Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 4

User:Bluedenim/Blondes (edit | [[Talk:User:Bluedenim/Blondes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Also:

User:UBX/redheads (edit | [[Talk:User:UBX/redheads|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:ISD/BBW (edit | [[Talk:User:ISD/BBW|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Affused with holy water/Loves sexy girls (edit | [[Talk:User:Affused with holy water/Loves sexy girls|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Bluedenim/Brunettes (edit | [[Talk:User:Bluedenim/Brunettes|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction (edit | [[Talk:User:Dark Tichondrias/Userboxes/User Shemale Attraction|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:UBX/TranswomenSexy (edit | [[Talk:User:UBX/TranswomenSexy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Endorse. Utterly pointless, useless userboxes, with no encyclopedic value whatsoever? Get rid of them all! -- ChrisO (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How useful are some of your userboxes to building an encyclopedia?--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They serve a valid encyclopedic function. Knowing that an editor has the hots for blondes is not, last time I looked, relevant to building an encyclopedia. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, your anti-userbox stance is not helpful here. Numerous userboxes have been speedily deleted by

WP:MfD. PC78 (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

*ahem* - "he" ??? :) - Alison ^❤ 21:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Krimpet doesn't specify his or her gender on his or her user page. I'm not a mind reader, you know. PC78 (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't assume she's male. You're not a mind reader, you know - Alison ^❤ 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*ahem* -

Gender-neutral pronoun#Gender markedness --NE2 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Quite. PC78 (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*coffs* - are we done with this nonsense yet? My initial comment was meant to be humorous (hence the smiley) but you seem to want to make a big deal of it for some reason. Now why? - Alison ^❤ 21:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read "Then don't assume she's male. You're not a mind reader, you know" as humorous, but as stating that everyone should be using gender-neutral language, which is typically awkward when applied to English pronouns. If it was intended as humorous, I'll disengage. --NE2 22:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* - the initial "mind reader" phrase was used by PC78 just before my reply. All I did was (humorously) turn it around again. Point being, of course, that people should look before they leap, especially given the nature of the situation here and that people are very obviously on-edge (as somewhat proven now) - Alison ^❤ 22:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think PC78 did look, and couldn't find any gender mentioned on Krimpet's user page :) --NE2 22:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Peeps, does it really matter - Gender doesn't matter here, we're all just Wikipedians! :-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did someone say peeps?? :) - Alison ^❤ 22:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if I said that yes, while I am a wee bit touchy with regards to this whole affair, my initial reply to you was also meant in good humour, even if I was somewhat negligent in not making that clear with a smiley? Can we all smoke the

peace pipe now? :) PC78 (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Sounds good to me. Whatchoo got in that thing anyways? :) - Alison ^❤ 22:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn all and list at MfD. No reason has been given for deletion other than a rather subjective "inappropriate" or "somewhat inappropriate". What speedy deletion criteria do they fall under? What policies or guidelines do they violate? PC78 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at MfD - None of the recent userbox deletions by Krimpet have been through MfD and should have a fair chance there. There's no speedy deletion criteria that covers "This user loves blondes" userboxes and if we go down this road, there's many, many others that should also be deleted. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Not sure if I should vote here or not, but I will. Like Ryan said, there are a lot of userboxes that could be seen as "unencyclopedic" as these.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've listed the others above. PC78 (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and remind the admin involved not to abuse their sysop powers in this way. "An administrator doesn't like it" has never been a speedy delete criteria for anything. Let the community decide what is inappropriate...and in my eyes, these boxes are completely appropriate in userspace. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Stupid? Yes. Pointless? Certainly. Valid to speedy delete without discussion? No. Most userboxes are completely stupid but the fact is they are a small way in which editors can grow to like Wikipedia and express themselves and thus continue editing. Perhaps Krimpet should try to divorce the ideas of "what Wikipedia should be" and "what they want wikipedia to be". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer blondes, but brunettes and redheads are fine in a pinch. As for the deletion, no clue. --NE2 04:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. We select administrators for their judgment. Punishing them for exercising it is simply silly. The templates were / are inappropriate, and thus, were deleted. Move on. And Bedford: petty vendettas and agendas will get you nowhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because you have a mop does not give you the right to do whatever you like with it. Admins need to work within the rules of Wikipedia and within the consensus of it's users, probably moreso than others. Speedily deleting things that don't fit on
  this list is an abuse of the tools, plain and simple. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Only in limited form. Admins should have a good sense of judgement, but do not replace the community. Since the community would like to discuss the matter, it sounds more than reasonable to let them. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, per my comment above to MZM. -- Ned Scott 08:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also per
    WP:HOTTIE. -- Ned Scott 08:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    

• I also hate to be a process pedant, because Krimpet is quite right, but Overturn and list at MfD where hopefully the community will have the sense to delete them. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all and list at MfD - this should have gone through the proper channels, regardless of the deleting admin's opinion of the boxes. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and fie on process wonkery. Of no conceivable encyclopaedic value and in very poor taste. Myspacery at its worst. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: OMFG. An admin deleted those, without coming anywhere near process, for no other reason than he didn't like them? I don't care if they were "unencyclopedic" as hell, that's monstrously uncivil to speedy from userspace, and excuse me, but
   RGTraynor  00:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - an administrator needs very strong grounds to speedy-delete a userfied template (i.e. it must be blatantly offensive and inflammatory), and though tasteless and puerile, these templates do not reach that line. In this case, there is clearly debate over the appropriateness of the templates, which should be sufficient to get them undeleted and sent to
  WP:MFD. As for the claim that we elect admins to let them use the powers how they see fit - well, no, we grant them the powers in order to exercise them in line with policy. This deletion was not justified by any policy, and thus should be overturned. Terraxos (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion; thoroughly unencyclopedic and unhelpful templates. Speedy was not the way to go, but some of the opinions that advocate relisting at MFD acknowledge that deletion there would be imminent anyway—which gives rise to the question: why bother with the MFD process at all then? We are not in the business of engaging in unnecessary time-wasting with a foregone conclusion in sight. Ryan's complaint about a "slippery slope" is also somewhat fallacious, as the community always has multiple escape routes to overturn poor deletions, this very forum being one of them. On an ancillary note,
  WP:CENSORED applies to article space only, and not in project or user space, where free speech is stifled with regularity.

