Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 16

Pilot (Fringe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) Concensus was to Keep the article, not to de facto delete it via redirecting it to the main article Hexhand (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this AfD needs to be reopened (not just overturned, but actually reopened so it can finish). While its my ideal result, I'm really surprised an admin closed it on the same day it was opened without allowing at least the normal 5 day discussion. I've left a note with the closing admin to ask him about it, since Hexhand didn't do that yet and didn't give him time to respond to a second editor's question about it (also, it should be noted that Hexhand has already "reverted" the closing without even waiting for this DRV to get started, much less finish). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it was closed with a sense of
    WP:SNOW? I myself noted that the decision to merge was by no means a consensus, and keeps were by far the predominant.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

(ec x3) Actually, it was closed as a merge per your suggestion, and was just now completely deleted and recreated as a redirect. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the merge was because of my vote... it had to be... but out of the seven votes, only one (mine) was a merge. Huh?? I thought the keeps had a lock. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it seems the admin felt the pilot was just not notable, and that none of the keep responses addressed the concern.[1] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. I hope that was not the case. Perhaps he thought the early closure might prevent further rancor? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ECx2) Actually, I had (1) notified Dreadstar; the delay in doing so was I was trying to fix the malformed DRV. Thanks for fixing it, Collectonian; I wish the filing process explained things a bit better. - Hexhand (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the reverting of the redirect, I kinda had to do that to put the DRV template into the article inadvertently deleted by the redirect (I'd provide a diff had not Dreadstar utterly cocked up the ability to do so by purging the article history). As the article is still being worked on, it seemed prudent to do so. - Hexhand (talk) 19:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn AFD was closed far too early (only a few hours after being nominated), against consensus which was running strongly towards keeping the article. (I also agree with keeping the article notability certainly to me seemed to be there for the individual pilot episode.) Also after Hexhand, probably inappropriately, reverted the redirect, the contents of the article have now been deleted behind the redirect preventing any merger from the article which was what the closure was stated to be. Davewild (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Davewild sums it up well.
  T) 20:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Let AfD be completed and take its own course. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Speaking as the single "merge" vote at the AfD, the AfD should properly reflect consensus. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse merge outcome as a matter of practicality, as this is the outcome that will result no matter how long the discussion remains open. But also troutslap closing admin for breach of process. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just so we know what was deleted, here is a link to the actual article, recreated without the edit history (deleted by the AfD admin)that would show how the article had improved in less than 24 hours: Pilot (Fringe). The de facto deletion via redirect (and subsequent removal) also cocked up the article, List of Fringe episodes. - Hexhand (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse my own closure, it appeared to be a
  Dreadstar † 20:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(reply to both above endorses) I struggle to see why you are so certain this would end as a merge, if this was reopened I would certainly argue strongly for it to be kept. I think the sections on the production, ratings and reception of the episode easily establish independent notability with content that is, much of it, better in the article on the episode rather than on the series (including being the most expensively made tv episode ever!). What about the opinions for keeping the article makes them such bad arguments that we should be ignoring them. I thought the closing admins job was to interpret the consensus of the AFD in line with policy - I fail to see any policy the final version of the article failed. Are we saying that closing admins can now just use their own opinion to decide if articles are notable ignoring those in the AFD? Are we also saying AFDs can be snow closed one way when most opinions argue the other way and no one has pointed out a policy reason for ignoring them? Davewild (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol at Jerry's comment - so, it doesn't matter what the rest of us think, its gonna happen the way it did? Interesting application of how admins police each other and themselves.

Claiming that DRV is pointless pretty much tells us how little purpose you feel the DRV process serves. We are calling an admin on a mistake they actually made? DRV's purpose is to address these mistakes. If an admin isn't willing to even consider that they were wrong, maybe the vigorous application of a large fish is warranted.

