Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April

Civony (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

Article was readded after the review to allow cleanup and such. Work was moved to the posters userspace and was about to be reposted when it was again deleted.Terryrayc (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If needed please review the work done of the userspace.

• Can you please clarify what you want done here?
  talk) 17:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd like the article undeleted so I can post the updated page. If after that an admin would like to talk about the article regarding if it should remain then we can start the debate...which is fine with me. But I was told I'd have time to update the article and provide reference when I've done and will continue to expand and such, but I cannot if the article keeps getting deleted before I can post the changes. Terryrayc (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Restore Request

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 23

Current page

User:DrAdamInCA/Civony

• I'm sorry, I'm still confused. Is this the referenced article that you'd like to see restored?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion unsourced original research. no thanks.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted, per Spartaz.
  talk) 13:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion.
  WP:RS, and not blogs, forum posts and alike. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Close since the article has subsequently been restored into main space and is currently at AFD, having this discussed in multiple forums seems pointless. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toyetic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Closed four days early with no explanation. Closed as "redirect", supposedly "per nom". Considering I, the nominator, do not agree with a redirect, nor even mentioned the possibility, this is highly confusing. The redirect target does not mention the word "toyetic", which means a redirect leaves users wondering where they are and how they got there; thus, I feel a redirect is inappropriate. Closing admin has been completely unresponsive to inquiries. I recommend overturn and relist. Powers ^T 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Powers ^T 17:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article|XfD|restore

)

We cannot accept this deletion because of not-notable. ZK is a famous Ajax framework which is always listed the most active project over the past two years on sourceforge.net, the biggest open source hostting website. There are two published books, ZK - Ajax without JavaScript, and ZK Developer's Guide. Simply google ZK, and ZK Framework is listed the most relevant item. More reference could be found:

1. The new ZK version. Java Magazin German 07/2006.
2. ZK and Agile at TheServerSide
3. The ZK Framework at Dr.Dobb's Poral
4. ZK - AJAX without the JavaScript at IBM Developer's Works
5. Ajax with the ZK Framework at deverloper.com
6. ZK Ajax Java Web Framework: Ajax with no Javascript at infoQ.com Robbiecheng (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. A university seminar work. Ajax Sudoku game developed with the ZK Framework at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. 30.04.2009 link
8. The new ZK Studio version. Java Magazin German 11/2008.
9. JSP Tags and Zkoss. JaxEnter Magazin 12/2008.
10. Features of the new release 3.5 . Entwickler.de Magazin
11. ZK Studio and Eclipse 3.4 Ganymed. Entwickler.de MagazinTerrytornado (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as a valid reading of the consensus. Deletion review is a venue to address a failure to follow the deletion process (e.g. closing a debate as "keep" when almost all the commenters suggested deletion, and the comments were grounded in policy). It is not a de novo hearing of the case. Note that arguments from very new users are customarily discounted or given less weight.
  talk) 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Would userfy on request.

  talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Closing admin AFD opened 14 days, comments made adhered to policy. Otherwise normal. MBisanz ^talk 08:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – proper admin closure. This is not AFD round 2. I think the fact that the nom, who also ended up !voting two more time - probably not aware of it, pales to the fact that the arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for keeping. MuZemike 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Cannot I propose a 3rd AFD? Please read those references, I was too late to provide notability evidence. It's the evidence that matters not only because of who said it, isn't it? Robbiecheng (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can certainly bring evidence that the subject is
    assume good faith, so that attitude is often taken too far.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

It is interesting to see today's knowledge to be deleted. More than 60 years, we had this in Germany. The books burning in the 2nd World War. Hopefully you have a good conscience.Terrytornado (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 20:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Ok, we have a "vague wave" nomination rationale with the phrase "non notable", the nominator then !votes twice, the second !vote basically saying "hurry up and delete this damn thing". Now If I were a new user who had just created an article and got this treatment, I'd be pissed. Therefore my first knee jerk emotional reaction was to !vote "overturn and relist". However, we also have 3 SPAs !voting "keep", two "good faith" "delete" !votes with fair rationales and one SPA in this discussion comparing the deletion with book burning in Nazi Germany which reduces my sympathy level. Therefore, I think the fair thing to do is to Userfy the article and give the creator a chance to write a sourced article that meets our notability guidelines. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no objection to userfication.

  talk) 08:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion - The AfD was properly closed. I'd consider allowing recreation if it seemed that there was a chance that
  reliable sources might be found that were not added to the article up till now. The new sources listed above don't include any mentions in books, print magazines, or edited web sites (that are well enough known to have their own Wikipedia articles), so far as I can tell. Two books have been written about ZK. I checked the older of the two (published in 2008) to see if the book is held in any Worldcat libraries, but it is not. EdJohnston (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore One of the articles is from a rRS, DrDobbs Portal, the online version of the famous Dr. Dobbs Journal. DGG (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the user EdJohnston do not or will not look right at the sources. A few of the new articles are smaller summaries of the printed articles. Yes, there are other not english languaged developer magazins in the world. ITRepublik, Java Magazin, Entwickler Magazin, JAX, Business Technology. link hereTerrytornado (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC) This is a good reason to do not delete the post. You've learned here in Wikipedia that in other countries are also magazines.[reply]

That link's above, and I did read it. Some of us do speak other languages... not everyone here is American. *grins*

De.wikipedia takes a very different attitude to

notable.

Having said that, on second look, DGG could be right that the DrDobbs Portal site is over the bar. It-republik.de is not.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse closure - the AfD was properly interpreted, and the setting up of sockpuppets to vote your side is never a good idea regardless. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed that there's no excuse for socking but take a look at the discussion again. The first "keep" !vote was obviously involved with this project. However, it was then followed by the nominator !voting twice, the second one being particularly
  bitey. Perhaps the creator figured that if it's ok for the nominator to !vote twice, then so can he. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• All right, userfy - I'm not convinced all of those are reliable sources, but let's see what they can do to improve it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the

• Undelete and userfy for referencing. The user provides the references the people who voted to delete said didn't exist which suggest
  WP:GNG could be met. With that addressed, there's no reason to not give an improved article a chance. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak undelete. As mentioned in the nomination of this DRV, there are 2 independent published books about this topic: Chen/Cheng ZK - Ajax without JavaScript and Staeuble/Schumacher ZK Developer's Guide. Isn't that guarantee enough of notability? Moreover, these publications were not mentioned in the original article, nor in the AfD; so DRV is absolutely the right place to bring this up. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems like a good candidate for userification Protonk (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy. The AfD discussion clearly ended with a consensus to delete (give or take a few suspicious newbies who failed to provide any reasoning better than
  WP:ILIKEIT). However, there may be potential for making the article encyclopedia-worthy, so I'd try and see what happens. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn ZK is notable, if google zk, you will get 9,660,000 entries, and zk framework is listed in the 1st place, and 9 out of 11 entries in the fist page is related to zk framework. It means google engine "thinks" this framework is the most relative to these two letter "zk" out of 90 million plus hits. 220.133.44.37 (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)— 220.133.44.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Just so you know, Google hits are not an indication of notability and are definately not a reason to overturn an AFD. That being said, even after ignoring this borderline SPA's comment userfication look like the likely outcome. Spiesr (talk) 01:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I think there are reliable sources not mentioned before:

  There is an article at InfoWorld: Zero-code AJAX framework sought.

  ZK is mentioned in the following books: In Flex 3: A Beginner's Guide as an alternative to Flex (see online version) and in Groovy and Grails Recipes as an alternate view-rendering technology that can be used with Grails (see online version).

  ZK is listed in the annual Ajax survey of Richard Monson-Haefel of the Burton Group in both 2006 and 2007.

  There is an article Designing rich AJAX Web interfaces with ZK at Linux.com discussing download, installation and usage of ZK.

  The ICEfaces dev team blog has a detailed comparison of the Ajax Push capabilities of ICEfaces and ZK: Ajax Push - ZK versus ICEfaces.

  A few more articles from sites that do not have their own Wikipedia article: ZK is compared with 7 other web frameworks in an independent survey Java Web Frameworks Survey; An in-depth article on building enterprise web applications with ZK: Using Desktop MVC Patterns with ZK, Spring & JPA; Integration with Grails: Implementing Load-on-Demand using ZK and Grails; ZK Framework Releases Android Extension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomg7 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZK is listed in the article AJAX, DHTML and JavaScript Libraries of Smashing Magazine and also mentioned in Next-Generation Applications Using Ajax and OpenAjax at the OpenAjax Alliance site. Tomg7 (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)— Tomg7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Overturn More than 20 references are listed, and most of them are from reliable resources, would you please restore the page? Robbiecheng (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Belanger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion of this article makes no sense whatsoever. We can never accept this deletion. Michelle Belanger is the most famous vampire in the world and a huge author. She has books, she goes on tv, what else can you ask for? This article deserves to be on wikipedia, only makes wikipedia a better place for all of the VC. Michelle Belanger is the leader of the vampires in United States. She created our community and gave us hope. We can add many references to her great books. Just please bring her article back. Kheperu (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy The AfD is clearly a delete. That said, I'm finding a news article mostly about her [1], news articles that quote her in the Washington Post [2] and Chicago Tribune, books by a real (though specialized) publisher, apparently been on Hanity's show [3]. The enc. dramatica article certainly makes an interesting read ED/Michelle_Belanger. Ignoring the ED article for a second, I have to imagine this person is notable. Scary maybe, but notable. That said, given the problems that apparently plagued the last article and the AfD result, I'd strongly push for a userfied article first that needs to come to DrV before being put in mainspace. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We? I hope you are referring to the WP community, because the vampire community does not
  promotion, at the least allow recreation provided the article can be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. I don't know the deleted version, so I don't know what userfication will accomplish. MuZemike 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Also endorse deletion as a proper AFD close. In light of the developments going on, I am now squarely against userfication. If someone wants to recreate it, it can be using
    reliable secondary sources and an encyclopedic tone. MuZemike 01:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• allow recreation preferably in userspace first. Fair disclosure: When I first saw the DRV nomination my first thought was "Is she a character in Twilight?" The individual does seem to have reliable sources such as those produced by Hobit above. But given the previous problems with this article and the apparent drama associated with the subject matter it probably makes sense to make a draft in userspace first. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I was the admin that closed the AFD. I have userfied the article
  WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment on account that started this DRV - I find it highly odd that the first and only action of this supposedly new account
  WP:UAA [5]. Cirt (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason?
  talk) 08:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I note that the nominator has been blocked and cannot respond to this query. I would endorse deletion as no faults in the deletion process have been indicated.
    talk) 08:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion (at this time) I am severely concerned with the number of SPAs and sockpuppets involved in arguing for and against the subject. The nominator's first edit, for instance, was to initiate this DRV because "Michelle Belanger must be undeleted." This approach implies a clear conflict of interest on the part of the account holder. I would not oppose the creation of a neutral, properly sourced article created by an indifferent party, but I fear that allowing re-creation at this time will produce either an advertisement for Belanger's work or a platform for sockpuppets to launch libelous allegations against her. The potential for BLP concerns overwhelms any necessity to maintain a borderline-notable article. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amvymra/Moutheater (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was previously deleted and then recreated with some updates and new information/references. There are mulitple references which were unfairly said to not be reliable 3rd party sources in the initial discussion simply because they were local publications. The notability standards say nothing about local publications not being reliable sources of information. 24 Seven Cities magazine and Portfolio are both reliable 3rd party sources that should be used. Another source, The TCC Times is a college newspaper (which the notability standards do mention but say they should be looked at on a case by case basis) that I also believe should be used. These were all multiple page feature articles on the band. In fact the band was in the cover (as well as having a mulitple page article) of the 24 Seven Cities issue. Live-metal.net was a new reference added that is a reliable 3rd party publication. There is also a new reference added verifying the claim that the band was on 2009's MACRoCk conference.

