Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February

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

I am 7shaquan and not to long ago a posted an article about the American Actress Ciara Bravo who is known as Katie on the nick show big time rush. Sadly my post was delted by an admin Cirt and he has also been deleting other articles of this name at a constant rate without a firm foundation on why he is doing so. I have asked him nicely to repost, but he continues to deny. He says that the article does not meet the notary standards, but I have managed more than once to prove this statement wrong to him, but he continues to be stubborn and so i ask you to please repost my article and show me that wiki is the civilized community it is thought to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 22:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion deleted by AFD just days ago: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ciara_Bravo Pretty unlikely the situation has significantly changed since then. The nominator is well aware of this, and even posted an obscenity-filled tirade in that very discussion (see this diff). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - there is no evidence that the AFD contained any defects, nor does it appear there is any material change in circumstance with regards to the issues noted in said AFD. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse While I understand that the user is upset after having spent time working on the page, it seems clear that the individual does not as yet currently meet our inclusion standards. I'm willing to change that opinion if we are presented with multiple, independent
  reliable sources about the individual. Until then, there's not much for us to do here. Consensus seemed clear and no new data has been presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn How Do I add new content to a deleted page--7shaquan (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't want to endorse above. You may want to look up what that word means. In this case, an endorsement is a confirmation of the deletion. Also, what you want to ask now shouldn't be adding content to deleted pages, since that's not going to happen unless you get this past DRV (this discussion). What you should be doing now is seeing if you can find other [[WP:|RS|reliable sources]] about the Ciara Bravo. If you can, then the deletion may be overturned. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • oh didnt know what it meant, but anyways everyone im really asking that you really reconsider I have 2 links for you to view about ciara bravo:[1][2]

Something else you can look at to determine the notary of the person is of coarse their twitter account, look at all of her followers:[3] If thats not enough for you then just look at the youtube vids being created for her:[4] [5] [6] And last but not least to show some of the media she has starred in: [7] [8] [9] Now Will you reconsider, are those enough references for you--7shaquan (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may help for you to read

our reliable sourcing policy. What we need are sources (like newspapers and magazines) that talk about Ciara Bravo. Blogs are not reliable sources. Having lots of twitter followers don't help us either. And IMDB is not in general a reliable source. Do you have say newspapers or magazines that talk about her? The Cincinnati source is getting towards what we need. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Here is another link that mentions her as a main character on big time rush [10] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7shaquan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just another article[11][12]--7shaquan (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Ok. That may be enough. My recommendation then is in your userspace to make a version of the article using these sources and that is wrll-written and demonstrates notability and then come back to us when that's done. If you need assistance with this, don't hesitate to ask me. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. If you haven't already gotten a copy userified, my recommended course of action would be for you to create a userspace draft, incorporating
  notability standards. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion and echo Jclemens's comments above mine. Orderinchaos 03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Please dont endorse if you look at my user page you will see I have constructed a draft version of the article, thanks Im sure it will change you mind go to User:7shaquan and check it out--7shaquan (talk) 04:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion consensus reached in AFD and correctly closed. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Accurate close that reflected the consensus in the AfD. The userspace draft has not rectified the concerns at the AfD; the sources in the draft are either passing mentions or unreliable sources. When this young actress gets some significant coverage in
  reliable sources, the article can be recreated. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

While the arguments given at the CfD were quite reasonable, two important aspects were omitted:
1.) It is that we have categories for every single of the 22 sub-continental regions defined by the

• I hate Cat discussions because I frankly am never sure I fully understand the arguments. That said, it appears as if PanchoS has made a very strong point about the UN geoscheme that wasn't brought up in the cfd. So relist to get a reaction to this. No real objection to an overturn either, but my sense is this deserves further discussion. Also, is there a deletion sorting or wikiproject that should be notified about this? It seems this type of cat really needs subject-area folks. Hobit (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. "Australasia" is not a region defined by the UN geoscheme. "Oceania" is, and as was brought up at the CFD, we have Category:Oceania. If there are concerns as to where Australasia should be categorized, Cat:Oceania seems to be a good fit. --Kbdank71 15:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite. The United Nations geoscheme for Oceania indicates that Oceania has subregions. One isn't called "Australasia", rather it is called Australia and New Zealand. But [13]. ICANN calls it Australasia [14]. See also: [15]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
• Endorse. So let me get this straight—the UN geoscheme uses a subregion it refers to as "Australia and New Zealand", which is referred to as "Australasia" by ICANN, and because of that we want to have a category for it called "Australasia"? To me, that makes little sense, for the following reason. In common parlance, "Australasia" ≠ "Australia + New Zealand", as the article Australasia readily indicates. (Australasia almost always includes the island of New Guinea and the other smaller islands of Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia.) This is not new information that needs to be reconsidered in a relisting. If you want a category for the geoscheme, obviously it would have to be called Category:Australasia (geoscheme), since you would be adopting a usage of the terminology that differs from the definition given in the main WP article. There were no other problems with the discussion or the close, and it still seems reasonable to me to use Category:Oceania for anything that would otherwise be placed in a non-disambiguated Category:Australasia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Irrelevant to the discussion, but I disagree with you regarding common parlance, in Australia anyway. Australasia is an old term, in dwindling usage, meaning Australia + New Zealand. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The OED cites 1940's Chamber's Technical Dictionary in stating that it includes "Australia, New Guinea, Tasmania, New Zealand, and the islands south and east of Wallace's line." Clearly, not all would agree that it's meaning is limited to AUS+NZ. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The limits of the usage is a different question. I have heard educated old people assert quite varied usages as proper. I think the term was never well defined. The citation you mention is in reference to fauna, and when speaking of fauna it is particularly difficult to draw a line between Cape York and the Territory of Papua but not between Australia and New Zealand. The common parlance that I commonly heard long ago was, with hindsight, a non blatantly-racist way to describe the predominantly white, British, English speaking nations of that region of the globe. In the 1970s, following half hearted regional paternalism, New Guinea was granted independence, and "Australasia" shifted to Australia + New Zealand. Looking up these things now I see that both terms Australasia and Oceania have been variably and poorly defined according to the writer's desired usage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Australasia is too broad and not clearly defined - the original AfD came to the correct conclusion on this. I don't believe the UN geoscheme is a suitable basis for resolving age-old discussions about continents and subcontinents, simply, because noone uses it. (I mean "Northern America"? "Middle Africa"? come on...) I mean, its definition for Eastern Europe leaves out several Warsaw Pact countries, its definition of Southern Europe is vague at best, East Africa in its schema can be extended to include Egypt and Sudan, and its definition of Melanesia includes Norfolk Island which is an Australian territory whose only Islander populations have been Polynesian. Where it does coincide with a commonly understood term (eg South and South-East Asia) it uses non-standard terms for them. This is *not* a reliable or useful categorisation system. Orderinchaos 02:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasonable discussion. Reasonable reading of consensus. If this were CfD2, I would say "While Oceania and Australasia are different terms, and each has and should have its own article, this differentness doesn't mean that there should be two categories. The overlap is too great. Overlapping categories confuse the category system". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse This was a reasonable interpretation of the actual consensus at CfD. The arguments for retention were made and rejected by those who participated in the CfD, and the new material raised here doesn't appear to merit overturning the consensus established. Alansohn (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw — partly convinced, partly overwhelmed by the unambiguous reactions. — PanchoS (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Instant Messenger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted under false assumptions by a disputed ex-admin!

1. While Simple Instant Messenger has been used to find sources, the correct lemma would be Sim-IM (or SIM Instant Messenger)!
2. Simple Instant Messenger is only used as description of the client, the name used is Sim-IM!
3. There are only three "Delete"-votes, all founded on low coverage. I get more than 600k hits...

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Restore Simple Instant Messenger and move it to Sim-IM! Don't restore Serverless Instant Messenger!

--phobie (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14#Simple Instant Messenger about this second DRV.

