Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September

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

This article (for a footballer) has been deleted numerous times on the grounds that the player was not notable as he had not played in for a professional team in a professional league. On 29 September 2009 he did! Can the article please be recreated and unprotected?--Egghead06 (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Any chance of
  verification that he played for a professional team? Stifle (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A bit of Googling turns up this [1] from the Manchester Evening News, which would seem to confirm that he's played at least one game for Bury F.C., which is a League Two side, and hence a professional team in a professional league. 129.206.102.208 (talk) 10:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here is some

verification.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/eng_div_3/8271066.stm

BBC report of his debut game for Crewe v Bury on 29/9/9. Football League Two a fully pro league--Egghead06 (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Bin Laden (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

While the title of the article may seem inflammatory, the main information on this article was that it was a

• Comment: Malformed DRV fixed. Deleting admin notified. Moved to September 30's log from September 29.
  talk) 01:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. The main point of the article "generally used as a
  WP:CSD#G10 was appropriate in this case. Kevin (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse BLP vio plain and simple.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the closure, but I would remark that it's a plausible error. Oh, not for an American, but there are probably European children and teenagers who use Wikipedia who would make that mistake.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per all above; obvious BLP issues, sourced only to a blog. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Kevin. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments from the closing admin. - I stand by my decision to "
  The Internet. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Comment: I'm pretty sure you did not intend to link to

  talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

LOL, I fixed my wrong link. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we just snow endorse this per the views expressed above and move on? Seems like a waste of time to keep this open.
  talk) 15:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse deletion this version It isn't clear to me that it is impossible to make a reliably sourced article about the use of this epithet. But this isn't that. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as a similar little-used neologism Ogabe, was tossed a few weeks back as well. There's no place for this sort of thing here. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The restraint shown in the above endorsements is admirable. The person who created this would do well to go away from here very quietly and keep their head down for a while. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. There isn't even a topic here that "Obama Bin Laden" refers to. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Make a redirect Doesn't belong as a stand alone article, but likely should be a redirect to an article that covers the topic. I've certainly heard it used a LOT and I live in a very liberal part of the country. We shouldn't shy away from coverage of terms we don't like, but this one doesn't have enough RSes to be a stand alone article at this time. Hobit (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Absolutely not. Redirects do not have to follow

  WP:V, and thins thing certainly hasn't passed into common enough usage to warrant a redirect. "Just hearing it around" is not a valid justification. Tarc (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  [2] is media matters covering the term (among other terms), [3] and [4] cover different people using the term by mistake, [5] NPR listing it as a common attack on Obama, [6] is an example of a major columnist using the term, [7] says that it was a term used by his opponents. The list goes on and on. I personally think an article on the topic isn't justified, but a redirect? Certainly. Hobit (talk) 23:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Only the last link there has any discussion of "Obama bin laden" as a specific term; the others are a smattering of coverage about Osama/Obama mix-ups, whether intentional or suspect. Apples and oranges. We're talking about widespread usage or citation of this specific term, similar to

  birthers, truthers, deathers, etc... Tarc (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  For an article, sure. That's why I agree with you. But for a redirect? WP:V is passed and it has certainly passed into more common usage than most of our articles. Hit "random article" a few times if you doubt. Hobit (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Where would you want to redirect the term to? About half of the cites you give are to people calling Barack Obama "Obama Bin Laden", and the other half are to people calling Osama Bin Laden "Obama Bin Laden". Redirecting to either one of them would make a lot of Obama supporters justifiably angry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Every article should do more good than harm. This article does not have the potential to grow up into one that provides any beneficial purpose, and currently it serves to slander and malign an icon in American politics. BLP, COATRACK, WP:V, and NPOV are all fail in this case. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Sometimes the lack of an article contains more encyclopedic information than an article ever could. Abductive (reasoning) 02:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The closure was outside of process. The closing admin closed with the explanation: "The 2 main sources noted here as proof of notability seem to confer notability on Rosas Farms rather than Al Rosas specifically, as he is not the main subject of either article.. The controversy, as poorly sourced as it is, offers no indication of notability either." My main concern is with the first reason. The issue of whether he was the main subject of the articles presented in the was never tabled by any of the editors advocating deletion. The only editor raising this as an issue actually changed from delete to keep after a more thorough review of the sources. This was discussed with the closing admin before listing at DRV. See User talk:Kevin#Al Rosas Whpq (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn/relist; seems like the closer used the closure to express his own opinion, which should properly have been entered as a !vote. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn No preference as to whether it should be relisted or simply closed as either no consensus or keep. But this close is not good per the reasons outlined by the nom and Stifle. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Stifle and JoshuaZ; IMHO my suggestion would be close as no consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closing admin. I should have been clearer in my closing statement. I felt that the weight of the arguments to delete, 3 of which questioned the notability of the subject, were more convincing than the keep arguments based on the same issue. The reason I added the note on the 2 sources is to explain why the mention of those sources did not alter my opinion. Kevin (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree with
  blow it up and start over. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to no consensus. The closer mistakenly evaluated the article and the sources when he should have been evaluating the debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to stubbornly hold out here when it is clear that I overstepped the bounds of admin discretion in my closing. I've restored the article & talk page. I'll leave it to another to determine whether it is "keep" or "no consensus". Kevin (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to any admin - Thanks Kevin for restoring the material. Can an admin please properly close or otherwise deal with the now dangling AFD? It currently is still closed as delete. The article exists but Ron Ritzman has removed the AFD tag on the article. But there isn't a proper close as no consensus or keep. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus was reached on the discussion page. Views on both sides were expressed, but two people (myself and an administrator by the name of C.Fred) supported its retention. In this case the proper procedure is to revert to keep. Please undelete this page ASAP. QuantockWarrior (talk) 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion AfD is not a vote, and the "delete" arguments there were stronger than the "keep" ones. And in your statement above you haven't explained why deletion was "improper", other than because you say so. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I see no clear error in the close.
  talk) 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. The last year's worth of Google News hits are all talking about his aspiring candidacy -- no showing of notability outside that context.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Rjanag, this is what the guidelines on deletion state: "After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and a disinterested (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept." There was no consensus. Therefore the person closing the AfD should have stated "No Consensus". That is why the deletion was improper. As for you, you haven't explained why the arguments for deletion were stronger than those for retention, other than because you say so. QuantockWarrior (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As noted above, mine was one of two keep-type !votes in this discussion, although mine was a "weak keep". However, I agree that the points put forward by those !voting to delete were stronger than the reasons for keeping the article. Black Kite shows all signs of independence in the discussion process, and I accept his decision to delete the article. AfD is not a show of hands; the merits of the arguments are considered more than the number of people on each "side" of the issue.

I believe that the correct next step is that, if QuantockWarrior feels strongly that Formosa deserves an article, that he crafts a completely new article with stronger claims of notability and less weight to campaign platform planks. However, that should be done in user space right now - there is consensus that Formosa not have an encyclopedia article at this time. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse my own close; simply doesn't pass
  WP:POLITICIAN, not to mention the fact that the article is being used as a campaigning tool. As I said in the AfD close, if he wins the 2010 election, then fine - at the moment, no. Also, if I was assuming bad faith, there is a hint of COI here. Note: I salted this article after the user who brought this to DRV recreated it immediately after the AfD. If this is overturned, clearly unsalting is appropriate. Black Kite 17:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - (Full disclosure, I nominated the AfD), Black Kite correctly gauged consensus on policy - that
  WP:POLITICIAN was not met. I hope I wasn't out of line, when I suggested to User:QuantockWarrior that they may be too close to the subject to disinterestedly compare our policies with reality. --Saalstin (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC) In addition, this DR appears to be premature anyway, given that they're supposed to take place after a user has already discussed the issue with the closing admin and failed to reach a resolution with them, and there is no evidence that happened--Saalstin (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No, that didn't take place (the user merely re-created the article only for it to be deleted again under CSD#G4, and has since created it again under Mark Formosa (PPC)), although in reality my reply would merely have been that I believed my close to be correct and that the user should proceed to DRV, so no harm done. Black Kite 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid reading of consensus. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I see no error in this close. Kevin (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - closing admin's decision reflected consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse If I had seen this I might have favored weak keeping per my general attitude about local politicians but consensus and strength of arguments seem to both point in the same direction. Closing was reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, even if the close hadn't been a correct reading of consensus in the deletion debate, there is a long consensus that Parliamentary candidate in itself is no claim of notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn (lone voice in the wilderness) easily meets WP:N. [8]. The !votes to delete didn't address policy in any meaningful way. Not meeting a specialized notability guideline isn't relevant if WP:N is met so all those arguments should have been discounted. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally hold with challenging the basis for other people's votes, but I do think that a Google News search showing 9 mentions in the local press or online write-ups of his press release does not really establish notability.

WP:N requires multiple independent sources which are on the subject, not ones that mention it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Striking !vote. There were a bunch of articles that came up in a news search, but looking closer they were largely PR releases or non-RSes with the rest being in-passing. My bad. Endorse Hobit (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, the discussion was closed properly, and we don't want Wikipedia silting up with promotional campaign fluff by wannabe politicians. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

This page was deleted a second time around because it was presumed to be no more than a recreation of the first version. This was not the case. The second version, I believe, sufficiently demonstrated notability. Ottens (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That deletion was in November 2008. Why are you suddenly bringing this back now? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I believe that the notability of the subject has significantly improved since and that now, it is actually eligible for an entry. Ottens (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the notability has improved, there is no need for a DRV; just re-create the article with references to show the notability (and enough to demonstrate why it's different than it was when it was deleted). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, just go ahead and recreate it. This is, of course, without prejudice to another AfD at editorial discretion.
  talk) 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Ok, done that. Ottens (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources were ever added that weren't trivial and complied with

