Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< July 2009 Deletion review archives September 2009 >

31 August 2009

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

The discussion was closed and the article was deleted because the deleter,

talk) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

30 August 2009

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

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

  • Have you discussed this with the deleting admin? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I tried that first. S/he told me to go here - without any further discussion. Efactor1975 (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You sure? I don't see it in your contribs. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, you didn't. You contact Tnxman, who was not the closer of the most recent AfD, and were told to go to DRV by a completely different user. Furthermore, your first edit was to try and reverse the result with an AfD, so I would like to know what has captured your interest with Ms Palmer. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Likely another one in a long army of
            single-purpose accounts. MuZemike 17:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 August 2009

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

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

According to
WP:Music#Albums
if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. This album is permitted to have an album page.
The album page (and subsequently the cover image) were deleted after sockpuppet Afd and votestacking (see SP case for User:MarkChase). In an attempt to save the album article, it was merged with the author's page. But the same editor who has been targeting the removal of all the other Nox Arcana albums, made a second attempt to Afd this album after it was already agreed to keep but merge with the author page.
After the deletion of the album page, I worked with admin SilkTork to bring the album up to standards, and it was agreed to keep and merge (see my talk page.
Then Chzz nominated the cover itself for Afd, claiming it to be a copyvio because it is NOT on a separate album article.
It would be more organized and correct to reinstate the album article itself, so that the album cover would not be in copyvio and so that the edit war that previously ensued over the vocalist's/book author's article would cease to spill over into other articles. Likewise, because it is a collaboration of the subjects of two separate articles, it just makes more sense to have a separate entry, which can be easily referenced by the other two articles.
Example of a cross-collaborative article:
The Talisman a book written by two different authors, Peter Straub and Stephen King
.
In this case, I would like to see this album Blood of Angels, which is written by Nox Arcana and Michelle Belanger, be reinstated on its own article page. Note: currently Blood of Angels redirects to Michelle Belanger Ebonyskye (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This DRV links to neither a file nor an article. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Can you clarify what you are asking for? As far as I can see there's no procedural problem with the AfD closure; I checked the SPI report but can't see votestacking in the AfD on which the FfD closure depends. Are you saying that (1) the AfD was incorrectly closed; (2) new
    talk) 01:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Blood of Angels The article: I was the person who closed the AfD on the article. I've looked back at that, and I'm comfortable with my close. The article did not meet Wikipedia notability criteria. I offered to userfy the article on request, and when requested I did that. I also userfied the Michelle Belanger article (which did not exist at the time of the closure of the Blood of Angels AfD - see how complicated this all is!), and worked on that to bring it to standard. While doing this I felt it was appropriate to use some of the material from the Blood of Angels article in User:Ebonyskye/Michelle Belanger. I then restored that to mainspace and offered it for a second AfD which was closed with no consensus to delete. So this was not reversing the close or doing anything improper - it was a progressive development, designed to build the encyclopedia in the most appropriate way, and the material from Blood of Angels was presented in Michelle Belanger to the community for consideration. I have worked closely with the editors working on those articles, including clarifying and updating an ArbCom decision on two of the editors working on these and related articles when I discovered hidden in a talkpage history that one of the editors had been topic banned (this has just got deeper and deeper!). After monitoring the progress of the userfied Blood of Angels at User:Ebonyskye/Blood of Angels, and noting that no progress had been made, I deleted it. My mistake in this is that as the article and userification were both now deleted I should have merged the histories, and did not do that - I'm glad to see that someone has picked that up and done the history merge. I see no issue with the Blood of Angels AfD close or subsequent actions, apart from the failure to merge the histories. Endorse my close.
Wikipedia:CSD_F7#F7 as none of the criteria there apply. I assume Gwen thought that "Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag (such as a {{Non-free logo}} tag on a photograph of a mascot) may be deleted immediately." applied - but it clearly does not, as the fair-use tag was appropriate - it had an album cover fur linked to the Michelle Belanger article. It's a clear mistake. The AfD has not run the full course, so my suggestion is undelete and relist. And it might be appropriate to reopen the DRV on the image, as that is an entirely separate issue to this one on the Blood of Angels article. Phew! I wrote a bunch there! Will this Blood of Angels never end? SilkTork *YES! 22:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, I meant FfD - I have amended. SilkTork *YES! 06:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I stand by the CSD F7 close (invalid fair use claim), I'd say the thing to do here is begin a new AfD on Blood of Angels (yes, that would mean restoring the article). Editors should keep in mind that although with album and bookcovers, the outcome of policy is that wontedly, non-free images only wind up in stand-alone articles, that's not the policy and can't be cited. The snag here has been that sourced critical commentary (which is to say, crit/reviews) on Blood of Angels has been ever lacking and without that, the non-free cover image isn't fair use. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is equally misleading. Whilst it is true to say that there is no actual policy which says that a non-free image cannot be used in an artist's article, there is
WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Since in very few cases would an album cover significantly increase the reader's understanding of the article - which is the artist, remember, not the album - then they nearly always fail this criteria. Regardless of whether the FFD had ended up Keep or Delete, that would still have been the case. Black Kite 11:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You're citing the root rules here, not the CSD criteria I cited and yes, things can get misleading if one isn't careful. With sourced critical commentary in the text, a low-res, non-free image could likely enhance understanding in a meaningful way and be fair use. Without sourced critical commentary in the text, I'd say reaching a threshlold that cover art could otherwise "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" would be even more daunting. This, again, is why the wonted outcome of the policy is, non-free cover art won't often make it into an article which isn't about the work itself. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I mis-indented there - my "misleading" comment was meant to be in reply to the original comments about the FFD. But you're right, anyway :) Black Kite 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I thought it may not have been indented as you meant it to be, but then thought it was worth speaking to anyway :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse both – proper determination of a consensus for deletion by the closing admin in the AFD. This is not AFD round 2. Ebonyskye, a few words of advice: if you're going to argue keeping an article, please don't do so by launching ad hominem attacks at the opposition. All that does is piss off other editors and degenerate the entire discussion into a shoutfest. MuZemike 19:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean. I've attacked no one. I simply pointed out that the first Afd of the Michelle Belanger article was populated by socks (which I only became aware of after the fact), but then it effected the album article, and that's when I was notified.
Consistency and Band's Notability: I think that instead of considering the band's notability and the consistency of the discography, some of the opponents were only looking at the earlier sockpuppetry that had taken place on the Michelle Belanger page. I do not believe they were taking into consideration the added sources, the band's notability, or the disruption that pulling out the 6th album from an 11 album discography would cause. The album is unique in that it's a collaboration, and the best way to reference a collaboration between two different authors/artists is to reference that album on its own page. SilkTork and I worked to bring the album portion up to acceptable standards then merge it. But then Chzz took issue with the album cover (and has targeted other albums by the same band for deletion, making it 5 Afd's in all against Nox Arcana and their albums). It never made sense to merge the album with the author page in the first place, but I had no other choice. The cover can't stay unless the album has its own article, yet Chzz removed the article. And yet, the same excuses for removal of this album are being used to keep two other album articles by other less notable bands (see my talk below). It's a double standard. It is important to look at the BIG Picture.
This is what I posted earlier on Gwen Gales's talk page: Other Stuff Exists to provide for consistency in terms of keeping a consistant and well-organized discography. The discography has been in place for several years, since 2005 I think, with new additions being added as they are released. Until now, this was not a problem. Not, until one editor who is a sockpuppet decided to attack the Michelle Belanger article. However, this falls on deaf ears. To make my point, I proded two albums recently, and the prods were removed 1 and 2, both editors claiming that the band was notable. So, if this rationale is accepted for band x and y albums, then why not in this case? Nox Arcana, is clearly notable. In fact, moreso than the ones just de-proded. Nox Arcana is sold in many countries and reached #8 on Billboard (as opposed to the other bands, one of which never charted and the other only as high as #22). Also, unlike those bands, Nox Arcana is still together and still recording albums band news. To provide consistency and organization, I propose the re-creation of the Blood of Angels album article stub (sans the re-redirect). Ebonyskye (talk) 01:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other Afd talks to reference: I would like to point out that, so far, the consensus is to KEEP 2 other Nox Arcana albums that Chzz also nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackthorn Asylum, including re-listing Afd for the band's 2nd album Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Necronomicon (album). The majority of votes for KEEP reference the notability of the band and agree the album has received coverage. I say ditto for the Blood of Angels album. I am now working on making the Michelle Belanger article (originally started as an author's page) look more like a bio article and clean it up some. I have also updated the album article, but obviously I can't yet post that. Ebonyskye (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every work produced by a notable artist is itself notable, even if we do not question the notability of the artist. It's not like an artist, upon once gaining fame, has the midas touch. That other album articles have been or are being kept is completely irrelevant and of no interest here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletions. In all the discussion, I haven't found anything to demonstrate that the deletion process was not properly followed. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blood-of-Angels.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

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

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

28 August 2009

  • Dr. Steel (album) – Deletion endorsed. The related article, Doctor Steel, is at AFD, and I am not minded to interfere with that AFD. – Stifle (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Dr. Steel (album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore
)

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

  • I'm currently seeking confirmation on this... I'm not entirely certain. (Before my time.) But you may be correct. I know it was re-released as MP3s, but not 100% sure about it's initial release. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I reversed the edit I did there until I get confirmation on it, one way or the other. (However, it might be notable that this album and the two that followed are the only ones currently available, the others are out of print, nor are they available digitally...) Shouldn't take long; Doctor Steel is usually very fast at responding. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer received: Apparently the first three albums were released (and currently in re-release) as digital albums. (Dr. Steel prefers to work in the digital paradigm.) The fourth and fifth albums were compilations with extra tracks and remixes, and were released in CD form, but have since sold out and have not (as yet) been re-released. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not too overly surprised by this. Doctor Steel is clearly outside the mass media traditions; he has said on several occasions that he prefers to work in the digital realm. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can somebody please tell me why we have an article at Doctor Steel despite numerous deletions and endorsements at many different titles? It was protected-deleted, so how did it arrive? Logs here. I note that it is sources form blogs, the subject's website, the subject's MySpace and the subject's YouTube channel. I don't see any evidence of non-trivial independent sources, I do see evidence of viral marketing and "Operation Wikipedia". Guy (Help!) 19:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the page history correctly, it was at
talk) 23:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • conflict of interest have been added to mainspace in the course of this deletion review. A fixed version may be returned to mainspace at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hickory Springs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore
)

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

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

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

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

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

  • You can rest assured that the closing administrator will weigh this decision on the strength of the arguments and not the numerical tally. IP addresses are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia if they wish. And I think you would be well-advised not to threaten to disrupt Wikipedia in order to make a point; this will not help you.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it was so, then why the closing administrator earlier seeked for a consensus, when it is proved and argued that the article is not notable. It is simply a polic officer's job as usually there is, in all cities of the world. --LineofWisdom (talk) 11:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was certainly asserted that the article is not notable. It was not, however, proved. Further, the discussion was severely tainted. There was sockpuppetry; a user took it upon themselves to strike out an administrator's good faith opinion; and there were a sequence of remarks entitled "note to admin", which is a red flag for bad faith; good faith users in a debate talk to each other in an attempt to reach consensus. Talking to the closing admin in an attempt to have other users' opinions disregarded is not a collaborative, consensus-based approach to debate, which is why experienced Wikipedians never resort to this.

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

  • Agreed. An occasional "note to admin" on a procedural matter is perfectly acceptable. Using them to make arguments is not. Nonetheless, I'm still not persuaded that the closer clearly erred in deciding that the sock-free part of the discussion is sufficient to permit a merits closure, or that the closer clearly erred in assessing that part of the discussion. So, even though I would have probably voided this whole AfD, I am still of the opinion that the closure should be endorsed.
    talk) 13:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I've just remarked on these "note to admin" comments. Further, you are making an
    logical fallacy. Please stop this silliness; it's unhelpful. We expect debate participants to talk to each other in a collegial manner like normal human beings, and make good-faith efforts to seek a policy-based consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I am thankful for your comments S Marshall. They are really useful. To Mr. (talk, I would suggest to take part in debate, in favour of keeping or in suggestion of deleting, rather remarking something about user's faith. It, inny case, wouldn't make a notable into non-notable. Warm Regards, LineofWisdom (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. What is funny is that the socker voted on both sides. The closer was rightfully confused about the result. With that said, no prejudice against renomination. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Proper close as no consensus. Relist it if you like. And a gentle reminder that AFD and DRV are discussions. They are not votes. The side with the most comments doesn't automatically win. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep Sufficient evidence that it was a bad faith nomination initially--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dil Jan Khan (1), and the deletion review on it. Constant use of denigrating terms about the person, at the AfD and here also. Two major positions, both quite notable, and thus no apparent basis for the nomination in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 August 2009

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

An article was recently

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

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

talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Wow, if you guys can't even get something as straightforward as this right, then the deletion review process is officially worthless. Looks like I'll just have to nominate the article for deletion again until the "consensus changes" to the right decision. Nice work everybody. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not
talk) 12:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not trying to "make a point". I'm trying to get rid of an article that doesn't belong. And after a reasonable amount of time passes, I have every right to renominate the article for deletion, which is exactly what I plan on doing. The user who recreated it is the one being disruptive, and the Administration's inability to recognize this and take the correct action is mind-boggling. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disillusion yourself of the notion that there is an all-powerful "administration" that can make these decisions. We read and enact community consensus - unless you can show that I misread the consensus at the AfD, there isn't anything we can do. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that User:Small Victory has overlooked a key point; if the topic of an article is legit, the article will be kept even if the article is biased or riddled with errors. In this case, nobody can deny that there has been continuous African gene flow into Europe. An article on Australian Aboriginal admixture into Africa would be deleted. If the article is full of errors, fix it. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's been gene flow from Africa to everywhere in the world, so there's nothing notable about the gene flow to Europe. Furthermore, that's not the same thing as "African admixture". The field of population genetics is now at a point where admixture can be accurately quantified, and the studies doing so have found no more than a drop of African admixture in Europeans. Certainly not enough to justify a whole article on the subject, which is in large part why the previous article was deleted and merged (in shorter form) into Genetic history of Europe. It seems you've already come around to this way of thinking. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Andrew Lancaster, in a effort to resolve the edit war between Small Victory and others has moved content to the page in question from Genetic History of Europe. I think this improves the Genetic History of Europe. Therefore the reasons for keeping the page is greater than ever, Andrew is currently working on improving the page, and when I get some time I will help this process along.
  • As for small victory's Claim - The timeline for initial spread from Africa is currently between 70 and 135kya (Considering recent datings from Skhul cave, Israel), in this context there is notable contribution in the more recent time from (since human occupation Europe extends from 40kya in eastern Europe to 32 kya in western Europe) the introduction of genetic markers from North and Northwestern Africa is evident into the post settlement population, and not just from other areas of asia and information supporting that is presented on the page. Ergo, Small Victory is trying to engage in information suppression effort. The reason I voted for the deletion of the Sub-saharan admixture in Europe and for the African admixture page is that there is no strong evidence in support of the former page (other than what is known in the historic period), however there is strong evidence for support of the currently named page from the prehistoric period. While this may be a technical distinction, because historic documents suggest a displacement of negroid Africans from NW Africa prior to the 12th century, therefore by our standard of what is Subsaharan there may have been genetic contribution from the region, however technically once a person is born in North Africa, then any contribution to elsewhere would be consequence of North African ancestry.PB666 yap
  • As for Small Victory there has been both alert and incident reports filed against by two different individuals. I think if you read this and his talk page, you have more than enough information to make a decision.PB666 yap
  • My opinion here is that Small Victory's constant edit warring and deleting of material is highly disruptive, particular with regard to the genetic history of Europe page. I desire that this page should be improved and the editing climate of that page needs to improve for this to happen, this will not occur if the two sections that were on the page remain, since no matter how much effort was made, we cannot draw Small Victory into a consensus. The problem has been that people have been doing full revert jumps to edits that basic reverse several peoples edits, causeing other edits to the page to be lost. If this warring will end effort will be made to clean-up unnecessary material on the page, and there may actually be a mature and concensus oriented discussion of what material should be on the page. As I said in previous WP boards, I fell sorry for you guys, you will eventually block SV just as you have blocked SOPHIAN, however don't be surprised at all if sockpuppets appear.PB666 yap 15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 August 2009

  • overcategorization). Categories have little recourse once deleted, and extra care should therefore be taken. – IronGargoyle (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Also included are:

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

The nom's rationale for deletion was

WP:USELESS, "not needed" is considered to be a bad argument for deletion. Shaliya waya (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • There is really no reason for you to announce this on every DRV.
    talk) 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, he can certainly make his point. Eventually, however, making his point does or will become making his
    talk) 12:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
that's not the argument; the argument i that the amount of material present in the category and its subcategories was sufficient, as contrasted to the delete argument that because almost all the material was in the subcategories there was no need for the parent category. Deleting a parent category because we have subcategories is not rational. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it's "overturn this because this is a parent category"? If so, still endorse. Or am I missing something? --Kbdank71 20:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is simply untrue to say that the argument against the category was "not needed". As was pointed out to you when you falsely claimed it during the CFDs, and has been pointed out again here, the arguments against the category were
    talk) 13:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Process aside, onto the substance. These categories were not deleted under the pretext of IDONTLIKEIT, USELESS, or any other spurious dictum. They were deleted as a result of the sound policy arguments based on
WP:OC#SMALL
. It is disingenuous to characterise the nomination as being grounded in nothing more than a vague sentiment of 'not needed'. These were only some of a long, long line of eponymous categories which have been deleted over the years (list available on application), all according to the guidelines in force and the broad consensus of editors.
If you don't like
WP:OCAT
then get involved and try and get consensus to change it. CFD discussions are closed according to policy and consensus. If you have a problem with the policy, then that is where you ought to be, not creating more heat than light here.
Xdamrtalk 13:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather "bad form" to close an XfD with nothing more than the single word "Delete" as a justification. A far more detailed explanation is necessary when there is an unclear consensus and especially where actual consensus is for retention as was the case here. Leaving editors trying to read the mind of the closing admin to figure out why consensus is being ignored is "bad form" at its most egregious. We are all familiar with
WP:OCAT then get involved and try and get consensus to change it". How about if consensus was respected at CfD and we stop relying on your arbitrary interpretation of policy in disagreement with consensus. Playing by your own rules will be an effective means to earn respect for your closes rather than appearing as supervotes over and over again. Realizing that "no consensus" is a valid option and using it where appropriate here, would also add credibility to these closes. Alansohn (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Much as I might like to believe otherwise, I am not infallible; in this case I am happy to concede that it would have been desirable to add a justification to my closure, but you will excuse me if I am vaguely incredulous at the idea of a situation where all and sundry are trying to "read the mind of the closing admin", noone thinks it remotely worthwhile to approach him and ask him for clarification.
I also do not recognise your characterisation of my position - I did not state that "XfD 2 must be closed as delete because a vaguely similar XfD 1 did before". Consensus, as informed by policy, was in favour of these closures - perhaps that is not what you wished consensus to be, but it was consensus nonetheless. Per
accepted guidelines
. This is exactly what was done.
Xdamrtalk 17:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are all familiar with
WP:OCAT and none of those voting Keep deemed it an issue to justify deletion. So what? Should the closing admin have ignored the only arguments based in WP guidelines because those who favored the category decide they aren't "an issue"? Of the people suggesting the category be kept, only one, Debresser, addressed the proffered reasons for deletion, and he only addressed EPONYMOUS and not SMALL. He also acknowledged
that EPONYMOUS cautions against creating such categories. So even if we accept arguendo that EPONYMOUS is fully refuted and rejected here (which it clearly is not), that still leaves SMALL unanswered. Most of those advocating for the categories simply failed to respond to the substance of the nomination, choosing instead to focus on the words "not needed" and misrepresent "not needed" as the sole argument being made for deletion.
The fact that there is a "long, long line of eponymous categories which have been deleted over the years", built by arguing that XfD 2 must be closed as delete because a vaguely similar XfD 1 did before only shows that consensus is changing. Um...what? Small eponymous categories continue to be deleted and this continued deletion means that the general consensus against small eponymous categories is changing? Even your ally in the discussions, Debresser, acknowledges that EPONYMOUS remains valid consensus and indeed !voted to delete several eponymous categories that were nominated at the same time as these (for Mopreme Shakur, Young Noble and from the above list Immortal Technique). Recent deletions include eponymous categories for the band Libido (
talk) 21:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
A category with large subcategories is not small, as has been pointed out repeatedly. It is easy to find categories with no articles, only subcats, that no-one would argue about deleting, eg
talk) 23:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Show me the discussion which established consensus that articles in a sub-cat are considered to be directly in the parent cat. I recall no such discussion and any number of musician, actor and other eponymous categories have been deleted with discussion that acknowledges that it holds sub-categories. There has never been consensus that having songs and albums sub-cats establishes the necessity of an eponymous category. Comparing Ja Rule to
talk) 00:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem here could not have been better stated than "As User:DGG has said above the closing admin 'gets to judge consensus, and throw out arguments not based on policy' - my conclusion at the end of the debate was that the reasoning for the 'Keep' side was both flawed and not widely enough supported to rebut the case made for deletion and to depart from the accepted guidelines. This is exactly what was done." Several active editors, fully knowledgeable of Wikipedia policy and guidelines in regard to categories -- including
WP:OCAT and all its variations -- reviewed the categories under discussion and reached a consensus to keep most of the categories being considered. You cast your vote and deemed all those in disagreement with your personal bias in interpreting Wikipedia policy in regard to categories to be "both flawed and not widely enough supported" and therefore discarded as worthless. Most other admins only claim to give some unspecified lesser weight to votes they disagree with. At least you are willing to say flat out that you are actively throwing out in their entirety those arguments in conflict with your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Consensus needs to be determined by the participants, not by the vote of the closing admin, with adequate respect for the possibility that "no consensus" was reached, which seems to be the far more reasonable interpretation of consensus here than "delete". That there is such rampant disrespect for consensus and disregard for the considered opinions of those who dare to differ with a closing admin's personal biases is what is the cause for so much of why CfD is so utterly dysfunctional. Alansohn (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Nonsense - I repeat, my conclusion at the end of the debate was that the reasoning for the 'Keep' side was both flawed and not widely enough supported to rebut the case made for deletion and to depart from the accepted guidelines. Other than your own reasoned arguments, the 'Keep' side was consistently represented by one other editor, the substance of whose contribution was to repeatedly state that ""Not needed" is not a valid reason for deletion." The assertion that the categories were 'not needed' was not the basis of the argument to delete, therefore the argument was flawed. Other than this there was a second editor, who supported retention for some of that day's nominated eponymous categories, and supported deletion for others. In each of the cases where he supported deletion, he accepted the basis of the
WP:OCAT
, was in each case supported by a further 3 to 4 editors, I do not see these debates represent the sea-change in consensus which you hold them out to be.
Xdamrtalk 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It helps for all admins to be familiar with
WP:CCC, which states that "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, 'according to consensus' and 'violates consensus' are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action." Appropriate respect for actual consensus, rather than casting a supervote, will go a long way. Alansohn (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that I'm probably old enough and ugly enough to be aware of
WP:OCAT? --Xdamrtalk 01:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Overturn all to no consensus keep as there was no consensus (either in votes or arguments) that I can perceive.
    talk) 19:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. There was no consensus to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion And I suggest we find some solution in DR for Otto and Alans because we can't really sustain a DRV every week or so which is just another dispute about over/under categorization between the two editors. I'm close to taking Stifle's option. CfD has serious problems not least of which are a relatively high DRV nomination rate. Protonk (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I did not start this DRV or anything but a small fraction of the Deletion Reviews related to CfD. Any explanation for closing the previous DRV of Alan Roger Currie, while dealing with the "adminbacklog" issue by casting a vote almost four days after the previous one cast here. Why not just close both rather than pick and choose differing roles to play in two DRVs from the same day? Any explanation for the inconsistency would be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because I didn't have a strong opinion about the article under discussion below and consensus (or lack thereof) seemed easy enough to suss out. Here I have an opinion and so I voiced it rather than close the debate. I'm sorry if that offends you in some way. You may petition to have my pay reduced if you like. Protonk (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not even going to comment on the "it's the Otto vs Alansohn show" aspect of the above because it's not worth dignifying. I will comment on the "CFD is broken because of all the DRVs it generates" business. I'm not going to do the actual math but in eyeballing the last month's worth of CFD pages it appears to average about 20 or so CFDs per day. Looking back over the same timeframe at DRV, I see a grand total of four CFDs filed. Four out of approximately 600, or 0.67% of CFDs resulted in DRVs. This hardly rises to the level of damage and destruction implied by either you or Stifle. If the process is broken, it's broken at the level of allowing DRVs to go forward when the nominator has made no attempt to resolve the issue with the closer, as instructed in two different places.
    talk) 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The issue that brings CfD closures to DRV has nothing to do with over/undercategorization and everything to do with how consensus is interpreted by closing admins. For once I'd love to see admins closing based on the consensus of the individuals participating in the CfD, or the lack thereof, and not by casting a supervote that overrides all contradictory opinions, which are summarily tossed into the trash heap. Admins who are unable to separate their own voting biases from their responsibilities as an admin shouldn't be closing anything. My simple rule for these XfDs is that if another closing admin could reasonably come along and close the decision in the opposite direction (perhaps by tossing out the exact same votes the first admin wants to rely upon and accepting the votes that would have been been tossed out), then what we have is a "no consensus". A little bit more intellectual rigor in accepting this possibility will lead to fewer CfDs being taken to DRV. Alansohn (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More whining about CFDs that close against your personal opinion, disregarding the good faith comments from other editors.
    talk) 23:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Alan Roger Currie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

  • overturn- closer ignored the sourced provided in the article establishing notability when making their close. The consensus was for keep, and the sources provided backed up the consensus. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that was a good AfD, containing plenty of critical analysis of the sources, and there was a lot to review. Marc Kupper's discussion of the sources was both thorough and helpful. I agree that the debate genuinely failed to reach consensus, so I'll run with overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus There wasn't any. At the previous Deletion Review, I said there was enough new material to relist. The revised article was stronger, and the AfD after relisting certainly had much more reasonable keep arguments than the first one did. I did not comment in it because I cannot myself decide whether I think him notable. I think it's plain the community could not decide either. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus Not a clear cut case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I think the consensus was clear enough. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the first afd should have been clear enough. it was recreated and deleted again. the third party sources are weak and not widespread. the original afd voters barely returned for the second afd, and the original drv voters probably won't return for this one. critical examination of the sources shows trivial coverage at best. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erb? Other than the unsupported statement (by you or in the AfD) that "critical examination of the sources shows trivial coverage at best" none of that is policy-based reason to delete. We aren't required or expected to notify previous participants about AfDs or DrVs. In any case, the AfD concluded that of the 11 sources, 8 were trivial or not reliable and 3 were acceptable for purposes of WP:N. Hobit (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There's no indication of procedural error. As to the substantive issues, while it would have been well within the closer's discretion to close this as a no consensus, I don't think it's clear error to close as a delete, either.
    talk) 13:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
if it's equally balanced between a delete and no-consensus, we can not say there is consensus to delete. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that you meant that, when closing, if the closing admin finds, after assessing the various arguments, xe's on the fence between a delete close and a no consensus close, xe should close as no consensus. Fair enough, and I agree. But here obviously the closer didn't think so, and I cannot bring myself to say that xe
talk) 16:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Endorse - multiple AFDs have stated there's not enough consensus that he's notable, and I don't understand why we're going around and around and around on an article that's pretty much promotional, for pete's sake. Ridiculous. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I brought this here is that I object to the deletion of an article that clearly meets WP:N and where the discussion didn't show enough support for deletion to IAR. We've had admins delete articles (correctly IMO) against !vote consensus because sources don't exist. I don't see how we delete an article that does meet WP:N without clear consensus to do so. The only person who walked though every source in detail (and tossed out 8 of the 11) !voted to keep... Hobit (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My opinion is that the subject is trying to use Wikipedia as a publicity tool, and that the creator here is involved with the subject in some way. The articles were promotional, and my view of the references were that they were either in passing or promotional. The close was appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus – I think the arguments for retention here were as valid and possibly outweighed the arguments for deletion in this case and showed more explicitly why the article should have been kept. MuZemike 16:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COI Comment if anyone is curious as to why Chicago Smooth is so interested in this article, you might want to read this [[4]]. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • response to Theserialcomma - Contrary to what's being implied above by both Theserialcomma and earlier Davidwiz, I'm not an employee of Alan Roger Currie, Mode One Book Publishing, ScreenTime Films, Miller Genuine Draft Beer or Zane's Strebor Books. Anyone interested in further discussion of this can go to Chicago Smooth's Talk Page. Chicago Smooth (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment you've added alan roger currie's name to gary, indiana, indiana university, List of Kappa Alpha Psi brothers, and miller light comedy search even creating that article just to add his name. you are clearly here to promote this person. stop pretending otherwise. you've gotten these other editors to rally behind keeping this article which was deleted once, you immediately recreated it, and keep lying by saying i told you to do so, when i actually told you to USERFY it and WAITuntil it's notable. instead, you just recreated it within 24 hours, and then it was deleted again. this is a waste of everyone's time, and you are abusing wikipedia for promotional purposes. this Currie guy has TRIVIAL degrees of notability at best. the independent coverage is a joke, the reliable sources are not widespread or in depth, just trivial and self promoting. the one article that supposedly was evidence of his notability was just a self promotion, probably written by him. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • response - You're becoming a wee bit "emotional" over all this, aren't you Theserialcomma? My response will be over at my talk page. Too funny. Chicago Smooth (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i forgot another currie article you tried to add: Mode One, which was already deleted.
Administrators and other editors need to realize: This person, Theserialcomma, is out of control. Now, he or she is going around challenging every article I've started. This is not objective on his/her part, this is "personal." Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's not personal. i do think you're a COI user who is adding promotional content that lacks notability, but i'm not trying to delete them because of you specifically, but because i don't think they meet the requirements of wikipedia. i welcome other users' input. e.g. Tim Alexander (filmmaker) is another article you created. oh, what a surprise, there is a direct link between tim alexander and alan roger currie. coincidence! and what another coincidence, you create [[Tim Alexander (filmmaker) and 53 minutes later, a SPA comes in and starts editing it [[5]]. This unknown, unnotable person whom Alan Roger Currie is affiliated with gets his own article from you, and within minutes a new editor is working on the article? Very nice. Off-wiki collusion or sockpuppetry? we only need to go to the original AFD for alan roger currie to see what kind of meatpuppetry tricks you are up to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie Theserialcomma (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has gone beyond ridiculous Theserialcomma. You are single-handedly making a mockery out of the entire deletion and deletion review process. At this point, I'm not even sure someone of Mr. Currie's caliber would even want their name associated with a site that allows editors such as yourself to delete their articles on a whim. This is a joke. And if you're going to be searching for connections between Mr. Currie and other notable African-Americans, that would be extremely silly. Do you know how many "notable" types this man has interacted with in his career? Let me see. Gene Hackman, Damon Wayans, Bernie Mac, Robin Harris, Jay Leno, Oprah Winfrey, Hill Harper, Michael Jordan, Nina Hartley, Tavis Smiley, D. L. Hughley, Jimmy Jean-Louis, Tyler Collins, Sheryl Underwood, Adele Givens, Walt "Baby" Love, Quincy Jones and Phil Donahue. Do I need to list others? Many celebrities know this guy. Mr. Currie worked in Hollywood, CA for six or seven years in the 90s. This guy has been an actor, stand-up comic, screenwriter, and now book author and dating expert. OF COURSE he's going to have a connection with many people already on here. DUH. Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A valid close. Contra Umbralcorax, the closer did not ignore the sources provided; rather, he or she considered the arguments for those sources carefully and concluded that they had been rebutted by others within the discussion. This sort of reasoned close, rather than mere vote-counting, should be encouraged, and is well within the authority permitted to the closer. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as no consensus and continue improvements I do appreciate the razor-thin logic that pushed the closing admin to delete, but the analysis used is more accurately reflective of the fact that there was no clear consensus and there do appear to be enough reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to merit a keep. When there is no clear consensus, the close should be "no consensus". Alansohn (talk) 01:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion Most of the sources were iffy and morning talk shows will interview anyone they can find. In AFDs, I really wish editors would just link to the "significant coverage" part from "reliable sources", instead of making it difficult by linking to trivial mentions + unreliable sources.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Corpx (talk • contribs)
    • Sure, but 3 of them were reliable sources that provided significant coverage. 10 bad sources don't reduce the impact of 3 good ones. In fact those bad sources help show that the 3 good ones are a part of on-going coverage... Hobit (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SOLAE (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

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

As I

WP:N is extremely clear about the requirement of significant coverage from multiple sources. Every single source cited in the article at present (and each and every Google News result mentioned by A Nobody) is a trivial name drop of the setting, with no further comment on its importance. The sole exception is the developer quotation, which really only says that it may or may not have been inspired by Lost--definitely not establishing notability. So yes, it is the common setting of a handful of games, but it is apparent that the setting itself is not a major aspect of the games, warranting an article. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Sorry, I have read only now the exchange between Axem Titanium and the closing admin. Perhaps in the case for the closure a little too importance has been given to the number of delete and keep "votes", rather than to their reasons, in my opinion. Goochelaar (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't describe relying on
    WP:PRESERVE was very strongly-worded indeed, and because policy should normally trumps guidelines, it made a bit of a mockery of notability. I added the last two paragraphs of the current version (in this edit) so as to tone it down a bit, and now I think it reads roughly as it should.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

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

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

    I hope the next AfD is conducted in good faith.