When the article was re-created it was put up for deletion which I contested. Then it was userfied and I was told that a deletion review was recommended before I move it back. Amvymra (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am taking this as a request to move
  talk) 08:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have just removed all blog reviews from the references. I also added a new 3rd party reference (popmatters.com). All of the listed references are reliable 3rd party publications. That is one of the criteria for being included in wikipedia. There are tons of bands listed on wikipedia that aren't on major labels. Being on a major can help you get onto wikipedia but not being on a major by no means excludes a band from wikipedia.Amvymra (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - while several of the sources given for the article qualify as
  talk) 19:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think you're missing something with the Sound articles. 24 Seven Cities is a giant community conglomerate and on their website they feature all kinds of the things that you mentioned. But they also have printed magazines under the company as well and Sound is one of those magazine. Sound has specific writers and editors and is a printed and published magazine. What you are seeing on the website is the digital version of the printed magazine that was released earlier in the year. Moutheater recieved a 2 page article in an early issue and then a 6 page article as well as the cover in the issue that came out this past winter. The Sound magazine has nothing to do with the blogs and other community based stuff on their website. Amvymra (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD. This article now meets the core policies. Discussions about
  WP:BAND belong at AfD, not here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Amvymra has went ahead and moved the page back into articlespace. I don't do DRV much, but shouldn't there be a consensus here first? Re-delete or re-userfy: Nothing of significance has changed since the AfD; more sources have been added yes, but they are of the same type as the ones deemed non-RS's during the AfD. Closing admin did not mis-interpret consensus. --
  ^(talk) 03:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse or relist (either is fine) Not really persuaded by the sourcing provided. Livemetal.net seems to have no editorial policy or fact-chcking policy listed so Im not clear that its a RS. (Note that i deleted the version in mainspace as not being allowed per DRV as the nominator claimed).
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sorry I thought I was being told that the article was no longer allowed to be in the deletion review log due to the "list at AfD" comment. My mistake.Amvymra (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My remarks aren't law. Yet.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better Days (Webcomic) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Better Days (Webcomic) was deleted before it was finished under the claim that it did not provide all the needed information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaceEcam (talk • contribs)

• The article was speedily deleted as it did "indicate why its subject is important or significant" (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Articles). The entire content was "Better Days is a furry webcomic created by Jay Naylor and hosted on his website www.jaynaylor.com. The comic follows the lives of Lucy and Fisk Black, a pair of twin anthomorphic cats, from age 9 to their late 20's. The first comic was posted on April 18, 2003." Before recreating it, I suggest you come up with indication of why this is an important or significant webcomic. Have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (web), and think about whether this comic has been republished in print media, for instance, or won a well-known and independent award. --Stormie (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, clear-cut A7 (non-notable web content).
  talk) 08:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - Per Wikipedia:Notability (web). DianaLeCrois  : 22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I enjoy the comic, but endorse deletion as not meeting our guidelines for inclusion. It hasn't been written about outside the fandom, hasn't received awards, etc. Sorry. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No one expects articles to be perfect when they're first posted, but they do need to be good enough to avoid being deleted for
  WP:CSD#A7. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Category:Knuckleball pitchers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Overturn and restore The discussion after the relist was unanimous keep, the overall discussion went heavily toward keep, and the strength of arguments appeared to me to be a tie. Given that significant new arguments came in after the relist, I don't see anyway this could be a delete. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. Very weird.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Jc37's close that this would make a better list. --Kbdank71 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the close by Jc37 and your endorsement thereof are both in direct conflict with
    Wikipedia:DRV#List_of_topics_related_to_Barack_Obama, the equal and opposite argument under which the closing admin there closed as delete based on an opinion that a "category is more appropriate" in that case, has had participants overwhelmingly vote to override, noting the same false dichotomy. Categories should only be deleted because of policy issues, not just because they "would make a better list" and the same with lists being deleted in favor of categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well, at least you've stopped insisting that CLN says categories and lists absolutely must co-exist. I'm not interested in dismantling or tearing down anything. There are times when yes, both work well. There are times when no, they don't. Rigid adherence as you've shown does not help wikipedia, but makes for needless duplication. Now if we can only work on the misconception of "Categories should only be deleted because of policy issues"... --Kbdank71 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never said "that CLN says categories and lists absolutely must co-exist" and I assume that you will retract your statement or find a source to prove it. Community consensus is that the existence of a list is simply not a valid excuse to delete a category, and vice versa, as
        WP:CLN says that categories AND lists work well together almost all of the time. What you call "needless duplication" as a rationalization for deletion is in direct conflict with what WP:CLN states that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap". If the misconception that the admins who currently close CfDs are following Wikipedia policy cannot be addressed, we need a new crop of admins at CfD who will show the needed respect for the co-existence of both lists and categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Perhaps the exact language referred to was never used, but I do remember some fairly repetitive discussions where Alansohn admonished closers to ignore any opinions where editors expressed opinions that in a particular case a list should be kept and a corresponding category deleted. Many examples, exist—this is but one. I also remember that a number of times Alansohn has suggested that CLN states as a general rule that co-existence of lists and categories is the preferred situation, which is not true: example with rebuttal. I also remember many incidents where a variety of editors and closers have responded to Alansohn's comments about
          WP:CLN with explanations about how the guideline does not mandate the retention of both categories and lists in every case: one example. Thus, if Alansohn's position on CLN has been misunderstood in the past, it has been relatively widespread among editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • That "the exact language referred to was never used" is because the statement is flat out false. Outside of the backwater that is CfD, editors here in the real world believe that
            WP:CLN states -- among several other statements on co-existence -- that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system — doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." That "any opinions where editors expressed opinions that in a particular case a list should be kept and a corresponding category deleted" as a justification for deletion would be an excellent guideline. I also agree that "CLN has been misunderstood in the past" and that the problem "has been relatively widespread among editors", especially those administrators who have persistently misinterpreted the policy in closing CfDs. Remarkably, we seem to be in agreement on these issues. Perhaps this DRV will be another step in ensuring that Wikipedia policy on the subject is followed at CfD, and that those admins who have persistently refused to accept it will start respecting this policy. Alansohn (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • CLN is not a policy: It is an editing guideline. I can also recall a number of times this has been pointed out in various CfDs, usually to no avail. I cannot recall ever seeing CLN used explicitly as a stand-alone justification for deleting a category, however. It is often used as a stand-alone argument for not deleting one, however. In any case, I agree that using it as the basis for an argument to do either is generally regarded as weak, as it should be. Now that I think of it, you're really the only one who ever really brings it up explicitly, and most other users tend to disagree with your stated interpretation of it, or at least with the conclusions you draw from it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn this latest in the series of
  WP:CLN-related closure errors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. I had participated in the first discussion and was in favor of deletion. I didn't participate once it was re-opened because I had already participated and my opinion had not changed. Had I known my lack of subsequent participation would be used as part of a claim that the newly-opened discussion in the face of the list was "unanimous", I would have re-stated my opposition. I think the closer probably didn't make this same mistake and took into account all comments expressed in both discussions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore. Clear evidence was presented that this is a defining characteristic for a baseball player.
  talk) 23:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and restore - Can't see this as a consensus to delete.
  ƒingers^on_Roids 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse I too was in favor of deletion and nothing said later changed my opinions; the closer does not have to give greater weight to later comments: this isn't ebay where you need to get your $0.02 in just under the wire. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't this be a list? I have no dog in the list vs. category fight but that user subpage is a perfectly good list article.
    WP:FL. Alansohn (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn and restore. Per my comments in the relisting, this is certainly a defining characteristic of these players. No reason it can't be both list and category. -Dewelar (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I am another user who favored deletion in the original discussion and did not comment again. (I do strongly support a list for this topic, either embedded in Knuckleball or a stand-alone.) Seeing the number of "keep" !votes in the CfD, my first reaction was that it looked like a "keep." However, while most of the people who commented after the relist did call for keeping the category, their arguments speak primarily to the need to document the pitchers associated with the knuckleball. They are essentially silent on why it is deemed necessary to have a category for this topic. I read them as eloquent arguments for having a list of knuckleball pitchers (not a category), and I think the "delete" closure was judged correctly. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is there a Wikipedia policy that requires establishing that a category is "necessary"? Why is any category "necessary" and how would one establish that it meets the necessary criteria? Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles are categorised by 'defining characteristics': this is in sentence 3 of
    talk) 08:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse deletion - reasonable reading of the discussion, no procedural errors in the close, no new information presented here to indicate the close was in error. DRV relies on faulty understanding of a number of WP policies and guidelines. First, just because a reliable source identifies a person as a "knuckleball pitcher" or a "Swedish-American actress" or whatever, this does not mean that this is a "defining characteristic" for purposes of WP categorization. Second,
  talk) 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment from the closer

  My apologies for length, but I'm attempting to respond to several accusations, both here and on my talk page. So while merely commenting might have normally been shorter, responding can take more time.

  There are two problems with most of the overturn comments so far: One is vote counting (and thereby suggesting that something was wrong because I didn't count votes, but instead weighed the arguments), and the other is that "I" came up with the idea all by myself to lean on WP:OC in making the determination (and thus presuming I was "voting" in the close - noting of course that that's actually can be within closer discretion, not that that necessarily applies in this case).

  The first can be resolved by simply pointing to

  WP:CON, and more specifically Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion

  : "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy."

  The second can be resolved merely by actually reading the closure. Despite what the nominator asserts, the close was based upon weighing all the comments in the discussion, not by assigning this to WP:OC only by myself. (And was actually stated in the closure.

  These aren't "votes". And so if one individual (for example) offers several suggestions, then all of those should be weighed. (Especially if their latter comments are prefaced with: "Notwithstanding my suggestion re using a navbox,".)

  Also, there is a difference between proving whether something may be "notable" for inclusion, and whether something may be considered "defining" for an individual. Whether something is "defining" or "notable" can be confused, or at least conflated by commenters at CfD. It's a fairly common confusion, especially made by those coming to CfD from AfD, where a main criterion may be notability. As opposed to CfD where there is additional criteria, in particular, being "defining".

  There appeared to be consensus that this information was worth keeping (presumably "notable"). But it was clear from the opposers that they felt that this didn't meet WP:OC guidelines. And therefore shouldn't be categorised. And those in support of keeping the category simply didn't address that directly. For example, they didn't show how this was different than left-handed atheletes, or actor by film, etc, (See the discussion for all the examples from several individuals.) The closest was the seeming suggestion that rarity of occurrence of something (a pitcher who performs an apparently rare type of pitch) equalled it being defining for an individual. Are all rare skills or abilities defining? Or better should we categorise by all such rare skills/abilities? As noted by those in the discussion, WP:OC suggests that no we do not. (Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by action or appearance, would seem to be a link to a section being described by commenters.)

  As for the list, the fact that there was a list had no effect on the closure, the effect was only whether I placed the category on the /working/manual page to be made into a list "first", to be deleted once that was done (and that's pretty much just doing the manual task of merely placing the links on a page and naming it a "list"). Or, placing it on the /Working page to be deleted, since a list (one looking better than what would likely have been produced by the manual task), already existed.

  Now alan is of course welcome to suggest that he doesn't feel that the list as it stands consitutes a good article (or a good list), and so may be reluctant to move it into mainspace. But that has nothing to do with the closure. Regardless of whether he may eventually place that copy in mainspace, or someone else creates another list and places it in mainspace, the consensus is that a category shouldn't exist in this case.

  So essentially for the closer of this DRV, this comes down not only whether the existing guidelines are to be considered the broader consensus (

  WP:OC

  ), for example), but also how those guidelines, and this specific discussion, should be weighed, and whether the outcome I discerned, weighing it all, conforms to consensus, or not.

  I hope this helps clarify, but if not, I welcome positive requests for further clarification.

  One final note: In reading the nom, there are quite a few things which are taken out of context, and just simply misrepresent the truth. (For one example out of many, I did quite a bit more than just close the discussion and "disappear", as a look to my contributions will easily note.) I don't fancy being lied about (even more than I dislike double standards). So I strongly suggest that alan considers his words more carefully in the future. If such continues, further sanction may be pursued, and I don't mean merely a note to WP:AN/I. While one may take this as they wish, I believe the meaning is quite clear. - jc37 12:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite the active efforts to deny Wikipedia policy and to spit in the face of the clearest possible consensus for retention, what is refreshing is that every single participant who does not come from the backwater of CfD has objectively looked at this process and deemed it to be a travesty in need of being overturned. I do appreciate your vehemence in ignoring a few dozen reliable and verifiable sources that clearly establish that the Knuckleball pitcher is a strong defining characteristic. As is unfortunately typical in the
  verifiable sources that we all accept as the bedrock principle of Wikipedia can be safely ignored at CfD if one simply insists -- without any form of evidence whatsoever -- that they only show "notability", not "definingness". If the category system is to have any use in the future, the small group of disruptive administrators who have repeatedly used bullying, personal attacks and knowingly false misrepresentations of policy to abuse process needs to be eliminated. We desperately need admins who will show some small glimmer of respect for consensus and process to clean up the mess. Alansohn (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: I take exception to this bit: "For example, they didn't show how this was different than left-handed atheletes, or actor by film, etc, (See the discussion for all the examples from several individuals.) The closest was the seeming suggestion that rarity of occurrence of something (a pitcher who performs an apparently rare type of pitch) equalled it being defining for an individual. Are all rare skills or abilities defining? Or better should we categorise by all such rare skills/abilities?"

This is pure injection of your (and apparently only your) opinion of the merits of the arguments on one side of the matter into the decision for deletion. One of the arguments raised by myself, and others, is that the presence of a knuckleball pitcher has a direct effect on the personnel and equipment used by the team for whom he is pitching, and indeed even on the personnel chosen to be on the roster of the team employing such a pitcher. In other words, it's not just the rarity of the skill, it's the broadness of the effect that someone with that skill has on the game as a whole, much moreso than a pitcher simply being left-handed.

That argument was never refuted, indeed no arguments were even raised against it. I'd be interested to hear why you think this fails to be a defining characteristic, and why you felt you could make that decision unilaterally. -Dewelar (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that being left-handed doesn't affect the personnel and equipment?

