited by ethnicity. There are a lot of people who are of Jewish descent and of other descends, like David Duchovny. Please, do review it, this category clearly lacks arguments for keeping it. I don't know what other two users persecuted by wanting to keep down this category, a goal or just being biased. I don't know, but I think it's clear that this category better off be kept. ChaChing! (talk) 04:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, throwing a bunch of ad homs at those overwhelmingly voting to delete something and offering no policy based reason to overturn the close looks pretty much as something doomed to fail. How about you refactor the nomination to remove the ad homs and offer some policy based reason for this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also see checking your history that you have failed to discuss this with the closing admin but did take the time to canvas the only user voting keep in the discussion [60]. Please can you explain your behaviour? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm also curious as to why he didn't !vote in the original CSD discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't "throw" ad homs as you claimed, no need to make it about me and not the subject. I suggested there might be one because this is such a clear case that it'll be ridiculously offensive not to point out the obvious [possibility]. As for 'canvassing' I already explained it in rationale - it's lacking arguments for support and besides an admin or any other closing user must look forward arguments, not votes. It's a known rule of WP. So how about you stop throwing ad homs towards me, by your own logic, and provide arguments on your own to this matter? For a start you could try countering these ones: Jewish is an ethnicity, I don't need to bring up various sources, polls including jews as ethnicity, you can simple look up infoboxes of these known persons: Mark_Zuckerberg, Cindy Margolis wherein it's written that their ethnicity is jewish. Now, this category will be coming handy at many situations, like when it's unclear whether a person in subject had a great gradfather who was of german-jewish descent or hungarian-jewish one. So putting a simple cat "of jewish descent" will be appropriate. I could go on, but seriously, if you're not trying to sell a crap that jews aren't an ethnicity then it must be clear to you, that jews are an ethnicity and this category should not be removed. ChaChing! (talk) 22:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would need a wider discussion to resolve on fundamental issues, but because of the different and incompatible definitions of being Jewish, there is very unlikely to be a satisfactory resolution, which is why I for example generally no longer engage in debates on the matter. In previous discussions at Wikipedia there have been those advocating that people who fulfill any of the possible definitions of Jews are Jews; there have been others arguing that only one or another of the possible definitions was correct. Fortunately, there is at least one clear issue on the basis of which to reject this category, which is that the name of the category is hopelessly confusing. In contrast, Christians of Jewish Descent is relatively unambiguous--there are numerous individuals who clearly self-identify as being in this category, and all variants of the Jewish religion, and I think essentially all Jews, are agreed that someone who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew. DGG ( talk ) 16:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. This matter is frustratingly simple. People can be of Jewish descent (i.e. have Jewish ancestry) and not be Jewish. Such a person has one or more Jewish ancestors but is neither practicing Judaism nor self-identifies as being a secular Jew. So, as long as there is the category tree Category:People by ethnic or national descent there needs to be this category as a fundamental part of it. Mayumashu (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This vote was canvassed [61] 01:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how far back do you propose to carry it? and how do you propose to judge if a claimed Jewish ancestor was Jewish? The problem is recursive. I shall give you an]] concrete example. Suppose in 1800 a person who was previously a practicing Jew and lived as a Jew converted to the Christian religion. After his conversion he married a non-Jew and had children , all of whom he raised as Christians. Suppose we have an article about his great=great=great-great-grand-daughter, all through the male line. First, assume she carries none of the proposed Jewish genomic markers. Then, consider her brother, who carries his ancestor's Y-chromosome. Would you list either or both in this category? Reducing this to the admittedly absurd, every human has African ancestors. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user here stated that "I think essentially all Jews, are agreed that someone who converts to another religion is no longer a Jew", and I would just like to point out that nothing could be less true than this statement. Many if not most Jews would consider someone who converts to another religion to be a Jew nonetheless. Consider for example the entry on the philosopher Edmund Husserl, among the categories for which are the following: "Jewish philosophers"; "German Lutherans"; and "Converts to Protestantism from Judaism". This is entirely consistent and proper. Even though he is a convert, it would be entirely wrong to say that Husserl is not also considered a Jewish philosopher. It may well be true that there are thorny definitional issues for a category such as the one under discussion here. But it is equally true that the concept of "Jewish descent" is meaningful and comprehensible (hence the existence of the "Jewish philosopher" category). Additionally, it is very unclear how arguments along the lines of "the problem is recursive" are capable of establishing that "Christians of Jewish descent" is a more meaningful category than "People of Jewish descent": surely such arguments apply equally to both categories, as both equally imply the meaningfulness of the concept of Jewish descent. Furthermore: it may indeed be absurd to categorize as being of Jewish descent somebody whose distant ancestor was Jewish if none of the intervening generations considered themselves as Jewish, but this is not a convincing argument against the category, because it denies the possibility of contributors to Wikipedia being capable of sensible judgment about such questions. The so-called "recursive problem" is really hardly any problem at all, and where problems arise, they will almost always be solvable problems. I should add here as a qualification that I have no awareness of the previous discussion that led to deletion, and thus cannot comment on that, nor do I wish to comment on the necessity or otherwise of a category specifically for those who do not recognise themselves as Jewish. My intention is rather to point out that the Jewishness of somebody who has converted to another religion may well still be an important element of their notability, as for instance in the case of the aforementioned German Lutheran convert and Jewish philosopher, Edmund Husserl. FANCOPE (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this decision should be overturned. We have numerous, well populated categories for every stripe of Jew. this category was by its name nearly identical to Category:Jews, but was given an absurd definition as being only those people who don't identify as jewish. Absurd in that this definition in no way flows from the name. To address DGG's concern, i dont think we would stop at any point IF such minute fractions were ever noted anywhere, which they usually arent. Sure, Mao was part african, but its not noted by anyone, so its not notable. its usually someone with jewish parents, one jewish parent, and rarely one or two jewish grandparents. I dont know how many individuals were listed in this category before deletion, but i suspect that most of them are just fine in the subcategories that remain for people of various religions and of jewish descent, as thats usually what is noted about non practicing jews. Add to that, say, athiests of jewish descent, and we have all we need. category is redundant, and the definition given for it doesnt fit the name, and we dont need a Category:Nonpractitioners of Judaism of Jewish descent as a container category for the small number of subcats remaining. interesting discussion, though. very rabbinical:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the CfD. I don't see the strong need for such a parent category. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 September 2011

Michael Crook – Nomimator has been blocked as a reincarnation of a disruptive sockpuppeter. We don't encourage that at DRV. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

WP:PROD, reason was 'Subject is no longer newsworthy Afterthetruth (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted-The deletion log here is illuminating. While the most recent deletion does cite a prod, prior to that there was and AfD and a number of subsequent G4 speedy deletions. Given that kind of history, I'd like to see a userspace draft before even considering undeletion.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The version of the page which was deleted by the prod was simply a redirect to 10 Zen Monkeys, which itself was deleted. The version which contained anything more than a stub or redirect was the version deleted by AfD. I agree with Fyre - would need to see a draft before even beginning to consider restoring the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 September 2011

14 September 2011

User:TonyTheTiger/Levi Horn – Deletion overturned to keep per new information since AFD closure. No fault of the closer of the AFD.--v/r - T P 19:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC) – v/r - T P 19:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

====

Page was deleted before he made the taxi squad roster. Taxi squad players are uncontroversially allowed to have pages. The National Football League has a 53-man active roster of players who are eligible to play in each game and an additional 8-man taxi squad of players who are guaranteed about 1/3rd the minimum salary of active roster minimum salaries to practice with the team. These players are usually the first players added to the active roster in the event of injury. He is a paid professional member of the team, earning years of service towards a pension and other benefits. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. it goes without saying that I feel this should close as Overturn as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please link the policy or documentation that states that these players are notable. There is frequently a mismatch between sub-guidelines and the GNG so please advise whether there is anything close to passing the GNG? I also see that you have added a rescue tag to the userfied article. Its not normal to add that to an article at DRV. There is no need anyway as the ARS regulars are all frequent visitors to DRV so they will see this listing anyway. I think I asked you three times already (AN, REFUND and now here) for the policy behind your assertion of notability. If you are trying to get the close overturned reference to policy works miles better then unsubstantiated assertions. Cheers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion was reasonable given the discussion. Sports stuff always confuses me. He clearly and easily meets the GNG, but I know folks like to see more often in sports because of the massive coverage. [62] is solely about him, [63] I can't see all of, but it looks likely to have significant coverage, [64] is short but solely about him as is [65]. Thus Cbl62's requirements at AfD are probably met. I'm leaning overturn to NC based on a flawed discussion, but want to see what others have to say since sports isn't my thing. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Policy keeps changing. I see the current policy at WP:NGRIDIRON says notability is presumed for players who have played one game. He has not. However, I have never seen a player AFDed who was on an active practice squad in season. These players use to be considered notable. Whatever changes in policy made this guy AFDable during training camp, may confirm deletion. I am DRVing out of past custom that players on current payroll by teams at the highest level of their sport are notable. He is on the payroll of an NFL team.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Humm, I saw something that said he'd played in a pre-season game. Is that accurate? Would it count? Hobit (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it wouldn't but that's academic. If the subject passes GNG then my vote is to overturn to keep based on the rationale that sub-guidelines are subject to an overarching meta consensus which is that notability is a deliberately low bar for inclusion and that having two decent reliable sources is enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be official, at this point I'm at overturn to keep with no fault assigned to the closer as (many) of the sources weren't in the discussion or article at that time. Hobit (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm with Spartaz. The GNG prevails. Overturn to keep.—S Marshall T/C 19:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn- As Hobit points out above, the GNG was met. Since one guideline was met, we don't need to worry about whether or not others have been met. That said, I can't fault the closer, since I think the consensus was read correctly even if the discussion was flawed. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I can't fault the close - at the time of closing there was a clear consensus that the subject was lacking under both GNG and ATHLETE. I would have deleted this too had I closed that. This will clearly overturn to keep but we should make sure we reflect that this was based on additional sourcing emerging... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, practice squad players have never been considered notable per policy, it was per a consensus that was purported to have existed which determined the outcome of many AfDs years ago. If I can !vote here, I'd !vote Endorse deletion (I commented at the AfD but never formally !voted). The Spokesman article is the only significant coverage Horn received; the Newsbank article is presumably only a one-liner, Native News Network is not a reliable source from what I can see (they called the NFL lockout a "strike" among other errors), and neither is indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both look reliable to me. Note that the error you cite is what they say he called it. They probably should have clarified, but still. As far as ictmn, see [66] which (while a press release) gives a background on the site. Seems likely to be reliable. Hobit (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first line at WP:RS#Overview says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Not only is that article laden with factual errors, but the grammar is atrocious. I do not consider one real article plus two articles from Native American newspapers with questionable reliability enough to pass WP:GNG.
  - There was a clear consensus at the AfD and there should be no overturning the close unless it is determined that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly (as others have said here, this is not the case) or significant new information is brought up (two new articles from sites devoted to discussing people of Native American heritage should not qualify as "significant") per Wikipedia:Deletion review#Principal purpose. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The consensus at the AfD was clearly to delete and Sandstein made the right call. That said, I would be willing to vote overturn if I thought the subject met GNG or NSPORTS (also called ATH). But he does not. NSPORTS has never said that being on a practice squad is enough and nor is playing a practice match. An actual regular season match is what's required and Horn does not have that. In regards to GNG, I agree completely with Eagles' comments above. The two native American websites do not appear to be RS, the Great Falls Tribune article seems to be a run-of-the-mill one-liner and, although the Spokesman-Review is significant coverage, GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources" (my bold). One article is not enough in my opinion. Jenks24 (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's supposed to be unreliable about the native American websites, exactly?—S Marshall T/C 00:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I continue to see no reason to think those sources aren't reliable there are others now in the draft article. This certain would seem to be a fine source. The draft article has a few others too. Hobit (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like every player on the Montana Grizzlies football team has a featured article like that on that section of the website devoted to UM: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77]. All within the last 30 days, and none of these players will have Wikipedia articles in the future. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. DRV's normal position is that the GNG trumps subject-specific notability guidelines such as WP:ATH. Hobit provided sources, and you didn't like them. Hobit provided more sources, and while it's noted that you still didn't like them, the weight given to the "not notable" argument diminishes with each reliable source provided. The presumption that sources are reliable is rebuttable, but it has yet to be rebutted. To call them unreliable requires more than just an opinion statement: it must be shown why they're unreliable. And the fact that a source is recent has no bearing on its reliability at all.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read my above comment before you twist my words. I merely pointed out that one of the sources provided writes many featured articles on many non-notable Montana players, not that the source was recent. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain A) how you know those other players are notable (the coverage in question would lead me to think they may well be notable, but you seem to be taking the opposite tack) and B) why their notability matters wrt Horn? I think I'm confused about what you are trying to get at... Hobit (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn; maybe relist at AFD, since people are objecting to the new sourcing. (Not to say the closure was incorrect.) He has more coverage than most players of his current status, being a spokesman for the White House's Let's Move! program [78]. Indian Country Today, which has published several articles about him [79], is a respectable source, see its description published by U of Nebraska [80]. Novickas (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Practice squad players are NOT notable and never will be automatically given notability, but I am satisfied that he passes WP:GNG in its current state, as well having been unanimously named All-Big Sky Conference, which should be worth something. When I heard about this DRV, I was probably going to endorse the deletion, but having looked at the article, I think he's notable. However, he doesn't pass WP:NSPORT.--Giants27(T|C) 20:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have restored the history of the article and merged it to the userfied version simply to address the issue of attribution. I have no opinion on the outcome of the DRV; this is simply procedurally required. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep per Tony the Tiger. No criticism of the close but the article has now been much approved. No reason for this noteable player not to have a mainspace article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation (being pedantic here, but I won't say overturn since the original close was correct based only on that discussion). Plenty of reliable sources support notability under WP:GNG, so there's no reason not to have a page on him. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

We Want Blood! – No harm in a new discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Want Blood! (2nd nomination) – Courcelles 15:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