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

O.K I agree and will nominate if for Afd. Regards. --LineofWisdom (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'm leaning towards overturning to delete. While there were a few socks involved, the only keep opinion doesn't bring up any points to refute the delete arguments, instead only saying that the nomination violates
    WP:POINT and should be ignored on those grounds. There are many delete arguments made by established users, and I am loathe to throw out their !votes just because of a little sockpuppetry. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and delete; I don't think the socks sufficiently tainted the discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I am really disappointed by this second nomination by the same person who has some personal biases against this gentleman. Just to bring it on record the nominator of this AFD was banned for one week for using the same sock puppets who had tainted the earlier vote as his talk page is a witness to this. As for this AFD, I would like to reproduce a comment by Anarchangel in the earlier AFD as under;
"*Comment I sympathize with the nominator's apparent rare form of dyslexia that prevents them from reading the first line of an article, and print it here for him and any others afflicted with this condition, possibly a Cherry-picking work-related ailment. "Dil Jan Khan (Urdu: دل جان خان) (born April, 1934) is a former President of
UNODC
." Having had a job at the United Nations is a big deal worldwide, and establishes a degree of notability for this article. The notability of Dil Jan Khan's cop job is quite irrelevant in comparison."
I would say once gain that its his ascend to the position of being the head of
UNODC which merits him a separate article. Smelling a clear cut personal grudge I would vote to Keep it.-- MARWAT  16:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I suppose I should add that president of an agency like that is notable -- just having "a job" at the UN isn't. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist – I'm not sure if, discounting the commentary by the socks, a consensus for deletion has been solidly formed. Would like to get a better gauge of consensus here. MuZemikeUse my VG templates! 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the closing easn;t keep, but "no-consensus" so it seems you actually do agree with it. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder to those who may be unfamiliar with DRV- We're here to discuss whether or not the close was correct, not to re-hash whether or not the article should be kept. In this case, I endorse the closer's point that the discussion was irreparably tainted by the sock puppeting going on, and that a no-consensus close was correct. However, given that the discussion was screwy, allowing a relist is certainly a reasonable next step. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
correction- I meant to say "re-nomination", not "relist" above. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As users

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

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

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

  • Closing admin - I'm not sure why I was not notified of this discussion, or even asked to explain my decision. That said, in my opinion, once a discussion is largely tainted by sockpuppets or other similar issues, it is impossible to fairly and reasonably form consensus. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with speedily renominating, but with a new discussion page. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Close without prejudice to a renomination. The discussion is a complete mess with all the sock-puppetry. As such, there was no easy way to get a clear consensus and so a no-consensus decisions was correct. -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 August 2009

  • Exinda – Unsalt and permit recreation from non-infringing draft. Future AfDs are at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Exinda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was salted after multiple recreations and deletions per

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

  • Hmm, thanks, Uncle G. Nevertheless, the point Jahiegel and Stifle both raised is well-taken—and indeed, both those users stand very highly in my esteem. DRV is already a very powerful authority; Wikipedia has plenty of provision for addressing conduct disputes, but in terms of content disputes, DRV is the highest court in the land, in the sense that there is nowhere to appeal a DRV decision. (I've remarked, in jest, that for an editor who disagrees with a DRV closure, a direct appeal to the monarch is the only option.)

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

  • In the grand scheme of things, these remarks nonetheless helped making the proposed stub into something with more staying power, so I'm sure not complaining ;) MLauba (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Darklore Manor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

  • KEEP -- Chzz, the material is sufficiently sourced. There are citations after almost every paragraph. Fangoria News, Google News, Legends Magazine, Ottaway Newspapers, The Day newspaper, even a book published on the haunted house story What exactly do you have issue with, and why? And the redirect was a total removal of ALL material. What you're doing is getting pretty darn close to vandalism. Ebonyskye (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious as to why you didn't !vote in the AFD. If you were to make the same argument there as you are making here and on my talk page, the result might have been different. It looked to me as if it were a dead discussion that nobody much cared about and that's why I closed it how I did. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I have been closing a lot of relisted debates like this, some as "no consensus". (with leave to speedy renominate,
    WP:NAC as they are "unanimous" in the sense that nobody but the nominator is advocating deletion. Yes the nominator might not be cool with it but he's free to renominate any time he wants which has the same effect as a relist. In this case I went with the suggestion of the only !voter in the discussion. This usually isn't a problem because usually if nobody !votes then nobody cares. AFD is now on a 7 day cycle which means a relisted debate is open for half a month. This minimizes the chance that an interested party may be out of town or something. The drawback is that you might have a situation like this where an interested party doesn't !vote in the AFD but objects after it's closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Content question Discuss on the talk page. Del Rev does not have authority over this. You could try AfD again after a reasonable time. At that point, if the verdict is redirect, we can consider protecting the redirect. And there's another solution that might satisfy everyone: a merge. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)The thing about DRV is that "redirect" and "keep" are both effectively the same outcome: they are different flavours of "keep". By convention, DRV can overturn a keep (or redirect) to a delete, and it can overturn a delete to a keep. But turning a keep into a redirect (or vice versa) is not an administrative decision because it doesn't require use of administrative tools, so DRV would normally view this as a matter to be solved via the normal editing process (i.e. talk-page discussion).

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

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

24 August 2009

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

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

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correct interpretation of consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's very hard to fault Backslash Forwardslash for closing that debate as "delete". Both the numerical !vote count and the weight of argument supported his decision there.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'd certainly have !voted to keep the 2006 one, but there is no other way to read that AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I, too, would have been a "keep" !vote, at least re 2006 (but then my Aaron Sorkin fandom is such that I'd want to keep anything with which he is associated), but no close but "delete" can be contemplated here; even if Kusma's and C mon's !votes, captioned "delete", are construed as "keep" with respect to the 2006 article, consensus is clear. Joe (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse such was the consensus, unfortunately. However, it might well have been better to relist 2006 separately, as having less consensus. I suggest simply recreation in a more compact form, and with references or additional references relating it to real life, which will meet the objections well enough to pass G4, hoping this time for a sensible decision. Alternatively, combine the three, emphasising the outside sources for 2006 & finding some for the others. There might also be some on the general topic. Or reduce in size and add to the list of episodes, in the parts discussing the whole seasons before getting to the individual ones. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 August 2009

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

The AfD was closed "Per

inp23 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • If I wanted to do that, I would. The question is whether the deletion decision and reasoning were correct - personally I don't necessarily feel that the article should deleted hence have no desire to sponsor an AfD. Thanks.
    inp23 21:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • DRV is indeed not for 'making policy' - at best it provides a limited insight into community consensus. In this case I'm contesting that the close on the AfD in question wasn't based within policy - DRV is the place to discuss that (a relisted AfD is not). DRVs don't have precedential force to my knowledge, but they can provide clarifications or pave the way for further AfDs without prejudice. I hope you see what I'm getting at - the Outline has, I think, changed little in the past few months so an AfD could easily be immediately dismissed on that basis and pointing to the older AfD. The overturn of the [alleged] incorrect closure is something that DRV is here for, to remove the potential precedential force of the AfD itself!
    inp23 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
"Thus it was closed "per a Wikiproject""

No, actually, it wasn't, and we discussed this, Martin. I actually hyperlinked wrong, and was intending to link to

Wikipedia:OUTLINE, or Wikipedia:Outlines. One two three... 23:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Oh and it was in user space at
    User:The Transhumanist/Outline of knowledge, so close per user space draft rather than close per proposed guideline. 80.47.149.6 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • For what it's worth both the discussions you link came after this one. 80.47.149.6 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Challenging a speedy close 3 months after the event is a bit, well, pointless, but I would say that a speedy close per a wikiproject is, well, wrong. So I'd vote to overturn and relist on general principles. I'd say the practical thing is to just relist this given the time since the listing though.
    Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses – Closure endorsed. There is no consensus on whether foundation policy or NFCC applies to text. We cannot say that policy overrides consensus when we don't know whether it actually applies to it. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

(1) I initially requested the deletion of
WP:NFCC#9
, which prohibits non-free content in userspace.
(2) Milomedes argued that
WP:NFCC
imposes no limitation on non-free text in userspace at all.
(3) My response was threefold:
(a) As the express stated purpose of
WP:NFCC
as permitting any use of non-free text that isn't an actual copyright violation in userspace is inconsistent with the intent of the policy.
(b) The "Other non-free content" to which the numbered non-free content criteria apply includes non-free text in userspace, since the term "other" is used in relation to "brief verbatim textual excerpts" in "articles".
(c) Even assuming,
WP:NFCC
(4) Milomedes' response to (c) was a claim that non-free text is not considered to be "uploaded" within the meaning of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Thus ensued a discussion concerning the construction of the term "upload" as used in the context of the Foundation resolution. I now regard the precise interpretation of "upload" as moot, since wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy applies to "content", whose meaning clearly includes text, not "uploads" or "media": provision 1 states that "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License..." If there were any intent to exempt text from the application of the Resolution, it would state "All projects are expected to host only media which is under a Free Content License...", or otherwise clearly indicate the exception. The subsequent references to media in the policy do not render provisions 1, 2, and 3 inapplicable to text.

As

talk) 03:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

There is no "userspace loophole" for non-free content. Claims that you can have as much non-free text in your userspace as you want, subject only to legal limitations on fair use, are absurd, unsupported by policy, and purely smoke and mirrors.
talk) 03:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Incidentally, statements like "I did not count heads, and I did not count heads then, either. So when I made the closure the first time, too many people disagreed for my comfort. Enough people are dead convinced..." may easily be construed as self-contradictory.
talk) 03:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
So, um, you consider the fact that the discussion had run for an adequate period of time, and that an administrator closed it, to reflect adherence to our deletion process, irrespective of the substantive incorrectness of the action taken?
talk) 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
There was nothing out of process about how it was closed. Disagreeing with a "no consensus" close isn't enough to overturn it. You have a particular point of view about how the policy should be applied in re:Jack's userpage. Other's disagreed. This isn't MFD part 2 (Thanks for that, Harej).
UnitAnode 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
At the risk of being repetitive, per
talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
At the risk of being repetitive, this is not MFD part 2. It is your opinion that Jack's userpage is "grossly contray to policy." I'm not going to reargue the MFD with you. I've endorsed the close as within guidelines for admins closing MFDs. That's all I have to say about it.
UnitAnode 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Per our deletion guidelines, XFD closures require substantive evaluation of the merits of the arguments advanced, which appears to have been missing here.
talk) 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
(ec)Agreed, but it is also not determined by admins choosing what they think is best. The closing admin felt that both sides had good arguments and that consensus was not reached. His/her closure was perfectly reasonable. And the "too many people disagreed for my comfort." merely reflects the fact that the admin is human. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec again)and for the record, endorse. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue in a nutshell: is a good-faith belief by "The closing admin... that both sides had good arguments" enough, or is the question of whether "both sides had good arguments" subject to review here? I would argue for the latter, so that we are not at the mercy of bad closures merely because the closing administrator genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing.
talk) 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course, we generally expect the judgments of administrators and the community regarding the merits of arguments to coincide; however, even an administrator with a overall favorable record of XFD closures might be wrong in a particular case.
talk) 04:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, on your user page, why no "edit of the year 2006"? Couldn't top Jimbo and ClueBot blocks?... Second, well I suppose you're right about what's arguable at DRV, to a point. But there are conflicting forces here. One being that what you say makes sense... IAR says we don't play moot court and say one can't advance certain arguments because it's too late, but the other side of that is that DRV isn't supposed to be MFD II... you need to advance something new not just re-re-re-rehash (which, truth be told, this DRV seems to be doing some of, as does any conversation of any length here, it seems). I wouldn't be dumping most of my free edit time today into this topic if I didn't think it was important and interesting... but the actual important question to me now is not the substance of the argument itself, but rather the meta one... how do you tell when (fiat based) policy must trump consensus (or the clear lack of it, as in this case, which is a special kind of consensus, the consensus to do nothing), which is one I've delved into before. Oddly, it was on the other side, arguing that a policy needed to trump consensus, and trying to show why. However I think that hasn't happened here, those saying trumping is needed haven't made their case clearly and unassailably in my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it best if I reply on your talk page, since the questions you raise are interesting and I would like to discuss them, but they do not seem immediately relevant to this DRV.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Clearly no consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endrose closure per Lar. As much as I feel that the page should be deleted (see my comments in the MfD), a "No Consensus" close was within admin discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully endorse I think that the page fails
    WP:NFCC#9
    big time (non-free content is only allowed in articles, see also #7 and #8), but, regretfully, this is not MfD part 2. The commenters in the MfD really didn't agree on how to interpret the policy and they thought that "fair use" applied here, so the admin had the possibility of closing like this.
Editors pointed to the intro of WP:NFCC "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content (...) may be used (...) only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." arguing that WP:NFCC#9 didn't cover merridew's page because it's a verbatim quote. I think that "Articles may" clearly excludes non-article pages, but, then again, this was also discussed there, and this is not MfD part 2.
The main argument was that brief text quotes are covered by "fair use", which meant that they were automatically not covered by WP:NFCC#9, even if the policy didn't specify it. In other words, the
WP:CC-BY-SA
to be a red herring, since the text is clearly quoted and attributed to the copyright holder so Merridew is not erroneously releasing this copyrighted text as his own.
IMO, the root problem here is that US law allows "fair use" of brief quotes, and our copyright policy doesn't explicitly allow or disallow them outside of articles. Wikipedia, as a private website, can decide to forbid all copyrighted material outside of articles including fair use material, but the current policy does not do that. Policy needs to clarify if it's allowing "fair use" brief quotes outside of articles, or these discussions will keep closing as "no consensus". (Good luck getting consensus for the change, mind you) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg – Insufficient proof provided that the image is free (and the burden of proving this is on those seeking to include the image), therefore deletion endorsed. – Stifle (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Also see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 14#File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg

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

  • I stand by what I said at the PUF from the 20th, I believe that the image is still a copyright violation and that sufficient evidence exists to prove it (I refer to my statement there and the images for such evidence). As has been explained to Nefirious before, the crux of the issue is that, while he is correct that the original black-and-white painting photo of Malik Ambar is in the public domain, the color version he has been uploading is a much more recent artist's rendition of the original, and as such is still copyrighted. The problem with ShaikhChandScan.jpg specifically is that it is not a scan of the original painting photo, but is instead the color version passed through a black-and-white digital filter. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody's doubting that Times of India is a reliable source. The question is whether we can legitimately use the content.

      The date on the newspaper appears to be the single question that would decide this matter, and before we can proceed, we need to know what it is. If you do not know the exact date, Nefirious, can you confirm whether it appeared (a) before 1911, (b) between 1911 and 1947, or (c) later?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assuming that the newspaper is from after 1947, the matter seems simple enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

22 August 2009

21 August 2009

  • assuming good faith indicates that their arguments for increased understanding should not be wholly discounted. Again, this DRV is a referendum on if the closer stepped outside of reasonable bounds in determining consensus. There are strong arguments on both sides and thus no consensus. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
article|XfD|restore
)2

The closing Admin preferred to count votes instead of considering policy based arguments. The nomination raised the question of why the