  Phobie, please strike the "disputed ex-admin" part of your nomination statement. This has no relevance to the validity of the close. Comment on the close and not on the closing admin, whom I've notified since you've failed to do so. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the prior review. I stroke out the unrelated facts. --phobie (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the opinions expressed by the proponents of "endorse" at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 14#Simple Instant Messenger, especially A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs)'s argument. Nothing new has surfaced to indicate that this software is now notable. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• How charming. I am not a disputed ex-admin, I am most certainly an ex-admin there is no dispute about that. Beyond that, there is no suggestion that I had the bit removed involuntarily and, in fact, I am specifically able to resume the role when I feel there are no longer any worries about my impulse control and anger flashes. These have absolutely nothing to do with wikipedia but reflect my real life situation which is extremely stressful and emotionally heated at the moment. So, thank you for the charmless and factually inaccurate nomination, but I'm not seeing any reason here for reversing the close. I suggest the nominator would be better placed reading
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sorry, I did not mean to offend you. Some of your admin-action were a bit moot and I wanted users to have a close look. --phobie (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close as settled by the last DrV. Userfy to Phobie if he wants it. As A Stop at Willoughby (talk · contribs) indicated in the last DrV, there may be enough sources to write an article that meets WP:N. I'd suggest the best way forward is to withdraw this DrV, apologize to Spartaz, and then write the article in userspace. Ask Spartaz or A Stop at Willoughby or someone else who hangs around DrV for feedback on your work and bring it back to DrV when either they think it's in reasonable shape. Hobit (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. DRV is not a platform to attack other editors. Oh, and endorse per the last DRV.
  talk) 17:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse and suggest speedy closure. DRV is not a platform to attack/insult other editors. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mixed view Had I noticed this during the first DRV, I think i would have opined to overturn. The analysis supporting the close depends on discounting the opinions of several !voters. One as a sockpuppet of a banned user, and several as having given weak reasons. But the entire issue here was notability, and in particular the sufficiency of the the cited sources to establish notability. It is conceded that there was coverage in an independent reliable source, the question was if that coverage was "substantial" enough. That is always a judgment call, there is no rule about how many words or sentences are required for substantial coverage. Therefore, the posters who opined "It meets notability requirements" and "Seems notable enough to have a mention somewhere" (after the question of the sources had been raised and disputed) should IMO be taken as finding the supplied sources sufficient to support notability, IMO that would mean that policy-based non-discounted views were 4 deletes to 3 keeps, with the strength of arguments reasonably closely balanced, not counting the sock and three more or less ILikeIt keeps. That sounds like a non-consensus close to me. All that said, however, the first FRV had a clear consensus to endorse the AfD close, and I see no gross error in it although I would have opined otherwise. For the matter of that, toe original AfD close, although incorrect IMO, was not wildly out of bounds. Thefore, the best way forward at this point, IMO, is to userfy or perhaps better
  Incubate the deleted articel, and allow improvement with the additional sources that Phobie writes of above or that Pcap wrote of in the first DRV. And I fully agree with the others here that starting a DRV by attacking the closer on an unrelated issue is uncivil and unhelpful. I also feel that running a second DRV on a given AfD discussion is not a practice that should be encouraged or rewarded. DES ^(talk) 02:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure. In the face of majority Keep arguments composed of mostly unsupported assertions and bad-faith accusations, this was a good closure. I would encourage an interested editor to
  notability can be demonstrated. This happened with CyanogenMod, deleted decisively for non-notability in its 2nd AfD, but kept unanimously in its 3rd AfD after a short stay in user space. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, no objections to userfication, same as my comments in the last DRV. Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mixed I have to agree with DESiegel above. While I !voted overturn in the first DRV and I certainly didn't agree with how Spartaz closed the AfD, I'm really not sure a second DRV will accomplish much. I certainly saw enough coverage where I felt the AfD close was wrong, but as others have said above the best way to address this will likely be to userfy the article and add the missing references. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure and last DRV, and a trout slap for the OP. Orderinchaos 03:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, this was a completely appropriate closure well within policy. JBsupreme (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy endorse. Providing links to searches is not enough. Attacking the closing admin is even worse.
  ping 17:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn as no consensus The close did not reflect the consensus of the actual participants and appears to be a supervote cast by the closing admin. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, proper weighing of the arguments. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People born on February 29 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closure of this page was not the result of a discussion but that of a poll as the closing admin based the closure on the numbers and not the weight of arguements presented. After requesting a review based on the arguements the admin responded that the consensus was to delete. Firstly the category meest the requirements of

• Endorse deletion. I'm not sure how User:Gnangarra has come to the conclusion that the closure was based on vote counting as opposed the contents of the discussion. I think the closure is reasonably reflective of the discussion that took place. Gnangarra was opposed to deletion in the discussion, but that doesn't mean that the closer's interpretation of the overall discussion was flawed. (Note: I participated in the discussion and was in favour of deletion.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Its simple the contents of the discussion were ignored, the category meets all community requirements. The closing admin has not explain what policy/guideline is the basis for deletion, even after a request therefore the only conclusion is the number of votes. Gnangarra 03:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, even if true that doesn't amount to the close being a pure vote count, which is what is sounds like to me you're suggesting. If you re-read the discussion, I think you'll find that there was discussion of applicable policies that would justify deletion. You can criticise other participants in the discussion for not focusing on the issues you thought were most relevant, but I don't think you can say that the closer did a vote count and ignored the contents of the discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Clearly the discussion and comments make it clear that this was the proper action in this case. Now if we were into vote counting then maybe there would be a reason to review the decision. I don't see where the contents of the discussion were ignored. Rather the soundness of the arguments were evaluated and a decision was made based on that. Remember that the precedent is to not classify user articles by birth day. In many person articles there are simply too many categories so you need to make a strong case as to why an exception should have been granted in this case. That case was not made. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  What precendent surely you dont mean the decision that was made not to link birth dates in articles. As 400-600(700) readers accessing the category each month is not enough for a category that is compliant with

  WP:CATEGORY, what then is the number that must be obtained? Gnangarra 04:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The precedent is all of the other birth date categories that do not exist. This has nothing to do with the article date linking issue. I don't even understand how that got dragged into this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, reasonable close. I can't find clear error.
  talk) 06:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, the closure was a good reflection of the balance of the arguments presented by participants in the debate.
  Bencherlite^Talk 07:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The best way of proceeding from here would be to have a general discussion on making 366 categories, automatically populated from the persondata. Plus 12 for the months. These no longer take maintaining. It's time we started taking advantage of what semantic features we do have. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that would not work, for two reasons. First, as of July 2009, only slightly more than 8% of biographies contained {{persondata}} (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata#Goals). Second, consensus seems to be against categorizing individuals by date of birth or month of birth; the only reason that there was any real disagreement regarding the February 29 category is due to the fact that the date February 29 only comes around once every four years. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  there's no novality factor in wanting the category ,what I see is 1) its being used regularly 2)birth day is defining in many societies particularly to those who are interested in

  most valuable piece of real estate on the internet devotes a section to events on a day including births categories are the best way collate the articles(including new articles) rather than incomplete lists especially now we no longer link to date pages from articles where such lists are found. Gnangarra 12:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  (1) Date of birth categories are not "used regularly"; to my knowledge, the Feb. 29 category was the only one that still existed. (2) Your argument seems to make no distinction between the concepts of "defining" and "interesting", yet "interesting" does not necessarily equate with defining. Date of birth is interesting for those who are interested in astrology, but that fact alone does not make it defining for the actual subjects of articles. (3) The purpose of the Main Page is to serve as a gateway to Wikipedia, and to highlight quality, new, or interesting content. The purpose of categories is to group related articles for the purposes of navigation. Given these vastly different functions, it is to be expected that all of the same principles do not apply to both. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I could find no indication, either in the closing statement or in the thread on the closer's page, to suggest that the closer merely counted !votes and ignored arguments. The "400-600 views per month" argument is not convincing as a "
  big number" has nothing to do with the suitability of a category to convey this type of information (e.g., Category:Russia (~550–850 hits) is not somehow more valid because it receives more pageviews than Category:Brunei (~250–300)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The category of 200+ is now a list of about 80, I'm convinced now that a category isnt a good way to convey this information. The 400~600 people using the category will just have to go elsewhere for the information. Well done folks, you can close this DRV anytime you want and can the last person to leave please turn off the lights... Gnangarra 12:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I oppose Gnangarra's request to close the DRV. It appears to be based on "the numbers and not the weight of arguments presented", because it offers no explanation of how Gnangarra has been persuaded, or of which arguments were persuasive. Furthermore, I oppose turning off the lights, because it's really hard to edit in the dark. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion While I voted Keep, consensus here from the usual suspects was for deletion. I support DGG's suggestion that we take advantage of persondata to categorize on a broader basis as a goal for categorization. Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closed accurately and in accordance with consensus. Stifle (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Deletion – per Alansohn, all of whose remarks above are sagacious.
  talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Kindly review the delition of this page. Because the person concerned is a notable figure. See the following webpages:

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

Karukayil (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Malformed DRV fixed. Endorse closure. As I've seen no reliable sources in the list above, keep salted.
  talk) 03:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse closure. Consensus was clear at AFD. No coverage in
  reliable, secondary sources have been brought forward. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Company who delivers online news. I think the Pobble page should be recreated following the launch of the new company in March. The company will be writing online PDF files and distributing them on the web. Despite previous reports the article is unnecessary, this new Pobble has nothing to do with the previous article.