AfD was closed with no commentary whatsoever. Closing admin gave rationale per WP:NALBUMS, but without access to page in question it is impossible for a non-admin to verify. I raised the issue on the closing admin's talk page, but given a last edit of 10 days ago felt it would be more quickly resolved here. An AfD relisted as a result of a DRV would likely gain the visibility needed to have sufficient commentary to close per usual guidelines. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've mistaken Mattg82 (talk · contribs), one of the discussion participants, as the closer. Courcelles (talk · contribs), who has edited as recently as today, is the admin who closed the debate.
Prior to the article's deletion, here is the Google cache of the page. Cunard (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD was re-listed twice. 21+ days of discussion opportunity. There is no reason to overturn as the consensus was unanimous and the opportunity ample. --Cerejota (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion -- The last time I looked participants in deletion discussions were supposed to base their position of the merits of covering the topic, not on the merits of the current state of the article. It is my understanding that no participant should accept, at face value, assertions that there are no sources. My google search indicates over a dozen reviews. Geo Swan (talk) 10:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be very harsh of us to overturn Courcelles for closing in accordance with a unanimous discussion that's twice been relisted. But such an ill-attended debate certainly does not prevent creating a fresh article based on the sources Geo Swan lists. Endorse but userfy to the nominator in case he wants to revamp the article to fit the sources provided.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
relist or overturn to NC A nom and one !vote that have basically no content does not make for an ideal discussion and once challenged should really just be overturned by the closer if there are even vaguely good arguments. I suspect the closer would have in fact done so had they been contacted and asked. Like S Marshall, I would agree that no fault should be assigned to the closer. Hobit (talk) 12:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

13 September 2011

List of African American women – "Delete" closure endorsed. There is at any rate clearly no consensus to overturn it. – Sandstein 20:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

None of the deletion rational was based on notability but instead irrelevant points. Policy is against deleting list simply because some prefer categories. None of the rational from the delete votes is a valid reason to delete a page. Discussed it with closing administrator on their talk page. [81] Dream Focus 18:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three delete voters said "overly broad and inherently unmaintainable", with one saying "overly broad". By only listing notable African American women who have their own articles, that problem could be solved. Several stated it'd be better as a category, which is not a valid reason for deletion either. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Dream Focus 18:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Self Endorse Been picking up the slack in AFD left by Cirt's desysop, guess I gotta expect some DRVs. I believe consensus was clear in the AFD. "African American women" is not exclusive at all and I don't think anyone on that list would be notable simply for being an African American woman.--v/r - T P 18:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is consensus that the list had such a broad scope that it was indiscriminate and no longer useful. The conversion to category is an extra, since it had stated support, but it wasn't heavily argued that the list should be deleted just because a category was better — frankie (talk) 23:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate? Didn't it only include blue linked articles to African American women? Dream Focus 03:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think indiscriminate was meant regarding the list's definition for inclusion, so that it would be unmanageable even if no red link was included at all. It might be that it isn't the case, perhaps it could be managed as a list of lists (like the examples below), but there is no standing consensus one way or the other, not to the point that it could override the "local" consensus achieved at the AfD — frankie (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - yeah the close was a good one, Dreamfocus is raising arguments better suited to the deletion discussion itself, than a DRV: there is consensus in that discussion that the list is to broad is indeed a reason to delete.--Cerejota (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the List of Native American women or Lists of African Americans to broad? List can be managed, with subcategories if necessary. Dream Focus 03:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEANS dude, WP:BEANS...--Cerejota (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Though generally if there is a category there should be a list, and vice-versa, , sometimes there are practical exceptions, and the community has the right to decide when to make them. And it did in this case. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. Dream Focus is raising arguments perfectly well suited to DRV: the arguments for deletion were not based in policy, not even in guidelines, and the closer erred by not considering the validity of the arguments. WP:CLN is explicit on this point: "arguing that a Category or List is duplicative of the other in a deletion debate is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." DeliciousBits (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. This DRV has to consider broader issues than the AfD did, and Dream Focus is bringing up very valid points. Considering the possibilities of how this deletion could reflect on the project as a whole, its imperative this be overturned and the list be reinstated. • Freechildtalk 10:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TParis correctly found that the consensus was to delete. But the consensus itself does not appear to have been in accordance with the usual Wikipedian custom and practice. WP:CLN says that categories and lists can co-exist, so "convert to category and delete" is an unusual outcome. It's true that a complete list would be ridiculously large, but we have no rule that says a list must be complete, or even completable. This is what Dream Focus is getting at, above. We have lists of African Americans. We have lists of books. Plenty of lists are not completable. This does not mean that they're unmaintainable or unencyclopaedic. So overall, although I endorse TParis' assessment of the consensus, I think the consensus itself was so far out of line that it would be appropriate to send it back to AfD for a better discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find your argument persuasive, but since I didn't see the list itself, can an admin kindly temporally restore? In particular, lists of African Americans and lists of books are "list of lists", which are generally kept, but I have no idea if this list met that criteria. If it did, I think S Marshall's point on policy and usual practice being a systemic consensus not to be ignored in an AfD without argument as possible reason to overturn.--Cerejota (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I suggest this revision as it was the revision at the time of the close.--v/r - T P 00:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Having seen it, my endorsement then stands, without prejudice for recreation if it becomes a "List of lists" of more focused topics of African American women, in the style of lists of African Americans and lists of books. Categories are generally built from the top down, but lists are different, and are often built from the narrow up to the broad.--Cerejota (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it normal practice to delete something that could have been fixed instead?—S Marshall T/C 07:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am arguing and CSD criteria certainly doesn't apply here, but there is precedent in CSD:G11 for deleting an article that can be improved. It says "...would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic".--v/r - T P 12:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[82] This seems rather encyclopedic already. Every name is a blue link to their own article. It list information as well, so you know who is who, far more useful than a category. Dream Focus 17:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I think a list of lists, as Cerjota suggests, is an excellent way of handling this one. I continue to support as a general rule list⇔category, but as a single list, it's just too unwieldy. We make the rules; we can also make the exceptions. I agree with S Marshall that this close isn't consonant with the usual line of decisions, but there's no reason why it always has to be. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As someone who hasn't participated enough in DRV discussions, I've waited to see what arguments would be made. My initial instinct was much as the AfD discussion tended (over-broad, impossible to complete), but I hadn't seen the original list. It's a broad intersection based solely on race and gender. Seeing the list doesn't change my mind much. But I'm satisfied with the argument made by User:Cerejota that as a list of lists this could serve a navigation function compatible with aligned categories. As mentioned the closer's decision is somewhat out of line with common practice, so it's very reasonable to discuss that call in this process. While my first reaction wasn't sympathetic to User:Dream Focus, I'm glad that user decided to raise these issues. BusterD (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, does anybody have an applicable "list of lists" drawn up in userspace yet, ready to be moved into this space, since that appears to be a broadly agreeable outcome? I know Wikipedians love ritual, proper placement of soup spoons and procedure for procedure's sake, so I anticipate another "deletion" of this article. But it would be advisable to avoid the damage to Wikipedia's public image that will come from destroying an article at this title. A swift swap for a "list of lists," followed by a history-undeletion for the sake of reference and convenience of ensuring other lists' completeness, would be most preferable. Let's try to be smart about this. DeliciousBits (talk) 10:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not really that long of a list. [83] No problems at all with it. If it ever gets too long, then it can be broken into side list. Dream Focus 11:31, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not too long a list, and I said overturn to keep. But I know how these things tend to go. The necessary touching of lampposts and counting of doorknobs must be performed. There is more support for a list of lists. Thus someone should have a list of lists ready in userspace for when all the doorknobs are counted. DeliciousBits (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The haters will always be haters, no sense jumping through hoops so they can satisfy their win at all cost mentalities. Dream Focus 11:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I think that a list of lists and an undeletion of page history is approximately a win for everyone. Anyway, it appears you won't be compiling said list of lists. I hope someone else does. DeliciousBits (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Consensus was read by the closing admin, no wrongdoing or serious administrative error cited. A perennial DRV gadfly should know by now that DRV is not a venue to use to to prolong the argument. Tarc (talk) 11:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear to me we should have this list but the old one was !voted to be deleted. I'd strongly argue that this should be a list-of-lists and deletion doesn't make sense per S Marshall and basic common sense. I'd prefer a relist for a wider discussion, but have no basis for that other than IAR. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion was read correctly and the proper action was taken. Them From Space 03:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Common Dead – "Delete" closure endorsed due to a lack of consensus for overturning it. – Sandstein 20:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Page was deleted over a misunderstanding from a false claim made during the discussion. It was claimed only one source (an album review) was present when actually there were several, concerning multiple third party sources that provide coverage and critiques, favorable and unfavorable of the band. For whatever reason, the only opposition to the article stated "Fails WP:Music" but this is clearly false; WP:Music states that as long as there are multiple sources talking about a band, that are not influenced by the band, the band meets the appropriate standards to remain on Wikipedia. Such sources are prevalent for this subject. It is believed deletion was chosen by user TParis without exploration of the sources to see they are several and legitimate, and instead was based on appearances of opposition in the AFD that merely copy/paste "Fails WP:Music", which would be fine had such claims not been false (as explained above). For this reason I think the deletion was a mistake based on insinuations, not lack of meeting requirements, as the article meets guidelines, and should be restored. User TParis also gave the subject a second look and admits on his talk page several sources are legit, however, the matter is now on WP:DRV to avoid any WP:Supervote disputes. These are some but not all of the following sources that had been provided:

66.131.199.156 (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
1. First album review by Metal Rules^WebCite – http://www.metal-rules.com/info/index.php?page=about^WebCite states (my emphasis):
  Metal-Rules.com is a pioneer of the online metal magazine world. It went online in 1995 and quickly grew into one of the world's largest and most respected internet publications. "EvilG", a Canadian from St. John's, Newfoundland, owns the site. The writing and administrative staff is comprised of people from Canada, USA, Finland, Sweden, and Australia. Most of our writers have been metal fans for well over 20 years. We take this music, and what we do, seriously. The site is run as a hobby, by dedicated fans of metal. But with a proven track record of 15 years online, you can rest assured we are here to stay.
  ...
  Every month we cover new CD and DVD releases with somewhere between 50-100 new reviews a month from all metal styles from the brutality of death metal to hard rocking glam metal. Every day we update the site with news releases sent to us by both bands and the industry. We also maintain a very popular forum which has hundreds of posts every day. It is used as an invaluable networking tool for fans and even by a number of bands.
  I don't think metal-rules.com has the necessary editorial oversight to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability#What counts as a reliable source, which requires "sources that have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".
2. Second album review by Metal Forge^WebCite – the bottom of the page states (my emphasis):
  All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. © 2005-2009 The Metal Forge. All rights reserved. Content may not be copied or reproduced without the express permission of The Metal Forge. Material supplied to The Metal Forge online magazine is at the contributor’s risk. Opinions expressed by interviewees published on The Metal Forge website are not necessarily those of the staff of The Metal Forge online magazine.
  Colin McNamara has a Yahoo! email address, and there is no indication that he is a employed journalist for the online magazine; this appears to be user-generated content.
3. Single review by Gauntlet^WebCite – from http://www.thegauntlet.com/addcontent.php^WebCite, it appears that Gauntlet accepts user-generated content. Per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) (shortcut: WP:USERGENERATED), user-generated sources do not establish notability.
4. Press about a contest the band held^WebCite – from http://metalbuzz.net/site/f-a-q/^WebCite, it appears that the website accepts press releases and requests for album reviews from bands. After reading the article (the first paragraph quoted):
  Common Dead released an iTunes-exclusive digital single, “Come Get Some”, on May 17th, and downloading the song may win you a free T-shirt from the band. Buyers of the song will be able to forward their iTunes e-mail receipt or verifiable screen capture of their purchase to the band’s official webmail and a randomly selected listener will score a free Common Dead “Corpse Print” T-shirt.
  I feel that this is a press release.
5. Another review of first album^WebCite – see my comment at #2.
6. Interview for Metal Rules – see my my comment for #4.
Mabdul (talk · contribs), the nominator, wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Dead:
"After I cleaned up the page, I noticed that there are no real independent third part references talking about that music group with the exception of one small review of one album."
The "delete" votes, Topher385 (talk · contribs), Off2riorob (talk · contribs), and Stuartyeates (talk · contribs), all stated that Common Dead failed WP:MUSIC. However, other than Mabdul, the "delete" votes did not explicitly state their opinions about the sources. Both 96.22.223.106 (talk · contribs) and 66.131.199.156 (talk · contribs) believed that the sources were reliable. They were not refuted by the "delete" votes. Although 70.30.239.100 (talk · contribs) had some ad hominems in his/her comment, the IP editor wrote: "this artist has plenty of coverage from all over and i myself added another reference."
Because the sources do not pass Wikipedia:Verifiability, and because the close was within TParis (talk · contribs)'s discretion, I endorse the close. Owing to the lack of discussion in the AfD about the sources, I would not oppose a relist.
What do other DRV participants think? Cunard (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took part in the DRV and although I have nothing to do with the creation of the article, I am familiar with the genre the band associates itself with and defend the restoration of the article.

Regarding the following quote from Metal-Rules.com as if it's a damning point to make:

"The site is run as a hobby, by dedicated fans of metal."

This is merely a self-description of the journalists as they choose to describe themselves. They are still hired authors, posting reviews of CDs and concerts without influence or solicitation from bands. User-generated content is not offered on the website, other than a comment section in forums which do not apply in this context. A writer at Rolling Stone could just as well call himself "a fan", this does not take away from his credentials, and this does not take away from the reputable standing of Metal-Rules.com as a news and review source by hired contributors. The core functioning of the website is NOT user-generated in the sense of a Facebook page or even iReport CNN section, or "log in to add review" functionality, thus in context of the exact sources provided for this subject, it is not user-generated or otherwise influenced by the band and is valid.

Also, the assumption The Metal Forge "appears to be user-generated content" is another biased viewpoint. Domain extension of staff e-mail is a laughable aspect to point out in the effort of invalidating their press standing. Extended review of the website shows a regular staff of contributors limited to few, despite an apparent lack of "staff" page or other aggregation of journalist names. Review content and press is not by default influenced by the bands in question, if it appears on their website. In context of this subject (Common Dead), the content is not influenced by the band or submitted in the vein of a press release. Staff reviews are posted unbiased on the website and scores and opinions are not delegated by bands or representative of bands.