WP:NFCC#8. Damiens.rf 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

  • I'll focus on your interpretation of #8 above since that was the criteria that actualy mattered in the deletion: The gist of your argument seems to be that they did important (significant) work that that they presense was important and such. Unfortunately this completely misses the point. The question is not if the event or work was significant, the question is if this image significantly increase the understanding of the article. If it's possible to understand that the event was significant without seeing an image of it the image fail this test. You do assert that it helps illustrate the article but there is a significant difference between "help illustrate" and "significantly increse the understanding". Also a word of advice: Throwing up a wall of text explaining how the image satisfy all sorts of criteria that where never disputed in the first place doesn't nessesarily give you argument added weight, quite the opposite in most cases (no offence intended, but it can easily give others the impression that you are just flailing about fighting straw men instead trying to refute whatever relevant arguments where given to delete). --Sherool (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for the long "wall of text" was that last time I voted I was accused of only seletectively discussing the ten criteria. As indeed was mentioned above. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep. My default position on non-free images of living people is "delete", because I think such images pose a significant threat to Wikipedia. However, in this case the image is subject to
    WP:IAR.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Crown copyright is still non-free for our purposes and that's all that matter for use on Wikipedia. We do not differenciate between degrees of non-freenes, even when a copyright holder have explicitly given permission to use an image on Wikipedia, all the non-free criteria still apply if he didn't actualy release the image under a free license. Crown Copyright is no different in this regard, it's not a free license, so
    WP:NFCC must be applied fully, regardles of how liberal the law may be. --Sherool (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Out of interest, please could you cite any example of a fair-use image in which you believe NFCC8 does not apply?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your question is puzzeling since I can't recall giving the impression that I believe there are cases where the criteria don't apply (well there are some legitimate exceptions to NFCC 9 for administrative purposes and such). If you intended to ask me for examples of images I believe satisfy the criteria however there are numerous examples. Most logos and cover art are significant enough when used in the primary articles about the organization or work they serve to identify. Same for images of most fictional characters that are notable enugh to have articles. Images used to illustrate a style of art and such will generaly pass the significance test (though people sometimes go overgoard and forget about minimal use), images that are notable in their own right with articles that are to a large degree about the image itself pass for use in those articles at least (File:Sharbat Gula on National Geographic cover.jpg, File:Nguyen.jpg, File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, and such). You know basicaly any kind of image you need to actualy see to get a good understanding of the article, I'm rely not that "hard core" on the issue as I might come across as in this debate, but since I do believe this particular image fail the criteria that will obviously be the focus of my arguments here. --Sherool (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete Very poor close with obvious head-counting and no consideration of strength of arguments. It was plausibly asserted that the image did not satisfy NFCC 8 and not one of the keep rationales even attempted to refute this. To keep this image, somebody needed to explain how this image significantly increase readers' understanding of some aspect of the
    Military History of New Zealand; no-one did at the AfD or in the FUR and no-one has in this deletion review. CIreland (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn to delete per Protonk. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete per nom and my varoius comments injected at various points above. Based on how the image was used, the provided non-free use rationale and the comments so far in the FFD and this review I don't see any convincing explanation of how this image significalty increase the understanding of the article it was used in. The article says they where there doing reconstruction and humanitarian aid, we don't need a photo of soldiers building stuff to understand this. It would look good in the article, and I would not have removed it if it was free licensed. However because of Wikipedia's free content focus there is a much higher bar for including non-free content, and having the article look better is not a strong enough reason to just ignore that policy as S Marshall advocate above. --Sherool (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. The question of whether an image meets NFCC#8 or not is a question of fact for each image, to be determined by consensus, and I think there was consensus that the image did meet the criterion. It's becoming difficult, possibly unduly so, to defend a claim that an image fails NFCC#8, and overturning this decision would make that problem worse. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which of the keep rationales at the original FFD do you believe explained how the image satisfied NFCC 8? I'm not unsympathetic to the your point about the difficulties NFCC 8 can cause but I don't think we should go so far as to permit retention of images at FFD when the chief deletion rationale, NFCC 8, has been credibly raised yet not addressed by those advocating retention. CIreland (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • NickD and AustralianRupert. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep The discussion on whether the image is appropriate for the article belongs at the article. I can see this being used in various inappropriate ways, or in appropriate ones. If consensus there is that it is appropriate, then it can be used. This is the wrong forum. If they use it, and it meets the other requirements, the proper course is a RfC on the content there. The purpose of XfD is not to review the detailed content decisions in individual articles. If we do consider XfD an appropriate place, then the interpretation of the rule has to go by what the community thinks, and consensus is the only way to determine that. It's irrational to say that the consensus is against policy, when it is consensus that determines the specifics of policy. I see this is one of the relatively rare times I and Stifle agree. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though I agree with DGG in this instance, I want to challenge one sentence of his response. DGG says "It's irrational to say that the consensus is against policy, when it is consensus that determines the specifics of policy". I feel this is overly general and open to misunderstanding, and I want to clarify that I think there are times when policy can and should overrule a local consensus—though this is not one of them.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, S.M, I did oversimplify. T On the one hand, there's no point in general consensus unless it has some controlling influence, but the interpretation in any one specific case will inevitably be local. The way to get local and general consensus to conform better is increased participation in processes. Alternatively, some means of highlighting the important discussions for a broader consensus. To some extent, Del Rev does serve for that. But IAR seems to say that one can always override any general consensus for a particular instance. I agree we need some such rule, but there should be a more precise way of applying it. Alternatively, we could change IAR, and that's one of the really basic policies. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I'd like to ask for your response to Protonk's argument above. I understand why S Marshall would not find that compelling (crown copyright), but I'd like to understand your view on that. Hobit (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
which argument? His argument seems to be that his own interpretation is necessarily right. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That it is literally an example of the type of non-free images not to be used here [10] Image#4. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I often disagree with DGG in XfD discussions, but I fully endorse their above post. From my recent experience with this and related discussions, it seems that some editors believe that only they understand how the fair use policy should be applied, and anyone who has a different interpretation is so wrong that their views should be dismissed. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But DGG, this is the problem, not the solution. The reason so many NFCC centered deletion discussions are heated and involved isn't because editors and admins aren't properly applying the policy to their arguments. Rather it is because the policy and consensus are in conflict. If we had a vote tomorrow and could somehow summon and compel all registered users to vote on completely overturning NFC and allowing non-free media to be used in the same fashion that we allow free media, the outcome would not bode well for the NFC. The prevailing reaction to edits which reduce the number of non-free images on a page or reduce the use of non-free images is hostility. Not because the folks opposing the change are foolish or stupid but because the removal of the non-free images tends to diminish the article. If we had license to use a non-free image for identification of living persons, our biographies would be improved (Dramatically, if the NYT is to be believed), so the removal of a non-free image from those page, though necessary, generates resentment. The sentiment behind that resentment and the sentiment behind opposition to the NFC is noble. Wikipedia would be a dramatically better resource if the NFC were dispensed with tomorrow, but it would be a resource which could no longer be shared freely and without fear of legal issues. As such, the foundation has directed (And the community have built a policy around) that non-free content be limited, even in the presence of disagreement. And it is that disagreement which is the font of these sorts of discussions. It isn't, as Nick-D presumes, that I think those with a different interpretation are wrong by definition. They just happen to be wrong here. They are pushing for the inclusion of an image which is 'specifically proscribed by the NFCC because they want to improve the article. They wish that we could include images of troops taken under crown copyright just as we include images of american troops. That's not inherently wrong or foolish, but it is in conflict with the NFC and we need to acknowledge that. Protonk (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again, IAR gives us not merely permission to do so, but instructions to do so, in exactly that situation. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." What could be plainer? (I interpret "you" as us collectively; not an individual according to whim, because that's a suicide pact, but an individual backed by consensus for that action.) DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is time to reinterpret the policy so that Crown copyright images can be used. As another user has pointed out they are 'safe' to use and do not have the same potential legal problems of other categories of non-free images. Similar images are used extensively in American articles because they are clearly PD, but articles subject to Commonwealth crown copyright are not due to a technicality. Lets be practical. Anotherclown (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a technicality. Crown copyright is incompatible w/ the GFDL (or CC-by-sa). We don't control the license the materials are released under. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is and you're just being difficult if you cannot accept that. My point is that US images taken in exactly the same circumstances are PD whilst commonwealth images are copyright... and whilst this makes them suspect under the non-free image policy it is clearly a 'technicality' given the rationale behind attempting to exclude them. Anotherclown (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Protonk's "just being difficult", Anotherclown. From my experience with him, that isn't his practice at all. I think he's genuinely missed the point about crown copyright, likely based on a failure to understand its purpose, scope and intent, and I would like to think that if approached correctly, he is one of the "endorse" camp who would be open to re-examining his !vote.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to being told what makes crown copyrighted images different from images held by any other copyright, with respect to the encyclopedia. I'm absolutely certain, however, that 'crown copyright' isn't being used as a cover for some unspoken nefarious purpose like ridding the encyclopedia of pictures from New Zealand. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, crown copyright's a complex subject that it's hard to sum up in a short paragraph. Its provisions range from the extremely restrictive (as with for example maps from the Ordnance Survey, which may not be reproduced without a licencing agreement that I am positive neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation possess) to the extremely permissive (as with for example material taken from a government website, which is reproducible unless otherwise stated).

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

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

    • Ok. Here's where I feel there may be a misunderstanding. It is insufficient that an image be available for non-commercial reuse (See
      CSD F3). The image, in order to be considered 'free' for our purposes, has to be free for anyone to use, modify, profit from, etc. Something that is free only for us can't be used in an unrestricted fashion here. The section of our article on crown copyright describing its incompatibility with the GFDL does a reasonable job of explaining it (IMO). Protonk (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
S Marshall explains his view by analogy. Hatted by the author.
I'm growing increasingly conscious of the amount of space I'm taking up in this DRV, so I'll hat myself as a courtesy to those uninterested in what I'm saying.

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

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

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

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

  • Using images that we have permission to use doesn't conflict with that goal at all, Damiens.rf. What it conflicts with is a totally different goal, i.e. to supply material that other people can freely reuse.

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

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

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

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

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

          • 1st, yes, Crown Copyright is different from Fair use, that is different from Creative Commons Non-Commercial, that is different of "All Rights Reserved" that is different from a lot of other non-free licenses. What they all have in common is that they forbid at-least one of a) Use for any purpose, b) Unrestricted distribution, c) Unrestricted modification, d) Distribution of modification. (and all that should be provided irrevocably and for anyone). Nobody is claiming that Crowns Copyright is the same as fair use. We're just following the Foundation determination of splitting all content in only two well defined categories, Free and Non-free. I'm affraid Crown's fits the second. 2nd Yes, downstream users are as important (or even more important) than encyclopaedia browsers. We're not building a website, for god's sake. We're building a freely available encyclopedia. We want it printed and sent to Africa among other goals, and these goals are not going to be corrupted for the benefit of web surfers. --Damiens.rf 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair use describes our justification for the picture. We have a fair use rationale for File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg despite the fact that we have explicit permission from the AP to use the photo on wikipedia. There are fair use justifications for CC-BY-NC pictures just as there are for all rights reserved pictures. Fair use is a right of re-use allowed to us by copyright law. The distinction between the two is immaterial for our use. Also, the bifurcation you have created between commons and wikipedia is a red herring. It is the wikimedia foundation that wants to create free content for the rest of the world to use without restriction. Images happen to be hosted on commons, whose job it is to be an image repository, but they are used in articles here. Mine and damiens' point is that the encyclopedia itself suffers when non-free images are treated as free images, that is used without fair use rationales and limitations, because non-free content displaces free content and downstream reusers of the encyclopedia will either have to renegotiate the rights or forgo use of the images. I'm getting good and tired of being told how rule bound and ignorant I am and I really would like to be able to engage in this debate without laboring under that characterization. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because each side is simply restating its position without moving in the slightest, each side is convinced the other is wrong, and we're starting to irritate each other. I don't want to go any further down that route, so it behoves me to disengage.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You'll have to agree that you're showing a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's goal when you say web-readers are more important than re-users. One have to understand what Wikipedia's really goals are before trying to implement the "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" part of IAR. --Damiens.rf 19:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't have to agree that at all. That's what "agree to disagree" means, you see.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Keep as per Nick-D. Buckshot06(prof) 02:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Of course you have the option to keep defending your understanding that web-readers are more important than re-users. If your whole argumentation above is somewhat dependent on that, let's see how much weight your opinion will be given. --Damiens.rf 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have serious qualms about the entire series of events. People on both sides have apparently assumed a self-righteous position. For instance, Nick Thorne's labeling of the FfD as a "spurious nomination" did not address the issue at hand; Damiens' nomination was highly valid. Then, on my talk page, Damiens has
    attempting to get it deleted by orphaning it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Question: For anyone arguing that the image is irreplaceable, has the New Zealand army been disbanded in the past five years? If it hasn't, it's quite possible to replace this image with a free-content image of soldiers doing work. --Carnildo (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What in a combat zone overseas? That was the point. It would not be a valid use of an image of NZ soldiers putting across a bridge in NZ and using it to illustrate what they were doing in Iraq. As I stated above, there are a number of reasons why it is not replaceable in the circumstances. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's certainly replaceable by text, for the same reason that we don't use non-free images of folks being interviewed on TV just to show that they were on TV. With all respect to the arduousness of deployment, it is trivial to take a free image of combat engineers and then say "combat engineers like these were in a place with loads more sand". Protonk (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having tried that before, I disagree as I was told by many editors at peer review that unless the image was specifically related to the topic it should not be there. The fact of the matter remains, however, that I doubt there are "free" images of NZ engineers doing their job in NZ, let alone Iraq. In the Australian Army we don't let just anyone take photos of us doing our job. Where possible they are strictly controlled, hence most images of Australian Army personnel on operations or even training are subject to Crown Copyright. I doubt (but admit to not knowing) that it is any different in NZ. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • From digging around in the Australian Navy/Army pages, it appears that most of our photos of them were taken by American service-members (and therefore pd). Haven't checked the NZ pages yet. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's right, most of the photos for Australian military articles after the Korean War have to rely mainly upon photos taken by US service personnel, because the majority of photos taken about these conflicts are governed by Crown Copyright. Thus by not accepting Crown Copyright photos as fair use contributors are constrained to finding the few US-PD photos that exist, thus creating the illusion that it is easy to illustrate such topics with US-PD images. As NZ does not excercise with the US, there are even less (if not none) that would be taken by US personnel. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Remember: The original nomination did not find fault with replaceability; it questioned whether the image added significantly to the reader's understanding. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think that we are constrained by the text of the original nomination. My point above (way above) was to express incredulity that we had reached a decision in a deletion discussion that was the opposite of the 'examples' offered in the non-free image guideline. Why the decision was wrong (or merely unfortunate, depending on your view of consensus vs. policy) involves more than just NFCC 8. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • On the topic of replacability, the NZ soldiers in Iraq operated in the British occupation zone, and hence are unlikely to have been photographed by US military personnel. There are a few photos of Australians as they tend to operate alongside Americans. As a result of NZ being suspended from the ANZUS treaty its very rare for NZ and US forces to train together, much less operate together, with the result that PD-US photos aren't available to anywhere near the same (limited) extent as they are for Australian military topics. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keeping of the image. Basically, it seems to me that most people who have read and understood the arguments here agree that it is not replaceable by a free image, and that if it meets NFCC #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." then in the case of this specific image, it can be used on Wikipedia. Like DGG, S Marshall, Australian Rupert and others, it is my belief that this does meet the criteria. The reason I believe this is because consensus time and time again at places like peer review, good article discussions and featured article discussions is that an article cannot be considered "good" or any higher standard without an image, even if that image conveys nothing that the text doesn't. Furthermore I will introduce into this discussion issues of systematic bias, namely that without allowing this type of fair use image, the only articles about the activity of 21st century militaries that can have "good" or "featured" status are (a) those about the United States military and (b) organisations the United States military has taken PD photographs of (and even these will not necessarily be representative, as discussed by Australian Rupert above). As has been noted, this typically does not include the New Zealand military, nor will it include other militaries the US does not come into contact with. I forget who it was who said it now, but I would endorse the call for separate treatment for Crown Copyright. The existing NFCC are designed for and generally doing a good job regarding non-free commercial works, are not suited for the qualitatively different non-commercial Crown Copyright works - this isn't about different degrees of non-free but about different types of non-free. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete I do not think anyone contributing to the deletion discussion explained how the omission of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. No one made clear how the reader's understanding would be lessened. Guest9999 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and change venue At the time the XfD was closed, the consensus was to keep, the image was in use, and there was not an argument from overriding policy for deletion. My personal opinion is that the article it was being used in suffers in no way from the lack of this image - but that is an issue that is properly resolved at the talk page of the article, not at DRV. I appreciate that editors have chosen not to edit war over the use of the image during this DRV, so I take its current use/non-use status as not relevant. Editors should use
    GRBerry 14:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
@icon sushi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

talk • contribs
)

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

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

20 August 2009

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

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

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

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

There's no hurry. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Those who voted "keep" had very poor rationales. I agree that my "keep" vote was inaccurate per Spartaz's rationale here. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Ok Timemachine, that was uncalled for and a violation of our civility polices. Please withdraw your first sentence.
    Spartaz Humbug! 06:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

In my opinion, this article could have met the basic criteria requirements of BIO since he has been the "subject of published secondary source material which...". His work has also won "critical attention" as laid out in the creative professionals guideline. The guidelines for including unlinked information were also followed to some extent. However, significant coverage and verifiability was a concern. Spartaz was willing to rereview it once some info was presented so lets relax and see if we can improve Wikipeida with an improved article. I'm working under the impression that this article can be improved and I hope anyone who has become stressed can just chill and see if it works.Cptnono (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BITE is not an excuse to jump up and down like a 5-year-old girl upon her parents taking her candy away. That's the impression I get in that AFD, at least. Even the newest users should have the most basic understanding of
how to behave in a colloborative, collegial environment. MuZemike 20:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That is why I didn't mention any names ;) Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Ditto about not being able to see the source.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • ditto

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

  • Blogs are not reliable sources.

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

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

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

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

Bottom line is that the new sources need to be verified, you can email to me at my username @gmail dot com but I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of individual notability through reliable sourcing here.

Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Cptnono...You've done a great job sourcing the article, which can be seen here:

WP:V even though Mr. Jennings' multiple sources of notability keeps staring them in the face. This is getting old. You've done your best. Timemachine1967 (talk) 22:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gigs, did you just make a blanket statement, inferring that you and the entire Wiki community of editors and administrators, make a conscious decision to be unfriendly to people when they simply state their case on an issue? That looks like a blatant disregard for

WP:DONTBITE and WP:Civility. You're a perfect example of the snobbish arrogance that perpetuates this site. Even Spartaz didn't go that far. Your response spoke volumes. I'm sure your fellow Wiki comrades are real proud of your statement. Thank you. Timemachine1967 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

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

the result defaults to a no consensus close
.

That is not what happened when

WP:DRV
's argot), and it should be overturned here.