  It is also disappointing and worth noting that Bedford has aggressively cross-posted a manifestly non-neutral message concerning this discussion to a carefully chosen group of editors, using unfortunate and poisonous language such as "this follows other subjects about women [Krimpet] has chosen to take on herself whether or not they should be on Wikipedia the past two weeks, including starting an 'edit war' on the DYK section of the main page" (the deception of using an edit war which got himself desysopped to smear Krimpet with notwithstanding). This latest incident only reaffirms in my mind that Bedford's recent defrocking was for the best. east718 (talk) 09:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]
  • Deletion at MfD is not assured for any of these templates. Sufficient interest has been shown in discussing their merits at the proper venue. PC78 (talk) 10:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. If we just limited userboxes to "only what helps build the encyclopedia", there'd be...well, not a lot of userboxes. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite. Where is the encyclopedic value in knowing that a user's
        likes olives on their pizza, or that a user chooses to masturbate with his left hand, or that a user... the list is endless. PC78 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Wait. I thought this and this reaffirmed it? >_>
    ^(Talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion - Has absolutely no encyclopaedic value.
  Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Err...most userboxes don't. Should we delete all of those as well? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list Bottom line, too many good faith users have contested this to make them clear cut speedy's. Discussion & consensus is required.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion I'm disappointed that Krimpet inappropriately used the delete button. If you think something doesn't belong and you can't find a valid speedy deletion rationale, send it to TFD/MFD. With the exception User:Affused with holy water/Loves sexy girls (which is a bit over the top), I believe the userboxes should all be restored. IMO, they're quite harmless, and describe a sexual fetish of sorts, just like a number of other userboxes listed at Category:Sexuality user templates. If these are inappropriate userboxes, why don't we delete User:ISD/Userboxes/Dominant, User:UBX/kinky or User:UBX/slut? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and fie on process wonkery. Of no conceivable encyclopaedic value and in very poor taste. Myspacery at its worst. per JzG / Guy. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - utterly useless MYSPACEry. Yes, they're in poor taste and are in no way conducive to building an encyclopedia in a collaborative environment. Ask the question as to whether desk-signs like these would be appropriate in industry and if not, why not? It's pretty self-evident, really. While I'm unimpressed with Krimpet's direct approach to the problem (MFD is the proper way), I'm more than happy to endorse these speedy-deletions here - Alison ^❤ 21:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• OMGWTFBBQ Hi, the userbox wars called, they want their drama back. Come on people, lets not forget
  WP:GUS. -- Ned Scott 22:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: There are a great many elements on Wikipedia that are of "no encyclopedic value." Userboxes generally aren't. Neither are formatted font names with colors and curlicues. Neither are userpages with artwork layout, photos of the editors, photos on userpages generally, display of barnstars, the GA/FA how-great-I-am displays, and so on. None of these are necessary in order to build an encyclopedia. And with but one single exception, every editor above who's used the "no encyclopedic value" or "unnecessary" lines have one or more of those elements on their own user pages. Me, I'd put up some aluminum siding over those glass houses, folks.
   RGTraynor  23:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn deletion Per RGTraynor. I've got a picture of a motorcycle on my user page. I suppose, based on the logic here, it's history. It's not my bike per se, but it's the exact year, make, model, color, condition, and amount of farkle. I love that bike. Personally, I thought we only cared about user pages and userboxes when they were highly offensive, and even then, it took a lot of work to delete them. These userboxes (if only I could see them, so I'm guessing here), aren't offensive. We should spend a lot more time building an encyclopedia than worrying about this situation. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Speedy deletion was inappropriate. Not everything on userpages is encyclopedic. If consensus to delete at
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rlendog (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion and happy with the approach Krimpet took. Deletion is only inappropriate when the object deleted has any sort of merit. No, not everything in userspace has encyclopedic value. But there is a line between a bit of fun and out-and-out impropriety, and this sort of thing really crosses that. If I don't get to put up a 'Honk if You're Horny' sticker on my cubicle at work, I shouldn't get to post something like this here (and the sort of environment we should be building towards here is, IMO, similar to that of a relaxed office). If these are okay, I suppose no-one will object to my posting a "This user loves sleazy horndogs" userbox? ~ Riana ⁂ 00:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we endorse out of process admin action because the admin knows the WP:Truth?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, I'd be happy top see 95% of all userboxes deleted but this isn't the way to go about it. I agree with the deletion of these boxes but not the unilateral method employed. The more leeway you give admins to act out of process the more controversial actions you'll get, and much drama would no doubt ensue. Best to keep a tight reign on what admins can and can't legitimately delete. RMHED (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per RGTraynor and RMHED. JohnCD (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, absolutely. Rlendog put it very well. GlassCobra 15:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen in a long time. These were not deleted for personal reasons at all Bedford. There is not purpose to these userboxes other than sexual preference. There is also no way you can justify these userboxes as being encyclopedic. Therefore relisting at MfD is now redundant. This is one unilateral admin action I am happy to
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT is used inside deletion discussions and not for reasons to delete, right? Synergy 16:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn all. Admins don't get to unilaterally delete pages because they consider them inappropriate. These probably are inappropriate, but MFD is the place to go to deal with that.
  talk) 16:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn There are no procedural grounds for this speedy deletion, and as there are at least several people above who in good faith do not believe these should be deleted at all, the deletion should be overturned as speedy deletions should only be used for obvious cases. Personally I don't use any userboxes but would not interfere with other people using them except in the really worst cases which I am not persuaded these were. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn If
  Krimpet thinks that the userboxes are inappropriate, she should nominate them for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - All the "endorse" opinions seem to be based on the idea that they would vote a delete for it in MFD, so there's no point in overturning. Please think of it this way: you're endorsing the idea that an administrator can see a page and delete it unilaterally for whatever reason, so long as they find it "inappropriate", and to heck with the long-established processes that actually determine such things. I know I don't want that. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at MfD. I probably will vote delete at the MfD for all of these except
  lads' magazines would not see what's so wrong about stating normal, heterosexual preferences for women based on their looks, especially if we can give recognition to less common sexual preferences and orientations in userboxes.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn all. Unilateral undiscussed speedy deletion outside of the limited scope of speedy deletion criteria. The proper venue and method for deletion of such content, if it should occur, is MfD. There is already ample consensus (and no need for further drama) about userbox migration, and the Germans seem to have handled it without a community 'come-apart'. User pages are allowed much latitude, and these boxen did not violate any of our core policies or cause any harm. That they do not provide any collaborative benefit is probably accurate, but niether is the limited bio information on my own user page, and similar content on most users' pages; which has never been challenged. To make one the self-appointed userspace police is not within the purview of an an administrator. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 16:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: This kind of sexism, as well as racism, makes it difficult to collaborate productively. --Aphaia (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Just out of curiosity, how so? How many user pages do you commonly review? User talk pages, yes, but user pages? There are ten names in this debate with whom I've spoken over the years (heck, there's one with whom I was involved in a contentious DRV a couple months back), and until this debate where I deliberately checked, I've never had occasion to look over their user pages. Come to that, I haven't looked at yours yet; for all I know you've a userpage proclaiming that you're a neo-Nazi who sacrifices cute kittens to Satan during commercial breaks of American Idol. Leaving quite aside that I worry about someone who goes blind with fury at seeing a "I love sexy women" userbox being involved in a collaborative project at any level, there's a fundamental point I think's being missed. What about communicating with an editor requires ever making a point to look over his user page?
   RGTraynor  14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I endorse the principle behind the action (that these userboxes are useless), but I can't agree with the way it was carried out. The use of "inappropriate" and "somewhat inappropriate" as deletion reasons sets a very bad precedent. Overturn all unless/until we reach an actual consensus to delete useless userboxes (some actually are useful). –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn all I guess someone deleted MfD. Oh wait, its still there. --mboverload@ 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Unacceptable, may be offensive to some editors, without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Wikipedia is not a dating service, nor is it a place to make people feel unwelcome by sanctioning offensive comments such as this. — Werdna • talk 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This DRV seems to be payback for Krimpet starting the wheel war which led to Bedford getting desysopped. Daniel Case (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt this is the case, and would ask you to reconsider your statement. I have no idea what has occured in the past with Krimpet and Bedford, but as the creator of one of the deleted userboxes, I would surely have instigated this DRV had I not been beaten to it. PC78 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sukuta-Pasu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