Well, as you feel it is of no value to even discuss the matter, I guess you don't have anything else to say. - Hexhand (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the deletion and reopen the AfD. There was no consensus to merge there, and citing a merge closure to G4 is completely wrong. I'd go restore the history myself, but I'm loath to unilaterally overturn an action that's already been brought here (drahmahz = bad). Should a consensus to merge/redirect/delete/eat a monkey develop after the AfD's been open longer, reclose as that. No prejudice against Dreadstar later closing the same AfD, after it's been open for longer (hopefully five days, give or take a few hours).
  I'd also like to note that it is not our job, as admins, to make consensus when closing AfDs. We're only supposed to judge it. Whether or not we agree with the consensus is immaterial (though you are of course allowed to argue your point rather than closing), we are to follow it. There is of course always room to interpret exactly how to close. Thus, it isn't the merge close that bothers me the most (starting a merge discussion may be a good idea in the long run, I don't know, though that is not what the discussion was about) but the G4 that followed. Merge is not delete; redirect is not delete; nothing besides delete is an XfD ending in delete. Reinterpreting a close from keep to merge, then from merge to delete is not how this process works. lifebaka++ 22:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment, after considering all the comments here and in the AFD, I do see consensus to allow the AFD to run it's course and will abide by that. I'm reopening the AFD.
  Dreadstar † 23:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Barry Glendenning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

Contested prod. He is a well known journalist for a popular website, and associated podcast and newsletter. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A roof for my country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

There's a whole hullaballoo about this article at WP:AN, and for some reason no one has just done what we do, which is to list it here. One vote to delete beside the nominator at the AfD. Sources are out there. Can we please just figure out whether this should exist or not without skewering anyone who might have thought otherwise? Thanks.

