Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 February 16

< February 15	Deletion review archives: 2009 February	February 17 >

16 February 2009

Bristol Indymedia – No Consensus closure endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

))

Deletion discussions are not a vote, but a search for rough consensus ([1]); the closing admin should "weigh the quality of the arguments made by each side, and that weight may drastically shift the end result from what a numerical tally would indicate." [2]. Accordingly, with respect, I think that user:MBisanz called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia wrongly in determining that there was not a consensus to scrub the article.

I believe that the discussion shows consensus that the article's time was up. Including the nomination, there were four votes for that result. True, there were also two contrary votes, but the failure of either vote to offer an argument of any heft at all means that neither - individually or in sum - defease the consensus. The keep vote by

organization

should be kept.

When I raised this with

WP:LAW } 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse no-consensus closure, as there was none. However, I would not be against renominating for AFD in a month or two if the article has not improved, or merging and redirecting the article as it stands.
talk) 09:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
To Simon Dodd's request, AFD is not a debating society or court of law, in which a side "wins" or "loses" depending on the quality of the arguments; rather, it is an attempt to determine whether there exists a consensus to remove the article, i.e. whether the broad mindset of a large proportion of Wikipedia users is that the article should be removed. If that does not exist, in the judgment of the admin closing the discussion, the article should not be deleted, and in this case I cannot fault MBisanz's judgment.
talk) 14:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I understand all for the above - all will agree that wikipedia is certainly not a court, although they might have different points in mind in saying so - but with all due respect, that still doesn't address the issue. Of course the goal of AFD is "an attempt to determine whether there exists a consensus to remove the article" - merely repeating that as if you think I don't understand is not helpful and starts to border on bad faith when repeatedly advanced as an answer to a DRV request. The issue I raised isn't whether the consensus should prevail but whether there was consensus. Indeed, as user:Usrnme h8er pointed out below, if I raised any other issue, I would be in the wrong place; reviewing the judgment of the closing admin as to the existence vel non of consensus is the sole purpose for which DRV exists! It simply cannot be an answer to defer to the call of the closing admin in a process whose sole purpose is to question whether the closing admin called it right.

I mean no disrespect to
WP:LAW } 15:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I simply disagree with your assessment that there was a consensus to delete. An assessment of consensus is a judgment call, and I simply judged the matter differently from you. Unfortunately, there isn't anything that I can add to that and I won't be in a position to respond to any further requests to do so.
talk) 16:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse, there was no consensus and a delete decision from the admin in question would almost certainly have been overturned in this venue. I agree with Stifle that a second nomination may be prudent in a couple of weeks or months if nothing improves. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 10:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query, to the endorsers above: Could you be more specific about why you don't think there was consensus? Which argument defeated the consensus, that the subject would be notable if a source showing notability was added, or that the subject was involved in a notable incident? - Simon Dodd {
WP:LAW } 13:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- Consensus does not mean strongest arguement, it roughly means agreement in a group. There was clearly no agreement in the group of editors taking part in the discussion. The closing admin has the option to act differently than consensus - or to act regardless of lack of consensus - if he/she feels that the policies and goals of the encyclopaedia are best served that way. In this case, User:MBisanz chose not to do so and I do not consider that a ridiculous decision. In fact, making a ruling to delete when there is no consensus or to keep when consensus is to delete requires much more certainty than acting in line with the discussion. DRV is not the place for a second AfD discussion - that should be done in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia (2nd nomination). Though I don't recommend opening one immediately as I expect it would be taken by some editors as a bad faith move. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that this "is not the place for a second AfD discussion"; "
    WP:LAW } 01:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Endorse There was no consensus in the AFD and Deletion policy is clear that "If in doubt as to whether there is consensus to delete a page, administrators will normally not delete it." The closing admin should not make a decision themselves on whether the article meets the notability guidelines but instead defer to the consensus of the contributors of the AFD. This is of course different to a clear policy violation where "A closing admin must determine whether any article violates policy, and where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, it must be respected above individual opinions". The AFD does not stop a decision being reached on the talk page for a redirect/merge or for a new AFD in a few months is no improvement has been made. Davewild (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave, same question to you as above: why was there not consensus when there was no serious argument made against the nom?- Simon Dodd {
  WP:LAW } 22:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - I disagree that there was no argument made against deletion, they may not have been the best arguments in my opinion and for instance with the second keep argument if no sources are added to the article in the next few months then that would a strong argument for deletion in a new AFD. Giving the article a few months, where they was no clear consensus for deletion, to see if those sources are found should not be a problem and is one reason why no consensus defaults to keep. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk) 18:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

I was hoping to get this page unprotected. I was advised to make a post here by an admin to help me with the issue. Before when the page was protect, I was told that the article didn't meet wikis requirements and hope that it does today. Gamma Beta would be a good addition to the wikiproject: Fraternity and Sorority. The fraternity was founded in 2000 at the University of Texas at Austin. After years of closed door policy to expansion, the fraternity opened it doors to expansion in 2007 and has now expanded to 4 other universities. It is currently the only Asian-Interest Fraternity recognized by the University of Texas at Austin.