"An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus" (

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

Although the vote tally is

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

Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Regardless of which side had the better of this debate in abstracto, and regardless of which side the closing admin would have found more persuasive had s/he decided to participate, their task was to neutrally asses the consensus of the group, not to cast the deciding vote. That decision interpreted the debate incorrectly, and should be overturned to a no consensus close, the actual result. - Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW } 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I voted on the deletion page but I kept my argument short, because I did not see any clear consensus until Spartaz declared one. I stated there is no article that better treats this information. "Traditional Marriage MOvement" is not a neologism, it was meant as a cover all phrase for the issues we were debating on the deletion page. Edit wars forced editors to find citations using that exact phrase, enabling other editors to frame the argument that the article represented a neologism rather than an attempt to document an american political movement. Alternative titles that were suppressed by editting included "Traditional marriage", and POV titles such as "opponents of same-sex marriage". I prefer "Supporters of traditional marriage" which gets a universe of google hits, mostly relevant to the political movement [[26]]. Again. there is a very real political movement in the United states regarding traditional marriage and the issue was and should have been in the deletion argument what to call it, not whether to delete it. Spartaz acted without considering this information.Mrdthree (talk) 10:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have this completely bass-ackwards, Spartaz. The burden is on those who want to delete the article to form a consensus to delete. If the discussion shows no consensus to delete, the status quo prevails by default. That is the very essence of a no consensus close. Your argument above, however, seems to be that the burden was on the keep votes to form a consensus to keep lest the article be deleted. In point of fact, neither side developed a consensus for their position. That is why your ancillary argument that "many users" argued that the content was fatally flawed misses the mark: just as many users said that it wasn't fatally flawed. The arguments made for keeping were at least as strong as those for deleting, and only fractionally less people signed on to them than signed on to the arguments to delete. When there isn't consensus to delete, the correct result is a no consensus close, and since your close was at variance with that, DRV must overturn it.- Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 16:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This is essentially a concession that you became a late participant in the debate and filed an unfairly weighty delete vote, rather than closing the AfD in accordance with the consensus of the discussion. Instead of taking the temperature of the debate, as
WP:LAW } 16:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
No, I assessed the consensus carefully discarding the weak arguments or assertions of notability without evidence and giving promience to arguments based on policy and guidelines. If you are suggesting that I have am or have become partisan because of my responses on my talk page, may I respectfully ask how I am supposed to answer well meaning but non-policy based assertions of notability without highlighting the disparity in readily available sources for one movement compared to the paucity of sources for the movement you want to keep. If the movement exists how about providing sources instead of wikilawyering about what my prejudices are or are not, because, unless you actually are me, you don't actually know that and failure to address the core issue of notability is becoming very wearying. Certainly, I would not willingly void what I consider to be a reasonable close without doing due diligence that valid sources actually exist....
Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I see nothing that indicates that you "assessed the consensus" at all. Indeed, the very phrasing of the point (specifically, the definite article) reveals the problem: if you thought there was a "the consensus," you misinterpreted the debate. There was no consensus.
Similarly revealing is the question of how you are "supposed to answer well meaning but non-policy based assertions of notability." The answer is simple: the closing admin isn't supposed to answer them at all. If you want to answer those assertions, you can answer them any way you like by participating - but once you participate, you waive your right to close the debate. If you are conceding that you sought to answer some of the arguments made, as you seem to be, then you are conceding that you intended to participate in the debate. And that, in turn, concedes impropriety in your having closed the debate at all. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too; in effect, you have articulated a second and independent basis for overturning your close.
Lastly, your repeated demand that we show more sources tells me that you don't understand the function of
WP:LAW } 00:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That's exactly right, and it highlights an important point. DRV is not a relisting. It is not a venue to rehash which arguments were better and which side one might have supported had one chosen to weigh in. Our task here is to decide what the AfD discussion actually decided and whether the closing admin called it right or wrong. The issue here is not whether the article should be deleted, but rather, whether there was consensus to delete at AfD to delete. Unless there was, the close decision must be overturned. - Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 16:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It was indeed directed to S Marshall. Simon Dodd's interspersing of comments, plus my own slow typing, made this thread chronologically confusing.
Slippery slope - I don't say a dreadful thing will happen, only that confusion becomes more likely.
We cannot allow any random AfD to suspend whichever guidelines are inconvenient to the immediate participants' desired outcome.
And as for Simon Dodd's latest (16.27), how can one review the presence or absence of consensus without reviewing the arguments? !votes that are not grounded in policy or guidelines should be discounted. This isn't a popularity contest. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd respond to those three arguments as follows:

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

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

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

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

  • Endorse. Article was a coatrack and a POV fork. There were 8 Keep comments, of which all but two (Simon Dodd's and Schrandit's) were various takes on
    Opposition to same-sex marriage in the United States - but there was nothing wrong with this close. Also, AfD law #416 says that anything that User:DGG !votes "Delete" on is irretrievable. Black Kite 17:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
you should keep track better. I'm moving from 20% delete !votes to 40%, if you don't count the merges as being either of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually kept an article once that DGG voted to delete. I can't remember what article it was or why but I remember doing it.
Spartaz Humbug! 18:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I remember that happening too. Didn't it end up at DRV?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD that DGG closed as delete came here a few months ago. Flatscan (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as per Black Kite. Stifle (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I voted on the page, I left my argument brief because there was no apparent consensus. The notability of the political movement is well documented whether you want to title it "supporters of traditional marriage" http://www.google.com/search?q=%22supporters+of+traditional+marriage or "opponents of same sex marriage" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22opponents+of+same-sex+marriage%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= the title "traditional marriage movement" was a consensus title (or at least thats the consensus that was made with me), not an attempt to make a neologism. Once it became a consenus title, the edit warring began about whether it was a neologism. The editor that brought the deletion framed it as a neologism. Mrdthree (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – valid determination of consensus by closing admin. The arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments for retention. MuZemike 21:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Administrators aren't vote calculators. We're supposed to also look at the strength of arguments, and that's what happened here. AniMatedraw 22:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine your consternation were this DRV to be closed right now with the words "consensus to overturn, because closing admin looked at the strength of the arguments not the vote count." Do you feel your argument is fatuous, AniMate, or do you feel it's a pretty good argument? You must think it's pretty good, or you presumably wouldn't have advanced it. If your argument was brusquely dismissed, no matter that several folks agreed with you, you'd feel that the closing admin was having an off day. The difference here is that right now consensus favors your position, a situation one hopes will be redeemed in coming days, while at the AfD, consensus didn't favor either position. - Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 13:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The closing administrator explained why the arguments in favor of retention were less persuasive than the arguments for deletion. You seem to think that having more bad arguments is a reason for keeping an article, but that's not the way it works. AniMatedraw 21:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable consensus. The sourcing issue cited in the first paragraph of the closing rationale was introduced in the nomination by Nat Gertler – Spartaz's examination of the sources was merely confirmation, not independent investigation. Flatscan (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Black Kite said it best... especially the part about DGG. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 10:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no clear consensus on the page until Spartaz declared one. If Spartaz saw a clear consensus, he should have warned the editors taking part so that might elaborate their arguments. I left mine brief since there was a 50-50 split and I had never before seen a consensus determined from a 50-50 split. The article should not have been deleted, at most it should have been retitled. There is a very real political movement in support of traditional marriage in the United States http://www.google.com/search?q=%22supporters+of+traditional+marriage and the current title was not initially meant as a neologism but was a consensus title that was edit warred into a literal title. Past attempts to deal with this issue included "Traditional marriage", and POV titles such as "opponents of same-sex marriage". I would like to see this page recovered and retitled. Mrdthree (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • regretful endorse I certainly think we should have an article on this topic, and I think the NPOV stuff is really bogus as we should allow groups to define the term used to refer to them as long as it is descriptive, and I think traditional marriage is. The problem is that no one I saw provided any reasonable sources about the movement under this name. I certainly believe that there are such sources, but I saw none in the AfD and I don't think the closer could do anything other than close as delete due to
    WP:NNN. I would support userfication and a rewrite once sources are found. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse. The deleting admin is allowed to hold an opinion about policy. Protonk (talk) 06:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Userified to User:Schrandit/Traditional marriage movement at the moment. If the mainspace article is restored, please just move it from that userspace. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Looking at the debate, it largely centered on NPOV issues: whether the title is appropriate or implies a POV, et cetera. There was no consensus about those issues. Spartaz is right that the larger, more important issue is whether there really is such a "movement" as demonstrated by substantial coverage in reliable sources. And this was raised as a deletion issue and not responded to properly by proponents; moreover, I would believe a reconsideration of the issue would be in order if such sources were brought forward, but this hasn't happened either. Mangojuicetalk 17:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ambar Siar.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

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

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

I no longer consider this an edit dispute, I will not restrain myself to conform to

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

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

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

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

19 August 2009

  • LUPICIA – There is no consensus to overturn, but it is clear that a future AfD may be warranted. As an editorial action, I am redirecting the article to List of tea companies as suggested. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
LUPICIA (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
)

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

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

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

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

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

    WP:PRESERVE.

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

    ]

  • Content is largely too promotional. Redirect to
    secondary sources turn up. Sorry for AfD !voting, but this DRV serves no purpose. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturna dn delete There was a clear consensus in the discussion and the only keep vote was based on assertiona nd unevidenced.
    Spartaz Humbug! 06:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 August 2009

  • Allegations of state terrorism by Russia – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations of state terrorism by Russia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
)

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

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

17 August 2009

  • NFCC #8) must be taken on a case-by-case basis through community discussion. In close cases such as this, the closing administrator is given some latitude to consider the strength of arguments where one side's arguments have prima facie superiority through concordance with a wider community consensus (i.e. policy) while the other side does not. In my inspection of the FFD discussion itself, this closure could have been made (based on the grounds that arguments were not raised by those wishing to keep that the file that enhanced readers' understanding of the topic). Instead, the closure rested on the rationale that no consensus results in deletion. In the course of the DRV, however, more substantial and direct arguments by OrangeDog in favor of this image meeting NFCC #8 have been made, and so a new discussion seems warranted. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
article|XfD|restore
)

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

  • Overturn - as nom OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Closure seems accurate- there was no clear consensus to retain the image, which defaults to a delete as per the
    non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn - Unique interpretation of CSD policy by nominator-for-deletion of "orphaning" the image, then attempting to have it deleted without discussion to get around NFCC 7; only vague answers given to direct questions, with even more vague references to "burden of proof "- no matter what argument was presented, it was "wrong"; deletion nom's claim that a "no consensus" close defaults to delete as per
    Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - and there's no mention of a close "defaulting" to any particular outcome there; deletion nom then appealed directly to the closing admin to change the close to "delete", rather than using conventional channels of appeal. Radiopathy •talk• 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn to keep arguments for keep were much, much, stronger than to delete. 4 images on a list of 19 characters and pretty clearly in line with all guidelines and policies for list articles. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is missing the point. The question that needs to be answered that was not answered by those opining keep in the IFD: how is exclusion of this image detrimental to the user's understanding? One user complained that the nominator had previously nominated the image for speedy deletion (which is irrelevant in an IFD and a deletion review - that's like saying you shouldn't be able to get a hamburger at McDonald's because when you were there a year ago, you ordered a chicken sandwich.) One pointed out that
    Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles would seem to permit the use of the image, which has nothing to do with whether or not the image meets NFCC #8. One user said "failure to demonstrate how image fails NFCC 3 or 8", but the burden of proof is with those seeking to retain the non-free images, not on the person seeking to delete them. The singular question that needed to be answered in that IFD was whether or not excluding this image from the article is detrimental to the user's understanding. I don't see that question answered. As a note for the admin that closes this DRV, there are three more images on this page at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_30#File:Old_Gregg.jpg right below this one. Whoever closes this, please take the same action on the other three images there (keep them all, delete them all, whatever you decide here.) That saves us the trouble of four deletion reviews. --B (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment - The question is not whether the exclusion of the image is detrimental to the user's understanding. Where did you come up with that? Nothing in policy uses the term "detrimental". The question is not asked in the negative: NFCC 1 asks, ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" The answer to both, in this case, is no; thus, the image is allowed. This was argued quite effectively at the Ifd, and included in the revised fair use rationale.
Also, why do you feel that it's irrelevant for me to call the nominator on his underhanded tactics? He's bullied his way through the whole process, interpreting policy anyway he felt at the moment, and you don't think that needs to be part of this discussion? Radiopathy •talk• 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in the policy says detrimental?
WP:NFCC#Policy point 8 - "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." You have to meet all the NFCC criteria, you can't just select that you believe it passes one of them and ignore the rest. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Okay, I stand corrected, and it passes all of them, okay? No one has yet shown how this image doesn't meet all the criteria, but they've been shown conclusively, repeatedly, that it does. And how about logging in when you comment. Radiopathy •talk• 06:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about addressing the question of B? - "The question that needs to be answered that was not answered by those opining keep in the IFD: how is exclusion of this image detrimental to the user's understanding?" merely asserting that it passes all of them doesn't do that. Stating that it has been "shown conclusively and repeatedly that it does", doesn't make it so. I've looked through the debate and the only attempt towards that is one person saying it helps them understand it, given multiple other people opine it doesn't I can't see that as "conclusively" and given it's only one of them "repeatedly" either. As I look through the debate your keep says that no one has shown how it fails to meet 3 or 8, but the further commenter points to where the burden of proof lies which you fail to address. I'm not sure what me logging in or not logging in has to do with anything, but if it helps I don't have an account. Okay?--82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because one of the primary things that distinguishes The Mighty Boosh is its visual style. These characters were selected for illustration because they appear frequently in many media and display the most outlandish character design. Without these images the visual aspects cannot adequately described in prose alone. Thus excluding them is detrimental to the reader's understanding of both the specific appearances of these higher-profile characters, as well as the visual style of the Boosh brand overall. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 09:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The other point is that we actually have explicit guidance on where the line is to be drawn here, namely
Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles
, which the closer seems to have wilfully ignored. That guidance takes as a given the proposition that showing what a character looks like adds (to some extent) to the understanding the article conveys, added understanding which is lost if the image is removed.
The question to be decided is if that additional understanding is sufficiently significant to justify the additional piece of NFC; and this is the issue the guidance then specifically discusses in detail. Now, as was set out in some detail at the IfD in remarks that were subsequently not questioned or disputed, these images are about as close as you could get to a paradigm case of following that guidance and getting it right. It's very hard to think what more an image could possibly do to be compliant than these ones. They have been carefully pared down to include only the four most significant out of nineteen. (And note the parallel "minor characters" article has no images at all). Of the recurring characters, these images are carefully selected as the guideline recommends to be only the most significant, that have most caught in viewers' imagination, and about which there is most content in the article; they are hardest to completely convey in words; they cannot be replaced by a group shot, because they also convey the extent of actor doubling up in the show, and the variety of makeup treatments applied all to the same performer; and, particularly, they give the best 'representative visual reference' of any of our articles on the Boosh for the "bizarre and surreal"-ness of the characters, discussed in the article, and which as OrangeDog has set out immediately above is such an important distinctive feature of the whole show.
When we have direct policy guidance on what factors contribute to the understanding conveyed by an image being sufficiently significant to justify its inclusion, and the article reflects that guidance, then it is not appropriate for FFD to simply ignore that guidance, and come to a decision which flies in the face of it. If these images don't satisfy the policy guidance, it's hard to think of any that would. Jheald (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, per Hobit. Jheald (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. Proper arguments relating to the NFCC, which is policy, were correctly considered superior to other arguments. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, arguments which reflect the
explicit guidance on that policy should be considered superior to those which ignore it. Jheald (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: This is utter nonsense. Seriously, what the Hell? To quote Hobit above, "4 images on a list of 19 characters and pretty clearly in line with all guidelines and policies for list articles". This is the kind of tripe that we have to put up with from long term editors. Seriously, if you don't like the fact we're a free content encyclopedia, go away, I'm sure there are plenty of other projects that could do with some help. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have an issue with the fact we allow fair use and have specific guidelines in place for list articles using images, then I suggest you avoid discussions on this topic or try to change those guidelines rather than arguing that "we are a free content encyclopedia" and (apparently) arguing that fair use of images is contrary to that even though we have policies and guidelines on the topic. Hobit (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no issue with the fact we allow non-free content in very strict circumstances- I think we're a far better work because of it. However, we already have our compromise between being a free content encyclopedia and allowing non-free content as we please, and they are the NFCC. Let us not water them down further. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (FYI: Further discussion taken has been taken our talk pages) Hobit (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that we need to watch the # of images in a list, (and unfortunately, unfamiliar with the source material), I'd have to edge out a bit in overturning the deletion -- but with the stipulation that there needs to be a revisit to improve the list article language and considerations for image removal. Right now, based on my reading of the list and the images, two of the non-frees are well and truly justified: the cast image (which, good, does the work of many images) and the image of Old Gregg, which appears to have significant outside of the show, and of course represents a heavily-made up actor. I'm hesitant to outright say the other non-frees (including this one) should be removed as they are describable in text (the Spirit of Jazz can be easily said to have a Haitian/Baron Samedi look, for example) and don't seem to have much more to say about the characters within the context of the show. But that's not a reason for outright deletion, as I have a hard time calling this overuse. Thus, I'd encourage an overturn to have improvements made to explain why the characters are shown, with some revisitation on the issue in a few weeks or so to see if there's better necessity to keep the images. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I'm going to say that the images should be restored and put back in the article - but there should be no prejudice against opening another bulk XfD to reconsider these images. The means by which they ended up deleted is questionable - I can see the acceptable process being: 1) remove extraneous images believed to be violating NFC 2) images replaced by another user 3) discussion at talk page 4) brought to XfD to evaluate. But here, there was the added step that the images were removed after the revert and then brought to XfD to be reviewed with the images having been deleted in the interim due to being orphaned by the removal. Restart the XfD with images in place and no image removal timer going to properly access them. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse from yours truly on this one. If the said characters had their own articles, I would have !voted otherwise, but I just don't think they're important enough to merit using a fair-use image.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm unsure if "important" plays a role here. The question, I think, is if not having them is detrimental to the article/topic as a whole. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Hobit, I personally think "importance" plays a role when it comes to fair-use images of living people. On principle, I'm quite deletionist when it comes to fair-use images of living people because I think they potentially pose quite a serious threat to Wikipedia. I think retaining them requires a strong justification (just short of an actual "need"). I realise this is an exception to my habitually inclusionist stance.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never really thought of you as an inclusionist, more as a "rules-ist" if anything, which is why I think you'd be a good admin :-). In anycase, I'd need to see the deleted image to know if the claims of "bizarre" looks were actually the case. As this is DrV I generally accept any reasonable claim that no one disputed. If the looks are so bizarre that no image of the actual person could replace the character and still convey the sense of the character, I think it's not replaceable. If they aren't then I'd understand the deletion. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my knowledge of the Mighty Boosh, I think I can safely say that every single character on the show is of profoundly bizarre appearance.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because "no consensus" outcomes at XfD default to "keep", not "delete", as made clear at
    WP:FFD: "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised."  Sandstein  21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The issue of who has the burden of proof in a discussion is unrelated to whether that discussion reaches a consensus, and what the outcome of it not reaching a consensus is.  Sandstein  21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof lies with those wishing to retain the image, meaning that the assumed position is that of not retaining the image. Therefore, if they are unable to demonstrate that the image should be retained (IE- not able to demonstrate there is a consensus in favour of the image's retention) then the assumed position is held- that the image should be deleted. Again, I don't mean to patronise, but taking a read of burden of proof may be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a lawyer and quite familiar with the concept. (I am also aware that Wikipedia is not a court and does not simply apply legal rules.) Policy does not simply state that "the burden of proof lies with those wishing to retain the image." It says that it is "the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". This does not change what happens if there is no consensus about whether they have provided a valid rationale. See also
Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No_consensus for discussion of this point.  Sandstein  22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
What constitutes a valid rationale is decided by consensus, though. Therefore, if there is no consensus that the rationale is valid... J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you might imagine, I think that's a huge and unsupported stretch. I agree with Sandstein. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a unique and tortured reading of the policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two policies that are based on Foundation mandates that err on removal instead of keep: NFC and BLP. That's not to say that removal should have been the default action here; the Foundation licensing policy only pushes for deletion when key objective factors of the rationale are not met, which we can take as lacking any rationale, lacking license info, and other details. Here is clearly a disputed rationale, which should be argued and aimed towards consensus, but that's something that's subjective, not objective. Clearly in this case, keeping the images should be done until a better consensus is made. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is "is a unique and tortured reading of the policy" that what constitutes a valid rationale is decided by consensus? Bullshit. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly what constitutes a valid rationale is decided by consensus. However, if there is no consensus as to if the rationale is valid or not we keep per WP:DEL. That includes BLP and NFC as far as I know. I'm willing to be wrong, and could imagine defaulting to delete could have consensus. But I don't think that has been demonstrated. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there have been proposals to change BLP in this regard, but they have not been accepted, at least not yet. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read my comments carefully, please, where I say, "Okay, I stand corrected..." Don't take an old comment that was later amended and attribute it as though it's still valid.
Could you draw a picture of Tony Harrison based on the text in the article? Is the text so precisely accurate that you can see Tony Harrison in your mind, making the absence of an image in the article of absolutely no consequence? Or in other words: define detrimental.
The arguments to endorse the deletion just keep getting more and more absurd, and it should be clear by now that rational discussion is taking a back seat to an almost desperate sort of deletionism. They need their fix and will go to any lengths.
Also, the arguments to keep are very specific to this TV show; no one is saying that this image sets a precedent for all non-free images. Please read the whole discussion carefully. Radiopathy •talk• 15:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Characterizing people advocating deletion as "needing a fix" like we're some kind of crazed drug addicts is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Cut the bullshit and focus on responding to the arguments rather than trying to ridicule those making them. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cut too close to the quick, then? Radiopathy •talk• 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read and understand
    WP:NPA, that's your business. The only effect it will have is you being blocked and everyone else thinking less of your opinions for you thinking that descending to insults somehow buttresses your opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
African admixture in Europe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