 Done Although for future reference,

Wp:RFPP is thataway. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

List of Pixar film references (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AFD discussion appears to have been closed prematurely by the closing editor. I suggested on the admin's talk page that there didn't appear to be clear consensus to delete the page and that the discussion was still on-going - to which the admin simply replied with "consensus was to delete". The original AFD poster stated that there were a lack of proper citable references that proved the article was more than

• Overturn to "No Consensus" or relist. While there certainly are more Delete than Keep "votes", several of the Deletes are quite week. The strongest is TenPoundHammer's concerns about OR but the citation of secondary sources goes a long way to putting that to rest. User:Ginsengbomb's concerns in particular seem to be met in large part. Therefore I don't see that the (brief) relisting had garnered enough consensus to justify closure as delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- clearly within the limits of administrator discretion. Reyk _YO! 03:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Spent some time thinking about it. I agree that the close is within admin discretion (if just) as Reyk says. But a number of things about it bother me. #1 I think that the majority of closers would have gone with no consensus, and more would have chosen keep than delete. #2 It had just been relisted and there was no rush. This is anything but a clear discussion and waiting a bit longer might have cleared things up. #3 As a spin out article a "merge" result back to the parent almost certainly would make more sense than the delete (though not suggested by anyone in the discussion). #4 I find the argument that an existent specialized encyclopedia (even not independent) covers this material to be a very strong argument for keeping (probably more than most would). All that said weak endorse as I find the close to be within the bounds of admin discretion (though the lack of a closing statement or willing to clarify the issue is troubling) but I think the ideal thing would be if Cirt were to undo the close and let discussion continue. Hobit (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn as it looks like a no consensus and I do not see a compelling need to have redlinked. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse although not clear enough consensus at first, after the relist there was really no doubt. Certainly within admin discretion in any case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Overturn there does not seem to have been any consensus. When there is no consensus, the admin is supposed to say so. The admin is not supposed to take that as an opportunity to close according to his own view of the matter. If he wants to express his view, he should join the discussion and let someone else close. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse- honestly, I have to agree with a lot of Hobit's reasoning. The close was certainly within admin discretion (although to be fair, if I were an admin and I was tasked with closing that afd, I would have run away screaming). That said, there were some sources provided in the AFD that could be used to create a properly sourced article that overcomes the concerns of those who were on the side of deletion. Therefore I'm thinking that, while Cirt's close is certainly reasonable, perhaps we should allow either incubation or userfication to allow someone to work on the article and bring it up to standards, with the caveat that it be brought back here for approval before going back to main space. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's fair. Not the right outcome in this case (we delete things because the topic doesn't meet our requirements, not because the article doesn't), but given where we are an acceptable one. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per Cirt's failure to provide a closing rationale. It looks a lot more like no consensus to me, and Cirt doesn't make a case for his closing, hence it should be overturned and remanded for further discussion. Note that this should have been DELSORT'ed appropriately in order to increase relevant participation. Jclemens (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn decision per nominator comments, I see a no consensus. PamelaBMX (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Summary:

TenPoundHammer Delete changed to improve. (1-0, Keep)

Ginsengbomb: Weak delete/improve. (1-1)

Pontificalibus: Delete. (1-2)

SpikeJones: An obvious improve. (2-2)

Pejorative.majeure: Keep and improve (3-2)

WesleyDodds:Delete. (3-3)

Andromedabluesphere. Keep. (4-3)

Robofish: Delete/merge. (4-4)

IMHO, Cirt acted prematurely. There's no clear consensus and if there is one, it's clearly in the favor of improving the article, not arbitrarily removing it.Pejorative.majeure (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bad faith part you should strike. You can disagree with his conclusion without attacking the person... Hobit (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree that the bad faith comments and the attacking of individual contributors is inappropriate. I have restored the page to its original location. I have relisted it back at AFD for additional discussion. This deletion review discussion can now be closed. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Thank you, David at [email protected] -- 99.16.0.21 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I am a Wikipedia admin, and I have just now looked at the page as the content was before it was deleted back in 2005. There was no mention of Vee Jitsu, martial arts, a Professor Visitation (I assume this is
  biographical standards), although you will have to register a Wikipedia account and be logged in to create the page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Incidentally, I don't know who you mean when you refer to the "above contributors (not Admins)". User:Bradeos Graphon, User:Mirv, and User:Dvyost are all administrators on the English Wikipedia, and they were admins back in 2005 when they deleted the prior versions of the page (as they would have to have been; non-admins can't delete pages). I have no idea whether they are involved in any martial arts, but that would not have influenced their decision to delete the page anyway, because, as indicated above, the versions they were deleting had no martial arts-related content. The page itself was created by an IP user whose IP address appears to be from a school district -- in other words, probably some teenager making fun of a classmate by posting a fake biography of him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The article must have been about a different Jose Velez than the one the nominator has in mind. That said, I think
  Jose Velez should redirect to the José Vélez article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Mark Dearey has been elected to the upper house of the Irish National legislature. He was a local politician but now has ascended. Many references in national news and TV.[21] [22] [23] zero=>hero[24] MoyrossLADY (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article was deleted because as a local councillor he did not meet

talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Restore article .The deleted article has information that could be used as the base of the new one., though of course the new notability should be emphasized. I think we could close this now. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore due to new facts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this and next passing admin to do the needful If I were still an admin I would have voided the AFD and restored the article on the basis of new information but since I'm not it just needs any passing admin to do this for me please. DGG - I think no-one would object to you doing this as my proxy even though you voted.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

I am the principal author of this entry, which was deleted essentially because of lack of notability of the subject. Not agreeing with the decision to delete, I have done further work to provide evidence that the subject is indeed notable. A new version of the article currently resides at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GBataille/Keyontyli_Goffney. Goffney has received significant coverage in the mainstream media, not only in connection with his crime spree but also for his life-story and career in general. (The article in Details, in particular, covers Goffney's entire career.) Sometimes LGBT- and, in particular, porn-related articles receive particular scrutiny by the Wikipedia community. That is understandable; on the other hand, such scrutiny should not prevent the legitimate documentation of these issues. I submit that anyone who has been featured several times in television newscasts, on Saturday Night Live (even if only in a minor role), in ads of companies such as Nike, in a national mainstream magazine, AND in numerous gay pornographic publications is indeed notable. GBataille (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you're confident your new version addresses the details as set out in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keyontyli Goffney, then just move your current version to the mainspace. I don't think there's anything for DRV to look at here. (I've corrected the article title). GedUK  16:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I voted for deletion before, but I think in view of the present sources, it would be a clear keep. I see you already followed Ged's good advice, so the case here is moot. DGG ( talk ) 20:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina fringe theories (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as "keep" with no closing rationale. While there was a numerical landslide in favour of keeping the article,

• Comment - might you consider discussing this first with the closing administrator? I can assure you that he would be more than willing to talk about it and would likely make proper amends :) -Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see User talk:Arbitrarily0#Deletion review for Hurricane Katrina fringe theories - considering the discussion been already listed, it might as well be let to finish. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close- A closing statement might have been nice, but the consensus was accurately read. And yet again I should point out that DRV is still not AFD round 2. 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse though a closing statement, even retroactively placed, wouldn't hurt. I'd say consensus and policy were on the side of keeping. Hobit (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but probably this would not have been necessary if a full closing explanation had been given in the first place. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close the consensus at AfD leaned strongly towards keep and the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy a claim of notability. No evidence that the close violated policy. Alansohn (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. The material is somewhat sourced (could use more inline refs). The arguments in the AfD were if the collection of all info is worthy of an article or not. Both pro and con arguments were brought. Closing outcome was within admin discretion.
  ping 09:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: it's saddening to see people just endorsing the close just because of the abundances of "keep" votes. As I said when listing this review: no argument in the AfD really argued that the theories were notable; they
  just said that they were. I even argued that the vast majority were not! Neither did anyone argue that the theories hence covered were "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Thus, the article should have been deleted despite the abundance of "keep" votes because the arguments for deleting were really the only ones given. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse; I think that participants in the discussion evaluated the claims made by Sceptre and judged them to be lacking; while Sceptre characterizes the people cited in the "divine retribution" section as "religious demogogues", the participants in the discussion disagreed. I would describe the AFD as an effective discussion in which the nominator's claims about the article were addressed head-on and rejected by the community. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Except that, no, that's not what happened at all. Two of the "keep"s were kneejerk "