Please help me with this issue. I would like to fix any issues or problem that the article had in the past and hopefully see it on wikipedia. Hawee (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest producing a userspace version of the article before we allow recreation of this article (e.g at
WP:ORG - with significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)?
talk) 20:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm fairly new to wikipedia and not to familiar with creating a userspace version, if you could give me a little more instructions how i go about doing so. I've posted on the talk page of the admin that protected the page (talk) hoping he/she may be able to help me. But seems to be MIA currently. Hawee (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 09:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I've made a subpage, and will continue editing it with your help please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hawee/Gamma_Beta Hawee (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend this DRV be closed for now, and that Hawee relist here when the userspace draft reaches a reasonable standard.
talk) 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That's fine with me, if you could help me out with what needs to be changed or edited specifically. Hawee (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ohconfucius's talk archives – Deletion endorsed. The talk page history remains available at User talk:Ohconfucius/archive7. – Eluchil404 (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:Ohconfucius/archive Dec 2006 (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))
User talk:Ohconfucius/archive Mar 2007 (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))
User talk:Ohconfucius/archive May 2007 (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))
User talk:Ohconfucius/archive August 2007 (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))
User talk:Ohconfucius/archive October 2007 (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))
User talk:Ohconfucius/archive December 2007 (edit | user | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache | MfD))

Per a request by Ohconfucius using the "db-owner" template, administrator Jclemens deleted archive 1 of the Ohconfucius discussion pages. This archive should be undeleted for the following reasons. First, the deletion was erroneous on its face because reason code U1 specifically is not available for user discussion pages. Second, the past and current disruptive behavior of Ohconfucius is one of the primary issues in the ongoing arbitration case regarding date linking. Ohconfucius is a party to that case, and the posts he made on his own discussion pages are directly relevant to that case. Third, because Ohconfucius used page moves as the method for creating his discussion page archives, Jclemens's action made it impossible for anyone but administrators to see even the history of his discussion pages before January 1, 2008. Fourth, Ohconfucius has admitted that he requested deletion of those archives to conceal possible evidence regarding his past behavior. In other words, the request was specifically aimed at preventing additional evidence from being presented to the arbitrators presiding over the pending case. Fifth, Jclemens now has no objection to any administrator reinstating the deleted archive. See this discussion. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged these six identical DRVs into one listing because they are effectively the same request.
talk) 09:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The Arbs are all sysops and can look up anything that they care to on the deleted talk pages. I don't see any especially good reason to undelete them, and would tend to suggest making a motion to undelete on the arbitration case workshop if desired.
talk) 09:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Recreate, while the archives are visible to the arbitrators, this would require sysops to trawl through them where normal users might already know where to look. What's prevented here is not access to the information but the ability of non-admins to provide links to that data. Unless Ohconfucius wants to execute his right to disappear, these should be recreated. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comment - I fixed the links as they result form the deletion log. All pages are copy and paste archives created by the user for the period Dec 2006 - 2007. User started using page move archiving afterwards and changed to a different naming. Which means that no edit history and messages have been deleted and the earliest contribution are available in the edit history but not in that of the main talk page, but in that of the earliest moved talk archive, i.e.
Tikiwont (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This is first of all an issue regarding the user and their handling of talk pages, so I am surprised that it was not raised with them but directly with the deleting admin. Apart from the fact that the deleting admin should verify that the pages are actually cut and paste archives I see no real problem in deleting them on user demand. As far as I understand users are not forced to create copy and paste archives, so it is difficult to argue that they have no right to get rid of them later. The net result with the edit history in some sub archive isn't helpful, though.--
Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Restore. Even if Ohconfusius wishes to disappear, these talk pages have discussions on them that are directly relevant to building the encyclopedia. This means they're definitely not eligible for U1 speedy deletion; also since the closing admin no longer objects, I see no reason to discuss this. This was clearly an error. Side note: while the archive may be visible to arbitrators they'd have to find the exact page to see the history and their ability is irrelevant. It needs to be available for people who bring the case to link to too. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tennis expert appears to be misrepresenting what Ohconfucius said. Please read the diffs carefully before !voting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.216.190 (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote what Ohconfucius said and let everyone decide for themselves whether I've misrepresented him: "FYI, the editor has edit-warred with me and has repeatedly taken me to ANI and AN3. Reinstating the contents would only serve to fuel the fanatical lengths to which the said editor is prepared to go to harass me regardless of whether my actions have any bearing on the case. ... Refusal to reinstate the deletion would merely deprive Tennis expert of the pleasure of presenting that 'evidence' to the relevant page, of which he is already a very substantial contributor in terms of kB." Tennis expert (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per
WP:USERPAGE was that talk page archives not be deletable, or not be deletable in case of page move archiving, it be updated to reflect that? Also note that User:Ohconfucius has raised specific objections to the restoration on my talk page. Jclemens (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