As noted in the AfD, this young soccer player meets

• Endorse deletion as closer of the debate. Football players generate large amounts of coverage due to the media saturation of the sport. It is therefore a totally unrealistic barometer of notability. For example, a part-time footballer in the Conference will have more media coverage than the King of Tonga, when it's quite clear that one is more notable than the other. Here we have a young footballer who has never played for a professional club, but has played in a final in a youth tournament (and whilst he scored, it was not the winner, and he was not top scorer). Obviously he will get mentioned in the press a lot during the week of the tournament, but when he returns to his club and sits in the reserves, that coverage will dry up. Like Tim McLean (who has 1,675 news hits at the moment) this is a
  WP:ONEEVENT situation; details about him should be included in the tournament article (which they are), but he is not yet deserving of an article. If he never plays for a professional club (being a youth international is no guarantee - football magazines run regular features on players who won youth caps but never actually played professionally), will he be notable in 20 years time just for playing in a youth tournament? I suspect the answer is no. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I fail to understand the point of the comment that a footballer gets more coverage than the King of Tonga. Not only do I not see the logic of comparing the amount of media hits of a British footballer in Britain to a Tongan monarch on a British news site using a British search engine, in the example given the King of Tonga got 134 hits compared to less than that for the footballer. Also Bild is not a football magazine - it's one of the biggest newspapers in Europe. Nfitz (talk) 21:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The footballer example I used is not a British footballer - he's French
2. Tonga is a former British protectorate, and therefore is covered well in the British media
3. In the example given the King of Tonga gets 95 hits compared to 119 for the semi-pro footballer.
4. You've misunderstood the magazine reference. I wasn't referring to this player; I was referring to the fact that the likes of Four Four Two occasionally run "whatever happened to..." features on Englands U-18 team from ten years ago, and what happened to them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - it's been a limit case, but we also have a wide consensus to feature footballers who managed to play at least game in a fully professional league. This is not the case. As #57 noted above, football coverage is terribly huge, sometimes even too much, so
  WP:N in order to establish a clear notability borderline; this particular case could barely meet the latter criterion, whereas it's quite clear it fails the former. I also support to restore the article in case the subject should actually play a Bundesliga match this season. --Angelo (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - AfD was properly closed. Fails
  talk) 03:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion I can empathise with the case but the real factor is that if he really is notable then professional or top level amateur games are inevitable - thus disproving the "ONEEVENT" idea. I had a similar discussion with
  WP:Athlete limits are very lax for football players anyway - just one professional game in a recognised league and they can be in. Think how little this achievement is and then think that the subject has not even done this yet. Just wait and the article can be made when there's more to write about. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. There's no point noting that it fails
  WP:N, and that's what should be addressed here. Nfitz (talk) 06:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Quite apart from the
  WP:ATHLETE issues, the Google News results show that apart from that article in Bild, practically all the other Google News hits are match reports mentioning his name. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Endorse: Leaving aside the
   RGTraynor  01:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The original closing statement didn't reference
    WP:N. It was only added as an afterthought after I asked. To be honest, I'm not convinced the closing Admin is neutral given how active he is AfDing similiar Football articles. Nfitz (talk) 07:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That may be so, but however much one questions the admin's intent or potential bias, I can't see that there's an egregious violation of process here. The admin ruled in favor of a black-letter guideline, and did so with consensus on that side.
       RGTraynor  15:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • In which case the Admin erred.
        WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • You presume there's an unambiguous and uncontested consensus that the subject meets
           RGTraynor  17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
          ]