• Related Discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive202#AFD_closing, also see changes to article since AFD nomination. [9] --Milowent (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since Otter didn't mention it, this matter was 'discussed' between us prior to the DR getting started. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 13:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because no admin would have delete that against unanimous consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- There was no delete rationale offered in the AFD aside from the nom's. Closer could have closed no other way. As an aside, recomend nominator to have a nice cup of
  tea and relax. This article remaining on wikipedia, no matter how much you think it doesn't belong, is not a planet ending catastrophe. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. It's impossible to close it any other way.
  talk) 17:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weakly endorse but allow reAfDing. Impossible to close any other way, as mentioned above, but this is an awful AfD, practically all of the !votes were
  WP:ITSNOTABLE. It may well be notable, but no-one explained why. Black Kite 17:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weakly endorse, would have been impossible to close as delete, but I'd recommend re-listing in the hope of generating a real discussion that actually addresses the points raised by the nominator using reliable sources rather than unverifiable assertions. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - not the world's greatest AFD discussion, but there is no egregious failure of process. The nominator of an AFD should bear in mind that their particular interpretation of policy is not necessarily the only one. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse with leave to renominate immediately; had it been closed any other way, we would be here overturning it. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - For all the reasons mentioned above.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and renominate, after 6 months to see if consensus will have changed. i didn't comment at this AfD, but the community makes the requirements for sourcing, and can interpret them as it decides to do. Since IAR always applies, a community decision can always be given as an exception to almost any policy. It this case, the people seem to have felt that in this particular case, the level of sourcing was adequate. Who else gets to decide? DGG ( talk ) 11:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - Of the four responses given in the AfD, three were accusations against Otter, not actual reasons given that the article satisfies WP:N. The fourth was
  WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Relisting for a better consensus seems the practical thing to do. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist The Keep !votes were pretty much "I like it," "It is notable,""Other crap exists," and especially "I don't like the nominator." More time is needed to see if editors will make keep or delete arguments properly based in policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 17:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It's not the greatest article, but consensus was clear at AfD that the article should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow relist and troutslap commenters for making the discussion about the nominator rather than the article. There's no call for that, whatever the previous disagreements have been. DRVs have been closed in the past as "endorse but the usual expected waiting time for renominating is waived," and that would be appropriate here.
  Chick Bowen 01:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist - There were basically 4 comments opposed to the nominator (not the nomination), and one that argues that
  burden is on those who are trying to prove that the subject is notable, not on those saying it isn't. Otter has also gotten on my nerves before but people shouldn't be taking personal disputes to AfD. -- Atama頭 21:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure, mostly per Black Kite, and allow relist. Mind you, when 3/4 comments are accusing the nom of bad faith, that's a sign that something is seriously amiss. Furthermore, Otterathome lacks
  clean hands in the matter--his active participation in response clearly fueled the fire and distracted from the AfD. Had he not participated, and simply let off-topic comments remain unanswered or answered only once, his desired outcome may have been reached. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Close was valid, but if it's not significantly improved in short order there's no reason not to try again. Guy (Help!) 20:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete I just read that article and every single cited reference. I know this opinion goes against the current standards and practices of reviewing deletion. Deletion is broken if referencing this bad is standing up simply because a lot of people like it and closing administrators aren't willing to judge it. You can just throw all of our content policies out the window when mobocracy is the end result. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Endorse. If the closer had latitude to disregard so high a proportion of "keep" !votes from editors in good standing, then there would be no point in the AfD process at all and we might as well just let an admin decide without anyone else's input.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do note that none of the Keeps were rooted in policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IAR is policy, and they were firmly rooted there. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse and no immediate relist. Per DGG. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German-American politicians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deletion of Category:German-American_politicians, while Category:Italian-American politicians, Category:Irish-American politicians, Category:Polish-American politicians, Category:Jewish American politicians, Category:African American politicians and other American politicians by ethnic or national origin are not deleted, constitutes both POV and obstruction of the category system. Either the category and its content must be restored, or the other categories must be deleted. Urban XII (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close. I don't understand the "all or none" argument. Why couldn't consensus be in favor of keeping one but also be in favor of deleting the other? Why does consensus have to be internally logical across all cases? I can point to countless examples where it has not been. I can also easily imagine some arguments as to why being an Irish-American politician is defining but being a German-American one is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I notified the closing admin, as the nom should have done.
  talk) 01:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, agree with the delete voters that being German-American is not as defining for politicians as some other backgrounds are. The nom's pushiness italicize "must" in the nom statement also has not left me with a good impression. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing wrong with the closure, but the discussion was wrong Of course, this is not XfD2 - but #1, there were times in American history when German ethnic heritage was a career killer. #2, there should be a wider range of discussion involving ethnic-American categories and not one-offs. Miami33139 (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Lack of consensus. My reading of the discussion was that there was a lack of consensus (then again, I was in favor of keeping the category, so though I think that is a fair summary the possiblity exists that I may be looking at this unwittingly through POV-glasses). For that reason (as well as the substantive points made in the underlying discussion), I believe it would be helpful for an admin to take another look at the record.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh, another broken CFD. We have no binding precedents on Wikipedia, so there's no reason why if X-Z is deleted, Y-Z should go too. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This has officially become tiresome. Every CFD that gets brought here, you feel compelled to point out how wrong the entire CFD process supposedly is. And you base this on a sample size of practically zero. We all get it, you think CFD is broken. We really don't need to hear it from you again.
  talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse per CFD and other arguments here pointing out how "all or none" doesn't apply. --Kbdank71 13:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - no indication that the close was in error, no new information presented here indicating that anything's changed.
  talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Lack of consensus describes it--it's absurd to delete one of a series of categories at AfD, without general discussion of the concept as a while. There has to be a way of appealing these. We have no precedents, but this sort of inconsistency is a sign of a very immature enterprise. Sure, we're chaotic, and immature, but we should try to be a little less so. Otto, I strongly object to your attempt to blame people for bringing appeals here. Consensus can change, and bringing obscure processes to general attention is one of the good and proper ways of accomplishing this. I look at CfD more frequently now, and perhaps others will do so also. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? I have no idea how you can possibly misinterpret my endorsement comment as blaming anyone for anything. It's ridiculous to the point of non sequitur and I strongly object to your unsupportable claim. You are also mistaken about the supposed need to discuss each of a series of categories before being able to discuss any of the series, as CFD discussions have shown time and again that some categories within a series are fine while others are not. The idea that any time a category is nominated all similar categories have to be nominated along with it is nonsensical.
  talk) 18:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, "We really don't need to hear it from you again " certainly sounds like personally blaming someone to me. DGG ( talk ) 12:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn for lack of broader consensus.
  WP:CSD#G4.   — C M B J   19:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Closing admin: I formed the decision based on the consensus available in the discussion. If you think that the other categories should be deleted, then nominate those for CfD as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as no consensus I'm not sure how the closing administrator determined that the consensus was delete, when it seems clear that this is a classic no consensus. CMBJ hit the nail on the head as to how there is no means to bypass DRV once a category has finally been deleted. Alansohn (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closing admin made good judgement of consensus in discussion. Admins closing Cfd nominations, except in very rare situations, will only ever take action on categories actually listed for discussion. Accordingly, in this case, that is exactly what the closing admin did - it is unreasonable to conflate this discussion with the merits, or otherwise, of a tranche of other categories which were not themselves nominated and which themselves may have far stronger claims to exist. Nominate them and see what consensus is for deletion or retention, but the idea that this category tree merits an all-or-nothing approach does not bear close examination.

Xdamr^talk 11:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse –
  talk) 12:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think deciding that ethnicity only affects some politicians is a great example of modern bias. The world wars of the previous century demonized German-Americans in actual US Government propaganda, and some Germans were interned under the Alien Enemies Act. This basic knowledge of American History is being ignored in deciding that this ethnicity is not, and has never been, an issue in politics. Miami33139 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - this isn't AFD2, the only question is "did the closer correctly interpret policy-based consensus" and in this example they did. Most of the opposing arguments were per
  WP:ALLORNOTHING - so nominate those categories too.... Black Kite 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In all fairness, this is CfD2 until an undeletion policy is established for categories.   — C M B J   06:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Occuli. The existence of one Fooian-American category for a particular occupation by no means warrants the existence of ALL such intersections. Some certainly have received significant historical attention, such as African-American politicians, but there was no good argument made for German-American politicians, and the valid deletion arguments pointed this out. Given that the Fooian-American category structure really has no meaningful inclusion threshold (I suppose find one source identifying one ancestor, no matter how far back), do we really want every such ethnicity/nationality category intersected with every occupation? Postdlf (talk) 13:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disagree with the closing administrator's "no consensus" close: while the number of keep and delete votes may be more or less split, most of the keep votes seem to hinge on the band's nomination for an MTV-related award which is not notable (its article on WP was redirected, the award itself was not shown on non-local TV and was not mentioned anywhere on MTV's website)—voters such as Charles Gillingham said that fills the "won or placed in a major competition" criterion of WP:BAND, whereas I think a non-notable award doesn't count as a major competition. As far as I know, no other criteria of WP:BAND or the GNG have been met, as they have no albums released and no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Clearly fails Notability, but this is not AfD2 Maybe you should wait a month and re-nominate when the teenyboppers have stopped paying attention, or the band will release a major record that shoots up the charts making the suggestion moot. Miami33139 (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understand that this isn't AfD2 and I've never done DRV before partly because I always feared it would be like forum-shopping...but in this case I went ahead because it seemed ok per the second criterion listed at
    WP:DRV#Principal purpose – challenging deletion decisions: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Endorse close as no consensus (the admin’s holding to keep the article). For the reasons discussed extensively on the review page.[10]

Even that discussion may not have reflected fully editors' support for keeping the article. That is because when looking at the article page during the discussion, they did not see all indicia of notability. Because even as the discussion was ongoing, editors deleted material from the article that supports the article's notability.

Had all of the editors seen all of that information in the article, the views expressed in favor of the article being notable may well have been even greater in number and stronger.

MTV Video Music Award and Competition. Particularly troubling is that in the middle of a discussion as to why the article is notable, with one reason being that the band was nominated for an MTV VMA, Psantora repeatedly deleted mention of the fact that the award was an MTV VMA. For example at [11] and [12]. Despite that clearly being part of its official name, as reflected in the sourced references (including MTV's VMA Best Breakout New York City Artist Award Contest Official Rules and the award's MTV VMA logo).

I requested at [13] that he not delete such pertinent information from the article – especially when the article was under deletion review. To no avail. He followed my request with further deletion of the fact that the award was an MTV VMA -– see [14] -- and deletion of descriptions of the award and the nomination/selection process, the fact that the band was the top three of 190 bands considered, the battle of the bands taking place at a major NY venue (Fillmore at Irving Plaza), the judging being by MTV and prominent VMA singers, the fact that this VMA was awarded at the actual VMA Ceremony in NYC, etc. (see [15]. Concurrently, Rjanang misleadingly characterized the award as "a little award" and incorrectly stated that it "was only tangentially related to MTV" and that it is not "a real VMA" -- coupled with the deletions, one's understanding that the band was nominated for an MTV VMA could have been impaired.

This is especially troubling as nomination for a major music award (criterion 8), and placing in a major music competition (criterion 9), are two indicia (each sufficient in its own right) of notability under

Reviews from reliable sources. Psantora also, during the discussion, deleted reviews of the band and its work by magazines of long-standing (each over 30 years old) with large readerships (ranging from the hundreds of thousands to the millions) -- specifically Seventeen Magazine and Queens Chronicle (which still remains deleted from the article), and also deleted the magazines as references – see [16].

This is troubling as reviews by reliable sources is by itself indicia of notability under criterion 1 of

Discography. Similarly, Psantora deleted album information from the band article, describing his rationale with the following edit summary: “remove discography section, they only have one album and its track listing is covered sufficiently on the album's page”.[17] Psantora invited Rjanag to join the discussion.[18] Rjanag then had the album article deleted. But Psantora did not then restore the discography information to the band article. In fact, Psantora himself then again deleted the discography information (see [19]).

Voting advice. I also note that Rjanang wrote to OhConfucius (an editor with whom he had worked closely on another matter, and who supported him here) “Voting -- As they say, "vote early and often" ;) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)” Whether he is advising inappropriate voting, or merely chortling in the proposed deletion of the article, I can’t say. But I found that to be curious behavior by a fellow editor.[reply]

Sheesh, it was a joke. If you actually looked at the diff you would see that OhC accidentally left the same message twice and I was teasing him about it. What the hell does my "voting advice" have to do with DRV discussion, and why do you feel it necessary to go back weeks and weeks to try to dig up random crap to discredit me? Next time, try actually reading the diffs that you're presenting. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I commend the admin who closed this out as a "keep" for doing so despite the process having been poisoned as reflected above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The admin didn't close it as keep, he closed it as no consensus. But nice try.