Unable to contribute to the review without seeing the article. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to email the most recent content to non-admins on request, or do a history-only undeletion. lifebaka++ 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JzG has since undeleted the history. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AfDs of this sort are pretty common. I don't know what all the fuss is about. If an article goes for a relist or two without gathering much attention, it's usually a good sign that the deletion is relatively uncontroversial, since no one can be bothered to come comment on the AfD. So I don't see how we can fault an admin for closing this as delete, regardless of who did it; if it had been closed as no consensus or keep it would plainly be a bad close. So, in the sense that no other close was possible, I endorse this close.
  It does appear that the article could have been salvaged, however. Looking at the old deleted content, there's certainly some good prose to work with. So, how's about we userfy this for someone who wants to work on it, and let it go from there, eh? Sounds pretty reasonable all around. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 17:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and userfy if someone wants a copy of the deleted version to work on it by adding references and then recreating an improved version. If I had participated in this AfD, I'd probably !voted keep or weak keep, but the closure itself was valid. The AfD was open for 11 days and, apart from the nom, only one user !voted and gave a well-reasoned delete !vote. I looked at the deleted version on Deletionpedia[2] and at the time of deletion the article had no references apart from several external links to different branches of this organization. The delete voter in the AfD stated that he/she made a good-faith effort to look for sources before casting their !vote. So this case is not a good illustration of the (real) problem that User:WAS 4.250 is complaining about in the AN thread. Procedurally, the close was valid and should be sustained. However, if someone adds sufficient sources (which do appear to exist in this case), the article deserves recreation then. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and userify Not a controversial deletion at the moment of decision. AfD does not require a quorum. Protonk (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (I think) - A relister relisted the article on on 1 May 2008, writing "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached." No further comments came. The closer then found consensus. If the relister concluded no consensus and the closer concluded consensus using the same information, there seems to be no consensus on how to interpret the discussion. Overturn since no consensus. -- Suntag ☼ 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? The relister found no consensus and the later (deleting) admin (Wizardman) did? Admins being inconsistent among each other with how they close AfDs?
    Surely not!. :-) I agree with you Suntag. I'll let Wizardman (the deleting admin) and Wafulz (the relister) know about this DRV. Carcharoth (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• The relister found no consensus. The deleting admin found that no one cared after the relisting but two users agreed it should be deleted - how is that not a consensus? ~
  User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We don't delete things because "no one cared". Anyway, has anyone checked that there wasn't a technical problem with the relisting? If it remained stuck on the old day, and didn't get moved forward, that might explain some things. OK, I've checked, and it did get relisted. It's strange, though, because another AfD that got relisted at the same time (see here) got plenty of extra feedback. This is all moot now, because User:Colonel Warden has begun to add sources: (1) A cite from a book from the World Bank and (2) naming the founder, who was "Humanitarian of the year: the individual who has done the most to improve welfare of people in Latin America" for 2006, as described in Latin Trade. The links, if people want to check, are here and here. Hopefully those who said they would allow an article that was sourced will now switch to a procedural keep even if they still endorse the original deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV is about process, not AfD round 2, and process appears to have been followed here, but of course it can be userfied if anyone wants to work on it to fix the issues identified at AfD. History is under the {{
  delrev}} template, so anybody here can simply move it to their own userspace to work on. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What? Move it to userspace, add two or three newspaper sources, and then move back? If it would have to come back to DRV to be "allowed" back into mainspace, then process is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. In my view, the original AfD is terminally flawed due to insufficient participation. That is sufficient for an overturn, based on the continuing debate here, which is already of a superior quality to the debate at the original AfD. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - This does not need to be userfied. It is good enough for mainspace as it is. JzG undeleted the history, so DuncanHill and others can see the version that was deleted. The external links allow verification of much of the material (though I don't know how good those websites were at the time of the debate). What is needed is more sources that are reliable and indepedent (like the one Chick Bowen [originally suggested by WAS at AN I think] suggested, or this one or this one). I disagree with those who are saying that this article was unsourced at the time of deletion - it clearly wasn't as it had links to external content (not independent, but still verifiable) that allowed verification of the content. There may be a case for lack of notability or lack of reliable sources, but not lack of verification. When looking over an article to assess whether things can be verified or are sourced, the answers are not always in a section called "References". In my opinion, the original AfD decision should have been to relist. Hmm. I see it was relisted, but no further comments were provided. Really, it should have kept being thrown up for relisting until further comments were obtained. A further point is that lots of clean-up had been done: look at an earlier state of the article. From creation to that state was done in a succession of edits over one day (19 September 2006) by an SPA (Special:Contributions/Matterlandsen). So it definitely needed clean-up, but it seems it was cleaned up over the next 15 months. One of the weak points is that there are no redlinks currently pointing here from mainspace. On the other hand, as WAS pointed out at AN, there is an article in the Spanish Wikipedia at es:Un techo para mi país. Finally, I don't want to add to the "kurfuffle" at AN, but I can't let Coren's comment pass: "amazing how it's so simple finding sources to demonstrate notability in less than two minutes yet the original editor couldn't be bothered spending them" seems to imply we delete because the original author didn't bother doing the work. That's not how Wikipedia works. This is supposed to be a collaborative project where we are happy to do work if someone else hasn't done it, or hasn't worked out how to do it yet. Carcharoth (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I've notified the deleting admin and the relister of the original AfD. Should the nominator and those who participated in the previous debate be notified or not? Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist. One delete !vote, a suggestion that the article be moved, and the nomination statement, doesn't really look like a consensus to me. Clearly a flawed close, in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse: Nomination for AFD and one delete "!vote", with no opposing views, is a clear consensus to delete, if not evidence that such a delete is uncontroversial. This doesn't need to come to DRV, which makes this entire discussion bureaucracy as its finest. Anyone could ask almost any administrator to userfy it for them, then edit the article to alleviate the concerns raised at the AFD and move it back to the article space. However, I would strongly oppose an unsourced article that has been deleted at AFD be undeleted before the concerns of the AFD are met. ~
  User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 14:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note for closing admin - the article has since had two sources added. The clean up started at 22:52, 17 September 2008, after all the initial comments above (some replies have since been after the clean-up started). See the article for the changes. (1) A cite from a book from the World Bank and (2) naming the founder, who was "Humanitarian of the year: the individual who has done the most to improve welfare of people in Latin America" for 2006, as described in Latin Trade. The links, if people want to check, are here and here. Hopefully those who said they would allow an article that was sourced will now switch to a procedural keep even if they still endorse the original deletion. In my opinion, this also adequately addresses the notability issues. I would also point out "in August 2005, A Roof for my Country received $3.5 million from FOMIN (Multilateral Investment Funds) for social intervention in the Latin American countries it serves". Carcharoth (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The close itself I don't see anything wrong with. It was already relisted once, no need to relist again. 2 deletes and a move (no opinion on a delete/keep really) sounds like consensus. As for the article as it stands now, I'm not sure if it passes or not. Wizardman 19:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. So as the admin who originally deleted is no longer sure, does that mean that a new AfD or an overturn are the most logical outcomes here? There are also sources mentioned in this debate that have not been used in the article yet. At the minimum, I would say that the deletion was not prejudical to undeletion or recreation to add more source. I would say the onus is now on those who think the article should be deleted to start a new AfD. More generally, this does point to the problem of deciding the result of a DRV where the article has changed during the debate. Technically, making changes during a DRV of a deleted article probably shouldn't happen (ie. history undeletion to allow non-admins to view the earlier versions shouldn't result in people reverting to an earlier version and editing in it - that state is properly reserved for articles that are at DRV but which survived AfD, ie. the DRV was brought to question a keep or no consensus decision) but that would be taking process a bit far, I think. Carcharoth (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ehm... While you've got a good point, the article as it was written sucked major balls, to be blunt. You're honestly about as good off starting from scratch. I'm happy to userfy or email it to you if you'd like, but I think you'll find it rather useless. Cheers. lifebaka++ 17:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair, I'll just start from scratch. You can close this. Chubbles (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Efrym87 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) User:Austinleal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) User:Danielpr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) User:Carlodue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD) User:Bejarana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD)

