Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October

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

)

• Speedy close and block nominator for block evasion. You, the person behind the account, is blocked and may not edit Wikipedia, regardless of the account, or IP, you are using.
  talk) 21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm allowed to create new accounts provided that my original account isn't blocked and I stop using the original account. As both of those conditions are met, I'm allowed to create an alternate account per
    WP:SOCK#LEGIT ("If you decide to make a fresh start, and do not wish to be connected to a previous account, you can simply discontinue using the old account(s), and create a new one that becomes the only account you use. This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account"). As my original account isn't blocked or banned, this allows me to create a new account. --75.60.14.239 (talk) 21:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You're forgetting that if you have been blocked before for disruption or any other reason, then that block stands, regardless of what account you edit under. It is you, not the account, that is blocked. No other administrator in their right mind would even consider unblocking you, considering your persistent block evasion – see
      banned by the community from editing. MuZemike 09:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • We should probably consider the wording of this text the user sees when blocked. The text implies that it's the user account or IP address that's blocked and not the person behind the keyboard. Which is nonsensical, I agree, but that is what it says.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So we should pander to
          wikilawyering? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • No, sorry, what I said was unclear. We should probably consider amending the wording, is what I should have written.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I usually agree with Tim Song, but perhaps this bears a little more investigation. What we have here is a blocked user attempting to make a constructive edit (it would be possible to write a sourced article with this title) and attempting to engage with Wikipedian processes (by opening a DRV). I think that rather than stonewall immediately and give this user an incentive to sockpuppetry, we're in territory where we might reasonably ask the blocking admin for his view.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Said user already engaged in sockpuppetry - which is why they were blocked in the first place. See
    talk) 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Deleting admin – This is clear
  sock puppetry orchestrated by de facto banned user Mathemagician57721. As with the other numerous IP addresses, they all geolocate to Springfield, MO and all to the same ISP. I stand by the deletion of the page in this case. MuZemike 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • My original account isn't Mathemagician57721, and it hasn't been blocked, so, per
    WP:SOCK#LEGIT, I'm allowed to create a new account provided I stop using the old one. --70.250.212.122 (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You seem to be repeating dialogue used by blocked user User:CombinationPermutation here and here. We're not fooled. MuZemike 18:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to point out that after I said that, I haven't made any more disruptive edits, meaning I'm not trying to pull anything on you guys. The purpose of a block or a ban is to prevent a person from disrupting Wikipedia; a ban becomes useless and even counterproductive when the user has realized that what he did before is wrong and he wishes to legitimately contribute to Wikipedia. --75.6.4.59 (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close Block evasion by blocked user. Ray^Talk 16:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of spammers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I just deleted this myself, a second ago. I think a page at this title (or perhaps a less blunt one) should exist, but without any sources at all, it constitutes a pretty severe

• Endorse admin action, good deletion. You needn't have come here unless challenged, though. Ray^Talk 19:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my reasoning was that, since this is a perfectly reasonable topic for an article in my view, I could list it here and see if others are interested in trying to recreate it with sources (it would be a bit tricky depending on the definition of "scammer" but doable). But if there's no interest in that, then sure, we can just endorse and leave it at that.
    Chick Bowen 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse this horrendous admin abuse.
  talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No objections to recreation.
    talk) 06:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse and close this unnecessary DRV. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse ayup, can't argue with that close. BLP violations out the wazoo. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. For a list that's just a list of articles, can't the article itself serve as the source? I only scanned half of them, but all seemed to indicate they were spammers in the lead. Or just copy one source from each article and put it in the list? Hobit (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with Stifle. DRV is for challenging deletion decisions, and this seems outside our remit, because nobody's challenged a deletion decision. Just close it.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC) — Struck owing to DGG's remark below.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and check the individual articles listed. If the sources are good enough, & it's the main element of notability or a major element of it, I fail to see BLP concerns. I do challenge the deletion, & I think Hobit does also. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse an orderly admin action. Crafty (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this action, which is justified by
  WP:BURDEN as the removal of what seems, prima facie, to be unsourced negative information about living persons. That's what BLP policy is properly for. I dislike BLP being used to delete articles that have sources, but this is obviously not the case here. No objection to the creation of a sourced article with this title.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Deleting negative unsourced BLPs is an entirely appropriate action. Kevin (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question so basically we are deleting a list because the sources are in the links and not in the list article itself? I've no real objection to that if BLP points us that way, but it seems odd... Hobit (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The list contained redlinks, and therefore unsourced accusations; this was a reasonable method to deal with it. We do allow sourcing by way of a link to a full article (compare List of suicides), but I see no evidence this was done scrupulously; in any case, the redlinks had no sources. I may have a go at creating a sourced list. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: My proposed draft list is at User:Gavia immer/LoS, restricted to existing articles with acceptable sourcing. Any comments on it are welcome. As noted, I continue to endorse the original deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• allow recreation and express annoyance at deletion Replacing my earlier comment as completely rethought this. Use Gavia's recreation importing sources from the relevant articles. However, there was no good reason to delete this. It would have taken about five minutes to glance at the articles in question to make sure that there was sourcing, and simply remove the red links. Then it would have taken another 5 minutes to move those sources over into this list. Deletion in this context is overkill. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. It took about ten minutes of actual work to make that cut-down draft, so I obviously agree that it could have been done that way instead. I've also endorsed the original IAR deletion, because I think that we ought to support administrators who take steps to avoid BLP problems. The original list contained redlinks, bluelinks to people who happened to share a name with some spammer, and a couple of articles that I've outright prodded because they seemed to belong on someone's

enemies list rather than in an encyclopedia. Deleting that version was out of process, but deleting it and poking people about it was a net benefit to the encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse but Allow Recreation per Joshuaz Triplestop x3 03:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse with comment: a putative list of (alleged) spammers where the references are inside the articles themselves already exists as Category:spammers. If there is a list in articlespace, then each entry in the article should be referenced individually. Bwrs (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It has been deleted by Juliancolton on the 23rd October, and then on the 29th Juliancolton quitted Wikipedia, saying he is disenchanted with the project. Maybe he was upset in those days. The reason he gave for deletion does not really stand. No impact? With international awards and honours, a long list of academic publications, TV programmes, radio broadcasts, and exhibitions in Venice Biennale or Paris Cité de l'Architecture, I find that Juliancolton's description is totally unfair. Carlos Arroyo is in the Scientific Committee of Europan, a most respected European-wide institution. He writes and publishes in El Croquis. His buildings are in Guidebooks. Guest lecturer in Tokio, New York's MoMA, Paris, Berlin, Vienna, Milano, the whole of South America. Megustalastrufas (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)--Megustalastrufas (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I find the nominator's attack on the deleting admin entirely unacceptable, and if this had been an AfD I would have !voted to speedy close on that basis. But it is a prod, so, with reluctance, restore as a contested prod.
  talk) 03:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It was restored and sent to
  ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 03:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The vast majority of the "Keeps" went directly against policy, often saying it should be kept because they dislike the tone of the other articles on the subject, and want something pushing their point of view to balance (That makes it a

• • Objection to endorsements: About 45 people voted delete to 31 Keep, and of the keeps, a large number were out of policy. Furthermore, the guidelines to closing deletion discussions say that consensus should be judged on strength of argument, and that arguments that go against policy should generally be ignore. A large number, perhaps even the majority, of keeps are explicitly for reasons that violate policy, and should be disregarded.

The guidelines for deletion further go on to say:

Those are specifically the inherent problems brought up in the deletion arguments. Hence, by the deletion rules, this article should be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• On Wikipedia, consensus is what's enforceable. It's rare indeed that DRV will overrule a consensus, and I think it's very hard to fault Backslash Forwardslash for closing that debate in that way. I should tend to think in terms of Backslash Forwardslash's closure statement: work towards finding a NPOV title for the article, and be diligent in removing any unsourced or poorly-sourced material, but equally, accept that global warming is controversial and there is a strong feeling among other editors that this list serves a navigational function concerning that ongoing debate. Navigational lists are absolutely encyclopaedic, so we have a closure that's in accordance with policy, with Wikipedia's purpose, and with the debate that preceded it.

  I must admit that on a personal level, I have a great deal of sympathy for Shoemaker's Holiday's nomination, because I do recognise the very real concern that this list is a coatrack for crackpottery. But I think we already have the right result here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A good majority (45 to 31) voted delete. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there's more to consensus than !vote-counting. That's particularly true when the same article has been AfD'ed 4 times in succession; I should think the fact that there have been AfDs "just to make sure there's still no consensus to delete" would tend to raise the bar. We can't permit people to keep repeatedly AfDing the same content until it goes away, because it smacks of an end-run around consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets nominated again and again because it directly violates core policies, and the deletion guidelines specifically say it should be deleted. Saying that if enough POV-pushers defend an out-of-policy article long enough it becomes undeletable is a terrible precedent. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do realise that's how you feel about it. Characterising this list as an "out-of-policy article" and claiming "the deletion guidelines specifically say it should be deleted" may not be entirely helpful to your case here. We do see a lot of people who feel angry or outraged at something, here at DRV, but wouldn't taking a more moderate tone and acknowledging other points of view be the more collegial approach?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Seems like that was valid reading of the (lack of) consensus. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per S Marshall. The close was not clearly erroneous.
  talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • See above. S Marshall's arguments go directly against the actual deletion policy. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus close per S Marshall. The article has no evident core policy problems that would mandate deletion. (Note: I've fixed a few formatting problems in the nomination.)  Sandstein  16:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Looking only at !vote totals, I don't see 60% as sufficient consensus to delete when reasonable policy arguments are advanced by both sides. Both the keep and delete !votes tended to mix content and deletion arguments, the keeps should not be discounted in isolation. Closer's decision was conservative, reasonable, and policy-based. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO THE DELETION GUIDELINES MEAN NOTHING HERE?!! WHY CAN'T WIKIPEDIA FOLLOW A SINGLE ONE OF ITS OWN POLICIES ANYMORE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs)

I would sincerely suggest you to take a break from this issue or maybe from whole wikipedia to calm down. I fully agree that article is garbage that should be deleted, as it is essentially wikipedians interpreting some quotes they have found somewhere, and then categorizing scientists according to their personal opinions, with editors who have different POVs trying to keep list long(to show wide worldwide dissent) or short (to show that dissent is just few handful misfits). But loosing your calm and going all CAPS LOCK is not going to help at all.--Staberinde (talk) 17:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Contrary to popular belief, an argument does not become more persuasive the louder one shouts it or the more often one repeats it.  Sandstein  17:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there was clearly no consensus to delete. -
  talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Close was not clearly erroneous. As I believe the reasons give for "Keep"ing were, although stated in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, actually contrary to those guidelines, I would have closed as delete, had I not voted to delete. However, I suggest "Relist" or perhaps "Nullify result" might be an appropriate result of this DRV, even though it would almost certainly not produce anything better next time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no consensus" already by convention permits relatively speedy renomination, and it isn't really a "result", but rather "no result, therefore do nothing". It's easy to nullify a "result", but how can we nullify a "no result"? Since relisting right now is unlikely to be productive, I suggest that we just endorse the close.
    talk) 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Change !vote from "no comment" to Endorse. Although I agree with the nominator in general, there are some credible arguments toward Keep. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Hmmm, was David Shankbone on the list? A reasonable close. The keeps were not out of policy, indeed some deletes might familiarize themselves with Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Compiling our own list is not considered OR.John Z (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really. You think all these keeps are within policy, and not arguing for keeping a

That's a big chunk of the keep votes, and there's other borderline ones in the same line. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes like that were discounted in my read of the consensus, but so too were equally weak delete arguments. You can't just ignore the votes you don't like. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am not going to defend each individual "keep", e.g. ones that seem to think lists are inherently unencyclopedic. Some contain arguments which are irrelevant to policy rather than contrary to it. E.g. complaining about non-neutrality elsewhere. May be true, but not really relevant to this article. That being said, one should assume good faith and read most of these as supporting this as an important & neutral list, with claims that opposition, rather than support, comes from POV-pushing. Nothing wrong with that. For something to be a POVFORK, it has to be a fork. Do we have another article with the same topic? Once one starts playing the usually foolish game of eliminating !votes, one should do it to both sides - e.g. eliminating ones with baseless claims of intrinsic OR in editor-compiled lists, or worse.John Z (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It always interests me when after a very sharply divided debate, where there is considerable disagreement between established Wikipedians about the applicable policies, a non-consensus close is challenged. It's saying: I don't care if it looks like everyone disagreed. The people who really counted agreed -- that is, the people who think the same way i do. Myself, I might equally say that all the delete votes were against the core policy of NPOV. Given the natural variation, nominate something 4 or 5 times and it has about an even chance of being deleted, regardless of the merits. I think this non-consensus result was the aberrant one, and we'll be back to keep the next time. I suggest waiting a year. DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, I think the Keep results (except the first, where the question of whether each entry was

  WP:SYN was not brought up) were aberrant. But that's not really relavent here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse. Both deletes and keeps didn't do a good show -it was kind of a
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT battle. However most delete arguments argued for problems which could have been solved by editing instead than deletion. This made their arguments at least as weak as many keep votes. Closure looks good to me. --Cyclopia^talk 22:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Good close, accurate reading of the tone of the discussion. That most of the editors involved were talking past each other is not, alas, all that unusual when no-consensus closes are made on hot topics. Ray^Talk 22:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Community opinion is divided on this article, and I cannot see how any admin could have fairly concluded the existence of any consensus to keep or delete. Neither side's argument was substantially weaker than the other's in terms of policy. I favoured deletion, but after four AfDs it is time to accept its existence and fix it by editing. Fences&Windows 23:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse With clear, reasoned arguments on both sides (and some unsound opinions on both) and a divided editorial community, "no consensus" is the only fair verdict. Of course, the rules of Wikipedia specify that it is 100% possible and 100% accepted for a closing editor to ignore discussions and base things entirely on his or her opinion, even if every vote is against him or her. But, as utterly useless at it is, I'd like to make my 0.02. The Squicks (talk) 00:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I though possibly defamatory content about living persons defaults to delete? Was that long discussion just a one-timer for someone wikipedians didn't like? Hipocrite (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - As Hipocrite points out, possibly defamatory content about living persons should default to delete. I think that people forgot to consider that some of the problems claimed were BLP problems. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 14:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are these the same BLP violations concerning "a number of scientists" that

WP:BLPN. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Anyone on the list is on a list with scientific luminaries like Vincent R. Gray. "List of world leaders who were vegitarians!" Hipocrite (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are specific BLP concerns, fix them on the page. Is this DRV another front in the ongoing BLP war? Fences&Windows 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy, and good sense, state that when an article is contentious and laden with BLP issues, then "no consensus" means that the closing admin should delete. I think this was a simple mistake in judgement. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 06:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - It is shameful that detailed, nuanced, specific opinions from scientists should result in them being lumped together into a category in which they, as individuals, may not wish to be lumped. This list is shameful. Scientists who wish to be known as opposing the mainstream will be unfairly excluded. Scientists who do not wish to be known as opposing the mainstream will be unfairly included. No encyclopedia would do it. This is against Wikipedia's policies about living people. It gives an anonymous person free reign to categorize a living, non-anonymous person. It's just plain the wrong thing to do. Flying Jazz (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a reprise of the AfD. Fences&Windows 00:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have been more clear that my view is that the AfD did not appropriately take