  better here than there". Umbralcorax's vote made assumptions that the sourcing of the article was acceptable, and I showed that it wasn't. Infrogmation's "keep" vote... was actually quite a good argument. He argued for an retooling of the article to make it more acceptable for Wikipedia. It's a shame that no-one else followed him up on that. And, in fact, the AfD actually doesn't really touch on the "divine retribution" section, and where it did, reactions to the section were universally negative. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment I don't have any opinion on the deletion discussion, but it looks like Sceptre has removed all content from the article, which doesn't seem appropriate to me. Calathan (talk) 21:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted those changes per
    WP:BRD. Hobit (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • See the talk page; I removed the content by applying policy fairly to it. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As it's pretty clear that you disagree with the consensus about this article, I'd suggest it would be wisest not to apply your interpretation of policy to it unilaterally. It's pretty clear that you are a bit out-of-sink with everyone else on this topic. Hobit (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this is an indication that the AfD process is out-of-sync with policy than anything else. It's nearly impossible to get articles like this, which shouldn't exist, but do, and carry problems which everyone cries "will be fixed because there's no deadline" but never do get fixed, deleted at AfD because of the poisonous ultra-inclusionist culture there which would probably keep libel on the site if it had half the chance. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spectre, I accept that I'm an inclusionist in general, (though hardly an ultra- one, considering I've done almost 10,000 speedy deletions), but I do not think this could be said of everyone else here, or everyone who said keep during the afd. Personally, I think we have a deletionist culture, though not an ultra-deletionist one. while most deletionists think the opposite. . In general, when each of two sides are dissatisfied with the balance, the balance is likely to be pretty fair. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD shows that people do not look at an article before electing to keep, and neither do the people who close the AfD. That, and silly maxims such as "Don't demolish the house while it's still being built". And really, DGG? You're an inclusionist I would prefer to work with on someone; you seem to be pragmatic and accept that some articles just can't belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia needs more inclusionists like you, not the inclusionists that run the show and don't even admit Wikipedia has problematic content. So, basically, you're the Olympia Snowe of inclusionism :) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – Correct read and determination of consensus (which was keep). –MuZemike 22:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I'm not convinced that I would have argued for keeping if I had seen the original AfD but the consensus here seems pretty clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Overturn speedy and list at AfD. The speedy deletion template used does not say which article this supposedly duplicates, but it seems that Title 18 of the United States Code and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are what are linked to in discussions. Looking at these articles and the deleted article, it doesn't seem obvious to me that the latter duplicates either. The argument raised by the nominator is that it is good to have a general overview article for these related topics, which on the face of it seems like a good idea to me, and really needs to be seriously considered. In cases like this, speedy deletion is never appropriate and so this should be taken to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at AfD, or userfy as a reasonable request. The deletion summary "‎ (A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, [[:{{{article}}}]])" is unclear on what the existing article is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at AfD if desired. Not a clear A10 and the deleting admin's response wasn't helpful in clarifying it. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and optionally list at AfD. This is the sort of use of A10 that I and the others opposing it anticipated would happen; fortunately, such misinterpretation is rare--the overall results using it have been much better that I thought they would be. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• What's the article it supposedly duplicates?
  talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn speedy. No indication what article it duplicates. It's sufficiently non-obvious that an AfD should have been opened instead to allow discussion.
  ping 09:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn – I also am not seeing how A10 was properly applied here. If the CSD-tagger wishes to further pursue deletion, then AFD would be the way to go here. –MuZemike 22:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn not clear which article this material was copied from, the deleting admin hasn't said despite being given a chance to do so. Even if the material is covered in another article this one was sufficiently detailed that the "does not expand upon, detail or improve information" part of A10 probably won't apply. This is not what A10 was intended for and another process should be used. Hut 8.5 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn The edit summery of the application of the A10 tag says "Material covered elsewhere across many other articles". That alone should mark it as not a valid A10 apeedy. A10 is intended for exact copies of existing articles, and for attempts to create an article at a new name when there is an existing article on the same subject. It is not for summery style articles, or other cases where new articles overlap with existing articles, but cover a different range of information or from a different aspect. An A10 speedy tag ought to indicate a single specific article that the tagged article is redundant to, and in the absence of such an indication (or the ability of the reviewing admin to find and indicate such an article) should be declined. DES ^(talk) 15:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was speedy deleted by Nyttend as a G4 after JBsupreme initiated a MfD. I attempted to discuss this with Nyttend before bringing this to DRV [25] without resolution. [26] If Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wishes to maintain his biography in his own userspace it is his prerogative to do so. While I think someone should have offered to userfy the David Mertz article for Lulu during or after the third AfD, a G4 deletion was improper. As I understand it, Lulu largely wrote the David Mertz article so there is also not a GFDL licensing/attribution issue here since he was the original author (and if Nyttend disagreed then a simple userfication/history merge would have resolved it). Considering this AN/I discussion regarding the third AfD, the reasoning JBsupreme used as justification for initiating a MfD for the bio page in Lulu's userspace is also questionable at best. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why should G4 not be considered to apply to userspace? "Should have offered" is insufficient reason to say that we can repost content that was deleted by consensus. There was never an attempt to userfy this page, so this was a clear example of reposting deleted content; and regardless of the motives of JBsupreme (about which I have no opinion), this would properly have been tagged for deletion by any other editor. I'm totally uninvolved in any controversies involving JBsupreme: it had been a long time since I had last run across JBsupreme, and I'd never heard of User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters or of David Mertz until this came up. Nyttend (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Editors matter --Tothwolf (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Policy trumps essays. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think your comment of "Policy trumps essays." is rather uncalled for here. It is also somewhat ironic given
        WP:BITE is a guideline intended mainly for newcomers, deleting Lulu's bio in his userspace is akin to biting a well established editor. This sort of thing could very well alienate someone who has otherwise been an excellent contributor to a point where they walk away from the project in disgust. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Question/Comment/Whatever- How is this user posting this page any different from having a previously deleted article userfied for the purpose of bringing it up to Wiki standards? If this was
  G4 eligible, why aren't those? And if those aren't, why was this? Umbralcorax (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oh, and OVERTURN- Let me actually add a vote based on comments after mine. A

good faith, difficult as it may be) vindictive tagging for deletion, even though they had practically zero grounds for it. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Kindly refrain from the personal attacks. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Boneheaded" refers to your deccision, not you. I phrased it that way for that very reason. And while I'm sorry if you take offense at it, I stand by my feeling that the decision was a downright bad one. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (relist at MfD) Improper speedy. An AfD doesn't authorise a userspace G4. These improper speedies are damaging to the project, and there is no harm in letting an MfD run its course. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist
  deletion policy). (mine emphasized)" The only part of G4 that could justify speedy deletion is that which I have bolded. Having seen Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs)'s work here on Wikipedia, I do not believe that he created the page to circumvent the deletion policy. The GFDL attribution concerns are valid though, so a resolution to this would be to restore all of the revisions of David Mertz and userfy it to User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Bio. Cunard (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Kindly observe that the content was not moved: it was recreated after deletion. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the content was recreated after deletion, so speedy deletion could be justifiable under {{
      db-copyvio}} but a way to resolve the GFDL attribution concerns, is, as I said above, to undelete David Mertz and userfy it. Cunard (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Actually, the copyvio/GFDL "concern" is pretty nonsensical here. Despite the misunderstanding above, I did not write very much of the bio (the bit that I did was before the guidelines on autobiography existed. But whoever wrote it, it is entirely material contributed to WP under GFDL; there is no conceivable copyright issue in using the same content on a different namespace on WP that falls under exactly the same license tersm. Moreover, even if I write some brand new content (on whatever topic, not necessarily biographical) on my user page, that material is itself GFDL licensed, and equally usable in any Wikipedia namespace (assuming it is relevant, of course... but user-space might be used for drafts, or to collect quotes, or to work out formatting, or whatever). LotLE×talk 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a concern exactly because it was GFDL-licensed and you did not write it. GFDL requires attribution for everyone who edited the page, which is normally in the page history. Since you reposted the material without the page history, there is a GFDL violation. QED.
          talk) 19:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Overturn and relist. The fact that the text is in a different means that it is almost per se a page "to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies", because most policies and guidelines have different force in different namespaces.
  talk) 08:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn of course. This is a userspace bio that a Wikistalker nominated purely out of malice (and perhaps because JBsupreme noticed LotLE was offline for the week, and might not notice the speedy... as proved the case). LotLE×talk 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Userification of the deleted article space bio is probably better. I copied over the text, being a non-admin, but having the history is obviously cleaner. LotLE×talk 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy overturn. This bio is within the bounds of what is permissible.
  talk) 13:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and userfy the originally deleted article to keep history for licensing purposes. Certainly within the realm of reasonable to have your own bio in your userspace. Hobit (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and userfy the originally deleted article to keep history for licensing purposes. (I just broke GFLD by copying the above line from Hobit, lol.) Seriously, we allow other editors to keep a lot more personal info in their user space. Just look the subpages of
  ping 08:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn speedy, restore and userfy, and reopen/relist MfD. It seems that a number of participants here should review WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, restore and userfy deleted article, and merge history. Many wikipedias have more or less extansive nis on their user pages, I see no objection to this as similar even if never readied for the article namespace, and if the author wants to try to fix it up so that it would be acceptable for mainspace, why not? the usual practice is that any admin may restore and userfy and deleted page on request that is not a copyvio, attack page, or other content that is improper even in userspace. DES ^(talk) 15:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Userspace is not mainspace, nor are userspace essays required to neet mainspace requirements. Collect (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The rationale used would be sufficient to delete any userified content at any time, which is silly. Restart the MfD. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"(cited sources do not support article)" Rturtle (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle The article Mindful Eating was deleted without discussion by DragonflySixtyseven for the reason "(cited sources do not support article)". I have discussed the issue with DragonflySixtyseven but am unable to get a clear statement of why this would qualify for speedy deletion without discussion. The admin suggested I discuss the matter with other admins. Then later suggested he would, but has yet to resolve or explain the issue. I have made repeated offers to provide additional references for any subject matter in the article and made an effort to clarify book references, included in the article, that were possibly overlooked by the admin.[reply]

Doing way too many things at once, sorry. I'll put it back in his userspace right now. DS (talk) 05:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring it to my userspace, but I am unclear as to what the next step is. I realize this article needs some work and better references, but is it my responsibility to do this before it can be put back in main, or can it be put back in main now to allow others to collaborate on improving the article? Rturtle (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle[reply]

comment. In your userspace it is generally your responsibility to do the main work on an article.