Deolis Guerra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Deolis Guerra-- on top of being one of the top prospects in one of the top Minor league systems in all of baseball-- was one of the players included in the Johann Santana deal between the New York Mets and Minnesota Twins. Wizardman deleted his-- as well as several other articles I did on current and former

"That didn't matter to you at all; you completely ignored the debate and imposed your will," plus your demeanor above led me to not respond. I'll re-look at that one again, though at this point I hardly care if it's restored or not. Wizardman 17:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I have no desire to bicker over hardly-notable people. Wizardman 18:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

It strikes me that the only way anything can legitimately happen here without Thebainer's presence is to have a formal discussion in the proper venue. Procedural nomination. Anyone not already aware of the issue should look at the page's talk for context. --Random832 (contribs) 17:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. To remain open, User Conduct RfCs must be certified by at least two editors who tried to resolve the same dispute. But this RfC was not properly certified, as no one besides ChrisO (who filed the RfC) had attempted to resolve the dispute. --Elonka 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Elonka keeps misrepresenting the dispute as being about her most recent action against me. It's not; it's about the general issue of her interpretation and implementation of ArbCom sanctions, an issue which has been raised across multiple articles. The same issue was certified by myself and Ned Scott, who had previously disputed the same issue with the same article. See Ryan Postlethwaite's summary here. It's disappointing that Elonka is trying to avoid this RfC by wikilawyering and lobbying [1] rather than actually dealing with the issues raised in the RfC by multiple editors and admins. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Thebainer acted against consensus. The RFC was properly certified by Ryan Postelthwaite. Thebainer did not discuss the matter with Ryan, nor did he seek community input on this subjective decisions. Furthermore, it appears that Elonka made an off wiki request to Thebainer to get this done. She immediately thanked him and asked for the talk page to be deleted as well. [2] Jehochman ^Talk 18:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jehochman is just making things up at this point. I categorically deny that I made an off-wiki request to Thebainer. I have no line of communication to him. When I saw that he had deleted the page, I did point out to him that he had deleted the page, but not the associated talkpage. That's it. --Elonka 19:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why then did you thank him for deleting the page if you had not asked for it to be deleted? Diff. I have added emphasis to a particular word above, the word "appears" makes clear that this is an appearance, not actual knowledge. He just came in out of the blue and deleted the page with no discussion whatsoever. You didn't just "point out" that he failed to delete the talkpage, either. You asked him to delete the talk page. Same diff Please, this is most unseemly the way you attack those who question your actions. If you say you didn't contact Thebainer, I will believe you, but please show a little comprehension for how your actions can be viewed by others. Perceptions matter. Jehochman ^Talk 19:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Full quote, lest we descend into arguing about nothing: "Thanks Thebainer. :) BTW, you might want to delete the talkpage, too?" See diff above.--chaser - t 22:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per talk page discussion.. Elonka should be bending over backwards to not give the appearance of trying to sweep this under the rug. We don't need to be ruleslawyers here. The RFC was in use and being actively edited. There was no reason for deletion. Friday (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I am just an outside editor but I think the RFC should continue. From my outside view, the RFC has more editors talking about multiple articles that need to be talked about. I really think that the discussions need to continue. I don't understand why anyone would stop or delay hearing from the community about concerns it has. Please consider this when considering whether this should be deleted or not. And for openess, I have spoken with Elonka about the rules set and a ban imposed at Quackwatch --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. "Same" vs "Different" case is very subjective in this instance. The disputes were the "same" in that they involved similar actions from Elonka. They were "different" in that they involved different articles. A reasonable person could interpret this either way; as such, the RfC should be reinstated. On a non-policy-related note, it will be better for both Elonka and the community as a whole to get this done with now, as opposed to dragging it out again in a few weeks. Antelan 18:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The RfC was pretty active until it was deleted, and 9 people signing the "Other users who endorse this summary" section indicates that there is something that's worth discussing, and I don't see what we gain from stopping the discussion. The deletion reason seems like wikilawyering to me. --Conti|✉ 18:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as out of process deletion, as per Jehochman. Deletion once the dispute was certified and without consensus could also be construed as
  wheel-warring.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn RFCs are non-binding and an established part of the DR process. Amerique^dialectics 18:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral per first half of Antelan's comment. Coppertwig (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -- An admin had already certified it and others completely agreed with it; a single solitary admin can't just come along (after being prompted by the person the RFC is about) and uncertify it and delete it without discussion. That's a complete violation of policy, civility, and common sense. DreamGuy (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • after being prompted by the person the RFC is about see above, where this is "categorically" denied.--chaser - t 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Jehochman. I had not participated in this RfC, but if the deletion is overturned I am willing to
  talk) 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, everyone above has already explained why; request closure. Wizardman 19:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I second the request for closure as per
  WP:SNOW.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It would be unwise to close this too fast; it's only been a few hours since it opened. Leaving it open for a day, to allow everyone involved to comment, won't hurt anyone too much, I don't think. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, snow. Thebainer may have had a good reason, but the community is going to comment anyway, and channeling comment to the more deliberative environment of an RfC will minimize disruption, and there are other remedies that can be applied if disruption takes place at the RfC. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The overturning of a speedy deletion does not overturn the requirement for a Request for Comment to be certified by another editor who has tried, and failed to solve the same dispute with the user. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While I venture no opinion on this particular RFC or the decision to delete or undelete it, I must point out that essentially what you are saying here Sam is that RFC is not an appropriate process to examine patterns of behaviour over several areas (i.e., without a discrete locus of dispute) with either users or administrators. If that is the case, then what straightforward dispute resolution methods are available to the community to address and discuss such patterns, short of requesting an Arbitration Committee hearing? And is that really the message you want to send out? Risker (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Most people think that the requirement has been satisfied, while other people (a minority to be sure) think not. So here we are, having a meta discussion instead of working on the underlying problem, which will not go away by fiat of deleting the discussion. Perhaps this situation is more obvious to me than others because I'm a marketing consultant. I am constantly advising clients to be open about problems instead of trying to sweep them under the rug (which only produces a worse backlash). Jehochman ^Talk 19:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Sam has not read the page in question and just assumes Elonka is right or he has read it and is ignoring the fact that all the necessary editors have certified it and admins have agreed that it was for the same dispute. Either way his hope that another editor will need to certify it completely misses the reality of the situation. DreamGuy (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn a stunningly bad, unilateral, out of process, deletion. RMHED (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I don't think Elonka did anything wrong, but closing a discussion where multiple good-faith users obviously do think there was a problem is just making problems where none existed and making existing problems worse. – 