MfD was closed as delete citing

• Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete. Brilliantine (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Close was against consensus.
  T) 13:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note:
  T) 13:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn- doing this to userpages should be discussed as a policy rather than being done at MfD in an attempt to set a precedent without the wider community knowing of it. And the close was not right as clearly people aren't in agreement about it. Sticky Parkin 13:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. We do not derive consensus where there is none. Synergy 13:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion either way on this specific case, but I do suggest a discussion start on a coherent policy on what to do with abandoned userpages, because from what I've observed historically these are being dealt with by a mix of speedy deletions, MFDs, or just plain ignoring them. It would probably be helpful for a consensus to be established on how to deal with them and have this consensus be uniformly applied.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Bad close, against policy. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: The implication that something being canvassed at AN/I won't affect a vote would be laughable were it not being made in all seriousness. As though the people who visit AN/I regularly are a representative sample of the community. I don't know when Deletion review became the hellhole that it is today, but those who simply vote on technicalities rather than on whether the right decision was made really ought to re-consider their priorities. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me laugh. Maybe those who think deleting userpages of inactive users is at all useful/productive should be the ones to reconsider theirs? Not only does this set an unfortunate precedent, but is downright rude should the user choose to return. Brilliantine (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - (ec) in addition to the arguments above, these did not receive the full five day run normally required at MfD, they were all nominated just prior to 23:00 on the 11th, they should've run until about 23:00 on the 16th, they were inappropriately closed nearly 17 hours early. Precedent in the past at MfD does not support deleting such pages either. --
  talk • contribs) 16:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Really? I've not seen any past precedent at MfD, though it's quite rare that I visit MfD at all. Do you have a link or two? --MZMcBride (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will take me a bit, but I'm sure I do. In the meantime, let me note that my point about the timing of closure is technically an argument to Relist, though I don't know that that is really necessary, this was a very poor close.--
      talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Comment - I have completed the {{
  talk • contribs) 17:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment it is entirely possible, even likely, that someone would create an account in order to make use of the improved options for reading Wikipedia available when logged in. They may well create a userpage when they do so - that they then do not edit is no concern of ours - an encyclopædia is actually for the readers benefit, not the editors. DuncanHill (talk) 17:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is something I was thinking about too, every time these discussions always float by. Where is it written you have to participate to have a user page and account?
  T) 17:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Procedural overturn - These user pages were not merely user pages with one edit. They were user pages whose one edit to their user page posted content that made the user page a personal web page. Such pages also were screen to only include editors who have not edited in many months.
  easier. Since the keep arguments were not ground in policy and the delete arguments were, the delete arguments were stronger. I would endorse the deletions, but the users failed to receive a MfD notice as note above, some of the userpages were not tagged with an MfD notice, and the discussions appear to have been closed before five days. Thus procedural overturn. -- Suntag ☼ 17:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Interesting question. So if I register, and make a page that says, "I enjoy Wikipedia, and am from Chicago!" and then just use my account to get access to the bells and whistles like watchlist, but decline to edit, I can't have a user page? What if I make one edit to
  T) 18:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The guideline says "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion". It does not say, "A user page being used as a personal web page may be nominated for deletion at Miscellany for deletion except if the long term absent user has only has one edit." Also, the guideline does not say, "A user page of a long term absent user that has only one edit can never be a personal web pages."
  Wikipedia:NOT#HOST says that a user page is part of Wikipedia, and exists to make collaboration among Wikipedians easier, not for self-promotion. -- Suntag ☼ 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I endorse my deletions. A user page is for someone who contributes to the encyclopedia. Those who do not contribute to the encyclopedia do not get the privelege of having a user page. This is all process for the sake of process. The Efrym one is the only one of these MFDs where I knew that there would be an issue and that would be brought up at DRV. The other four deletion debates all had a consensus for deletion. Unless this is just a way to fight off a precedent that already exists, I don't see the purpose to this undeletion debate. Process for the sake of process makes you a useless bureaucrat on Wikipedia. And as I stated, I thought it was policy that user pages are for contributors. If a policy needs to be made that states this, then by all means write it up. Wikipedia neither gains or loses anything from these five edits having been deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no such policy that one must edit to have a user page and this is what we've discussed numerous times at MfD and always resolved thus. Additionally, responding to Suntag, having a user page that says "hi my name is Joe" is not a violation of

  talk • contribs) 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, if a user page only says "hi my name is Joe", I don't see how that can qualify a personal web page such as amounting to being for self-promotion. (Humm, I wish I had a history view of the deleted user pages right about now.) However, don't you think there are circumstances where a long term absent editor, having one edi,t posts something on their user page that causes that user page to qualify a personal web page such as amounting to being for self-promotion? It seems reasonable to request that the user page be deleted under such cicumstances, even if the editor has only one edit. The passage of time without editing does play a roll in whether a user page or user subpage is a web page or hosts permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. -- Suntag ☼ 21:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec)Deleting them would be a classic example of "process for the sake of process" and of "useless bureaucracy" in action. The pages are not disruptive, and frankly an admin who thinks it's OK to go around looking for these things, and then wasting his and everyone else's time really should start asking himself what the tools are intended for. I have seen no argument in favour of deletion beyond "I think policy says I can, so I will". Well it's not good enough. DuncanHill (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close withing discretion, MFD completed per policy, anything can go at MFD so no policy contradiction. MBisanz ^talk 19:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I think it's true that the canvassing affected the outcome. For what it's worth.
  Chick Bowen 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Where is the evidence of actual canvassing? An AN post is completely allowed, no encouraged, and is not canvassing by any stretch of the imagination.--

  talk • contribs) 20:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You're right--"canvassing" is the wrong word. All I meant was that the AN post was worded in a way that somewhat misrepresented the debate (based, I believe, on a misunderstanding by the original poster), and I think the MfD shows the results of that (particularly obvious when compared with other essentially identical ones) What this means for this DRV I don't know--hence my neutral position.