WP:BLP into account. It is possible (I think) that editors acting in good faith really can up with a neutral definition of what "mainstream" means in this context and what "opposing" means and what "global warming" means. And applying those definitions to an article that doesn't involve living people could be fair-minded. But I think it's a mistake to violate our own policies about contentious material applied to living people. When you actually talk to people, they have such complex opinions that evolve day by day in subtle ways, and it's just not right for us to create boundaries of opinion in which to place their views and display them online--even if the boundaries are in list form instead of category form. I apologize if you've heard all that before and it just seems like a rehashing of the AfD. Too many other policy statements were being tossed around during the AfD and now, and I think the elephant in the room may have been missed. Flying Jazz (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Identifying holders of particular positions does not automatically equate to an endorsement, or a disendorsement, of their position. And a category is worse from the standpoint of BLP. A list at least allows for nuance, and is more transparent re sourcing. 140.247.5.113 (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse AfD decision is very solid. BLP violation nonsense strikes me as another stick to beat this list with by those who
  talk) 09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure. Scientists objecting to the global warming theories are often cited by politicians who don't like global warming issues, and information on the matter, and what alternate theories they have, is of relevance, both scientifically and politically. A reasonable case can be made for keeping the list. Several reasonable objections were made against deleting the article. Regarding Hipocrite's comment, the material is not "possibly defamatory" if it is stringently sourced. Regarding the vote count, a majority for deletion is not the same as a consensus for deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is playing with BLP fire and sets up the impossible standard of continuously needing to prove a false. To make the list, one has to 1) be a "scientist", but of what field? Notable meet a subjective definition of "opposing". Opposing some? All? How many degrees? Cooling? 2) address peacock term "mainstream assessment", and 3) come to a consensus definition of "global warming". Since any one of the three is basically impossible, saying you could keep up LBP standards on all of them regardless of any changes in any article? No. This is why it's always possible defamation... we don't have BLPs that well monitored. btw, comment vs an Oppose since I will entirely admit that it looks especially foolish to add incidental weight to persons on this list by flagging them as fringe compared to the whole for this topic; but I would have these same comments and distaste for any forked group of subjective to instant BLP updates. ...I also didn't know Wikipedia was a collection of lists of people who disagreed with things.
  (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn AfD is not a popular vote and there are multiple policy reasons to delete this article. Simonm223 (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has also been AfD no less than four times, of which two in the last year, and all these times it has been kept. I know that consensus may change, but this DRV seems to me a case of
  hope to make long-dead horses alive. --Cyclopia^talk 22:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse: The article should be kept because it violates no Wikipedia policies and meets a need for Wikipedia readers. Students who are researching global warming may want to locate scientists who disagree with the IPCC so they can learn the scientific arguments these scientists put forward. The article makes an attempt to categorize different views in order to give the field some structure. I notice a few things about the article I would change, but the attempt to delete seems to be more about censorship than serving the needs of our readers. It would be much better to improve the article rather than delete it. And why has Roger Pielke's name been removed when he specifically gave verbage he endorsed to explain his view? RonCram (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment this "review" is a bad-faith attempt to kill the page, and fails the test of what DR is for: This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. Nothing new has been presented; the closer interpreted the debate correctly. This DR should have been removed William M. Connolley (talk) 10:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Process was correctly followed, result has been confirmed multiple times by now. DR is not an AfD rerun - bringing the same arguments is pointless disputation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer correctly interpreted a no-consensus. Many delete voters appear to believe that the article inherently violates
  ₇₈ 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. The AfD should've focused more on
  ₇₈ 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think the
  ₇₈ 21:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment The example lists do not contain the
  WP:BLP by containing sub-lists with additional definitions and categories. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I am not saying this should be overturned because of bad reading of consensus. The determination of no-consensus is 100% correct. The reason to overturn and delete the article is because no-consensus should have defaulted to delete, not keep, since there are BLP issues (Well explained here) involved. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 00:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no such policy. If the article has problem, fix it. We have the option of closing AfDs for borderline notable people as delete if the subject requests this. This is not a bio, the topic is not borderline notable, and we have no indication that any of the subjects has requested deletion (which, since this is not a bio, would at best get them deleted of the list, not get the whole article deleted). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sportspeople convicted of a crime (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I wasted two hours creating this cat without any knowledge of this prior presumably precedent setting Cfd, which dates from a year and a half ago. Good Olfactory just came along and used Cyde bot to delete the lot, didn't bother telling me, and flipped me off when I asked him to review it. This category is a valid category imo, I would not have wasted the time otherwise, the arguments in this cited prior Cfd discussion, are few, and weak. The only argument that is in any way reasonable, is BLP, and given the fact we already categorise Policemen, Clergy, and Politicians in this way in

• Coming to DRV calling previous decisions "brutal" isn't generally a way of endearing yourself to people here.
  WP:CLS permits, rather than requiring, a category to go alongside a list, and I remain unconvinced as to whether a category, which generates substantial BLP issues because it can't be cited unlike a list, would be good here. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It can be sourced in the way that any other category already is - if you don't see a source in the article, you remove the category. If you are worried about BLP, focus on truly dodgy categories, such as whether Lee Hughes really has converted to Islam, rather than categories that have a clear yes/no outcome - either they were convicted of a crime, or they weren't. Quite apart from being a problem, this category is actually helpfull for tracking articles which will be be at risk to blp violations. And I would like to know what usefulness you think a list on its own serves, when you cannot navigate to it from all of those people's articles that are on it? (or, just because a category is not permitted, does that mean See Also links are also barred? If no, why? What's the difference? If yes, then let's just stop pretending that we are supposed to connect related articles). And don't you think the blp minded editors of those articles would be interested to know, and hence be able to monitor, the list? Or is it better for BLP that it sits as an unnnoticed and unwatched oprhan. It was half an hour before I found it when I started looking for it. Not letting anyone know it exists is not the right way to enforce BLP. I'm sorry if the word 'brutal' upsets you, but that's what I call an unnotified unilateral deletion of two hours work, that nobody could ever have known would not be allowed, based on Politicians, Police and Cergy, and god knows how many others, already existing, and with a list existing. If an editor with two years time and thousands of edits can make such a mistake, then how long do you think anybody else is going to stick around here to figure out wp:cat? The irony is, on another given day, I bet someone would come and argue that having a list is the BLP violation, and that we should have a category to keep the referencing on the bio articles. Nobody can win in this madhouse environment, if they are here to help readers and create navigational aids. MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I'm certainly not a fan of the "OMG someone said BLP quick let's delete" attitude. And of course I'm one of those who thinks CfD has serious structural issues. But there was an identifiable consensus to delete there, and the procedure does seem to have been followed correctly, so in this case it's an endorse from me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the previous two, and per
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --Kbdank71 12:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. The consensus was clear enough.
  talk) 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Couldn't be closed any other way. Question though: if someone wants to recreate an article that has been deleted, they can do so if they've fixed the previous problem. If it is believed that consensus was at fault, where does one go to recreate a CAT? Here I assume. So should we be looking at something other than just consensus? Should the nom be directed to go back to CfD and request it be reconsidered? There needs be a process. Hobit (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit creation on the basis of conformity with other categories. There are blp issues, but they apply to the other categories also and can be resolved on the talk pages of the articles concerned, or of the category. if there is a list, there should be a category, if only to catch the ones omitted from the list. There would need to be a very special reason to not do so. If we need a procedural reason to ask for a rediscussion, it is that the previous one was not adequate--as is the case for many cfd discussions. As hobit says, there must be some way to change a decision if opinion changes. Per IAR, and NOT BUREAUCRACY, if there is no mechanism set up for doing so for categories, it should be done wherever suitable--and this place is as suitable as any other, since a number of those who have made the sometimes unfortunate decision to work on screening deletions watch it. S Marshall, I wonder if you have any ideas where to discuss it further. I think the alternative to finding a place to review is to abolish Cfd,since its decisions remain those of a small coteries and over-local consensus. Or at leas tto fully discuss new issues with the person who complains. I think a bot for the purpose is unacceptable. DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to discuss this problem on the talk page for
    Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken, but of course the said category was deleted and depopulated against consensus as a result of a CfD discussion. When we've overturned that and our discussion space has been restored, I think that would be the optimum place.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Anything wrong with using
      WT:CFD? A user category probably isn't a suitable place to discuss change as has been proposed. --Kbdank71 16:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

I wasn't asking particularly where we should discuss changing our policy--I think that's clearly WT:CFD. or WT:Deletion policy., I asked where we should at this point discuss reversing a particular CfD decision, which is the question before us at the moment DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment- I'd like to say to overturn based on
  Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken ever gets re-created, add my name to that list as well. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - based upon the guideline
  WP:OVERCAT, specifically the subsection Trivial Insertion. Intersections between two unique and unrelated datasets should be avoided. Many thanks, Gazimoff 21:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  See my reply at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes (2nd nomination). This is hardly a case of obvious OVERCAT. MickMacNee (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen your response there, and I'll raise you a

  WP:OVERCAT. The two datasets are unrelated. Many thanks, Gazimoff 18:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  An opinion which is quite easily disproved, per my reply there. MickMacNee (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have responded to you there. I assure you though, my logic is quite sound. Many thanks, Gazimoff 23:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion (deleting admin) per previous discussions. (The nominator says I "flipped [him] off". Where I come from that means giving someone the "f-you" finger. I did not do this. I said I would look into it, but it would have to wait, since I was taking a break over my spring weekend, which I am. The user didn't want to wait, so all I can say is I endorse my action and the previous discussions.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I call this flipping me off. If you don't, then you need to reconsider how you talk to people. There is no point endorsing a deletion outcome that you yourself started way back when, and wrongly said that having a list was a fine replacement (now being challenge at Afd) (I note that nobody has yet repsonded to explain how any reader is supposed to get to the currently orphaned list, if it is considered a valid article). Categories are first and foremost, navigation tools, they are not articles. And that original Afd, attracted a massive three other commentators, with one line opinions, one of which was just 'agree', another said 'who cares'. Maybe this sort of laxity passes as a precedent in Cfd not requiring even a relisting or wider notification at say wp:blp, but once challenged, it cannot simply be automatically endorsed as if it is a cast iron example of consensus that can be pulled out of the hat to make unnnotified unilateral deletions 18 months later. MickMacNee (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering the post of yours he was replying to, that seems fairly polite to me. It does imply that he wasn't taking you very seriously, but if you'd posted that rant on my talk page, I wouldn't take you seriously either.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I was partly trying to defuse the obvious anger being transmitted. But MickMacNee, if you seriously think it was the equivalent of telling you to "fuck off", then I'm afraid you're probably projecting your own feelings onto me, because that's not what it meant at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't even attempt to tell me what I was thinking, your meaning was quite clear. MickMacNee (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess you wouldn't like me to point out the hilarious irony in your statement immediately above——how you don't want me to tell you what you were thinking but you're quite happy to tell me what ... oh, never mind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Deleted with consensus and for good reason. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since when was 'who cares' a good reason. That's pathetic. MickMacNee (talk) 02:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have my sympathies. “Not encyclopedic - or - who cares?” are not good reasons and they tend to be insulting. However,

Nom: “trivial intersection”, suggesting prisons sentences are incidental to these people.

Bashereyre: weak rationale, but acceptable.

Carlossuarez46: OCAT, similar to nom’s “trivial intersection”

KleenupKrew: “ritual defamation” alludes to BLP concerns.

As category creator, were you not notified of the CfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Admin made closure in line with expressed consensus and with sound policy/guideline backing. Absolutely no reasons given to suggest confusion or error on part of admin, not any compelling argument to allow re-creation. The wider question of criminals-by-occupation could well benefit from consideration however - I encourage nomination of these categories so that categorisation of this area can be examined and debated. --Xdamr^talk 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm guessing it won't happen though. It will be allowed to exist quite happily, fooling other stupid idiots that there is any sense to categorisation here. MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I've been meaning to get around to nominating these for some time now. It's on my "to-do" list, you might say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion; no good reason to overturn the prior CFD, and there is hardly a comprehensive scheme of criminals by occupation categories out there that would justify recreating this one. The three that do exist—police officers, clergy, and politicians—all implicitly link the profession to the crime because they are positions of public trust, and in most cases the crimes will probably involve abuses of that trust and position. Not so with sportspeople and crimes, who are in the public eye as a species of celebrity. We do not appear to categorize celebrities or entertainers by whether they have been convicted of crimes, and I don't believe we should start. postdlf (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid D. Farnham (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Overturn - I disagree that the assertions were not compelling, even the editor who deleted the article indicated I had made substantive comments for keeping. Discounting the opinions of those who were asked to contribute (but not asked to vote for or against) was incorrect (please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices). This article is on the edge of what should be included in WP, but definitely doesn't fall way outside, if nothing else on the grounds of WP:Nothing. I ask for a review in the light of all contributions / comments on the XfD - I have sent a friendly notice to all commentators on the XfD to notify them of the review Mickmaguire (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Where a debate has been tainted by canvassing, the closer has fairly wide latitude to disregard canvassed !votes. And this is as it should be.

  I'm minded to endorse Spartaz' close on the basis that it's hard to show that it's wrong, but I want to add that Spartaz pointed you in the right direction in your discussion on his talk page: I think you could save the article, even at this late stage, by providing links to or evidence of significant coverage of Euclid D. Farnham in reliable sources. If such sources existed, you could credibly argue that the canvassing-tainted discussion's conclusion was unsafe and the AfD should be re-opened.

  Absent such sources, though, my recommendation must be endorse.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • But its not about votes and there are no rules against asking for people who might be interested to share opinion - why should that opinion then be discounted? especially when we post: If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. on such discussions rather than If you are identified as being asked to come here, your opinon will be discarded?Mickmaguire (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just wanted to add to this reply again - that I believe there was enough notability asserted in the original AfD to have resulted in a keep, particularly when you compare to other notables that have been kept in relation (and not in relation) to the town: I wonder how its ok to keep a maker of small films and the films themselves, and indeed one fo the stars, but not one of the co-stars who is pretty much as well known. Its fairly hard to find online references to Euclid, but as many in Vermont and New Hampshire would attest he really is something of a minor celebrity and he pops up regularly on TV, radio and in print. Mickmaguire (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This second response might be going somewhere. I mean, not with "notability asserted"—the assertion of notability matters with
      reliable sources.

      Just to be clear on this: reliable sources don't have to be online. They just have to be specified so that people can check. For example, here is one of my articles that has less than 5% of its sources available online; it's mostly sourced to books. Magazines would be okay too, if published independently. (What I mean is, something like a school newsletter doesn't count.) What I've done with that article is specify the title of the book, the name of the author, the publisher, the publication date, the place of publication, the ISBN (or ISSN for a magazine), and the page number; and that's sufficient.

      If you were using a TV programme as a source, you'd specify what the title was, who produced it and when, who broadcast it and when, etc. See?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

      ]

    • Your point is taken and its where I was heading, but this info is hard to pull together in such short notice - the article was AfD'ed almost immediately on its creation. There are several books that can and will be cited and a good deal of programs on TV and Radio that may be if we can find indexes (found a couple of refs this AM). Mickmaguire (talk) 20:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine and well-understood. Please don't feel under time pressure. There's no panic and no deadline; you don't have to produce sources this very moment.

        What I suggest you do is to ask Spartaz to "userfy" the article to you. (This means he will place a copy of the article in your userspace--in other words, it won't be "published" on the encyclopaedia main space, but you will be able to see it and edit it and add the sources in your own time.)