Inubation is a relatively new process that is more focused on collaborative improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm afraid that doesn't really clear it up for me. I realize the article could benefit from more work, but is it acceptable to move it back into main as is? Am I to understand that this is at my discretion now? If that is the case then this DRV can be closed. If that is not the case, can anyone give me some guidance on what specifically needs to happen before it can be moved back to the main? Thank you.Rturtle (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)rturtle[reply]

Before you move it back, you need to deal with the problems that caused it to be deleted in the first place. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no point in restoring it until it has been further improved, as I do not see how it could pass AfD at present , but the deletion rationale is clearly wrong. I note that the admin who deleted it has a reluctance to use the standard reasons -- from the log "silliness" "homework" "Notability is based on unsourced claims, and on claims from unreliable sources" DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't understand what I mean by "cited sources do not support article" ? DS (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted, mostly per DGG. No point to engage in further process wonkery.
  talk) 10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Userfication is, of course, permitted as a matter of course, and I see no reason why this is one of the rare exception.
    talk) 01:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Permit recreation in user space I am very reluctant to specifically endorse a clearly erroneous administrative active--it sends the wrong message. A close such as i suggested fulfills both the end of sending the right message about deletion process, and about the article, which is not ready for mainspace--I think it would be possible to make an article on this, though I do not plan to try myself , at least not immediately. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC) .[reply]
• overturn as a clearly improper speedy. However, since it has been userfied, let it stay there until the creator has done enough work to allow this to be rather more likely to survive an AfD. Were this moved back to mainspace today, and put up for Afd at once, it might well be deleted unless improved during the AfD. Oh, and to
  requests for feedback, or from one or more experienced editors, such as DGG. DES ^(talk) 15:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Only Exception (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hi, I would like to contest the deletion of the page entitled "The Only Exception". While the single is just released, it has significant notability because it's been confirmed as a third single, it's released a music video, also I've written what I considered to be a good enough article for the song (which can be viewed here from my user sandbox). In my opinion I think this page should be allowed to be made (I made one before under the title "The Only Exception (song)" but it was deleted and I was told to contest it's deletion here. In the articles deletion discussion page in January 2010, it stated that the reason the page was deleted was because there were no reliable sources, in February reliable sources confirmed that the song would be released as a single, among other things about the song, so seeing as though that was the main factor in the page being deleted I think that it should be allowed to be remade. Thanks, Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 03:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse:Original decision was correct. Proposer needs to read
  WP:NSONG, as that is the test that the article has to pass.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Having looked at the sandboxed article, it appears to have sufficient content to be larger than a stub, as well as sufficient coverage in reliable sources (
  talk) 13:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

O Rly? Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article.... Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Given that this song has not been released yet, it would appear that the above cannot apply. No objection to recreating the article when the single gets into the Top Ten. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the song itself had significant coverage I'd say meeting WP:N would be enough. At a fairly quick glance the coverage is mostly about the album, with minimal significant coverage of the song itself. So I disagree about the general case, but agree in the specific. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fairy snuff. I can't deny that the next single by Elvis will be way notable enough well before it's released :) but in this case, I don't think it quite makes it. Crystal Clear should hang on to the userspace draft - if it charts significantly, there shouldn't be a problem.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a moot point, but if WP:N were met for a single, an article would be justified by policy... Hobit (talk) 05:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, if the single has become notable for reasons other than

WP:NOTNEWS is a consideration - record companies always want to generate buzz before a single is released, and this promotion of itself does not indicate notability - but there are other ways to achieve notability. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: This topic has been
  salted due to recreation about 10 times (not by Crystal Clear) since the AfD.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse The debate was closed correctly. There is no indication that the song passes
  WP:NSONGS. It has not received independent coverage of the album. Cunard (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Hi

I am writing to request an undeletion for the page I entered about the English football fanzine cfcuk. It seem (I think) that I made the initial mistake of saying that the cfcuk fanzine was ‘notable’, not realising that ‘notability’ is an extremely important Wikipedia term.

The page consisted of a brief history about the cfcuk football fanzine and a review of whom it has interviewed, it’s ‘standing’ amongst the Chelsea support by way of personalities visiting the matchday stall from where it is sold (prior to and after Chelsea home matches) and also some information concerning the ‘special editions’ that have been published and also its relevance to both the club itself and the supporters.

Whilst I understand that I cannot ask why fanzines from other football clubs are allowed to stay within the Wikipedia website and the cfcuk one isn’t, I must say that I feel it is, nevertheless, somewhat unfair considering I feel that all the reasons that were cited for the deletion were answered with reasonable sources and explanations quoted each time.

I hope that, after reading this, you will reconsider your decision and reinstate the afore mentioned and now deleted cfcuk page.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You allowed just 12 minutes from asking the closing admin to reconsider the decision before listing here. What chance did he have of looking at your request in that amount of time?

Notwithstanding that, deletion review is a venue to indicate where the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a chance for a de novo hearing, nor for a second bite at the cherry in the hope of getting a different opinion.

WP:WAX is generally, and properly, not considered a strong argument, and the debate closed with strong support for deletion. Endorse closure. Stifle (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse. The consensus at the AfD was clear that the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the fanzine does not meet the
  general notability guidelines. The only apprent claims to notability presented in the AfD were 1. archival at the British Library - as noted, the British Library archive a copy of all publications, regardless of notability. This is not therefore an indicator of whether a publication is notable or not. 2. uniquely low cover price - this claim was not only a very weak (as noted) but it was also refuted. Could not have been closed any other way. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueblagger (talk • contribs) 19:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (Merge and redirect to Chelsea F.C.) per ChrisTheDude at AfD, a good and valid !vote not considered by any of the "delete" !voters. As this novel !vote was the last, the closer should have considered it and commented on it explicitly, if it should be dismissed. The notability guidelines do not state that material judged to fail should be deleted, just that it shouldn't be an article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was unsourced (see Google cache) so per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the material could not have been merged. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The cache version contains a reference and a link to the primary source, easily sparing it from mandatory deletion per WP:V, and there is no barrier to merging the content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the correction. I did not notice the book reference which provides the verifiability needed. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion The closer accurately assessed the consensus in the discussion. However, undelete and redirect to Chelsea F.C. if a willing editor can find reliable sources to verify the content in the article. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The consensus in the discussion was to delete but a merge is acceptable per
  WP:PRESERVE. I endorse JForget's close as an acceptable reading of the consensus but support an undelete and redirect to Chelsea F.C. so the content can be merged. Cunard (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse close. No objections to a redirect.
  talk) 10:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse delete close, but allow
  WP:PRESERVE should trump all the deletes. If a consensus for merging is formed at Talk:Chelsea F.C., the Cfcuk page history can be restored in article space. Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse close the consensus was clearly to delete and that consensus was well within policy. However there is no reason not to permit userfication. (Indeed as one of the admins willing to userfy on request, I'll do it once this DRV closes if asked, unless the DRV develops a consensus to prohibit userfication in this case.) If the author can find additional evidence of notability, it can always be moved back to article space later. A merge (following an undelete and redir) would also be an acceptable outcome. DES ^(talk) 15:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Flatscan, certainly no !vote trumps, but here it looks like none of the "delete"rs considered the merge option, possibly they were unaware of the suggested target. The closer should have at least made some comment. I would not point people to WP:PRESERVE, but to
  WP:BEFORE/4, which can be done without additional sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That none of the deletes mentioned a possible merge target is a fair point. As an example, I would endorse a merge close for 3 deletes versus 3 merges, if the deletes came first and failed to argue against merging. It's nice when closers include possible ways forward in their statements, but I did not expect that here. Since there was a consensus to delete, I would prefer that a consensus for the merger be developed before implementing it. Flatscan (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DES, consensus is clear in the AfD that the article should not exist as a stand alone article. Based on existing sources, it would be wrong to allow it back as a stand alone article, but reasonable to userfy for new sources, or to to undelete the history for a merge and redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  SmokeyJoe, I think we are in violent agreement here. I said "endorse close" which means endorsing that the consensus was to delete. I never suggested allowing it to be recreated as a standalone article in the form deleted. In case i wasn't clear, i suggested that it could either be a) userfied for the creator to attempt to find citations to reliable sources that would establish notability. If, and only if, the creator finds such sources and adds them to a draft, the article could be moved back to mainspace. b) Alternatively, the article could be restored and promptly converted to a redirect, and any useful and verifiable content merged with the redirect serving to preserve attributions (along with a use of {{copied}}). Was it not clear from my comments that those were the options, and the only options, I was suggesting? DES ^(talk) 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't remember what the point of my post was, I think my head was fuzzy. I agree with Flatscan and and DES. I agree with Flatscan that a consensus at Talk:Chelsea F.C. could be sought before undeleting so as to merge, and Blueblagger (talk · contribs) would be well encouraged to do this, because no, this article should not be restored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The redirect