You haven't shown how it is different. And that wasn't shown in the discussion either. And without that, it is exactly what was noted by the nominator and others in the discussion -

WP:OC. Here's another example (though this one wasn't specifically brought up in the discussion): Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_16#Category:Saxophonists_who_are_capable_of_circular_breathing. How is this any different? - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

It may be worth noting that in the deletion discussion for left-handed athletes, both the nominator and two of the editors favoring deletion made the point that left handedness could be a significant characteristic in baseball and a few other sports, but that it was not significant for athletes in general. BRMo (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New information on this would be welcome (per rules of DRV). - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, I am not just ssuggesting, but am stating as fact, that employing a left-handed typically affects neither the personnel nor the equipment of the team that employs him, beyond the equpiment used by the pitcher himself. Nobody on the left-handed pitcher's team is on the roster because the team itself employs that left-handed pitcher. The team that employs a left-handed pitcher does not require additional equipment as a result of that decision. There are no catchers who specialize in catching left-handed pitchers, nor are there coaches who are hired specifically to work with left-handed pitchers. Any or all of these are the case for teams that choose to employ a knuckleball pitcher. -Dewelar (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn The final decision was contrary to clear Wikipedia policy: "Listify and delete" If there can be a list, there can be a category, and vice versa. (per WP:LIST). The argument usually is needed in the other direction, but it goes both ways. There is no rational basis for having one not the other--they are complementary. There can be special circumstances, but there has to be good consensus for not doing it--and the !votes were 9 keep, 4 delete, including the nom. As for following consensus. There was no need to weigh the arguments, because the keep ones were soundly based on policy. An idiosyncratic decision of the closer, based on his own reading of what ought to be done, thinking the strongest argument that a list was better. In other words, he preferred a ruling clearly unsupported by policy to one that was supported by both the !votes and the policy. I don;t know one way or another about baseball pitchers, but this is no so radically different from other situations as to overturn policy against clear consensus. If one wishes to use IAR, that must be supported by clear consensus, not against it. DGG (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, no. There is a world of difference between saying that lists and categories "can" coexist, and saying that there must be a list and category coexisting in every situation. Indeed quite often a list may be fine, but its members shouldn't be grouped a category. And I believe that WP:CLN makes that rather clear. And besides, there are different criteria for mainspace and category space. (I notice that WP:CAT has been re-organised not long ago, so perhaps it will be more difficult to find it in the pared down text - as opposed to the bullet points of the previous version.)

  What is the "policy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?

  And no, We ALWAYS weigh arguments in a discussion. We do not "count votes". That is

  policy. And from long experience we both have had in interaction, I'm fairly certain that you DGG, should know that of anyone. - jc37 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  judging consensus is trying to evaluate what the other responsible people there think should be done. One can evaluate arguments, but only to see which ones are not in conformity with policy. I completely disagree one can choose which policy of competing ones applies, or how to interpret policy: both of these are for the community to decide (or whatever small fraction is paying attention). I do not argue to convince the closer in particular of the merits of my argument, but to convince others who may come and look at the discussion and give an opinion. The closer should follow whatever policy-based argument a clear majority agrees with, unless it's totally irrational.DGG (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't necessarily disagree, hence my question above:

  "*:What is the "policy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?"

  I see a lot of notability arguments. But nothing indicating it being defining for the individual.

  Though I hesitate to ask (since you already seem to have suggested that I won't listen), but what do you see? - jc37 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps you should tell us what you consider "defining" so that we can determine whether or not there is an argument we can make that will convince you. I consider the argument I made above to be "defining", and apparently you do not. You have not yet said why. -Dewelar (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to avoid misunderstanding, when I argue at an Deletion Review I do generally hope to get the closer of the original matter to reconsider--that's part of the idea here, and that's the best sort of end to a review. As to what you should reconsider now, I & others have already said. DGG (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked. I asked: "What is the "policy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?" - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATEGORY: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects," Looking for people known to be characteristically such pitchers, this is the place. DGG (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which brings us back to the question of whether this is actually "defining", or just "notable". - jc37 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sad fact is that this CfD is just one of the most egregious in demonstrating that any definition of the concept of "
  WP:CAT, "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions" and the evidence provided at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers could not have been any more definitive on the matter in establishing the characteristic as defining. The rough consensus that closing admins are required to find is defined as "a term used in consensus decision-making to indicate the 'sense of the group' concerning a particular matter under consideration. It has been defined as the 'dominant view' of a group as determined by its chairperson." There is no rational basis to state that consensus here was for deletion; Deletion was solely based on the closing administrator's insertion of his own personal biases and prejudices which are in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy. If, as was done here, any administrator can arbitrarily pick and choose which arguments can be discarded as worthless, even when these arguments are backed by solid evidence in the form of reliable and verifiable sources, then "consensus" is a worthless pile of garbage. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn and restore per above. This is most definitely, as another contributor to this discussion put it, a defining characteristic of certain baseball pitchers. It's not really the same as, say, a fastball, and in my opinion, the deletion ran contrary to established policy anyway. One (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. No consensus to delete, persuasive arguments to keep. Mike R (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and restore Categories shouldn't be deleted in favor of categories, they should exist side by side. Each has it own merits. This is a clear defining characteristic in pitching. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. According to
  WP:OCAT#PERF, but ignored several comments refuting that argument. After reviewing the discussion, I don't think the closer reflected the consensus. The discussion overall tended to support keeping the category, though there was enough disagreement that a decision of "no consensus" also might have been appropriate. The closer's decision of "consensus to delete," however, was clearly a misinterpretation of the debate and should be overturned. BRMo (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  No, it's weighing all arguments and their foundation in policy/guidelines. And that's what we're supposed to do. See also Orlady's comments above. In any case, I did not "pick sides", as I explained above. - jc37 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the policy is that "pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." I see no evidence that your decision reflected consensus; if a consensus existed at all, it was for keeping the category. BRMo (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There was clearly not a consensus for deletion. Whether there was actually a consensus to keep, or no consensus, either one per policy should have resulted in the category being kept. John Darrow (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As the editor who put this category up for "discussion", I participated in both discussions, and gave my reasons for nomination and gave my recomendations. Whether it was kept or not, was up to the community. I am a life-long baseball fanatic, so I know the relevance of a Knuckleball pitcher, and I believe the pitch and the pitchers who throw it should be considered notable, and that the pitch would be a defining charateristic of that player. My debate point was not centered around over-categorization, but if this exists than all the other pitches should exist as well. Not all pitchers are defined by a pitch, but the knuckleball is not the only pitch that is a defining characteristic of a pitcher. In totality, I believe the closer acted in good faith defined by the debates.Neonblak ^talk - 06:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. The debate was relisted for further discussion, and after that almost everyone said keep. I cannot work out how that can be construed as a consensus for deleting. That the closing admin thinks it would be better as a list is a personal opinion, and should have no effect on how the discussion is closed. Besides, if there is a simple "List of X" listing lots of articles, a category of "X" to put all those articles in seems quite reasonable. Unless there are really extraordinary circumstances, it is the community, and not the closing admin, who decides whether to delete; the closing administrator is more of a steward than a judge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Has nothing to do with what I may have wanted. It was an assessment of the discussion. Did you read the discussion and/or the clarification above? - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. The closer doesn't get a supervote... there was a consensus to keep. --
  Chiliad22 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The closer didn't make a "supervote". Please read the closure again. - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The person you're replying to is correct that the closer made a "supervote". Please read their comment again. --

  Chiliad22 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • • • I think Jc37 believes he assessed the strength of the arguments in good faith.

        The problem with one person's "assessment of the strength of the arguments" is that it's pretty hard to distinguish from their "personal opinion of what should be done", and I think the line between the two may have been (inadvertently) crossed here.

        But whether it was crossed or not, the !votes based on a failure to understand

        WP:CLN-related closure error".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]

• Comment. The closer gave two reasons for deleting: (a) the information could be presented in a list or navbox, and (b) the category was similar to other types of OCAT, especially
  WP:OC#PERF. BRMo (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That is what I might well have said, given the ability, time and inclination. There is also
  talk) 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Interesting argument. Had this been made at the discussion (coupled with some references (
  WP:OC. And this argument dives head first into that. - jc37 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• A couple of responses. In writing my original CfD comment I focused on what I thought was the main point of discussion, which was the argument presented in the nomination—can being a knuckleball pitcher be considered a defining characteristic while throwing other pitches is not? The consideration of OC#PERF had been briefly mentioned by only three of the 17 editors participating in the discussion (two favoring delete and one favoring keep), and it seemed somewhat peripheral to me. (Those making the argument had never really explained the analogy.) It seems a stretch that your closing summary, which after all is supposed to represent the consensus of the discussion, relied so heavily on this point. Second, although the arguments weren't framed specifically as a response to OC#PERF, the same general points (that being a knuckleball pitcher is different from other pitchers and should be considered a defining characteristic because, as a group, knuckleball pitchers rely on the pitch almost exclusively and are commonly known for being knuckleballers) do appear in many or most of the CfD comments that favored keeping. Almost all of the keep arguments were trying to make the point that pitching the knuckleball is a defining characteristic, which of course is the central concept for OC. So I have to disagree with your statement that "such arguments simply weren't present." BRMo (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The decision to delete was not supported by the majority of the commenters nor where the arguments to do so especially strong. Categories about people should only be created if the property discussed is a defining characteristic. If it's possible to use a list, it's also possible to make a category. (per
  WP:CLN) - Mgm|^(talk) 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:MarbleMadnessCabinet.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The reasons for deletion were violations of

Because the image has copyrighted content, no free image can exist. Even if the photographer waives their copyright, the content is still a derivative piece and illegible for a free license. I base this assumption on my interpretations on Commons:Commons:Derivative works Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches. As such, NFCC#1 is satisfied because a free equivalent is not available.

NFCC#3 states "Minimal usage" and "Minimal extent of use". Yes, there are other non-free images used in the Marble Madness article, but each one adds something to the article. This not only showed the physical object, but marketing images used to attract customers and the trackball control system. Based on what I've read in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, I believed minimal usage meant to avoid redundancy and maximize significance, not simply keep the number as low as possible. In regard to the NFCC#3b, the image was a minimal extent of use; it was less than 1/3 of the original flyer and low resolution. Also, I have never heard of NFCC#3 applying to the number of copyrights involved in image placement on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Endorse deletion: I, personally, have no opinion on whether or not this file should be deleted. I deleted it because that is what the consensus seemed to be, and I still feel that that was the consensus. –

T • C • L) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I guess my main issue is that the consensus did not accurately reflect policy. So while more people felt the image should be deleted, I believe the NFCC policy was applied incorrectly in their rationales. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't just take a head count or anything; all of the arguments, for both "keep" and "delete", seemed logically based upon policy. —Preceding

talk • contribs

) 20:24, April 28, 2009

I know it wasn't as clear cut as that, and apologize if my comment came across as that. I don't think the FfD was discussed as well as it should have been. But, that was more a result of only four people participating. You came to a conclusion as best you could from a discussion consisting of only seven postings. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Note: The nominator and two commentors (including myself) recommended that the image be deleted. The uploader (Guyinblack25) argued that it should be kept. Good points were made on both sides. An uninvolved (and self-described inclusionist) admin deleted the image, agreeing that it was a close call, but judging that consensus required the image's deletion. Note also that the article it is used on is a featured article. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This was a tough call. I recommended deletion, but I found that arguments on both sides were convincing. It's almost a textbook example of a difficult deletion case. It comes down to some basic questions in policy interpretation: Is it too much to have three non-free images as the sole images in a featured article? Can we use a non-free image of a non-free underlying design, if a free photo (but not totally free) could be created of the underlying design? What if the object is rare, and the copyright holder of the photo is also the copyright holder of the underlying design? These aren't spelled out clearly in policy; you just have to look at the non-binding precedents of how consensus tends to interpret policy, along with the specific argument made in this case. I certainly wouldn't have called foul if the closing admin had chosen to keep the image. But it looks to me like the closing admin read all arguments carefully, understood policy, and made a call in good faith. So I don't see a reason to overturn. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree that this matter is so gray. In regard to the free photo aspect, if a photo has a non-free underlying design, then there is no way it can be free photo. It is a derivative work and ineligible to be free.

I had an image up for deletion at Commons for the extra same reason. The panel artwork is copyrighted and supersedes any free aspect of the photograph. How can I replace the deleted Marble Madness image with a free version if the object is inherently non-free? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As I explained earlier, a non-free photo of a non-free underlying design violates two copyrights. A freely-licensed photo of a free underlying design only violates one. The new material (making a photo out of the item) is subject to additional copyright protection. It's true that it will always be a derivative work, and the underlying material will always be subject to Atari's copyright (so a freely-licensed photo of this could not be hosted on Commons), but the new material (choice of angle and lighting and placement for the photo) could be free material, and we're using someone's copyright on this needlessly. That's how we've consistently handled non-free photos of non-free statues, etc. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how many copyrights are violated, so long as one still exists, the picture is not completely free. NFCC#1 states "No free equivalent", which we do not have. I'm sorry, but I still maintain that the image did not violate NFCC.