        When you have an article that you're completely happy with, please bring it back to DRV. It doesn't matter if this DRV has been closed in the meantime; this page is usually very happy to see and consider a sourced article draft. Assuming all is well and reliable sources are cited, then your sourced version would be restored. But please be prepared to answer searching questions about the sourcing.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • The problem with that approach is twofold: I have to do all the legwork myself rather than it being a normal wiki collaboration - I simply don't have that amount of free time but I did have the time to put together a stub and contribue with others - which is what I normally do on WP and in this case I did (until the article was killed); I also still stand by my assertion that there was enough notability shown in the original article and AfD to warrant its retention so that others could expand and contribute. I should also point out that I still stand by my claim that it should be overturned. Obviously I'lll consider this approach if this deletion is upheld. Mickmaguire (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Other people can edit material in your userspace, so it's a normal wiki collaboration.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Jimminy. The Vermonter who got some citizen award and was in a movie, but not the main character and not shown much anywhere. Long time town moderator. Whoosh. I think I had a weak delete on this one. As the editor suggests, the edge of what should be included. How close was the vote? Not that votes counted here per se. I would just as soon not revisit. But that is just me. Student7 (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "not shown much anywhere" Depends which movie - he had a fairly large, key role in the first one Mickmaguire (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I disagree with totally ignoring canvassed votes. Yes, canvassing is problematic, but I don't think you can really put that genie back in the bottle. People expressed their opinion, and I don't think we should hold it against them that they were canvassed. The overall discussion indicates no consensus to me. --
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Unless you define "few" as "over 200", Spartaz's claim is an offensive lie. I have asked him to retract it. --
    Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse. When there is clear evidence of canvassing, on site or off site, the closer has wide latitude in deciding to ignore them. The whole system relies upon the assumption that the AfD participants reflect a fair cross-section of the community as a whole. Taking canvassed !votes into account destroys that assumption.
  talk) 18:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I was a "canvassed" voter who has been a longtime, if smalltime, Vermont editor. The AfD led me to add articles for the Tunbridge World's Fair and Vermont Is for Lovers, both of which concern, and link back to, the article for Euclid. These articles were too late to add to the AfD, but they might be of some use in this discussion? H0n0r (talk) 18:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Closing admin to note this was a canvassed vote
    Spartaz

^Humbug! 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • It was a comment not a vote - and he recieved an appropriate Friendly Notice as he was an original contirbutor to the XfD. Mickmaguire (talk) 13:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am not sure what is meant by canvassing, nor am I interested in investigating what happened here. However, I became aware of the discussion through a posting on WikiProject Vermont. I believe it would be unwise to view posting notices at relevant Wikipedia Projects as canvasing. Such an attitutde would be tantamount to deciding that it is best to make sure AfDs are conducted by people who know nothing about the topic. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Closing admin to note this was a canvassed vote
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I am angry that posting to a WikiProject is considering canvassing. I object to any and all guidelines that say it is. I object to Spartaz following the guideline (if such guideline exists. I request Spartaz strike out his/her comment and apologize to me. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read
        WP:CANVAS and I see that various forms of canvassing are listed. WikiProjects are not mentioned as a form of canvassing, but they are mentioned as something one might post on instead of Friendly Notices. I therefore consider Spartaz's comment to be erroneous. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I see a note on your talk page directing you to this discussion. As far as I can see these friendly notices were not given to everyone who participated in the AFD so I'm not really sure what else it can be called. I'm sorry if you are angry but attempting to vote stack is a serious matter.
          Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • The only notice on my talk page was of this deletion review, not of the original AfD. The notice about this review was clearly appropriate since I had voted in the AfD. Whatever your motivation, your tactics discourage seeking opinions from those most interested and/or knowledgeable about a subject, namely the participants in WikiProjects. I am about as fond of your tactics as stepping in the little mounds on dairy farms. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "these friendly notices were not given to everyone who participated in the AFD" - I sent one to everybody in the XfD as far as I am aware - if I missed somebody please let me know.Mickmaguire (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You seem big on asking other people to do your work for you. Try revisitng the XFD and checking your contributions yourself. When you leave notices on the talk page of was it 4 or 5 editors inviting them to participate in an AFD you are canvassing - especially when the effect is they all pile on as keep. When you send notices to participants in the afd you are also including the extra editors who you already choose to contribute so this is canvassing too as you are compounding the original canvas by continuing to skew the likely participants in a discussion. There is simply no point trying to argue your way out of this, everyone independent who has looked at this has come to the same conclusion. I'm sure you meant no harm but its doesn't change the facts of what you did. What concerns me is that you are defending your actions rather then trying to learn from the feedback on what is accepted and what isn't.
            Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
          • I wasnt "asking you to do my work for me" - so I checked, and yes I see I missed one person (Nyttend) everybody else delete or keep was invited along. I did not invite anybody here who didn't participate in the AfD discussion (you imply I invited those who I had invited to the AfD who didnt join in there). I am learning, but part of what I seem to be learning is that the WP guidelines don't reflect what is actually going on - i.e. the Friendly Notice allowance on
            WP:CANVAS doesn't actually seem to apply.Mickmaguire (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Comment. Let me explain my "canvassing"... As I did with this review I went to a few parties who I knew wou;d have interest and told them the discussion was going on - I also posted the note on Wikiproject Vermont - I did not target individuals in an attempt to swing the vote, nor did I attempt anything covert. I was very deliberately unbiased and overt about this. We needed input to the deletion discussion from those who knew the local area and the subject. I even went so far as to reach out to those who I thought would support the delete. The word "canvassing" implies I asked for a vote one way or the other - I clearly did not! In a similar vein I have reached out to those who commented on the original deletion to notify them of this further discussion (including those who voted for deletion). Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices Mickmaguire (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, Mickmaguire, you knew exactly what you were doing. The page was likely to be deleted, so you went off and found people who would be likely to !vote to keep the article, and notified them of the deletion discussion. You don't have to say "OMG COME AND VOTE KEEP FAST" to be canvassing. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually thats not what I did - I notified people who I thought would have an opinion on the matter, who likely knew the subject including some who I thought may well argue against. I deliberately did it in a transparent way so people could see what I had done and said. I did it here and called in the people who voted to delete for further discussion. Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices Thanks for the lack of good faith! Mickmaguire (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That very section you linked states "Remember ... to leave a note at the discussion itself that you sent out such friendly notices." Did you do that at the AFD? Stifle (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously your question is rhetorical as you can check - but for the benefit of others, no I neglected to do that - a weak defense but I forgot to do so, I only realized my error when it was pointed out and the "if you were invited" banner was posted. At that point there was no need to flag it as it had been done. The fact that I neglected this, does not in itself discount it from being categorized as Friendly Notices, it still meets the criteria.Mickmaguire - (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Mickmaguire is a neighbor and friend who knows I have made (small) edits previously to the Tunbridge, VT page. He also knows I am the moderator of the official Tunbridge website (small as it is). We discuss WP-related articles in our face-to-face discussions. Mick asked me if I had seen the discussion on deletion as he hadn't seen my participation in the discussion. I told him I had not seen it, and I logged in to see what was up. I was not asked to speak FOR or AGAINST the deletion. It was simply brought to my attention. Why should this make my comments any less valid? I know Euclid Farnham, I have worked with the man at the Fair; He has provided me with historical and genealogical information for people who have contacted the Official town website looking for information on town history or relatives. He always provides me with things type-written because he doesn't own a computer -- or an answering machine for that matter. I have seen him give countless hours to his community in so many ways. As moderator. President of the Fair, the Tunbridge Historical Society. Leader of "ghost walks" in town cemeteries, civil war authority... When I was working at the Tunbridge Village Store, I saw him work every Sunday morning with Paul Zeller while Paul was writing his novel The Second Vermont Volunteer Infantry Regiment, 1861-1865. According to that Google Book link, the following text appears: "I especially want to thank my friends Brad Limoge of Morrisville, Vt. and Euclid and Priscilla Farnham of Tunbridge, Vt. for helping me locate..." (I don't have a copy handy to complete the quote), but he is also listed in the index as a reference if I recall correctly. The deletion discussion seemed to be strongly in the keep direction, so the decision surprised me until I read about how those of us who live in Tunbridge, and contribute to the small repository of information currently on WP have less of a voice. Euclid Farnham is known by many people far and wide for many different reasons, and it seems to me that he deserves to have a page that can grow out of its stub stage and provide a lot of information to future generations who may never have the honor of meeting him in person. Rickscully (talk) terrapin (talk) 19:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Closing admin to note this was a canvassed vote
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse comments above convince me there are no sources on the subject of this BLP (a mention in a books acknowledgments? Nah) that would make him notable in a wikipedia sense.
  talk) 19:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - I voted Keep in the AfD but a re-reading of the discussion has changed my mind. I think the closing of the debate unfairly discounted the views of Vermont residents - who did not merely !vote but actually put forward valid arguments - but nevertheless delivered the correct result. While strictly local notability is still notability capable of passing
  WP:N, insufficient significant reliable sources were brought forth to back up that claim. No prejudice against recreation if and when sources are found. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • comment - Closing admin to note this was as the result of "canvassing" - a friendly notice about this DRV Mickmaguire (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin Please note that the nominator has admitted canvassing in the DRV as well as the AFD. oh, and endorse my own close for the canvassing and inadequate sourcing that came out in the discussion.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • comment - Closing admin to note this was as the result of "canvassing" - a friendly notice about this DRV to the Admin who closed the XfD Mickmaguire (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Canvassing#Friendly_notices - this "canvassing" was "friendly notices", is considered appropriate and relevant to the discussion at WP.
• endorse close Given canvassing and apparent lack of sourcing close seems reasonable. Also, if canvassing continues should consider givign the nominator a block. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Closing admin is within his rights to give reduced weight to arguments that have been canvassed. An opinion you ask for is worth far less than one you don't. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to get back to what this deletion review is about. Its not supposed to be about whether or not the article had merits to be kept, but whether or not the decision to delete was correct. The decision in question and the reason for the request for review is whether or not the canvassed opinions should have been taken into account and if they were, should the outcome have been different given the arguments in those opinions. My assertion here is that they should have been taken into account, and if they had the outcome should have gone the other way. Many are claiming that canvassed opinions should be ignored. Wikipedias guidelines do not say this (I see no reference to that in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Administrator_instructions). Some are saying its wrong to canvas, Wikipedias guidelines do not say that either Wikipedia:Canvassing - they say it can be beneficial and therefore ok, if the canvassing is "Friendly Notices". Some are accusing me of trying to "stack the votes", I was not trying to do that either - I was simply trying to get people to add to the discussion or improve the article. My original assertion which I will reiterate is that the canvassing was "Friendly Notices" - i.e. Limited posting (6 wikipedians) AND Neutral (you can check what I posted) AND Nonpartisan (you can check what I posted) AND Open (I did it on WP - although I forgot to mention it on the XfD). I find it substantially (by WP guidelines) wrong that we might blanket discount inputs based on that Friendly Notice connection, even if that input has substantial argument, when in fact, its not a vote: the XfD is there to elicit reasoned WP supported arguments or changes to the page. If a small amount of Friendly Notice canvassing produced such (i.e. good WP guideline based reasons for change, or changes to the article itself) would not WP be better for it? Would not the decision to ignore those arguments and delete an article suitable for inclusion be wrong? I can see how bunches of unsubstantiated, unargued votes from canvassed people might create problems, and why those but this isn't what happened here. I ask those who are considering this review to read Wikipedia:Canvassing first to acquaint themselves with the substance of my pointsMickmaguire (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple question. Would you have invited people to the discussion if it was tending towards keeping the article? Stifle (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simple answer - yes I would. The point when I sent the notices was right at the beginning of the debate when the "votes" (other than the nominator's) were for keep. The stub article had only been around for a few days and I was still working on it - I knew that the people I sent notifications too may not have known the page was even there yet, and would likely know of the subject matter so could either help improve the page or submit reasoning as to why it shouldn't or should remain. Mickmaguire (talk) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Personally, I don't care if people were canvassed or not. What matters to me is the quality of the arguments put forward. Based on the arguments and the documentation provided (or lack thereof), I believe the decision was correct. However, if someone wants to work on the article and come back with some independent sources showing notability (according to Wikipedia standards), I'd be happy to see this article recreated.Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - Closing admin to note this was as the result of "canvassing" - a friendly notice about this DRV Mickmaguire (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3XX (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion Review please for 3XX wikipedia page

(I'm new to doing this, so editing help would great as well, thank you)

The discussion for deletion of the 3XX Wikipedia page was held here athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/3XX

Overturn - I would like to ask that the decision to delete the page be over-turned. There was little activity of the 3XX page until the station closed in August 2008.

This was due to the station forgetting to re-new it's licence and was taken off air.

From skimming through the discussion, I believe the main argument was 'notability' and that the station being taken off-air was notable enough in the mainstream press, thus should not have a wikipedia page.

However, the wikipedia page was online for quite sometime 'before' the station lost it's licence.

It should be noted that the 'request for deletion' was just a matter of hours/days since the station switched off it's tranmistter - prior to that, no requests for deletion were made.

If a station no longer exists, that should not mean it's wikipedia page is removed, rather that it's noted the station closed down.

I think there are plenty of other examples of other stations around the world that have shut down, but there wikipedia pages are still online.

If it's a case of 'further information required', then I would agree to a temporary restore, to allow necessary editing. Peter Holden Former 3XX Volunteer Broadcaster Ex-Commercial Radio Broadcaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.3.171.211 (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, nothing here suggests that the deletion process was not properly followed. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Stifle. I see no problem with the interpretation of the consensus.
  talk) 17:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• endorse the discussion was closed correctly, for no valid arguments were presented. The only argument at all was that it existed. That is is ceased wouldn't have impaired notability, if it had been notable in the first place, but there was not the least evidence of it presented. I se from the earlier versions that one possible notability might have been thesports broadcasts. If you can find some 3rd party sources discussing that, it might be possible to write an article aroundit. But youshould try on yourtalk p. first, and not even try until you can find something in the way of reliable sources--blog entires and the like will not do it. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse Even if we treat all licensed broadcast stations are notable there was no verifiable evidence presented that indicated this was the case. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There doesn't seem to be any problem with this close, as the deletes were stronger in both numbers and argument quality. If this really is a case where notabilty just wasn't reflected correctly in the article, my suggestion for the editor who opened the DRV is to create an account and ask that the deleted article be userfied for them so they can add appropriate sources. --RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armed Bear Common Lisp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

(I am taking this here directly because the admin who deleted the page is now taking a wiki break.) XfD gave many good reasons for keeping. Notability is documented e.g. by an entry in Peter Seibel's LISP FAQ. ABCL is the only stable Common Lisp implementation for the JVM, and is listed as a major implementation in the Common Lisp infobox. The fact that there is no big marketing buzz for ABCL should not be mistaken for non-notability. This software is essential for porting legacy CL applications to Java environments, and is highly regarded in the LISP community. Thüringer ☼ (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, no reliable sources found so deletion was a reasonable outcome. I did find one source that meets WP:RS and has pretty good coverage [1]. If one or two more can be found, I'd say there is a valid topic here. The FAQ cited in the AfD might be an acceptable RS here too, but that's debatable and not enough to overturn this by any means. You can also asked for the deleted article to be copied to your userspace so you can work on it there. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, creation of a redirect is a good idea. Hobit (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid interpretation of the debate, deletion process properly followed. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as the article hasn't been protected, anyone's free to recreate it, either as a redirect or, if they can overcome the reasons for deletion, as a full article. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it's hard to find fault with that AfD because there was a consensus to delete and the closer followed it. But though I would tend to endorse X!'s closure, the debate itself was defective in one respect: although the article was deleted, Armed Bear Common Lisp does still have coverage on Wikipedia
  here. I think that coverage is reasonable and in proportion to the importance of the subject.

  The debate did not discuss the possibility of a redirect, and it should have done, so I'll run with endorse but allow creation of a redirect.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse as a valid interpretation of the consensus. No objection to creating a redirect per S Marshall.
  talk) 17:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question and the multiple independent reliable sources to back up your hyperbole are~what exactly?? Wikipedia works by evidence based discussion not assertion so I hope you forgive us for asking to see the evidence
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  As a note, the AfD has a few sources that come close (the Lisp FAQ being probably the best) and I've included an academic source above that counts toward WP:N. Hobit (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What hyperbole? I'm just trying to improve WP. I'm not personally involved in ABCL development, if that's what you think. My judgement above is based on my expertise as a Lisp and Java programmer. Once the article is restored, I can help improve it by looking for published material. PS: For starters, please note the subject of our discussion on this page. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 19:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. From WP:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F: "Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable." It doesn't appear that the closer or the AFD discussion gave appropriate weight to this principle/practice, or at least didn't explain the related reasoning. Not everything notable gets general media coverage, and when articles deal with more arcane subjects that are unlikely to be of interest to unreliable writers, we ought to take care to evaluate the available sources and exercise reasonable judgment rather than relying on mechanical standards of form. It's worth noting that if we applied the logic of this AFD to the articles on the list-subarticle S Marshall points out, we'd probably wipe out everything but the more standard commercial commercial software, creating an inappropriate bias that would be more damaging to Wikipedia than allowing a few possibly borderline-notable, probably more reliable than our median BLP, articles to stand. Sometimes the best thing to do is to let articles develop, even if the pace is frustratingly glacial, absent any potential for harm. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I have taken the time to read through each of the sources provided by Kwertii in the AfD, and am forced to conclude that none of these sources are "significant" per
  WP:N and a deletion was the correct decision. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Pulling out my academic hat, I can assure you that it is the very rare paper describes tools in the level of detail that paper does. I've never seen anyone talk so highly (brag?) about a tool they didn't write in an academic paper. I personally feel that paper is one very solid source and counts toward WP:N. Keep in mind, we just need coverage, not anything which defines the topic as notable. That an RS talks about the topic an provides "significant coverage" is what we are looking for. That said, it's just one source. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to ignore the reference to another academic ABCL paper I added above. It was presented at the International Lisp Conference 2009. --Thüringer ☼ (talk) 12:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same authors on the same topic (CARMA) I think? Doesn't help a whole lot if that's the case... Hobit (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I couldn't find a deletion discussion on getopt, a part of the C programming language on Unix. The admin who deleted it (Kungfuadam) wasn't familiar with the subject matter and appears to be unavailable. If the original article is still in the database I would like to have it restored. If not, I would like the go ahead to rewrite it. Pingveno 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Automatic restore. Appears to be a contested prod. Deleting admin hasn't edited since May.
  talk) 23:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• restore per Tim. In addition, I'd request that whoever pens this considers getopt in perl and the like too :-). Hobit (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Maas (missionary) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The first "keep" comment in this AfD listed lots of points, only one of which potentially had any weight, which was that the subject was independently featured in a University of Pittsburgh alumni publication, the grand total of which content is "Johannes Maas ’67G is the international president of Worldwide Faith Missions, which builds and operates orphanages in India and Thailand". The next "keep" comment referred again to that alumni publication and mentioned some articles written by, rather than about, the subject in two newspapers, and the last "keep" was pure

• Closing admin – I saw, on the arguments for retention, assertions that the person would pass
  WP:BIO. Another user also suggested coverage in print sources. I thought those arguments were just as viable in this case as the arguments for deletion were. MuZemike 21:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Could you please give specifics of which assertions indicate that the subject would pass
  Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn and delete I think you might have misread something MuZemike, though it was an easy mistake to make. User:Jackie-thai said "I have read his aticles in "Bangkok Post" and "Nation" newspapers, whose editors considered his writings to be worthy of publication.", which is different than actually being covered by reliable sources. On the whole, I thought the arguments to delete were sufficiently stronger than the arguments to keep, which were refuted quite well. NW (Talk) 21:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Can you point to (as is required by
  WP:BIO) any published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject? "Assertions" of notability merely make this article not eligible for speedy deletion. The standard at AFD is verifiability, which has not been established. Ἀλήθεια 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse as the closure was not clearly in error. I see on no evidence that there was sufficient consensus for deletion here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've either made a typo there or misread the discussion - those two sentences contradict each other.

Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

For "on" read "no".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Julian, not you.

Phil Bridger (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That was indeed a typo (sorry!) but otherwise my statement remains accurate. It's not contradictory as far as I can tell. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's no longer contradictory. Thanks for the clarification.

Phil Bridger (talk) 01:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn and delete. This is a case where a thorough closing rationale analyzing the relative merits of the arguments would have been really helpful, because even with the closing admin's statement above I can't quite follow why this would be anything but delete. The number of arguers was balanced, but the deletion arguments appear to be much more carefully based on policy. The keep arguments seem to be either off-policy (e.g., "editors considered his writings to be worthy of publication") or not supported with sources. Perhaps this person really is notable, but if so I couldn't tell that from the article itself or the arguments made for it at AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, totally. It would take some serious doublethink to find a consensus in that discussion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So what valid arguments did you see for keeping?
  Phil Bridger (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I agree with MuZemike's assessment.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to seem to be badgering, but I'd still like clarification of what valid argument you think was given for keeping. It's no good referring to someone else's assessment when that assessment itself doesn't provide the answer to this question.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Phil, I'm an atheist. Rather strongly so, and if I had my druthers, Wikipedia's coverage of religion and religious figures would be immeasurably briefer than is currently the case. I do not personally believe there was any "valid" argument to keep and I really don't think there are any notable religious figures below the rank of, say, Archbishop.

  But at DRV I have to be able to separate my personal opinion from my judgment of consensus. When I disregard my personal opinion, step back and looking at the debate with that level of detachment, I find that I'm prepared to accept that there are people to whom this bloke would be notable; it's quite possible that someone would search Wikipedia for information on him. He is, after all, the founder of a slightly-important organisation. That's why I feel I have to run with endorse.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "valid", I meant anything that has any resemblance to policy or guidelines, not any measure of rank against being an archbishop or bishop etc. My personal opinions about religion don't come into this, as I have, despite being a confirmed atheist, in the past been instrumental in finding sources to save articles about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and

Phil Bridger (talk) 02:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• just renominate in a few weeks. Personally, I doubt he's notable, and i don't think the arguments for keeping will hold up to more intensive scrutiny. But why bother about deletion review. It was closed non-consensus, which was a fair description of the AfD. I very rarely see the point of appealing a non-consensus close. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Juliancolton and the first two sentences of DGG's comment. I cannot bring myself to say that the closure was clearly erroneous.
  talk) 23:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse though a closing statement might have been in order. There was no consensus for deletion there. Remember you don't need to meet WP:N for an article to exist. It is a guideline. We delete articles that do meet it fairly often, and we keep some that don't. That said, I'd have !voted to delete had I seen this discussion. Hobit (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per DGG. The discussion was not detailed enough to discern a clear consensus. Ray^Talk 00:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. It is difficult to see how the keep arguments carry anywhere near the weight of the delete arguments, particularly the comment about having read his writing, per NW above. While I do not see a clear error either, it seems pointless to renominate this later when it could be dealt with now. Kevin (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete - per Kevin and NW, this is rather clear-cut, the delete !votes had a much stronger policy rooted points, whereas the keeps made comments that weren't anywhere near strong. I definitely would have closed this as delete. --
  ark // 08:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse no consensus, as there was none. I concur with DGG. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to close - I think the picture that has developed is really clear. The AFD was closed properly as no consensus to delete, but the article itself is likely to fail a second AFD. It was not the administrator who made a mistake, and thus it would not be right to overturn that decision, but let's take it back, renominate it and get some closure. Ἀλήθεια 10:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second that request - I think Ἀλήθεια has explained the situation perfectly. Suggest endorse closure and renominate. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. I cannot read a consensus out of this. Rak-Tai mentioned a number of points which were well sourced, and had significant support for his position. HokieRNB's vote just went through the points declaring each of them "not notable" without any explanation, and I cannot see how an admin would put much weight on that. Disagreeing with someone's keep rationale does not make a strong case for overturning. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 White House criticism of Fox News (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus (obvious or otherwise).

• Endorse I nominated the AfD based on
  WP:ABSTRACT article entitled, say, U.S. Presidents and the media would be appropriate. HyperCapitalist (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The contention between the White House and Fox News (and now also the Chamber Of Commerce, and others) appears to be a "change of strategy" taken by the Obama presidency. Instead of dealing with individual "falsehoods" they are directing their comments to whom they see as the source of these, i.e., Fox News. This "change of strategy" is notable within Obama's presidency.

talk) 03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That's an interesting take on it - but the article wasn't "White House's change of media strategy," nor was the article written with that in mind. HyperCapitalist (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let's just change the title. ;-)

talk) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

That takes care of the first problem, now you just need to address the "nor was the article written with that in mind" part.  ;-) HyperCapitalist (talk) 23:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The
  talk) 03:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse The article was a farce. Its name alone hinted that other articles can and would be created for other years. It is very easy to place this information into the body of other articles and still respect
  WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Now lets all remember that any crictism article or otherwise that is aimed at the current occupant of the White House has been met with much resistance from many other users, yet I must point out that some of those same users have not only participated in the deletion discussion as wanting to keep this article, but also added information into the article as well. The same arguments they use on other pages to repress critcism, were somehow forgotten in this artcle. It is unfortunate that some users have used wikipedia to promote or otherwise encourage their political point of view. I not only commend Julian for making this difficult decision, but he deserves our gratitude for rising above the political mess that was created by this former article.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(Additional note): Jojhutton's crystal ball gazing about the verbal sparring's raging on indefinately may well be incorrect. According to today's US News & World Report the battle may well end up being circumscribed as but a "September-through-October 2009" affair (if not the whole war, at least, apparently, these recent, high-profile skirmishes):

"[...]White House officials don't expect to fire another shot in the battle unless Fox strikes first." (link)

↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Are comments allowed?) Jojhutton, I haven't edited the Obama pages much lately so am ignorant of which Wikipedians' partisanship you're referring to. However, I noticed in the AfD that (as an example) User:Showtime2009 made an empty accusation about there being SPAs who had been editing the article in question; therefore, in the present case, I'd hope you'd either provide some names or more detailed explanations of your accusations -- perhaps even some diffs? (It's ironic that sometimes those who are actually overly partisan themselves tend to see partisanship where none really exists. Eg, I created the article, yet in real life I am an Obama supporter.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you one previous example and one possible future example. 1. There was a previous heated argument over the creation of a new article titled

WP:OTHERSTUFF as a criteria for deleting the article about Obama. In the end, it was agreed to change the name of both articles to read "Public Perception....." in stead of criticism. 2. As far as future debates go. I would suggest trying to create the article Fox News Criticism of the White House. This article is the same thing as the other, only in reverse. I can almost see the sides switching on this one based on the partisian divide on wikipedia. Its all wait and see now.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Jojhutton, I know nothing about the Bush "image" article but know for a fact that your version of the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the "Image" article about Barack Obama is faulty. Unlike the case with concern the "Public image of Sarah Palin" article, which quickly became a depository of critical commentary and issues, the article "Public image of Barack Obama" has never contained much if any critical material at all. (BTW, there is also an article on McCain's image, containing some critical material but mostly not.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jojhutton, again, please provide evidence of partisanship backing up your speculations with regard to the current article under discussion; otherwise, please do try to

assume good faith.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Jojhutton, I am sure you're not talking about me, since I have not participated in any of the myriad Obama flailexes, and I have never edited the subject of this DRV at all. Please avoid using a broad brush to characterize those editors whose judgment of this article's merits differ from your own. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the wording of

talk) 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse - once again, a DRV nominee who forgets that AfDs are not a vote. The keep votes that simply consisted of "I saw it in a reliable source!" were weak. Tarc (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator does realize that it's "not a vote". The problem is that there was clearly no consensus. Please don't make false claims about me.

talk) 04:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• (I'll at least try to concentrate on the closing administrator's application/lack of application of AfD policy moreso than any stuff that would be peripheral to that.)
  Endorse I like our collectively allowing closing admins elbow room to make reasonable decisions. In this case, the decision could have gone either way, so....
  In other words, even though how I personally saw the AfD's consensus was that it was one supporting a merger of either all or at least some of the article's info -- to somewhere or another; what real diff does it make if the closing admin sees it as a delete? In the end, whatever would be deemed notable will end up being contributed elsewhere (...well, of course, I'd saved a copy of the deleted article in my user space) -- so, why make a big fuss over whether the original page was deleted or remains as a redirect?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn- I disagree that the strength of the arguments favored the delete side of that argument, and I don't feel there was any consensus in that discussion to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Closer claimed "Indeed, many keep votes consist of essentially "It is notable" without any sort of explanation or reasoning. " As the article was very well sourced, deleting on the that basis is not reasonable in this case. Normally a "it's notable" !vote holds little value. But when the article is sourced in a way far past what WP:N requires, I can't see how it could be deleted on that basis. I personally would have leaned toward delete due to NOTNEWS with a dose of IAR had I seen the AfD, but I don't believe a consensus to delete can be found in that discussion. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - personally i thought it was heading towards no consensus. Sometimes keep !votes are simpler explanations then delete !votes, because the deletion rationales are more tortured. This, in fact, happens commonly when a clearly notable article is nominated for deletion. This article doesn't fall into that bucket neatly, though, and I'm neutral on the close decision here due to some discretion needing to be allowed the closing admin. This article's subject matter is no doubt going to appear in other articles as well.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close was within process and legitimate, only claims of votecounting seem to support any other close. Closing admins rationale seems perfectly fine to alleviate any concerns. --Jayron32 06:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I very rarely !vote to overturn Juliancolton. But in this case I didn't see a consensus in that debate. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Textbook case of
  WP:NOT#NEWS. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse AfD's are, we sometimes forget, discussions not polls. The closing administrator seems to have properly taken account of that by making an assessment of the arguments presented rather than simply counting votes. I note the comments from Hobit in suggesting this decision is overturned. However, he doesn't seem to recognise that satisfying the notability guidelines does not mean an article on a particular subject is appropriate, merely that one might be. This is why simply saying the subject is notable is not adequate justification to keep this article. Adambro (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, it seems to me that many of the keep !voters were of the erroneous belief that everything that meets the verifiability and third-party coverage requirement of
  WP:N required or guaranteed an article, with very few of them even trying to address the comments of those who were arguing for deletion. While a merge might have been a viable closure option, there was no consensus on where it should be merged to. This means that a merge outcome would effectively mean keeping the article indefinitely until such time as a place could be agreed (or even a suitable article written), and keeping the article in its current form was the option rejected most clearly by those expressing reasoned opinions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note - This line of reasoning of Thryduulf's is what I was trying, really (if lamely) to argue via my !vote above. (Also note that the language at

WP:FANCRUFT: "Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are controversial." -- while accurately pointing out that closes of this type are controversial, obviously does not say such closes are improper or disallowed.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 13:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• overturn It is a notable event and there was no consensus. Wikipedia has an article on Balloon Boy, but not the WH battle against Fox? It makes Wikipedia editors look like leftists covering for the WH. As noted below, notable votes for a page with numerous cites can be succinct, while attempts to justify based on
  WP:NOTNEWS need more justification. No consensus was reached on the page by any means. GeorgPBurdell
  10:09, 28 October 2009
• Overturn. More Wikipedians supported Keep than supported Delete. Under these circumstances, it's absolutely farcical to claim that there was a rough consensus for deletion, which is what the policy calls for. The "AfD is not a vote" mantra has been perverted to the point of meaning, in practice, "AfD is nothing but a debating society that presents arguments for consideration, with the final decision made solely by one individual, namely whatever admin or other editor wanders by on the eighth day and decides to make his or her opinion the dispositive one." If that's to be the policy -- and some Wikipedians seem comfortable with that extreme version of "AfD is not a vote" -- then the policy should be rewritten to eliminate the word "consensus". There is no plausible meaning of the word "consensus" by which this closing, and others of the same ilk, reflected even a "rough consensus". Now, I realize that the policy doesn't make the consensus requirement absolute, but rather states, "Under most circumstances, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept...." (emphasis added) That wording allows for exceptions. It cannot, however, allow an exception on the basis that "the person closing the AfD happens to favor deletion and therefore feels like deleting regardless of the absence of consensus." If that were an allowable exception then we'd have no policy. JamesMLane t c 11:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "More Wikipedians supported Keep than supported Delete" - Sorry, but how is this in any way relevant? Consensus is not bound by a vote count. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The numeric count does play a role. If 90% of the !voters invoked IAR to do something contrary to guidelines we generally follow that lead. Here the real debate (IMO) was NOTNEWS vs. WP:N. As both sides have perfectly valid arguments (NOTNEWS doesn't preclude the coverage of all news) and the !votes leaded keep there was no consensus to delete. Hobit (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Julian, read the rest of what he wrote. He explains why it's relevant.
  talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• To explain why I consider it relevant, let me give you a hypothetical AfD in which fully 100 Wikipedians participate, none of them SPA's, none of them anon IP's, and none of them having been brought in through on- or off-wiki canvassing. The nominator and four others give varying thoughtful arguments for Delete. Five of the other participants give varying thoughtful arguments for Keep. The remaining 90 all find themselves persuaded by a comment already made, so each of them responds with some variation of "Delete per User X" or "Keep per User Y". The view of some AfD closers, which your comment suggests you may share, is that the person closing the AfD should read the ten reasoned arguments, examine the challenged article and the relevant policies, and decide which view he or she personally considers to be more sound. The 90 other participants can be ignored. The closer can delete the article even if all 90 said "Keep". The closer can keep it even if all 90 said "Delete". Is that your view? I personally think that would be a terrible system, but the more important point is that it's not the system we have. The policy repeatedly uses the word "consensus". You're asking me how the numeric count of responses is relevant to determining whether there's a rough consensus. I'm sorry, but I just don't know how to explain it any more clearly. It follows from the definition of the word. JamesMLane t c 21:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability of current events is hard to "prove" because we do not have the full context (yet) and we do not (yet) know what effect these events will have on the future. Since we don't fully know the effects, one possible measure of notability is how many sources can be found that covered the events. This article was clearly well cited with many sources. In addition, since the clear majority voted Keep or Merge, there should be some overwhelming reason to instead choose Delete.
  talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In response to Hobit's comments, I don't see that it was "NOTNEWS vs. WP:N". That would assume that the two are mutually exclusive. I disagree. WP:N does not require us to have an article on a subject because the criteria are satisfied, and I would agree that they were, rather it says an article might be appropriate. The main question here in my opinion was not really whether the subject was notable according to WP:N, the multiple independent reliable sources meant it was fairly clear that it was, but rather was a standalone article the most appropriate way for us to deal with this subject. Meeting WP:N does not and should not mean an automatic new article, we have to assess each subject in the context of other articles we may have about similar subjects and consider the historical significance. We already have a
  Fox News Channel controversies article and so this particular topic can probably be appropriately covered in that and similar articles. I don't think we can speculate that this particular incident is going to be significant which is what I feel some may be doing. Adambro (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse. The close was not clearly erroneous. Obligatory disclosure: I !voted to delete in the AfD.
  talk) 11:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn The keep supporters put forth a strong and well-sourced argument. Although the delete supporters believe the article is
  WP:NOT#NEWS, there was not a consensus on this. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - while the close was controversial, it wasn't definitely incorrect. Closer evaluated the strength of the arguments and decided that while it met the requirements for independent sourcing, it didn't meet the requiremets for
  WP:NOTNEWS. (Disclosure - !voted to delete.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - the closer followed precedent by evaluating the strength of the opinions; I agree that many of the keeps were based on "it happened!" and had little basis to define why we should have this as a fork rather than in one of the relevant articles. A good close, not obviously erroneous. Unless we're going to make a policy change that states AfD is a numerical vote, no problem here. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I don't know whether I would have reached the same conclusion, but the closer provided a reasonable rationale based on policy and the content of the discussion. To overturn decisions without clear indications that the closer misinterpreted the discussion or committed some other important error, and without any new information about the subject of the article, just turns DRV into AFD round two. I don't see any such clear indications or new information, so I believe the closer's decision should stand. --RL0919 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, as the closer explicitly stated that he used
  WP:NOTNEWS as a rationale for deletion. This is not a case of NOTNEWS, as it is not a single event. Here is a story from June, where Obama slams Fox; here is another from September, discussing a separate, but related event; another from October 6th, discussing yet another incident; another, from October 14th, with a different Obama adminstration official attacking the network; another one, on October 19th, which quotes both the official from the previous link and another senior administration official; and a pair of pieces from The New York Times and CBS News, which mention yet another incident, while providing an overview of the whole topic. All of these are related, but they are not a single incident, and they encompass a span of at least six weeks (discounting the June attack from Obama). Therefore the topic of the article does not meet the criteria for NOTNEWS exclusion. NOTNEWS clearly states that it only applies to a single incident; this is not the case here. BTW, the Colorado balloon incident, which was retained after an AFD which also had many !votes citing NOTNEWS, has an article in Wikinews; this does not. Horologium (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:NOTNEWS doesn't limit what Wikipedia articles should not be to only where a single event is involved. Unless I'm mistaken, the only reference made to a single event relates to individuals; "our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event". Where does clearly state "that it only applies to a single incident"? Adambro (talk) 19:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I also find it odd that "Balloon Boy" incident was found worthy of an article, but this issue was not.