In regards to this point, and also the similar claim made regarding Metal-Rules.com, the matter in which albums being written about had been selected for a piece -- whether submitted by bands themselves, or labels, or representatives of bands, or obtained from the heavens -- is not only impossible to conclude in most cases, but is also entirely irrelevant. The pieces here exist at choice of third-party press, and if not in fact user-generated or created by the band (such as the sources for Common Dead), valid and meet WP:Music. For what it's worth, even the most major label distributes press copies of works with the intention of achieving a written review or other coverage from a press outlet.

The Gauntlet does not accept user generated content in context to the article being provided for this subject. In fact, the article, in this case, is a scathing review of a single by the band, and further more suggests this coverage was not influenced or submitted by the band.

I will, however, admit that the press release regarding the "Come Get Some" single may not be entirely valid. This reads as though a press release. Allmusic Guide and other music directory listings had also been provided on the article's page, despite their validity to be considered under WP:Music. By the lack of argument behind the "delete" votes on the DRV page, that also suggests removal of the article was based on mimicked votes and primarily lack of knowledge of the artist, not based on any real failure of WP:Music.

Judging through what "appears" to be, rather than what is (i.e. assumptions), is not how you delegate between articles and their validity; we have to go by sources in context to this subject. Ultimately, the top sources are legitimate, and contain multiple unsolicited features of the band in question. The article should be restored, even though its meeting of WP:Music guidelines are at present time minimal, they still meet the standards. Arguably forthcoming content, as suggested to arrive on the band's press releases, will only justify the restoration of this article, if not the creation of an entirely new one when appropriate. That is enough to meet WP:Music guidelines, and the obscurity of the artist in hand with the apparent bias of the article's challengers is really the issue here. 66.131.199.156 (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. Though I remain unconvinced about the reliability of the sources, I am now more inclined to support relisting. I've asked the "delete" votes to clarify what they thought of the sources and why they didn't consider the sources to allow the band to pass WP:MUSIC. Their responses will sway me to support relisting or support keeping the article deleted. Cunard (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- any chance of viewing the article as it was during the AFD? Off2riorob (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. There is a Google Cache of the page. Cunard (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@User:66.131.199.156 - "the apparent bias of the article's challengers" - please present evidence of this bias and the names of the users you are accusing of bias. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: the close looks like a reflection of the consensus to me. Deletion review is not not AfD appeal. I don't have access to the original page so I'm not going to second guess myself anyway. I only came here because an IP posted to my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 September 2011

11 September 2011

Phased vector control of induction motors – Since everybody is saying "relist" and the deleting admin is cool with that I went ahead and done so. However, it is customary to attempt to discuss AFD closes with the closer before sending them to DRV. – Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

latest changes were not considered before deletion. please reconsider Antonov777 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all convinced that your changes would have changed the opinions of those who commented. While you did trim the article significantly, no one seems to have had issue with the length of the article per se, but rather they did not believe that the subject meets our inclusion guidelines. However, the discussion also drew very little comment, so I'm fine with a relist to gather a harder consensus. As a side note, you should really have discussed this with TP before coming here. lifebaka++ 18:06, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relist as per lifebaka. I really doubt the outcome will change, but I'm not comfortable with letting a decision with such light participation to stand after an editor had made substantial changes in a good faith effort to meet the concerns expressed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist is reasonable as there wasn't really much of a quorum at the AfD. Herostratus (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. At AfD, I'd be inclined to say keep as googling reveals that this is a real subject in published hournals. eg http://www.arpnjournals.com/jeas/research_papers/rp_2009/jeas_0609_199.pdf --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving another chance. I agree that the size of the article doesn't matter. I just deleted all the statements that could be deemed questionable and looking too complex for the majority of the viewers. Phased vector control is just another kind of vector control. It uses different base and zero vectors. I am not saying in the article that it is better or worse than the other methods of vector control. It is just different and has his positive sides. To make it easier to understand I have presented it in comparison to Space vector control which has been an industry standard for many years and has a good Wiki article. Vector control is a popular subject and you can see it by the number of visitors of Phased Vector Control page. If it attracts interest, I think, it deserves to get included. The more info and knowledge become available for people, the greater chance that they make a difference in science and technology. Besides the additional references giving more info about the subject I have also included many internal links for those who are not familiar with the subject. I hope you will find the article useful and worth existing. I also hope it will generate discussion amongst the people working in the field of motor control. I would really appreciate if you helped me further improve it by pointing out some other weaknesses. Once again, thank you for giving it another try. Antonov777 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting admin comment I dont care if it's relisted. I would've appreciated a chance to discuss it before DRV. I'm generally willing to userfy articles deleted via AFD when there are only two commenters.--v/r - T P 03:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 September 2011

Kokondō – "Delete" closure endorsed. There is no consensus that the new sources that have been cited in the DRV discussion justify restoring the article; this opinion is held only by a minority of participants. – Sandstein 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I believe this page was deleted based on incomplete information and would like to request reconsideration of the decision. It appears the administrator who deleted the page was recently suspended for unrelated reasons, so I have not been able to get a response to my query with him/her.

To address the concerns that this is an irrelevant or defunct martial art, this is indeed a legitimate marital art practiced at a number of schools nationwide. Official website is http://www.kokondo.org and is referenced in the article. I do not have a comprehensive list of dojos, but I know they at least exist in Connecticut, Florida, Washington, New Mexico, Arizona, California, Idaho, Missouri, and Ohio. The reviewer who indicated that it was clustered around a city in Connecticut is incorrect. There are no notable competition successes from students because the art discourages competition and instead focuses on real-world self-defense. It was founded around 50 years ago, which I would argue doesn't qualify as a recent splinter, and has been continuously practiced since. There are at least a dozen other websites on this art. See example links at http://www.kokondomartialarts.com/links.htm. NJG302 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AFD for this article was closed by Cirt who is no longer an administrator so please don't bash the nom for not discussing it with him first. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, we have to endorse Cirt's deletion, but that's not the interesting question here. What we're interested in is whether it's appropriate for the article to be re-created. For me, the most appropriate place to begin a search for sources is in the archives of Black Belt Magazine but I've been unable to find any coverage in it, which is not an encouraging sign. Please could the nominator list the specific sources that he proposes to use?—S Marshall T/C 10:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have referenced the website of the International Kokondo Organization above, which is the governing body for this martial art. Information on that site lists the history of the art. Could I request advice in what additional documentation is necessary to make the article pass notability tests? It seems like the arguments against its notability that were cited in the original deletion discussion can be addressed by the arguments above. This is certainly not one of the larger branches of martial art, but it is one that has a nationwide presence and has been around for half a century. NJG302 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The notability test is called the general notability guideline, and what it means for this article is you need to produce evidence that there has been non-trivial coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Let me explain each of those terms.
"Non-trivial coverage" means that there must be an article, entry, or news item of some kind that discusses Kokondo. Kokondo need not be the main subject of the article, but it does have to be more than a trivial mention.
"Reliable sources" mean sources with some kind of editorial control or supervision. It specifically excludes any kind of user-submitted content. Yes, that does mean that for our purposes, Wikipedia does not count as a reliable source.
"Independent of the subject" means the source cannot be financially or editorially connected with Kokondo in any way, and it can't be a press release of any kind.
I hope this makes sense to you! This notability rule is why I was asking about Black Belt Magazine; an article in there, or some similar publication, would be exactly the kind of source we need.—S Marshall T/C 23:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (could possibly one of the other admins who hang around here do this once in a whole, instead of only me; it's not suitable for a bot, because there are some times where it's not needed because it's in userspace, and a few where it wouldn't be permissible, for reasons of BLP or copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorese deletion and don't recreate The article had all the shortcomings mentioned in the AfD. In addition, it was the article itself that said "the largest concentration of dojos is near South Windsor, Connecticut". Of course, if suitable references can be found (and I don't mean an article in the local paper) that's another story. I know my search didn't find any, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles in newspapers that discuss Kokondo and its history. Some of those are listed as links at the bottom of the article. According to Wikipedia guidelines, those appear to be valid sources for establishing notability. Could you please explain why those do not meet the criteria? Here's an example: http://web.archive.org/web/20070928083508/http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2001/0305/Story4.html . Other links are included at the bottom of the article. NJG302 (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article in a local paper about a guy giving a seminar. The reporter interviewed him and wrote down what he said. Personally, I don't find that article to be significant coverage about a martial art. Papaursa (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to meet the criteria that S Marshall laid out above:
"Non-trivial coverage" - It is a news article that discusses Kokondo and gives it more than a trivial mention.
"Reliable sources" - The source is a legitimate newspaper in Washington state with editorial control/supervision.
"Independent of subject" - The newspaper has absolutely no connection to Kokondo and this was not a press release. NJG302 (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source looks perfectly good to me. There is no problem with local newspapers as sources.—S Marshall T/C 15:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Article still lacks good sources. A couple of sentences about the organization in a local paper doesn't seem significant to me. It's "drawn from the primordial rites of the Far East" although it was created in 1970 in Connecticut? Really? I hope you can come up with better sources. I have nothing against this art, but I'm not seeing notability yet. Astudent0 (talk) 18:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it does need a second source. But notability isn't a matter of opinion; it's entirely objective and evidence-based. Either there are two halfway decent sources or there aren't.—S Marshall T/C 20:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it still needs a first source. I don't think that article qualifies as significant coverage (and WP:GNG says "significant coverage" is required). To me, significant is a higher hurdle to clear than non-trivial. I would say our disagreement might indicate that it's not "entirely objective". Papaursa (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I contributed to the deletion discussion previously, but am not familiar with the deletion review process, so I read the instructions. It seems to me that the main issues are: (1) were there errors in process, and (2) is significant new information available? On the first point, I believe that the correct process was followed in the nomination for deletion. On the second point, I have looked again for sources, and the situation appears the same to me—only passing mentions in sources other than primary sources. I do not discount the possibility that the subject might meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, but I have not been able to find convincing support for this. To the initiator of this review (NJG302), I would ask in a respectful manner: what sets Kokondo apart from the many other martial art styles or schools that have a presence in several states or several countries? It is not uncommon for the founder of a school to seek affiliates in other countries and thereby (legitimately) claim an international presence, but this does not in itself make that school notable (since several other schools can make the same claim). If you can clarify what it is that makes Kokondo truly noteworthy (in the same way that, say, Albert Einstein is noteworthy amongst the thousands of physicists who have published international, peer-reviewed articles), you would start to have a case for supporting its inclusion in Wikipedia. Trust this commentary helps. Janggeom (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another local newspaper article that is about Kokondo. http://www.palmcoastobserver.com/news/palm-coast/Sports/12092010123/Martial-arts-leaders-swing-into-academy. This newspaper is based in Florida. Kokondo was established in Connecticut, but I have now found mentions of it in papers in Florida and Washington state.
This is another third-party site that mentions Kokondo. I can't verify that this is not a form of advertisement for this guy, but it does include a spotlight on a Kokondo dojo in Florida. http://www.samurai-sword-shop.com/connector/jukido-jujitsu-academie-sensei-george-rego/. I will keep looking for other reliable sources. If notability to the level of Einstein is the bar, we're never going to get there. I will also never be able to make the case that this is a art that is as impactful as some of the more mainstream arts. I'm just hoping to make the case that it is of interest to enough people that it would be useful to keep the Wikipedia page up. NJG302 (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's evidence that a Kokondo practitioner broke a world record in board breaking: http://www.kokondo.com/world_record.html
Here's an article in the Hartford Courant on the same event: http://articles.courant.com/1999-04-19/news/9904190313_1_boards-guinness-world-records-scott-cohen
Here's an article in a student newspaper (Quinnipiac University [CT]): http://www.quchronicle.com/2002/03/jujitsu-course-teaches-self-defense/ NJG302 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello NJG302, in case you missed my follow-up post on your talk page, I reproduce that note here: Further to my comments at the deletion review, I encourage you to think about what makes Kokondo noteworthy. For example, was it the first martial art school to achieve something significant (e.g., introducing a new art to an entire country)? I should make clear that my example of Albert Einstein amongst physicists is not intended to suggest that Kokondo needs to be as noteworthy amongst martial art schools as Einstein is amongst physicists, it is just to illustrate that there are many people who could be rightly deserving of recognition, but the underlying argument about notability is that a particular person (Einstein, in my example) is especially worthy of attention. If you can point out (in the deletion review discussion) why Kokondo is noteworthy amongst martial art schools, you should have a strong case for supporting its inclusion in Wikipedia. Trust this advice helps. Janggeom (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the references you have supplied: (1) the Kokondo links page indicates there are at least 13 branches of Kokondo, which is not a lot; (2) the Tri-City Herald article does not indicate anything that sets Kokondo apart from other international martial art schools; (3) the Palm Coast Observer article likewise does not indicate anything particularly notable; (4) the Samurai Sword Shop page is a directory page hosted by a shop, not a journal, magazine, or newspaper; (5) the world record is certified by a local notary who would, possibly, be quite legitimate in certifying a world record within the context of Kokondo, but this is not a world record certified by an independent, notable authority (such as Guinness World Records, mentioned in the Hartford Courant article as not having been contacted yet by Kokondo); and (6) the Quinnipiac Chronicle article does not indicate anything particularly notable. There is nothing in those articles that indicates to me why Kokondo should be considered notable.

A suggestion: pause for a moment, and imagine that you know nothing about Kokondo. Ask yourself if there is any information about Kokondo available that makes it stand out from the thousands of other martial art schools in existence. From the article as it was, and from all you have written so far, the answer to me is currently a clear 'no.' If there were something particularly notable about Kokondo, I expect it would have come up in discussion by now (e.g., if it was the first martial art school in the USA). Please note that while independent coverage is correlated with notability, it does not imply notability; see the 'presumed' point in the General Notability Guideline. You have pointed out independent coverage, certainly, but that coverage has failed to demonstrate notability as far as I can see. Janggeom (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janggeom, I can't help wondering if you're confused about how notability works on Wikipedia. You see, NJG203 has proved that Kokondo is notable by providing a list of the reliable sources that have noted it. What you appear to be doing is looking at those sources and asking how they make Kokondo notable, and that illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources are in themselves evidence of notability. Do you see now?