  Chick Bowen 21:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I believe the correct phrase is "poisoning the well." --MZMcBride (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think that the readers of the thread on AN/I are not so thick as to not to be able to form an opinion for themselves, and I think we should assume this level of intelligence on behalf of other contributers to a !vote. To do otherwise is supercilious. Sticky Parkin 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, none of these were clear deletes, only one of them was announced on AN and even it wasn't a clear delete prior to the announcement, and several of the keeps (on all five discussions ) came from MfD regulars with substantial XfD and deletion policy experience.--

  talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Who added the rest of them? I was only aware of one debate. Viridae^Talk 21:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• They were added to the DRV here. Hopefully, the closer can determine whether the prior posts also apply to the nominated items. -- Suntag ☼ 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Only Brillatine's first comment preceded my adding those.
  T) 21:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My comment may be taken to apply to the other debates as well. Moreover, I find the argument that the users may have been using account features to help in reading Wikipedia a strong one. Being rude to readers is just as bad as being rude to contributors. It is ridiculous to try and form policy "through the back door" and clearly against consensus, as seems to be happening here. Brilliantine (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment would it be decent to leave a message on these user's talk pages about this? Or do we not bother with that kind of thing anymore? DuncanHill (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Per the request of Suntag above to see what the page looked like, I have temporary undeleted the first nominated page. There was no "history" this was done with one edit, all other edits related to the nomination for MfD and this DRV, there were a total of four edits, I only restored the one by the user whose page this is. This is the kind of material we are talking about, though at least one of the others just says "Hi".--
  talk • contribs) 23:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Absolutely Endorse All Deletions, we are talking about pages which were created between one and two-and-a-half years ago, by users who never made another edit to Wikipedia, and which consisted of such quality content as "Dit is carlodue" and "Bold texthi". The only reasonable argument made to keep them is "it's not worth the waste of time and effort to chase them up and delete them," which makes this DRV nomination frivolous at best and mischievous at worst. --Stormie (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Process is not to be followed for its own sake so "procedural overturn" is a poor idea, widespread consensus exists for deletion of the user pages of people who have never edited per
  WP:NOT#WEBHOST, and this DRV is a waste of the community's time and energy. --erachima talk 00:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. This DRV is just as pointless as the pages themselves. Unless there's something bad on the pages, like privacy or copyright violations, there's no really good reason to delete them other than to add to the deletion logs. At the same time, there's no point generating multiple KB of text discussing useless and now-deleted userpages, and there's also no point adding still more entries to the logs by undeleting them. Seriously, don't we all have more important things to do? Like serious XfDs and DRVs maybe? Sorry about the tone there, and cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is important because it this may set a precedent for the deletion of an estimated 15000 userpages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While this is a concern, my point is mostly that it's a general waste of editor time to MfD, DRV, or do much of anything to these pages unless they somehow detract from the project. Removal of userspace material, simply because it doesn't add to the project (stuff with low or zero net value, rather than negative net value), seems like a good way to piss off and drive people away, as well as wastes a ton of time for everyone involved. I mean, just look at how much has been written in this DRV, how much I'm writing right here to explain this. This is a waste of all of our time. If the users complain, restore their pages, otherwise just let it sit, and don't waste any more time on trivial XfDs. Only precedent I'm trying to set here is that we probably have better things to be doing than this. Wikipedia 0.7 is coming out soon, why don't we all go do some stuff for that instead, eh? lifebaka++ 02:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (no consensus). The AfD discussions did not result in a consensus and there is no overriding policy. WP:NOT#WEBHOST clearly doesn’t apply – there is no plausible argument that these users are using their userpages as webhosts for external purposes. The deletion of userpages of wikipedians who have never edited elsewhere, whether they are once off visitors now totally and forever inactive, or lurkers, or ip editors is a policy gap. Policy should not be made by a partisan close of contentious XfDs. There are clearly two sides to this unresolved debate. One says that useless stuff, even in userspace, should be cleaned up by deletion, we must maintain a minimus threshold requiring that use of wikipedia is directed to contributing to wikipedia. The other says that potential users should be given userpage latitude without regard to activity, out of concern that such deletions turn away inactive contributors should they return. The close of the AfDs was a de facto ruling on this debate. The closes should be overturned as no consensus and the debate moved to