• Keep deleted Precedent for BLP names is, indeed, well set. R3 was tagged by another user, the article had been recently moved from an improper name (small case second) to a properly capitalized version. (
  BWilkins ←track) 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn, RfD if desired. It may be useless, but it is not implausible, and therefore not speediable.
  talk) 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn per Tim Song, redirects from titles that are entirely lowercase (apart from the case insensitive initial letter) are never implausible, so they are never speedy deletable under criterion
  WP:CSD#R3. RfD at editorial discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. All lowercase is an obvious case for a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Hello - this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beefeaterdrinker/Sandbox has had a substantial rewrite including the addition of 13 inline citations, linking to 2 BBC pieces, competition wins, high scores in blind tastings etc. In a previous incarnation, the reasons for deletion were due to notability, and I would appreciate guidance as to whether this article can now be relisted, and any further work that needs to be done, relisted or not. I am not sure where to get a copyright free picture for the infobox, for example. Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to mainspace I'd not seen previous drafts, and in the last DrV others claimed a COI issue. The current version, while somewhat promotional, is perfectly fine and I find it to be very well sourced indeed. Hotel and Caterer, Financial News, Imbibe, and Wired all seem to have coverage in some detail (though the Wired is the UK edition and quite short). Hobit (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to mainspace. I've been coaching Beefeaterdrinker on what the article needs to make it notable—and to get it improved enough that it's no longer a substantial copy of the article deleted at WP:Articles for deletion/Sacred Gin (2nd nomination). The breadth of the covering sources (even though some of them, like the Wired story, aren't deep enough to support the article on their own, they play supporting roles and show the company is getting widespread attention) suggests to me that the article now meets WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 13:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to mainspace The userspace draft demonstrates that the subject has received enough coverage in reliable sources to pass the
  WP:NPOV. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Move to mainspace. (I previously deleted this as a reposting of an article that failed AfD and advised deletion review.) I haven't traced the links but if these editors are satisfied, I am too; thanks are due to the individuals who gave us a useful article after a few false starts. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thankyou for your positive comments. Is it too early to "Move to mainspace"? Or does this process continue for a while? Given that Accounting4Taste was the deleting Administrator, is it his/her responsibility to do this? thanks Beefeaterdrinker (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This process lasts seven days, so the userspace draft will be moved to mainspace no later than that time. An administrator could, however, restore this article immediately because
  WP:CSD#G4 no longer applies. Cunard (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Deleted with only five !votes? Doesn't sound like much in the way of consensus to me. Also, bear in mind that delete !votes were in the minority. jgpTC 22:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - the opinions in favour of deleting made sound arguments in line with
  administrative discretion. Guest9999 (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I would add that per the well reasoned comment of User:A Stop at Willoughby below I would also have accepted an outcome of Merge/Redirect. Guest9999 (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I had nominated this article for deletion, so I'm not going to !vote here. I suggest a userspace draft if you think it's going to pass
  ping 02:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. The article's sources were either not independent or didn't help establish notability. They were [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and [32]. Thus, the "delete" recommenders, who said there were no sources that established notability, seem to have had the better argument in the AfD discussion. However, the article should be allowed to be re-created if notability can be established at a later date. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. It's not the number of !votes which count; it's the arguments presented. The arguments to delete may have been in the minority, but they all pointed to the lack of reliable, independent sources establishing notability. The arguments to keep the article were mostly along the lines of, "But look at how many pretty features it has!" —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - three editors quoting policy to explain why it's notable vs two editors who think the features are really cool and that it might be notable someday. I can't see how the closing admin could have judged the consensus differently, A userspace draft is probably the way to go - I've had some hopefuls in my userspace for months waiting for that notability barrier to be broken . . . --
  otherlleft 13:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to merge/redirect To be clear: I agree with all of the above commenters regarding the substance of the debate in this AfD. The arguments presented in the debate by those seeking deletion were indeed stronger, as they were rooted in policies such as
  alternatives to deletion. In this AfD, Honeyman recognized that this subject have its own article was inappropriate, but also realized the value of merging or redirecting to preserve information and the revision history of the article. Therefore, while there was a consensus to no longer have an article about Rekonq, it would have been most pragmatic (and policy-compliant) for the closing admin to have taken Honeyman's suggestion and merged or redirected. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment from closing admin. Just to clarify, User:jgp' s statement that "delete !votes were in the minority" is incorrect. There were three delete !votes, two keep votes, and one "Merge/redirect to WebKit?" Those arguing for deletion made guideline-based arguments. One of the two arguing to keep said "It is probably not very notable yet, but it is in very active devellopment." That's not an argument that an article should currently exist. The other basically said it has lots of neat features, so should be kept. That's not a strong argument to keep it either. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse the delete !votes were stronger. I've done some looking and I found a few sources that would help a little, but not enough to keep an article in my opinion. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. When deletion and keeping "votes" are roughly balanced, there is a duty on the closing administrator to investigate whether arguments were based in policy, and give higher weight to those that are. Bzhb's argument, in particular, was a good argument for deletion despite that it was prefixed with a bold "keep". Stifle (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Individual server rules in Four Square (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

temporary review so we can copy content to community website I would like to request a temporary review of Individual server rules in Four Square. I am a member of Squarefour, a Four square league that meets in Boston, and we would love to have the 300 or so deleted rules and variations on our website. I have tried in vain to recover the material from Google Cache and Archive.org's Wayback Machine. The material and work that went into it is otherwise lost.

We would really appreciate it if someone could either have the article restored to my userspace, or emailed to me at my username at gmail, whichever is easier for you.

As a fellow contributor, thank you for your attention, time, and continued service. -kslays (talk • contribs) 20:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy close not really a matter for DrV. An admin should either userfy or otherwise get the material to Kslays unless there is some (highly unexpected) reason not to (BLP, etc.) . Hobit (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored it to User:Kslays/Individual server rules in Four Square. This can be closed now. Fences&Windows 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Obama World (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Endorse per default since the request does not argue why the AfD closer assessed consensus incorrectly. DRV is not AfD round two.  Sandstein  14:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion was ended prematurely. I don't know if that carries any weight. -- Yekrats (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Consensus was clearly to keep. J04n(talk page) 14:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On second thought, the AfD was closed after only one day, I suggest you ask the closing admin to reopen the discussion to allow more time for other views. J04n(talk page) 14:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• On third thought...I was a bit of a bonehead on my last response forgetting what year it is. Agree with Metropolitan90 below on bringing it back to Afd. J04n(talk page) 16:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep but allow re-nomination at AfD. The AfD was more than a year ago, so there would be no point in re-opening that particular AfD. However, if User:Yekrats believes that there is a good reason to delete the article, they should feel free to re-nominate it, providing a detailed explanation as to why the decision in the prior AfD was wrong and why the sources in the article are inadequate to establish notability, even though they may appear to do so. (Keep in mind that the hundreds of other Flash games about Obama may not have received as much coverage in reliable independent sources as this one did. I don't pay that much attention to Flash games myself, so I wouldn't know from personal knowledge.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist In hindsight, the closing was irregularly premature despite the obvious non-notability of this article and time has made this article even less notable.--The lorax (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Just renominate it and close this DRV.
  talk) 18:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I tried, but User:Guest9999 said I must list it here. Sorry, I don't fully understand Wikipedia protocol. -- Yekrats (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not what
      WP:PROD process which is for uncontested deletions, since it's been through AFD before it would seem unlikely it would be uncontested. What User:Guest9999 suggested was to bring it here or relist it at AFD by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. Many here are suggesting the latter also as being the best and quickest way forward, since it is extremely unlikely that this process will overturn the old decision and the only two other options are to either endorse the original keep or to relist it at AFD, if it's that relisting which occurs it will be after 7 days here. You don't need to wait that 7 days follow those instructions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion and list it now. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Sorry, guys, I'm not familiar with some of the TLAs! I thought this was what I was supposed to do. I don't mind rescinding this process and relisting as AFD! -- Yekrats (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a separate note, if you do list it you may want to consider your deletion rationale. The
      the general notability guideline, if it meets that then inclusion is almost certainly warranted in one form or another. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Endorse closure. DRV is not AFD round 2. jgpTC 22:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. Open a new AfD if you think it fails
  ping 02:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse previous close- its been a year, go ahead and re-nominate if it bugs you that much. Just let me know, Based on the sources from Time Magazine and The Economist, two pretty reliable sources, I'll be voting to keep based on meeting the
  WP:GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist There was a clear consensus to keep the article at the AfD. However, the fact that the use of the
  snowball clause has been contested means that this was probably not a great candidate for early closure under that clause. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Following what appears to be a dispute with others,

• Allow deletion. It seems odd to comment here for something like this, but if a user truly wants to retire from Wikipedia for some reason, any reason, they should be able to delete their talk page. RTV. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, the RTV policy explicitly does not extend to talk pages. Talk pages are required to communicate with users. They may also contain content of relevance to other users.  Sandstein  08:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand that, but there isn't much to talk about if the person has legitimately left the project. Ideally, we should delete this talk page (leaving it as it is) and remove the administrative privileges from the account. JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the deletion history of his talkpage, he's misused deletion in this way before. He gets mad, "retires", deletes his talkpage, and comes back. It's not an acceptable use of the delete button, and it needs to stop.