This debate could do with being relisted, since new sources appeared quite late in the discussion and have not attracted much comment.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you say that an article in a local paper that says a local school teaches self-defense is significant coverage of a martial art? I don't. I've seen hundreds of articles like this on local schools, but I don't believe that they're notable. It's clear we have different ideas about what constitutes "significant coverage". Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Papaursa, I'm not saying that this is the most notable martial art in the world. What I'm saying is that realistically, there's enough coverage to justify a short and factual article. The point of notability is to stop people from filling the encyclopaedia with marketing spam. It's not there to stop good faith users from trying to create informative articles.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to come off as extreme, and I have nothing personal against this art, it's just that every dojo I know has articles like this in their local papers and I don't believe they're notable (although they might be based on the level of the bar you've set). If this is a notable international martial art then there should be articles about it or its practioners in something besides local papers. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello S. Marshall, thanks for your note. I am open to the possibility of having misunderstood something, but this is what the 'presumption' point in the GNG says: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. As I interpret it, this means that Kokondo might be presumed notable, but this presumption is open to challenge—and in this case, notability does appear to be under challenge. A key point seems to be that the GNG notes that significant coverage in reliable sources does not guarantee that a subject is suitable for inclusion. If you believe I am misunderstanding this, I would genuinely appreciate some expansion to help clarify; thanks. On a different note, comparing back to the article just before it was deleted, the only new, independent sources supplied by NJG302 appear to be the Palm Coast Observer and Hartford Courant articles. I have commented on those articles already, so I leave it to others to comment further (whether pro or con). Janggeom (talk) 06:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion The consensus in the AfD was to delete, and the sources provided here are insufficient to justify a relist. This article from Quinnipiac Chronicle (published by Quinnipiac University) is mostly about an instructor who teaches a Konkondo course at the university. Kokondō is mentioned several times:
Sensei Cohen, the course instructor, graduated from Quinnipiac in 1995 with a BS in Health Science. The 28-year-old holds a rank of fourth degree black belt in Jukido Jujitsu, as well as a third degree black belt in Kokondo Karate.
Along with Kuzushi, two other elements to all Kokondo techniques are also taught. Shorin-ji is one of these elements, which according to Cohen, “refers to points and circles which are the dynamic methods of movement to maximise one’s own power through straight and rounded motion.”
Cohen studied Jukido Jujitsu under Shihan Paul Arel. Arel is the founder and International Director of the International Kokondo Association and Jukido International Association.
This article from the Hartford Courant mentions Kokondō once:
Cohen has studied martial arts since he was 5 and is a black belt in several self-defense disciplines. When he's not chopping blocks he's vice president of Footprints, a Newington shoe store. He is also an instructor at West Hartford Kokondo Academy.
The articles from both the Quinnipiac Chronicle and the Hartford Courant are primarily about Scott Cohen, who broke a world record. The mentions of Kokondō are used to frame the discussions about Cohen. They may be used to justify an article about Cohen, but not one about Kokondō.
This article from the Palm Coast Observer does not mention Kokondō.
This interview from samurai-sword-shop.com is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability.
This article from the Tri-City Herald is the most promising. However, the source was present in the article when the AfD was initiated, and a participant above wrote: "This is an article in a local paper about a guy giving a seminar. The reporter interviewed him and wrote down what he said." I believe the source is helpful in verification but not in itself enough to establish notability. Because there is only one reliable source that provides nontrivial coverage about Kokondō, I cannot justify a relist. A relist will likely lead to a second close as "delete" if no other sources are found.
I recommend that NJG302 (talk · contribs) find at least one or two other reliable sources that specifically discuss Kokondō before renominating the article for review. I am willing to look at the sources if NJG302 wishes to have a second opinion. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, re: the Palm Coast Observer article, Jukido Jujitsu (mentioned several times in the article) is part of Kokondo -- see the original Wikipedia article for clarification. The Courant article was referenced because someone had previously asked to see a notable achievement by a Kokondo practitioner. I felt this record qualified as that. NJG302 (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article about Karate, "In 1970 Paul Arel founded Kokondo Karate which is a sister style of Jukido Jujitsu developed in 1959." Reading the Palm Coast Observer article, I don't see how it establishes notability for Kokondō Karate, which was founded in 1970, 11 years after Jukido Jujitsu was founded. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can see how this is going and I object to it. I don't think this is what notability is for. Notability is a tool for detecting and removing commercially-motivated marketing spam. It was never meant as a way to excise good faith attempts at writing informative material and I believe that the arguments presented here are a perversion of its intent. The trouble is that now we've created the concept of notability, there are editors who believe it needs to be applied indiscriminately. I think that's a great pity and it's inflicting serious damage on the encyclopaedia. I do wish WP:Editorial judgment wasn't a redlink.
I also believe the presumption of notability that accompanies the general notability guideline is a strong one, and I believe that Janggeom's take on it is a little misguided. The GNG is, admittedly, simplistic, but the reason it works so well for us is because any editor can look at the sources and judge for themselves whether the GNG is passed. In other words, the GNG is what enables good faith editors to write articles without having to go through a committee process first. If we start using the words "presumption of notability" as a way to remove good faith attempts at informative articles, then editors will no longer be willing to write material because other, perfectly well-meaning editors will insist that the contributions are deleted.
Please, do not allow this perversion of the GNG's intent to create a New Article Approvals Committee by the backdoor. There are very good reasons why the presumption of notability when there are sources needs to be a strong one, and there are good reasons for confining the notability rules to their original purpose.—S Marshall T/C 16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with Janggeom's take on the "presumption of notability" in the GNG for the reasons you mention. However, I cannot justify a relist without a solid second source. I believe the article would be deleted again in its current state. I recommend userfication to User:NJG302/Kokondō, so NJG302 can work on the article. Cunard (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yael Meyer – Restore to mainspace, with no prejudice to renomination at AfD if anyone so wishes. – NW (Talk) 14:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I deleted this article per an AFD discussion last November. Yesterday, User:AndresGottlieb claimed that she's notable and offered to fix the article so I userfied it. He now thinks it's ready for article space but doesn't know how to file a DRV so I'm doing it for him. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If what's posted in userspace is what is proposed to be the article; there's no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC; self-published albums available at itunes doesn't meet the criteria AFAIK. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion of notability seems to come from the references to significant coverage in reliable sources, the very first criterion listed at WP:MUSIC. This one definitely helps, the others I'm not so sure. Ignoring iTunes, YouTube, first-party links and obviously unreliable blogs, we have: an album review from a site that appears unreliable from its own description (not that that stops other articles from using it [84]); an MTV blog which may or may not be reliable under WP:NEWSBLOG; a very brief mention in a source which I know nothing about; and most promisingly this interview in a Chilean magazine. I'm not convinced any of this is enough to meet the guideline, but none of it was discussed at the AfD. Restore and relist for further discussion. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's also this recent article (in spanish)from the most popular printed newspaper in Chile: http://diario.elmercurio.com/2011/09/09/espectaculos/musica/noticias/3c0a1adf-1dc6-4b47-8811-7379a0448aac.htm , I believe it proves notability according to the first criterion listed at WP:MUSIC Is it enough? Gottlieb (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a few paragraph profile of the artist in anticipation of his upcoming show in Chile. Very much a WP:ROUTINE coverage, which does not give rise to notability; quoting from our notability guideline: "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." The article in El Mercurio is just that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, is any article mentioning upcoming live presentations, even if it is not the main theme of the article, as is the case, considered "Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events"? If you're right on this and the sole existence of this article isn't proof od notability, doesn't the fact that this mainstream chilean newspaper's article mentions the appearence of Yael's songs in 4 TV shows ("Life unexpected" (Liv), "Drop dead diva" (Sony), "Awkward" (MTV) and Private practice" (Sony)), the mention of her participation in a very notable chilean movie (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qu%C3%A9_pena_tu_vida) and it's upcoming sequel, or the mention of the Rolling Stone Magazine best 50 albums achievement in 2004 prove notability in terms of the criteria presented in WP:MUSIC? Gottlieb (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What to do now? Gottlieb (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace [85] and [86] are reliable sources. [87] sounds like it is (I can't see it). That's enough to support inclusion via WP:N. No objection to someone listing at AfD though for further discussion. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kristina Calhoun‎ – Clearly WP:SNOWball to endorse. – lifebaka++ 01:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I'd like this article deleted, please. I didn't create it for it just to be re-directed. I'd rather it be deleted if it can't be its own article. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Clarification, this is a redirect that Me-1234567-Me wants deleted, not an article. While the close was contrary to my opinion in the discussion, the closing nominators decision matched the concensus reached in the discussion, which was redirect and merge any applicable content. While no content has been merged in to the article Yukon Green Party it certainly can be if somebody were so inclined. As it sits right now redirecting Kristina Calhoun (as of today leader and sole candidate of the Yukon Greens) to the Yukon Green Party seems like a good idea. Keeping the redirect with the history intact makes sense to me, if more reliable sources become available, and the Kristina Calhoun were to have a stand alone article, it is best to have the previous version available as a start. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 05:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own close. "I didn't create it for it just to be re-directed. I'd rather it be deleted if it can't be its own article.". Sorry, it doesn't work like that. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close was entirely reasonable. Me-1234567-Me could make a request at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion but a policy-based reason for deletion would be needed. I do not presently see such a reason. Thincat (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The only reason given for deleting the redirect is that the original article's creator wants it deleted. Me-123567-Me, I strongly suggest that you review our policy on ownership of articles. This article stopped being "your article" when you hit the "save" button for the first time. It's now the "community's article" and the community has decided that it should be redirected. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Although I was certainly of the view that the article was potentially keepable as the leader of a political party, there's absolutely no reason in hell why it should be deleted outright — whether it's a standalone article or a redirect to the party, a political party leader's name should always at least be a blue link of some kind, so that people who search for her at least end up somewhere relevant. It's also worth noting that with the territorial election writs having been issued yesterday for an election in early October, it's also distinctly possible that coverage of Ms. Calhoun as a topic in her own right will increase sufficiently over the next four weeks to support an independent article after all — and if that does happen, then we're far better off being able to build on the existing history rather than having to start over from scratch. Bearcat (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 September 2011

Murder of Adrianne Reynolds – Closure overturned and discussion relisted. – Sandstein 10:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Well, as the closing admin (User:Black Kite – not informed per their request) said themselves, "Probably should be closed as No Consensus... and I fully expect to be taken to WP:DRV". And here we are. The two reasons they gave for not closing the discussion with the result they themselves said was appropriate (No consensus) were:

There were no long-term sources per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This is a blatant supervote rather than a summary of consensus in the discussion, plenty of people provided sources for lasting coverage that were not rejected. Closing admin... agrees, "I appreciate that this seems like a supervote".
Following on from the above quote, the supervote is justified because otherwise "we'd have trouble closing the AfDs that no-one else wants to". It seems to me that is exactly what the "No consensus" option is there for. When there is no consensus in an AfD, we should default to keep. Closing admin did the opposite.

In short, there was no consensus for deletion. The closing admin admits as much and has basically provided all the argument needed for a DRV in their own comment. joe•roe^t•c 07:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC) joe•roe^t•c 07:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This raises all sorts of interesting DRV-related issues, and thanks for bringing it. On the facts, I would say that I agree with Black Kite's position. But on good administrative practice, I don't see the fact that I think he was right as enough to justify the close in this case. That's a slightly harsh thing for me to say, so I set out my reasoning from first principles below.

S Marshall's reasoning

Principle: Authority vests in the community, not the closer. The closer is given a certain amount of discretion, but the purpose of the discretion is to enable the closer to deal with bad faith in the discussion, or with conflicts between a local consensus and a well-established policy.

Practice: Black Kite could have made that close if there had been bad faith in the discussion, sockpuppetry, attempted vote-stacking, or if the article had constituted something like a BLP or copyright violation. In the absence of these things he was not entitled to make it.

Principle: Admins are elected to enforce the consensus, but not to invent it. This is particularly relevant where no consensus exists.

Practice: In cases where, after sufficient discussion, there is a genuine lack of consensus among good-faith users, the proper close is "no consensus."

Principle: Some closes are harder than others. (I think it's widely accepted that Black Kite makes many of the most difficult closes on Wikipedia, and so he sees more than his fair share of deletion reviews.) In hard cases, the community is empowered to "ignore all rules". But that is not open to an administrator who is judging consensus. He can ignore the rules, but he can't ignore a community discussion.

Practice: The fact that a close is difficult does not by itself justify invoking IAR in making the close.

Given that my heart says "endorse" because I agree with Black Kite's position, but my head says "overturn" because administrative discretion does not and should not run that far, I'll go with overturn for another admin to close based on the same discussion.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Lasting impact was argued on the basis of a bool having been written about the event. This was replied to as our needing to wait for sources about the book, an absurd argument, because the book doesn't have it be notable to be a RS for notability of what it discuses. This contradicts BK's basic argument for going against consensus. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - sources are not present, book on event is not notable and possibly WP:SENSATION vio - this case was in 2005, but the article was not created until recently, coinciding with the 2011 release of the book.

Given that we as a matter of routine wipe our butts with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SENSATION to create articles on whatever the tabloids find exciting now, the fact it took so long for this case to be addressed in the wiki (and in 2005 we already had this problem), speaks to the fact that millions of editors didn't think of this contemporary event when creating articles. If this is not stealth marketing, I do not know what stealth marking is.

While notability of an event doesn't have to be contemporary to the event (ie an event can become notable long after it happened), I have to disagree with DGG: WP:NEVENTS *and* WP:GNG both clearly establish that the sources used to establish notability must be reliable sources. I haven't read the book, but I have read of the previous work of the author, a fiction and non-fiction "true crime" specialist - a field known for WP:SENSATION. While cases with a sesationalistic basis can be notable, there is no significant sources independent of the subject that establish notability - wide reporting limits itself to the usual reporting when the event happened, and reporting afterward is local and nowhere near what generally called significant.