  • Reversing myself. Sigh. Ok, I took another look at the history logs. You are right about the original listing being faulty. I still think you're being silly here. Despite the listing error, the AdD got plenty of discussion over the course of 10 days. More to the point, even without the AfD, I think the two were similar enough that
    WP:CSD G4 could reasonably apply. If you had put the effort you've put into winning this argument into working with your fellow editors to reach consensus on editing the article into which this material had been merged, we would all be better off. But, rather than drag everybody through a long and loud DRV debate, I'll just put it back on AfD for another round. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mark_Prindle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, am new to this. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't have any problems making this listing, so I find it hard to believe that you managed to miss the three separate places in the instructions where it said to contact the administrator who deleted the page, but successfully opened the review request in the right place. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, still nothing to indicate notability. If there is a claim, go ahead and show
    notability. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • question- is there a deletion discussion we could look at? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. In that case, Endorse, aside from the 4channers, only one editor made a case for keep, and the remaining votes showed a delete consensus.Umbralcorax (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    changing my vote, as S Marshall's argument about the original has convinced me that a relist is in order. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The original AfD was from Feb 08. Are there new sources that should make us reconsider? How have things changed since then? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The G4'd version has references, but nothing terribly great. Of the six, three are to Prindle's website, one is to a glam rock blog, one is to an interview of Prindle, and one is to the personal site of another author (who cites Prindle as an inspiration for starting writing). Godgaverockandrolltoyou, if you would like to work on a version of this article in your userspace, you can feel free to create one (at, say, User:Godgaverockandrolltoyou/Mark Prindle). Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean, where did the old page go? He was already referenced in say, The Melvins Book Neither Here Nor There and some Pavement book, he has tons of interviews with (relatively) famous people and he's even on Fox News late night program "redeye", not in passing, but as an announced guest. I see no good reason why he shouldn't be able to be on this site, and don't understand why he was ever deleted. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – Proper admin close when you look past all the single-purpose accounts and IPs. This is not AFD round 2. MuZemike 03:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I'm new to this, am I missing something, can someone explain to me if I'm doing this wrong? The man has been on TV multiple times, on Fox News. He was in Spin magazine, he was referenced in a book by the Melvins, and according to the other delete page, he was referenced in the other material. His site is a veritable treasure trove of information on alternative rock artists of the 80s/90s, what with his many interviews of artists. He's cited in reputable online Music review sites like Pitchfrok Media. I'm not trying to foist some unknown blogger on Wikipedia, Prindle has been around since 1996. In internet terms, he's ancient. I really see no reason why he shouldn't be listed, as he was before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • yeah, basically notability is the standard for wikipedia articles and being on TV doesnt make you notable. You need people to write about you in detail in several reliable publications like books or broadsheet newspapers so what we write can be verifiable. Basically blogs or personal web-sites dont cut it. If you want to understand more you need to read
      Spartaz Humbug! 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • So, Mark Prindle doesn't make it, but people like Andrew_Levy or Bill_Schulz do? Makes no sense, especially as we move further away from print media, who the heck is gonna be writing books/print articles on not so famous people. Something is flawed when a man who reguarly on TV, a valuable source of information about a ton of bands, and mentioned/namedropped/referenced by bands in print and legit websites is not allowed to be on this site. I'm not sure what it accomplishes. If someone turns on their TV, and wishes to look up a regular contributor, they aren't gonna be able to find him on here, it's absurd. Here look [[28]]Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original article, deleted via AfD, didn't have sources at all. The more recent deletion, by
notability, either, and I'm happy to post them here if anyone feels it necessary). Do you have others, preferably something from a major news agency or peer-reviewed journal? Fox, perhaps? lifebaka++ 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I have Greg Gutfeld announcing him as a guest (with platitudes), but he doesn't give DOB or anything like that. FoxNews.com doesn't list him on their site in a biographical sense. I have not been able to dig up a news story on the man in a peer reviewed journal. Won't this happen more and more and print media lessens in their scope and internet fame increases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. In my view the above discussion was irretrievably sock-tainted, and it is therefore perfectly reasonable to question the outcome.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But on the other hand, sock spamming an AfD shouldn't be a way of disrupting the deletion process unless it can be reasonably held to have affected the outcome. As Umbralcorax pointed out above, with the SPAs removed, this discussion would be a nobrainer. What we have here is an objection to a deletion because the result wasn't affected by (admittedly quite amateurish) sockpuppetry. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The reason why the outcome was unsafe in this case is because it's entirely possible that users inclined to raise valid "keep" arguments might not have bothered because of the length of the debate and its apparent one-sided nature.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per S Marshall. I suspect the result will be the same, but there is enough doubt and enough issues here to justify a relist at this point. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The result was unfortunately negatively influenced by the SPAs saying to keep (this is a variation on what S Marshall said--it does not mean it was any fault of the closer) DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Relisting is pointless as we will still have the socking and spas and pointless if noone has come up with decent sources in the meantime.
    Spartaz Humbug! 15:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Undelete. Sources have been provided by Godgaverockandrolltoyou. This might be a case where Wikipedia:Notability_(media) would come in handy. Wiwaxia (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 August 2009

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

<REASON>

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

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

Nearly two years after being deleted through AfD (and salted over a year ago), I created a

discography standards and it should now merit a separate article. — Σxplicit 04:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Issues regarding

WP:OC#OPINION. The rename not only disregards consensus, but it imposes a definition on the category that does not match the consensus set at CfD. The escalating trend of closing admins casting their opinion as a supervote regardless of the discussion at XfD needs to be replaced by giving proper heed to actual consensus as a rule and overriding that consensus only in the rarest and most exceptional circumstances. Alansohn (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • As the closing admin I'm still inclined to endorse my closure. The rename had a non-trivial amount of support amongst the 'keep' crowd for various good and persuasive reasons (cf the debate) and wasn't simply plucked out of thin air on a whim of my own. Re. the mismatch between activists and theorists; as I noted to Alansohn in our pre-DRV discussion, activists should be reasonably categorisable within a subcat of Category:Activists by issue, which is much more tightly defined than a nebulous and anomalous 'Proponents' category.
Xdamrtalk 15:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - closing admin reasonably interpreted the debate and the relevant categorization and overcategorization guidelines. He did not simply make up this close, nor did he cast a "supervote" (whatever that even means).
    talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I'm abstaining from all CFD DRVs because I think the CFD process is broken. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per this, I agree. Or perhaps it would be better to say that the category system itself is a pig's ear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to endorse the close, despite technical problems. But the real problem here is that the category has been overused and libels people whose articles have no or insufficient support for it. The name change is good (more restrictive) in the long run and more consistent with overcategorization policy, but as "conspiracy theorist" is somewhat stronger than "proponent", it makes it even more BLP imperative to eliminate marginal and disputable cases immediately, in line with Otto4711's earlier comments.John Z (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally - I closed the cfd with 'Prune and Rename' and I think the first part of this is imperative. Theorists to the theorist category, activists to an activists category, and opinion-holders should not be categorised at all. --Xdamrtalk 23:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - 'rename' and 'keep' are not in my view inconsistent - a renamed category has been kept. The close seems to me a well-reasoned interpretation of the discussion, especially as there are no other 'proponents' categories.
    talk) 23:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • overturn So we are switching to a stricter category name that requires serious pruning of the category exactly why? I don't see any consensus to do that in the discussion at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This was a reasonable close that responded to a number of valid points raised by the discussion. No error or misinterpretation or "overriding" of consensus is evident to me here. I also agree with Occuli that "rename" and "keep" are not inconsistent or necessarily mutually exclusive. "Keep" is not the same as "do not rename". "Keep" ordinarily means "do not delete", especially when the original nomination proposal was to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • New rename nomination The category was proposed for deletion, not for renaming. Thus some participants (and non-participants) may not have commented on the relevant aspects of the renaming questions. The current name "9/11 conspiracy theorists" seems to be interpreted as characterizing people in a way that raises serious BLP issues. See the discussion at Template talk:911ct#BLP is serious, and_policy. We should have such debates before deciding on renaming, not after a decision has been made. I support relisting the category for renaming.  Cs32en  08:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once a category is listed at CFD, all options become available. CFD is not bound from considering renaming if the original nom is for deletion, and vice versa.
    talk) 12:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 August 2009

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

After this MFD discussion was correctly closed as delete, the closing administrator was

talk) 04:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

As the bot operator who would ordinarily convert these templates, I disagree with their deletion; the administrator who closed the TFD discussion has stated that he "would not be against" relisting and suggested raising the matter here [29]. Even the best available substitution of

talk) 15:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Basically, these templates are used to produce a newline, followed by indentation by a specified number of spaces. If we substitute
talk) 01:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Is there any reason that it couldn't be replaced with a linebreak and the proper number of colons (eg., for {{indent|15}}, :::::::::::::::)? lifebaka++ 22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some combination of colons would produce the desired effect. However, the problem is that you would have to know the prior indent amount, since this indent is an increment on the previous indention, rather than an absolute amount of indent. It's a complete mess. However, I don't see it as being entirely critical to get it complete right if it's only on a talk page. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a consideration like this is a pretty good reason to extend the discussion, personally. But I don't think the venue should be TFD. Is there some appropriate place where technically-minded users would naturally gather to talk about such matters?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, most of these are unused in article space? It appears that {{5}} has quite a few transclusions, but it's hard to see which template is actually using it. Note that, a common typo in template programming is to leave off an extra brace, in which case, this template is the result. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say that getting the exact appearance right is not that critical if they are only used on talk pages. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion of these templates is premised upon the project being somehow better off without them. To claim, then, that it's okay to break formatting by deleting the templates because only talk pages will be affected doesn't really explain how the deletion of the templates is beneficial.
talk) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreed. However, I would say that deleting {{5}} would be beneficial. It's a common error in template programming to forget an extra brace. I just tracked down one such error in {{BS-header}}, which was causing {{5}} to be transcluded on thousands of articles. I don't know how long it takes for the "what links here" cache to update after such a fix. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 01:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That sounds like a reasonable resolution, and perhaps deprecate them all as well. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggested resolution

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

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

My vote would be to

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

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

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

14 August 2009

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

In the previous AFD over a year ago the article failed notability policies, it still fails now. All but one keep in this AFD was canvassed from an outside fan website. I saw no reasonable arguments that were put forward to suggest why this article passes our notability guidelines. So it should have been closed as delete. Relevant guidelines that the article fails:

Otterathome (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

~ Renegade - 213.39.203.11 (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  • Endorse keep:
  1. There was a unanimous consensus to retain the article.
  2. While, technically, the AFD should have run for 7 days, I closed it after 6 days, 20 hours, and 35 minutes. Per
    WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY
    , this de minimis violation of AFD procedure does not, by itself, establish a basis for reversal: there is simply no compelling reason to believe that the discussion would have been in a substantially different state 3 hours and 25 minutes later.
  3. talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note that the closer doesn't address the fact that there were very few comments.
Saying "I would not have nominated it for deletion" because it had one lousy source (in Chinese, saying prices in it and several other complexes were up 14%) was my way of countering a keep argument that claimed sources would be hard to find, and we should therefore keep this article because it can't be verified. Abductive (reasoning) 04:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 04:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
To address your claim that "there were very few comments", a review of
talk) 04:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Can't be verified by Google searching, then. Four keeps, one by DGG based on a claim of notability for all apartment buildings in the world, one by the article creator, one saying until a discussion on WP Hong Kong wraps up (a discussion that no member of that Wikiproject deigned to comment in besides the not votors in this AfD), and one by the user who set up said discussion. So a closing admin might have thought a relist was in order, or a delete even. Abductive (reasoning) 04:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's comment was "Large housing developments on this scale are always be notable", which is certainly not "a claim of notability for all apartment buildings in the world", but only for "Large housing developments on this scale" (emphasis added). Please don't continue your misrepresentations of fact.
talk) 04:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
DGG's argument is teleological. The metric for notability is
reliable sources, not potential sources in offline newspapers, (which Hong Kong doesn't have) and the one source I talk about above was the best the place has. An experienced admin might have come to a different conclusion than keep, such as relist. Abductive (reasoning) 05:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
AFD policy isn't "find
talk) 05:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
A relist would be more appropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 07:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do this, either: endlessly relisting until impeccable sources irrefutably proving notability have been found would cause AFD to overflow with an excessive quantity of discussions.
talk) 15:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Hong Kong doesn't have offline newspapers? Then what are all those newspapers in List of newspapers in Hong Kong? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn for an admin to close, because non-admin closure is for uncontroversial matters, and the act of raising this DRV shows that the closure was controversial, which I think would automatically invalidate the closure. So I think procedurally, we can't possibly endorse the closure.

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

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

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

  • I'm sure Abductive will correct me if I'm wrong but perhaps he felt it would be a stronger close if the discussion ran the full 168 hours and was closed by a
    mopster. I've seen one AFD that was first snow closed by a non admin and re-opened by one of the "keep" !voters for a similar reason. However, I don't think that applies here. A unanimous "keep" consensus closed after 165 hours by a non-admin is just as "strong" as one closed closed after 168 hours by an admin, especially if endorsed by a deletion review as this one appears likely to be. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Explaining: I think the correct time to close is after 168 hours, and people should not close earlier, unless the situation is clear enough for an explicitly snow or speedy. But that does not mean I would upset a clear decision that was in violation by only a few hours, where it is very unlikely that further comments would have changed the course of things. Of course, one of the reasons to wait the full time is to avoid this sort of challenge. Erik would have done better to wait, and it would have prevented this needless discussion. It is not over-legalistic to challenge such a closing & I support Abductive in raising the issue. But whether to actually overturn the close is a matter of judgment about whether it would have made the least difference. In this case, I think the judgement is that it would not have. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse simply because this was how the AfD was going to end. That said, I don't like the creeping tendency towards earlier closures. NACs will not (or at least should not) be considered a badge, and certainly not a road to adminship. Obviously help is appreciated with closures but if the only way to "catch a close" is to close early, then maybe help isn't needed right now. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 01:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "creeping tendency", it's been this way for the past couple of years. I took a quick look at the AFD log for the 9th and the first 3 closes (all by admins) were closed before 168 hours have passed. I can't speak for other closers but I start going through the 7 day old log at 00:00GMT to see what needs relisting. When I do that it only makes sense to also close any obvious keeps. I'm not trying to "catch a close" or race anybody, it's just that I'm already there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 August 2009

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

There has already been one inconclusive

sources
such as (amongst many others)

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

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

  • The "rather simple solution of having multiple categories", otherwise known as category clutter, is exactly the issue addressed by these discussions. A surname becomes a "Fooian surname" as soon as a Fooian person adopts it. When Angus McTavish of Scotland becomes a Chinese citizen, McTavish becomes a Chinese surname. What encyclopedic knowledge is imparted by categorizing McTavish as a Chinese surname?
    talk) 10:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • In reply to Otto4711 above:
  • Categories cannot be referenced.
    talk) 10:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, thank you so much for explaining how items included in categories can be supported by sources within the category...oh wait, they can't be.
    talk) 11:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse. Especially when the alternative is the very bad idea of mass and automatic repopulation. I'm neutral on the idea of doing it manually, as SamuelTheGhost suggests, adding references prior to categorization. --Kbdank71 13:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, allow recreation of the category manually.