To whoever's reviewing this discussion: I should point out that Epeefleche, the writer of the TL;DR comment above, is the same person as User:VMAsNYC who was blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Epeefleche/Archive. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as no consensus. Although I felt that the article should be deleted, or more specifically userified until notability can be demonstrated, the no consensus close was absolutely correct. This really isn't AFD part 2, and unless the nominator believes "no consensus" does not reflect the AFD discussion, then there's nothing to discuss here.--Michig (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close as no consensus. The admin who closed made no errors. This is not the place to reargue the merits of the AfD. Simple question to be considered, is it a reasonable decision based upon the arguments? Yes. If User:Rjanag wishes, he is certainly allowed to wait a few months and bring the article back to AfD is he feels it had not been improved. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you see my response to the same comment by Miami above? I understand that DRV is not AfD2, but as I explained above I think the closing admin missed an important part of the discussion. And I've seen other people come here for blatant forum-shopping and still get a full hearing, so I don't see why this should be dismissed so easily. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't want to criticise MuZemike but I do feel that we have been gamed here. The author(s) of the article wrote it in a highly misleading way to make it seem more notable than it was and then used sockpuppetry to make it look like it had more support than it did. I hate the fact that they have been successful. I do note that near the end some people who had initially voted to keep were realising that they had been tricked and were changing their votes but I realise that MuZemike had limited scope for interpreting the result to take this trend into account while there were still keep votes that had not been retracted. We can afford to be charitable and wait until the album does, or does not, get RS reviews but I would not be at all surprised to see this back at AfD quite soon. In the meantime I strongly endorse the decision to cut the article down to a few verifiable paragraphs. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no-consensus to keep or delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Ok, I accept that nothing is going to come of listing this now; I'll wait until after their one album comes out and then re-AfD this assuming they don't suddenly get famous. Feel free to roll up this DRV. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GCC6 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A7 nor Notability are valid reasons for the deletion. Admin outside the region concerned may not be able to find importance of the page. Desired format of the page can be viewed at User:khalidco/sandbox Khalidco (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The page linked above does not exist and never has done, I presume the author wanted to request a review of GCC6. Apart from the infobox, the content is identical to User:Khalidco/Sandbox. Assuming this page is what the nominator wishes to contest, endorse deletion, as the page merely described the function of the company/website and didn't contain any assertion of significance. There is no indicator here that the speedy deletion process was not followed correctly and no indicator that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability. Hut 8.5 13:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious
  reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place to try and publicise your efforts, nor is it a free webhost. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse I see no evidence that any importance was indicated--if there is some, let's see the references to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Malformed DRV fixed.
  talk) 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Straightforward {{
  talk) 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: It looks like someone has blocked your account for violating
  WP:ORGNAME, but if you do come back to this discussion with a new/proper account, could you please provide us with some specific examples (from Arabic publications, newspapers, etc) of how this topic is notable? Articles on Wikipedia must be verifiable, so we need to know where we can find objective information about said company -- even if the information is not available online.   — C M B J   19:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, entirely valid A7 deletion; also please note Arabic should not be used here; there's an Arabic Wikipedia for that. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, not even slightly controversial. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

There are a great number of similar categories (Category:People with Parkinson's disease, Category:People with motor neuron disease, Category:People with bipolar disorder, Category:People with multiple sclerosis, Category:People with Asperger syndrome, Category:People with sickle-cell disease, Category:People with amnesia, Category:People with cerebral palsy, Category:People with dementia, Category:People with Tourette syndrome, Category:People with hemophilia, Category:People with albinism, Category:People with schizophrenia, Category:People with hypertrichosis, Category:People with acromegaly, Category:People with epilepsy, Category:People with muscular dystrophy, Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, Category:People with dwarfism, Category:People with synesthesia, Category:People with spina bifida, Category:People with osteogenesis imperfecta, Category:People with eidetic memory, Category:People with gigantism, Category:Hypochondriacs), and there is an entire parent category full of relevant subcategories. Furthermore, there are even nineteen articles dedicated entirely to listing people by diagnosed and suspected medical conditions. On a side note, I would like to recommend that the category be recreated as Category:People diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder, as it will hinder sensationalist inclusion.   — C M B J   01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It appears the closer acted in good faith ending debate. I may have voted differently, but the vote was as close to consensus as can be hoped for. Whitespider23 (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – proper determination of consensus by closing admin. This is not CFD round 2. However, the "diagnosis" thing is interesting to say the least, but I don't see why that needs to be necessarily discussed here (i.e. a more broad venue would be needed for the others). MuZemike 07:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the wealth of identical categories and articles, I did not really foresee this request as being controversial. Moreover, I did not intend to suggest that the closing acted improperly in any way whatsoever. This is simply a matter of a two-year-old CfD that lacks consistency with the

here and now.   — C M B J   08:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Permit restoration under the new title or suggest some other way to appeal this decision--there has to be some way. Perhaps it could be re-created, but I'm not sure how we would do that. Consistency is a virtue, and a decision out of line with broader consensus should have some way of being changed. Alternative, Revert on the basis that none of the people suggesting delete actually gave a plausible reason for doing so. The "defining characteristic" argument was an argument that having OCD did not necessarily cause them to be severely affected all their life, which is irrelevant, if they are notable people for whom the disease was important. The other argument given was that there were only 20 people in the category, which is also irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - original CFD was unanimous in favor of deletion and the nominator, although supplying a list of similar categories, has not provided anything that indicates that consensus surrounding this category has changed, It may be that if the above categories were CFDed they would also be deleted and
  talk) 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The original CfD may have been unanimous, but the unanimity was based solely on only three unique arguments: (1) the medical condition is non-defining; (2) labeling negative character traits as a disease is just a fad; and (3) minor pshychological disorder categories are plagued by tabloid-style original research. Arguments #1 and #2 are both reasonable opinions, but they are inherently subjective in nature. Argument #3 is based on an unfortunate systemic problem that affects all controversial categories.

The difference betwen "people with OCD" and "people diagnosed with OCD" is very profound, because the latter explicitly precludes speculative categorization in the same way that Category:Americans convicted of murder does.   — C M B J   19:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Your personal opinion on the strength or merit of the original arguments does not constitute "significant new information" that has come to light since the close of the CFD. Again, nothing's been offered here that indicates any change in the expressed consensus of the original CFD. The "convicted of" argument is less than compelling, given the existence of
  talk) 20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Arguments #1 and #2 are inconsistent with modern medical definitions, scientific research, and popular culture:

• Bobes, J. (2001 June). "Quality of life and disability in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder". European Psychiatry. 16 (4): 239–245.
  PMID 11418275. OCD in the Spanish population was shown to be associated with worse quality of life than for any other patient group (including physical groups), except schizophrenics {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
  )
• "What is Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder?". OCD-UK. Retrieved 2009-09-27. Listed amongst the top 10 most debilitating illnesses by the World Health Organisation in terms of loss of income and decreased quality of life, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is thought to affect 2-3% of the UK population
• Hewitt, Chris (2004-01-09). "Obsessive-compulsive disorder gets high profile, but it's often wrong". Saint Paul Pioneer Press. Retrieved 2009-09-27. Monk, the hero of the TV show about a detective with obsessive-compulsive disorder, who is unable to look at Playboy magazine centerfolds, answer a public phone or unbutton the top button of his shirt, is not alone.
• McGrath, Patrick (2007). The OCD Answer Book: Professional Answer to More Than 250 Top Questions About Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. Sourcebooks, Inc.
  ISBN 978-1402210587
  . Several recent movies have also featured main characters with OCD, including The Aviator, which told the story of the life of Howard Hughes.

I brought this category to DRV because its absence

disrupted me from aggregating OCD-related articles in a way that is concise and informative to the viewer. I personally believe that I have provided "significant new information" to comply with DRV guidelines, but if you are still not satisfied, I will make further attempts.   — C M B J   23:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse. Not sure why this was brought to drv after more than 2 years, but since it was, I don't see any reason that this CFD was closed improperly. --Kbdank71 01:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing improper about how you handled the CfD, and as previously stated, no allegations of misconduct were intended. The reason that we are here discussing this at DRV two years later is because no other (obvious) venue exists.   — C M B J   03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. Endorse closure of the CfD because it's impossible to close it any other way; permit recreation since it has been two years and nom's argument that
  talk) 01:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Hard if not impossible to argue that there was a problem with the close. (Not really the place to debate the merits, but there has been fairly clear consensus to delete medical or psychological conditions that consensus has deemed to be not defining. The nom can provide a list of ones that have perhaps been thought to be defining, but lists can also be provided of ones that are not. I've seen the attempts to apply this one in the past, and they have always been applied to those for whom it is decidedly not defining.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was obsessive-compulsive disorder not a defining characteristic of Howard Hughes or Marc Summers? Hughes' infamously reclusive OCD-driven behavior affected him profoundly during his latter years, and Summers has even stated that OCD enabled him to lead a successful career.   — C M B J   02:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus may have thought not. I don't think this is the place to discuss individual cases, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have entire sections dedicated to obsessive–compulsive disorder, so that's one indicator of consensus.

I respectfully disagree that DRV is an inappropriate forum for this discussion. To the best of my knowledge, there is no other designated place, process, method, or workaround to publicly discuss, debate, appeal, contest, or

WP:CFD are entirely silent on the matter.   — C M B J   17:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse and allow recreation per Tim Song. Hobit (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as valid reading of the consensus. I am neutral on recreation; adding someone to this category would risk BLP issues as membership of a category cannot, by its nature, be cited. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure it can, by making it clear in the relevant article. There can even be a talk p. discussion there of whether to add the category. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and allow recreation per Tim Song.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close / Allow Recreation with New Title There is ample precedent for the existence of such categories and the proposed title addresses issues raised at the original CfD. Alansohn (talk) 19:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation per nom. Postdlf (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

The article had many reliable sources and it was still deleted. She passed the notability standars and the sources cover the article in depth but it was deleted. I consider it should be undone. Facha93 (talk) 20:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Waiting I asked the closing admin a question about this before the DrV occurred and will wait for a response before !voting here. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: Facha93 did not attempt to discuss this with the closer before bringing this here. A number of links were brought up in the AfD that were either non-reliable sources or trivial mentions in reliable sources. There was only one reliable source used and that was an interview that could be seen as failing
  WP:MUSIC because it is an interview i.e. "other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves." Then the links were either not brought into the article or they were brought into the external link section without being a source for any information in the article. Aspects (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It also says there that 'Has won or placed in a major music competition.' she has pleaced on Nashville Star, on American Idol and on Star Search. Facha93 (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was not clearly erroneous.
  talk) 21:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'll answer Hobit's question here. In my opinion, while there are many trivial media mentions, as is to be expected for a reality show contestant, no source covered the subject in sufficient depth to pass notability and provide adequate material to write a biography. Kevin (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a really really long interview in a reliable source. How is that not enough material? Hobit (talk) 04:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Assuming you are taling about this [20], at least one editor specifically noted that source in their delete opinion, and felt that it was not suitable. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: The sources [21],[22] and [23] : are reliable and verifiable. Moreover:two other sources [24] and [25].Rirunmot (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Using that criteria, every single person in those articles are notable enough for Wikipedia...they aren't. As several have said, they are the "these are the people on the show" type articles. They don't prove a thing notability wise. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Kevin's comment. The close is very clearly defensible. The sources barely mention the singer, so Kevin did the appropriate thing by weighing the delete votes more heavily than the keep votes. NW (Talk) 00:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The sources were far from reliable. Basically fan sites and the official site. Official sites generally exist to promote people and aren't really that reliable. And there was nothing wrong with the closing. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV is not AfD round 2. The close was in line with the consensus that was formed. GlassCobra 20:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, valid closure. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - The deletion was closed abruptly and did not give enough options for the users who wanted to keep it. The subject matter clearly passes borderline notability which should have allowed the article to be either be userfied or be redirected to season 8 of American Idol. The history of the article shoud not have been deleted since it may be necessary in reconstructing the article in case the subject matter gains additional notability. I believe the process of nominating this article is flawed since it did not consider such possibilities. I would also volunteer in having the article in my userspace in case it gets restored conditionally.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, a lot of the Keep !votes were terrible, not even trying to base themselves in established policy. On the other hand, the Delete !votes were reasoned and well thought out. The closing admin made the correct choice under the circumstances. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

)