  talk) 19:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  One involved a significant hoax resulting in sizeable search and rescue resources being mobilised, flights being rerouted, an airport being temporarily shut, and an apparent life and death situation involving a child which looks set to result in criminal charges. The other incident concerns a petty dispute between some in the White House and Fox News. I don't see how the incidents are comparable. Adambro (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that you would feel differently if Gordon Brown's government were to mount a similar offensive against Sky News, with multiple high-level officials stating that they were not a legitimate news outlet. This is not a couple of staffers spouting off; this is a sustained and coordinated effort, something that has never happened before on this scale in the United States. Previous administrations have squawked about biased coverage (and publicly ended White House subscriptions to specific newspapers) and complained about specific stories, but never has any administration stated that one of the major news outlets is in fact, not a news outlet at all. FNC is not an obscure cable outfit; it is the largest cable news channel in North America (probably in the Western Hemisphere), and six weeks of direct attacks against its legitimacy is a lot more than a petty dispute. Horologium (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why might I feel differently if Gordon Brown's government was involved in a similar incident? Adambro (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it appears that you are misjudging the significance of this event because you are not an American editor, just as American editors misjudge the significance of incidents which occur on your side of the pond. As I have mentioned before, this is not just a little steam-blowing by a few staffers, and it makes Spiro Agnew's famous fulminating fusillades against the media look like a toast to them. This is a systematic and deliberate attack on the credibility of Fox News. Imagine John Major's government claiming that The Guardian was not a newspaper, but rather a tabloid like The Sun. Horologium (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume that by a quick look at my contributions you can judge my background enough to suggest I might not be in a position to understand this issue. Adambro (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I claim that this was more than a "petty dispute". This kind of attack on a media outlet is largely unprecedented, and was interpreted by some as an attempt to "manipulate" the media. —Preceding
  talk • contribs) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse – I'd argue that this isn't about notability but whether or not this went against
  WP:NOT, in which the arguments for deletion on those grounds made it very clear. MuZemike 20:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Undelete; I think that the keep voters made a satisfactory demonstration of notability. Ultimately, I think this material better belongs in an article or series of articles discussing the Obama administration's media relations strategy. In the moment it is difficult to achieve that kind of coherence/synthesis and the material appears in smaller chunks; that's okay so long as severe NPOV and weight problems are avoided. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. There was ample RS coverage. There was absolutely no reason to delete it. Trilemma (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The deletion discussion was never simply concerned with whether or not there were adequate reliable sources to satisfy

  WP:NOTE. As such, it isn't clear why you are suggesting the decision to close the AfD in this way was incorrect. Adambro (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment - If this review were to be controversially closed some other way than "no consensus to overturn," wouldn't that be ironic? ;^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 22:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - I just don't see how this deletion is based in policy. There is no question of compliance with
  WP:SYN, etc.), for which the remedy is certainly not deletion. It seems clear to me that this deletion should be overturned. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse
  Soxwon (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn not at its finest, at its most expansive and worst. Clear misinterpretation of NOT NEWS, by the people in the debate and the closing admin. There needs to be an undetrstanding that the sort of events which would reasonably be in history books is more than transient news. It would have been much better to either interpret NOT NEWS to mean NOT TABLOID, or, if these misunderstandings persist, reword the rule to make it explicit. But in any case there have been continuing additional publications, and it should easily be possible for a more extended article to be written. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why you believe I misinterprpeted NOT#NEWS, as I made no effort whatsoever to interpret it to start with. I made my decision simply on the basis of what I perceived to be fairly well-defined consensus for deletion; personally I have no opinion on the matter. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q - A statement by Julian on his talk page, "[...]

WP:NOTNEWS is a policy, and thus citing it, proving that an adequately solid reason for doing so, is reasonable and taken as a valid argument. On the other hand, many of the editors arguing that the topic is notable provided little or no evidence and indeed cited no relevant guidelines or policies, hence my decision. As for the page, I hadn't noticed that the title was moved, so my AfD script evidently killed the redirect. Thanks for the note!" -- leads me to believe that Julian only read the AfD and didn't actually read the article. If so (and I'm not absolutelyu certain that it is), would such a course of action as this by a closing admin be OK?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I rarely read the articles associated with AFDs I intend to close. I look at each one briefly and check the references, but anything more is unnecessary and perhaps even detrimental. As noted above, my opinion is more-or-less irrelevant. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, I am a little startled by that statement. I would never close anything no matter how obvious without reading the article myself, and checking the history, not just glancing at it. How else could I tell if the arguments raised are pertinent? Our job is to follow consensus, you are quite right there, but it's to follow the consensus of the arguments that are based on policy and relevant to the particular article. It's not uncommon for objections (or support) to be given that sounds applicable, but it not actually relevant to the article being discussed--orthat are elevant to a currently poor state of the article, when there was a better one earlier. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As I said, I do briefly examine the article to ensure the arguments raised during the AfD were valid. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I may have read more into your first sentence than was intended. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Closing admin admitted to judging arguments by a significant group of concerned Wikipedia editors, rather than taking a measurement existing consensus. I believe that if we are to be governed by consensus, the latitude given to closing admins should not include the ability to make judgments which exclude carefully considered opinions made by longstanding editors from consideration at AFD - that ability should be restricted to clear misunderstanding, or lack of understanding, for core policy, which is not at play here. Ray^Talk 00:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Why was the proposal for the creation of a new article, U.S. Presidents and the media, rejected? The Squicks (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because
  sticking together disparate squabbles between presidents and one media luminary or another into one overreaching article is not how we do things here. Tarc (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Q - Tarc, is this article (-->Nixon's Enemies List) synthy?↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if the proposal was definitively rejected. My personal opinion is that, if it described all such controversies at the level of detail of the improperly deleted article about this particular controversy, it would be way too long. If instead it tried to draw general conclusions from such past incidents, it would be more of an essay than an encyclopedia article, and would likely be original research. Conceivably there could be such an article per
  WP:SS -- for each major controversy, it would give a brief summary and a wikilink to a daughter article with more detail. Of course, that project is hopeless if the daughter articles with more detail (like this one) get deleted. JamesMLane t c 02:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A model might be the Wiki omnibus article "United States journalism scandals" -- that contains, for example, one section that links to a main article about the McCain-NYTimes-lobbyist controversies.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 03:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I was for deletion in the original AfD, but I'm going to steer clear of whether it was correctly decided. However, I want to say that since for a lot of people, this discussion seems to be about how to interpret
  WP:Not, specifically "Wikipedia is not news." Some editors want to in effect "throw out" the opinions of those who advocated deletion on the back of this guideline. Whichever way you come out on the issue, there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that this event falls under the umbrella of "routine news coverage." Even if you don't believe that such an argument is persuasive, it at least has a rational basis, and so long as it does, essentially telling editors that their opinion doesn't count would be a tremendously wrongheaded move. Croctotheface (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse. Actually, after reading some of the rationales advanced for overturning the decision, I've actually been swayed toward believing that the closing admin made the right call, or at least that no better call is likely to be made if we were to run the process again. The best arguments against upholding the closing admin seem to be more about re-litigating the AfD than pointing out serious errors with the closure. Croctotheface (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The issue is a lack of editorial consensus in the original AfD, not arguing the points in the original nomination for deletion all over again. A lack of consensus for "delete" could not have been more clear (please just reference the archive above[[2]]). But evidently, essays are now required.

The admin stated that "At a first glance this seems like an obvious 'no consensus' or even perhaps a 'keep'," but then proceeds to assert something that is blatantly unapparent--that the notability argument was not documented. Looking over the "delete" nominations, the identical detail and lack thereof were apparent. In other words, both sides presented typical keep-delete arguments.

Editorial comment is supposed to have meaning in Wikipedia without having to write an essay on the

WP:NOTNEWS

guidelines were clear. Others referred to comments made previously, implicitly or explicitly, assuming good faith that they need not simply repeat the same arguments, but merely point out their existence. Sorry, this was, to be honest, an affront to the process of determining consensus or the lack thereof. The prima facie evidence, as also cited by the closing admin, was clear.

But to be clear:

• The original AfD produced substantial and indisputably notable, verifiable, and reliable sources (that an proponent of deleting the article even tried to remove [maybe then the closing admin would have a point ;], but that was later inserted and collapsed). Perhaps the closing admin missed it.
• The article regarded a subject where, unlike previous presidents with secret "enemies lists", this president declared open war on a reputable news organization (and which also carries commentary--so do newspapers). The Pew Research Center for People and the Press conducted a survey that put Fox News squarely on top as the network with the most balanced audience mix [see p.15] with almost equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats along with the "usual" number of independents.
• WP:NOTNEWS
  tabloid threshold.
• The sources were reputable, notable, and occurring with increasing frequency precisely because the "declaration of war" on the media was so unprecedented. It took a whole roundtable discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, for example.
• WP:NOTNEWS
  , as noted and seconded by many editors, is meant to avoid tabloid journalism. Unless every major news outlet in the U.S. is tabloid, including the mainstream media, this just doesn't fly. One would have to be living in a news black hole not to have seen the coverage and come to a "non-notable" conclusion.

The overriding point is that the closing admin had to argue some editor's views are less important than others, minimize or ignore their contributions, and do so under the guise of deciding which arguments deserved "strong" consideration and which did not. It's a demonstration of the very arbitrary will as applied to Wikipedia decision-making that consensus building seeks to avoid. Calling it "not a vote" and then imposing one's own will just seems to go a bit beyond the pale in this instance. --John G. Miles (talk) 10:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weaker arguments are simply discard from the final consideration. That is the entire point of having an AfD closer in a position to evaluate the arguments for and against an article, and not just be a vote-counter. Tarc (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, and the point of DrV is to act as a way of correcting errors and to see if the community thinks the closer mis-interpreted the AfD discussion. I think John raises some good points on that score. Hobit (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, the problem with saying that weaker arguments aren't considered is that it's not self-evident which ones are weaker. You could say that arguments written in all caps are not considered, and that's an objective standard. You have to consider the arguments on both sides to decide which set is weaker, though. What a closure of this type amounts to is that multiple editors come to the AfD discussion, read the arguments on both sides, and comment and !vote according to their judgment. Then one of them, instead of merely commenting or !voting, makes his or her personal decision the dispositive one, based on his or her view about which arguments are the weak ones.

The closing admin has not seen fit to address the hypothetical case tha I posed above in this edit. Because you seem to share his orientation, I'd be interested in what you think about how that hypothetical AfD should be closed. JamesMLane t c 22:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misinterpreted WP:Not. "Not news" is also designed to get at things with legitimate (not just "tabloid") news value that lack value for an encyclopedia. Every single game that, say, a professional hockey team plays is covered in detail by multiple non-tabloid news sources. They would plainly pass the basic WP:N standard, but they shouldn't get articles here. Why? Because Wikipedia is not news. Croctotheface (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croc, do you think Ketchup as a vegetable and Dick Cheney hunting accident pass WP:Not? (I found these a few days ago while category-hopping.) Horologium (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're both questionable for sure. I think it would certainly not be unreasonable to say that both of those don't belong in an encyclopedia. The arguments that they are more than news, which could perhaps distinguish them from this case, is that they are powerful cultural memes (particularly the ketchup thing) or they are so wild and crazy (sitting VP shoots a guy) that they merit attention in an encyclopedia. But if your point is that there exist gray areas, I completely agree. My objection was to an interpretation of WP:Not that essentially said that only "tabloid" stories shouldn't get articles. In reality, all "news of the day" stories, including those about important subjects, pass WP:N, but in the vast majority of cases, they shouldn't get articles. Croctotheface (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croc: A couple of points. First, the issue is whether the "not news" is actually "not news," and that is what the AfD nomination is for—to establish consensus. We can argue between ourselves till the cows come home, but that's exactly the point—it's not the point. The point is that neither you nor I (nor an admin) get to determine what is and is not encyclopedia-worthy; rather, that is an issue for the AfD and upon which no consensus (as admitted by the closing admin) was prima facie apparent in the AfD discussion.

Second, I use the term "tabloid" in the same way

WP:NOTNEWS. But again, the second point is superceded by the first—it's the first point of editorial consensus that is at issue even if the second point is ignored. --John G. Miles (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Reading your viewpoint really strengthens my endorsement of the closing admin here. The closing admin never ever "admitted" there was no consensus; he said that at first glance it may appear that way. It's like saying, "At first glance, John Doe appears to have something relevant to say, but in fact he does not." According to your view, the speaker in that sentence "admitted" John Doe's comments were on point. Your second paragraph just reads like a desire to reargue the AfD and make spurious accusations of "censorship," which doesn't hold any weight at this discussion. Croctotheface (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read for comprehension. The closing admin admitted prima facie consensus. Prima facie has precise and accurate meaning in the present discussion. Your comments assume it was never used. --John G. Miles (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off, civility is valued here. Put another way, "You need to write for not-being-a-dick." Having just written that, though, I can understand why being uncivil is fun. If you mean prima facie in the colloquial sense and not the legal sense, then I don't see what it has to do with the issue at hand. If you mean it in the legal sense of "sufficient evidence to support a claim," then my response above still applies. Croctotheface (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wasn't being uncivil, I was being descriptive--you missed the very words that comprehended my meaning and that made your objection one of lack of understanding. Prima Facie means "on the face of it" (lit. "first face") or "at first sight" which is exactly how the closing admin described the situation. No legal distinction whatsoever is required (though it is used identically). The pot does look quite black, however. Feel free to take the last word here. --John G. Miles (talk) 04:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (What follows is not a critique of Julian's "administrative technique" so much as one of, maybe, the Wiki system.) Say a (reasonably circumscribed?) series of events occur and begin to receive coverage in the media. A Wikipedian starts an article, but its sourcing is, in truth, thin. The article is immediately nommed for deletion. In the resulting discussion, commenters note the skant sourcing and advocate convincingly for the article's deletion. In the meantime, an avalanche of sourcing turns up as the series of events becomes a much noted-upon phenomenon. The closing date for the AfD arrives and the admin can only hope to have become but cursorily acquainted with the article's subject matter and furthermore doesn't read the short article in order not to prejudice hi/rself toward the discussion in the AfD. Because the early !votes in the AfD are so well argued and because the later !voters felt less of a need to support their "Keep" positions in the face of what had come to be overwhelming media coverage, the closing admin is forced to delete. Thereafter, those advocating for the events in question to receive coverage on Wikipedia are told, "This issue has already been settled and the consensus is against its being covered."↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The moral of the story is that anyone who comments in a deletion request or similar should add both that discussion and the relevant page to their watchlist, monitor any changes, and be prepared to revise their comments. Adambro (talk) 17:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse reasonable interpretation of the discussion, grounded in policy.