  WT:UP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Overturn I think that none of the user pages looked as if Wikipedia was being used for free webhosting. In addition, the deletion discussions probably should have been closed as no consensus. However, it probably does not matter much what happens to the these userpages. If they remain deleted, I will not lose any sleep. Captain panda 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: Are you kidding? Just leave them deleted, and nobody will ever mention them again, and better yet, nobody will miss them. They aren't articles, and there is no reason for keeping them around. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. These users have contributed nothing at all to the project. User pages are not a profile on a social networking site but rather for facilitating community among editors.
  Talk 06:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - What is really needed here is a debate about the 15,000 userpages that MZMcBride has said meets various criteria for possible deletion. This needs co-ordination between MfD (a link can be placed to 15 pages listing 1000 pages each), a bot to add MfD nominations to each of the pages (the amount of edits already being done and the 15,000 delete actions already add to the database, so what is another 15,000 additions of notices here or there?), and a debate at MfD about the criteria used for deletion. e.g. must be pages where the editor has only made a few edits to the userspace and none to article space. Must have been inactive for x period of time. Must have been active for only a short period of time (first and most recent edits), a look at the account creation date (if available) to check whether there was a long period between creation and editing, and making sure that no user talk page exists, and that there are no deleted contributions (eg. deleted articles). Finally, a look at the page logs for each page wouldn't hurt. If any log entries exist (other than account creation), and ditto for the other criteria, then put aside for later consideration. I think this is what MZMcBride did, but I'm unclear exactly what criteria were used or how comprehensive the checks were. Finally, I think people should be more aware that many accounts may be created not to edit, but to allow better viewing of Wikipedia - skins and other viewing preferences. For that reason, the accounts should all be left a talk page message, though that would involve creating large numbers of talk pages. I wonder what WP:USURP has to say about accounts create to read (not edit) Wikipedia and which have no edits? I think I'm right to say that there is no way to tell the difference between a "reader" account and a "sleeper" account and an "inactive/abandoned" account, right? Carcharoth (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I agree with Carcharoth. We need a community decision on the basic issue here, or we will see an unlimited number of divided MfDs. These pages are doing no harm, the cost of keeping these pages is far lower than the cost of deleting them, under present conditions. But, aside from that, a clue as to the problem is that complaints were made about canvassing because the attention of the community was brought to the MfD at AN/I. If announcement of the MfD like that changes the outcome, it would mean that the general community consensus is different than the local consensus at similar MfDs. That's a sign that the community hasn't made a clear decision, and that is the problem. If we make a decision that we will generally delete pages like these, we can then warn users when they register that if their account is not used to edit for X months, or whatever, it will be deleted, and we can set up a bot to do it. Otherwise we will continue to waste time debating this, over and over and over again. --Abd (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — if the users ever come back and want their pages restored, they can have them. What's the problem?
  talk) 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn per Smokeyjoe & Abd among others. Mike R (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Rjd0060 and Stifle. --Kbdank71 16:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Sets a pretty harsh/rude precedent. Like redirects, what exactly is the harm in the userpage being there? --Smashville^BONK! 17:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Only a person who contributes to the encyclopedia should have the privilege of having a userpage. These users have done nothing for the encyclopedia. AdjustShift (talk) 17:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, deletion based in policy (what we do, not what is written down). These pages have very little use (most of them had no content) and might do some harm (containing identifiable information about people who have forgotten that they have Wikipedia user pages). Kusma (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, there must be something more productive to do (like write an encyclopedia) than to argue about month-old pages that non-editors have created. Kusma (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - closure was on the basis of policy,
  Not a free web host, instead of head counting. PhilKnight (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per this rationale. I would go a step farther and suggest changing
  policy to allow any user who has edited only their own userspace to be given the option to delete their entire account. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn per Viridae, Brilliantine, and Abd. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