Although it was voted to be redirected in it's moment I think that now she can reach the notability standars due to the huge amount of independent sources avaliable. Facha93 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and salt redirect: Nothing wrong with the closure of the AfD. Malloy failed

WP:MUSIC then, nothing is provided to show she passes WP:MUSIC, so therefore she still fails WP:MUSIC. Facha93 has reverted the redirect three times [26], [27] and [28] over the past three months without an edit summary while adding no new information to the article to show Malloy passes WP:MUSIC. Since this redirect keeps getting reverted back to the article, I ask for the redirect to be salted. Aspects (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse - The closure as redirect is correct as it represented the consensus of the AFD based on policy. None of the attempts to undo the redirect provide any sourcing to support a change in the state of the subject that would substantiate the creation of an article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment* Please see
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• If a number of RSes have come to light since the AfD I'd suggest they be mentioned here. As it stands I have to endorse the previous close. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was alerted to this discussion by Facha93 as I had participated in the original deletion discussion. There has been some coverage in reliable sources post-Idol. - Dravecky (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guerra, Joey (January 12, 2009). "Katy singer looks beyond Britney impersonation". Houston Chronicle.
  • Guerra, Joey (February 13, 2009). "Kady Malloy gives advice to Idol wannabes". Houston Chronicle.

comment - those 2 sources are both from her local newspaper, and still don't establish any notability that is independent of her having been on Idol. At a minimum, I'd suggest a recreate would need some non-local sources (to prove some notability outside her hometown) asserting notability for anything since Idol, not connected to Idol. Otherwise the Idol article is sufficient coverage of the topic, and you can just add sources to a Kady Malloy subsection within that article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close: The AfD is ancient. Unless you want us to do something with that 18-month-old AfD (and I have no idea what we can do to it), the more suitable venue would be the appropriate talk page, not DRV. Not every recreation requires permission from DRV.
  talk) 21:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment I'm with Tim Song, above. Was the AfD closed with a salt? If not, feel free to recreate - just make sure you use enough references to prove she has independent notability. For what it's worth, I don't think there is independent notability. So, better use a load of references or it could end up a CSD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just double-checked; it's not salted.
  talk) 03:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• as I added above, I don't think there are going to be any sources that establish independent notability. The Jan. Houston Chronicle article asserts she's looking for offers from indie labels - so, one day she might be as notable as the indie bands whose articles we regularly delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Berresford Ellis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Despite two attempts at posting a complete and correct entry on this author, as approved by the author himself, this file is repeatedly deleted down to a "base" generic two or three lines of text, with no explanation. Davidwu10 (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• malformed DRV fixed.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

I believe the closing admin erred in calling this one no consensus. The rationale for deletion is that it is a

• Endorse- I saw no consensus to delete from that AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 06:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (no consensus). Proper reading of the consensus at the AfD. This is not AfD3. We decide by consensus, and if the community gets it wrong, so be it. Try again in a couple of months to be more persuasive, if you remain sure that you are right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not asking DRV to consider the notability of the subject, I'm pointing out that the keep arguments were based on invalid rationales, and should have been disregarded. Gigs (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the XfD, the invalidity of the keep votes is not obvious. You are asking too much of the closing admin. The closer properly closed the debate. Short of overruling on policy grounds, it is not the role of the closer to research into the rationale of !voters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I agree that this should have been deleted, but (unfortunately) consensus does not support this view. A reasonable closure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse That discussion lacked any kind of consensus to delete. Hobit (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Not clear error to close as no consensus.
  talk) 21:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per above comments as to no consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Consensus is based on strength of argument. The arguments supporting keeping were eminently weak, as they failed to refute that the only significant use of the term is by its coiner. Use of a term by one person does not make it notable. The closer failed to consider the strength (or lack thereof) of the arguments; if he did, he did a poor job. The keep arguments were weak and baseless, so the result should have been delete. ÷seresin 23:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I endorse Sandstein's accurate reading of the debate, and I'd add that "no consensus" permits early relisting, which should probably happen on this occasion. It would be nice if the next debate contained a more satisfactory analysis of the sources.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Deletion was made based on non-notability and lack of references, before these references (and so evidence of notability) could be provided. Evidence has been provided to the deleting admin via his talk page (here) where he requested that the matter be raised here as it was deleted via AfD so he couldn't unilaterally undelete it. Also note that in the same posting the user who originally cited the article for deletion (DJ Clayworth) has stated that given the provided evidence he would not be opposed to reinstatment, and that had they been available originally he probably would not have made the nomination. DarrenHill (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment The references added at the end were (1) Andrew M. Butler: An Unofficial Companion to the Novels of Terry Pratchett. Greenwood World Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84645-001-3 ; (2) Terry Pratchett Biography http://www.lspace.org/about-terry/biography.html ; (3) " Stanley Gibbons' stamp and stamp memorabilia magazine,Gibbons Stamps Special 2005. 150th Anniversary Collectors Edition. Published by Stanley Gibbons Ltd. 2005 pp 99-104" with the external link, http://www.youforum.co.uk/cinderellastamps Cinderella Stamp collectors forum
  It would seem to be that the 1st and 3rd of these might be acceptable. And if you could find another article in a stamp collectors magazine, or documentation of the claim in the AfD that they were "now housed within the British library Philatelic collection" I think it could be restored, with an an optional AfD. ` DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you saw this in the other links on Juliancolton's talk page (link above), but here is a link to an article in the current issue of Stamp Magazine relating to DW stamps, in the form of a commemorative issue for their 75th Birthday. Beyond Gibbons (the worldwide Philatelic magazine authority) and Stamp Magazine, I must admit I'm struggling to come up with another magazine which would fit the bill. And also there are two Gibbons articles, see the references I cited on the talk page.DarrenHill (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One additional citation/reference that I forgot before was the joint venture between Discworld Stamps, stamp designer Mark Valentine, The Register and the Rockall Ho! crew to temporarily re-open the most northerly post office in the UK on Rockall. A special DW stamp and one from Mark were produced especially for the event on special covers, the sale of which raised well over £2000 for charity. See the coverage in The Register here plus the links within the article for other coverage of the actual landing and work itself.

• Without reading every word, this sounds like a clear Restore. It would be proper to restore a deleted article on request if additional sources are found that would have negated the delete !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others should feel free to renominate at AfD. Was there some hint of a
    WP:COI issue here? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• endorse admin's action as I can't see any other outcome from that discussion. That said, per DGG's comments above this might actually be notable. Not sure what the next step should be. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original close; in light of new sources, permit recreation without prejudice to a second AfD at editorial discretion.
  talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn because the admin did not take account of refs added during the discussion. They were enough that the discussion should have been continued. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell, no reliable sources were presented during the initial discussion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* The article was initially cited for deletion due to "lack of notability" if I remember correctly. The issue of sources/citations only came up just before the page was actually deleted, giving only a couple of days to find and produce them. This has now been done, unfortunately due to small matters like work, family and life commitments this was not possible before the article was actually removed. Hence why I requested this reversal of the deletion, as I would hope the fairly long list of citations and references now produced are more than enough to counter both the original "non-notability" and the later "lack of sources/citations/references" (as indeed the original requestor DJ Clayworth has stated here, had the page had the new references in it the whole process probably would not have been begun). Therefore my simple suggestion would be to restore the article given the current overview of all the facts and evidence, and then we can integrate the provided materials and linkages into the article and after that if everyone is happy with it life can continue, you can all focus your attention on truly deserving miscreants and the article can be then further updated, expanded and improved and so make Wikipedia a slightly better place. DarrenHill (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• References noted; deletion endorsed as proper reading of consensus. As ever, deletion is not permanent, and anyone wishing to create a better article with reliable sources can feel free to do so. I would userfy the article if requested. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (without prejudice to the creation of a proper article) the action of the deleting administrator. I will point out that if you examine the AfD discussion you will find mostly involvement by the seller of this product and an entire string of s.p.a. accounts. I'm a philatelist and a Pratchett fan, but this was a solid closure. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sock puppets, Discworld fans and collectors who were upset to see the article deleted. Mostly just occasional users of Wikipedia, and never having the urge or need to get an account to post anything until this event. We do know how to think and act independently ;) DarrenHill (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said s.p.a. accounts; I did not say "sock puppets"! --Orange Mike | Talk 19:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Diskworld fan himself)[reply]

The joy of abbreviations, your meaning of "s.p.a." being single post accounts rather than sock puppet accounts? Not everyone speaks fluent Wikibreviations ;) But the general comment is valid, most people made the accounts because it's the first time they've needed to comment on anything - where's the problem with that? DarrenHill (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An s.p.a. is a single-purpose account: one used not for the general betterment of the Wikipedia project as a whole, but solely for a narrow purpose such as editing a single topic or participating in a single discussion. It is up to each participant in this discussion, particularly the closing administrator, to decide what weight to put on comments by accounts which have no record of contributing to Wikipedia as a gestalt. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; in light of new sources, permit recreation per Tim Song.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is a lot of new coverage regarding Google's cease and desist letter. I came here looking for information and was disappointed to find the article had been deleted. The software apparently has a dedicated following. Is there somewhere I can find the old deleted article just to read? -kslays (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found the old version with the "DRV links" cache. -kslays (talk • contribs) 18:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question from the closing admin - Is this merely a request to view the deleted content, or an attempt to contest the outcome of the discussion? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, I was just interested in viewing the deleted content, but now that it has been covered by Slashdot, Gizmodo, Engadget, the Register, MobileCrunch, and Lifehacker, I think the deletion discussion should be re-opened. -kslays (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reliable sources though, and they hardly demonstrate notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austria's second-largest broadsheet covered Cyanogenmod in two articles on their website: http://derstandard.at/fs/1253807758369/Google-geht-gegen-alternative-Android-Firmware-vor and http://derstandard.at/fs/1253807933759/Android-Externer-Firmware-Entwickler-will-Google-austricksen 80.122.142.138 (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More presumably acceptably notable coverage in PC World, The Register, The Inquirer, Ars Technica, The H and ZDNet.— 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) keeps shooting himself in the foot by admitting that he has made few edits outside this topic. 66.68.113.5 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Can please somebody restore this article? --212.186.64.225 (talk) 17:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain your rationale for requesting undeletion of the article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's in many Newspapers [29]. Some people want to replace the operation system of their mobile phone. To do that, it is important to have information about cyanogenmod. The page is deleted and I don't know if the information at the page was usefull, but there must be a page for this operating system. --212.186.64.225 (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do think those sources probably are reliable. So I'll go with "nominate for restoration based upon notability established after the last AfD." [30] would seem to count. [31] might also. And there there is Slashdot, Gizmodo, Engadget, the Register, MobileCrunch, and Lifehacker. I'd say we're in pretty good shape. permit restoration Hobit (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• permit restoration/allow recreation per Hobit. Situation is substantially different than when deletion occurred. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closure was reasonable, but recreation should begin in userspace to establish notability in light of the recent events. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close. Given recent developments, permit recreation in principle, without prejudice to a subsequent AfD at editorial discretion. However, given the repeated canvassing in the two AfDs and the recent recreation attempt at
  talk) 17:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Apologies if I'm reading the logs wrong, but I thought the recent recreation was only done for the purpose of userification. If the topic has become sufficiently notable, what benefit is there in salting it? If a newly created article is a stub, isn't it enough to flag it as such? How would the AfD canvassing be relevant? — 66.68.113.5 (talk • contribs) has probably been suspected of being a canvasser due to him making few edits outside this topic. 66.68.113.5 (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's at a different capitalization, and was speedied per
  talk) 15:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Soviet-run peace movements in the West (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