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

    • It's not that difficult to reverse a single category deletion manually. It's not as automatic as clicking a button, but deletion is also not the creation of a black hole that some make it out to be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Overturn An incorrect closing, against consensus and with no basis in policy for rejecting the consensus. The breakdown at the CfD was 6 deletes, including the nom, 18 keeps, and 12 people wanting to do other things. What other things to do had a variety of mutually incompatible suggestions. It is impossible to regard this as a consensus to delete. It can be regarded either as a consensus to keep while discussing how to handle the problem, or as no-consensus. Essentially, the closer was trying to solve the problem on his own, which is not the role of an admin. It was suggested that some keep votes were "useful", but a category is an organizing device,not an article, and useful is an applicable criteria--we want to categorize in ways that will be helpful for finding material, not in ways that will not be. The result, of destroying dozens of difficulty-to-reconstruct categories without any clear plan of what to do as an alternative, was about the worst possible way to handle it. The right way is to discuss how best to handle it until we reach a consensus. Myself, I do not know what the best way is,and would want to hear suggestions in an extended community-wide discussion. Breakdown of any topic by nationality or language is a recurrent problem, and we do not have a consistent solution. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, both based on the procedural argument (per DGG) and based on the content-based argument that independent academic research seems to have been done on the subject, so I'd !vote keep on the original discussion if I had known about it. —Ynhockey (Talk) 13:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • WP:RS). The arguments in the DRV that these arguments should not have been disregarded are much stronger in my opinion. The subjectivity concerns in the CfD were also quite reasonable, however, and were certainly based in established guidelines as some mention here. I don't feel there is sufficient consensus (even with somewhate stronger arguments) for me overturn the CfD on the strengh of the DRV arguments alone. I will, however, allow selective re-population of the category under the expectation that all category inclusions are referenced at the highest standard. Relisting of the category is at editorial discretion if editors feel that further discussion would be of assistance. – IronGargoyle (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Fads (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

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

  • Overturn. Clearly no consensus to delete. Quite possibly a consensus to keep, but at the very least this was no consensus. Absolutely should not have been deleted. As above, keep arguments were not refuted and advanced a valid, policy based case. Numerically, the keeps also had it. Cool3 (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse; closer has been
    relevant policy states: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." I interpreted the closer's comments as indicating that he was not persuaded by the "keep" comments that core principles were not being violated. See also, related CfD. I have a feeling this will be the type of nomination that will essentially be turned into CfD Round 2, which of course is not the point here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse, reasonable consensus. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closing admin. Cfd is not a vote, but a determining of consensus based upon arguments made and informed by relevant policy. Arguments were made on both sides, with those for deletion raising significant questions at to the categories' viability in light of core policy. 'Keep' arguments consistently failed to satisfactorily address this issue and as such any advantage they gained in numbers was diminished by their shaky rationale. --Xdamrtalk 10:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. While the closing admin is granted some leeway in evaluating the strength of arguments, I believe the closer discounted the "keep" arguments too easily in this case. Essentially, the closer imposed his or her judgment that the category was too subjective, rather than reading the arguments and trying to determine if the discussion participants believed the category was too subjective. From reading the discussion, it seems clear to me that there is no consensus that the category necessarily violates our guidelines; the "keep" arguments were not an attempt to "override community consensus on a wider scale", as Good Ol'factory claims, but rather an attempt to argue for a particular application of that consensus.
    More concisely, the question at hand was whether this category violated the consensus on what kinds of categories are appropriate; it was not a question of what kinds of categories are appropriate. Attempting to change the latter in that forum would be inappropriate as Good Ol'factory said; the former, however, is an area of legitimate community discussion. To that end, the closing admin must take into account whether the discussion participants were persuaded one way or the other; in this case, I maintain that there was no clear consensus either way.
    -- Powers T 13:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will further add that while "consensus is not a vote count," if the numbers are clearly leaning one way or another, that should increase the threshold for discounting the majority side's arguments. Just because consensus isn't a vote count doesn't mean that numbers don't matter. To exaggerate, if a discussion has fifteen people recommending "delete" and one recommending "keep", and the closer believes the "keep" reason is more solid, closing it as "keep" would require extraordinary justification. Something like all of the delete recommendations relying on completely irrelevant or inapplicable criteria. Obviously, this CfD discussion did not have such an imbalance in opinions, but neither were the "keep" recommendations as flimsy as in my example. Powers T 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – whether something is or is not a fad is subjective. If there were some globally acknowledged 'Fad of the year' award, then 'Fad of the year award winners' would be an objective category. We don't have a 'brilliant actor' category for actors described by someone somewhere as brilliant: we do have various Academy Award categories.
    talk) 13:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Their arguments were not discounted out of hand, out of some personal prejudice. In all Xfd discussions, one of the key responsibilities of closing admins is to follow policy. The arguments for deletion were set against the arguments fore retention . The deletion arguments had a significant grounding in policy (
WP:OCAT
). In judging the debate none of the 'keep' arguments convincingly reconciled these categories with these policies, hence the deletion.
Xdamrtalk 16:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know you discounted them because you weren't convinced. I'm asking Occuli why he or she is discounting them now, because it appeared Occuli was giving reasons for deletion, rather than reasons to accept the closure. Powers T 17:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn frankly no delete arguments were advanced that weren't shot down (IMO) by the keep !votes. Further, by numbers is a pretty clear keep. So given that strength of argument goes the same direction as numbers, I don't see how this could be a delete. As far as citing WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, I just don't see "fad" being any more subjective than being a beginner or being a "Biologically based therapy" (both categories). This is different than being fat or thin, popular or not... Hobit (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus isn't a vote count. --Kbdank71 19:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apples aren't oranges either. But I don't see how either fact applies here. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Immediately above you said, "Further, by numbers is a pretty clear keep." The response to this is that "consensus isn't a vote count." Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but if that is a response to my comment, it was only an aside. The main body of the argument was that the deletion arguments were all successfully rebuffed (IMO). I was guessing Kbdank71 probably had an opinion on that part too and was hoping he'd share it. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - arguments against the category: subjective inclusion criterion; categorized articles have nothing in common beyond having been described at some point as a "fad" with no regard to the actual longevity of the product or action. Arguments for the category: there are reliable sources that describe things as fads; the categories aren't hurting anything; "A historical/societal human construct". Closing admin correctly weighed the relative strengths of these arguments and concluded that the arguments in favor of deletion were stronger. No indication that the close is outside the discretion of the closing admin, no indication of gross error on the part of the closing admin, no new information presented here compelling the overturning of the admin's decision.
    talk) 21:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Supported by the noting of reliable sources, which the arguer well knows is the criterion for notability, not definingness.
    talk) 23:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There is no widely-agreed-to positive definition for "definingness" that can be applied in every circumstance. This is not the same as saying there is "absolutely no criteria". There are a raft of criteria for which there's broad consensus and agreement that they constitute part of the negative definition of "definingness". Some of these criteria are found at
    WP:OCAT. There are even many criteria for which there is broad agreement and consensus that they constitute part of a positive definition of "definingness"—like a person's nationality, for instance. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 August 2009

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

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

I think the decision to delete Currie's page should be re-reviewed and overturned. If the current decision stands, it would be my most strong opinion that agents of the infamous

Seduction Community 'experts' and 'gurus.' Chicago Smooth (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Endorse - It was deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie. Looking at the AFD, it looks like process was followed correctly. There is nothing to justify overturning the decision. --B (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming bias among the folks who opined at the deletion discussion is not a really good case for the article. If you feel the deletion was incorrect, you need to back it up by showing that there are, in fact, good
    reliable sources beyond the ones rejected in the AfD. My search, as I noted in my weak delete, turned up very minimal coverage outside of press releases and trivial mentions. Endorse Tony Fox (arf!) 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
comment - I don't see how you can categorize an appearance on national television [[34]] and an appearance in
Dwayne Wade and Dirk Nowitzki, but not having a page for Dwight Howard, Pau Gasol or Brandon Roy Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
i explained to you at least 4 separate times what
WP:N means and why it's not the same as the common usage of the word notable, and you ignored me every time. this is why we can't have nice things. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
response - Generally speaking Theserialcomma, you have been more objective than one or two of the other editors have been in the past, and for that, I applaud you; However, this is what I just don't get: When I first published this article in Spring 2007, Mr. Currie had virtually no credentials on his page. No TV appearance, no newspaper citations, no magazine citations, nothing. At least three or four editors examined his page, and said it was FINE. I even consulted with a couple of them, and they said the page looked fine. Then, a few months later, I had a deletion challenge. Nothing came of it. They just suggested that I didn't "sing his praises" so much, so I did some editing. Then, last Fall, the editor Davidwiz wanted it deleted. There was a big debate, but the final mediator said the same thing. That the page was worth being kept, but it just needed some editing to diminish the "press release" or "advertising" feel of the page. I deleted some more stuff. Now, when Mr. Currie is probably at his heighest degree of popularity since I first published his page, it's decided that it should be deleted. Using my NBA analogies again, it would be like me publishing a page of LeBron James when he's a Junior or Senior in high school, and the editors saying, "that's fine." Then, during his 2nd or 3rd year in the NBA, I get a challenge from editors saying he might not be notable enough. Then, after he's made numerous all-star appearances and an appearance in the NBA Finals, all of the sudden, I'm told that LeBron's page should be deleted. Would that make sense to you? This is pretty much how I feel about Mr. Currie's page being deleted. He has more citations and credentials than he's ever had since I published his page 30-33 months ago, and now all of the sudden, he's deleted. This might make sense to many of the Wikipedia editors, but I guarantee you, to Mr. Currie's fans, book readers, radio show listeners and others who are familiar with him, it makes no sense. It makes Wikipedia seem backwards, inconsistent and like the criteria for remaining on here is very subjective. Chicago Smooth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

comment / request - I beg of all of the editors to please reconsider this decision. If the content needs to be severely edited, I'm willing to adhere to that. But please don't let this deletion stand. Comparing fans of the Attraction & Seduction Community to U.S. politics, deleting Mr. Currie's article would be like letting a lot of Liberal Democractic voices be heard, but deleting notable Republicans, or vice versa. Currie is the "Un-Cola" so-to-speak to the

Seduction Community's "Cola". Mr. Currie should definitely have a presence on Wikipedia, even if most of the content is basic. I'm pleading with Nja247!!! Chicago Smooth (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I'm sorry but looking over the closure again, there is little question in my mind that it's a delete and allowing a SPA to bypass proper procedures so that their article is reinstated is simply a ridiculous proposition.
    247 09:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
response - When you say, "bypass proper procedures," what do you specifically mean by that? Chicago Smooth (talk) 08:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like to add that GRuban's comments below say much better what I was trying for. So keep per GRuban should be appended to my !vote. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I was thinking of nominating this for review myself, but not for the reason given by Chicago Smooth. I think this should be redone because Chicago Smooth and the single purpose accounts shot themselves in the foot by drowning the nomination in arguments not based on our policies, and most contributors didn't actually read the real reasons the article should be kept. The article should be kept because there are four non-trivial articles from Wikipedia:Reliable sources covering Currie: From the Post-Tribune [35] [36] and the San Francisco Examiner [37] [38]. That clearly meets Wikipedia:Notability. All the other arguments are just getting in the way. There is no grand conspiracy from "the seduction community" here, and begging and pleading isn't necessary. (Wouldn't that be Mode 3 or something anyway?) :-) --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
these don't strike me as widespread or significant coverage. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
response - you Wikipedia editors (some, anyway) have a very good sense of humor. I might be starting to like you guys (re: GRuban's witty "Mode 3" comment). I don't know if Mr. Currie's mention in the Northwest Indiana TIMES or Post-Tribune would represent "widespread" coverage, but I think it at least makes him credible and notable. I do think the Examiner.com coverage is both "widespread" and "significant." I think Mr. Currie's most notable credential was his national TV talk show appearance on the "Relationship 101" segment of The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. That show was known for only inviting credible relationship authors and experts for that particular segment of their show. Secondly, would be Mr. Currie's brief quote / blurb in Essence (magazine). That magazine is not necessarily a 'top tier' magazine, but among African-Americans, and particularly African-American women, that magazine is very widespread and significant. Finally, if "Google Hits" count for anything (and realistically, they probably don't compared to general Wikipedia notability criteria), but if you look at Mr. Currie's hits compared to a few others on Wikipedia, he comes out with very respectable numbers (example, when you enter the the author/expert's name, Mr. Currie had approximately 497,000 hits; Same criteria used for other dating and relationship authors, experts and gurus: Tariq Nasheed - 66,300 hits; Zan Perrion - 79,000; David DeAngelo - 413,000; Ross Jeffries - 212,000 hits Chicago Smooth (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theserialcomma: The Examiner is a newspaper in California, the Post-Tribune is in Indiana, that's pretty widespread. Two articles per newspaper, devoted completely to Currie, that's pretty significant. Chicago Smooth: thank you for starting to relax a bit, and type less, but please go even more, please; if it looks like you're posting as much as everyone else put together, this will go the same way as the AFD did. --GRuban (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – this is not AFD round 2. Proper admin closure when you look past the baseless pleas by the single-purpose accounts. MuZemike 23:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you be calling me a single purpose account? --GRuban (talk) 02:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not at all. However, I thought you were in the minority. MuZemike 00:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see the points GRuban and Hobit are making, but I also have some sympathy for Nja, who should not be criticised for deleting in accordance with the consensus. I think we may have another situation like Category:Senior Wranglers, where the closer correctly implemented the consensus, but the consensus was simply wrong. There are actually tolerable sources for this article, a fact which was obfuscated by a debate that was characteristic of an article without good sources.

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

    • I agree pretty much across the board. I do think we _can_ be AfD2 when needed but think relisting might be a reasonable way forward. Hobit (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, and try for a less confused debate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    • Hate to badger, but did you mean "four articles in two widely separated states ... is not significant coverage?" --GRuban (talk) 17:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for Review of new, modified article for Book Author Alan Roger Currie - SmokeyJoe, GRuban, Hobit, SMarshall and others: Let me know what you think of the new proposed article I created for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie -> User talk:Chicago Smooth/New Alan Roger Currie article Chicago Smooth (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like a much improved article. Since this discussion is so close, I would hope that this would be an acceptable compromise. --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the close looks solid and while the debate was confused by argueing SPAs, disruption of process shouldn't be a way of circumventing it. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 00:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

between the editor Theserialcomma and myself regarding the new article

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

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

I don't think Usrnme h8er is referring to the new article. --GRuban (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GRuban, I mistakenly formatted it my earlier response inappropriately; I have since modified it. Thank you. Chicago Smooth (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist The new version is improved enough to move to mainspace and relist. DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Diop Kamau (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

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

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

What the hell?