  iridescent 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: votes don't change certification requirements. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Morven is correct, however, certification requirements, like all rules, require interpretation. There are at least two alternate interpretations here; further, the "rule" is itself subject to community consensus, which it does not bind. In other words, we can change the rule any time we decide, by consensus. This is really standard deliberative process. In this case, an administrator -- who happens to be an arbitrator, but that's procedurally irrelevant -- deleted an RfC, based, apparently, on his interpretation of the rules or IAR or whatever, it, again, doesn't really matter. And we are now following process with regard to that decision, because it was, quite simply, a deletion decision and DRV is the place most efficient to challenge it. The issue here isn't Elonka's conduct, a complex and fairly difficult question, I'd say. It's simply whether or not a project page should stay deleted or not. ArbComm could trump this process, if it chooses, but, given the heat generated, I'd highly advise doing so publicly, based on discussion and debate. If necessary, a quick injunction could be issued freezing the RfC until it's sorted out. I'm not advising this, just noting that, if there is some legitimate reason to avoid the RfC, which would surprise me, it could be done, and properly. Not as it came down. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there now three arbitrators completely out of tune with the community? Did you have a mailing list discussion before Thebainer acted? For Nth time, most of us feel that the certification requirements have been met. ArbCom has not exactly done a very good job lately winning the community's trust. Maybe you folks should do more listening, and less preaching. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the frak is going on? Why is ArbCom turning out in force to contradict community consensus? Are you people actually saying you approve of Elonka's application of discretionary sanctions here? I'm rapidly beginning to think that all those people claiming ArbCom is out of touch are not raving loonies after all. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment. But
  ignore all rules means there are no so called requirements, and to insist on the letter of the law is to breach our ignore all rules policy. It's also wiki-lawyering. Alun (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • I'm a bit confused as to why three arbcom members have become involved in this. Coincidence I suppose, but it's unusual. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could just as well delete Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kirill Lokshin for the same reason. There is no evidence that User:John Carter tried to resolve the same dispute, after all. That doesn't make any sense, you say? Well, that's because it does not make any sense. We don't follow rules no matter what, we follow common sense, and ignore the rules when they prevent us from improving the encyclopedia. There seems to be a legitimate desire from about a dozen people to review the actions of a user, and we should not prevent that from happening because of a technicality. --Conti|✉ 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn. me too me too. Alun (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn With due respect I disagree with the comments by the arbcom members.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Again, with due respect, I see two comments by ArbComm members here. Morven states, !Votes don't change certification requirements, which is indeed a problematic statement. What determines "certification requirements?" It's technically true, it is arguments -- in theory -- which prevail, but if a dispute over certification requirements goes to ArbComm, what's going to decide the matter? Arguments or votes? Morven has made the semantic error of Lost performative, assuming that rules exist in some objective space, and are applied without any person involved, and, in particular, he seems to be assuming that community opinion doesn't matter. Yet the community could, in the next few minutes, change the rules, making the particular objection to the RfC moot, or could, here, simply decide, in effect, that this case is a legitimate exception. Votes do count, just not in any automatic, majority-rule, manner. The other admin who has opined here is Blacketer, whose comment was less troublesome. Again, technically, he was correct, but, again, the matter of how guidelines established by the community are to be interpreted has been ignored. Standard deliberative process makes the "assembly" the ultimate arbiter for interpreting the rules (see Nuclear option; we don't have specific process for that, but follow rough consensus plus an administrative decision, which can disregard the consensus, but which is always subject to appeal. I claim that Thebainer's deletion was proper and within process, it was his judgment, on the face, that the certification requirement had failed. It was a separate judgment, which he also made, that this required deletion. Both of these were proper for him to make, unless COI is shown. "Proper" does not mean "correct." It it is also proper for the community, upon appeal, to review that decision, which it is doing here. I'll note that no arbiter !voted to support the deletion, they merely pointed out the possible problem that led to the deletion in the first place. Let's all take a deep breath and take this one step at a time, without making assumptions about the next step. --Abd (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a very insightful view. I have to say, though, that I take a more utilitarian view: which does more harm, leaving the RfC deleted, or letting the dispute fester by squashing the community's attempt to deal with it? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, per my comments on the RFC's talk page. Saying that the certification requirements were not met is a judgment call at best - to my eyes, a poor one - and given the level of participation in the RFC prior to deletion, an out of the blue deletion is a poor show. Thebainer has no special ArbcomPower to delete RFCs he doesn't like; Arbitrators are ostensibly a part of the community they purportedly represent, and must supposedly follow the same rules as everyone else. Do not snow, though, please - I would rather see this overwhelmingly overturned.
  ☄ 20:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - I'd already certified this RfC, yet Thebainer decided to overrule me, without even popping over to my talk (or any other page for that matter) to discuss it. If he had, I'd have told him this; The dispute in question centred around the belief by some that Elonka has made biased/unfair sanctions against other editors. Chris' certfication is clear - he started the RfC. Ned's certification is also very clear - Ned has attempted to discuss his concern over the sanctions that Elonka has been giving out,[3][4][5][6] yet he believes his concerns haven't been relieved. There you go - two certifications, based not around one incident, but a pattern of aledged misconduct which at least two users have previously tried to solve without bringing it to RfC. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. This displays poor understanding of policy. The locus of dispute is not the al-Durrah article, it's Elonka and special restrictions in general. If Ned Scott tried to resolve that problem, as I believe he did, then the certification was valid. Anyway, if you read the "Godwin's Law" thread on my talk page, that could plausibly be viewed as an attempt to resolve the dispute (or at least try to get Elonka to see she's doing something wrong) by yet another party (myself): the dispute as it relates to Race and intelligence articles. Bad decision. Even if not properly certified - and I think it is -Iridescent is absolutely right. Moreschi 20:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn It's clear that multiple users believe it was properly certified. The deletion was unilateral. Some people seem to think there's a problem with Elonka's behaviour. I don't see why DR should be somewhat broken here. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: Arbs don't get super sekrit vote multipliers, and this was done outside of process. There is absolutely no
  deus ex machine at Wikipedia. Follow the rules, people. Geogre (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. My talkpage contains a conversation that I believe provides support for further certification if required, even if we are to look at the narrowest possible definition of "same dispute". I am disappointed with thebainer's deletion, and with the level of wikilawyering on display. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. It's a sad day when sitting arbcom members endorse blatant wikilawyering and refusal to listen to problems with popular admins, but given their track record I can't say I'm surprised. There are legitimate and serious issues with this administrator's conduct. Skinwalker (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: RfC's exist to explore significant issues that editors have with each other and with administrative decisions. Based on input at the RfC, a number of established editors have concerns that ought to be fleshed out and discussed. The rules are supposed to be subservient to common sense; insisting on a narrow, bureaucratic interpetation of certification is the wrong focus here. The certification requirement is intended to forestall frivolous or harassing RfC's. This is clearly neither. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, RfC is on Elonka's attempts to deal with multiple contentious articles, with several articles providing examples of the results that she has achieved and the conflicts that have resulted. I therefore disagree with the argument that since not all of the users certifying were talking about the same article, that these certifications were not valid. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn while I believe there are several problems with the RfC, deleting it isn't the way to resolve the issue. Shell ^babelfish 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Undeleted: as per obvious consensus above. — Athaenara ✉ 22:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, obviously: I'll start with the preamble that it is likely that I have deleted more rfc/us due to lack of certification than any other admin (including some high profile ones, such as Kelly Martin's, and others) as well as having closed the latest MfD with guidelines as to its usage, including adhering to certification rules. *** The problem here, as I mentioned at ani, isn't so much the validity, or lack thereof, of the certification, per se. (whether it was or was not valid, I don't know; I've yet to examine the matter closely), but rather, that one admin deemed the certification valid and another reversed his decision without bothering to discuss it with him. (And I'll reiterate that the latter admin being a member of the Arbitration Committee, actually weakens the deletion, because they, especially, need to act responsibly and serve by the not-above-the-rules example))((Conversely, the fact we have two other Committee members, seemingly, in support of their commipatriot —yet fail to touch on the undiscussed reversal— serve to further erode confidence in the Committee. Their carelessness is not their credit) El_C 22:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There are many complicated issues which can be discussed, if not perhaps resolved, in an open and calm RfC. Mathsci (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelley Gulledge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