  Scottaka UnitAnode 08:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Overturn deletion. The delete button isn't to be used in a fit of anger, as it was here, and deletion policy doesn't allow for deletion of usertalk without extenuating circumstances.
  Scottaka UnitAnode 08:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I fail to see what purpose this DRV serves, and what positive effects it may achieve. Without voicing an opinion on the merits of the deletion, speedy close. Let's drop this for now. When everyone involved is no longer caught in the heat of the moment, it may well be the case that a DRV would be unnecessary.
  talk) 08:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy close per Tim Song. The 1st person to !vote here for an overturn is the guy whose block caused all this kerfuffle. Not a good idea.
  ping 08:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Undelete and unprotect (note that I have reversed my speedy closure as the admin in question has now escalated matters by protecting their talk page). -
  talk 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Since Spartaz has now undeleted and unprotected the page (thanks!), I think this can now be closed as moot.  Sandstein  13:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

My Name is Ben Blum. I have been working as a QA manager and would like to contribute from my experience to Wikipedia's readers. my first article "BugUp Tracker" was deleted claiming that the software presented was not notable enough. I requested some aids with regards to what proof is needed to show notability? I have reviewed several other bug tracking software that do exist in Wikipedia (

• Endorse Cirt's close, could not be closed any other way. Benblum1:
  talk) 22:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. The AfD could not have been closed any differently. If someone can provide independent sources that cover this software, it should be userfied for further work.
  ping 02:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Advice Ben, we're not a reviewing medium. Our purpose is not to evaluate the quality of software, of books, or music, or scientific theories, or political ideas. That takes place in the outside world, and is best done in more conventional ways by people who take responsibility for their opinions by using their true name and staking their reputation, edited by people who take responsibility for choosing their reviews , and who stand behind the work they select to publish. What we do is summarize and distribute the information that such outside reliable sources publish, on the assumption that what they review and write about will be of sufficient interest. we reply on things being already judged important by others first, and described here second. When you have such sources, there can be an article. There are unfortunately quite a number of articles about programs and other things that have gotten into Wikipedia without such sources--some might in fact have them, and those can and will be fixed; some do not, and those can and will be deleted. People tend to judge us by our worst articles, and it our job to improve or remove them. What we certainly try to avoid is to add additional ones that people will question. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: so, if i understand your comment DGG, if i can locate reliable sources(sites with internet reputation??), that have reviewed a software (BugUp Tracker in this case), i can re-post my article, and add these sources as references, could appease the wiki editors as sufficient notability? 2-3 sources? quality of review? I am just trying to understand how decisions are being made. Thanks 79.176.57.29 (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "I'm not sure what you'd mean by "internet reputation", Wikipedia itself could be described as having internet reputation but it wouldn't meet the standard required for sources. Take a look at
  helpdesk to ask for advice and various other mechanisms. You can also write up an article in your private userspace with the sources you intend to use, then come back here and people will often advise if it's suitable, though bringing it back here can sometimes be a more adversarial experience. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse, could not realistically have been closed any other way.
  WP:WAX is not considered a strong argument. Stifle (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

It would be beneficial to the completion of List of ethnic slurs article for this to redirect to List of ethnic slurs#N. I fixed the redirects to most of the other terms on that article but this one has been deleted. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak restore as redirect. Assuming that the term stays on the list a redirect is appropriate. However, I see that the citation for this entry in Urban Dictionary. Is that generally considered reliable enough to support a listing? Eluchil404 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe so, Urban Dictionary is used by many ISPs and companys for abuse and language filters. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment the sources mentioned below address my concerns. My feeling is that to the extent the RfD relied on
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT it is invalid and to the extent it relied on the term not being in the target article it has been superseded. As such the deletion should be overturned and the redirect restored. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse closure and oppose restoration. Anyone can add a definition to Urband Dictionary; it is most definitely not a
  WP:MADEUP and should be deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment This term is sourced outside Urban Dictionary, http://trib.com/news/local/article_823ac643-a2aa-5a7c-b6d3-0dad45820d8a.html, Wikipedia should strive to be all inclusive even if the topic is of a controversial nature. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 03:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  And that's a really poor source which I doubt would be accepted within any other article. It merely tells of existance of the term as used by one person in one context, expands none of the greater understanding of the term, doesn't give and indication of prevelance of use etc. that's pretty much

  WP:OR it's mentioned here and I fully understand it as X so I can include it as X --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I've replaced it with a better source. That said, I am still reluctant to overturn a unanimous RfD consensus that a redirect is harmful. If the redirect is restored, it should be immediately listed at RfD to develop a full consensus. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Urban Dictionary is the textbook definition of an unreliable source. Endorse deletion and keep salted, until we have at least some significant coverage in reliable sources.
  talk) 16:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • No objections to a redirect, per Tarc.
    talk) 03:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment. Taking into account that the term is potentially offensive, it's presence in Wikipedia requires really a good source to demonstrate that the term is notable. By the way, you could discuss this with me, before going straight to DRV. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Comment All I am trying to do is make that article list of ethnic slurs complete so that redirect vandalism doesn't occur, if the term is not notable than we should keep Niglet salted and delete the term from the list. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 21:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Create redirect and restore entry to article. - Usage in a major motion picture[37], noted in the book "White out: the Continuing Significance of Racism" [38], and Chris Rock's Niglet SNL sketch [39]. That should be enough to establish that it exists beyond the confines of urbandictionary. Tarc (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse deletion, but now restore redirect per nom and Tarc. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Stop at Willoughby restated his argument above on my talk page, and I have to admit, I really don't like the idea of overturning the discussion as the consensus was clear. That said, the discussion made it fairly plain (as one of the originally nommed redirects was withdrawn) that if there was solid sourcing, keeping the redirect would be acceptable. I think new information has gotten us there and we are meeting the spirit of the discussion. But no objection to a relist so it can be discussed more completely. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I respect that argument. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Updated bolded part to make it plain I think the admin's deletion was a good and proper close given the information available at the time. Hobit (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• restore redirect based on Tarc's references. --Stormie (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure but permit restoration. The consensus in the RfD was clear, and so the closure was proper. However Tarc provides information not considered in that discussion that shows the redirect is warranted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Melody maker-cover-april-8th-1995.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe I had adequately addressed the issues raised at the deletion debate by editing Richey Edwards appropriately and adding relevant secondary sourcing, actions which, given the limited rationale of the closer, I have no idea if they were seen or taken note of. Since I have contacted the closing admin previously regarding a different deletion and received no response, I am coming straight here. Hiding T 21:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but I think you should have talked to the deleting admin about this first. If you're not sure of whether he saw your comments, then you should have asked him. In any case, a closing rationale from Fastily would be much appreciated. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to have misread me. I already contacted Fastily on another deletion and received no reply, therefore saw I'd be better served coming here first. The point of this debate is to discuss the close, not the protocol. Is it a good close? Given that the reasons for deletion were addressed? Hiding T 12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not misread you; rather, I merely wish to note that you should have raised this with Fastily first, regardless of your prior experience, and asked him whether he took your latter comment into account. I personally would have closed the debate as "no consensus" with
      no prejudice against speedy renomination, but that doesn't necessarily mean that Fastily's deletion was a poor decision. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn and relist so that Hiding's argument, raised late in the FfD, may be fully considered.
  talk) 16:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn as no explanation for the close has shown up and the reasons to keep seem at least as strong as the arguments for deletion. It may be that the closer saw something else, but if so he's not sharing. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. I did look at this at the time, but didn't get round to commenting on it or closing it. For me, Hiding's changes to the Richey Edwards article didn't go far enough to meet NFCC #8, and I have trouble seeing how they ever could have done. I see magazine covers as generally being replaceable by text where the message boils down to "X appeared on the cover of magazine Y". To have a good case under NFCC #8, it should be something more like the use of a Vogue cover in the Anna Wintour article which was debated (see here) some days before this case. Your mileage may vary. That's why we have deletion review. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Angusmclellan's arguments are compelling but a relist so that the new arguments by Hiding can be considered would not be unreasonable. Cunard (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'd like to review the former NetWrix Corporation page to find out why it was deleted. The page is no longer accessible, but if possible, I'd like to have the former page sent to my account (SMschimmel) in order to find out what was wrong with it and edit/improve it for future submission. SMschimmel (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined, write a userspace draft. The page content was a single paragraph that was pure marketing speak. It was rightly speedy deleted as spam (
  WP:CSD#G11) and then repeatedly recreated several times, all on a single day in August 2007. The content was very likely a copyright violation of the company's website and/or marketing material so I am not going to restore it as it would need a complete rewrite to be encyclopaedic and free from copyright issues. Given this, it would be much better for you to create a userspace draft from a source that is not 2½ years out of date. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn salting The relevant policy is at
  cascading protection by another admin. While salting this title made sense as a preventative measure at the time (to stop further spamming), this is no longer clearly the case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose re-creation per JzG. So much for "no longer clearly the case" that spamming will occur if the title is unsalted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Show us a userspace draft and we can discuss unsalting.
  talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Nope. "Stephen Schimmel, Product Manager, NetWrix Corporation." See
  WP:BAI. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Deny request, as per Thryduuly and Tim Song. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

article|XfD|restore

)