Do you have links for the similar non-free photos you mention? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I understand your position. And your reading is not totally off-the-wall or in direct contravention of policy or anything. It's just that in general, Wikipedia consensus has interpreted NFCC#1 in cases like these to mean that a "free equivalent" would be a freely-licensed photo of non-free content, even if that photo would be a derivative image and require compliance with our NFCC. If consensus routinely went according to your reading, I'd understand -- I have no stake in this either way -- and I'd be arguing that non-free images of non-free statues should be allowed in every case. But consensus didn't go according to your reading, and it rarely does. Drilnoth's action were in line with the usual interpretation of policy in these circumstances, and were clearly in line with consensus. The image had a fair hearing. (P.S. I can't link to a free photo of this object, and it's quite possible that none currently exists. As you know, that doesn't satisfy NFCC#1 unless it can be shown that it would be impossible to create one.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my request, which was admittedly poorly-worded. I was asking for links to the discussions about the non-free photos of non-free statues. I would like to read more about the consensus you mentioned. Please post them on my talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Overturn or relist I think #1 is trivially met as the nom of this DrV argues. That means we've got one keep !vote and one delete !vote based in actual policy. So relist might be a good option, but I can't see a deletion. That said, if it can be shown that that it is possible to have a photo of the cabenet that is free, I'd say deletion is the correct option. We really need some of the IfD regulars to weigh in on if #1 applies here or not. My reading is that it does not, but I'm not an expert. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse given the discussion below, I think NFCC#1 isn't met. Thanks to all for the clarifications on our image policy and how issues with the Commons can be resolved. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now requested this at

  Wikipedia_talk:Files for deletion#Request for opinions. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion. The remit of deletion review is limited to verifying that the deletion process was properly followed and the discussion was interpreted and closed correctly. It is not in order to reargue matters that were considered at the FFD.
  talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • WP:DRV states it is for "challenging deletion decisions". I followed the directions by contacting the closing admin, who mentioned I could start a discussion here.
    The issue of NFCC#1 was not adequately discussed in the FfD and I believe that affected the closer's decision. And while I believe Drilnoth acted in good faith, I don't believe the debate reflected policy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply
    ]
    • If you stop reading after the first few words, yes it does, if however you take it in the context as written which includes numbered points (2) and (3) and "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent for re-arguing matters considered at the XFD here, as Stifle well knows, since he was the closer here. And I think it was well-established at that discussion that there does need to be a place where someone can bring a case on the grounds that the deletion discussion was simply wrong, and that DRV is as appropriate a venue as any other.

Having said that, the circumstances were exceptional and in this case, they aren't exceptional at all.

I think this closure was a valid reading of the consensus available to the closer at the time, so I endorse deletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in your reading of that, and one such discussion out of the many turned away is hardly a precedent (not that wikipedia does precedent anyway if we want to change the purpose of DRV it shouldn't be self determined but opened to a more general community consensus). Having skimmed that particular discussion there seem to be a few things (a) process issues - admin deciding on the basis of contrary decisions in two related discussions essentially picking one to be correct (b) process issues pretty deeply embedded in wikipedia about participation in CFD (not easily fixed) (c) new information not properly considered in the debate - If a rearguing of the debate was needed the correct outcome would have been relist to reargue it in the correct venue (We wouldn't want to suffer a similar issue to (b) relating to the partcipation/focus of DRV) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw request for review: Apparently this is not the proper avenue for this as a larger issue is at the root for this specific case. I thank everyone for their time. Though I don't appreciate the comment that I did not read the page's instruction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I think this was a reasonable basis for a DrV. That argument that the closer misunderstood policy is a strong one in a DrV. The job of the closer is to weigh the arguments. If NFCC#1 doesn't apply here (and while I think doesn't it isn't clear), the close was probably wrong and coming to DrV was the right thing. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • I also agree that this was a reasonable basis for a DRV.
    talk) 08:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• continue the review . . This is the appropriate place for discussing whether policy is reasonably applied. I agree with Hobbit about that 100%. A close that gives an unreasonable result, or a result against policy is an erroneous close. When we say this is not XfD2 we mean we shouldn't generally discuss the ultimate settlement of the matter at issue from scratch in a case like this, but send it back for further discussion. However, the line is very blurry, because if the closer did not at least reasonably correctly interpret policy, the close is bad. Everything needs a method of review. ( In this case, it may end up as a rediscussion of the NFCC#1 to clarify what the community wants the policy to be). DGG (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and relist Getting to the review at hand, i think its clear that further discussion is needed, and the best place to start this is with a relisted IfD. This deletion is an over-rigid interpretation of image policy. If we need fair use to make a good article, and if it is fair use, we should do so. DGG (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The 3D shape of a generic videogame cabinet is not copyrightable. The distorted, downsampled graphic decorations on the cabinet and its screen are of an inferior quality and don't hold any reasonable threat to the intellectual property holder's ability to distribute or profit from them. So, take a free picture of the cabinet as one of several machines installed in an arcade. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the folks on the commons, where any free image would end up, think that any image of the cabinet is derivative. How do we resolve that? Hobit (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are similar images on the commons, see File:Mspacman and galaga act like israel and palestine.JPG. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you know, just because something isn't deleted yet doesn't mean it fits policy. The deletion debate on the commons is linked to above, and the consenous there seems to be that no free image of this game can exist. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - closed correctly. The delete arguments based on Non-free content criteria #1, no free equivalent, were the most convincing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, any incidental inclusion of artwork would probably be de minimis anyway in a free photograph if it were a photograph of the control panel. Last time I checked, the utilitarian or industrial aspects of an object are not copyrightable. In addition, I don't think all the Marble Madness cabinets randomly stood up and walked away into heaven enough to have a fair use justification.ViperSnake151  Talk  21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Image policy question If the common's refuses to host a free version of this image, we can host it here correct? They seem set on not hosting such an image (see link above). If that's fine, then I agree with the deletion. If not, we have a real problem with the application of NFCC#1. 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • If a free replacement for this image can be created, I see no reason why it could not be hosted here. Commons has a stricter definition of free than ours (it requires images to be free in the USA and in the home country).
    talk) 13:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: Commons hosts File:Donkey Kong arcade.png, which is used in a featured article here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:May be Disturbing.gif (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This file is necessary to have on this site as a historic rejected idea. The deletion votes have neglected this very reason. The image is used in one page - a historicaly rejected idea per WP:NOT censored... --

File:7 Sqn RAF Chinook (1991).jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I don't know why the image was deleted. I was granted written permission from the photographer, and this was clearly stated when the image was uploaded. Mr Pillows (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason?
  talk) 08:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I fixed the link above. The image owner said "It's OK to use my picture for the article on Wikipedia." Wikipedia-only permissions are not allowed. They need to agree to possible reuse outside of Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Though I did read the deletion review page, I have not tried to ask the deleting administrator because I don't know how to do that.
2. In my request to use the image I named wikipedia to confirm I am not a commercial entity. His affirmative reply implies there is no problem using the photo in a wider context, and his specific mention of wikipedia simply demonstrates an understanding of the non-commerical context, not a limitation to its use. Mr Pillows (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Mr. Pillows, I was the deleting admininstrator. The reason that your image was deleted was because it was uploaded with a license that said it was for wikipedia use only. You're always welcome to re-upload the image if you can get the author of the image to submit permission to wikipedia. A good article on how to do that can be found

Talk 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• endorse per Mgm. Hobit (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion as per Icestorm815's explanation.
  talk) 08:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Secondary Objectives in Black (video game) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(Reason given is copied from the 'Talk:Black page, with a few edits. These are my words.)It's been nearly 3 years since I have contributed to BLACK. I am the original author of the Secondary Objectives (SOs) in the BLACK Wiki page. My SOs have been edited by registered and non-registered users alike, and many of my installments have been edited with here-say and conjecture, and very little fact. I have found that 3R1C edited most of my installments horribly (SETEC Astronomy is not a Russian KGB front!). Somehow, my SO additions have been removed altogether.

I have found that there was a deletion discussion on this page, and the reasons were for the posting of infomation that had little or no fact. This was not the original intention of the BLACK Secondary Objectives. The original intent was to give factual and/or published info on intel collected while playing BLACK. BLACK SOs give us a history and contemporary lesson in Black-Ops. It is my intention to reopen the deletion discussion, and if allowed to repost the SOs, take the title offered by Hench and create a separate page, and link it to the BLACK page.

As it has been previously requested, Please do not [expletive] with my wiki unless something is actually wrong, Please? If you were to glance through the history of diffs, you will find many rampant edits with little or no regard to fact. Any door (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Header fixed, but this request is incomprehensible. Endorse by default.  Sandstein  20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as a proper
  wiki). MuZemike 21:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

However, to refer to one of the editors as "poor" is not to far from fair, since when I originally posted the BLACK Secondary Objectives (and as the discussion shows), I only posted 'verifiable' facts about the references. I even made it clear in the Talk discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Any_door) that I cannot use unverifiable additions to the article. Of course I would welcome edits, but shouldn't I remind anyone who chooses to edit what I have written my intent for the article, and also Wikipedia's rules about unsubstantiated additions?

To phrase: "I cannot use" may be interpreted as calling myself the owner of the article. I would like to clarify the use of the phrase "Article Ownership". As the history of this article shows, I am the poster who first installed these BLACK Secondary Objectives. It is my belief that I can consider myself the author of what I wrote in the BLACK wikipedia page. I do not think 'Owner' is a proper term, since I did not purchase anything to post what I posted. Use of the word "my" would be interpreted as ownership. I will be removing this entire line from the Talk discussion.

Thank you for fixing the header. I don't do enough HTML editing to know what I have done incorrectly.Any door (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for redacting on the talk page. We don't know who is making the comment if you don't specify. I would definitely interpret the latter as ownership, not necessarily the other stuff. With that said, my recommendation would be to ask the closing admin of the AFD if the article could be

neutral point of view (which were the problems brought up at the AFD; I cannot see the deleted version as I am not an admin). I hope this helps. MuZemike 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• talk) 08:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. From the deleted archives, I note that the article warned that the content was speculative. The whole article seems to be a blatant violation of
  WP:NOR, and the consensus on the AFD was abundantly clear on that point. The kind of personal speculation in the article wouldn't even qualify as a game guide, let alone an encyclopedia article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The article became speculative after the many poor edits that were performed. The original article written contained no unsubstantiated material. Most of the info originally entered can be found on reputable websites, including WikiPedia. I visited the OWN, NOR and ANNEX links provided. They make for informative reading. The information I presented is not game guide material. There is no mention in the BLACK Secondary Objectives reference as to where these hidden documents can be found in the game, nor any strategies on how to obtain them. These SO references give the player a bit of a lesson in the historical and current "Black Operations" that were and/or are conducted. They also point out the contemporary references to certain movies, and other IPs, which may be favorites of the developers at Criterion. For instance, I never knew what Extraordinary Rendition was until I played BLACK, and I looked it up on WikiPedia during gameplay. In contrast, where in the world can you go to buy a "Phase Plasma Rifle in the 40w Range"?Any door (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I cannot agree with you. The article was full of speculation, with phrases like "could be" and "probably" permeating every entry on the list right from the first version of the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now that I look back at it, you're precisely right. There were quite a few "probably"s and "could-be"s. And, like you said, this is not encyclopedic. It is still my belief that playing BLACK is informative, as well as entertaining. I guess, since the originals are still in WikiPedia as deletions, I can simply repost them somewhere where people can still see them. The BLACK Gaming Wikia seems like a good place to keep them. I think I will take your advice and discontinue the deletion challenge. This experience has been very educational. Thank you to all contributors who helped me see the light on this issue.Any door (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geekologie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I was made aware of this deletion via discussions on WikiProject Blogging. The article has been deleted on multiple occasions in the past (under G11 and A7). Whilst I didn't see the article, OlYeller21 has a potential article in his userspace but he says he didn't create it in the mainspace. I argue this website is notable. It's in the top 200 blogs [8] and Alexa top 7,000. The blog was discussed in a BBC programme [9] and has 43 Google News hits [10] in several languages in several countries. I am curious to see the consensus. Computerjoe's talk 21:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason?
  talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  it appears different articles on the same topic have been deleted. Consensus must be reached on these articles notability; contacting an admin would not generate the consensus needed. I would have to contact several admins due to this article's muddled deletion log and I suspect each would have differing rationales. As such, community consensus is needed to avoid several confused disussions over differing issues. I am not objecting to the deletion of a spammy article (if it was) but I feel we need to discuss this blog's notability before anyone tries to reinclude it into the encyclopedia. 78.86.135.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  That's very true. At one point, I introduced the article to the Articles for Creation wikiproject where we invited the admin who deleted the article to comment on the recreation. He commented (as you can see on the page) but I'm not sure that he fully read the article. I commented on his talk page to check and see if he read the whole article but he never replied. I've thought that this venue might be the next best place to bring up a discussion on the article (as opposed to recreating it and taking it directly to AfD) but like I said, I wanted to wait until I was more certain that the article would be seen as notable. OlYeller^Talktome 23:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Like ComptuerJoe said, I did not create the last mainspace article for Geekologie. I had created one before as one of my first articles, months ago, before I really knew anything about how Wikipedia works. I've been waiting to post the article in my mainspace for quite some time as I've been waiting for one more independent and reliable source to publish significant coverage on the subject. The notability of the blog is about as borderline as I think articles can get but I'm confident that it will be notability in the future but maybe just
  MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." As Geekologie has been in a way, syndicated by other sources, it may fulfill that criteria. Again, I did not make the last mainspace article and hadn't planned on bringing my newest version of the article to mainspace until it was more clearly notable. I would be more than happy to move it to mainspace if it was determined notable but I didn't want to muddy the deletion log of this page anymore than it already has been until I was sure that the article would be safe from deletion. OlYeller^Talktome 22:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Permit recreation in user space I too would have deleted the most recent version of the article under both speedy G7 and G11; the earlier versions, i'm not so sure. I'd like to see what a sourced article could look like DGG (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the claims of notability in the article I made are sourced although it might not be the best article out there. Here it is in my userspace if you would like to have a look. I'd appreciate the input. OlYeller^Talktome 23:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As the admin who most recently deleted the article, I'd like to point out what its content was at that time:

Are you a sucker for gadgets and/or gizmos? Want to see what’s new in the technology world? Then Geekologie will grant your every need. This site offers the user articles about every new gadget or gizmo launched, whether it’s something useful for everyone, or just a whacky new invention someone decided to create (see the pillowig to understand what I’m talking about). Even if you are not really interested in this type of things, the humorous style of the site is already worth entering it. The site has different categories, guaranteeing to narrow down your search results in order for you to quickly find what you are looking for. There’s no registration required in order to enjoy the contents of this site, so it is totally free to browse.

