Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 6

Latvia–Luxembourg relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" or using the

• Endorse - from reading the discussion, I believe the closing admin correctly evaluated the consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, a proper reading of consensus. I have to ask though, what is it that some editors seem to have against these articles? Stubs though they may be, they typically have sourcing, and will probably grow over time. *Shrugs* Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to noconsensus The varied closings of these articles are not a function of their potential quality, but just whether people haver had a chance to work on a particular one yet. I look forward to the eventual 20,000 good articles. DGG (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a problem I recognise, ut I'm not aware of being able to view a single local consensus relative to other local consensuses in other AfDs. Would that these noms ceased while other editors work on more editorial solutions to the problem, such as merging - alas, here we are, and here I am, convinced that this close was accurate Fritzpoll (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, valid closure.
  talk) 12:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - Consensus trumps policy.--WaltCip (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a debate that has 12 arguments favoring deletion over 4 favoring retention. Deleters carry the day both in numbers (that's 3-1 for those keeping score at home) and in strength of argument (which boiled down to failing GNG.)
  talk) 15:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse though I'd like to know if the latest version of the article had sources as one of the delete !votes referred to "12 random facts" or some such. The cached version has GNG problems for certain. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus per strength of arguments. I believe the closer closed in good faith, but the discussion, like most of these is hard to really gauge in terms of validity in arguments in that it seems the same half dozen odd accounts are copy and paste saying to delete practically all of these and have a couple times now made clearly false statements (such as that Tobago was never a French colony--it was several times over the course of three hundred years!). By contrast, from past encounters, Richard Arthur Norton has proven himself knowledgeable about history and politics and as such I am inclined to defer to his efforts in these discussions. If more editors followed his lead to improve these articles, at worst we would have improved articles that are at least relevant to some who are interested in these topics rather than all of these AfDs and DRVs that serve no encyclopedic function. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion arguments were much stronger. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and ugh. There has been a recent rash of second-bites-at-the-apple DRVs on "West Moldova - East Moldova relations" articles. Inevitably the only support they get are from the same people making the same comments at the AFDs. If you really have no argument better than "The other side was wrong and the admin was wrong to agree that their arguments were sufficient," you're almost always wasting everyone's time at DRV. This goes for both "sides" in this case: cut it out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with AMIB, as DRV regulars will be more than aware from my previous remarks. See the DRV talk page for a proposal.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the keep arguments collectively failed to provide evidence satisfying
  WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Clear case for deletion. Eusebeus (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the appropriate decision by Fritzpoll. These copy & paste deletion review nominations seem a little
  WP:POINTY and lacking in substance. They are an unfortunate interference with the work of building an encyclopedia and I hope that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- will have more respect for the closing administrators in the future. Fritzpoll is being very good-natured about this, I wouldn't have been. Drawn Some (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The copy and paste comments to delete practically all bilateral relations articles are far more pointed and far more detrimental to our efforts to build an encyclopedia. Rather, we are building a collection of deletion discussions. I wish more respect was shown to User:Docu for his closes. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Correct closure. Edison (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - consensus was for deletion and the discussion was interpreted correctly. DRV is not a venue for a second AfD to be started by those whose arguments failed to win support originally. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I do not see any error. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Should have been closed as no consensus, default to keep. Although there were more votes for delete citing the article as "trivia" just before the close, AFD is not a vote and no Wikipedia policy violation was cited by the delete votes. Trivia is a subjective concept, Wikipedia relies on notability and verifiability and the article meets those two pillars. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Overturn deletion This should have been closed as no consensus or keep. There were independent reliable sources detailing the existence of a bilateral tax treaty. Editors subjectively claimed that the treaty was minor or trivial despite the independent sourcing. There were plenty of other sources showing the existence of economic and military links.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, should have been closed as "no consensus". Reliable sources were found and added to the article, so the subject is most likely notable. I'm not sure why we're holding these bilateral relations to higher standards than other articles. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The quality of the comments was uneven, particularly on the delete side, but I saw a couple of unrebutted references to
  WP:NOT, which most certainly is a policy argument. I think that against that backdrop, the "trivia" comments assume some force. Given that overall sense, and allowing for their numerical superiority, the closer was well within bounds closing this as delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. By strict vote counting, consensus is clearly delete (14D to 7K). Examining the actual arguments a little closer, the first two keep votes should be discounted: The first "Well written, verifiable and notable", is simply an assertion of notability without evidence or reference to policy, a classic
  WP:V is not the same as WP:notability. If you ignore those two, then the consensus for deletion is even stronger. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to no consensus This really was not the right closing, because there was potential, and the closer should have seen it. Saying "trivia" = IDONTLIKEIT, and should be ignored DGG (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn→No Consensus The page was far from reaching a consensus for either opinion. Both "keep" and "delete" sides presented good (valid) arguments, but neither did much to refute the others'. ~ Amory (talk) 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin - yep, overturn to no consensus. In the script I use, "no consensus" is right next to "delete" - I must have clicked the wrong one. Had the nominator bothered to discuss this with me first before wasting everyone's time at DRV, I'd have fixed the problem myself. If we can agree not to continue this discussion, I'll do so Fritzpoll (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as admin error and allow Fritzpoll to restore.