there are times when it might be appropriate to delete talk p. archives, as when someone n good faith reorganizes, so I don;t think an exact statement should be made. Requesting deletion of these, however, was an incorrect attempt to evade the purpose of the limitation on deleting talk pages. that it was incomplete, leaving some of the archives behind in traceable way,is a minor issue. This sort of thing needs to be very strongly discouraged. If we need to use IAR to restore them, let's use it and do so. DGG (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to IAR, I'll be happy to undo the deletion if that's the community's perspective, and I most assuredly value your opinion, DGG. I've been taking Ohconfucius' statements at face value: he's only asked for things >1 year old to be deleted, and none of their contents bear on the date linking controversy at all. Jclemens (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all editors (not just administrators) should be able to review those archives to see for themselves whether their contents relate to the date linking arbitration or the behavior of the parties to that proceeding. I want to emphasize again that the arbitration is primarily about the behavior of the parties, and making the discussion page archives of Ohconfucius off limits to everyone who is not an administrator hinders evidence gathering for that proceeding. Everyone has been invited to contribute evidence to the arbitration, not just administrators. Tennis expert (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose reinstatement. Oh, what a huge surprise to see this request here! The harassment continues... I would object to
good faith, and saying "attempt to evade" is even worse. Specifically, it appears he 'bought' the outrageous assertion that "Ohconfucius has admitted that he requested deletion of those archives to conceal possible evidence regarding his past behavior." In citing me, Tennis may have unwittingly (but I doubt, given my past interactions with him) omitted the preceding sentence, which is important: "If I had wanted to cover my tracks, I would have had everything deleted, as I am entitled to do. ". The wikilawyering I and JClemens have been subjected to by him and another editor is indeed quite impressive, although the one key difference is that although lawyers may twist the truth, they do not generally lie. If I hadn't been on the receiving end of so much of these tactics from the above, I could easily be persuaded that the request was reasonable and well-founded, and that I was some wicked scumbag who is deleting his talk page archives to hide his sorry misdeeds. I would refer all who have commented above and all those intending to comment to the full discussion on JClemen's talk page. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Additional comment: before Tennis expert once again accuses me of stalking him, I would state for the record that he led me here. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you assert, we should not take your above-quoted statements at face value, then please explain why you requested deletion of all your discussion page archives dating from before January 1, 2008. Surely you had a logical reason of some sort, other than to "deprive Tennis expert of the pleasure of presenting that 'evidence' to the relevant page" (your exact words). You also said on JClemens's talk page, "I'm not going to make it easier for those who will stoop to any level in an effort to harass or embarrass me." I believe that's a clear indicator of your intent to conceal whatever evidence is in the deleted archives. If there weren't anything there, you would hardly be worried about being harrassed or embarrassed. Tennis expert (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
holy grail. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you please clarify what you "oppose"? Comments in DRVs are usually expressed as "keep deleted", "undelete", "overturn", etc.
talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I find Stifle's repeated requests for clarification odd. There is no ambiguity about what Ohconfucius and Chick Bowen requested.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate As U1 wasn't meant for talk pages (and if OhConfucious is move archiving that is what these are). I will however strongly caution Tennis Expert to avoid stuff like this in the future. It is clear that there is some sort of dispute between you two. As such, you (TE) should be especially careful to avoid community processes like this that would give the impression you are harassing or haranguing OhConfucious. You could have very easily asked a neutral party to make this request or (preferably) waiting until a neutral party chose to undertake this request without your providing the impetus. We
assume your motives are benign, but this generates relatively easily avoidable drama. Protonk (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Recreate for the reasons set out above. It's not so urgent now, since as someone else in this DRV noted, he used copy/paste moves initially and the edit history is still available in one of the archives (it's just a pain to find). The only time user-space talk pages should be deleted is if an editor leaves the project per Right to vanish. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Locke. Now that it's been clearly established that nothing has been irretrievably deleted, no history has disappeared, no policies have been violated. You invoked no "right to vanish", but you have in the same breath totally undermine the argument for restoring the deleted pages. You say it's a pain to find: well, DRV does not exist for your comfort, nor is it here to make it easier for you to
harass me, so take it elsewhere. The situation now is as if someone merely blanks their own talk page, and there are plenty of people who do that. To continue down this pedantic route serves no purpose, and is just a face-saving measure, but there's already plenty of egg there, methinks ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment on the basis of the feedback to date, I've clarified the wording of
WP:USER, and my clarifications were not immediately reverted. Assuming things stick, I judge that we're headed towards restoration. Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I believe that you have widened the scope excessively, possibly in eagerness to appease the roaring mob. Notwithstanding, I would add that there is no policy which prohibits deletion of anything on user talk pages: note the language is "As a matter of practice user talk pages are generally not deleted" (bold type is mine) ; in addition,
WP:MOSNUM. Bearing all that in mind, there is no valid argument to restoring said archives. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose reinstatement The requested restoration is simply part of the wall-of-text wikilawyering by Locke Cole and Tennis Expert that is their preferred means of drowning the targets of their persecution in diffs and text and diffs and text sufficient to wrap thrice around the world. Giving in to the request would only encourage them.--
Alamo: show Tennis Expert the line in the sand.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Reply I have no interest in taking a stand on this one. I simply walked into it by innocently honoring a prima facie reasonable request. The reason this is at DRV is that I don't want to be a sole judge in what I see as a highly disputable topic: I value the community input especially in borderline cases like this. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did honour a reasonable request, as it has been shown. What you did not count on was a couple of
wikilawyers bent on harassing another who happens not to share their opinion on whether all dates should be linked. In light of the fact that nothing has been irrevocably deleted, there is nothing 'borderline' about this case any more, and I think it's safe to stick your head above the parapet and take a stand now. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