• Endorse - no particular reason to overturn. The discussion leaned toward deletion, with better arguments on that side, and a solid policy-based reasoning was given by the closer. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per comments from a number of others above, including DGG and John G. Miles. I personally can't see how this could have possibly been closed as anything other than no consensus and this very DRV shows that there is still no consensus regarding this issue. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This DRV is about the AfD closure vs. the article deletion -- they are two different things. One could endorse the AfD closure but not the deletion of the article (or vice versa). HyperCapitalist (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ...I'm not exactly new here (or otherwise "new" to the AfD or DRV processes). --Tothwolf (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe I said you were. No offense intended. Your comment might be confusing to those that are though. HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A review of a close that proposes that the closer did not realise that no-consensus described the overall situation can appropriate point to material discussed during the review. we're not narrowly technical. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a reasonable close that is consistent with policy. Crafty (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - This article's content had received attention from multiple major news sources, united a description of several events, and generally does not fall under
  WP:NOTNEWS. Many other more eloquent statements along those lines have already been made above. Tigerhawkvok (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I found this on NPR. It includes links for views on both sides of the issue: "In White House Vs. Fox News War Of Words, Who Gets Your Vote?". This gives further evidence for notability.
  talk) 14:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• More evidence of notability. Katy Couric states, "Politicians and the media have long had a contentious relationship, it's part of the American system, but we've *never* seen anything quite as intense as the feud between President Obama and the Fox News channel." CBS News' Chip Reid on Fox News and the administration.
  talk) 14:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Subsequent sourcing means little, here. (IMO, if folks truly felt this affair was important to be mentioned in the encyclopedia, they would have already added something about it to the Barack presidency page and/or the Fox controversies page and/or would have contributed something about the affair in an article with alternate framing and/or alternate sourcing...yet, what is interesting to me -- in a good way, I might add -- is how much energey we all contribute to such discussions rather than our attempting to contribute content, sometimes. I guess this is cos we want to help set the tone or terms or whatever of the debate about this issue w/regard to WP's workings and help frame what lessons ought to be inferred from this aministrative action as a prededent? Which may, in the end, simply be that, in cases similar to these, such a close is controversial? Nonetheless, as I've said above, lightning probably ain't gonna strike twice and this DRv's not gonna do a Julian via deciding that the majority of arguments advocating we maintain the status quo (of the article's being deleted) are intrinsically invalid.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the proper place for my links was the original AFD. But honestly, when I added my comment on the AFD I thought it had already been made clear why this article was notable. I regret not realizing that an admin could see the same argument and think that "Deletion" had the consensus (i.e., a stronger argument).

talk) 16:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The AfD wasn't open and shut, IMO, thus I endorsed the delete, above. Ne'ertheless, as Jwesley helps to show, the affair has subsequently been proven to be very notable -- geez, it is the subject of an entire Jon Stewart show; see here! (Yeah, yeah, Stewart's basic point, in his satire, is that the whole affair shouldn't have been considered notable in the first place, ironically. But, the point of fact is, some observers and many partisans believed that the Obama-Ayers affair, the McCain-lobbyist affiar, even the Watergate-break-in affair, really ought not to have been considered notable. But, in the end, how does a terteiry source such as an encyclopedia determine whether some affair is notable or not? That's right, through the affair's being noted upon at great length and depth within reliable, 2ndary sources.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, Jwesley78, that an admin needs to have such options preserved in his

WP:PRESERVE -- which, according to my reading of it, anyway, says that tagging, fixing, moving, or at least bringing to the talkpage any contributed text that is at all encyclopedic is preferable to simply deleting it. Analogizing from this basic, user-friendly, no-biting-newbies, et cetera, premise to dealing with AfDs, when an AfD is dominated by those advocating a merge of some type, why close it in a way that would delete the entire article's source code and editing history? Such machismo would seem not to be -- so much, anyway -- the Wikiway.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 20:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think everyone (including the closing admin) agrees that there is no question the subject matter heartily passes

WP:NOTNEWS (which I think is due to the shortcut name instead of the actual content). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I truly cannot see how

talk) 19:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Blax, do you really think that it's totally and completely off the wall to say that this kind of back-and-forth is too close to everyday politics and everyday news coverage to merit its own article? You can certainly disagree, and you can even present a compelling case, but this discussion isn't really about delete/keep so much as whether the closing admin erred. In order for a misinterpretation of "not news" to be persuasive here, it would seem to me that the misinterpretation would need to be SO egregious that no reasonable person would possibly endorse it. Whichever way you come out, I think you almost have to acknowledge that a reasonable person could see this episode as more news material than encyclopedia material. Croctotheface (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS based deletion is to argue that there is no historical significance... if that's the case, I'd like to see some discussion surrounding why this isn't historically significant given the Nixon analogue and the points I just made. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No historical significance has been shown (it may all blow over tomorrow and that will be the end of that). It may be demonstrated by future coverage, but we're not a crystal ball. If at some point actual significance is shown, and it's not just the current headline of the month, then I would absolutely support the creation of a new article (or reinstatement of this one), but it is much, much too soon to argue that. Karanacs (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, it looks like the (quote) affair (end'o'quote) may have already blown over (in a sense of the White House may no longer be calling out Fox, overtly -- if not in the sense that Fox has decided to quit being "Roger Ailes' Fox," which it, of course, has not; see USAToday blog, here).↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical significance is a pretty open-ended thing. If you interpret that to mean "somebody might care about it sometime in the future," then basically every news item has historical significance, and that doesn't get us very far, and the policy is redundant with WP:N. If you interpret it, and the rest of "not news" as I do, then it's more along the lines of "significantly more interesting than the kind of stuff that's in the news on a routine basis." One way or another, we're going to deal with a subjective judgment. So, again, the issue isn't whether you can present a case that this stuff passes muster under WP:Not, the issue is whether it would be so totally irrational to hold an opposing view that we have to overturn the closing admin because he made an error in considering arguments based on WP:Not here. Whichever way you come out on the merits, it seems to me that there's at least reasonable debate. Croctotheface (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justmeherenow, you seem to be contending that any subject involving the Obama presidency that merits a standalone article must be mentioned in the main Obama presidency article. If that's your position, I disagree. An article about a presidential administration covers, typically, four or eight years of the work of the most powerful person in the world. Obviously, that generates material on a staggering range of subjects. We have to condense all that material into an article of encyclopedic length. Whole books have been written about administrations and even about specific aspects of them. Analogous to the present dispute, at least one whole book was written just about a prior administration's media relations (On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency). The point is that there will be many, many presidency-related topics that Wikipedia can and should cover but that don't merit discussion or even mention in the main article. They must be addressed solely through standalone articles like this one. Instead of inclusion in the text of the Obama bio or the Obama presidency article, the article about Fox could be linked by being listed in Template:Barack Obama, subhead "Public image", subsubhead "News and political events". JamesMLane t c 17:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James: Fair enough. :^)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 17:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. I thought RL0919 said it best above. I may not have made the same decision, but I can understand how this decision was reached and believe the rationale the closer left was appropriate and reasonable. Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Once again, AfD is not a vote; frankly, as the delguide is written, one valid delete (or keep) rationale can outweigh a significant number of poor or just dead-wrong votes. RL0919 is right; DRV is just being used as forum-shopping. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DRV is always used as "forum-shopping", if you like. That's its purpose: it's a place to come if you think a bad decision has been made. Since our admin corps is neither underworked nor infallible, nor always capable of discerning which !votes are "poor or just dead-wrong" (to use your phrase), there must be a DRV for the benefit of the encyclopaedia. Accusing someone of "forum-shopping" when they come to DRV will always be true. But it will never be constructive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping refers to asking the same question in multiple places and hoping you eventually get the result you want. That shouldn't be what happens here because AfD and DRV are forums that seek to answer different questions. DRV is for correcting errors in the closing of an AfD. It's not for rearguing the AfD, i.e. it's not for arguing delete versus keep. Croctotheface (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The War on Fox News by the Whitehouse has been widely noted, and discussed by all or at least most major news outlets. To deny it is to deny the history of our times. JohnHistory (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]

• Comment At this point, it's not even relevant whether or not Julian Colton's close was appropriate at the time; there is ongoing substantial coverage of the issue in reliable sources, including this article, which is the headline item on
  The Politico at the time that I am typing this. This issue has not gone away, and sticking our fingers in our ears and saying "lalalala, I can't hear you" doesn't make the issue less important. Other notable coverage of the incident after the close of the AFD has appeared in The Baltimore Sun, The Los Angeles Times, The San Jose Mercury-News, and The New York Times; none of this, of course, includes the coverage by Fox News itself on the issue. Horologium (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, it's still in the news, sure, but I don't think that either the close of the AfD or the delete opinions expressed within the AfD would've flipped because the topic remained in the news for another week or another month. Coverage in sources was never the issue; that there are more sources that cover the topic doesn't change anything. Croctotheface (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closer explicitly stated that he discounted almost all of the

WP:NOTNEWS "deletes". However, NOTNEWS addresses announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism, none of which the many sources for this topic fall under. The fact that there is still ongoing discussion of the issue six weeks later (the first significant discussion began when Obama pointedly excluded FNC from his whirlwind Sunday morning TV tour on September 20th; I cited articles which were written on November 1) pretty much nukes the whole "routine news coverage" caveat upon which all of the NOTNEWS proponents are relying. AS I noted earlier in the discussion, there has been sustained media coverage of this topic far longer than the Colorado balloon incident, which disappeared from the news within three or four days. This topic didn't have the saturation coverage of the balloon thing, but it's certainly been longer-lived. Horologium (talk) 04:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Croc, wouldn't you agree that continued coverage in so many reliable sources is further indication of its significance as an encyclopedic topic? Unless you just flat out say that this topic could not ever be encyclopedic, what threshold do you think needs to be met before the topic meets the burden set forth in

WP:NOTNEWS (the policy cited as grounds for deletion)? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 05:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The balloon incident is a different scenario; there might be an argument to delete under similar grounds, but for whatever reason, that hasn't happened. A couple of major differences could be the pervasiveness of the coverage (I'd wager that more people are familiar with the balloon incident than the Obama-Fox News issue) and the weird nature of the balloon thing as compared to a political spat over news coverage. I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure there are arguments to be made that suggest the balloon incident is less worthy of an article than the Fox News tiff. Again, the question here isn't whether it would be possible to have an article or whether there could've been a decision made to keep the article, but whether the closing admin erred or whether there is significant new information to establish notability. Considering that this passed the basic WP:N standard at the time of the AfD, more news articles don't really seem to prove anything, as notability was never the issue in the first place.

A parallel case for me is something like the Mike Piazza-Roger Clemens feud back in the beginning of the decade. That continued to receive news coverage in sports journalism for years afterward, yet we don't have a separate article because the content is better treated within existing articles. If you want a political example, consider that there'd be no question about the WP:N notability of an article called something like Debate over Iraq policy in the 2004 United States elections or an article called Campaign advertising in the 2008 United States elections. We don't have those articles (near as I can tell) because although there is tons of sourcing, although those topics easily pass WP:N, and although they remained in the news for longer than this topic has, they are better covered within existing articles than alone.

Finally, I think you guys are suffering a little bit from a disease that plagues some Wikipedia editors. There's sometimes this odd strain of reasoning that goes something like, "Because there's no policy that explicitly says we must do what you want to do and there's no policy that explicitly says we must not do what I want to do, you can't possibly be right and I can't possibly be wrong." Look, there isn't a policy called WP:OBAMAFOX that's going to explicitly cover this issue. Instead, we have to use existing policies, guidelines, and practices, combined with the wisdom of our editors, and we need to interpret all of that in a way that lets us move forward. Your interpretation of "not news" is different from mine, and that's fine. But don't pretend that there does not exist any other way to interpret it. As I've said over and over, the purpose here is not to reargue the AfD, and arguing the best interpretation or the best application to the article in question belonged there, not here. Croctotheface (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the Mike Piazza/Roger Clemens feud and this topic is the former is unremarkable (lots of people, including sportspeople, have interpersonal disputes), while the latter is notable. As has been noted, there are plenty of instances of friction between the White House and the press, but this is not just a minor difference of opinion, and attempts to minimize it under NOTNEWS are rather disingenuous. It's akin to saying that

Master list of Nixon political opponents

) is not worthy of an article, since all politicians have political opponents in business, academia, the media and entertainment industries, and from other parties, and reporting about the existence of a formal administration policy is routine news, not something which should have an article of its own.

As for your assertions about my reasoning, you are quite wide of the mark. I'm hardly an AFD/DRV regular, and this is only the second time I've argued for overturning an AFD closure that was closed as delete (the first one was way back in May 2007, when I had been actively editing for about a month). And yes, we *do* have differing opinions of "not news". That is the crux of the issue, though, since it was the only argument used by the closer, and those of us who are arguing to overturn believe it was misapplied. Because the !votes which were in favor of retention of the article were discarded by the closer, to a certain extent it is necessary to rehash the AFD; it's not a discussion when one side's input is ignored. Horologium (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to WP:N, all of the examples I gave are notable, which is precisely my point. I'm sure lots of people would disagree with your assertion that Piazza-Clemens is "unremarkable" as well. As I've said, it's my view that this material is better covered within a broader article than on its own. As far as "not news," it's up to you guys not to present your case for why this deserves coverage, but to show that the closing admin was so wrong that his decision can't be allowed to stand. One way or another, it all seems reasonable enough for me, and while I can certainly understand where the "keeps" are coming from, it isn't enough for you to say that your arguments are better. If that were enough, then this process would never end, since the "deletes" would just do the same thing you've done and run the discussion again until there's a result they like. Then, if they prevail, you open up another DRV, and on and on. That's why this needs to be on a level beyond rearguing the AfD. Croctotheface (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not asserting that our arguments are "better", we're saying that the closing admin (1) misread the consensus, and (2) misapplied NOTNEWS policy. Most of the overturn arguments herein deal with one (or both) of those points. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, your burden is stronger than saying you have a different interpretation of "not news" that you believe is better/correct/however you want to say it. You haven't shown that it's unreasonable to interpret that policy the way closing admin did. I think it's a tough task for you, honestly, because the high number of adherents basically makes it self-evidently true there's a rational basis for that viewpoint, even if you disagree with it. Croctotheface (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that assertion -- I don't believe that his interpretation of

WP:NOTNEWS

:

1. The article subject is not a single event, as prescribed by
   WP:NOTNEWS
2. The subjet has historical significance (IMHO), which is evidenced by the massive media coverage and is the main criteria of point #4 in NOTNEWS.
3. it's not "routine coverage", which is the stated intent of NOTNEWS.

With regard to the actual form of the closure, I would assert that there is no clear consensus. The deletion should be overturned based on two grounds: (1) there was no discernible consensus for deletion in the AFD; (2) the interpretation of the policy

WP:NOTNEWS is at all reasonable, and I'd ask anyone who asserts that it could be a reasonable interpretation to speak specifically to how it could be reasonable in light of the three numbered points I just raised. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I would claim reasonable in the [same] sense as "I can see how somebody might possibly think that was the consensus". However, not reasonable in the sense of "the decision was obviously made after thorough and careful examination of both sides, giving proper weight to the arguments made". [Addendum:] In any case, I think Blaxthos makes the case very clear that

talk) 22:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course the closing admin acted in good faith (i.e., made a reasonable interpretation of consensus). The question I have is not whether it was reasonable, but whether it was the right decision. In this case, I think the closing admin clearly made the wrong decision. And, in the spirit of

talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - Julian has left the building!: I don't know how, or if, this relates to this DRv (...?) but, according to User:Juliancolton's user page and editing history (near as I can tell), the close of the White House - Fox tiff article's AfD was his last act as an administrator before retiring from [Edited: his extremely distinguished career] on Wikipedia.↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 14:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unnotable page of a self-published author whose personal website (also doubling as his "publisher" site) makes the case fairly clearly for his lack of notability. Much puffery, but not much notability.