  Then, of course, it'll come straight back to DRV, as so many of these articles do, because the other side will want Fritzpoll to be overturned. I'm still convinced that the "consensus", such as it is, on each of these articles has little to do with the individual article's merits, and stand by all my earlier comments on similar articles.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted, right closure even if unintentional. Yilloslime's analysis is excellent and I have nothing to add to it.
  talk) 12:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • But doesn't WP:N mean that we believe things are notable if there is appropriate sourcing. I didn't see any real arguments that it doesn't meet WP:N, rather that the sources were "trivia" or that the relationship was not-notable by some definition other than sources. I know you have an issue when folks argue that something is notable even when WP:N isn't met, I think it's only fair to expect things to be kept when WP:N is met. Certainly it should be hard to claim "consensus" in such a case even with a 2:1 ratio in favor. Hobit (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC I'd urge this either way as there certainly isn't consensus for deletion. The article met all relevant guidelines and policies from what I can tell. But given that the closing admin made an error and meant to close it that way it seems clear what to do. Hobit (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical question: Assuming all the keep and delete votes of an AfD were backed by equally valid arguments, so that gauging consensus could be reduced simply vote counting (an impossible situation, but the sake of argument....), at what kind of vote ratio would you consider the minimum for declaring that there was a consensus. 2/3, 70%, 80%? Yilloslime ^T_C 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really tricky question which I'll dodge as I don't feel that it's the case here. We need a reason to delete, and as this article seems to meet all relevant policies/guidelines I'd be loath to see it deleted as "IAR" unless there was a very strong consensous to do so. I feel that the arguments to delete an article which meets our guidelines and policies need to be very strong indeed in order to delete and I don't see that here. Hobit (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus. While the strength or arguments here would possibly be to outright "keep," I can understand a "no consensus" close based on divided agreement. Just because some think something is "non-notable" to them, does not mean it is not notable to others. Plus, the nomination actually provides evidence that supports keeping the article. To be right out and open, I have myself sometimes looked up these bilateral relations articles for those that seem more obscure just to see what if any kind of relations the countries have had so, even someone saying "friendly but slight" is a legitimate answer to a research question, and after an encyclopedia is intended as a reference guide. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Discussion was more than clear on whether or not this article measured up. --BlueSquadronRaven 06:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Consensus on the page was for deletion. Eusebeus (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It was without a doubt the hand of God that guided Fritzpoll's hand to check "delete" when he closed the debate. Clearly no one ever showed in the debate that significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources of the subject of the article existed and it was clearly pointed out that the article was a work of
  WP:SYNTHESIS of assorted factoids. Drawn Some (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "The hand of God"? Really? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - pointing out that the article was indeed composed of trivia dug up by Richard Arthur Norton was a compelling deletion rationale - at some level, trivia is trivia, and even he must know that. Moreover, that the trivia failed
  WP:N was repeatedly cited by "delete" voters. This is nothing but a tedious attempt at overturning consensus by stealth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - No Consensus - I just didn't see a clear consensus to delete this. Many of the delete voters simply called it "trivia" without substantial reasoning to back up such a claim on relations between two large nations and those should have been ignored.--Oakshade (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closure was correct. Edison (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The closer admits very clearly it was a mistake.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse even if it was by accident. The "keep" arguments are quite vague; only one source was given, a primary source. The "delete" arguments have asserted that reliable, third-party sources do not exist. In such instances, the burden of proof is on the "keep" side to produce those sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I have considered the supposed "accidential" closure. but considering the weight of arguments, delete is supported. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I am back at DRV with an updated version of the roblox article. Previously it was deleted for advertising and because the article did not indicate the importance of the subject. I have since found new references and feel that this notable game should have a Wikipedia article. I am hopefull that the article now meets your standards. If not, ideas and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! gordonrox24 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was deleted well over a year ago, so I think you can just go ahead and create it if you've found sufficient sources. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was re-create numerous times and deleted. It is a kids game so once it was deleted there were hoards of angry 8 year olds spamming Wikipedia. This resulted in the page being create protected.--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I'd count one as "many new references". Since the various drvs -
  required standard as critiqued in previoius drvs. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