For reference:

Eugene Martin Ingram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

This was deleted by Mangojuice in June 2007 per CSD R1 (Speedy: Redirect to non-existent page). However, I have added several sources (a total of 12) including several non trival articles about him He is an important figure in the churches' investigations as well as notable for his illegal activity. Thus, the article can be expanded and I will add to it with a variety more sources. Plus this person is mentioned in six wikipedia articles (

Plus this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene Martin Ingram has a "Early keep" with 9 keeps and ZERO deletions. Nominated by Mangojuice. How did it get deleted in the first place? Seelltey (talk) 05:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 20 for the real discussion; this was later reconfirmed at DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 January 27. The AfD was canvassed at the Scientology WikiProject, and closed inappropriately. Mangojuice^talk 12:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article wasn't deleted as R1, that was just a redirect page to the article at Eugene Martin Ingram, I've fixed the links here to reflect that, but left the title as is to reflect the original nom (+recreated article). The original article was deleted as CDS G10 and endorsed at deletion review over a year ago --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion in question is about the redirect, though, so now both are above. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The topic Eugene Ingram was G10 speedy deleted 28 January 2008 Mangojuice as "Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject" You recreated the article Eugene Ingram on 16 September 2008 and desire permission for the article to stay, correct? In summary of the article, Ingam was born, then became a Scientology private investigator. He then was accused, charged, named, and charged again. Does that really sound like a biography to you? He has no family, no parents, never lived anywhere, and never went to school. To top it off, you appear to have lifted substantially entire sentences from sources without using the "" marks. -- Suntag ☼ 07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD:G4?
  talk) 08:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: A7, G4, and G10 could all apply here as far as the article is concerned in its present state. Some references to significant discussion in secondary sources do appear to be posted on the talk page, however not too sure this satisfies
  Fair Game (Scientology) - I'll defer to what consensus is from this discussion. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and
  WP:SALT: this is definitely a CSD G4 case and exactly similar to the previous deletion and deletion reviews for Eugene Martin Ingram. Mangojuice^talk 12:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I have deleted and salted the page. The article as it stood was so slanted that it could not possibly have been allowed to exist without being re-written in a rounded fashion that reflects more of the subject then his brushes with the law. Controversial articles like this are always much better dealt with by creating a NPOV draft in user space that properly reflects an individuals entire life and works and not just the controversial parts. I have deleted this article as a BLP violation. Please note that BLP states that such deletions may not be overturned without there first being a consensus to do so. Needless to say I endorse my own deletions and the previous ones.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I support this action by
    Spartaz (talk · contribs), and agree that userspace would be best for something like this that has been deleted multiple times. Did someone leave a note for the user that created it? Cirt (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Looks like both pages were deleted but not protected from recreation so I did that - feel free to change/modify that if you wish. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article definitely needed a heavy rewrite for NPOV, but there are easily enough solid references for notability. Even NPOV, it wouldn't be flattering, and wouldn't cover every detail of his life from beginning to end, but that's not the job of bio articles. He could be covered in a section in
  WP:COATRACK there. AndroidCat (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the deletion of this article, which would have been better titles List of reasons why $SCIENTOLOGIST sucks. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I support the action of Spartaz. AdjustShift (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]