This deletion discussion is highly suspicious for a number of reasons. As indicated here, there is reason to believe that off-site canvassing on a secret mailing list may have affected the voting result. Even if these votes are counted, the closing of "Keep" hardly seems supportable (at best it was No Consensus). The closer, Pastor Theo, was later determined to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, further enhancing the aura of suspicion around this AFD. His closure seemed to be more of his own opinion than anything to do with what happened in the discussion itself. The discussion should be overturned and the article deleted because it is a clear violation of

• relist/renominate- Overturning to delete is a bit much, since I'm going to assume good faith on those who were in the AFD. While it looks like there was at most, no consensus to delete in that discussion, a new, (hopefully) sock free discussion should still be had. As an aside, I'm now dreading the fact that a lot of Theo's closure decisions are going to be coming back to haunt us now. Ugh, what a tangled mess. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Renominate Not all the support was from the putative cabal--I had !voted keep. In addition to the tenacious literature cited, there are multiple sources for this, not all of them from the far right. My own feeling is that despite the political nature of the argument, this phenomenon did indeed exist. Perhaps "Soviet-influenced... " would be a better title. Given that this was closed over two months ago,it would make better sense to renominate. Crotalus, would you object to my making the title change before the renomination? DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection to renaming — the existing title is really bad. *** Crotalus *** 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There were 8 votes to delete, 8 to keep. Of the 8 votes to keep, 5 were by people on the secret mailing list. None of those on the secret mailing list voted to delete.
  talk) 08:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. Please note that editors who failed to delete it did succeed in removing about half of its referenced content... ([32]). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop the drama, please; renominate it, if you want. It would be a real stretch to overturn this to delete, and I see no point in relisting a two-month-old AfD.
  talk) 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The article is now no more than a report that some people have said that the Soviet Union controlled un-named or obscure western peace movements. This is hardly encyclopaedic. The evidence of canvassing makes it clear that this article is

talk) 21:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Yeah, relist. That AfD was tainted in the discussion and the closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The least dramatic option, and one that would have required no DRV, would be to just renominate the article for AfD and assess it on its merits (about which I have no opinion).  Sandstein  10:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Renominate per Sandstein. I think that's going to be the simplest course, though we'll want to be mindful of the canvassing issue; knowing about it up-front should help. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close; just renominate it. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This has now been relisted. *** Crotalus *** 20:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I feel that the page was deleted far too quickly - before I had chance to add any improvements/notability. Additionally, I think that the uncontested survival of Durham University Engineering Society merits the existence of BEAMES (which is essentially Bath University Engineering Society). Welshgolfer (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like a valid
  other articles exist does not mean that your article should exist. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Textbook A7.
  talk) 17:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per Lifebaka. You can request that the content be moved to your userspace,
  WP:ORG.  Sandstein  10:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Lex Talionis Fraternitas (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to thank the admin for taking time to discuss the matter of this article's deletion. However, I still think the deletion is uncalled for because the reasons upon which such deletion was based were not really established by those who pushed for its deletion.

First thing that I noticed is the reason given that it exists only in a few

Second thing that I noticed is the attention given to the death that occurred in an initiation rites a decade ago. The case was a sensational one indeed, but I guess it should not be referred to as "their unusually violent initiation rites" because such incident was isolated and does not reflect the overall footing of the fraternity. They event went further by citing the news item on Davao CityMayor Rodrigo Duterte's "trauma of the beating he received during his initiation into this fraternity." Let me take note that the said incident was made a basis of a landmark Supreme Court decision wherein the Court tookjudicial notice of the youth's irresponsible acts.

Last thing I noticed is about the notability. I remember that the admin also tried to have this article deleted a year ago, but I was able to prove the aspect of notability before the date of deletion. I respect the views of the admin in relation to the notability of a certain subject. However, I would like to point out that Lex Talionis is a Philippine-based fraternity which is notable especially among the legal professionals and members are already in high positions in the judiciary or in corporate practice. This time, I am asking the admin to consider the same reasons set forth in the previous deletion attempt and restore the article back into the pages of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talion1 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This DRV was listed by the nom in Sep 19's log. It has been transferred here.
  talk) 12:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment As suggested during the AfD, it might be possible to write an article about the court case itself. The list of all the previous officers, and the list of members who did well in the bar exams, undoubtedly influenced the general feeling of the article. I nominated it for deletion, but it might have been possible instead to rescue it by editing. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the consensus was to delete, and it was correctly implemented, so I endorse Backslash Forwardslash's closure. Recreation may be possible, but please could you list the sources (by link or ISBN) that you intend to use?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Query – is there any reason why you didn't discuss this with the closing admin before bringing it here? MuZemike 07:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per S Marshall. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion per S Marshall. However, I would allow re-creation of the article if independent reliable sources can be found to establish the fraternity's notability and if the article is written from a neutral point of view. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Law Society (University College Dublin) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was excessive. References as to notability can be inserted. The article's deletion was too speedyUCDLawsoc (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• article was listed two weeks and its never too late to leave a note with references on my talk page for me to look at.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Malformed DRV fixed.
  talk) 19:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. It was actually listed for two and a half weeks or so - not speedy in any sense. Nothing wrong with the close. No prejudice against recreation if reliable sources demonstrating notability can be found, of course. BTW, I left the nom a note about the rather inappropriate username.
  talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse but certainly they might be notable if you can show it in an improved article in userspace. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; deletions don't come any less speedily, and indefblock the nominator as a promotional username. Full disclosure: I am a student at the university in question. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article|restore

)

this stub was speedy deleted before I had a chance to explain the notability but after I put a hangon tag on it. I've tried posting on the admins talk, but he's obviously having a life. I've explained the notability on the articles talk Talk:Starfall.com thanks for your help! Erich (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My kids learned to read at Starfall but notability for wikipedia is actually demonstrated by showing multiple non-trivial independent
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Only one on google news and thats in passing [33] and 78 in google books [34]. I checked a few dozen of the book references and they seem to be mostly web listings of useful resources. I'm afraid that based on this, Starfall isn't going to meet our
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There's some more in the archive search (such as [35] and [36]), but all look like passing mentions to me. The cached version is a straightforward {{
      talk) 19:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• can I just comment that all this deletion happens with unholy speed. My contributions are sporadic and I like to think of high quality. I'm starting to wonder why i bother. I stuck a hangon tag on this page within a few minutes of the page being taggeg for deletion but it got deleted anyway while I laid out the notability grounds on the talk page but I see from the red link that this has now been deleted as well... arggggggggggggghhhhhhh. Looking at some of the rubbish web-sites that wikipedia does include eg poptropica, it is a crime that starfall is not included. This is a non-commercial web-site people... it has no lobysists and pr people infiltrating wp to get it included. Before i become absolutely convinced that all my contributions are futile can somebody please reinstate the page while it given a bit more consideration?? at least the talk page where i had explained the notability Erich (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make life easier for all of us, I suggest that you go to
    talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • done... if starfall is not notable then I think Category:Children's websites could do with a clean out... but better still lets just leave this amazing FREE website in wp, because it deserves to be included... Erich (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know this is going to sound awful, but there are a number of amazing free (and otherwise) websites that aren't included in wikipedia just because we don't have enough
        neutral article on them. We are bound by what print and online media cover. When more coverage of starfall crops up we can have an article for it here. Until then we just may have to wait. I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 06:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• The article is presently in userspace as User:Erich gasboy/Starfall.com. The material there does not by the remotest stretch of the imagination justify a Wikipedia article. Not only has it no sources, it has no information that would even hint that it might be notable. I try to rescue articles, but I --and I assume almost any admin-- would also have speedy deleted it, The thing to do if you want it restored, is to try to write an article there, showing that it is notable, and listing what sources might be available. DGG ( talk ) 16:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry its school hols and I've got kids to raise. This is an important notable site. I give up. Let the PR people rule wp. Erich (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse speedy. Straightforward {{
  talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Tim have you looked at the talk page? Erich (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did. It's an excellent website. Does not mean it's necessarily notable, though.
      talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• this site is much more notable than
  Fred Colon... and is in the top 1000 US alexa site... the article I posted is stub... there is obviously more to say... listen y'all (how many again of you have children learning to read and have actually visited the site??) do you really think that the commerical Poptropica with minimal educational value deserves its wikipidia treatise because it has a few teeny oriented fan sites? sorry but the under fives tend not to create a lot of fan-websites and the parents of under fives are too busy to bother with this palaver for very long. Sorry I must have been away when the WP policy was changed to delete first. Erich (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • mmm since y'all seem so keen on deleting stuff... mind if I make some suggestions (Erich (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)):[reply]
    1. Transformers Online Game
    2. Creaturebreeder
    • Yup, non-notable, sourced to nothing or blogs or forums hosted by the games. Looks like stuff that should be deleted, so I have nominated. Miami33139 (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updated notability claim

• Ok people do a google on 'learn to read'... surely wikipedia can include the number site even if it doesn't employ a PR team!!! (btw I've concluded that whole sorry episode is a case-study on the influence of commercial forces in wp) Erich (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you need a larger sample then that. have you looked at our notability guidelines?
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • sorry? a larger samaple than what?? Yes I have looked at the notability guidelines... I'm afraid they don't explain why the number one learning to read site on the entire net is not notable. especially compared with Rincewind!!! Erich (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you have some sources that say the website is the number one learning to read site?
        talk) 17:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • like I said above google 'learn to read'. what's at the top of the list? I'm afraid that's not much but it validates my own searching. If there is a better free site out there it hides itself pretty well... I can't believe I've wasted so much time on this. There is so much crap in wp, yet I have to argue the case for a brief page on this extraordinary site... but no we have to leave room so the teenies can craft pages on minor characters in novels and movies.... wot??? Erich (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the speedy deletion but move the userspace draft to the
  WP:N is easily met.

  Note: This article should be moved to Starfall (website) instead of Starfall, since a search for "Starfall" also returns Starfall (album). Cunard (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]
  • Wow, well done Cunard. Permit recreation.
    talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse as per DGG. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, speedy close as User:Erich gasboy is using this DRV as a platform to attack other editors, which is explicitly prohibited. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Comment I appreciate that
  "implausible" until citations are provided.  Frank  |  talk  04:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• A quick Googlin' doesn't seem to suggest that "whale killer" is something ever used to refer to the orca. "Whale (killer)" is a few times, but never without the parentheses. There appears to be a flash game, quite a few false positives, and that's about it. I'm not sure if a RfD would serve you all that well, Gavia. So, in the interest of getting this over quickly, I suggest you withdraw the nom rather than attempt to force a conclusion that would very likely bring us back to the status quo. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• For a non-native English speaker using the English wikipedia, that's a plausible typo.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It doesn't seem like a very likely redirect, but as S Marshall suggests above, it might help somebody find their way, and really that's the purpose of a redirect. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• list at RfD it isn't clearly implausible (though I'd lean that way myself). Let the community decide. Hobit (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree it should be put to the community. Ever try to learn a foreign language? I'm always putting modifiers in the wrong place when writing Spanish. I've never heard of someone requiring references to keep a redirect before. Tex (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The request for references was specifically because the reason for the creation of the redirect in the first place was a claim that it was based in folk etymology. Had a citation in a reliable source been provided to support that claim, the discussion would have been over at that point, with the redirect restored. Such citations still haven't been provided. The suggestion that it is plausible because of foreign language usage is from the discussion here on this page only.  Frank  |  talk  16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - I would have declined to delete this and suggested RfD as not obviously implausible. Personally I find it entirely reasonable. Can even be sourced[37][38], not that this would strictly be necessary to have a redirect or to accept a good faith contention to have its plausibility assessed elsewhere.--
  Tikiwont (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

AfD was closed as keep however no evidence was ever brought forward of non-trivial coverage by any kind of reliable third party publication. Several of the !voters comments actually amounted to "it exists" and "it is useful" which are the worst arguments I can think of to retain an encyclopedia article. Billions of things exist but that is not reason for inclusion. I am requesting a review of the closure and have notified the closing administrator. I feel this should be overturned as delete or possibly relisted with more careful eyes. JBsupreme (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed the nomination.