Whether any other version is suitable for inclusion is debatable, but I don't think a

G11 deletion of that article was a stretch. I am open to other interpretations, but if this deletion review is about that most recent action, I am not sure there's much to discuss here.  Frank  |  talk  02:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

While some may debate it, that looks like total crap to be honest. Even if it wasn't a G11, it's certainly an A7 for not having any claim of notability. OlYeller^Talktome 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article looks terrible and I support the G11. However, I don't believe OlYeller21's version, if created, would be eligible for A7 but would have to go to AfD. Perhaps C. Fred's suggestion to wait for more sources is the best one? I do think, though, that we need clearer policies about notability of news sources, whether they be papers of blogs. Computerjoe's talk 07:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The version in OlYeller21's user space is very similar to the 3 February 2009 version that was speedy deleted A7. IMO, notability is asserted but not clearly demonstrated. I think a little more refinement in user space is the best route for the article at this point (as opposed to overturning the speedy deletion, only to see it nominated for AfD). —C.Fred (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that was the initial article that I made (one of my first). If anyone has any input they could give on the article in my usrespace, I would be very grateful. OlYeller^Talktome 19:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot – article already recreated in userspace, though hardly
  advertising/promotional tone, though it's a far cry from other previous versions. MuZemike 05:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• As the article has only been deleted through
  talk) 08:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Michael Ewart Smoke Alarm Foundation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

1. I created this page with a basic outline of the nonprofit organization and was planning on adding more references and images later. 2. Within 45 minutes the page was deleted. 3. Can someone please undelete this page, it was not advertising, but valuable information about a nonprofit organization that educates on fire safety. —Preceding

• Deleting admin's comments. The article contained one prose sentence about the organization, then fire alarms tips and an email address where readers could request smoke alarms and batteries. This was clearly a public-relations placement, especially since the username suggests a conflict of interest. Even if it were not deletable as spam, it would have been deletable as a group lacking as assertion of significance (criterion A7). —C.Fred (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I wouldn't have deleted under CSD:G11 as the article wasn't really spammy, but it is certainly about a group or club and lacks any assertion of importance, qualifying it for deletion anyway. Endorse.
  talk) 08:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep deleted The part that is not about how to contact the association is a copyvio from http://www.me-safe.org/safety.html. Articles that appear even somewhat promotional have a considerable likelihood of failing copyvio & I usually check, because it's the least disputable reason to delete. DGG (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Haltzman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

• Support my own action. The article was promotional, advertising Haltzman and his therapy system, with a side order of society-page chatter about his mother, his sister, etc. One of the two external links you offer as samples, for example, leads to an article in his alma mater's college paper about the recent success of an alumn. Most of what's in here is promotional or sourced to his own writings and websites. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Page temporarily restored for the benefit of non-admin participants in this review. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete for the reasons aptly raised by LinguistAtLarge. In addition, no less sourced (or more promotional) than many other authors. Notable, given the media attention, etc. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The article was promotional, but trimming the promotional content would leave it as a reasonable stub.
  talk) 14:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Speedy is when the article is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Pages that exclusively promote some entity and that would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" It meets neither half of the criterion, for in its form when deleted it was not appreciably more promotional than most author articles, and even in an earlier form it would just need to be trimmed, not entirely rewritten. There are reasonable sources. (I note this seems to have been done single-handed, which is rarely safe for G11s in particular. Perhaps it should be simply prohibited for that criterion.) DGG (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • correction - this was not single-handed. Some IP made the nomination, and I made the judgement call. To me, the promotional tone still overwhelms everything else. Apparently, I am less tolerant than some others. (That's not meant as an insult to you or anybody else; reasonable folks can and do disagree.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The article has a number of cited and credible claims of significance: subject of a Psychology Today review, referenced in a NY Times editorial, top 100 sellers on Amazon.com, named in top 6 books to "make you a better you" in Time magazine. So it does not meet the G11 criterion. As DGG said, at worst it needed to be trimmed way back -- but there was plenty of good encyclopedic content in there. It could be brought to AfD; I'm not sure how I'd !vote there without a bit more research. -Pete (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - those rankings on Amazon are ephemeral and non-reliable. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Sorry, I'm not clear -- are you then conceding that the other three factors I listed would be sufficient to meet the
      notability criterion? -Pete (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • response - sorry, no; I apologize for any lack of clarity. The remaining items may argue (somewhat feebly) for the notability of his one book, but not for his own notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: OK, thanks for clarifying. -Pete (talk) 00:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: And, I suppose I'd suggest maybe we spare ourselves the bureaucracy of this process, and simply stubbify The Secrets of Happily Married Men, and make the current page a redirect there. -Pete (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Not unambiguous enough for G11. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. As said above, does not need a complete rewrite to become encyclopedic and as such does not meet G11. It should have been declined coupled with tagging for {{
  NPOV}} or cleanup by reviewing admin. Regards SoWhy 07:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Per Linguist and others.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Brown (goaltender) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

With no closing comment by the admin on a close case such as this I went to the admin first to see what his closing rational was but I found it somewhat lacking. As such I am bringing it here for review. The topic meets

• Closing admin Commentators disagreed over whether or not he passed
  WP:ATHLETE, I found the arguments that there were no sources indicating a significant professional career (note this is different than proving mere existence) to be more convincing than the arguments that other similar articles exists or that sources might exist that showed notability. MBisanz ^talk 23:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I only want to note that in order to meet
    WP:RSes. How significant his professional career is or is not, is not a factor. -Djsasso (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn sorry MB, but I disagree. Evidence in the AfD and article showed he passed WP:ATHLETE via playing at a fully professional level and there are add'l sources. I don't think this comes anywhere near WP:OSE, the subject is notable. StarM 23:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensous. Source provided, some liked it others didn't. Meets the letter of WP:ATHLETE, but some think not the spirit. I see reasonable people disagreeing in reasonable and policy-based ways. Given the number of arguments on both side (close) and their strength (good) I see no consensous. Hobit (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn – Mike Brown has played in the
  WP:ATHLETE. There are dozens or hundreds of hockey players with comparable careers. All of the AfDs for such players that I have come across were quickly closed as keep and I am surprised this one was deleted. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn – The subject clearly passes
  WP:ATHLETE. He has played in a fully professional league, and has done so more multiple years. Considering we have kept players that have played only 1 game in a fully professinal league, this one is a no brainer. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn: Basically just repeating what I said at the AfD, the article clearly passes all notability requirements. As I mentioned, career significance isn't really a factor in determining if one is notable. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)*[reply]
• This caught my eye when I relisted it. The nominator said someone who passes WP:ATHLETE must first pass WP:GNG.. I've seen this point argued before. That is, "An article must pass
  WP:GNG as well as "WP:FOO". (athlete etc.) " If this were true then there would be no point in having "WP:FOO"s. If it can be verified that he played in a fully professional league then Overturn. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse due to failing
  talk) 14:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, verification requires only one RS. Notability requires more than one. But seriously, hockeydb (and before you object, hockeydb has been deemed reliable at FAC). But, even if you don't like that, how about nhl.com? here he is with his German league team. Press release mentioning that he had been playing for Providence of the AHL, but was returned to Long Beach of the ECHL. Shall I continue? Resolute 16:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, that'll be fine. Overturn.
      talk) 20:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • There were 3 sources on the article at the time of deletion. -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. At close of AfD, was No consensus if not keep. Again, appeal for closers to give a rationale in contended debates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as No Consensus or relist, clearly there wasn't a consensus to delete, but I don't feel there was a consensus to keep either. My option would be to close as no consensus or because there are so many people that think it should be overturned, relist it. Tavix |  Talk  14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I voted to delete on the basis of inadequate sourcing, but a subsequent comment made it clear that my reason was not relevant. Closed before I had a chance to retract; the closing admin should have seen that also. DGG (talk) 23:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Rae White (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion concerning notability was clearly still ongoing, and no clear concensus or significant majority had been achieved - 4 supported retention, and 3 supported deletion, making a clear weak majority for retention. One of those supporting deletion did so on the grounds that "no sources" were provided, which is incorrect. Additionally, users supporting retention had clearly stated that research to support notability was still ongoing, and new avenues were being explored in order to find useable reliable sources. Given that research supporting this article was clearly still ongoing, I believe that deletion of this article by Fritzpoll (talk · contribs) was clearly premature, ignored the genuine impartiality of some of the sources provided in the article, and based solely on some arbitrary time limit which makes no allowance for most people with real lives beyond Wikipedia to do the research needed to reach a definitive decision concerning the notability or otherwise of this article. Emma white20 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The discussion was left open for the full seven days. Two of the keep !votes were from anonymous users, and these are customarily discounted. On the other than, there were four users (you forgot the nominator) who supported deletion, a two-thirds majority by numbers. The points that the supporters of deletion raised, which were that there were no reliable sources, were not addressed. We recently extended the time limit from five days to seven days for exactly the reason you suggested. We can't wait forever.
  talk) 21:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to keep None of those arguing for deletion addressed the claim that she meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. As she seems to and no one made arguments why that's not enough, I have to say the arguments for keeping were much stronger. Hobit (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment form closing admin - I believe Emma does not understand our policy with regard to closing AfD discussion. When the query was raised on my talkpage, I responded thusly: The deletion discussion was closed after 7 days and 1 minute exactly, so in time terms was not premature. I am obliged to weight the arguments within a debate, and the inability of participants to find
  WP:DRV, although this will be on the basis of procedure and not necessarily on the validity of your argument from the debate. Given this, I am naturally happy for DRV - I obviously believe that my action here was correct, but I am not beyond reproach. However, I do contend the notion that the close was premature Fritzpoll (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn deletion Prior to deletion, a number of independant sources were added to the article, including reports about her appearance in the new production of Quadraphenia - A fact which was not properly addressed by those proposing deletion except for an isolated comment that the articles were "not specifically about her". I would also contend that the sleeve notes of an original cast recording of a major musical production, while not specifically mentioned in the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources, do qualify as a reliable and impartial source for establishing notability - A simple listing of the performers appearing on the CD and the parts they play has no real inherent bias towards any of them, and so is simply a statement of fact, which can be easily verified by anyone who goes and finds a copy of the CD in the same way as they would find and consult a copy of a printed book if that was given as a reference. I therefore believe that the requirements for notability were met, and that reliable sources were provided in support of that fact. Taking all of that together, I genuinely believe that deletion of this article was wrong. Emma white20 (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that you are the nominator of this DRV, this secondary statement does not really need a bold !vote. Your arguments are suited to an AfD, but DRV is not a second go at AfD. It is to correct procedural problems in the close, whilst your arguments relate to aspects not included in the notability guidelines - an issue examined in the AfD. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I believe that notability has been proven, and the article should be kept.
  WP:FAILN, "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." As it had been clearly stated that work was still ongoing to find suitable supporting references, and that work had recently uncovered new references to her current appearance in Quadraphenia, it seems to me that deletion was definitely premature and inappropriate. Sandi saraya (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn I did not comment on the original Afd, as it is not one of my usual subjects. But the IMdB entry is enough to prove the basic uncontroversial facts, which in this case are very clearly enough to unmistakably show notability. The entry gives (incomplete) references to reviews and awards, which should have been followed up. Adequate attention to the article during AfD would have taken care of this. May I recommend the WP:Article Rescue Squadron for help with this. DGG (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  IMdB to establish notability? Incomplete even? Synergy 15:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to establish unchallenged routine facts about a career. yes. To show that someone is notable by means of having an entry there, of course not. DGG (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn As I understand the stated guidelines for notability, it has been clearly established for this article to a far greater degree than it has for many other minor biographies on Wikipedia - Many of which seem to have been here for considerable lengths of time without anyone questioning their notability. If there's evidence she's appeared in featured roles in several notable productions which are already listed here (such as the ALW show and ocr, and her TV work), then she's notable, and it doesn't matter what form the evidence takes (newspaper reports, CD packaging notes or whatever), as long as its verifiable and independent. As it seems that notability has been established for this article, then deletion on the grounds that it is not notable was clearly wrong. Does the article need improvement? Yes, quite clearly, but it should have been tagged as such, and not flagged for deletion. JS3C (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion: Based on the discussion here and the notes on my talk page, it is apparent that sources are missing at present that might establish notability (Emma white20 is still looking for them according to my talkpage). What I never got a chance to suggest to Emma before bringing the matter here was the possibility of
  userfication so that the sources can be added, once found, and the article moved back to article space. I maintain that the discussion didn't establish the existence of said sources, and that admins are simply meant to close discussions in the state that they are at the end of the required period of time. This seems to me a reasonable compromise that would get the article closer to article space reinclusion, but in a better state that s less vulnerable to returning to AfD. Thoughts Fritzpoll (talk) 09:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I disagree - I believe that sufficient verifiable sources already exist and are referenced in the article (although maybe not in the generally accepted format) to establish notability. Admittedly, things like the notes included in CD packaging aren't usually used as Wikipedia references, but as long as they're not from CDs which are specifically hers, and are just used to confirm that she did indeed appear on the CD in a certain role, then what's the difference between using them and using a website (such as IMDb) which lists the cast of a movie as a source for an article? (And, let's face it, how many articles on Wikipedia have used IMDb as an unacknowledged source for things like cast lists, even though IMDb is not accepted as a reliable source?...) If they've not been written by anyone directly connected with her, they meet the guidelines for being independent of the subject. As they will have had to be reviewed by someone from the record company before release, they've been through an editorial review process in just the same way as a magazine article. And as anyone can go into a shop or library and find a copy of the CD, they meet the guidelines for being verifiable. So why are people objecting to them being used as reliable sources to establish notability? - I can't find anything in the various guidelines that says they're not acceptable as sources. Maybe that's a subject which needs further discussion elsewhere, but if they provide clear evidence that she did indeed appear on the CDs stated, then I believe that, along with the other independent sources given (especially concerning the production of Quadraphenia), clear notability has been established in this case. As for the mentions of her appearances in various TV productions, a quick look at