• Published multiple times by Llewellyn, Hampton Roads Publishing Company. Dragonhawk Publishing, his publishing company, has produced several titles, as well ^[1].
• Titles include "Animal Speak" and "Animal-Wise," some of the only western texts for working with animal spirits and creating sacred space in Nature.
• "Animal Speak" is #6 on Tower.com Top 100 bestsellers for spiritualism.
• "Animal Speak" is #1 in books on Earth-Based Religions/Shamanism on Amazon.com.
• "Animal Speak" is #1 in books on Native American Studies on Amazon.com.
• Internationally known animist and shamanist, animal communicator, teacher and animal rehabilitator
• Personal website highlights publications, events schedule, publishers, and news--clearly distinct from that of his publishers
• Noted and puffery deserved

javascript:insertTags('Copperbeech (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)',,)[reply]

• Endorse. Deletion discussion was unanimous. No prejudice against the creation of a new article that improves the claims to meeting notability guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 16:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, a closure perfectly in accordance with the unanimous AfD. Endorse.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The close was 9 hours (plus some change) early, but nom hasn't provided any reason to think that the early close was prejudicial. Endorse.
  talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Drat. I missed that, and thank you for catching it, Tim. My position is that a closure this early is clear error and DRV should take action to discourage it. Changing to procedural overturn and relist.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Relist per s marrshall. let's follow our own rules... Turqoise127 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/relist per S Marshall. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist There is no reason to think that someone might not have come along at the end ant provided material. However, though the closer was asked to reopen on grounds that made no sense whatsoever by an interested ed.. I do not see that the closer was asked to reopen on this grounds--when I see an early close, I normally simply give a reminder, saying: "please please wait the full 7 X 24 hours. Even a few hours early tend to drift, as other people go to 12, 24, etc. This is one place where it matters. This definitely does not mean I disagree in the slightest with the actual closings today., but just a reminder. " (nor do I see the closer was even notified of this discussion--I have just done so,) DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was thinking that policies were just a reflection of common practice. Obviously not. Kevin (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jutta Oesterle-Schwerin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• she was a member of German Bundestag.
• Grüne: 11. Bundestag GLGermann (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This seems to be yet another of those German MP substubs. Restore the material since we have an editor willing to work on it. No point forcing them to start from scratch.
  talk) 01:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Permit recreation as a genuinely notable European politician. Also, I can't make any sense at all of Jenna's deletion rationale.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD link added.
    talk) 02:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Permit recreation as part of that huge AFD back in July. I think we had a similar series of DRVs on this where there a few false positives noted. MuZemike 03:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• broad response for the 3000 deletions a good faith editor created these stubs under the belief they each meet our inclusion guildlines. I'd say if any editor in good standing wants a handful of the 3000ish back they should automatically be userfied and given permission to move to mainspace when they feel they've met the requirements of WP:BIO and WP:BLP. I can't see this article, so no idea if it meets BLP and BIO requirements. If it does, restore otherwise userfy Hobit (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The whole content is "Jutta Oesterle-Schwerin is a German politician, representative of the Social Democratic Party.". Plus a few maintenance tags. Kevin (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No-fault restore as there is an editor willing to improve the matter. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  she was a member of German Bundestag !!! The Bundestag (Federal Diet) is the parliament of Germany. So she is important enough for an own article. 92.252.124.121 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from deleting admin. Ex-admin, as it were, so I can't restore, but I would had I the ability still. It's only a sentence or two (I think, but can't verify), so recreation without the deleted material probably wouldn't be more than 30-seconds of work. Either way,
  Lara 17:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore the obvious implication is that she is a rep. of the party in the Bundestag , and that by itself is sufficient reason for keeping the article. I opposed the deletion in the first place, so someone else should carry out Lara's suggestion. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

I found no evidence of notability for this topic, however the two dissenting editors claimed there was such evidence. Requests for links to this evidence were ignored. The closing admin states that evaluating such claims is not proper for the closing admin (see User_talk:Juliancolton#No_consensus). I feel that the true consensus (based on evidence actually provided, ignoring claims with no evidence) is to delete. This study is no more notable than millions of other studies which also lack the notability to have an encyclopedia article written about them. For an academic study from 20 years ago, it is relatively rarely cited. T34CH (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Given the comments below that there was actually no consensus, please consider that my claim is not a complaint about the outcome, but a disagreement with the interpretation. The objections to deletion were never substantiated with evidence, therefore I feel that there actually was a consensus to delete (once you throw out what are essentially ILIKEIT votes). The closing admin feels he is not allowed to make such interpretations,[3] so I brought the matter here. T34CH (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen & relist. While it is true that there was no consensus, there were no credible arguments for keeping the article. As such, it would have been appropriate to relist the article to try to generate a more thorough discussion. ^Bongo_matic 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- This is not AFD round 2, and there was no consensus to delete in the actual AFD.Umbralcorax (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of my request. Given this line from wp:Consensus: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace," I believe the consensus was inaccurately judged. Now, as Juliancolton points out that, "my job as the closing admin isn't to determine what's "true" or "false"," there is no choice but to address my concerns here. I hope that you will evaluate the issues I have raised in this light. T34CH (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It was reasonable not to relist. And it was reasonable to close as no consensus. No consensus does, however, permit relatively speedy renominations, so the nom might wish to consider renominating in a month or so.
  talk) 01:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, precisely per Tim Song, with whom I concur in all respects.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen and relist The small participation along with the absence of arguments on the keep side should have forced a relisting.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse in this case I'd have suggested a relist made more sense (only folks significantly commenting were involved), but not unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Tim Song and S Marshall.
  WP:RELIST precludes relisting in these circumstances. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A reason for relisting is that "and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy". I'd say that arguments like "I found more sources" (none provided or even hinted at), "not notable", "there are sources", "there are sources in books" count as policy-based arguments. I'd suggest relisting here isn't precluded. Hobit (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure you meant "do not count". And I agree - the keep arguments are quite weak; the delete arguments did not fare much better, either.
      talk) 17:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Yes, thanks, that is what I meant. And I agree both are bad, thus the relist suggestion. Hobit (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus closure. It was the appropriate closure along the lines of how admins ought to decide. Neither opinion was prevalent. If only all admins and all decisions were like this. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The discussion was inadequate and unsuitable ; I would have relisted for further discussion, but I assume Julian closed on the reasonable basis that it would better to start over, in a fresh discussion without personal attacks. Like Tim, I suggest waiting a month to improve the article further, and then optionally relisting. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I have to admit that personal differences got in the way of my making anything resembling a mature response to the original AfD, and for that I apologize. I have since begun working on the article, and I think it is improving. I think the suggestion to wait a month and then relisting if necessary is a fair course of action. Aryaman (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reopen and relist. If the closer wasn't willing to assess whether the assertions of notability were credible, the obvious option was to relist the discussion to allow time for more editors to comment. The debate was insufficient to conclude that the community lacks consensus on this article. Fences&Windows 02:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This debate was very long (134KB) and very controversial, yet it was closed with no rationale whatsoever. My personal vote in the end was "undecided", so I would have been fine with any decision. However I, and I think many others, were looking forward to a closing rationale that showed evidence of a thought process proportional to this debate. I would have liked to see a careful weighing of all sides, along with, hopefully, a wise and well thought-out conclusion. Rather than completely overturned, I'd like this closing to simply be "undone", so that another admin can perform the closing of this debate with the proper thought and consideration. Equazcion (talk) 16:02, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)