  Evil saltine interpreted the consensus correctly and implemented it. However, in this case the consensus was dumb. The editorially correct decision would've been "redirect to Comparison of file archivers".

  Since that can be achieved without a deletion review, I recommend no action on DRV's part here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Except this is article about a file format which used by many software programs (and not just file archivers) and is not an article about a specific file archiver. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse First, I agree the closer could have closed no other way. We traditionally avoid acting as AfD2 but sometimes we do. In this case, the sense of the discussion was that this isn't a topic that is likely to have traditional sources but none-the-less includes information we should have. So pretty much it's a
  WP:IAR keep. There are some moderate sources [39] (English translation of the Polish). But I tend to agree this might be a good cause for IAR. It isn't a traditional file arciver per se, nor do I think redirecting to a page that has no information on the topic would be a good solution. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Side note: a lot of other pages link to this one. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse At worst, this would have been a "no consensus" close, as there was definitely not a consensus to delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- There was zero consensus to delete. Closer closed it correctly. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse. While the word "delete" wasn't bolded, this comment was a "delete" argument. With that and the weak "keep" arguments, I can see no consensus being a possible close using "admin's discretion". Not that it makes a difference in the here and now but it would affect the issue of how long to wait before renominating. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't see a problem with the close and it seems pretty obvious to me this file format is in widespread use by numerous software programs. It also isn't difficult to find a reliable third party publication that gives significant coverage to the file format but the nom clearly did not preform any sort of
  ISBN 1-59327-050-X. Retrieved 2009-09-24.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • In defense of the nom, I spent 5 minutes looking and found only the Polish article linked above. Hobit (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I had not seen a past pattern of this sort of thing with the nom I would be more inclined to agree with you. The above book shows up as the 3rd result when searching Google Books for "parchive" and the 1st result when searching for "parchive" "par", "parchive" "par2", "par file", "par" "par2", or "parchive.sourceforge.net". --Tothwolf (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sigh [40] Is this true, we allow forums now? JBsupreme (talk) 16:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • JBsupreme, I dare you to try and correctly source about 80% of the minor software articles. We have hundreds of them, even high school software projects, sourced to blogs, forums, comments on download libraries, even paid review sites. If you have the temerity to suggest it should be deleted, someone at AfD will say "but I use this software, here are three more forum posts showing other people do too!", nobody else comments, and it stays in Wikipedia forever. Miami33139 (talk) 00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try 1000s or even tens of 1000s. In many cases stubs that do not assert notability can simply be merged/redirected to larger Comparison of x or Glossary of x articles, although that isn't what you tend to do with them... --Tothwolf (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay... so you're making my point for me, right? That we should not be bending our reliable sourcing policy just because someone likes something. We certainly don't do that for biographical articles, and actually this is the first time I've ever seen it done in any case. If you know of a Wikipedia article here which is about a non-notable high school project, let me know. Please. JBsupreme (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Context is everything. The link you objected to [41] is hosted on SourceForge as part of the parchive.sourceforge.net project. While the url may include the word "forum", in this particular case the forum software (which is available for all projects hosted on SourceForge) is being used to post an announcement (note the date on the announcement is 2001-07-03, over 8 years ago) and this particular link is not being used as a general discussion. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – there was no consensus to delete and if the nom's remarks are ignored there was a clear consensus to keep. Moreover Tothwolf's sources above look fairly solid.
  talk) 09:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse but try for Merge All of the 3rd party non-trivial sources seem to be about the
  Otterathome (talk) 16:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually, at the time of the AfD,
    Parity file was redirected to Parchive. I unredirected it after I discovered it as a "parity file" is a generic concept which does not depend on the Parchive par/par2 file formats. Although it is a related concept (I suppose it is more of a parent article) it certainly shouldn't have been redirected. I could also find nothing to indicate that it had ever been merged into Parchive. I personally would not support such an article merger, especially as it was trivial to find a published, reliable source that has since been added to the Parchive article. The file format specification documents used as references in the Parchive article are also perfectly acceptable. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

AfD was closed as a redirect to

• Neutral While I think my closing judged consensus in the discussion correctly, it was a near thing, and LtPowers makes a good point above. If consensus is to overturn, I don't have a problem with that.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing the target of a redirect is a matter for talk page discussion; the redirect page is not protected. You don't need DRV.
  GRBerry 13:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I disagree. Changing from one Transformer article to another mentioning Drag Strip would be a matter for talk page discussion. Changing it to a dragracing article would have the effect of removing the reference to the character altogether, essentially overturning the result of the AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what hatnotes are for, and
      Stunticons: {{redirect|Drag Strip|the Transformers character|Stunticons}}. —Korath (Talk) 19:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• I find it to be a bit unlikely that someone looking for info the race track is going to search for "Drag Strip" with a capital-S. Tarc (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The target was novel to the discussion but it was the right one (the character is described there in its own section). I don't see any value to redirecting to dragstrip per Tarc. Hobit (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sarek explicitly directed me here; I would have been happy to discuss it in a different forum were it not for that. Powers ^T 23:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Prob,s ND3 is a new page that is not widely known and its only an essay.
      Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• List at RfD Where this search term should point to should not be decided at DRV.
  WP:RFD is a better forum for this type of discussion. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Alan D Harvey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion was contrary to comparable practice. I gather the article had been deleted before, but I do not know the actual reason, I am guessing it was at the request of the subject. However, a comparator article is that of Arthur Kemp. The subject disagreed with some of the content, but the matter was dealt with by the usual editing process and the article was not deleted. I do understand why this article should not be treated in exactly the same way RolandTravis (talk) 07:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The previous article was at
  WP:OTRS requests. That history is why I speedy deleted it.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I suspect that you need to produce a well sourced userspace draft for discussion before we will consider this. Also, given your mastery of wikimark-up perhaps you could disclose any other accounts you have edited under.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• undelete and send to AfD The version deleted now as judging from the cache makes a good argument for meeting
  WP:N. Therefore, this should probably be going to AfD with a note that the subject also requested deletion. The version in cache looks like it has minor POV issues but nothing so seriously as to by itself merit either deletion as an attack page or deletion without process due to a BLP concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Actually, it's a little more complex than that, JoshuaZ.

  The subject originally used the account AlanHarvey (talk · contribs) to write an unsourced non-neutral autobiography at Alan Harvey, later stating on Talk:Alan Harvey "As far as I was aware the virtue of Wikipedia is that individuals around the world can add entries about themselves […]". That is what was discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Harvey, and deleted in 2005, again (re-created by AlanHarvey) in 2006, and again in 2007. The 2007 re-creation was initially a short stub written by someone else, but 81.77.175.210 (talk · contribs) overwrote that completely with a copy of the same text that AlanHarvey used in 2005.

  The first 2009 creation was the first version of the article to cite sources, and was not a re-submission of that same autobiographical text. Nor was it the short-length and short-lived stub from 2007 that was so rapidly overwritten. But this article was to suffer an onslaught, by various IP addresses in the address ranges assigned to Orange UK, of being overwritten by the same unsourced non-neutral autobiography as before. I don't know what was in OTRS ticket #2009011110015794, but given that the edit summaries by 91.111.101.65 (talk · contribs) et al. were highly misleading (Re-overwriting the original sourced article with the autobiography content was deemed "Removing vandalism and replacing original version.".) I wouldn't be surprised if the OTRS ticket wasn't similarly misleading as well.

  The second 2009 creation, by JHumphries (talk · contribs), again cited sources. This didn't suffer from repeated blanking with the unsourced autobiography, but it was challenged for accuracy by 91.109.255.117 (talk · contribs). There was discussion of article improvement on the talk page.

  Given that the latest deleting administrator's explanation ignores a lot of this history, and important details such as the fact that the various deletions deleted different articles, and given that editors at the BLP noticeboard at least looked at this article (at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive65#Alan_Harvey) without calling for instant BLP removal, and given that this content has never been discussed at AFD, re-listing this content at AFD seems the best course of action.

  However, I strongly recommend undeleting the JHumphries-created article (versions 2009-05-13 onwards) at Alan Harvey and sending that (immediately) through AFD, not the version by RolandTravis (talk · contribs) here at Alan D Harvey. The JHumphries version has had material that is contested as inaccurate by the subject removed, by the subject. The RolandTravis version has not, and contains that material. Uncle G (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • FWIW, I have no objection to restoring the Alan Harvey so that it can be properly evaluated at AfD.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugh. That is a complicated situation. Given that data, that seems completely reasonable. Restore that version and send it to AfD. Is there any sourced content in the version at D. Harvey that can be maybe added to the Alan Harvey version? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you want to know about the OTRS ticket? Stifle (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the main question is whether there is anything in the OTRS ticket that would affect a decision to undelete Alan Harvey and send it to AFD.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted and request userspace version. I've looked over the deleted revisions at both
  Chick Bowen 01:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Addendum in response to above discussion: it sounds to me like Uncle G's assumption is that anything not removed by the subject would not be considered a BLP violation. I can see the logic but I'm not entirely comfortable with it--seems to me, improperly sourced is improperly sourced.
    Chick Bowen 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Chelsea Korka (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 27 for the reasons. I couldn't follow through because I left to go on holiday. I have asked the person who deleted the page if it could be recreated and wasn't answered to. This is why I am asking here again to have the page recreated. --Whadaheck (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Malformed DRV that was not linking to the correct AfD fixed. As it appears that the nom is requesting unsalting, can xe present a userspace draft?
  talk) 17:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Would you like a
  biographies of living persons policy. I would say, in its current state, it shouldn't go onto the mainspace, at least not yet. MuZemike 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I know that most of the source are not considered realiable, but I think this can be improved, for instance using her profile on her group's page here and so on.--Whadaheck (talk) 13:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any sources need to be detailed and complying with the
      Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Well, considering she was on TV show and has been featured in quite a few magazines and radio shows since she joined the group, that seems feasible, but as long as the page is locked, I can't do anything.--Whadaheck (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - closing admin correctly closed the AFD and nothing has yet been presented to indicate that anything's changed. I echo those above who suggest writing a draft in user space, i. e.
  talk) 20:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Does this User:Whadaheck#Chelsea Korka help?--Whadaheck (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources presented do not appear for the most part to be independent, as they are either associated directly with the subject in some manner (an interview with the CW referencing an appearance on the CW) or are from the subject herself (the buddyTV reference credits Korka as its source). Based on what's presented currently I don't see this satisfying
  talk) 17:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The buddytv reference does credit Korka as its source for another part of the article, but not for that which deals with Korka's performance with Thornton and Antin. As for the CW interview, I actually put the wrong source (it's an interview on BuddyTV, does it count?). To me, she does meet the notability thing, as you can see with the various magazines and radio shows she has been in, the fact that she has performed with multiple notable artists...--Whadaheck (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not seeing it, but of course others may have different opinions.
  talk) 04:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I don't get it. Korka has as much if not more accomplishments than the Girlicious trio for instance, so how isn't she notable?--Whadaheck (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:A234atA234Workshop (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Non-article speedy deleted per an article-only criteria.