You deleted

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

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

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

Thanks for your note. I'm afraid that I regard suggestions that the individual in question blackmailed another, or that he was mentally unfit for duty, and many other such suggestions, without a specific reference directly attached to each and every such assertion, as having the potential to expose Wikipedia to a suit for libel. Since I work in the legal profession, perhaps you'll accept that I know potentially libellous statements when I encounter them. To quote from the relevant policy page, found at
WP:BLP, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." I believe I've followed that policy, and that I haven't been unduly insistent upon the provision of high quality references. However, if you feel this material should somehow be returned to Wikipedia, I recommend WP:Deletion review. Best of luck with your future contributions. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for replying to my note. I honestly don't know to what you're referring when you wrote: "I'm afraid that I regard suggestions that the individual in question blackmailed another, or that he was mentally unfit for duty, and many other such suggestions, without a specific reference directly attached to each and every such assertion, as having the potential to expose Wikipedia to a suit for libel...." --but you're not referring to this article you removed, because it has no mention of any of that or any of that kind of stuff in it. What are you talking about, then? The article was reviewed and approved by Diop Kamau before it was published, to ensure that it was accurate and not libelous. He's involved in the legal profession too. He may be curious too...what are you talking about when you wrote: "I'm afraid that I regard suggestions that the individual in question blackmailed another, or that he was mentally unfit for duty, and many other such suggestions, without a specific reference directly attached to each and every such assertion, as having the potential to expose Wikipedia to a suit for libel...." Of course, several people "feel this material should somehow be returned to Wikipedia," and it should be submitted to WP:Deletion review* in lieu of you restoring it ASAP. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that you have not speedily replied (even though you speedily removed the article without consulting with anyone), I figure it is because you have not reviewed my reply to you here on this page. So I have moved it "up the page" (downward literally) to try and ensure that you see my reply and respond ASAP. I would prefer you explain yourself as quickly as you completely erased an article which was fully documented about a notable person and organization. I would prefer you not evade the issue, or express weird convoluted unsubstantiated claims, and that you restore the article ASAP. Something's fishy about this: You removed an article about a controversial human rights/civil rights advocate, made bizarre and unsubstantiated claims about the article and the person(s) described in the article...and then when you are asked about it, you make more unsubstantiated and bizarre claims and then don't respond to a request that you explain why the information was completely erased. Tell me, what do you think of Diop Kamau and the Police Complaint Center? Are you irritated that he is an
African-American? Annoyed that he and his organization oppose and expose violations of civil rights? You didn't drag your feet when you erased the information about the Police Complaint Center...why are you dragging your feet about restoring it? 70.246.244.4 (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe you have your response above. If you still disagree with the deletion decision, you are welcome to request a review at
WP:DRV at this time. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 06:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe I received "my" response above too, but for reasons I carefully explained, I don't find the response rational nor satisfactory. Seeing as you are are evidently satisfied with a garbled and evasive non-answer, I'm deciding it is a waste of time to ask Diop Kamau's detractor to explain himself. I'll take this to
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Diop Kamau? Do you dislike them? Willing to censor them? I'm just curious, no problem if you don't feel like responding. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 07:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Fixed malformed listing. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that this page has been restored by User:Decltype with the inappropriate revisions removed. I think that Accounting4Taste was right to act quickly and remove the article when he saw them, but the matter has come to the right result, through whatever means, so I think this discussion can be closed. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Decltype and also Accounting4Taste did the right thing, considering the volatile and confusing circumstances. I expressed a mea culpa at Accounting4Taste's Userpage. You can close this case and archive this baby as far as I'm concerned, I'm pleased with the outcome, with Accounting4Taste and Decltype...and with Wikipedia. 70.246.244.4 (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 August 2009

  • Apollo 12 – Not an issue for deletion review. No deletion or deletion discussion has occurred. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Apollo 12 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

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

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

Please help his stop his unjustified deletions.

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

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

10 August 2009

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

The discussion was closed prematurely in less than a day rather than 7 days. The reason given was

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

As closer, I think that 14 keeps, 1 delete (in addition to the nominator), and 1 merge make for a pretty obvious close. The notability of lists arguments were not particularly compelling on the delete side, especially given the
WP:POKEMON history that Wikipedia has been through in the past. I declined to reopen because I see no reasonable way the outcome can be anything other than keep. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Curiously, I have almost simultaneously started doing so for an analogous reason. The Col. & I are only inclusionists for articles that we think should be reasonably included, and there are a great many here that should not. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I notice that there is much fuss at ANI and elsewhere about another recent snow close by the same administrator. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is also tending to favor my acitions, actually. The actions are independent, but the reasoning behind them is quite consistent: when there's no longer a chance of another outcome, the debate is over and should be closed appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Web television (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Web television and Internet television are two separate and distinct ideas. Both

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

  • Apologies, perhaps I was unclear. Would you suggest that the category be recreated and repopulated then? Bradybd (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally I'd wait and see what happens to the merge discussion on the two articles. At this point in time, it is not clear if these are one in the same or two different things. If there is a clear consensus that they are in fact different, then recreation of the category would be reasonable. But without a clear consensus in the merge discussion I would hold off on recreating the deleted category. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got it. Sounds like a plan. Thanks for the help. Bradybd (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
)

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

  • Sounds like you want
    WP:AFD, rather than this page. DRV is for disputing the closes of prior deletion discussions, and I don't see that this novel has had such a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 August 2009

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

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

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

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

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

There was complete consensus on the fact the article should not be under

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

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

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

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

8 August 2009

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

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

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Hank Green – Unprotect target to allow new draft to be moved to mainspace at editorial discretion. Any further AfDs on the target article are at editorial discretion as well. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Hank Green (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The Hank Green article has a long history of notability issues, vandalism, etc. The last Afd was in December 2008

WP:MUSICBIO
#2, this provides some notability. In my opinion enough to, together with the rest of the sources, establish Mr. Green's notability.

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

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

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

7 August 2009

6 August 2009

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

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

  • Overturn to no consensus because there wasn't one.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, while there was a decent consensus to delete some of the other catchphrase redirects (particularly those with arbitrary spellings), there was no such consensus here, and the general consensus elsewhere cannot really be seen to apply given the strong evidence for this being a specific, canonical spelling. ~ mazca talk 11:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleted - the arguments to delete were much more solid and intelligent than those to retain this adolescent and frankly incomprehensible redirect. ... Hmmm, now what's that character that says gawrsh with a superfluous 'w' and followed by an exclamation point....? Yea right. Eusebeus (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references provided show it is the canonical spelling. It is no different than
Do'h! or any other nonsensical catchphrase, they don't have to make sense, just have the one, or possibly a few, spellings used by reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The argument was "non-intuitive, [and] obscurely spelled". Albany as the capital of New York in non intuitive, and the spelling of Mississippi and Massachusetts are obscure, yet they are accurate and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, because there clearly was no consensus, and no basis given for disregarding the expression of community opinion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus !votes are balanced and arguments to delete not stronger than to keep. Hobit (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - as nominator. Arguments against the redirect are based directly on
    talk) 20:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Despite the evidence that this is the canonical spelling per:
  • "Gawrsh! Goofy and Elmo Are Wanted for Robbery" in New York Times - Aug 15, 2000
  • "Gawrsh! Goofy's Right on the Money! Disneyland to Print Pastel ...
  • "Gawrsh! Goofy's good Fort Worth Star-Telegram" in Fort Worth Star-Telegram - Apr 13, 1995

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

  • It remains a non-intuitive and obscure search term because it's extremely doubtful that there's anyone who can't remember "Goofy" but can remember "G-A-W-R-S-H-exclamation point". Even assuming that there actually is someone who can't remember "Goofy" but can remember "Gawrsh!", searching for Gawrsh! yields
    talk) 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That is 100% subjective, a bit a crystal balling, and pure speculation. All should be avoided. We shouldn't speculate on what terms people use to search, since its just a guess. We don't delete all the articles that are obscure or under-read. What your saying is you find it not intuitive, yet it is canonical spelling, and is linked in 4 other articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - RAN waited a whopping
    talk) 21:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Step 3 of the instructions for listing a DRV is to notify the closing admin. It says nothing about its being an optional step or a courtesy. Contrast that with AFD instructions, which merely state that it is considered courteous to notify the article creator. As far as the closer's rationale provided above (I assume by RAN), it is a perfectly reasonable and valid reading of the discussion, technically correct in every point. No new information has been provided here indicating that anything's changed. The majority of the "overturn" comments here are RFD round two.
    talk) 16:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Where in the instructions at the top of this page does it say that notifying the closing admin is optional?
    talk) 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Some unconstructive wrangling and accusations of bad faith hatted here—take it to dispute resolution please folks
  • It's good to see you branching out. Instead of mischaracterizing arguments to guidelines as "I hate it" you switched to "is not". It's still a complete mischaracterization of the arguments but at least it's variety.
    talk) 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • And on cue, we have the incivility/personal attack canard in place of actually addressing the statement that you are misrepresenting the opinions of others when you dismiss arguments that are based in procedural guidelines with a flippant comment like "it's not". You constantly, constantly do this and whenever you are called on it you immediately play the "stop picking on me!" card, as if when it suits your purposes the fabled civility you demand from everyone else doesn't go right out your window. And it is irrelevant to this process whether there exist sources which confirm that Goofy says "gawrsh" since the question here is whether the closing admin acted appropriately in closing the CFD.
    talk) 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Otto, pipe down please, you started the finger pointing and are adding fuel to the flames. Disruptive behaviour and drama-mongering are not appreciated at DRV and will damage your case. More then one nomination as been closed early because of misbehaviour.
Spartaz Humbug! 23:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Otto, please. You stated above that "it is irrelevant to this process whether there exist sources which confirm that Goofy says "gawrsh" since the question here is whether the closing admin acted appropriately in closing the CFD". I did directly address the RfD discussion, emphasizing in the past tense that "Reliable and verifiable sources were provided to show that the term is used as a reference to Goofy" and stated that there was no consensus for deletion in the discussion that took place. Even if the sources had never been provided at RfD, the
WP:DRV process is intended to be used where editors "have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate". Reliable and verifiable sources are always relevant. I have addressed my justification under policy, showing why there were strong arguments for retention and no consensus for deletion, and "since the question here is whether the closing admin acted appropriately in closing the CFD" I'm far from the only editor here who sees problems here with this close. In turn, all you've done is toss out uncivil personal attacks. It's well past time that your ceaseless argumentative personal attacks end once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Relist for further discussion. That was not a consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep – I think Norton made a compelling argument to keep the redirect there despite the other two users who favored deletion. MuZemike 19:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, basically per Mazca. Joe (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Actually, the delete was the one that failed to address the points made by the above keep !voter--An assertion of obscurity in the face of reliable sourcing should hold no weight. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, reasons for deletion were based in policy and reasons for keeping were not. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Providing multiple reliable and verifiable sources to show that this is a standard spelling of a term used to refer to the character is somehow not based on policy, but the rebutted deletion argument "non-intuitive, obscurely spelled and punctuated search term" somehow is? That there is so much trouble understanding and interpreting policy, especially by admins, is behind so many of the problems at Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a reasonable redirect. --NE2 18:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Take it one step at a time (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

  • Overturn and relist. Closer appears to have participated in the AfD, and then closed six days early as a "redirect", disregarding the debate participants (none of whom had actually recommended a redirect) in the process.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Participant in debate closed discussion far too early to a result not supported by any of the other !votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Closer has participated in the debate, and has not even supported the close (which does not say where the redirect goes). Also the redirect is not appropriate. One of the most bizarre closes I am yet to see.
    talk) 17:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and relist as an entirely inappropriate close and User:Cobaltbluetony overstepped his bounds. There is no CSD for this so a speedy is invalid. That said, the deletion of an article on this topic is pretty much a forgone conclusion. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly... However the wikipedia does have: Category:Phrases which is reasonably extensive.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 21:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After reviewing the AfD policies I see that I was not in keeping with how these things should be handled. I wasn't entirely comfortable with
    WP:SNOW either, but for the sake of beating a dead horse, I'll relist this and allow the consensus on this topic to play out as I expect it to. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 August 2009

  • WP:PROD, so this should be uncontroversial. – ~ mazca talk 20:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Delta_Tao_Software (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

History-only undeletion (article was deleted as it wasnt "noteworthy" enaugh even though the article predated the policy by years. And if possible put the deleted history of

Delta Tao in too if you could be so kind. Zarutian (talk) 06:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

4 August 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 August 2009

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

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

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

2 August 2009

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

subject does not meet

WP:MUSIC Entire section on Skinny Blonde uses an opinion article from tabloid newspaper as a source. The claim of national controversy in unverifiable anywhere else. 203.153.202.40 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) — 203.153.202.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]

1. does not meet
WP:MUSIC
because as a drummer, simply being associated with a band which may or may not be notable is not qualification enough for an entire article about him.
The issue was raised by
WP:N
applies equally in both cases as drummer and employee, and the combination of the two does not make the subject suddenly notable.
Finally, editors are making a
WP:RS Reliable Source. Australia has hundreds of media outlets and not one other mentioned this contrived controversy. In fact, editors at Crikey [[41]] have pointed out the "controversy" was designed by Hamish himself to increase sales. This source was omitted conveniently by the "KEEP" editors. 203.153.201.197 (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)— 203.153.201.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
  • That isn't a reason to re-nominate an article.
    talk) 13:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
)
(result was No consensus, and I wish this to be overturned to Delete.)

This page, at the time of listing, had no

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

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

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

  • Overturn and delete, I'm pretty sure that's how I would have closed it. The keep arguments were both weak and outnumbered - absolutely no refutation was made of the assertion that this is unsourceable and non-notable. I really think there was a pretty clear consensus to get rid of the article even without the lack of improvement after the fact. ~ mazca talk 12:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete per the consensus at the deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I don't see any consensus at that discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, there were 2 Keep !votes (one was the trolling IP, one had
    no rationale); 1 Delete !votes (including the nom, all of which provided rationale); and 1 Merge !vote. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I retract my previous comment. My vote does not change to overturn, consider it a no-vote. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now... the album is just out. It is too soon to determine notability. There will be reviews, if there aren't any already. Let it flesh out before repeatedly trying to get the article deleted in such a short timespan. — Edokter • Talk • 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a procedural comment about the AfD, or a delete/keep statement? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete, which was the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete – clear consensus for deletion was established. Arguments to keep were textbook cases of
    WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. MuZemike 21:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn to delete the people arguing to delete the article had convincing arguments which were not rebutted, and the arguments to keep were weak. Hut 8.5 11:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, or relist. The main argument against keeping was the the album was not yet released. Now it is. DGG (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wasn't. Read the debate. It was that there are no third-party sources to establish notability.
    Quotes: "There are absolutely no reliable third-party sources to suggest that this is notable enough for its own article," "Soundtracks are rarely notable enough for their own article and I see nothing that makes this one notable. No indications it is notable, the only third party source is Amazon (so it could be advertising)," "Non-notable soundtrack," – that last one from two people.
    I've no idea where you got the thought that the problem was that the disc wasn't released yet. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 07:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see it was raised by someone supporting the article, but the probability of there being sources after release are so much greater that relist remains appropriate. DGG (talk) 14:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Delete poor close. Eusebeus (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist It was a bad close. But I think it now might meet WP:N as there are reviews [42] for example. Not sure if it will make it, but I don't see the point in overturning here when it is now likely it meets our guidelines. Let AfD sort it out. Hobit (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, where it ought be deleted due to lack of independent secondary sources. Ref #1 is amazon (not independent). Ref #2 contains no content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And it was. There was consensus to delete in the original AfD. Why relist, please? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 10:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there wasn't consensus, and support the close, but I note that a significant cause for finding no consensus was that something (a release?) was about to happen. This "claim" should now be moot. However, I don't think DRV discussions should go into such details, and that a relist should leed to a good decision. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete W/ no prejudice toward recreation should sourcing arise. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we be showing the sources exist _here_ or wait for the next AfD? As this isn't AfD2 new sources aren't generally welcome here, but going through all that seems a bit too much. I feel a relist is the best way to go (or just accept this as AfD2). Hobit (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Pace won (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

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

  • Fixed typo in the listing. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 14:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contested A7. Userfy for Demolisten, so he can see if he can improve it. No cache version is available. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No lets not undelete thuis at all since it seems in part a copy vio of this
    Spartaz Humbug! 12:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Chrishan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

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

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

1 August 2009

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

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

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

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

  • Overturn. Lack of notability is an insufficient basis for A7 speedy deletion; community consensus must be determined for such a claim, and an opportunity for rescue allowed while discussion goes on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Article made clear and credible claims of notability, in direct conflict with the justifications required for
    WP:AFD. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts – Speedy re-open discussion. Closing admin has no objections. – IronGargoyle (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
)

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

  • Relist - An AfD as contentious as this (split pretty evenly) shouldn't be closed early. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    11 to 8 is not split evenly - 58% delete as is, 65% delete when the two editors from the page are removed, and 69% when the joint vote is counted properly. The 58% is appropriate delete consensus. The 65 and 69 percent are a strong delete consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy relist - Given that there was no need for an early closure, the AfD should normally (IMO) be reopened. However, new information has come to light about the subject since the AfD began, so the article should be relisted so that everyone can start fresh with the new information. NW (Talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite - it was known about the other articles from the very beginning. The second comment, by Viper, describes them. The article had other sources by the time others voted. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see; thank you for noting this. I agree with JC below though; there was no reason to close this debate early, and so I believe that the AfD should be reopened/relisted (really, either is fine to me). NW (Talk) 02:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from closing admin I believe my only mistake may have been closing the debate early--granted, there were more deletes than keeps, but my thinking was that the sourcing had been improved enough that the main problem expressed in the deletion rationale had been addressed. I had no stake whatsoever in this article--in fact, I only saw this when I moseyed over to AfD today. However, I have no objection to reopening the debate.
    96 02:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
You have a habit of closing pages like this too early. The Sam Blacketer close is another egregious example. Furthermore, your rationale is completely flawed. As pointed out, the other sources were added by the second comment, and were already dismissed as being unreliable, used to talk about original research that was off topic, or were merely stating a few sentences of facts and not enough to warrant a whole page. Furthermore, BLP applied regardless, and "sourcing" isn't good enough for BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - Agree that there was no compelling reason for closing the discussion early, but I can understand the motives behind Blueboy's decision. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why bother? If one thing is evident from the comments so far, it is that this will only end in a no consensus close, no matter how badly it fails
    WP:NOTNEWS. Process for the sake of process will only add even more drama in this case. Resolute 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Speedy relist - No reason this should have been closed earlier than the normal 7 day period. Note: When I got back to my computer this evening, I created a thread on ANI about the closure of this AfD, not knowing this deletion review had been created. My apologies, I was unaware. Killiondude (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article If I'm reading this right, wikipedia defended its alleged right to lift these images, which by doing so could harm the art gallery. Yet wikipedians go ballistic about "excessive" use of team logos, which can only help those teams by giving them free advertising. It is this schizoid approach to images that's the issue here, more than just this article - which needs to be kept rather than being hidden. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_August&oldid=420278190"