WP:RS, then what does that say for the CDs being used as references? From the statement above, they certainly seem to be admissible as references... I also believe that userfication would make it more difficult for others to contribute to the article - The edit history shows a number of editors making positive contributions in the form of references and other edits. (Maybe I'm wrong on that, but that's how it seems from my POV...) I still maintain that this article should be undeleted, and then tagged as needing help with improvement, and think that userfication would be effectively as bad as leaving the article deleted. (Sorry for the huge essay - I got started and just couldn't seem to stop!!!) JS3C (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I wasn't aware of that guideline comment, even though I had a read of

WP:RS, but you seem to be right - It does look like TV programmes and CDs can be quoted as references, which means that there seems to be plenty of evidence for notability. I also agree with you on the idea of userfication being a bad idea, and I've got no problem with it being tagged as needing improvement, because it does... Emma white20 (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The guideline comment is irrelevant to establishing notability -

Verifiability

is not enough, and the contention within the discussion is essentially that there isn't enough significant coverage, so arguments relying solely on verifiability are not enough - something I appreciate that you may not understand, JS3C since you only registered an account a few days ago.

Emma white20 says on my talkpage that sources to establish notability are still being searched for - I offer userfication as a happy compromise - allow the article to be improved to prevent it being nominated for AfD almost immediately again with all the drama that entails. If this DRV overturns, this will almost certainly be what happens. A userfied article can be moved back to the article space as soon as you've chucked a few more sources at it and that'll be the end of the matter. I don't understand how trying to placate people who aren't sure of this article's notability by adding some sources before restoration is "as bad as leaving [it] deleted".

Finally, you need to stop re-arguing points from the AfD. DRV is about the close and whether I followed

WP:DRV. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep, I mean Overturn - Between her lead West End work and lead television work, she easily passes
  WP:CREATIVE. I understand that AfD closers frequently ignore anon input, but sometimes anons have it right too. --Oakshade (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  For the record, I evaluate their opinions in the same way that I evaluate others. It isn't votes that count, it's the strength of arguments. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, re: your comment above, I wasn't re-arguing points from the AfD - I was pointing out those who supported deletion in the AfD discussion did so on the grounds that no verifiable and reliable sources at all existed to support the article. However, as I pointed out above,

wikipedia:DGFA, and believe that you didn't follow those guidelines as well as you could have done in this case. Did you actually violate any of them? You'll no doubt argue that you didn't, although others may see things differently based upon their own interpretation of the guidelines and the situation here...) If the article is restored, then all of the new references can be quickly added and, once that's done, I don't think anyone will feel the need to question her notabilty in the future, and so we'll avoid the whole AfD thing again. JS3C (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Cunard/Article/Lazy Dog Cafe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

Now moved, per request. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The history merge of

Lazy Dog Cafe still needs to be done, though. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Never mind. There appear to be two different bars/restaurants with this name (Lazy Dog Cafe; Lazy Dog Sports Bar and Grill). I wrote about the wrong restaurant. Cunard (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn: Per my above comment, the history merge is not needed. Please speedy close this discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics related to Barack Obama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am rather surprised that his "assessment of the weight of the arguments" is apparently "category is more appropriate", since this point was refuted in the debate—by Linguist at Large, by me, and then subsequently by DHowell and DGG.

There's a very fine line between "assessment of the weight of the arguments" and "closing administrator's personal opinion", and this DRV should consider whether it is possible that line was crossed in this case. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont

• As nominator, overturn to no consensus (in case that wasn't entirely clear from my nomination). I can't help wondering what's the point of contacting the closing admin on their talk page prior to opening the DRV, since I know of no case in which the closer has ever changed their mind.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's more useful in the case of speedies.
    talk) 20:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn to no-consensus- since the reason listed for deletion is invalid. Categories and Lists can co-exist, having a category on a subject does not mean there cannot be a list. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus- Looks to me like roughly equal numbers making a roughly equal number of good and bad arguments on each side. Closing rationale picks a winner rather than reflecting a consensus. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Umbralcorax. There were maybe ways to close it as delete, but that wasn't one. Hobit (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no-consensus, I believe you'd have a hard time arguing that a consensus of any sort was reached there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus There wasn't one. The closing admin used a reason that is explicitly false per precedent. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably a case for making it clearer to AfD posters that the perceived "choice" between a list and a category is a

false dichotomy should surely have been disregarded, given that this point was well-made during the debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn to no consensus very obvious from a quick glance at the AFD. Delete in the clear minority and rest can't make up their mind in which direction to go. Agathoclea (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this article is a horrendous idea, but there was no consensus to delete it, so, sadly, overturn.
  talk) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to no consensus. The closer's role is not to decide whose side he agrees most with, it is to evaluate whether a consensus exists to delete. Deviating from that standard, and deleting even if the consensus isn't there, is only correct if there is a very strong policy-based rationale to do it, and that happens almost only in the rare circumstance where the keep votes are all highly ignorant of the objections to the article. The arguments for keeping the article presented by Skomorokh and ChildOfMidnight were most certainly not ignorant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, the close sounds more like an opinion than an assessment of the
  consensus of the discussion. The comment does not explain - or even acknowledge - why the arguments specifically given against "category is more appropriate" had no merit. Guest9999 (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn No Consensus There was no consensus in that AFD. There are enough reasonable arguements on each side, neither side's arguements can just be dismissed.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn but keep a very very close eye on the article; as pointed out, this is a coatracking magnet. Undeletion should ensure that it does not upset the NPOV status quo we're trying to hit this president around. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the deleting admin was notified by both S marshall and by me, but has not yet responded. In lieu of actual comments, the rationale given at the afd, and what he said oh his talk p. [11] was not of any help in figuring out the logic used. DGG (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AFD is no vote, and the better policy arguments were taken into account.
  talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Can you point to the policy that says Lists and Categories are mutually exclusive? Umbralcorax (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the policy that says all Categories should exist as lists? The l/c discussion is always a judgment call, in this case close enough (personal enough or political enough) for people to have different views. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. Bali always !votes to remove content, but he does it in good faith. Think of him as a sort of deletionist counterpart to A Nobody.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who !votes in good faith. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they both do, though that's not germane to this DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus per above, despite my personal opinion about the self-reference. Perhaps later when Obama Mania has died down we can have an objective look at this page. ThemFromSpace 22:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, I don't like the list, but agree with above participants that there was no consensus to delete. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Consensus was not reached in the discussion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Bad close. Lack of rationale to explain contentious close. What "rationale" there was is in apparent conflict with WP:CLN. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse remember that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. While about the same number of people rallied for keeping and deletion, a lot of the keep votes were "it is helpful" or "good navigational tool", which are not strong points for AfD. The delete people used a lot more policy related discussion and I feel the closing nominator got it right when xe said it should be a category. Tavix |  Talk  21:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for a list article (or the eqiialent), they are both very good arguments. Lists are, among other things, navigational tools, and being a useful one is a valid reason to keep--for a list DGG (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This seems to be a classic no consensus. Probably the bigger problem is that the closers insistence that a "category is more appropriate" in this case, which is in clear contradiction of
  WP:CLN, which emphasizes that lists AND categories are intended to co-exist in synergistic fashion. Alansohn (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Civony (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

This page was deleted within an hour or two of creation. No time was given to apply supporting references Terryrayc (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect there to be

WP:WEB, let me know and I'll be glad to undelete. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Userfy to give Terryrayc time to add supporting references, then bring it back to DRV when he has (at which point, given decent sources, I would expect the article to be restored).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the middle of creating this page while waiting for wife to pick me up from work. When she got there I didn't want to lose the work I had done, so I saved it by posting it, planning on continuing to work on it when I got home. Maybe that wasn't the proper thing to do, but I didn't expect it to be deleted before I even got home a few hours later! Can we reinstate the article so I (and others, at least one of whom posted in this forum already) can fill out the article to the wiki standards?

If nothing else, can I at least have it restored to my personal area as I've read is possible.

As a side note, is it standard practice to delete an article so soon after creation? It was hardly up for an hour before it was deleted. It wasn't clear to me a way to save the article so I wouldn't lose my work without posting it. If an article is going to get deleted so quickly, can we improve the wiki interface so it is more clear to the user that he/she can save the article they are working on without it being posted?

If this already exists I apologize for my naivete. But, this further strengthens the reasoning behind my request for more clear instructions on saving w/out posting.