Even if we are mistaken in the belief that this is marketing, this article was submitted multiple times, without any substantial modification, to WP:AFC - where creation was denied multiple times by different admins and editors skilled in AfC. It only was made a live edit by the actions of a now-blocked user, a user blocked precisely because he abused editing privileges such as WP:AFC creation, and even RfA. Such unusual conditions of creation create sufficient reason to belief that something was not right in the article creation process, and this reasonable expectation does open the door for further administrator scrutiny.

BK defended the wiki against an iffy creation process with good evidence of malfeasance, a number of editors backed him up, and that is what admin discretion is for. Should in a few years renewed interest in the case is such that notability is actually achieved, we can revisit. But for now, neither notability nor WP:IAR supports the inclusion of this article - and the dark cloud of irregularities surrounding it means BK used discretion precisely for what discretion is for: to controversially defend the wiki from (possible) misfeasance, rather than to advance his editorial position. I know BK in his closing said take it to DRV, but I think he was being humble - and S Marshall should listen to the side of his heart that says "endorse" and !vote to protect the wiki, not to allow unscrupulous WP:GAME to get away with it.--Cerejota (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota, why does the book have to be notable for the subject of the book to be notable. Where does it say only a notable work is a RS?

who except a writer on crime would normally be expected to write a book on a crime? DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either I misunderstood your point, or I misunderstand yours. I say: 1)We cannot base notability on a single RS 2) WP:SENSATION, which is part of WP:NEVENTS, is clear that we should weight the sensationalistic nature of the coverage of events. The book might be an RS, but not to establish notability, because of its sensationalistic nature means it has a horse in the race: if the event is seen as notable, then the book benefits in sales. It should be trivial to find scholarly sources of a six year old crime to establish notability independent of scholarly sources, the fact that we can't find these sources means this event is not notable - except in the mind of sensationalistic crime writers and his blocked fanboys/PR agents.--Cerejota (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to voice disagreement here that a book, published years later, does not contribute evidence of notability due to a "sensationalistic nature". The only thing that can eliminate a later book as demonstrating notability is if you can show that it is not independent of the subject (was it written by victims?). Normally, a book years later is perfect evidence of notability. It demonstrates that others find the subject notable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this sort of thing is getting out of hand. "Dark cloud of irregularities surrounding it"? "Iffy creation process"? "Good evidence of malfeasance"? You have people thinking there's something 'fishy' about this article when you've advanced absolutely no solid evidence to support that assertion. As I've already told you, there's nothing unusual about the AfC that created it -- several submissions are normal, it was previously declined by one reviewer (User:Nathan2055), and if User:NYMets2000 hadn't accepted it when he did then I would have. The logic that because a book came out about the crime this year there could be paid editing involved is absolutely ludicrous -- maybe the author read the book and that's why he decided to write it now, maybe there was renewed interest in other media outlets because of the book and that prompted him, and maybe it's just a bloody coincidence. I get that you genuinely think the article should be deleted on notability declines, and perhaps you have good reasons for suspecting foul play that I haven't seen, but I think until you make them crystal clear it's extremely disingenuous to keep nudging and hint that something is wrong. If this is all based on some sort of grudge with User:NYMets2000 then please try to remember he only pressed a button to move the AfC submission into mainspace, he hasn't contributed any content to it or had any other on-wiki contact with the actual author of the article. joe•roe^t•c 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the same evidence as you do and arrive to a different conclusion. That is a legitimate difference, but I think we have a responsibility to be on the defensive. And in terms of deletion, the evidence of wrongdoing + reasoned reasons of lack of notability + plus the coincidental appearance of a six year old topic to coincide with a sensationalistic book on the subject but no other contemporary sourcing to support a recently acquired notability it all amounts to reasons to delete. I don't hint or nudge at anything: I say it outright and directly, so please strike that out. Simply put, you see these as coincidences, I see it as all too convenient to be coincidences on the face of recent issues related to WP:NOPAY violations of undisclosed COI by paid advocates.--Cerejota (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors have participated in the process and this discussion. Nobody but you is reaching this conclusion. Even if you're correct, I can't follow your logic. Exactly who are you accusing? By not making accusation, you paint all of us keep !voters with the black brush, as below. This is why we have WP:AGF. BusterD (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to No consensus The closing user dis-regarded the Keep !votes totally and missed the points made. As the user him/herself states it should probably have been closed as No Consensus. I say probably should be changed to should have been closed as No Consensus leaning towards Keep. The decision should be overturned the closing user definitly led the way for this to be on Deletion review with quite a weak reasoning for its decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely with your assertion the argument is weak, and BK is an admin of utmost integrity and I can understand reasoned disapproval, such as what DGG and S Marshall above provide, but this is a total failure to assume good faith. Not only that, but the reasoning was not weak, it was a solid urgency to protect the wiki, something you entirely fail to address.--Cerejota (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

overturn to nc. I firmly believe that when an admin can't close a discussion the way the discussion is leaning because they object to such a close, the right thing to do is contribute to the discussion rather than close. OK, with that off my chest... Is there a valid reason to discount the !votes of the keeps? The key question, as I read the discussion (and the closer's comments) is if there has been long-term coverage of the topic. We've got a new book solely focused on the topic and we've got a part of an (upcoming?) book that at least mentions the topic, likely more than in-passing. Is that a reasonable basis for a claim of long-term coverage? I'd have to say yes. As such the discussion itself should control if that is enough long-term coverage. And the discussion had no consensus on the issue. Thus the right close is NC. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now, one other issue was raised in the AfD. Are some of the keep !voters meat puppets engaged in getting/keeping material for pay? I saw no solid evidence of that, but I think that might be worth keeping an eye on. I'm personally okay with people writing NPOV articles on topics they have a COI on. But they should be declaring their COI. I don't claim that is or isn't happening here, but if it is occurring it could easily have been enough to influence the outcome of this AfD. Hobit (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. There's no subject we can't discuss further. I have no problem with closer's boldness, and while there's some pointyness in baiting participants ("that's OK - DRV is fine") with an outcome the closer is likely to get reviewed and overturned, I have no problem with that either. Review is good and this discussion is useful precisely for the reasons User:Cerejota outlines. Closer made a judgement call clearly intended to protect this encyclopedia; closer was aware this discussion would ensue, so procedurally, BK is in fair territory here, IMHO. I made my case to keep in the discussion, and while I understand Cerejota's concerns, I'm unhappy with a black brush which has been raised to categorize keep !voters with an imagined group of disruptors, paid editors (a subset of editors I myself imagine exists). I object to that tarring, and am nervous about the rise of this sort of ad hominum critique in AfD and DRV discussions. User:Hobit notes the effect of that brush in the small comment immediately above. There's a lack of good faith in such brushing, since there's no proof (or even much evidence) of such activity here. I'd favor coincidence over conspiracy that a fan of Snapped has written about two episodes which happened to include references to books by one author. I'm not impressed with a logic that because an editor was blocked, necessarily all of the editor's actions should be considered suspect. That would knock out of a lot of the pedia. Finally, as to the gross over-generalization "we as a matter of routine wipe our butts with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:SENSATION to create articles on whatever the tabloids find exciting now", I think Cerejota misreads both sections of WP:EVENT, and again tars all good faith editors of current events with the black brush. Who you calling "we" Cerejota? BusterD (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that where there are allegations of bad faith against one side, we need to see some kind of evidence before we can take those allegations seriously. As I see it, without evidence the accusations have no weight.—S Marshall T/C 19:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Say you disagree with evidence, but don't say it was not provided. BusterD: I say "we" as the Royal We of the wikipedia community writ large. However, I am a current events editor, and very active on the area (I was recently denied autopatrol because of the creation of the BLP of the perp of the Norway attacks - so I know the pressures on current event editors) - so I think you exagerate (or are setting up a strawman) when you say I am "painting with a black brush" anyone. --Cerejota (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not yet seen anything that constitutes evidence of bad faith in this, Cerejota. If I've missed it, would you be kind enough to point it out?—S Marshall T/C 20:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read above, another editor does see the evidence but takes it to mean something else. But he doesn't claim, as you do, that evidence is non-existent.--Cerejota (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your statements, it appears you were mistreated re: autopatrol. Back to this discussion, at least four editors in this narrow conversation (including myself) fail to see any evidence of conspiracy or even wrong-doing here, so it's quite reasonable to say sufficient evidence wasn't provided. There are only six editors in this discussion as of this timestamp. As I read it, you're the only editor suggesting disruption of any kind. I see no other editor above who sees evidence; User:Hobit ponders potential COI but "saw no solid evidence..." Closer made no reference to disruption or collusion. I see you making allegation, but don't see anything connecting the dots. My problem with your statements is similar to the one User:Joey Roe raises above. If you really believe something is going on, then raise and document it in the appropriate forum. This is one such. Don't beat about the bush. BusterD (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain this again, Cerejota, and this time I'll type slower. I did not say that no evidence exists. What I said was that I had not found any evidence. Since you seem to be speaking as if you have, I asked you if you wouldn't mind providing it. Please do so.—S Marshall T/C 21:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said: we need to see some kind of evidence before we can take those allegations seriously - I will speak even more slowly, because if I am dense, you apparently approach neutron star levels: I have provided evidence, which you can say doesn't constitute evidence, but you claiming it doesn't, doesn't mean it was not provided, because it was. Put simply: disagree with the conclusion, but questioning the method is the very definition of WP:IDHT. --Cerejota (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's plenty for me. This discussion has turned into a one person show, and that one person is projecting his own WP:IDHT on everyone else. BusterD (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could all just stop doing this "you wrote this, no you wrote that"- meta discussions. Its better to wait and see what come from this in terms of consensus instead of bickering about a formulation of words. We all have to agree to disagree,--BabbaQ (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (unclose, convert to supervote to a !vote). which is to say that Black Kite is likely right, but closers tempted to super!vote should be encouraged to simply make a comprehensive vote and leave it to the next admin. It is hard to judge the merits with the page deleted, but the close is not enough based on the content of the debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (and I would be happy with a relist) the AFD discussion is fascinating as it raises all sorts of issues about the event, the article, the timing of the AFD and the motivations of editors. However, I shall focus on the closing rationale. I have no knowledge of the real-world circumstances and have not read the article. The analytical aspect of the rationale seems to me to relate to the AFD discussion arguments and not to consider the merits of the actual article, as it should. In that respect it was not a supervote. However, the analysis seems to me to be faulty because it did not take proper account of the evidence presented of ongoing notability. If that were all then I might have endorsed the close as (only just) reasonable without agreeing with it (or more likely I would not have contributed here). But the closer's general commentry in the rationale too strongly gave his own view of the intrinsic merits of the article's existence. I very much appreciate a thoughtful and clear closing rationale (such as this one is) so I am sorry to be suggesting the close should be overturned. Thincat (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Starting with analysis of the first !vote to delete, the entire comment is "I see a lack of lasting effects" with a Wikilink to WP:EFFECTS. However, WP:EFFECTS says, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." (I would note that a book is a lasting effect even then, and that coverage that is still ongoing five years later far exceeds the standard of a few weeks of intense coverage established by Balloon boy hoax. Also note that "enduring significance" is not the same as "lasting effect".) So the allegation that there are no lasting effects is not a valid argument for deletion. This Delete !vote has not cited a relevant policy, and to the extent that this may be a legitimate misunderstanding of policy, the closing admin should have identified this !vote as such. Yet the closing admin has not done so. Having documented that the closing admin has made a significant error in the first !vote, I stop such detailed analysis and move on to the closing statement itself. This statement says that WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is fundamental to the closing, and that keep arguments have not refuted WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. But looking at the AfD commentary shows two books, a major magazine (People), a major network newsmagazine (Dateline NBC) and coverage on a popular cable TV channel (Tru TV). One of the books is reportedly not just a non-trivial mention, but the entire topic of the book. So the claim of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER being unrefuted does not stand. As far as why my !vote here is overturn to no consensus rather than overturn to keep, this is for expediency, but I would support the case for overturn to keep if a consensus builds in that direction. Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Which, admittedly, is probably what I should have done in the first place. Oh well, you can't get them right all the time. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn w/o prejudice to relisting (if people need to vent again). True crimes that make it into the book/tv realm have a greater likelihood to be notable (perhaps only for that reason); and those who are looking for lasting effects, perhaps they should think about going after the balloon boy hoax article which as near as I can tell was forgotten within a week by nearly everyone else and lemme guess no one notable will be writing up a book on it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The closing admin is not empowered to determine what community consensus should have been. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah, hang on, that's not what I did. Giving certain !votes a lesser weight because they're not referencing policy (i.e. WP:ITSNOTABLE) is not determining consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect, I think the learning point here is that it can be. There is a threshold where you've giving so high a proportion of !votes a lesser weight that editors may very well say you're "determining what the community consensus should have been". I think that you've got wider latitude where there's been bad faith in the discussion or a breach of BLP or copyright, but I don't think that applied here.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't get me wrong, I agree I may have got this one wrong, but the principle applies - if editors are going to throw in WP:ITSNOTABLE (or for that matter WP:NOTNOTABLE) !votes, they have to be prepared for them to be given lesser weight in a close AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could we get this temporarily restored and blanked so that I can see it? Buddy431 (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Cheers. lifebaka++ 04:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 September 2011