No restoration necessary. Noting that Ohconfucius replies on his own talk page, I checked his deleted edits to see if anything truly was missing from the history. There are fewer than 50 deleted edits in the user talk namespace, all trivial edits resulting from archiving, meaning that all diffs are present, and should be able to be found as easily as any other diff (which is to say, with some difficulty, but that's a problem with our software). So the only question here is the archiving itself. Maintaining an archive, though preferred, has never been policy, nor should it be. If an editor wishes not to maintain an archive, that is their right.
Chick Bowen 04:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Please clarify what you mean by "oppose". Do you endorse the deletion or wish to overturn it?
talk) 16:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Huh? I didn't say that. I think my comment is clear, and in any case Peripitus summarizes well what I was getting at below (I'm assuming "ack Chick Bowen" means "ack per Chick Bowen," since he and I are in agreement).
Chick Bowen 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

ack Chick Bowen - all of the conversation is in archive 7's history and is readily and easily readable - you can see the archive points. No text has been deleted or lost and all we we are missing is the revision pointers recommended in
Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Permanent link archives method. This all seems rather pointless - Peripitus (Talk) 10:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep deleted As currently formulated, I think that user space includes archives. So the U1 was valid. If someone is hiding something, the arbcom can see whatever was deleted so there's no real harm so as to
ignore the policy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

NEW LIARS CLUB – Deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was speedied per