Thanks for your consideration. DrAdamInCA (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, you can work on material in your own userspace without risk of it being deleted (exceptions would be certain violations of policy). Material in your own userspace would be in a format like User:DrAdamInCA/Sandbox, i.e. your username followed by a slash. I agree that this should be clearer to new users.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshal: Thanks for the info. I will use that in the future, but is there any way to get back what I originally wrote and was deleted. Can you use the userfication procedure so I not s.o.l. on my original entry that was deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrAdamInCA (talk • contribs) 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've moved the deleted content to the author's userspace at User:DrAdamInCA/Civony. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy as is now done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mutoh Europe nv (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Sandstein told me the page was deleted because it lacked notability. I added several sources proving the notability. The page remained untouched, until Tone deleted it again because he thought I went against the previous deletion review without a valid reason. He told me to repost the deletion review and see what the result is now. .IT (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• talk) 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It is Mutoh Europe nv, according to .IT's deleted contributions. DGG (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Criterion G4 was applied even though there has never been an actual AfD. While "in DRV endorsed CSD" is almost an AfD, I'm going to suggest we recreate and List for AfD to achieve closure. This is especially true if the content was significantly different (and more sources is certainly significant). Also, I've changed the header and {{DRV links}} to the right article. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and relist per Usrnme h8er. Deletion process does not appear to have been correctly followed here.
  talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. I'm not sure it'll survive AFD, but it can't hurt to do things by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, but I still see it as deleted, will it recover or do I have to enter the contents again? .IT (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "relist" is the outcome of this discussion, the admin who closes this DRV will restore it and relist it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the discussion lasts for 5 days.

talk) 09:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

7 :-) Hobit (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRVs are still 5, to my knowledge.

talk) 14:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I'm waiting till my disputed change of Prod to 7 days is confirmed, before I propose this obvious change also. DGG (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a move to 7 days on the Deletion Review talk page recently. So far, it has 100% support...—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, is that good or bad? .IT (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7 days is certainly advisable here, even more so than AfD, as there are often many people to notify and there needs to be time for their voices to be heard. Much of AfD is not controversial--almost everything here is, and there is a need for full discussion. DGG (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Y'self (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created this article, and was most sickened to see the way it went. Sorry, I didn't see the way it went. It just got Speedy-Tagged, I had no time to edit the article to make it better, didn't even get told about the NOM. This is not allowed, a deletion like this, without warning the person. I am contesting the Delete, and definately the Speedy. Koshoes (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CSD#G4. Article was userfied by Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at Koshoes's request to User:Koshoes/Please Y'self. Koshoes later copy/pasted the exact text from the deleted article with no apparent changes whatsoever back into article space. Article AfD'd, tagged as G4, and deleted as recreation of deleted content. --auburnpilot talk 17:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, valid deletion. I think you know a lot more than you're letting on.
  talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as a fully valid G4 Speedy, the content appears to have been pretty much identical and the consensus at AfD was clear. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid application of G4 as a copy-paste job of a previously deleted article. Even if not, the arguments in the AFD lead me to believe it was a copyvio anyway, which on its own is a valid reason to speedy delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse, per Stifle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment but it shouldn't go like that. I was meant to add {{hangon}} but I never had chance to because the nom had opened and closed without telling me. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 09:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In clear cut cases where the CSD applicable is undeniable (copyvio, obvious recreation, attack pages) the admin has no obligation to take such a tag into account anyway. In fact, the hangon process is non-mandatory as a whole, that's the point with
    WP:RFC before moving it back as that will guage how good a job you've done restructuring the page and largely protect you from deletions. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It would be more simple just to say no:) A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 10:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I'm saying is you should at least tell the person about the Nom. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 15:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scene Kid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

Copy + pasting what I said here - I was posting the following to have the page un-protected and made to redirect to another page.

• Unprotect and allow redirect per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow redirect but reprotect.
  talk) 11:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow protected redirect to 2000s in fashion#Scene but absolutely do not redirect to Hipster (contemporary subculture) or Emo. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow redirect but reprotect per Stifle.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, certainly, at least. Cannot see any rationale for !votes for protection. Inclinded to say don't protect, this is an ordinary editorial matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen Nestler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page is a well-written article about a famous court case against David Letterman, brought about by a New Mexico mentally unstable woman. Unfortunately, the article was named after the plaintiff. This led to a final outcome of 4 opinions to delete (mostly under BLP1E), 4 opinions to Keep/Rename to Colleen Nestler v. David Letterman, and 1 undecided. All opinions were well justified, and I couldn't see a clear consensus either way, but the closing admin felt there was more weight to the Delete opinions, as well as admitting his own bias. To settle this, I suggest we overturn and relist under the suggested new title. It may still fail under WP:NOT#NEWS, but the sheer amount of coverage the case received leads me to believe that once the irrelevant BLP1E issue is out of the way, there'll be overwhelming consensus to keep. Owen× ☎ 17:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How about we userfy the page so that you can change it to be about the case, and then move it to main namespace?
  talk) 11:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have no problem with that, but other than the first sentence in the article, it's already all about the court case anyway. Not much else to do beyond renaming it. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Off-wiki I think it is usual and customary to refer to court cases by the last names of the parties. Should we follow that convention (i.e., Nestler v. Letterman instead of Colleen Nestler v. David Letterman) if this article is republished? 69.143.223.157 (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point! Nestler v. Letterman should be the new name. Owen× ☎ 11:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it appropriate for restoration under any title. It's about harassment of him by someone who has some obvious problems, He is a public figure, but it is a violation of BLP with respect to her. see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4563212.stm I consider it violates not just one event, but Do no harm-- under any title. DGG (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion, basically per DGG. Having reviewed the case, it's obvious that one of the participants has some serious mental issues; and Wikipedia should not be positioning itself as a menagerie of the mentally ill just to cover some extremely marginally notable court cases.
  WP:BLP1E is the correct call here, and I endorse the actions of the closing admin unreservedly. In addition, I suggest that after being closed, this DRV discussion and the AFD discussion should be courtesy blanked for the same reason. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply
  ]
  • What about the official court documents? Should we petition to have those blanked as well? Or the hundreds of mentions of it in the press? I didn't realise we had a policy here of avoiding any mention of people with mental disabilities.

    The case became famous not because of Ms. Nestler's mental state, but because it was a glaring demonstration of the inaptitude of the existing US domestic violence restraining order mechanism. Removing it just because it offends your sense of aesthetics is like deleting the Franklin D. Roosevelt page since you find mention of disabled people offensive. Owen× ☎ 13:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • it didn't become famous really, not in the sense FDR is, just marginally notable. Discussing the ineptitude of the US administrative and judicial systems here is WP:COATRACK. As for the pdfs, they are not under our control: we do not attempt to run the world, just to run Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As
  Santa Fe New Mexican.

  As you can see, people outside of Wikipedia have raised the same bringing-a-non-public-figure-into-the-public-eye concerns that our policy tells us to address here at Wikipedia. It's debatable whether there's enough depth to the incident itself for it to be more than a 1-sentence example somewhere within another topic. How can we write an article on this without having our article become exactly the coatrack that other people's articles on this outside of Wikipedia already are? Their publications may be free to be soapboxes and to propound bias, but Wikipedia is not. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion. Wikipedia should err on the side of not having content where the is risk of harm to a living person. Re-examine when they are all dead. The data will still exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

That latter point is not correct. My comment to John was that if he wanted things taken into account, he would have to mention them explicitly in an AfD, because the closing admin is not meant to do any additional research into the article background - nothing to do with my reassessment of the AfD. I did re-review the AfD in light of John's comments, and made the change accordingly. A "no consensus" close and a "keep" close are functionally equivalent, but in this case, on review, it seems that the arguments made favoured a keep consensus. If it is inappropriate for an admin to admit a minor error, then I hope people commenting in this DRV will let me know! :) (indeed, normally, admins are chastised for not listening to the appeals of others) I see no reason for a procedural change here, as it does not impinge on the right to relist. On a separate note, I think it is difficult to ascertain who was or was not discouraged from participation. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting that you acted inappropriately Fritzpoll, however, I believe that had you had the time to review some of the claims made by John and Buspar, you would have found his arguments less persuasive. Burzmali (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse- I agree with Burzmali that this piece of legislation doesn't appear notable, and I would have voted to delete in the AFD. However, the immediate and somewhat rude "speedy keep" aside, I thought the consensus of the AFD was to keep the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The problem with that is that every !voter, except possibly DGG, appears to be aligned with one side or the other before the AFD took place. The whole point of listing the article on AFD is to bring in neutral parties to discuss the article, not to simply call in the regulars and take a headcount. Burzmali (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not sure just what you want Deletion Review to do in this case? DGG (talk) 20:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - A relist minus the drama or at least an Overturn to No Consensus so I don't look like a jerk for relisting it myself would be nice. Sorry for not making that clear, but I don't often have cause to come to DRV. Burzmali (talk) 20:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep or Strengthen to speedy keep :D Placeholder for expanded discussion soon to come. JJB 00:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Or maybe I'll save the novella. For now I note:

1. I do not believe requesting "speedy keep" is "sanctions", yet I see no other referent for the word "sanctions".
2. I must plead "not guilty" to charges of "battleground" and "drama"; since AFD is an appropriate setting to provide evidence of "unresolved content dispute" per
   WP:DEL
   , doing so is not drama.
3. I must also disagree with the characterizations "aligned", "neutral", "regulars", "headcount".
4. I do not believe "most of those [40] sources" is an accurate description of the 12 letters to editors and up to 3 blogs mentioned in the discussion; I see no other sources in these categories. JJB 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, there is no functional difference between keep and no consensus.
  talk) 11:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure, if a subject has been mentioned in 40 sources - I haven't checked their quality except cursorially - a notability-based deletion is so unlikely that a keep close is reasonable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: note that most of those sources are blogs and letters to the editor. Burzmali (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. If a new AFD on this article takes place in the near future, I'm likely to make a keep argument based on
  WP:NOTAGAIN unless some new source or other substantive reason to re-examine the consensus arises.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment – I do not think there was a true consensus; however, “No Consensus” and “Keep” are close enough that I think this issue is moot. 69.143.223.157 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I expected to see an article that needed a tremendous amount of work and an AfD that had plenty of delete voters. I saw an article with some 40 reliable and verifiable sources establishing notability and an AfD in which near-unanimous consensus was for retention. My only question is why the closing admin ever took this as a "no consensus" before changing to "keep"? Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because I wasn't careful enough - there was clearly no consensus for deletion, and I think I just had an addled moment where my brain said !consensus = no consensus. That's why on review I changed it, and why, unfortunately, we are here. I am afraid that my admitting my mistake in this matter is wasting a lot of our time here. Sorry about that Fritzpoll (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to fault yourself. Can you imagine how much more time is wasted by the admins who don't admit their mistakes? JJB 15:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Keep, but with a proviso that the article can be renominated without any prejudice in the future in the hope that this discussion can take place without the silly drama. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak endorse for now. This looks like silly drama arising from trying to push wikiedia content to being "news review". This is borderline NOTNEWS. Give it a year any try covering it with a historical perspective. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audiophonic visual isolation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Outcome swayed by votestacking - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson/Archive Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason?
  talk) 08:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I felt (possibly wrongly) that going to the closing admin didn't "fit" here. The AFDs were closed correctly at the time, and it wasn't a case of asking for a change of result (indeed I have no view on what the outcome of either AFD should be). It may be that we need to relist, it may be that we decide that notwithstanding the votestacking, the result is what might have been achieved after relisting. I just felt that a broader view was required. Mayalld (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Without the sockpuppets there is one vote to merge and one to delete. Clearly no consensus to speak of. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I agree Julien would probably have relisted without the need for AfD considering the sockpuppet investigation, any way of getting these relisted is fine. I suggest a rapid relist for all the afds involved. DGG (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is another AFD sockpuppetry case, note. Furthermore: It's not always as simple as an automatic re-list. Paul Erik's list has 139 AFD discussions, and they vary widely. In some discussions, the sockpuppetry entirely failed to achieve its objective, for example. Sometimes the closing administrator will review and confirm the decision, even in light of the new knowledge. Sometimes the closing administrator re-lists. Sometimes more eyes on the closure decision is the best course of action, and coming to Deletion Review is appropriate. And sometimes the entire discussion has been rendered moot by subsequent events. For the JamesBurns sockpuppetry, at least, case-by-case is the only way to proceed. Uncle G (talk) 03:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I meant all the potentially challengeable Afds involved. I recognize that some of the articles nominated in each of those batches were pretty hopeless in any case. DGG (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per Mgm.
  talk) 19:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist per the above discussion. 69.143.223.157 (talk) 04:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not relist. Needed better sourcing. This review appears procedural only, and I fear that "relist" will only take up more space at AfD for no actual benefit. Who is the editor interested in improving the article? Userfy/Allow re-creation if someone can bring forward reliable third party sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outcome swayed by votestacking - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrswanson/Archive Mayalld (talk) 07:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason?
  talk) 08:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Closing administrator - Even after excluding the socks, three editors agreed to deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's two instead of 3 votes left. But unless some evidence surfaces they may have missed something, I see no reason to distrust the opinion of two non-puppets. Outcome wasn't swayed. It was simply heading the same way with or without puppeting. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to log in before commenting, changing sig. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Every article potentially contaminated by the sockpuppetting should be relisted. Two delete votes alone would usually have led to a relisting for further discussion, not a delete close. DGG (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn/relist I disagree with DGG that any sockpuppet contamination mandates relisting . If that were the case trolls could prolong discussions indefinitely. Moreover, there are cases where one can reasonably see the sockpuppetry as having a negligible effect on consensus. However that's not what happened here since as DGG correctly points out we would likely have relisted this discussion due to insufficient participation were it not for the puppets. Given that, relisting is in order. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I meant any which someone actually in good faith wants to challenge, not automatically all of them. DGG (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as it was unanimous to delete.
  talk) 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. AfD ran for five days withoutany one indicating that the article was salvageable or not a hoax. If there was any reason to think that the article might survive an AfD, puppeting might be a reason to re-list, but this was an uncontested delete and no one has found anything to indicate the result won't be the same. --Clay Collier (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The article was deleted as being a probable hoax, and deleting those are among the least controversial actions we ever make on Wikipedia. Unless some evidence is provided that the content is true, I don't think there is any need to run this through another AFD again. I agree with DGG and JoshuaZ that some AFDs which have suffered due to votestacking might do with a rerun, but it is highly unlikely that this one was affected by it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Zaremba (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

You added the speedy deletion tag to the page yourself (link visible to admins only). Can you please clarify why you did this?

talk) 08:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse by deleter. In an effort to salvage the substub, I redirected the musician to the band. The author reverted adding a speedy delete request which seemed G7 to me. I asked whether s/he wanted it restored and whether s/he would provide some basic information to bring it to a stub, but the editor only wanted it restored to prove I wasn't a "bully" and wasn't inclined to add sources, so as it is, a redirect seems best or if the author still wants it deleted, that's fine too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the sequence of events:

1. I created the page
2. Someone, not me, marked the page for speedy deletion.
3. I added the hangon tag so I could contest the speedy deletion
4. Carlossuarez46 deleted the page and redirected the page to the band The Fleshtones which lacks the information about Peter Zaremba's career
5. I hit undo on the deletion, as I had added a request to hangon, which I had assumed would get me a small grace period to add more information.
6. I spent the rest of a very unpleasant evening arguing with a bully.