All references on the page have been run through

WP:RSN.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately

WP:RS... TRUSTe is nothing to do with the product as such (a membership list) and is a primary source to show they are part of the program (which I guess pretty much anyone could be, so nothing special there). Which leaves Midweek which hasn't proved that convincing in previous DRVs and the new one. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

TrustE is a privacy program that just enforces our point of a kid safe game. We also have this and this I just have not placed them is a specific spot yet.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know what TrustE is, the point is that anyone can sign up to it and the listing you give is just a list of members, it tells us nothing of any real interest about them as something they can "buy" there way into it doesn't help establish notability. The other two you've listed killerstartups.com which has featured in previous DRVs and been rejected. And your further examiner.com link, is exactly the same as the first reference in the article. As above you say it has been through

WP:RSN even though they are currently saying as above "examiner.com = paid blogging, no editorial oversight". I'm still not seeing the many new sources you claim, I'm seeing one. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Wording fixed. Hope that will make you stop tearing my statement apart and start giving me feedback and suggestion on the article like I asked.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about tearing your wording apart. This has been to DRV on quite a few times now, asking for more suggestions, the suggestion usually comes back to lack of reliable sourcing, it then comes back with little or no improvement on that. In this instance you do have some extra sourcing and as I said originally it might be enough to tip the balance. That however doesn't detract from some of the other sources being questionable and should probably be removed. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. It has in the past, and will continue to in the future.--gordonrox24 (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think the consensus requiring reliable sourcing will change? Or you think the consensus determining what reliable sources are will change? Oh well. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about this article.--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation I think there are multiple reliable sources there. The newest, Commonsense media also appears to be the best. Midweek looks okay while the examiner I'm less sure of, but I think there is enough demonstrated oversight to be on the edge of acceptable. A general websearch turns up tons of non-RS reviews. I think it passes WP:N, even if just by a small bit. Hobit (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, those are the same sources that were debunked at the last round of DRV.
  talk) 10:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • One new source, which looks good actually. In the last DrV midweek was viewed as a RS by the person who made the first argument that everyone cited/used. I think we've met WP:N now. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what they said was a bit more nuanced than that : This source is an opinion piece, which are certainly considered reliable for confirming that a particular person holds a particular opinion, but it's being used in the article to verify a piece of factual information.. i.e. they said it would be reliable in some circumstances, but not the one it was being used in. What isn't really addressed is it's reliability from the perspective of notability. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      And I don't think everyone followed with that view, Stifle actually did his own analysis and concluded differently. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      You are correct on Stifle's analysis, I had thought it was part of the above content. That said, the first editor said "This source is an opinion piece, which are certainly considered reliable for confirming that a particular person holds a particular opinion, but it's being used in the article to verify a piece of factual information." As WP:N has no objection to opinion pieces and we use reviews all the time for games, books, etc., I'm not seeing a reason why this doesn't contribute to notability. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      You may be correct, my observation was that I didn't see anyone comment directly on that aspect one way or other. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• List at Afd The I was going to close this DRV myself as "no consensus to undelete", but after reading the arguments above I think that the proper forum to determine notability is Afd, not DRV. So, the current userspace version should be moved to mainspace, and immediately submitted to AFD. If it is deleted at Afd, then immediately re-
  salt it.--Aervanath (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Given the lack of participation here that would probably result in no consensus, I support that plan. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I only have one worry about that plan. At AFD will people show more prejudice about articles? I am sure if what was decided here is explain at AFD it would be alright. I would support that idea, I will get User:Briguy9876 to comment here about that idea if I can. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  To me, it really seems like a "Test run" for the article. I am all for it, and I am really willing to see if anyone will try to add any more sources for the few couple of days it is up. --Briguy9876 (talk) 20:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  DRV isn't a soft way to avoid AFD scrutiny. Even if the result here is to allow recreation it isn't a set in stone decision that an article is allowed in some way, anyone would be free to list it for deletion tomorrow. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I really don't understand what you are getting at. I just said that I agree to that idea, yet you still find ways to tear apart my statement. When I am done with this DRV and no longer have to deal with your comments I will be very happy.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You stated "I only have one worry about that plan. At AFD will people show more prejudice about articles? I am sure if what was decided here is explain at AFD it would be alright" there is no tearing your statement apart, it's a simple and direct response to it. I am and have been trying to indicate problems and issues to you which would be best addressed, that you choose to read them all as a negatives is actually disappointing. e.g. the use of low quality/poor sources is actually detrimental to an article, merely having a high count of references isn't helpful, it's the quality of the references. In this instance I don't want you to be disappointed to find that (i) a restoration here doesn't protect it from future deletion and (ii) that result of the deletion review will be pretty irrelevant for any such debate, an explanation of what was said here is unlikely to sway the discussion one way or other, people will evaluate it on the same basic terms --Contributions/82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You talk like I am stupid. I have a lot of experience working with AFD and know exactly how it works. You are tearing my statement apart. AFD is harsher then DRV, plain an simple.