Fixed. Had not noticed weird situation (third-party giving speedy templates) tedder (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article|XfD|restore

)

I am just going to start writing because it is far too complicated to figure out what all this means. You deleted my page sovereign citizens and redirected it to Sovereign Citizen Movement. I simply don't get it. Apparently you are going to deny the greatest invention to come out of the books written during the enlightenment that the Founding Fathers of the USA were reading when when they wrote our constitution. FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY, Sovereignty was vest in the hands of the individual citizen and not a king, dictator nor any other official of the state, elected or otherwise. That is why our elected officials are referred to as "PUBLIC SERVANTS". I dare my opponents in this argument to provide any explanation for the use of the term "public servants" without admitting the Founding Father's vested Sovereignty to the individual citizen. That is whay for the early history of the USA, it was referred to as "The Great American Experiment" The People were the Sovereigns. The persons who want to lump this concept into the Sovereign Citizen Movement cite some book written in 2008 that gives credit to the radical anarchist group, Posse' Comatatus, for first using the term. The Posse' Commitas first chartered in 1969. I provided a video of Ronald Reagan in 1964 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY (@@3:30), using the term "Sovereign People" (American's have a propensity to us "People" interchangeably with "Citizen" do to the use of the phrase "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,..." at the start of our constitution] Even if the 2008 book, the opponents invoke is to be trusted as to its reference that the Posse Commitatus used the term, clearly the 1964 Reagan Speech came before the chartering of the Posse Comitatus group in 1969. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_(organization) Simply, it is defamatory to associate the concept of "Sovereign Citizens" intended by the Founding Fathers, referenced by Ronald Reagan and used by myself and others with radical anarchist groups like the posse comatatus. I am not a member, to the best of my knowledge is Ronald Reagan, nor is it possible that any of the Founding Fathers could have been a member of the Posse' Comatatus. Nor do myself, Ronald Reagan nor the Founding Father's espouse the radical anarchist ideology of the Posse Camatatus or their related anarchist groups. Lastly, to deny that Sovereignty of the Citizens was an invention of the US Founding Fathers directly resulting from the knowledge and philosophy created and elaborated on during the Enlightenment, is to deny one of the greatest inventions in the history of mankind. George Washington was offered to be made king and refused. And whereupon, the Great American Experiment began, with Sovereignty not vested in rulers but the individual citizens. If you deny this, I must conclude that Wikipedia is nothing more than a Progressiveness tool to engage in revisionist history and act accordingly. Please restore my page. Make the corrections that you feel necessary, but the USA's Founding Fathers and Ronald Reagan concept of Sovereign Citizens and Sovereign People cannot simply be lumped into the Sovereign Citizen Movement. (PS - You should send an email to the author of a page before you decide to delete it-I received no such notification prior to the article being deleted) Please act on this promptly [Cynical Patriot - [email protected]]

agreed you seem to be using the term in a somewhat different sense, but you none the less need references that the terminology has been discussed in articles or books the way you use it. I do not see this in any of the references given. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:TLDR comes to mind when reading the nomination, but that aside, I don't see anything here showing how the deletion process was not properly followed. I endorse the closure.
  To the specific point of emailing users, as there are thousands of pages deleted each day, it's not viable to email users whose pages are nominated; the vast bulk of users are given a talk page message. Stifle (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse redirect. The previous version of the article is still in the history. If the nominator wants to use that content to create another article, they can do so, but it should be given a different title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Malformed DRV fixed.
  talk) 23:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I would urge the nominator not to speak in the first person. "We" are not all American.
  Phil Bridger (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I am impressed that everyone has responded with appropriate decorum to a strongly worded statement from a user that is clearly unfamiliar with our protocols. I linked this page on their talk page, but if someone would e-mail them as a courtesy to make sure they have an opportunity to participate and read the above comments that would be great. I think the courteous replies and discussion are a credit to our project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse though I'm almost tempted to suggest a speedy close; perhaps the nom is saved by TLDR. Anyway, no error in the closure that I can detect.
  talk) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• After reading that tirade, my comment is... the Aristocrats! The proper target of this redirect (XfD also proposed Popular sovereignty) is a subject for a talk page, not DRV. Miami33139 (talk) 04:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Milaca (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Obviously fictional positions in government and outlandish descriptions make it questionable place exists as described; article created just a few weeks ago with few editors; High school cliques are described in detail. Soc8675309 (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing for DRV to do here, Soc8675309. I see Tikiwont's already taken the appropriate action. I move for speedy closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it's about and taken from
  Tikiwont (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

• You're a victim of low AfD participation levels there, I think, Tikiwont. Given a listing for thirteen days and a unanimous "keep" apart from the nominator, it's hard to envisage any other outcome to the debate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a victim here in any case. I just wouldn't apply the term unanimous in a a situation where two editors disagree with one.--

Tikiwont (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment from closer. I stand by my close but after further thought I will concede that no consensus would also have been a valid close considering one of the 2 "keep" !votes was a
  WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist for more input. Unsatisfactory closing statement under the circumstances, non-admins shouldn't be closing these types of nominations.--
  Otterathome (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• If a non-admin can't close a unanimous "keep" after thirteen days of listing, then what on earth can they close?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Only two outside users gave their view, more views are needed if it is very borderline like this. If there is a still a shortage even after 13 days, the closing user (or admin) is expected to give an explanation as the Afd can go either way.--
  Otterathome (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I could have relisted it a second time but
  WP:BLP issue. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse closure as the discussion could not have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that technically, we could go with "Re-open for an admin to close". Non-admin closures are for uncontroversial matters, and the fact that Tikiwont and Otterathome have challenged the closure indicates that it's controversial, so procedurally an admin should re-examine the matter. I think Stifle's remark may suffice, because in my experience if even Stifle can't find a reason to delete in the debate, there's none to be found (*grins at Stifle*)—but it's arguable that an uninvolved admin should reclose.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feh. I suppose I should point out that there should be no prejudice against renomination, in all the circumstances. Stifle (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - 13 days of listing with nobody advocating deleting this article indicates "keep" was the proper closure. The "keep" voters all based there arguments on
  WP:NOTABILITY policy (major label release, plenty of sources about the topic, etc.).--Oakshade (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse – there was nobody else arguing for deletion apart from the nom. MuZemike 01:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but prefer no consensus and/or a note indicating no prejudice to renomination. Tikiwont challenged both of CaliforniaAliBaba's arguments and received no response. Redirecting appears to be the correct editorial decision. Flatscan (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Flatscan; also endorse the redirect.
  talk) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as a reasonable closure. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Fu Productions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article about an independent filmmaking group has been deleted numerous times in 2007 citing notability issues. However, films and short films by the group have since been featured at the

—Arsonal (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are there non-blog source about "Wong Fu Productions" itself, rather than listings or brief film productions. WIthout those there isn't much an article can say. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When an article has been deleted so many times that an administrator has felt it necessary to protect the article from further recreation, it's customary to bring a sourced userspace draft to DRV for commenters to consider. I recommend doing so. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the suggestion. I will write up something over the weekend. Arsonal (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I protected this page from recreation back in 2007 (as a fairly freshly-minted admin) after approximately 10 recreations, one of which consisted of "wiki is gay for deleting my articles". Frankly, the suggested citations above are so far away from the material I saw and deleted that I actually suspect that there are two groups with the same name, and I hope that the "sourced userspace draft" will be clear about the group's entire history. I will look forward with interest and without pre-judgment to seeing the aforementioned draft. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the requested "sourced userspace draft", which is available on this page. If reviewers decide to restore access to the article page, perhaps it will be a good idea to place a semi-protection to prevent disruptive edits such as the ones Accounting4Taste experienced. Given the popularity of this group on the Internet, I can anticipate fans accessing the article and attempting to add information that may be excessively trivial.

—Arsonal (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I've looked at the sourced userspace draft and have no objection to my protection being removed or to this article being returned to articlespace and retained; in fact User:Arsonal appears to have done a stellar job in providing useful and relevant citations and material. This topic looks to have been effectively and thoroughly rescued. Re the suggested semi-protection, my understanding is that protection is applied after disruptive editing... everything I saw previously had so little content that I would have called it disruptive posting, not editing. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unsalt per Accounting4Taste. Excellent work indeed.
  talk) 02:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yup, that draft is good to move into the mainspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Approve new draft. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Reason The article was deleted when the voting was four to three to keep it. The votation was in favour of the article and it was deleted anyway. Facha93 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I didn't read that article, nor the AFD. But please read
  WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. You did not vote, you discussed. You need a better rationale to uphold this deletion review. Cheers. --> RUL3R^*flaming_*vandalism 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Like Skomorokh, I'm not seeing the
  reliable sources that would justify an article here. Myspace and imdb don't cut it, I'm afraid. The key to success in this DRV, Facha93, is citing reliable sources that are independent of the subject.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, AFD is not a vote. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The deletion was right given the discussion, but the discussion was horrible. There are reliable sources out there. [42] lists quite a few. I don't think any of them are on-topic enough for the article to be kept, but the discussion never touched on that. The deletion arguments were all about the article's current state, not about the topic and they should have been ignored. The keep votes were all forms of ILIKEIT and so also should have been ignored. So no consensus or relist is all there is... Hobit (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as AfD nominator. Facha's complaint here is only about vote counting. The delete arguments were that there were no reliable sources and she passed no parts of
  WP:ENTERTAINER. The keep arguments said she had notability but could not provide any reliable sources or show how she passed WP:MUSIC or WP:ENTERTAINER. As a side note, Facha could also be seen as votestacking by only informing the Keep AfD voters, so I am off now to inform all the Delete voters. Aspects (talk) 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to No Consensus - There just wasn't the consensus here to delete and the arguments to keep were based on the notability of this person (Los Angeles Times interview for example [43]) which there was no valid reason to ignore.--Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I voted for deletion in the AfD, but cannot see the article any more. I can see nothing procedurally amiss with the AfD close, as the article's supporter failed to advance any
  proof as to her notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion AFD is not a vote, the close was well within the discretion of the closing admin in evaluating informed consensus. Ray^Talk 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Stifle. Nearly all the arguments (save for maybe one) are pure
  WP:JNN arguments. What little actual discussion there was actually attempted to show why the subject was (not) notable. MuZemike 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. It was not clear error to close as delete.
  talk) 12:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse also as per Stifle, this was a correct weighing of an admittedly less than stellar discussion. We don't make exceptions to the high standards required of
  WP:BLP sourcing just because the subject has fans, sorry. Guy (Help!) 12:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. No problems with the administrator's role. Fair interpretation. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 00:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Userspace copy

Despite a heated debate, the article was deleted under the rationale "The keep votes are significantly weaker that those requesting deletion", and the administrator has been unwilling to reopen it. I believe this conclusion is not in line with Wikipedia policy, and would like to outline why.

The original rationale for deletion was that the topic is "wholly unworthy of a standalone article" (in other words, not

Now, to overturn this presumption, it must be demonstrated that the topic is otherwise

• WP:WI1E
  goes further to define an event as "a single specific act that has taken place with a defined beginning and end"; while the original plastering of the image around LA would qualify, entirely different uses of the image are still being widely reported and there is nothing like a "defined end" in sight.

• Which brings me to
  WP:NOTNEWS, or essentially, the argument that this poster is a meaningless flash in the pan. Not so; in the words of User:Smontg2, "this image has legs". A cursory look at Google News indicates 700+ mainstream media references to the image within the last few days, nearly two months after the poster originally hit the headlines. Pundits referenced in the article have described it as (I quote) "a turning of the tide of public opinion", and the poster has been widely adopted by opponents of Obama, most notably the Tea Party protest movement
  , with the Las Vegas Sun calling it the movement's "signature logo".