• The closer might have provided a rationale, if you had given them more than one hour and 9 minutes after the first talk page message on this subject. Just saying...
  talk) 16:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The lack of a rationale to begin with is suspect in itself to me. I don't want rationale cooked up just because people complained. I'd like a closing by someone who saw the need for rationale in the first place, on their own. Equazcion (talk) 16:09, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse the close was a reasonable interpretation of
  consensus - a closing rationale whilst preferable is not required. Guest9999 (talk) 16:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Isn't it the closing administrator's responsibility to evaluate the arguments advanced in the discussion? Isn't it their responsibility to discount the bad arguments, those that violate or misinterpret our policies? Practically every single participant who voiced a "delete" argument in the {{
    WP:Coatrack as if it were a policy. But coatrack is not a policy, it is just an essay. And every single one of those contributors misinterpreted the essay's recommendation with regard to when it is appropriate to delete an article based on a coatrack concern. Geo Swan (talk) 18:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • policies - in regard to a certain type of article. Linking to the essay simply saves the user having to explain the idea of a "coatrack" - and why they think they go against policy - by retyping the essence of the essay as part of an AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse—even if you ignore the overwhelming majority of keep vs. delete !votes (over 75%), even looking at the arguments, there is clear consensus to delete. Several of the proponents of keeping the article assumed that its problem was bad sourcing, and did a good job looking for sources. However, if one reads the delete rationales, they were not about a lack of sources—but about inherent POV and the article being a coatrack. I haven't read 100% of the discussion, but from what I read, there can be no question as to the properness of the closure. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Entirely reasonable decision. The lack of a rationale could have been fixed by speaking with the closing admin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse seemed reasonable given the majority of deletion votes, and clear consensus opinion to delete...Modernist (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The result was indeed delete, so I endorse the closure, but a closing rationale would in that particular instance have been helpful.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Indeed, deletion could have been declared per
  WP:SNOW much sooner. A strong and thoughtful consensus emerged virtually from the start. Equazcion consistently ignored everyone's reasons, prolonging the process without ever engaging other people's reasons. This request was predictable. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • ...as was this endorsement; Slrubenstein was arguably the most vocal supporter of deletion. To him and the rest of the people endorsing the deletion itself, I'd like to remind everyone that I don't necessarily have a problem with a delete decision, but with this particular closing, for the reasons I stated in my nomination. Equazcion (talk) 17:42, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Closed properly, and reflected consensus.
  talk) 18:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Closure reprsented consensus, that is all that is necessary. -- Avi (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To clarify my reason for bringing this to DRV, I'd like clarification, from an uninvoled administrator, on which policies apply to this article and why. I think that's an important part of closing a discussion as long and controversial as this one was. I myself was torn in the end on how policy applied here, especially when the POV fork argument was introduced, and would like to know how that policy, or other policies might apply to this article. My rethought neutral vote can be seen easily near the top of the AfD, and expresses my concerns. I think it's important that that matter be settled in terms of similar future incidents. The ambiguous closing doesn't address the underlying questions brought up in this debate. Equazcion (talk) 18:01, 26 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn -- several of the "endorse" opinions above state that "delete" was a reasonable interpretation of the consensus of the discussion. But isn't it the responsibility of the closing administrator to discount counter-policy arguments. Among the first dozen opinions expressed on the {{
  WP:Coatrack as if it had the force of policy -- it does not recommend deletion as the first solution to articles that trigger coatrack concerns. It first recommends rewriting the passages that trigger the coatrack concern, or explaining one's concern on the talk page. It recommends a nomination for deletion only as a last resort, only when good faith attempts at discussion fail. So, every contributor who voiced a "delete" opinion based solely on coatrack should have had their opinion discounted as not compliant with policy. Once the invalid arguments it is the closing administrator's responsibility to discount are thrown out it seems to me a "no consensus" closure looks like the appropriate choice. FWIW this closure is a very strong argument for administrators to be expected to "show their work", and explain the reasoning behind their closures, and state which arguments they discounted, when reaching their conclusion. Geo Swan (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. The close was reasonable. I find the just-an-essay argument exceedingly weak.
  talk) 19:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Excuse me, but I didn't say it "was just an essay". I said it was an essay that was innappropriately being called upon as if it had the authority of an official policy. And I pointed out that every single person who called upon it mis-interpreted its recommendation as to when it was appropriate to delete an article. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean by calling the closure "reasonable" that you agree with the closing admin's decision? I don't think that is what the contributor who initiated this DRV is looking for. I think they are looking to see that an {{
    afd}} I don't think that is appropriate here. I would like to see this discussion be about whether the closing administrator properly followed our rules in doing so, without regard to whether any of us think article should go, or stay. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • As far as I can see only
      talk) 19:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • WRT my second paragraph... most contributors comments here address whether they think the article did or did not merit deletion, or whether User:Coffee should have reached a "delete" conclusion. Hardly anyone is addressing User:Coffee's lapse in choosing not to leave a rationale that closure. User:Coffee's choice not to leave a rationale was a serious disservice for anyone interested in understanding why a "keep" or "merge" was a mistake, or interested in why he or she choose not to discount the counter-policy appeals to the authority of the non-existent coatrack policy, or how a new article that did not contain the flaws he or she saw in the current artcle could be written. Geo Swan (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse an entirely orderly close. Frankly the DRV rationale offered by the nominator is bizarre. Crafty (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But would the consensus had been for delete if the administrator had evaluated whether the arguments advanced complied with policy and discounted those that did not comply with policy? I don't think do. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Complied with policy? What you really mean is "complied with your interpretation of policy. Crafty (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Those who called upon the authority of
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse I might well have voted to keep if I had voted, but the consensus was for deletion. I agree that the numerous alternative proposals are viable and I am sure that a recreated article with a more neutral name and better sourcing might well have a place on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The article had an inbuilt bias that made it unencyclopedic. That does not stop other writers from creating encyclopedic articles but it is better to start from scratch. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Topics don't have biases. It is only a presentation of a topic that can be biased, or neutral. The topic of the article was controversial. In my experience there is no topic so controversial that a neutrally written article can't be written about it, with enough effort, and if they are good
    drv}}. Geo Swan (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse, even though I was for "keep", because no other outcome is possible from this AfD, which has a clear consensus for deletion. But the closing admin really should have written a proper rationale when closing such a long discussion.  Sandstein  21:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. All the more often I am running into admins who simply feel they can do what they want. This is an all-too-frequently occurring event (check my contribs history) and MUST be put a stop to. Admins MUST offer a well reasoned rationale, MUST interpret community opinion correctly. This is not a dictatorship. What do I do to make other editors realize this? How do we address this? I am always open for suggestions...Turqoise127 (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What happened to
  WP:AGF? As an uninvolved admin, I endorse Coffee's decision to delete the article because consensus was very, very clear. We can't just assume admins are going rogue because we disagree with their actions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse What can I say, I read the article and it seems like there was a consensus to delete. Most people just didn't buy the keep argument that the sources were sufficient to overcome the related coatrack/POV fork/original research issues. Personally I probably would have wanted to keep the article, but DRV is about whether the close was good or not, with respect to consensus and policy. --
  Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Overturn censorship of wikipedia with no well reason gived at close. it seem real reason for delete might be wp:idontlikeit Ani medjool (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - The reason I didn't provide a rational is that in my opinion it didn't require one. When an XFD is closed as delete it is automatically thought to infer that the admin saw that the consensus was to delete. It doesn't mean that they didn't look over the debate and equally weigh the issues, it in fact states the opposite, it shows, quite clearly, that I thought that the delete opinions were stronger and were the greater consensus. I see no reason to have to leave a huge paragraph of my idea of what is clearly already shown by itself in the AFD, it's not my opinion that matters anyway. --
  ark // 22:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. To those who say we should just ask the closer for their rationale, notice that Coffee has not yet given a rationale here or on his talk page beyond asserting that the closure was obvious. We cannot even infer from the rationale you gave that you thought that there was consensus to delete; with the information given in your close your decision might well be arbitrary or according to your own preference. No reference to policies or guidelines was made, no reference to the merits of the arguments, no assessment at all. How can we distinguish your decision from a head-count or a coin toss? If we are happy with such a lack of explanation then surely someone could write a bot to do closes in this manner, it'd certainly make more time for admins to do something useful. Fences&Windows 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I like the fact that you seem able to ignore the fact, here, of what I said in my original reply to you on my talk page. I, quite clearly in fact, stated that I thought the consensus was to delete, and per the regular closes at AFD, when an administrator closes an XFD like this it means that they thought the consensus was to delete. It's not like I left a link to
  ark // 07:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Please explain... -- Suppose I wanted to prepare a new version of this article -- one that addressed whatever issues you concluded merited deleting this article? What guidance would I find in your conclusory statement that would guide me in preparing a new article on this topic that would not merit deletion? I have argued elsewhere in the DRV, that you should have discounted all the arguments that were purely assertions the article didn't comply with
    WP:Coatrack weren't valid -- but that there were sufficient other arguments for deletion that were valid, your closing statement should have said so. Geo Swan (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Thank you Geo Swan, this is precisely what I'm driving at. I know Coffee is now telling us that he made a reasoned decision, but he's still not telling us how he arrived at it and how he weighed the various arguments - apart from telling me that my comments were worthless, which is always nice to know. Fences&Windows 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Consensus, particularly around policy, was clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Essentially accurate reading of consensus. I thought the article deserved to be kept, and the article that was actually deleted was very different from the one that was nominated, but there's no question the keepers were on the minority side of considered opinion on the subject. Ray^Talk 23:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Although including a rationale would have been wise given the extent of the discussion, it is not mandatory (at least not yet). The close accurately reflects the consensus of the discussion, so I see no good reason to re-open it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: Trying to force out a rationale using
  DRV seems like an pretty unseemly tactic to me. I don't think simply because there was a lot of debate means that the conclusion is non-obvious. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per explanation of User:Coffee above and on his talk page [4]. The AfD was fairly clear-cut, despite User:Equazcion's past and present misgivings. Mathsci (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The pro-deletion editors represented a clear majority, despite the vocal efforts of a few people who opposed deletion. The editors who advocated keeping the article had backed down somewhat by the time the discussion closed, suggesting that a consensus was emerging in favor of "delete." Even so, consensus does not mean absolute consensus or else very little would get done. Having said this, I agree that the admin who deleted the article should probably have presented his own argument for a WP policy rationale. Although I am skeptical that WP:Coatrack is binding, I am also convinced there were bona fide WP policies to cite when deleting the article. --
  talk) 02:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment from the AfD Nominator I never thought that I would be doing this, but here I am, about to make a statement about a deletion review of an article I nominated for deletion. But...here goes! If this had been any other AfD, after seeing the changes that were made in the article, I probably would have withdrawn my nomination. However, because it was so notable, (131kbs) I didn't because I wanted to see how it played out. As I have watched the conversation as it unfolded, I became more and more concerned about the tone that the AfD began to have, specifically on the part of some of those who voted delete. If you go back to my original nomination, I said nothing about coatrack, or any such nonsense. My original nomination was based on the fact that it was a cobbled-together grouping of things taken from other articles, and read like a high school paper (and a bad one at that!) It underwent some significant changes and became the beginnings of an article that I believed was worthy of inclusion, and as I said earlier, if this had been any other AfD, I probably would have withdrawn the nomination and this would all be a moot point. I have wrestled with this for the last couple days now, and as much as I risk being given a label that I don't like, I feel like I need to point out some things from the AfD. Without choosing to make comments about any one editor in particular, I feel very strongly that there was a small minority of people who responded to the AfD who chose to make the AfD about racism, their particular feelings about the subject, and their own offense taken...instead of about the article. As I said to someone else, I feel like the AfD got "hijacked" by a minority of pro-Jewish users who managed to push their personal views ahead of everyone else, and argued the AfD from a personal point of view instead of from a policy point of view. I will not go so far as to make accusations of meat-socking or wiki-canvassing, but I do feel that because of its very nature, it attracted a very vocal minority who then went on to make accusations about another user's personal beliefs that were unfounded and addressed, at least to my satisfaction, by the user in a very polite and civil way. Because of this, I am voting to Overturn, not because of the lack of rationale, but because the AfD may not have represented the majority opinion. Frmatt (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transparency Note In the interests of transparency, I will state that I have spoken off-wiki with one user about this, and asked another user for advice, but the second user did not respond. The user that I spoke with voted Endorse and the user who hasn't responded voted for Overturn Frmatt (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, Frmatt--but despite the vocality of both sides, I still think the majority supported delete. I just want to let people know that I have redirected "Controversies..." to "Antisemitic canard" and "Jews and Hollywood" to "American Jews." I'd like to know if others think these pages should have been redirected elsewhere, and I'm also open to discussing which additional content should be added to which related articles. --
    talk) 03:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• (e/c)And that (or something like it) was the compromise that I thought were were moving towards, which is why I was a little unhappy with a full delete, instead of one of the compromises that was proposed in the AfD. Frmatt (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. There were some reasonable arguments on the keep side, but the rough consensus (by "vote count" about 75%) was in favor of deletion. Some rationale from the closer would be nice, but this is not required. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why shouldn't rationale be required? I'd argue that in a controversial case like this it should be. I feel like I'm being told to accept the result of some closed-room proceeding, and being told to feel guilty about wanting to know what happened; "Trust us, we weighed everything fairly. No, we don't need to prove it. Accept it, and don't complain; You wouldn't want us to think you're accusing us of something." It's been suggested that complaining about this closing's lack of rationale is tantamount to assuming bad faith, but it's really not necessarily that. "Assume good faith" means to assume good intentions. To assume competency as well is just a recent colloquial definition, and it's not part of policy. Even if you happen to agree with this particular decision and therefore don't care about the absence of rationale, imagine a different scenario, where you might even be (god-forbid) in a minority position. Wouldn't you want an open disclosure of the thought process that led to a decision like this? Equazcion (talk) 15:59, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)
  • Equazcion, you keep asserting that this was a "controversial case", but that's not really true. While there were a couple of very vocal editors insisting the article be kept (you, for example), in general the consensus was quite clear. An AfD doesn't become a "controversial case" simply because a couple of editors write many, many comments defending an article. In fact, it would have been a "controversial case" had the !votes been over 75% to keep, and it had been deleted. This is the exact opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not calling the closing controversial, I'm calling the article controversial. My vocality at the discussion makes it easy to pin the controversy solely on me, but this was a controversial issue nonetheless. If you're saying this article wasn't controversial, you're certainly welcome to that opinion, but we'll have to agree to disagree there. Equazcion (talk) 00:13, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)
      • If you're not calling the closing controversial, then why on earth are you bringing it to DRV? DRV is for discussing controversial closings, not "controversial articles", whatever those might be. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Controversy is strong and prolonged disagreement. My view is that there was strong and prolonged disagreement regarding the issue of whether or not to delete this article, enough to warrant a moderately comprehensive closing rationale. Whether or not the closing of that discussion was itself controversial is something to be determined here, at DRV. We're here to find that out. If there is strong and prolonged disagreement here, that means the closing was controversial. Equazcion (talk) 00:35, 28 Oct 2009 (UTC)
          • Many articles have "strong and prolonged" disagreement about their deletion, but that doesn't mean their deletion is controversial in any way. Two or three editors going on at extreme length about how they are correct and a dozen others are wrong isn't "controversy". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, strong and prolonged disagreement is controversy, so... that's still controversy, even if it is a majority against a minority. You're exaggerating the difference in numbers though, I think. And, reiterating Frmatt's point, I think there was a vocal minority who were arguing for their own side, and leagued themselves with the other delete voters out of a common end goal, but otherwise didn't necessarily share the same feelings. We "editors" can only "go on at extreme length" because there are equally vocal editors on the other side to hit the ball back. It's not like we were badgering every person who was in favor of deleting; we went on, you went on, we went on, you went on... It does take two to "go on at extreme length". You and I contributed significantly and equally to the controversy. Equazcion (talk) 03:40, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
              • Prolonged disagreement between a couple of editors on an AfD page, again, does not mean that the AfD decision was controversial in any way. DRV is intended for AfD decisions that were controversial, not for AfDs that had lengthy arguments on the AfD page. By your reasoning, any AfD could be turned into a legitimate DRV candidate simply by dint of one editor arguing at great length on the AfD page. And, in fact, if other editors actually respond to that first editor, then they ensure that the AfD is "controversial", even if there are 30 editors !voting "delete", and just one !voting "keep". In reality, of course, this is not the case. DRV is not AfD2. The fact that you and a couple of others have argued at length both at the AfD and here does not in any way make this a controversial AfD decision. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's again not my contention that the closing was necessarily controversial, nor that controversy at AfD is reason to bring it to DRV; only that if controversy is present at AfD, the closing should spell out its rationale. And, regardless of the vocal editors on both side, the issue was controversial regardless. It was not an obvious enough decision as to warrant the briefest of closings. Equazcion (talk) 04:09, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - Consensus seemed pretty clear in this, a rationale would have been nice but isn't required by any policy, so the closing admin can't be held responsible at DRV for not providing one. My suggestion would be to suggest a policy change requiring a rationale for closing a discussion x length/x amount of participants/x amount of differing views or whatever standard you can come up with if you don't want to risk a closure such as this one again. VegaDark (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for reference, there is a proposal on this subject being discussed right now. --RL0919 (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think your statement reflects the current precedent. There may be no policy requiring rationale in controversial cases, but the established practice has certainly been that. Practice is proof of consensus after all. Equazcion (talk) 21:05, 27 Oct 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn There was clearly no consensus. I'm not going to argue the merits of the case now, although I think them clear enough -- that the only reason for deletion was because of a decision to reverse the rule that we are NOT CENSORED, both in respect to using material from whatever source, and the desire to avoid including material that by it nature might speak poorly about an ethnic group (not that i think it actually did, just that it was perceived to do so.). Just simply that there was no consensus. A closure without a detailed rationale in a case liket his where one was prepared to find a dubious consensus is essential, whether or not specified--just common sense in a contentious debate. ` DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, though you say you're "not going to argue the merits of the case now", that's exactly what you've done. There was an obvious consensus for deleting, basic arithmetic will tell you that. As for your NOT CENSORED argument, it wasn't relevant, since no-one was trying to censor anything; many people noted that some of the material might well be appropriate in different articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There was an obvious consensus for deleting, basic arithmetic will tell you that." Au contraire. Deletion is "not decided based on headcount, but on the strength of the arguments presented." Basic arithmetic tells us precisely nothing about deletion discussions. Fences&Windows 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But both sides quoted what how they thought policy applied in this case. Both sides appeared to have arguments supporting their conclusions. Now, I could say that the "keep" arguments were considerably weaker, and you could say that the "delete" arguments were considerably weaker. That, however, is not really relevant; what matters is that both sides made comprehensible arguments citing policy, and the clear obvious consensus of all those !votes regarding policy was to delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jayjg--see
      Chick Bowen 03:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Weak overturn/Comment: Weak overturn for the various reasons people used about censorship on wikipedia, as will discuss below. First, anything that can be proved statistically - like the number of Jews in Hollywood or any other profession and even lists of who is in what positions of power should not in itself be controversial, but rather how it is used should be the issue. To use it to say "Jews are bad" is obviously bigoted and unencyclopedic. In another context, if presented by a WP:RS to show why, for example, Palestinians can't get a big budget Al Nabka movie produced in Hollywood it would be encyclopedic. (Of course it seems like you can't even keep an Al Nabka article on wikipedia. Obviously there are Jews who boast there are Jews in/or in control of Hollywood, even if tongue in cheek, like Joel Stein and his more serious responses in 2008.) So I have a problem with saying it is ONLY a canard. I didn't read the actual article carefully/skimmed, so can't comment in detail on it. Any such article might need another name to reflect better the WP:RS listing of any real controversies, especially propoganda effect of pro-Israel films, should such wp:rs be found. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carol, DRV is for commenting on whether or not the AfD was closed properly, not about the merits of the article itself, or various other unrelated topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Carol, it's quite inappropriate for you to significantly change your comment after someone has already responded to it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closer got this just right. Consensus is measured by policy based arguments not headcount and there was no credible policy based argument and the coakrack arguments were compelling.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Do you mean "no credible policy based argument to keep"? Coatrack is not policy, and please explain precisely how coatrack applied. Presenting reliable sources discussing the topic in depth is implictly a reference to

WP:V, no? Does policy-based argument really need to be spoonfed in AfD debates? Fences&Windows 04:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse I have no idea why the closer wouldn't want to go through and separate the legitimate from the illegitimate arguments (joke!), but I think deletion was the only reasonable result. Per
  WP:OR via original synthesis. But the material is much better placed in separate articles. Mackan79 (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse As I argued in the AfD itself, I can't see how a full article can be an appropriate level of depth for this subject, which should recieve small mentions on the Hollywood and Antisemitism articles. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Is this review some sort of exercise in time wasting? The consensus spoke for itself. JBsupreme (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the majority of those who spoke then, and for that matter who have spoken above, are in effect saying that NPOV does not apply to articles about things like anti-semitism. As NPOV is a core policy, such votes must be disregarded. The attempts to say that an article topic as well-sourced as this is non-notable are totally unreal--what is I think really meant is that the article makes people uncomfortable. That sort of basis is a direct violation of an equally important core policy, NOT CENSORED--which applies to politics as well as sex. Not that we should promote bigotry, but we need to present it objectively. Readers will form their own judgement from there and I am in no fear they will judge it wrong (those few who do are pre-existing bigots, and are not going to change their mind in any case). I recognize this is a lost cause about this particular article, but the refusal to follow principle astounds me. I suppose the longer here, the more unpleasant surprises one gets. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not their argument, that's your

strawman argument on their behalf. In fact, they argued the exact opposite; that the structure of the article made NPOV impossible. If one were to use your reasoning, then in fact, all the "keep" "votes must be discarded". Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Some of the keep votes perhaps. But there were arguments from both sides that weren't based on coatrack and allegations of POV-pushing; people who didn't get all hot-headed about the specific topic and focused on other things instead, like a callous, emotionless, infuriatingly-objective weighing of policy concerns. Those are the ones to pay attention to. The rest could probably be disregarded, or at least given much less weight. Equazcion (talk) 03:21, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Much has been made of !voters referring to COATRACK in their delete arguments. But, as has been explained clearly more than once, COATRACK is merely a shorthand way of describing how an article can fundamentally and structurally violate

WP:NOT. Yes, it's just an essay, but it's also a shorthand for an argument about policy. Thus those invoking it cannot be simply dismissed as not having "policy concerns". It is well worth reading one such editor's explanation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said, some editors did offer good reasons, but I misspoke in implying that all coatrack arguments should be disregarded. The closer should have distinguished between those who were just repeating what they saw and/or were unduly influnced by the subject matter, and the ones who were making a cold analysis. Equazcion (talk) 03:46, 1 Nov 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse (recommended deletion). however, im disappointed that there is no mention of this canard in the article on antisemitic canards we are redirected to. i think this is an important concept that should get some mention there. Im always a little disappointed when there isnt a thorough explanation given for a deletion, but i understand that its not necessary. the original proposer for deletion says the article improved. i didnt see that improvement, may have missed it. if any admin reviews the final article and finds real content, can it at least be put in the canard article? and for the record, i didnt recommend deletion as a projewish person, though the article to my reading was (perhaps unconsciously) crypto-antisemitic, but that it was to my reading hopelessly unredeemable in structure and style. However, it seems hard to pin down reasons for deletion when they are this complex and subtle. hmm, feels like im a rabbi debating the talmud/torah/tanakh (or a jesuit debating the old and new testament, to be fair and balanced) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I had no occasion to see the article, but most delete arguments complained of coatrack without further explanation; other arguments (including the nom) were worried about POV and other problems that were entirely manageable by editing, not deletion. Since the deletion policy says explicitly that: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. , the impression I have from the AfD is that this is the case, and the page should be restored. --Cyclopia^talk 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish inventors (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Absolutely no consensus existed for the elimination of this category in the discussion (or the previous discussion) and thus the closing represents the sort of abuse on the part of closing admins that has become endemic to our project. By evidence of the discussion, the category needs to be recreated immediately and the closing admin censured for such abuse. Further, we have had several years worth of the targeting for elimination of Jewish-related categories, of which this is the most recent example. No matter what the actual discussion says, some closing admins have allowed their personal view to insist and act at all costs to see that Jewish-related cats are eliminated, despite the fact that discussion did not support such elimination. Badagnani (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions were very divided. The decision of the closing editor was listify. Indeed we now have

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Heritage (which lies at the basis of the nomination) one specific editor, who since has left Wikipedia, was engaged in tendentious editing. Debresser (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Badagnani, why did you wait over 4 months before bringing this to DRV? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I had no idea this category was yet again brought up for deletion, because it was not properly advertised in the proper places (such as WPETHNIC), until it was entirely depopulated a day or two ago, something we've become quite used to in regard to Jewish-related categories over the past few years. Badagnani (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And why was the closing admin not at minimum informed of this nomination? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn to no consensus I don't see any consensus in that discussion. I would like to complement the closer on the very clear closing statement however. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As so often with CfD, we have a closure in flagrant disregard of the discussion that preceded it. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus I'm becoming more and more baffled as to how admins put their thumbs (and feet) on the scale to tip consensus in their preferred direction, but this CfD, for all its discussion, did not reach a consensus to delete. As a general rule, we desperately need closing admins who can recognize when there is no consensus and close on that basis, rather than trying to cast a supervote to justify their personal preferences and biases, rather than the reasoned votes cast by actual participants. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn no consensus I second the opinions of other participants and am happy I am not the only one noticing the all-powerful attitude of many admins (see my comment at DelRev article above this one). Being a fairly recent editor, I am not in the know of how to address this, but is the adminship process flawed? Does just anyone become admin after many contribs? Do we need more stringent admin rules? What gives? Turqoise127 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I frankly can not see how this close is connected to the debate, even under the rather expansive theory of admin discretion I'm subscribing to. Overturn to no consensus.
  talk) 02:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to no consensus. Some of the "delete" arguments were irrelevant as well. For example "Being an inventor is not limited to any particular race, religion, nationality or ethnicity" could be used to argue for the deletion of "Irish inventors", "American inventors", and so on as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, as there was none. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. The closing admin's arguments were good ones, but they do not reflect the discussion. It should have been a !vote instead of a closing statement. --RL0919 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. simple enough. The admin process is not flawed--the occasional actions of some admins is, and the review process here exists to fix some of them. Most other problems at CfD can be solved by greater participation. to prevent ownership by a small group of regulars. DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]