Nuclear Time Unit – Deletion endorsed. – Sandstein 10:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I Wanted To rewrite the article Due to fact that i am not Dave Noble and i consider it to be notable but he speedydelted Under G4 even thogh the orignal circumstances no longer apply Rancalred (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close. The only source cited was to an online dictionary anyone can post to without editorial oversight. It meets the defintion of a self published source, whether or not it is the same author who creates the Wikipedia article. No one has yet provided any additional sources that could be considered reliable. Therefore, the original reasons for deletion still apply. Singularity42 (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a physicist myself, I don't mind having more physics articles on Wikipedia. However, as an admin here, I have to admit that the deletion arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuclear Time Unit still seem to apply — the term is rarely used and doesn't seem to be notable. That discussion is only 1 month old. The new version that I just speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4 appeared to be a dictionary definition, and references Webster's dictionary as its only source. Wiktionary is the proper venue to post definitions, but they have their own inclusion criteria over there. I would suggest, if the article is to be re-created, that it be developed in Rancalred's user space, for example User:Rancalred/Nuclear Time Unit, to be worked on at leisure without risk of deletion, until it is developed to the point of being worthy to move into main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I closed the AfD discussion. I think the new one is at least as unsuitable as the one at the AfD, though perhaps not in the strict sense a re-creation. I though SNOW applied then, and I think it probably will now. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Quick google search on this topic returns "About 377,000,000 results " i think you should check it out.--Rancalred (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct google search for this topic would be this one, which, interestingly, does give four results. I leave it as an exercise for the reader to examine them and decide whether all the appropriate sources are talking about the same thing.—S Marshall T/C 22:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vague waves towards such results suggesting others search though them to see if the subject is notable, oddly enough isn't often entertained. It's for you to work through them and point people to a few significant ones which would overcome the reason for deletion. As it is your google is quite flawed, it seems you just search for the three unquoted words which returns vast numbers of results which don't even contain the three words, yet alone the three words together. Putting quotes around "Nuclear Time Unit" and repeating the search and it says about 32,600 results. Clicking on page 10 of those results actually takes you to page 8, now claiming 77 results. The few I looked at are as problematic as the dictionary one already mentioned. User:S Marshall shows above how to get better quality results by using the scholar section of google, which return fewer still. The nom in the AFD (at least) covers those, they don't seem to be in much agreement as to the subject. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Examined them and found all of them are the correct except for the second one (one citation and two (copyrighted) Scientific Journal's is this sufficient sourcing? --Rancalred (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's sufficient sourcing on which to say that in a paper published in 1976 a nuclear time unit was defined as ħ/mc². What else did you want to say?—S Marshall T/C 22:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(To Rancalred) What do you mean by "correct"? None of them define the term the way either version of the deleted article did (including the version you created). If someone wants to write a properly sourced article, beyond a dictionary definition, where this term is defined as ħ/mc², that's great (although I would think more than one source is required, but that's neither here nor there in this discussion). But both deleted versions of the Wikipedia article (and, apparantly, what is still being proposed) are defining the term as something else entirely, without the backing of any reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I have particularly strong doubts about the legitimacy of a supposed technical term in physics when no one who espouses it seems to be able to spell "vacuum" correctly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michele Bachmann submissive controversy – Deletion endorsed – v/r - T P 13:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This topic has received a disproportional, and notable amount of coverage. Recent examples include:

Submission works, even for strong women, Knoxnews
This Is How Michele Bachmann Will Duck Tough Questions at Tonight’s GOP Debate, New York Magazine

Given the amount of coverage given, this topic is notable enough to warrant its own article. Smallman12q (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the closer's read of the consensus...clearly it's delete/merge. Rather, I'm asking whether the extended coverage makes the topic notable enough for an article...or whether BLP concerns override the notability.Smallman12q (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, regardless of whether or not this topic meets WP:N, we aren't ever required to have an article about it. I see nothing in those two, or the article pre-AfD, that isn't currently stated in Michele Bachmann presidential campaign, 2012#Gaffes. Second, even if the first were not the case, the two links above do little to provide notability. The first is an opinion piece that only tangentially references Bachmann, and the second is a repost of other reporting. Between the two of these, I see zero reason to overturn an AfD that unanimously showed a lack of support for this article. Endorse. lifebaka++ 14:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own close DRV is not AFD round two. The results of the AFD are pretty obvious, and the incident is covered on Wikipedia, just not in its own article. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and I agree with Beeblebrox that this was obviously the correct conclusion.—S Marshall T/C 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse maybe we need a WP#NOT to cover spinout articles on trivial stupidities about political figures (or their spouses, I'm thinking Michelle Obama's arms here) I can't see how you can actually create such an article without violating UNDUE. Jclemens (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Even for the most public of subjects, it's possible to violate BLP by having over-emphasis of minor negative issues. A separate article would be such. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the issue isn't viewed wholly negatively...her response has received praise from various religious groups and the question itself initially received praise for being asked.Smallman12q (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse with an objection The closer erred in asserting that there was consensus that this material was a "gaffe". Out of all of the comments, there were only two that even mentioned "gaffe". One of these mentions, associated with BDSM, was refuted. Comments above also misconstrue Bachmann's support of Pauline Christianity as a "stupidity" or a "negative issue" when Bachmann considers her faith to be a plus. My main point is that the editors at the article in which this material now appears are not bound by the statement in the AfD closing that the material belongs at "#Gaffes". Unscintillating (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Close plainly is an accurate interpretation of community consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Consensus was read correctly. We don't use the Wikipedia as a platform to attack our political opponents. A separate article for every perceived controversy of a political figure is far beyond the bounds of undue weight and pov fork issues. Tarc (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cage of Eden – Userfied version moved to mainspace, old AfD results no longer apply. – lifebaka++ 13:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The following article was deleted and was not allowed to be reverted unless there were independent reviews of the official English version. I finally found two independent reviews, one by Katherine Dacey of The Manga Critic and the other by Brigid Alverson of MTV Geek. Will these two reviews be sufficient enough for the Cage of Eden wikipedia page to be reverted?--FonFon Alseif (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what normally counts as significant enough coverage for manga. Certainly things have changed since the AfD, however. I'd suggest working on a userspace draft first, if only to prevent a premature G4. I'd be happy to userfy your previous version of the article for you, as a starting point. Cheers lifebaka++ 00:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how do i do a userspace draft?--FonFon Alseif (talk) 03:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click this link: User:FonFon Alseif/Cage of Eden.—S Marshall T/C 13:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm done. Here's the draft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FonFon_Alseif/Cage_of_Eden --FonFon Alseif (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to mainspace. The two independent sources look good to me. Any issues with the userspace draft can be solved by normal editing in the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 September 2011

Raju Veluthaakkal – Speedy deletion endorsed. – Sandstein 10:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

<biography of living person is available in Wikipedia in large numbers; the authenticity of the genuine purpose for the entry may please be considered ; promoting oneself may be for positive social causes ,instances may be scrutinized applying due discretion > Ajuvr (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your not making any sense, is this a machine translation? Yoenit (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything there as to why we should make an exception for this page and restore it. Wikipedia articles are expected to adopt a neutral point of view on their subjects, which this article didn't do at all. While other articles on similar subjects may exist, this article was not them and Wikipedia makes no guarantee of consistency. Endorse deletion by default. lifebaka++ 14:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

endorse deletion It was nominated for speedy as A7, no indication of notability. It was deleted, but, correctly, as G11, promotionalism, a better reason because it does look like notability a a journalist was asserted, though it certainly would never pass WP:N. I'd want to see a proper rewrite with good sources before restoring it. DGG ( talk ) 20:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 September 2011

Diggy Simmons – Restored. – Sandstein 10:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

In the notabily (music) guideline it specifies that a musician may be notable if it meets at least one of several criteria, one of which is having won or been nominated for a major music award and another is having a single or album on any country's national music chart. Diggy Simmons was nominated for a YoungStars award at this year's BET Awards and has two singles in the current top 50 billboard R&B/Hip-Hop songs chart. He also has notibility by having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - if you do a Google search on his name there are many articles written specifically about him (which are not just in the context of being in a reality show or being the son of a rapper). B$boy (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tempundeleted the article and notified the last deleting admin.--v/r - T P 13:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, looks like he now meets WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Not sure how many of the of the references in the article are reliable sources, or if him being nominated for the Young Stars Award counts for anything [88], but Google news search his name and you see ample coverage of him.

http://www.theboombox.com/2011/09/01/diggy-simmons-wont-use-ghostwriters-talks-new-lp/

http://www.redeyechicago.com/entertainment/kyra/redeye-even-more-diggy-kyles-files-complete-qa-with-diggy-simmons-20110825,0,7029213.story

http://globalgrind.com/style/digggy-simmons-style-swag-overload-fashion-favorite-brands-photos

http://vibe.com/posts/diggy-simmons-dudes-hating-his-dance-skills-how-be-jet-setter-not-being-limited-his-rev-dad

etc. etc. Anyone participating in an AFD who doesn't take the few moments to click the Google news search and look for sources, shouldn't be allowed in AFDs at all. Vibe magazine I know is a reliable source. Dream Focus 18:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But if there weren't any coverage until very recently (i.e. being nominated for an award and having two songs currently on the charts), you cannot penalize the outcome from a deletion discussion that happened well before all of this (i.e. back in January). Contrary to popular belief, we can't predict the future in the entertainment industry. –MuZemike 21:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

4 Michele Bachmann articles – Keep deleted, but recreation of policy-and-guideline-compliant articles is permitted. – T. Canens (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Per WP: CCC; consensus can change. At the time this article (and four others concerning Bachmann's early political career) were deleted by consensus, it was because Bachmann was then a relatively little-known Minnesota congresswoman who ranked near the bottom of the "power ranking" index. This is no longer the case, as she is now a presidential candidate and one of the highest-profile Republicans on a national stage. As such, anything relating to her is now inherently more notable than it was before, just like articles on Barack Obama's early life probably wouldn't have been notable in 2003, but now are unquestionably notable. As such, I feel the articles (four in total) on Bachmann that were deleted before should be restored and cleaned up. Besides the one linked above, the other three include Michele Bachmann's 1999 school board campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Michele Bachmann and the 2000 election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Michele Bachmann and the 2002 election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Difluoroethene (talk) 06:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted – As User:Dhartung and User:DGG pointed out in that AFD, there were some rather significant NPOV issues and sensationalist overtones in those articles that lead me to believe that they need to remain deleted. Her status today doesn't change any of that. –MuZemike 06:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it shouldn't be too hard to fix the problems you mentioned. Why not just restore the articles and then have editors remove the NPOV issues? Difluoroethene (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problems MuZemike mentioned and the reasons the articles were deleted are article scope. The way to fix them is by writing different articles. Or, more specifically, by simply including the information that would be in these in Michele Bachman instead. You have failed to advance any convincing argument otherwise above, especially given the NPOV concerns that the articles had. Restoring these wouldn't help anyone. Cheers. lifebaka++ 12:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted-If someone were to write new articles on these topics, maybe, maybe there might be a potential article there. Unless that happens, well, consensus can change, but I see no evidence that it has.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allow spinout from Michele Bachmann's own article once enough RS'ed, BLP-compliant, NPOV content on any of these has emerged to merit a WP:SS article. Until that point... no. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps restoring them to the Incubator might be the best course of action? Difluoroethene (talk) 04:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's not what I said. These are BLP issues that allegedly had NPOV issues: rewrite them from scratch, spin them out if/when they meet standalone article criteria. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation if someone can write a neutral policy-compliant draft. Two reasons were given in the AfD to support the deletion: that the articles were biased and that Bachmann wasn't significant enough for this level of detail. Although the second reason may no longer be valid after her presidential run the first remains. Hut 8.5 10:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5 September 2011

4 September 2011

Advanced Vista Optimizer – Article userfied to User:Porchcorpter/Advanced Vista Optimizer. I think we're done here. – Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Somewhat, got improperly deleted by User:Fastily (who had deleted the article despite reading the article and the talk page) because it was advertising. I'm not sure even how the article was spam. -Porch corpter (contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, they way I understand it, DRV should be resorted to only if consultation with the deleting admin resulted in decline to restore the page. No such consultation/discussion has occurred. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consultation with the deletion admin is highly suggested, but not required.Umbralcorax (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I often restore borderline articles here for discussion, but I am not going to restore this one, for it is not borderline, but a mere advertising notice about a company and its apparently non-notable products. The one 3rd party reference given--is to an advertisement on another web site. Myself, I would have speedy deleted on both G11, promotional, and A7 , no indication of importance. Had the user approached the deleting admin, perhaps this could have been explained without the need to come here--that is why it is strongly advised; it is however not required: WP is NOT a Bureaucracy. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Perhaps read the entire article carefully. A7 is just nonsense, as the article had references in it, and as well the article is obviously clearly notable. -Porch corpter (contribs)

05:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Because I read it, I said to permit rewriting, because I think there might in fact be a chance of actual notability for the company. My suggestion is designed to help you get a sustainable article, for I distrust the independence of newspaper article that repeat Public relations as RSs, no matter which newspapers publish them. DGG ( talk ) 07:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you asking me to re-write the article? This and this were the article's sources. Are any of those sources newspapers? -Porch corpter (contribs) 07:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If those are the sources then 100% endorse deletion. How anyone could believe the second of those links (A "cracked" version of the software for download) would ever be an appropriate link from wikipedia, is beyond me. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This DRV is to contest the "spam deletion". Maybe the source is bad and/or unreliable (and can be removed), but I can just find more sources. -Porch corpter (contribs) 07:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source isn't merely bad it's totally unacceptable. Even if you ignore it as a crack, it's repeating manufacturers blurb about the product, the exact same text can be found in numerous places. The other link is clearly just an ad for the product. If the article relies totally on advertising for sourcing then... --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spam on Wikipedia articles are inappropriate, but not on sources of Wikipedia articles. -Porch corpter (contribs) 08:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Which part of reliable sources states that sources which are solely spam can be considered reliable? Do you really believe that linking to sites touting copyright infringement is acceptable and merely spam? (See WP:ELNEVER) --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I mean advertising, not spam. Advertising on sources are fine, provided all those advertisements from the sources don't get as well included in the Wikipedia article. And copying a website or a website with copyright violations are truly inappropriate. -Porch corpter (contribs) 08:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion was out of process as I don't see anything promotional in this cache version and deleting it under A7 is not possible either as it does not apply to software. That being said, an AFD on this would end in a wp:snow close, so endorse as we are not a bureacracy. Yoenit (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "overturn"? -Porch corpter (contribs) 16:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm pretty sure he doesn't. And unless you have sources that show that this product is notable, I also highly doubt it's worth our time restoring it. It'll go to AfD, where it will be deleted, and then you'll only have more trouble writing an article later if things change. lifebaka++ 16:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I didn't. overturning and sending to AFD will just waste everybodies time, as it doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving deletion. Yoenit (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you clarified your reason. First point, this DRV is to contest the spam deletion, and nothing but the spam deletion. Second point, how is this tool not notable? I felt that this article subject was notable, and that is why I created it. ~~I doubt it would be a snow-delete at AFD.~~ (Striking out because a whole consensus agrees that it won't survive at AFD) The article has got sources in it, I would have added more sources to the article though, but the article got deleted a few minutes after I created it. How am I suppose to add sources to the article after it gets deleted? -Porch corpter (contribs/public policy) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a snowball endorse for the deletion, but a better question is whether there could be an article with this name in the future. Porchcorpter says he can find more sources, and there's no reason why he shouldn't be given a chance to try. Userfy, incubate, email him a copy, or whatever so as to facilitate that.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, snow-endorsement is rubbish. This article was not supposed to be deleted. It got deleted because of advertising, and there were no advertisements. And yes, indeed, I can find more sources and add it to the article -Porch corpter (contribs/public policy) 23:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, snow endorsement isn't rubbish, it's inevitable. What I want is for you to have the chance to find more sources and add them to the article. But you need to accept in return that while you're doing that, the article isn't going to appear in the mainspace. Tell me, do you think that individually replying to everyone who doesn't agree with you is going to help in some way?—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to people (and correcting them) can sometimes be helpful. Yep, I'll be fine with it for now being in my userspace, adding more sources to it and making it more notable. -Porch corpter (contribs) 07:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done User:Porchcorpter/Advanced Vista Optimizer. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not restore to mainspace- Whether or not you feel a speedy was strictly applicable, it is clear that the article could not possibly have survived an AfD if the cached version is anything to go by. It makes no assertion of notability and does in fact read like a company press release. I have no objection to a userfied version. Reyk _YO! 00:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not endorsing but I won't say "overturn" (and I respect Fastily's judgement in this matter). IMHO the article fell short of G11. However, if this article is restored to mainspace, it will go to AFD and probably will get deleted and porchcorpter will not be able to write a new version without it being subject to CSD G4. A better idea would be to userfy it to User:Porchcorpter/Advanced Vista Optimizer where he can work in it, find sources, and then move it to mainspace when it's ready. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it was a G11--it seems fairly neutral and wasn't unabigously promotional. I also don't see any sign it came close to meeting WP:N. So we have a few choices: A) restore it and send it off to AfD (where it will get deleted unless new sources show up) B) move it to user space C) just leave it deleted. I think B is the best solution as it has the best chance of us ending up with coverage of the topic. I'd also give a bit of a fishwack to the deleting admin--an AfD would have been a better choice. Hobit (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the mediocre CSD tag, I probably should not have marked it as G11. I agree with the idea that there is not a purpose in restoring it in its present form even if a G11 was not a correct tag because I do not think it would survive any other deletion process. I also seriously question the appropriateness of trying to cite a website offering cracked copies of the program as a source.