In summary, the image is notable, and in the same way that the Barack Obama "Hope" poster captured last year's pro-Obama zeitgeist, this image has been eagerly adopted by the anti-Obama camp. It's highly unlikely that this image will go away before Obama himself does, and we are doing future readers of Wikipedia a disservice by not recording what this was all about. Jpatokal (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At first glance, I'm tempted to say there's some mileage in this complaint. That debate certainly looked like a "no consensus" to me.

  Having said that, I certainly agree with Backslash Forwardslash that Wikipedia doesn't need this content. If I'd participated in the debate, I'd have !voted "trim very heavily and merge" to one of the "public image of Barack Obama" family of articles.

  But I can't see how to get from that debate to that closure without a very large amount of admin discretion. Too much, perhaps. I'd like to see Backslash Forwardslash explain in more detail which !votes he disregarded and on what grounds.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (later) After further thought: Actually I think what we have here is a defective debate and a defective closure. On the one hand, the debate failed to give proper weight to
  WP:UNDUE. But on the other hand, if admins had that much discretion to disregard !votes, then there would be no point in having debates in the first place; we might as well decide that deletion is down to individual admin discretion and dispense with AfD entirely.

  I've decided that there is no explanation that would satisfy me in this matter and the only proper outcome is to overturn the defective closure to "no consensus" and then immediately relist the defective debate, so that the article can be deleted after full and proper consideration.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse closure - The Wikipedia moved away from the "VfD" (Votes for Deletion) format several years ago. This isn't a tally or a numbers game, it is a careful weighing of arguments, points, and supporting evidence to back them up. There is a disturbing trend lately of "Subject X is in a
  WP:NOTNEWS actually means. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn and Keep - (copy & paste from closing admin's talk page) It's notable because of the initial international news coverage, the free speech controversy that led to Flickr changing its takedown policy, and the image becoming a standard protest sign. Also, the first four paragraphs in this Los Angles Times article clearly states why the artist is notable.
  say that you love me 13:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn The topic meets all of our guidelines and consensus by !vote was to keep. That may well say more bad things about our guidelines than about the topic, but I don't see how to reach a delete outcome. Unlike S. Marshall I don't see a flaw in the debate and I don't think WP:UNDUE can be relevant to a standalone article giving undue weight to the topic itself. So I don't see any need for a relist. And the DrV nom does a good job explaining why NOTNEWS isn't relevant here. Hobit (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Again; Number of Votes Are Not the Decider. I was recently reminded of another idiot fad; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxxy's final tally ran roughly 40-30 keep-to-delete and it was still, rightly, deleted. Sources do not directly correlate to notability. Tarc (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that you chose an MZMcBride deletion from February 2009 to illustrate your point is a masterpiece of unintentional irony.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but who the closing admin was doesn't mean a thing to me, I guess I'm just not in the "in" crowd. Addressing the actual point would've been more helpful. Tarc (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Explanation: MZMcBride's deletion track record needs to be seen to be believed. His deletions against consensus early in 2009 were controversial, and on 1 March 2009 Arbcom accepted a case about him, which ended with Arbcom ordering him to follow deletion policy more closely. (He resigned the sysop bit during the Arbcom case, and has only just been re-elected as an administrator).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • To respond to Tarc, if there is no policy-based reason to delete, but a vast majority argues to do so, we generally delete. In this case, no valid policy-based reason was given that wasn't successfully refuted in the discussion. Even if that were true and 90% wanted to delete, we invoke
    WP:IAR and move along. But here we have a deletion with no reason grounded in policy (again as I read the debate) and with a majority wanting to keep. Thus no policy, including IAR applies so we keep. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn and Keep. The deletion discussion ended up being no consensus, bordering on keep. A clear majority of !votes favored keeping the material, and a plurality favored keeping as a standalone article. Many of the keep !votes offered a simple, accurate rationale: that the article subject met the GNG because of the extensive press coverage, accurately cited in the article. The keep !voters, mercifully, did not elaborate on this point at great length. The delete !votes were not "stronger," just sccompanied by longer/more verbose explanations. No one argues that the keep !votes were not grounded in policy. While a discussion closer has discretion in weighting arguments to the extent they may or may not reflect policy, the closer does not have the discretion to enforce his/her interpretation of policy when editors have reasonable and good faith differences over the ways it applies to particular articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - although I voted against keeping this article and still disagree that it is suitable content for a standalone article, the debate clearly reached no such consensus, and the "keep" votes were not unreasonable. This is at best a borderline case, and not appropriate for a decision by fiat. I am agnostic whether it should be "overturn and keep" or "overturn and re-list", but at the very least the conclusion should be overturned.
  talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and close as no consensus I voted delete, and I still want to see that article be placed in a bucket and sent to hell. But while I (and others too) want that, you also have to recognize that there's a substantial amount of people who want that article to be kept, and their arguments are more than simply "
  WP Physics} 14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and Keep: The suggestion that the keep votes were significantly weaker than the delete votes is just simply not true. Both sides have some badly written arguments. However, the only arguements consistently used for delete were WP:ONEEVENT, WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:N is not a valid reason for deletion because of all the sources available as seen on the userfied article and it's talk page. The strongest point against WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS is it's adoption by critics of Obama seeing as they use it at almost every protest and news coverage which means there is nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that could possibly cover the article. The poster is regularly mentioned in article's just about it [48][49], as well as being mentioned in other articles about critics of Obama. [50] (There was also a really good video link in the original talk page which I'll see if I can find.) _Met^ty 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote. Long-held policies like
  WP:UNDUE. A brief mention in some other article might be justified, but this is just too much. *** Crotalus *** 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and keep. This will sound like a textbook example of
  WP:NPOV
  states:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

And this article clearly meets significant views published by reliable sources. And the poster it is still being used as a flag by opponents of the Obama administration. Why would we have a

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I personally debunked 3 delete !votes of those "strong" rationales. --> RUL3R^*flaming_*vandalism 16:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn: I wasn't even notified of this even though I've moved it, declined a prod, and copyedited it into a short but well-worded aritcle. It's also on the right line of the uneducated opinions of Obama we have to cover. It's of enough weight and not instantly wrong to allow coverage on Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep; I can't see a consensus to delete there, all there was was a closer's supervote. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & Keep this article which satisfied all three of Wikipedia's core content policies (
  WP: NOR). This deletionism is a travesty, and the deleting admin overstepped when he closed a heated and non-concensus debate. - Draeco (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• overturn and keep Consensus for keeping is clear. Has gained long-term international coverage. Croatulus's argument about BLP holds no water since a) the only BLP issue is that someone made a dumb poster about Obama b) we have far more negative accusations about him that we think are fine c) as a matter of do-no-harm, the notion that harm will come to Obama because of a well-sourced article about this topic is absurd. BLP is not an excuse to override AfDs when it is clear that the community consensus is that there's no BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, at least until the closing admin makes the reasons for the decision reached a bit clearer. On the face of it, the debate appears to have resulted in no consensus, with a slight lean towards keeping. Many (but not all) of the reasons given by the Delete crowd were shown to be dubious, if not spurious, and while few posts on the Keep side were particularly well-written, the concerns raised were not adequately addressed. I'd not be against relisting the article for further debate, though. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. This would be a "no consensus" at best given that the majority !voted keep, and the comments were largely based on policies and guidelines with no evidence of sockpuppetry etc. If the closer thinks that some arguments are "significantly weaker" than others in such a heated debate, especially when closing against the majority, it would be extremely helpful to explain at length which arguments he means and why. --Itub (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn No consensus for deletion nor was there any clear policy violation that would have justified ignoring the consensus (or lack of it) in the AFD. Davewild (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and keep. I was shocked by the admin's casual and just plain wrong assessment of the debate. Jpatokal makes a very good argument here, and he also did so in the discussion. There was no consensus for deletion, nor did any of the deletion arguments presented have much merit. Lampman (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't like typing long rationales, so forgive me if I wasn't as verbose as the situation required. To begin with, the very nature of the article meant that the subject topic would be controversial. There would likely be editors voting in line with their political ideology less than their responsibility as a Wikipedia editor. Since at this stage everyone thinks I'm the biggest moron ever to close an AfD I'd like to take a moment to explain why the closure, in my opinion, was correct. Firstly, to clarify, while you are all getting up in arms about which bolded word I decided to put at the top of the page, the result wasn't, in practicality a delete. The article had already been merged to an extent to
  WP:NOTNEWS is automatically invalidated. The debate continues on: "Keep: The sources in the article show that the poster passes WP:N. I don't see why anyone would match a poster with WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)" Again, the issue of NOTNEWS has not been recognised, and the voters who used that as a rationale are at this stage the consensus. This sort of low level debate continues on without much highlights, save for two additional merge votes. We have a keep vote who agrees a merge will achieve the same end. We then have a late run of keep votes, who fail to do anything more than agree with whats been said. At this stage, whatever closure occurred was bound to end up here. Closing as keep seems like the easy option, the raw numbers agree with me, but the gut instinct over reading the argument says delete. While I was favoring no consensus for some time, I decided the merge compromise would at least keep everyone happy rather than the draw that is no consensus. Merging satisfied those who believed the event had notability, but also satisfied those who believed the notability was not enough to warrant its own article. Indeed, it was the only option that made sense. So I went to find a page that the information should be merged into, and found that a very helpful editor had done the work at Public image of Barack Obama. So, seeing it had already been merged, I closed as delete as thought nothing of it. At the least, it was my error for using the word delete, but the ends were the same. I'm happy to overturn it to a merge closure, but I stand by the decision that the material did not have consensus to have its own page and that merging was the right decision. Apologies for wasting everyones time. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's very helpful thank you. There's no need to apologize for wasting our time. DRV is part of the normal process of such and even if your decision is overturned I don't think anyone considers the decision to be so unreasonable as to think that you are at fault in any way. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Another Dark Knight reference can be found in the controversial "Obama Joker" poster, which depicts Obama as Batman villain Joker." is the only mention of Obama in the PIoBO article. Hardly a merge in any sense. The claims of WP:N and WP:OR, especially WP:OR were completely unfounded. WP:OR was not backed up with any evidence. The article is well sourced per User Talk:AgnosticPreachersKid/Barack_Obama_Joker_poster and indeed the sources in the article, which effectively ends the WP:N delete votes. WP:NOTNEWS - the only point on the list that could apply is 4:

Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event...

Routine news coverage, unless I am very much mistaken, does not continue to occur 2 months after the issue is first brought up. Unlike the Barack Obama Fly Swatting incident which gets no new news results, this article's subject continues to get mentioned in the news which means, based on WP:NOTNEWS we have a perfectly valid reason to create a new article. There is absolutely no basis in any of the deletion votes. _Met^ty 01:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and keep. While I understand \/'s closure, I note that the GFDL requires that we retain the history from the original article, through a redirect. Further, the rationale provided by the DRV initiator is a compelling argument to retain the article as a stand-alone article, rather than a redirect. Horologium (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  We've moved on from GFDL, in case you haven't noticed (-: Stifle (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  From the entry box for new articles: "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. " We still need to keep a complete record of the history, and if you think we need not do so, propose it at the village pump. DGG ( talk ) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the license change does not materially affect our on-wiki attribution requirements. However, no content was copied (see immediately below), so no attribution or page history is required. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Not, in fact relevant; we accept CC-BY-SA-only content that was previously published elsewhere. Our terms say "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details." As such, a merge providing the usernames of all the substantial contributors to the other article is sufficient. But this is not the forum to discuss that. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Was any content actually copied to Public image of Barack Obama? The diff of the addition reads differently from the cached version. Flatscan (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was not. I added that sentence to "Public image" before the AFD. Jpatokal (talk) 06:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the confirmation. Flatscan (talk) 04:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Having read \/'s detailed explanation and the AfD, I'm not persuaded that it was clear error to close as merge/delete.
  talk) 12:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]