• Overturn due to partisan nature of closing admin's views. A neutral administrator should have handled the close on this AFD. Debate was split down the middle and close should have been "no consensus"Spanneraol (talk) 15:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I was not closing it based on my personal views, but rather, how the votes lined up. DRV is not AfD part two, and AfD is NOT a vote, as seems to be the counterargument here. No one countered the rationale proposed by BRMo, and his rationale outweighed the keepists arguments. (If you take his vote and reasoning out, it is clearly a no consensus close. The fact that no one's counterarguing it speaks volumes). That's what I based my close on, nothing partisan. Wizardman 16:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm curious as to Wizardman's rationale that the counterargument is that AfD is a vote. The plain counterarguments are (1) This decision goes against the explicit and unambiguous language of
   RGTraynor  16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There's been a debate for nearly two months on the WP:BIO talk page as to what "fully professional" implies. Wizardman 16:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Every few months for years, some faction or another comes in to reopen that debate, and the language hasn't budged one syllable in all that time. I'm certainly all for appropriate Wikiprojects to be given binding authority to rewrite subsections of the notability criteria, but until and unless that happens, I'd like to see a slightly better rationale for a close outside of consensus than that you don't like black-letter guideline. In any event, this isn't the venue for arguing whether
   RGTraynor  17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Let's just say the best course of action is for some outsiders (non-baseball people) to check this drv to see if it's right. We already know what each person on the baseball talk page is gonna say. Wizardman 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're that convinced that people can only judge violations of policy and guideline based on what decision most favors their personal partisan views, mm, fair enough.