I don't think an A7 would have properly speaking applied either - WP:CSD says A7 can't be applied to software. But if A7 could be applied to software then the article would have warranted an A7 because it made no claim to importance. It had two 'sources' (one primary and one ridiculously bad) but A7 is not about the presence of sources, it's about a claim to importance - which was not present. 98.248.194.216 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

3 September 2011

User:Amyabaker/Noddle – Moved to mainspace at Noddle (credit report service) after Cunard's rewrite. – lifebaka++ 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Speedy deleted as G11 by User:DragonflySixtyseven. DF67 declined to reverse the decision, so I'm bringing it here. It's difficult for me to remember at this date what exactly the page contained, but I had reviewed its contents before deletion (reviewing a request to move it into the mainspace) and while the promotional language could be toned down a bit, I certainly don't think it rose to the level of needing a "fundamental" rewrite "to become encyclopedic". Not to mention the fact that speedily deleting a new user's first attempt at writing an article, one which is still in her userspace, seems needlessly harsh when the alternative of helping the user improve the article exists. Powers ^T 15:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've tempundeleted and blanked the article. No bolded !vote yet but it is borderline G11. If I had seen this in article space I would have either tagged it G11 or added the {{advert}} tag. If I ran across it while patrolling CAT:CSD I would have deleted it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. A good faith attempt at writing an article by a new user, with more than decent attempts at providing reliable, independent sourcing. So it wasn't ready for mainspace? That's what userspace drafts are for. It wasn't long-abandoned, either; the author made a (fruitless) request for feedback barely two weeks before the deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to use the content in the article to rewrite it to something useful. I can't; there's just no useful content when you take out all the G11-violating material. G11 applies in all namespaces. If someone wants to help the user rewrite it, then it can be undeleted, but no sense in having it sit around for another couple weeks just to be deleted again later. NW (Talk) 18:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from "Noddle claims that Britons spend over £22 million a year on 'free' credit report trials that are difficult to opt out of", what exactly violates G11? Powers ^T 01:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everything below "At present time".
    A lot of this DRV seems like bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy; it would be far better if someone who thinks this should be overturned just went and helped the user rewrite the article. NW (Talk) 14:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm just not seeing it. Powers ^T 18:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Neither am I. Can you explain, NW? Do you mean copy and paste into main space? There is no article and never has been. There is a subpage in userspace that has been speedied and temporarily undeleted (and blanked) for purposes of discussion. The deleting admin refused undeletion of the subpage. Thincat (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Like Ron, I'd have swung the axe on this if I saw it in CAT:CSD. No matter how new a user you are, you need to be competent to write a neutral article. We don't let advertisements stay on the project on the off chance that they'll be turned into something decent. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but permit rewriting The last line, emphasising how important the service is, is certainly what we meet by promotion. however, the article has references from two major newspapers, even if they do resemble PR-driven material, and is apparently a product from one of the established companies in the field. I would suggest rewriting an article to be about the company, with a cross reference from the product. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, list at AfD. Firstly, as per my opinion still at WT:CSD (23:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)), any reasonable contest of a speedy deletion should see it undeleted and sent to XfD by default. G9 G10 G12 F7 F9 are exceptions, G11 is not. Secondly, in this case, it should not have been speedied in the first place. The four references are decent. The author has made a decent attempt to comply with our WP:N requirements by using independent secondary sources. I'm not convinced he has succeeded, but in trying he has passed the G11 threshold and the question should be discussed at XfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy per WP:BITE. OK, it's also a reasonable (if promotional) draft and has sources that would seem to meet WP:N (the Guardian article looks very solid AFAICT). If someone wants to send it to MfD, I'd also consider that bitey, but I also suspect it would be kept. In mainspace I'd agree a G12 would be fine, but as a draft (especially of a new user), it's perfectly fine. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy- Looks like the beginnings of what could be a legitimate article. It's not yet ready for the mainspace, but that's why we have the userspace. Obviously this draft needs an overhaul because much of it is promotional. Reyk _YO! 22:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, precisely per Reyk. What is it with the userspace police these days? If it looks like someone's trying to write an article, for goodness' sake don't discourage them by speedying it!—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Permit recreation without copyright violations – While I agree with the reasons to overturn, from a quick spot-check about half the article was ripped directly from the sources. Newcomer or not, we should not be encouraging that. –MuZemike 00:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the rewrite as evidenced below. –MuZemike 05:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn because we should not be deleting potential articles being developed in userspace except under copyright/attack/BLP-type circumstances. There are indeed copyright and plagiarism issues to be thought about here but I think this page gets by because it is giving explicit shortish quotes with references. However, and irrelevantly to this DRV discussion, a lot of work is needed before this page would be suitable as an article. Even so, the page can be worked on: it is not a dead loss. I see the creator posted at Wikipedia:Requests_for_feedback/2011_August_19#User:Amyabaker.2FNoddle, so far without reply. This is not showing us in a good light. Thincat (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and User talk:Amyabaker/Noddle, some of it being very well-intentioned, has not helped the newcomer either. Thincat (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move User:Amyabaker/Noddle to Noddle per my rewrite. This article from The Guardian and this article from The Daily Telegraph establish that Noddle passes the notability guidelines.
Regarding the speedy deletion, I don't believe that this version that was deleted passed {{db-spam}}. Cunard (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion about to which title title User:Amyabaker/Noddle should be moved, but I ask that the closing admin keep this comment by Anthony Appleyard (talk · contribs) in mind:
A disambiguator is needed, e.g. Noddle (credit report service). The main use of the word "noddle" is as slang for "head". Currently Noddle redirects to head. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I !voted overturn above). Excellent. I support this rewrite being kept. I did not know unprotection and editing of a blanked, protected article was permitted during DRV discussion but if this is an invocation of WP:IAR then it is an unusually good one. Thincat (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The draft's creator has asked about the status of matters at User_talk:Amyabaker#Draft Noddle article and I have given my own reply. Thincat (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move the draft to mainspace, preferably a disambiguated title, since Cunard's rewrite contains sources that more than meet the requirements of WP:GNG. The original deletion was probably wrong but it doesn't matter now. (Incidentally, shouldn't this have been closed three days ago?) Alzarian16 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:IPAc-en editable – Deletions endorsed. – lifebaka++ 02:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Deleted as meeting WP:CSD#T3 but without 7 day waiting period (and otherwise not truly meeting). Deleted again as WP:CSD#G2 despite conversations with deleter and not making particular sense. Reisio (talk) 09:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creator of template deleted the RfD and started using it again in mainspace, so I salted. It's a fork with no purpose apart from allowing Reisio to circumvent the page protection, since they evidently proposed a change and it wasn't accepted. However, they didn't make any substantial change to their version except to remove a deprecated parameter that could just as easily be removed from the original template. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion template was misplaced and inapplicable the second time, and never appeared before your unilateral deletion the first. The parameter could indeed be easily removed from the template, unfortunately no one with the access to that template will do so. Time marches on. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami: they evidently proposed a change and it wasn't accepted. : diff(s) please. After that, I surely will ask what happened to the proposal of removing a deprecated parameter. -DePiep (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't propose the change himself, but he supported it here. In a later discussion he says that the icon removal was, indeed, the reason for making this new template. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At first glance, there's no valid reason for this forked template to exist. Normally your first line of "appeal" would be WP:REFUND, but seeing as it's here, it's here. What really is the purpose of this template, and what does it do that the original does not? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for REFUND, I was referred here by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:IPAc-en_editable&action=edit ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, BWilkins. This is the right place. First, Kwami disobeyed the 7-days rule for a CSD-T3. Later, that same Kwami killed a page through CSD-G2. An editor, the nom here, contacted Kwami [89] correctly. Kwami should have observed the 7-day rule. Kwami could have left the 2nd deletion to an other, lesser-involved admin. The nom is correct in raising this DRV. Sending them to REFUND is a misunderstanding of the whole. Deciding by knowing the outcome beforehand is a arrogant. Even for an admin. And, BWilkins, why judge "at first glance" at all?-DePiep (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a version of the template I could add to pages with some confidence that later on, should someone start adding pointless misleading icons to thousands of articles by way of it, I or someone else could fix from the template without having to manually edit those thousands of articles (again). I had been substituting the templates as I came upon uses of the original with the icon parameter, to kill two birds with one stone. It was a version of the template that actually belongs in a wiki meant to be editable by all. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The way this is looking to me right now is you didn't like the current template, it's a high use template so protected, you couldn't wait to gain consensus to change it (or didn't think you could get that consensus), so as an end run around that created your own fork and started liberally replacing instances of the old template with your new template? Your definition of "I or someone else could fix" seems to roughly equate to "put it the way I want it to regardless of anyone else" --82.19.4.7 (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're overlooking that he (and others) admit(ted) the icon is deprecated, so my removal of it is not particularly self serving, or even (IMO) disruptive, and that the only change to the template was to remove the icon in the original instance, with the second instance being 100% identical to the original template (as I started removing the |icon in the articles itself instead). I barely understand MediaWiki template coding, so when I say "I or someone else could fix" (if such a situation arises again), that's what I mean (emphasis on someone else, even). ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you a view on how it looks to someone (me) who doesn't know any background to this and spent a few minute looking. If there was a general consensus then editing the template would happen in fairly short order no need for your replacement, what was so urgent it couldn't wait until that happened? From what you describe now it's getting more towards you disagreeing with the protection policy rather than anything else, in which case creating a "duplicate" template to avoid protection rather than trying to discuss it and get the policy changed then it's arguably a case of WP:POINT. The original template seems to be protected because it's high use, your replacement if used would ultimately fall to the same fate, what then? Another fork? If you really want to solve the problem, then you need to discuss and come up with real solutions as to how the requirements of protecting high use templates against vandalism can be balanced with the needs of normal editing. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing was particularly urgent (though I see little reason in not improving Wikipedia as swiftly as possible). I did wait something like 38 days before making a new template. I do disagree with the protection of templates, as it goes against Wikipedia's very purpose to provide a wiki editable by all. Even if WP:POINT were policy and not just a guideline, and even if other policies and guidelines didn't contradict it (they do), I can't imagine anything to justify going against Wikipedia's very purpose. If the other were protected, my first response would be to question how someone justifies protecting a template with "editable" in its name, and then yes, another fork. I have discussed the problem many times and in several places, to no avail. This was something (that nobody but kwami found disruptive) that I could do to improve Wikipedia relatively immediately with ordinary editing privileges. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suspect I'll bow out here, I'll disagree with you on WP:POINT. So you disagree with the protection policy for these things, but when raised you can't get traction on changing it, that suggests that you are out of step with consensus. Deciding that your view is right based on the tagline of "everyone can edit" and choosing to ignore that consensus, does indeed suggest disruption. If "everyone" believes that templates such as this benefit from protection to prevent vandalism, and see the trade off wagainst the availability for everyone to edit as a reasonable one, then you need to work within that framework until such time that consensus becomes more to your view or alternative ways of managing the situation are found. Your willingness to continue going against the consensus of the protection policy and continue enforcing your own preference by making further forks, if "required", speaks volumes. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd been removing icons as I encountered them in my regular Wikipedia travels for 2 months and 6 days before kwami became the first and only person to decide I was being disruptive. Other people even joined in*. I simply fail to see the disruption except apparently to kwami. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the above discussion about trying to do an end run around the protection policy because you disagree with it , has anything to do with removing the icon. If you really can't understand how creating forks to do that is a problem, then I'd have to question your competence to edit at all. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if you really can't understand how creating forks is a harmless solution to nobody fixing a problem in one place to continue improving Wikipedia, I'd have to question yours. When I edit Wikipedia, I do it to improve it. I see no logic in not improving Wikipedia if I can. What would you have done after a month without an admin resolving this issue? ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again a comment which misses the point, you have created a fork to to bypass the protection policy. In doing so you are going against the consensus view that these should be protected. You may see sticking two fingers up to general consensus on these things as harmless, but I don't. You think you fixed a problem, no you didn't. The problem you have with protection being applied to templates which are in high use still exists, there are 1000s of other out there. Not only did you not fix that, you then cut across the whole point of templates as a "single" source by creating fragmentation, multiple near duplicate templates, some used somewhere, some used elsewhere, creating confusion for those who may want to use it, increasing the complexity of future changes etc. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for the moment WP:CCC, Wikipedia's purpose, WP:IAR, et al., if you're truly aware of some discussion that generated a consensus for protecting templates (high use or otherwise), please link to it. I am aware of no such consensus. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what consensus is. Consensus isn't a vote somewhere, consensus can be seen in what we do, that we protect these and it's generally accepted is a consensus. The fact that you have stated above you've tried to change it and couldn't get anywhere, shows consensus is for how it is. WP:CCC would be an excellent argument for removing the protection, it isn't for bypassing the protection by creating forks, that's back to WP:POINT again. If consensus has changed you'd demonstrate that and the protection would be lifted, you haven't and if seems you can't. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 06:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. An absence of consensus is not consensus, and what admins do on their own is not consensus. A real consensus is only achieved by a discussion, and you haven't one to cite. The fact that I haven't been able to get anywhere is proof only that kwami is an admin and I am not. The fact that the corresponding discussion at the administrator's noticeboard for incidents staled with no conclusions or actions in response whatsoever is proof only that admins are happy as long as they get their way, which is what has happened here. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I say an absence of consensus is "consensus"? I What I have said that there is a consensus, not an absence of consensus. Your continually willingness to twist what is being said and continue to ignore points, demonstrates you aren't actually interested in honest discussion. If everyone agrees that a course of action is the correct one, that is consensus, regardless of if some formal discussion occurred or not. If you want to believe it or not, the agreement of the action being the correct one is apparent in others not supporting your opposing view, get over it. Regardless you still ignore the fact that even if your view is correct, it doesn't make the solution to create forks, that fragments things and creates further problems. Feel free to have the last word. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uphold deletion and salting editor failed to obtain WP:CONSENSUS on a change to a common template, and forked a new one. This is not how Wikipedia works, and continue re-creation and reuse of this is wholly disruptive to the project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely how Wikipedia works. There was little consensus either way as you can see at Template talk:IPAc-en, and to avoid more work for all involved in the future, I was bold (if you like, anyways, really I was just doing what I always do: trying to improve Wikipedia) and took action. ¦ Reisio (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins, why not keep it a regular DRV? That is how WP works. -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Must say, someone writing this is wholly disruptive to the project makes me think BWilkins's account is hijacked. -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reisio says they needed to fork the template in order to have the icon not display. The icon will only display if you add the icon parameter, which the doc page says is deprecated. So the simple solution would be to remove the deprecated parameter (as Reisio did regardless) and leave the template alone. That is, changing "IPAc-en editable" back to "IPAc-en" has no effect on the display whatsoever. I would think they know that, since they know enough to edit the template coding, and it's explained in the doc, though perhaps I'm overestimating them. Anyway, after I explained this, just in case, for at least the 2nd time, R said on their talk page[90] that "The reason to create another template is so that once we waste all the time to remove the parameters we don't have to do it again the next time the template needs an edit and doesn't receive it", though I still don't see where there was a first time. In other words, R seems to recognize that it makes no difference at all to the articles. — kwami (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You still aren't getting it. There are two problems and two solutions. One problem is that someone (I believe it was User:Deflective, but I'd have to check) without discussion added |icon to a very large number of pages, and this icon is (at least without an audio file) pointless and misleading. The second problem was that nobody with the access to edit the template would edit it to keep this icon from appearing when there was no audio file linked. Without the template being edited, there is only one solution to the first problem: for people to spend close to the same amount of time/effort Deflective had to manually edit each of the myriad of pages (this defeats the purpose of templates). The simplest solution to the second problem is the solution I enacted: making a new template. ¦ Reisio (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 September 2011