I have no problem with doing this, I don't even see why your comment was necessary.--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again I am not tearing your statement apart, nor am I talking to you if you are stupid. If it comes across that way, then I apologise, but it certainly isn't my intent. --Contributions/82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is there anybody against this? If not I will close it and get an admin to help me reinstate the article, then I will list it at AFD.--gordonrox24 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't close this yourself. Wait for another admin to come through and close it, and that admin will take care of the mechanics. Even for admins (especially for admins, actually), it's highly recommended that you don't close discussions in which you've participated.--Aervanath (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I know. Thanks. I will place an {{adminhelp}} tag on my talk page and see if anybody is free to help.--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article should have been deleted per

In addition, there was no real consensus to do much of anything. The keep/delete !votes were split down the middle.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason?
  talk) 19:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I do not think that the administrator would necessarily change his mind about keeping, and would instead direct me to go to AFD or here. I left closer a message concerning this debate.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I hate to be insensitive, but I must point out that the whole point of this article is that this is not a living person, so how can
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse close. Phil is correct. There is a belief that BLP applies to dead people as well but that's just wrong. It's a biographies of living persons policy and thus it cannot apply here. This close was perfectly correct within policy and consensus at that AFD. Concerns that the article covers the subject instead of the event (which BLP1E says should not be done) can be rectified by simple editing, rephrasing the text and moving the article to an event-related title. There is no need for deletion nor is there a consensus at the AFD to do so. If the requesting user here thinks that the article suffers from such problems, they should
  try and fix it. Consensus at the AFD is that the event was at least notable and that the problems can be addressed by editing. I see no mistake by the closing admin. Regards SoWhy 20:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse close, for there was no consensus to delete the article at all. However, I have to take issue with my colleagues above - this article is full of
  WP:ONEEVENT candidates, and don't appear to have been convicted of anything at this point. I will say all the information in the article seems to be supported by reliable sources, but this still belongs on Wikinews. However, that is an issue to be resolved outside this DRV. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment by closing admin I don't think I can (or should) !vote here, because I obviously have a bias against keeping the article now, but I'll just give a little insight into why I closed it as I did.

1. The comment "Recent" media coverage? It's May 2009 now (with coverage still ongoing), and Lucero was killed in November 2008. There are seven months of continuous coverage represented by the sources currently used in this article. suggests to be that
   WP:BLP1E
   cannot be applied, because the original one event has spawned elections [discussion] (one potential New York gubernatorial candidate is facing criticism for dismissing the killing as a "one-day story" in fact), hate crimes, and other recent immigrant killings in the United States all of which are relevant to that one individual, thus extending them beyond the coverage of 1E.
2. It's BLP1E. Marcelo Lucero is dead, which I also believe weakens the deletion side's argument.
3. The original nominator's concerns were met without deletion or nullified by discussion. Article is one sentence in length. Although there was a flurry of media coverage of this individuals death last year, I do not believe this article is notable enough. The article has been expanded to a point way beyond one sentence (thus allaying the concerns of point 1) and the "flurry of media coverage" has expanded beyond the "flurry" stage, and yet the story is "[s]till being discussed in the media to this day", and the notability concerns have been addressed by those points and those I have discussed above.