 RGTraynor  18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn. Clearly meets
  WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This will continue to come up again and again. This really needs a community discussion of whether to endorse WP:ATHLETE--a decision made harder by the lack of consistent agreement there. Personally, I don't care which way it comes as long as it gets settled--and for those who do care about the subject, it should be in their interest also, so whatever the rules are decided to be, they can go back to writing articles according to them. But the notability guidelines, general or specific, are not binding in any particular instance, the community has consistently refused to elevate them to policy, and we have very frequently made all sorts of rational and less rational objections. It does not make sense to talk about what WP:N or any other guideline permits in an absolute sense. My own view of the relationship between general and specific, is that specific supersedes general, being obviously able to be tailored more closely to particular situations--but only if endorsed tacitly or explicitly by the community. We take the advice of experts, we do not give them final authority. DGG (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted: One bad precedent wouldn't justify another, so any of our excesses of granularity in other places or sports wouldn't justify multiplying the error. If we gather up all of the MLB players, we're in the thousands. If we wish three levels of minor league, per year, we're at astronomical sums, and yet without any genuine cultural significance. Geogre (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. As others have stated, he didn't meet the poor guidelines at
  WT:MLB#Minor league players' AFDs closed. My proposal on disputed notability guideline. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I would scarcely consider cites to the leagues in question for verification of a player's stats and awards unreliable ones, any more than Columbia University is a bad source for information as to who may have won Pulitzer Prizes, and would question upon what basis you figure they aren't independent of the player if the very issue was applicable to this debate, which it isn't.
   RGTraynor  16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• For completeness, I'll list the sources below:
  • http://www.brewerfan.net/ViewDailyReport.do?dailyReportId=338 - A fan site with the word "fan" in the name.
  • http://www.coverallbases.org/instructors.html - A web site for an instructional camp of some sort that Gulledge works for.
  • http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/G/Kelley-Gulledge.shtml - The Baseball Cube for statistics.
  • http://www.americanassociationbaseball.com/cgi-bin/dist/news.cgi?id=1192029066 - A league web site page with a single paragraph, most of which is statistics.
  • http://dodgers.scout.com/2/709568.html - A story written by a "minor league editor" for a non-notable web site whose obituary (unfortunately) can be found here.
  • http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Kelly%20Gulledge&pos=C&sid=l112&t=p_pbp&pid=460658 - More stats.
• So where is the article? Where is the "significant coverage by independent reliable sources"? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'll be happy to help you. I would be hard pressed to think of a reason why the American Association is unreliable as to the stats it records and the awards it confers. Scout.com is affiliated with Fox Sports, and there is nothing in
   RGTraynor  20:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Really I do. I know, the gaul. I wouldn't touch a fan site with a 10-foot poll as far as reliability and I'm honestly troubled that you would.
  WP:SPS. Please tell me you're not sourcing material here with fan sites and blogs and personal web sites because I'll start one up with so much subtle misinformation, no one will know what's up. As for American Association, I'm not questioning reliability but independence. Also usefulness in this case since the source cited had almost no information. I also wasn't saying anything about the one editor being deceased - I was just pointing out that there is a write-up about him making clear that he was just a contributor to this non-notable site. He's not some insider or someone behind a reliable published source. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I wouldn't waste my time myself trying to claim that a Fox Sports-affiliated website (and one that, by the bye, was one of the official selectors of the NCAA All-American college football team in 2006 and 2007), a league website or the website of the umbrella organization of all of minor league baseball are unreliable, or (based on what information, exactly?) that their contributors are somehow unprofessional or unsupervised. This remains a straw man argument that runs far afield of the proper remit of a deletion review.