Key industries – Deletion endorsed. The consensus below is that the closer correctly read the consensus at the AfD. There is no consensus on whether to to move the current draft into mainspace, but that can be done by any interested editor without the imprimatur of DRV. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Not sure why this got deleted. As stated on the deletion request page for this article, 2 people very quickly (a few seconds after I created it!) recommended it for deletion when I had almost no content on it. I filled it with good content immediately afterwards. It was a new page for a non-profit organization. Mr. Matt Wallace, B.A. (Hist), B. Ed. (Sec. SS) (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a key problem is that the article had no third party reliable sources covering the subject directly and in detail (The basic standard), all the references were "self" references to the organisation's own website. Wikipedia isn't a directory of entities, non-profit or otherwise. Despite the early listing of this after creation the deletion debate lasted the full time and those commenting towards the end of that time still opined to delete. so any improvements made still didn't raise it to the required standards. I can't imagine anyone would have any objection to this being userfied for further work, but if it doesn't/can't meet the standard then it won't make it's way into the encyclopaedia so there would be little point in doing so right now. Although not a reason delete (it's fixable), an example of problems in the article as written, it contains a "contact" section giving phone numbers etc. that's the information you expect in a business directory, not an encyclopedia, take a look at articles like Microsoft, Unicef or Amnesty International and see the difference. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, assuming the article didn't include any supersource that everyone forgot to mention. While the nomination may have been premature, the last two recommendations came after the AfD had run for a full week, and consensus was clear. I don't have any objection to userfication, but I'll leave that to the closing admin's discretion. By the way, I've notified them of this review — frankie (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there's an article to be written with this title. Surely, this is a plausible search term, isn't it? There must at least be a redirect target of some kind!—S Marshall T/C 01:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. How about Outline of industry#Major industries? — frankie (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks painfully inadequate to me, I'm afraid. I might need to actually write something, for the first time in much too long. Still, this is tangential to the deletion review itself, and I see I've forgotten to add my endorse.—S Marshall T/C 01:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I've restored the redirect so the heading for this DRV can be blue :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow rewriting. As made clear in the AfD this was as submitted almost a speedy G11 as wholly promotional: a long list of the services they offer, and a contact number. It would also appear non-notable, based on the information presented at the time--a local organization with a small number of clients without any third-party sources. However, I've found a RS with a substantial article talking about this project directly and in detail Telegraph Journal, a major regional newspaper for the province. There is another one from the same paper apparently about some difficulties between their clients and high school students summarized at the official site of the city high school[91], but it's no longer in their archive. There's also a human interest story involving the organization at The Phoenix. Sources from public records could probably be found also. I tend to be a deletionist for local topics and organizations, but I think this one can stand up. I'm willing to do the rewrite to incorporate the sources; I'm used to it.(btw, there are at least two US companies with the same name, one in Ft. Scott Kansas [92] and one in Nevada[93]) (also btw, I did all this with just GoogleNewsArchive/Google, and any of the people who commented here or at the AfD could have done the same. So could the author of the original article--it was primarily his responsibility, and he is probably be in a position to find earlier issues of local newspapers also that might not be online--the city has a public library. ) DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AfD closure, neutral on restoration to mainspace after my rewrite. – having moved the page to User:Mrwalis/Key Industries, rewritten the article, and added three third-party reliable sources from Telegraph-Journal, I am unconvinced that Key Industries will pass another AfD. Mrwalis, S Marshall, and DGG, would you be able to help improve the article? Another third-party reliable source from a different publication is needed to ensure that Key Industries will not be deleted via a subsequent AfD. I don't think The Phoenix source will be helpful since it is a human-interest story that is primarily about Michael Henry, a 28-year-old diabetic janitor who worked at Key Industries in the 1970s. Cunard (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of Native American women – Overturned to keep. – lifebaka++ 00:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I think this list was deleted because someone found it repetitive with some kind the Native American category listing. I am researcher, and have not been able to find the info I'm looking for within the American Indian categories on Wiki (IE: Notable American Indian Women). The reason why the list exists is because women have been largely omitted (or at least, have a small presence as compared to men) in printed history--this page is a valuable source of information for people trying to find out about notable women in general and American Indian Women specifically. The information contained on this page is not located on other pages and will be lost if left undeleted. Additionallly, it is also not redundant with the category page, in that this page is about a specific subject: notable Indian WOMEN--add the word notable if you believe that needs to be spelled out.--Friendlyresearcher (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly malformed nomination fixed.—S Marshall T/C 20:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closer notified.—S Marshall T/C 20:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance I don't see a consensus to delete in that discussion.—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn likely to NC. I don't see a consensus to delete that's for sure. Hobit (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, although those that argued to keep made a very good case about the existence of the category not prohibiting the existence of the list, so an outcome to keep wouldn't have been too much of a stretch. Certainly not delete — frankie (talk) 22:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for that opinion. Can you please give some reasons, this is not a vote. Also same comment to S Marshall, Hobit. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The main reason I see this as a no consensus is that participants chose to base their arguments on non-intersecting views, rather than being of opposite views over one matter (as it is normally the case with notability). Those two views, namely that Wikipedia is not a directory and that lists and categories cohabit, are both defendable since they both exist for the benefit of the project, and taking into account that the number of participants was pretty much evenly divided between the two, I don't think that a consensus to delete can be extracted from it — frankie (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think S Marshall's analysis is pretty good. Specifically I don't think there was a consensus that this was a non-notable intersection. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article restored and blanked. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
overturn this appears to be a confluence of people citing NOTDIR in a way not consistent with its actual wording (much like NOTNEWS, actually), and they appear to have been inappropriately accorded weight rather than discounted by the closing administrator. Once that falls away, the discussion fails to articulate deficiencies which couldn't be solved through normal editing rather than deletion. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this AFD was used as a precedent. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fortunately, there is no precedent from a single deletion. Let's wait till this closes, and if restored, bring it up here next. A consistent series of decisions here does establish an informal precedent, and we can start with this one. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. There were two arguments. One was list vs category, and It isn't valid; it is just the opposite: policy in WP:LIST is explicit that we can have both, and we usually do. This argument is used routinely both by those few people who oppose all lists, and by those who use it to object to some list in particular, but it is wrong no matter how it is used. The only other argument was NOT DIR, and that argument is always invalid if the list is limited to those people with Wikipedia articles, precisely because Wikipedia is not a directory, and we have articles only to those people who are notable. The closer is supposed to only accept arguments based on policy. The AfD was closed without any explanation from the closing admin,despite the correct arguments being presented. Even if the closer had ignored the need to close on the basis of policy, and went by counting opinion was still aopproximately divided and could certainly not justify a delete . — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
In response to Aaron Brenneman's reasonable question, here is my analysis of the discussion.—S Marshall T/C 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall's detailed analysis

Nomination: The arguments presented are (a) precedent and (b) non-notable intersection. I feel we may safely disregard the precedent because it consists only of one discussion. If there were several, then there might be a case that policy should be updated to coincide with custom and practice, but in this case it's an isolated discussion. Strictly speaking, there's no precedent on Wikipedia at all; ours is not a judicial or quasijudicial system. This leaves us with one argument for deletion.
Colonel Warden: Points out that WP:CLN says this article can and should exist as a counterpart to the category. We now have one argument for deletion and one argument to keep.
Kosh: Argues for deletion based on WP:NOTDIR point 1. We now have two arguments for deletion and one argument to keep.
Qrsdogg: Repeats a point already covered in the nomination. We have already given this point weight, so we need only note that two editors support it.
Warrior777: Points out that WP:NOTDIR point 1 does not actually apply. We're down to one argument for deletion and one argument to keep. With all due respect for Curb Chain, in this case his response has no merit.
DGG: Counters the "non-notable intersection" point. We now have no un-countered arguments for deletion, and one argument to keep. Again, with all due respect for Curb Chain, in this case his response has no merit.
Stuartyeates: A response directly contrary to the principles of WP:CLN, which Warden linked earlier on in the discussion. The evidence is that Stuartyeates has not actually read the discussion and is not familiar with the relevant policy. With all due respect for what he says, it has no merit and has been pre-countered by Warden's remark.
Sandstein: Again, does not seem to understand WP:CLN. However, Sandstein repeats the "non-notable intersection" point, which means that even though DGG has countered this point, enough editors have expressed the concern -- both before and after DGG's countering -- that their view must be given weight. "Non-notable intersection" is re-established as an argument to delete.
Conclusion: Of the whole debate, one argument to delete, and one argument to keep, are given weight. This implies that it is correctly read as "no consensus".

Comment WP:CLN is oftentimes misread in deltion discussions such as this. CLN does not say that categories and lists duplicate each other; CLN only says that the presence of a category isn't a reason to delete a list (and vice versa). There are many times when it is appropriate to have a category and not a list (and vice versa). Policy-based rationales for deletion (such as NOTDIR) do not conflict with CLN, which only prohibits rationales that just point at the existence of a related category. Perhaps this should be relisted, as I am sympathetic that this list is overly-large in scope. Overly-broad lists such as this are one of our weakest points. Them From Space 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted this is not XFD 2.0 like most above try; the closer got it right. These lists do nothing to advance an encyclopedia - and no one could assert a policy reason to keep non-encyclopedic stuff - and as is noted: any value it might (arguably) have served in that capacity is already well covered in a racial/ethnic/gender classification category system that is more extensive than anyone anywhere else has devised. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep, in agreement with DGG's analysis. Notable people may be listed without violating NOTDIR. The closer seems not to have evaluated whether the NOTDIR argument actually applied or not. DeliciousBits (talk) 01:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. There is a policy in place which says you shouldn't destroy list articles, just because you prefer categories, and that the two can exists. This is obviously a notable category, there books written about this. [94] The closing administrator has had his decisions reversed on multiple occasions, and doesn't seem to be doing the job of administrator very effectively. Dream Focus 17:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Per DGG. And the list is most definitely useful because it makes it possible to print out a listing of notable Native American women with articles on Wikipedia. The idea stated in the Afd was that this was not an meaning intersect is flawed to the point that it needs to be discounted. Perhaps they are not interested in looking up notable NA women, but I am! As the list grows it will need to be divided to make it more useful, but right now it is perfect as a tool to locate notable NA women. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 21:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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