All quotes taken from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcelo Lucero and are licenced under the GFDL by their respective owners ~fl 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Of course you can !vote Foxy, we're all big girls and boys here, the fact you closed will be appropriately factored in. At the risk of being tiresome, though, I'll reiterate,
  BLP applies to biographical information placed on any page on Wikipedia. It can no longer apply to Mr. Lucero, but it can and does apply to his alleged attackers (innocent until proven guilty anyone?) Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply Well, I removed the name of the only named attacker in the article. I don't think we can help linking to news sources that may or may not have the same morals as we do (in reference to naming names). ~fl 01:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing that name takes care of any BLP problems. DGG (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not particularly thrilled with the close. Living or not, we have notability standards and the debate seemed to be leaning toward delete. A bit of explanation on the closing admin's part wouldn't have been out of line. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• BLP is not a relevant concern here (see that "L"?), but the article is heavily recentist. Will people still be talking about this in a year's time? In five years' time? I doubt it. I don't think I can support overturning the closing admin's decision (beyond changing from keep to no consensus), but I think there should be immediate liberty to relist this at AFD.
  talk) 12:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse close. B-L-P does not apply to dead people, and media coverage has continued for nearly a year and into other aspects of society and politics (well beyond the notability threshold). Retributive wikistalking like this is precisely why I'm thankful you're no longer a sysop, Ryulong. TAway (talk) 17:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being dead does not mean this article is not subject to the fact that it was a single news event, and this is not wikistalking. I discovered the article when you first left the abusive message on my talk page and found dissatisfied with the AFD result after I participated in it myself. I find this statement of yours also a personal attack.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is wikistalking. You did not "discover" the Marcelo Lucero AfD, you (and Daedalus969) followed me there following a completely unrelated dispute. You are being very abrasive and argumentative about this and your deletion/policy opinions on this article is far outside the near-unanimous mainstream represented here. As for personal attacks, you are welcome to "find" my impression of you whatever you like, but I think your "eat shit and die" comment qualifies far more than my questioning your judgment. Your recent actions and attitude here will be remembered should you attempt to regain your sysop bit in the future. TAway (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That comment was dealt with and the user it was directed to was subsequently banned. He acted in the same way you did when you decided to come into contact with me. And this is unrelated to the AFD or the DRV. I believe there was no consensus to do anything with the article, which is one of the reasons I had brought it to DRV after I commented in the DRV to look at your already questionable edits to other biographies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse close BLP does nto apply to dead people. Close made sense. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close did not make sense. I'm aware that it's not a vote, but even if you number count, there are three deletes (if one counts the nom), two keeps, one rename/merge request, and one non-discernable comment by a new user. "Keep" should be modified to "no consensus" or "delete" or a new AFD started to garner more consensus than that from seven comments.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Number counting is for very good reasons not a valid way to determine consensus. The keep !votes have cited various sources and policy reasons for keeping, thus making it the stronger argument. We have one delete !vote that was about the article when it was proposed for deletion (which has been made invalid by expansion), one delete !vote that was "per above" and on !vote for speedy deletion which was completely against policy as
      WP:CSD#A7 cannot be applied when importance and significance are claimed to exist. So while there might be more delete !votes per numbers, it essentially boils down to "not enough coverage" while the keep !votes (remember, rename/merge is essentially a keep !vote as well, just a "keep but reorganize") cite both plenty of sources and policy as reasons to keep it. Comparing these !votes, consensus is clearly for keeping the article (which does not mean that it can't and/or shouldn't be transformed into an article about the event). Regards SoWhy 06:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse close I see dead people. I would not oppose another AfD for greater consensus. -- Ned Scott 06:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse not alive, so
  WP:BIO1E (a guideline) but that's neither here nor there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Template:IPAEng (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

Used in for example the weekday article Saturday Nsaa (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected all instances showing in article space to the new template location, {{IPA-en}}, or sometimes to {{pron-en}}. Somehow the Saturday article slipped through the cracks and did not show up in "Pages that link to". (It's now been fixed.) AFAIK, currently the old "IPAEng" location is only linked on old talk page entries and in archives etc. I was hoping to make the transition in article space complete so that people won't continue to use the template in its old IPAEng location, for ease of maintenance—the red link would clarify that it's no longer preferred,—but I understand if people feel a redirect is necessary to support the old talk pages. kwami (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I caught another one at