 RGTraynor  22:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn Clearly meets
  WP:ATHLETE. Has played in a fully professional league. -Djsasso (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn This should have been closed as "no consensus". I haven't seen the article so I can't comment on it but from the AFD discussion, it does seem there are news articles about the player in question and that alone is sufficient for "notability" as Wikipedia uses the term. The closing admin seems to have hinged his decision on the fact that the player only played for a minor rather than a major league, even if the topic satisifes the general notability criterion. That kind of detail is best left to the relevant WikiProject. --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. In the AfD,
  WP:ATHLETE, but that opinion was not widely accepted by the other participants in the discussion. Because the opinions expressed in the AfD were fairly evenly split between keep and delete, the discussion could have been decided as no consensus. However, the closing admin (Wizardman), following the guidance that AfDs should be closed based on the arguments that were presented and not on simple vote counts, evaluated the arguments that were made in the discussion. As he noted, most of the discussion revolved around the baseball WikiProject's criteria for notability, and early in the discussion several of the editors cited these criteria as a reason for keep recommendations. But later discussion indicated that Gulledge didn't actually meet the WikiProject's criteria. Therefore, the decision to delete was a reasonable, albeit somewhat controversial, conclusion to draw from the discusion. BRMo (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Wikiprojects don't get to define notability criteria any more than I get to delete the Main Page. I think the closing admin's verdict was satisfactory.
  talk) 16:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. You are correct, Wikiprojects don't get to define notability criteria. So as this player achieved
    WP:ATHLETE by playing in fully-professional league, why are we letting the Wikiproject override this and delete because it was a minor league? Nfitz (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Hollywood Undead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD AFD2 AFD3)

New information has been released by the band on myspace and amazon and other online retailers show the band's new album is being released on the 26th of August 2008. Plus the band is now going on tour. The band is one of the most popular myspace bands to be signed up and now with definite information(from reliable sources like amazon.com and the band itself) about the new album and its release date and even its tracklisting, I think this article should be undeleted and just semi protected so that we can edit it. Killeroid (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added links to two other AFDs for this band. Davewild (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation I have done a bit of searching and there does appear to be quite a bit of coverage recently since the previous AFDs - [7], [8], combined with the older coverage such as [9], [10], [11]. There seems to be just enough now for notability. Davewild (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the history of the article, I really think it would be a good idea to work up a version in userspace (e.g. at User:Killeroid/Hollywood Undead), making sure that is establishes notability via reliable sources, and then bring that to Deletion Review. --Stormie (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted until per Stormie: recreation is fine, but to make that carte blanch just puts us right back here, I fear. Get the sources and the information and a good looking piece, and then let's examine it. Better here than AfD x2. Geogre (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As people require a userspace version I have created the outline of one at User:Davewild/Hollywood Undead (feel free to improve it anyone). I feel it clearly establishes their notability, which is only going to grow over the next month, and so we should allow it to be moved to mainspace. Davewild (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Dave. The business with the Virgin Mobile Festival (described at [12]) does indeed to be a substantial addition to the band's notability since the previous AfDs. The festival is this weekend, I'd expect a bunch more coverage early next week. --Stormie (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That version looks good to me. Sufficient sources and all that for
  general notability. Let's move it to mainspace. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Allow Recreation I have a story that I think should prove this band's notability. Just before I got home tonight, I heard the song "Undead (Out The Way)" on a commercial rock radio station (97.9 WGRD, Grand Rapids, MI) and instantly loved it. They didn't announce the band or song name, so when I got home, I immediately searched for some of the phrases in the lyrics and identified the song. I then found a copy to listen to on YouTube, to verify it was the same song, and then searched for the band on Wikipedia, because I wanted to know about them. A little more searching, and here I am, pushing for this article to get recreated, because, surely, they must be notable enough for me to passively discover them like this and want to know more! Right?! I'm not sure how often they are played on the station, because I don't listen to the radio too terribly often, but it's possible they are in "regular rotation" which would satisfy #11 on
  WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Also, I think #10 is satisfied, since they have a song on the MySpace Records#MySpace Records: Volume 1 compilation. That's my 2 cents! --DJ Phazer ^talk 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The consensus seems to be allow recreation of the article by moving the userspace version [[User:Davewild/Hollywood Undead] to mainspace.Waiting for one of the admin to approve this.

County Route 59 (Chautauqua County, New York) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD

)

This was deleted for "no assertion of notability", but that's not a speedy deletion criterion. The deleting admin did not reply. --NE2 02:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at AfD if it's truly not notable. I am of the personal belief that enough can be found on most roads to establish notability. TravellingCari 03:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about county routes like this, but if it's not notable the best course of action is to redirect List of county routes in Chautauqua County, New York. Having the article text would obviously help determine if that's so, and even if it's not there's no reason not to have it in the history. --NE2 04:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not 100% certain either, I'd also support the redirect. It's not one I'm interested in enough to research, but I think we all see it's not a speedy. TravellingCari 20:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overeturn all county highways are notable. Splat5572 (talk) 05:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not according to this. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Roads do not fall under the A7 speedy criteria. Davewild (talk) 07:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn primarily per Davewild. A7 is the only speedy criteria that mentions notability (and even that says that it has a "lower standard than notability"), which clearly does not apply to roads. If the road is truly not notable on its own (I never saw the deleted article so I don't know if this is true), then the correct course of action is to redirect it to the list article (per NE2 above), and keep the history so that it can be merged into a more detailed list article (like
  talk) 11:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn as above. A7 does not apply to roads. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn This is a question for AFD. I don't believe all roads or even all county roads are notable, but this isn't like an article on your garage band playing its first gig in two weeks. A large enough percentage of road articles are notable that an article on a road deserves an AFD. --Rividian (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While County Routes are not always notable, A7 certainly doesn't apply. Should have been taken to AfD rather than speedy deletion. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn A7 doesn't apply to roads. RMHED (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Aside from the often-stated (and true) statement that A7 doesn't apply here, it's important to note that County roads definitely aren't notable by themselves, but surely it's possible for them so to be, so the article should be given a chance to be debated when non-administrators can see the content of the article. Nyttend (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]