I have no idea why anyone would think I added the Speedy Deletion tag. I undid the re-direct.K8 fan (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Breaks down at #4. Carlossuarez redirected the page (if he'd deleted it, you couldn't restore it), instead of deleting it. You undid the redirect, which had the effect of adding a speedy deletion tag (among others), to the article.

talk) 19:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn and list at AFD. The article contained an assertion that Mr. Zaremba presents an MTV show, which is a reasonable assertion of notability, and it seems that K8 fan's readdition of the tag was unintentional.
  talk) 11:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't mind it going to Afd - if sourced basic facts aren't added it'll go; otherwise it may be redirected as a way to save it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heathian anarchism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

For GFDL purposes, I am requesting history undeletion of this article, which has been recreated after an out-of-process deletion. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, the two deleted revisions consist of a move and redirect to Spencer Heath. There is no other deleted history for the article. Nakon 02:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes Originals (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The votes do not tally up to justify deletion: including the nominator, there were 9 "delete" and 7 "merge" or "keep"; however, the "delete" comments from Mandsford and Drmies both clarified that they voted delete on all of the sub-articles but not the main article. I personally don't believe 9-7 (pro delete) is a clear consensus for delete of ANY of the articles, but I certainly don't think the 9-7 (pro keeping the main article) has any ambiguity. Majority voted to keep the main article. With due respect, I'm not sure how this was closed as deleted. I tried asking the closing admin, but (s)he has not yet responded and moved my question to their talk archive page. I believe the deletion should be overturned and these articles should be reinstated (the main one especially) or at very least relisted. Everyone who said "delete" argued on notability grounds; I personally think that each album is a separate artists' album that should be relisted and assessed for individual notability. REM or Red Hot Chili Peppers' album could be notable while Seether or PJ Harvey's may not be. It should not be an en-masse decision. TheHYPO (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I do not see consensus to delete the general article. There was consensus to delete the individual ones. DGG (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist- This actually dovetails with the previous DRV, as this is one of the ones listed here as being potentially tainted by suckpuppetry. Toss out the socks, and you might have a different decision all-together Umbralcorax (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist by default as affected by severe sockpuppetry. Also, relist as individual AfDs as the notability of these albums (and certainly not the parent article) is not inherently linked. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 20:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Black Kite and I are helping with the list of potentially affected discussions in User:Paul Erik/AfDs affected. Xe stated here that xe was the closing administrator for this discussion and xe wanted someone else to review it in light of the sockpuppetry. Uncle G (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist as closer - I would've probably closed this differently without the sock votes. Black Kite 20:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect to the important job you do, even irrespective of the sock puppet votes, and even if you missed the 2 people saying "delete all except the main aritcle", which would result in a 9-7 result in favor of deletion, I don't understand how 9-7 can be defined as a consensus to delete. 9/16 is 56%. That is certainly a "no consensus" to me. TheHYPO (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that AfD is not a vote, and very few of the Keep votes addressed the issue of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, something which I suspect many of the albums don't actually have. Black Kite 06:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy relist, then, noting that nobody objects.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist
  talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If someone makes a case for an individual one as having some potential, then it could be relisted also, but I agree not the whole batch of them. DGG (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or relist The problem of lumping widely-varying articles together in one AfD is that it can become impossible to discern the consensus opinion on different articles from parsing votes that may reference one, some or all of the articles. There appeared to have been no consensus to delete the article listed here. Alansohn (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Above Ground Sound" of Jake Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Unfortunately, since the deletion review at

• Relist, always annoying when people game the system like this. A significant number of the !votes for deletion were Socks and most of the endorsement in DRV was based on the clearcut nature of the AfD. The discovery of sockpuppetry undermines both decisions. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per above (as the closing admin). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist- the afd was obviously tainted. The end result of a new afd may well be delete, but we need a discussion free of sockpuppetry to be sure. As an aside, in looking at the investigation, I was thinking at a couple of the other of the afd's he was involved in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R&B musicians, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Game Tour and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lazys might not also be worth looking at again. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Paul Erik is doing some great work with this case and for most of the AfDs they don't even need to go via DRV. Can someone SNOW this? Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 18:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In looking at that, all I can say is wow, he was one busy little beaver wasn't he?Umbralcorax (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy relist - After ignoring the sock votes, there is no clear consensus. Relisting is the best option here. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy relist EIGHT editors in this AfD where socks of one person.
  talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy relist as an irretrievably sock-tainted discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A classic education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I've created a wikipedia page yesterday about a new important italian-canadian band called A Classic Education. Its address was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/aclassiceducation It's been deleted a few hours after its creation with the justification nn-band. I don't understand the meaning of it, but I can prove that it's a truly existing band and they're becoming famous these days, since they've played in the South By Southwest Festival in Texas, in London and they won an important italian prize as best new act. The 27 April they're going to release a single in the Uk with the Bailiwick Records label and they have also a myspace page and an official website, which were linked on my page. They've played with bands such Arcade Fire and Modest Mouse. They also have been suggested as one of the new most interesting bands to see live by some of the most visited musical blogs in the US and a lot of their live shows can be found on Youtube. The singer Jonathan also works with another famous band called Settlefish, that already have a wikipedia page on the it.wikipedia.org and have often appeared on MTV in Italy. Finally they've appeared in an article on Rolling Stone released in February 2009. Could you please help me recreate the page? I'm new to wikipedia, so please help me understand if I've made any mistake in composing the page...

Thanks, Alessandro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tosettialex (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The tag nn-band means "non notable band", which is one of the flavours of wikipedias
  in the future. I hope this clarified. In any case, since I cannot see the content of the page when it was deleted, I have no way of knowing whether this was a good speedy deletion or not and leave that to the admins. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, the article made plenty of claims as to the importance of the band (playing important gigs, press coverage, etc), so this should not have been A7ed. It may or may not pass an AFD, but it was developed enough to deserve a more thorough look by the community. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• The band hasn't released a single yet — endorse deletion. We delete plenty of band articles where they have several EPs and even sometimes an album or two. Come back when notable.
  talk) 08:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If there are claims of notability shouldn't the speedy be overturned? Hobit (talk) 00:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A question of process versus practicality and the main example in
      WP:SNOW. If the assessment is that there isn't a snowballs chance it will survive AfD, overturning might be a waste of time. In that case, IAR and let it rest in peace. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn I don't know if the article was sourced, but I see a claim of notability that is supported by sources: "Definitely file them under ‘Bands to Watch’", "their debut EP from last year"/tour dates. --J^mundo 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical definition of God (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I've just rediscovered this. Not only were the arguments that sources exist not refuted, but not a single editor noticed the addition of such sources on the 7th. Indeed, I was the only editor to even participate in the discussion after the 6th. This discussion should be revisited, I think. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist with ability to see original article. I'd have to imagine that this would be a very viable article. —
   ?  16:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist Delete closes without any reason given imply it was a vote. It's not.
  talk) 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Could the article in question be made visible to non-admins, please?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, since it hasn't been made visible and I'm about to go to bed, I'll explain the reason for my request in the hope that it appears overnight.

  Wikipedia already has a ridiculously large number of articles about the Biblical God at various levels of abstraction, ranging from

  God the son (separate articles). There's Bible, which has about five million sub-articles from all different perspectives and I can't be bothered to track down and list all of the ones that could be relevant here.

  My point is, I think that in view of the absolutely bewildering complexity of Wikipedia's existing coverage of this subject, the very last thing we need is another separate article, so I'd like to see this particular one in order to understand what it says that couldn't possibly fit into one of the plethora of God-related articles we already have.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]
  • I have restored the article for reference during the DRV, per Uncle G's request at
    WP:AN. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thank you!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In-universe plot details --NE2 02:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, if that's the way that you want to address it, you should also bear in mind that the Bible is one of those books where the plot has been analysed many times over, by multiple reliable sources, in a great deal of detail. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I didn't actually give an opinion on whether it should exist; I'm just being a silly sausage. --NE2 13:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the selectivity here is indicative of the POV of the author. God' gender is tackled by a discussion of the lack of a neuter gender in Hebrew language. Why should we assume that had Hebrew had a neuter, it would have been used for God. No discussion there of how God the Father isn't God the Mother; how the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, rather than was impregnated by Joseph (he, not her, was of the House of David, after all), and of course Jesus's obvious masculinity. This is an abomination of an article posing as scholarship that is basically a selection of observations meant to push some POV that remains obscure. We have the other articles as pointed out by S Marshall that don't suffer anywhere near the degree of crap-ness that this one does. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an AFD; bolded comments should be in the form of Keep deleted, endorse deletion, overturn deletion, etc.
    talk) 08:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • God's gender is tackled that way because that's how Rifat Sonsino and Donald E. Gowan tackle it. (You're more than welcome to read the cited sources and see that it is so. You even have the exact page numbers to look at.) The only "selection" here is a natural one: This wasn't an article that was the result of years of work by multiple editors. It's what one editor was capable of coming up with in only two days. Could you find all of the sources on this subject in two days? Has it occurred to you that the fact that you cannot figure out what POV is being pushed is far more likely to be because the article post-rescue, unlike the pre-rescue version, doesn't push any POV and is simply based upon what available scholarship could be dug up in just 2 days? Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Stifle: this isn't a vote, so it's our comments that matter rather than their precise format. And keep deleted seems inapropos given that someone has restored the article, whereas delete conveys the message much more clearly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Endorse As has been pointed out here and in the AfD, we already cover the topic in various ways elsewhere. As also pointed out, there is no 'The Bible'. The addition of sources does not, I think, in any way help the argument to keep the article. (Am I alone in strongly disliking the use of a recent publication date, in this case 2004, for a reprint of an old book, in this case - the Evans book - actually first published in about 1912? Is there any guidance about this and if so, where, and if not, where should it be? I find this sort of thing confusing and potentially very misleading). As DGG said in the original discussion, "The nature of God is discussed very fully from every notable point of view in various articles.".
  talk) 07:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This is not an AFD; bolded comments should be in the form of Keep deleted, endorse deletion, overturn deletion, etc.
    talk) 08:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • You can blame Google Books for that confusion. That's the publication date that it gives. Check it out for yourself. Uncle G (talk) 10:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. As often seems to happen, people commenting early in the process missed significant changes to the article that happened closer to the close of AfD. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, strictly to follow procedure, this deletion should clearly be overturned. Uncle G substantially revised the article in a way that would have had a major impact on the debate, but owing to the timings involved and the fact that nobody commented after Uncle G's revision apart from the closer, the revision wasn't taken into account.

  Having said that, I reason that the purpose of AfD is to decide whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia. It follows that the only possible purpose of a DRV is to change this title from a redlink to a bluelink, and my view is very clearly that this title should be a redlink. Wikipedia already has more than enough articles about God and the more separate articles on one topic we add, the harder it is for an encyclopaedia browser to find the information they require; and, also, the easier it is for an editor with an agenda to create POV forking.

  I don't intend to prevent Uncle G from add his well-sourced material to one of the many articles we already have, perhaps as a subsection of God in Abrahamic religions, but I do feel that this title should not contain yet another view of God on Wikipedia.

  Therefore: Endorse deletion despite the substantial problems with the original debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn It's still not a good article, but it's a start. Even as a summary, it's really just a beginning --as I am sure uncleG well knows. At the very least, the "Biblical" description of God needs to at least mention some of the differences between the Old and New Testament. The present state seems a non-denominational synthesis, and that's not the only viewpoint--I'm not even sure its the best viewpoint to start with for even the most basic article. (I think the only reasonable accurate way to write a short article is as a quick sketch of the changing concepts: It's a long way from Genesis to Paul.) But there's no reason not to develop it. DGG (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The early returns do not reflect the current state of the article which makes a credible case for its retention. A new AfD in the future might be justified if the article does not proceed from here, but I believe that the article as it stands now post-expansion meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• These words are bold! I agree with S Marshall. The fact that nobody commented after the revisions were made doesn't necessarily mean they didn't see them. I endorse the afd result, but I'll be ok with a relist if that's the consensus here. --Kbdank71 13:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete per S Marshall.
  talk) 14:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Deletion in agreement with the above. Eusebeus (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Nominator makes a compelling argument. The article changed substantially during the process and the presence of good sources was not responded to in the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]