O.C. Supertones). A ecis^Brievenbus 07:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)?
talk) 09:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Endorse deletion by default due to the nominator's failure to reply to a reasonable query.
~~talk) 09:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply
]
I took this to DRV because I preferred the input of uninvolved editors. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better late than never, I guess. I would still weak endorse deletion because the band pretty clearly doesn't meet
talk) 00:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Being non-sysop I cannot see the phrasing of the original claim and as such am unable to comment on the percieved claim of notability. Thus, I will comment on the above reasoning. The inheritence relation of notability here is quite weak. On the one hand, WP:MUSIC does provide the quote "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". On the other hand, not only does the same sentence in WP:MUSIC go on to suggest redirects, the link to other bands is not very strong here. First of all I will ignore
O.C. Supertones who played with the band at some point, though when or how much is not elaborated on in the article in question, and who is not, at the moment, notable enough to have his own article. Endorse, even taking into account the inheritence provided for in WP:MUSIC, this is not a case where such inheritence is reasonable. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Things would come a long way if you'd start by providing references as evidence. The original article was completely unreferenced. =- Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To add to that... Had it had references when it was A7'ed, I would not have deleted it. CSD does not preclude recreation, so there's nothing about an A7 that prevents you from recreating a new version of the article that more clearly asserts notability and backs it up with independent, reliable sourcing. I'd be happy to see that happen. Jclemens (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And for me, I agree and wouldn't mind at all, even if a cursory glance indicates to me that independent (non-inherited) notability might, as of now, be hard to find in RS. If recreated with the above mentioned notability inheritence sourced, it would be an issue for AfD, not CSD. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 16:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually,
      WP:CSD#A7 explicitly says that the indication of notability "is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources" and that "the criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source. If the claim's credibility is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion." The article contained a claim of notability. The sourcing of it is a matter for AFD, not CSD. A ecis^Brievenbus 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - Why are we here? As an admin, you have the capability to userify the article, improve it, and put it back. That's not wheel warring, that's simply a shortcut for what every single editor is allowed to do: try again if their article is A7'ed. However, as an admin who appears to have deleted a fair number of articles yourself, I would expect you to create articles with reliable sourcing, not come to DRV becuase the article failed
        WP:MUSICBIO. If this is process for process' sake, please skip to the end and put a better and sufficient article back. Jclemens (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Actually, if you bothered to check, you would see that I didn't create the article. Yes, the article needed a fair amount of work, but that's what we've got cleanup for. CSD is for articles that clearly don't meet the strict criteria outlined in
        WP:CSD. This article didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. That's what we've got prod and AFD for. A ecis^Brievenbus 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        You're right, I didn't bother to check before. I now see that you declined A7 previously on the assertion that members of notable "bands" were listed, when one of the two bands was clearly not notable and its article has already been speedily deleted. I further see that the article creator is indefinitely blocked--not by me, and not at my behest--so what, exactly, is the point of undeleting it? If it were anything that was sourced or sourceable, that would be one matter. As is, the article is deleted, and would almost certainly be deleted if prodded or AfD'ed. What outcome are you looking for here? Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That still leaves The O.C. Supertones, which in turn means that the article still contains a claim of notability. And a mere claim is enough to pass A7; a dubious claim is AFD material, not CSD material. This article doesn't meet A7 and shouldn't have been speedied. We don't speedy articles because they might possibly perhaps not survive an AFD, we only speedy articles that are clearly and blatantly not suitable. This article is not an open-and-shut case. And yes, AFD might result in the same outcome. That's always possible. But that's no reason to ignore the procedures and follow your own assumptions. A ecis^Brievenbus 00:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So what? For DRV to overturn this, two conditions must be met: 1) A deletion process violation existed, which is disputed. 2) That the article is worth keeping. That is, a mere process infraction is insufficient to restore the article. The burden of proof is now upon you to demonstrate conclusively that the article should be kept. I don't see any point in arguing #1, when it's clear that the article isn't suitable per #2. Or, you can just go create the article again and improve it. Either way, I really don't perceive a point to this conversation at all. Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Could you please point out where it says that "a mere process infraction is insufficient to restore the article"? The principal purpose section says that DRV "is to be used ... if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions." It doesn't say anything about your second point. And the fact of the matter is that this article didn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. The article contained a claim of notability. And even if that claim is unverified, unsourced, dubious and tenuous, A7 still doesn't apply. The speedy deletion criteria explicitly state that AFD is the way to go in those cases. This article should have been sent to AFD, it should not have been speedied. And yes, this DRV is about proper process. Anything wrong with that? A ecis^Brievenbus 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the article, but there if there is a claim of notability (and some one who can see it things so) it isn't a valid speedy. restore and almost certainly send to AfD as notability seems questionable. Speedy deletion is to be used with great care and any out-of-process speedy should be restored. Hobit (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to have this be the case. If someone wants to IAR unsalt and restore Saint Pancake and send it to MfD, I'd be willing to accept that a successful DRV doesn't also require article notability to be established. Failing that, I'll only reverse myself when and if someone can demonstrate that the actual article merits retention. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As you are (or should be) well aware, an article can only be speedied if it meets the speedy deletion criteria. This article did not meet the speedy deletion criterion you cited (A7), since it contained a claim of notability. That means that this speedy deletion was out of process. You should have followed proper process, which is AFD or prod. If you can't understand this, you should stay out of CSD. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to clarify, I think that it's debatable if this met the CSD criteria. It wasn't an unreasonable delete by any means. But debatable is rarely a good place or speedies. Hobit (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. There is indeed no assertion of notability in the article as it existed when deleted. There is a non-specific mention of some local gigs, a mention of the previous band of two of the members, and a reference to a myspace page. That does not meet the standards of A7 as defined. Advocates of the article should provide a referenced version. I or any other admin would be happy to userfy this one if it is needed to create a new version.
Chick Bowen 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
- A band is notable per
  WP:MUSIC if it "contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". The claim that New Liars Club contains a member of The O.C. Supertones is therefore a claim of notability. Whether this claim is credible and sufficient is something that needs to be assessed in AFD, it's beyond the scope of CSD. A ecis^Brievenbus 01:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  It is not put in such clear terms in the article as it stood, in part because it's not clear that the personnel and status of this band is stable. If they are, great, but that wasn't clear in the original article. I continue to think the best route here is userfication, expansion, and reinstatement. One plus of that is that if the band really is notable and reliable sources exist, an AfD would not even be necessary. I don't really understand why you didn't just do this in the first place, rather than bring it here. Might it be, by chance, to chasten the deleting admin rather than simply improving the encyclopedia?
  Chick Bowen 02:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Why on earth would I want to chasten the deleting admin? Where is that ridiculous idea coming from? I think I deserve a bit more credit than that. A ecis^Brievenbus 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I thought the statement "If you can't understand this, you should stay out of CSD" was a bit strongly worded if we're assuming good faith here. But my apologies if I misinterpreted your intent.
  Chick Bowen 03:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  Yes, I feel that "I don't think this is suitable for Wikipedia" is not a good argument to speedy an article. And anyone who is involved in speedy deletion should know when an article can be speedied and when it can't be, what is covered by the criteria and what isn't. But I've never called the admin's general editing skills or his/her intentions into question, only the arguments behind speedy deletions. A ecis^Brievenbus 03:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  You know, when your whole argument boils down to "process wasn't followed" (unless I'm missing something where you've said the article was notable, and not simply "improperly speedily deleted" because it contained an assertion of notability) the fact that you never bothered posting on my talk page to query me on my rationale or ask me to undelete the article before coming to DRV is ironic--I daresay it gives you
  WP:CREEP dwindle. Jclemens (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  So what you're basically saying is "screw the criteria, I will speedy anything I see fit"? If you are not willing to take the time and the effort to "[follow] every possibly relevant wikilink", why are you speedying articles in the first place? How can you say that an article meets the speedy criteria when you're not willing to check if it does? A ecis^Brievenbus 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm sorry, but if you wanted to start this discussion, the right time was several days ago, before you decided to disregard process and bring this to DRV without engaging me first. Your paraphrasing is inaccurate and your tone is incivil, but I will be happy to accept genuine public apologies. Jclemens (talk) 05:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  How is my paraphrasing inaccurate? You sighed at the thought of having to "[follow] every possibly relevant wikilink ... before deciding that A7 applied". And don't hold your breath waiting for apologies, because they're not coming. A ecis^Brievenbus 06:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm sorry, I should have checked earlier: you're new here. Or rather, you've been gone for so long that things may not work the way they did when you went on a seven-and-a-half month hiatus... and about 1/3rd of your edits since you've resumed using this account have been to this thread. Bearing that in mind, I'm willing to overlook your process violations and incivility. Please do take this opportunity to review current behavioral expectations, DRV process, and CSD outcomes, however. No admin who's reviewed the article, except you, has supported its recreation. No one has ever said that process isn't important, but rather than decisions that do no harm aren't candidates for reversal, even if a consensus is reached that they were incorrect. Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to burst your bubble here, I haven't been away. I've been using my alternate account,
talk · contribs). I recommend you change your story and talk down to me in a different way. I'm waiting for the next gem. A ecis^Brievenbus 06:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Tikiwont (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Kurj Skolia (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD ) The article prodded. This article is part of the Category:Saga of the Skolian Empire which I have recently reviewed and improved. This group of articles has been build properly, without the numerous articles of questionable notability of e.g. the Honorverse. Many of the articles link to this prodded article and I feel it is an integral part of the group. Even if somebody would like to contest my opinion later on with an AfD this would at least give me the chance to improve the article or incorporate it in the content of other articles. In short, please undelete it. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.