Silk Specter. I believe a redirect would be better than simple deletion in the short term. After people get used to the new template, and this has fallen into disuse, deletion would be fine. lifebaka++ 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Actually, that should've been IPA-pl, or at least IPA-all, as it wasn't an English pronunciation. One of the reasons I'm trying to clean this up. kwami (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article was originally deleted for having no third-party sources to show notability. At that AfD, there were only three !votes, two to delete and one to keep. The article is now sourced with multiple reliable sources, including New York Times, Miami Herald, TimesOnline, and more. See User:Priyanath/Sandbox for draft of new article. Priyanath ^talk 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What exactly is the purpose of this request? Since you seem to have rewritten the article from scratch, you can just reinstate it with the new version. The old AFD's consensus cannot be applied to it anymore (
  CSD#G4) so that article would need a new deletion discussion to take place before it could be deleted again. Similarly, I do not think you need the old version restored for the new version, so DRV is not needed. Last but not least you should ask the closing admin before filing a review request. Regards SoWhy 16:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Apologies if this isn't the right venue. The article is protected from re-creation, so I followed the link from the attempted re-creation page here. Should I simply have an admin unprotect and allow re-creation? Thanks, Priyanath ^talk 17:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've asked the admin who protected the page from re-creation to unprotect, so I can move the draft into its place. Priyanath ^talk 17:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm un-protecting it now. Please understand that, for some odd reason, people don't let me make the decisions around here :) So I can't guarantee people will like the new article, but we'll see. - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I understand that the new article has to stand on its own two feet, and I'm confident that it will easily pass any further review. Priyanath ^talk 21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as closing admin - Consensus was clear, and as an admin I can't simply overrule consensus as I wish. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I think the requesting user is mixing "no reliable third-party sources exist" with "no reliable third-party sources exist in the article". A quick Google News search lists more than 250 potential sources for the show and in extension for the article in question here. Someone just needs to take the time and read through all that material. Nevertheless,
  WP:V and as such the judgment of consensus was correct. AFD is not cleanup and neither is DRV. Regards SoWhy 15:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Are you saying that if an article that is so encyclopedically unnotable that no one has bothered to reference it in 2 and a half years, it can stay unreferenced because Google News mentions the show and network but not the episodes and their content?
    finding and removing libel gets more and more difficult. -- Jeandré (talk
    ), 2009-06-06t17:44z
    • I have no idea what "MXC" is, and have no interest in finding out what it is, but what on earth can a list of its episodes possibly have to do with libel?
      Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • More non notable articles that are in direct opposition to
        wp:blp), was adhered to when is states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". -- Jeandré (talk
        ), 2009-06-07t09:40z
    • Endorse - I think (correct me if I'm wrong) you're equating shitty authorship with non-notability. ~ Amory (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I'm equating notability with Wikipedia:Notability which states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." This article has zero references, not to mention "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-06-07t09:40z
• Endorse- Consensus was clear, and DRV is not AFD round two. (Note: I voted keep in the afd) Umbralcorax (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunately, the consenus was to keep the article, and I will have to endorse that.
  talk) 19:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sorry I missed this one at AfD, but I endorse the close. I agree w/ Jeandré's reasoning, but the keep comments were within the range of reasonable policy arguments. The closer really couldn't have gone any other way. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely
    GFDL and keep the copyvios. -- Jeandré (talk
    ), 2009-06-07t09:40z
• Endorse the closure as a valid reading of the consensus, but permit immediate relisting as a defective debate because Jeandré makes a good point about
  WP:V as a full-blown policy would need more than a local consensus to disregard.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • wp:v. Shouldn't the closing admin look at the quality of the reasons given, instead of just counting the bold words? -- Jeandré (talk
    ), 2009-06-08t13:10z
    • While that's true, I think it's a little more nuanced than that. If the closer just got to pick and choose which arguments they listen to and which arguments they disregard, we'd end up with decisions by admin fiat, and how a debate was closed would depend on which admin closed it. Equally, the process can't be determined by a pure !vote count alone, or Wikipedia would be even more rife with sockpuppetry than is presently the case as people tried to game the system to achieve some desired outcome.

      Instead, the closer needs examine the debate as a whole.

      At DRV I don't think we can really censure an admin who's made an honest call about what they felt the consensus was (as in this case), but we can judge that the debate as a whole was defective and send it back to AfD, which is what I recommend in this case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse TV listings are commonly published in the daily newspapers. I'm not sure how to format such a reference, but there ya go. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I hate to say it, but it was correctly closed given the arguments. However, even lists like this require reliable sources. I would suggest that a second AfD (one with a more detailed nomination rational, that notes the various issues raised in this discussion) be filed if the sourcing situation does not improve after a reasonable time (say a few months). Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]