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Colorado_Springs_mayor_Robert_M._Isaac, please restore. This image was offhandedly deleted under the assumption that photos of this deceased politician were readily available. They are not, and I am 5000 miles away. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore
  WP:IUP. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Peripitus makes a compelling argument that the image might fail
  WP:NFCC#2 as well; however, I think the image should be restored and relisted so a more thorough consensus can be achieved at FfD regarding the image's NFCC compliance, or lack thereof. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse - as the deleting administrator - based on the weight of the arguments presented I still think this was the correct closure. The reason I don't agree with A Stop at Willoughby's restoration note is that the image was sourced from a news site (see here) and it is strongly arguable that the image use here fails
  NFCC#2. Restoring this and rerunning FfD is, I think, going to see the image deleted on NFCC#2 grounds alone - Peripitus (Talk) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That section reads "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." How would that image's use here, in a single article, at reduced size, replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A search here in Japan yields a second image here. Would this image, trimmed down to the mayor himself, (and this one including all of his head and so on), be acceptable? I don't care which image is used, but the biography should have a photo. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per A Stop at Willoughby, except that I voice no opinion on the close itself, an issue that is unnecessary to the resolution of the matter at hand. The NFCC#2 question is not unambiguously added, 03:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC) raised in the original FfD, and should be addressed by a new FfD if necessary on restoration.
  talk) 17:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

not quite correct - see the nominators statement "apparently copied from a news source" - this is also a matter I took into account on the closure - Peripitus (Talk) 02:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore per A Stop at Willoughby and Tim Song. No objection if someone relists due to NFCC#2, though I personally think that's a stretch. Also a
  WP:FISH for the rudeness of the FfD nom. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

NFCC#2 a stretch ? We have an image taken from a commercial news site, and image that we are using at a resolution that is for sale (such res images are often licenced for web use)...That seems a casebook example of being "used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". News photos are sold for exactly the use this image was put to - illustrating an article on the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 05:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This is not a non-free image as recorded in wiki guidelines 129.96.113.84 (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this is incorrect as I am not a member. The production image was deleted from Once Upon a Midnight on the grounds that it was a non-free image and/or that it could be replaced. See: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 24#File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg. Both statements are false as the image is not under copyright and has appeared in conjunction with the production's publicity. For proof, this image accompanied all the articles listed on the bottom of the wiki page and is publically available. It cannot be replaced as cameras and video cameras are not permitted in theatrical performances. It is relevent to the article as it conveys the costume, style and Mise-en-scène of this unique Japanese/Australian performance, which is unlikely to be repeated. Other articles on musical theatre include a production image. See [[40]], [[41]], and[[42]] please advise (129.96.113.84 (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Endorse closure of the FfD as "delete." During the debate, the copyrighted status of the image was not contested by any of the participants. As such,
  public domain. However, I do not see any evidence that this is the case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, copyright is presumed unless shown otherwise.
  talk) 17:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• week endorse not really happy with the closing admin !voting (in effect) and closing, but the final result seems correct and proper. Hobit (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

VK Bosna is a sports team that is part of the USD Bosna sports society. I ask that the waterpolo club article be brought back. There was everything there that was necessary. There were references - the official team's website. There was another website. If more is needed, I can provide more. What really bothers me is that there are many other sport team/club articles that had significantly less content - yet they are not deleted. I can give a a list of a number of such articles if you guys want. The bottom line is that this is the best waterpolo club in the entire country, it is an established club in a recently formed new league, and there really is no reason why it should be deleted. LAz17 (talk) 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Also, do check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarajevo#Sports , as you guys can see it is missing a link among the sport clubs in the city. (LAz17 (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Comment, can someone please make it possible for me to see the AfD on this, as well as the article itself as was before deletion? Thanks. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It was deleted directly via speedy deletion, under "Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a group or club that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" tice, by two different administrators, User:Tbsdy lives , and User:Sandahl. Looking at the article, I see it did not have any references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party sources, just a link to its own web page, facebook page, web site, and the web page for the university sports association. DGG ( talk ) 20:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was in the process of building and expanding the page. Yet I do not get this opportunity. This page for example, HK Spartak Subotica has less information yet it is not deleted. The website itself of this mighty organization should be enough reason for it to stay, but I can and will provide third party sources documenting their existence, their success, and their happenings. (LAz17 (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
    • Let's see them then. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, they're listed towards the bottom - as of right now. (LAz17 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion under
  WP:CSD#A7. This article met A7 because it was about an organization and it did not assert that organization's notability adequately. Describing it as "the strongest" club in its league is not an adequate assertion of notability, particularly when that league does not appear to be notable itself. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • League is the problem?
    Bosnia and Herzegovina Waterpolo League - perhaps you would be interested or even thrilled in deleting the league's wikipedia page. (LAz17 (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply
    ]

we will often keep an article on a league, but not the individual teams, just as we will often keep an article on a team, but not the individual players. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, DGG, we have the NBA, but no Chicago Bulls or Michael Jordan.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, if you want an obscure league, one where you can destroy/delete all the teams from - no better place to start than here... Bosnia and Herzegovina Hockey League. Three teams, all ready to be whipped off. Let me know if you need any more articles that could be great candidates for slaughtering. What is going on is institutionalizing vandalism on wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

LAz17, DGG is an inclusionist, an intelligent man and pretty fair. Feel free to disagree with him but please do not be agressive or mean. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LAz17, you're correct about the league. I saw that Bosnia-Herzegovina Waterpolo League was a redlink and mistakenly assumed that the article did not exist; I certainly don't have any feelings one way or another about deleting it. However, like DGG said, the notability of the league does not guarantee the notability of the team. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps userfication or incubation would be appropriate here. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion. I do not know how I would vote at an AfD of this article, but I believe it deserves community opinion.

This is a newly formed waterpolo league in the city of Sarajevo. It is a "canton" league (meaning something like regional, a canton is a small administrative division of a country). This is due to the fact that Bosnia as a country is still greatly influenced from the war that is long over, life is centralized into large cities. This is as close as it gets to a national league, and the effort should be applauded. Instead of speedy deleting articles they know nothing about, editors should first do a little research, and if unfamiliar with the language, seek help. LAz17, please find additional sources on the team, anything on the internet that is a reputable reliable source (e.g. newspaper websites, news, etc.), so that you may appease the nay sayers (being nice here, I would have rather said the uninformed ignorants who nevertheless stick noses in where they know nothing about). Turqoise127 (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is what I can find...

The official site - http://www.vkbosna.ba/loc/

News from the society's website - http://www.usdbosna.org/content.php?fid=e2a66d19ddadb5fbe9bbe0186fac90eb

News article - http://www.nezavisne.com/sport/ostali/32910/Vaterpolo-klub-Bosna-danas-pocinje-sa-radom.html

Club organizing a recent international tournament - http://www.olimpijskibazensarajevo.ba/pocetna/133-vk-primorac-pobjednik-turnira-sarajevo-champions-challenge2009.html

Another news article - http://www.centar.ba/?jezik=bos&n=821

Another article about sarajevo city's support for the club and the big achievements that the club has attained in a very short time... http://www.sarajevo.ba/ba/stream.php?sta=3&pid=6062&kat=2

(LAz17 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Excellent pint about uninformed ignorants. The best example is here, [43] HS Olimpija Ljubljana. They wanted to delete that page too! And the VK Bosna page had much more than what this hockey team page has. (LAz17 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

• Comment, I believe the sources listed above here by LAz17 are sufficient to establish notability via reliable verifiable sources. If some disagree, please address why the sources are not sufficient. Please restore and keep the article. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD. I see only one reliable source [44] in the pile above, but if my memory of the contents of the cached article is correct, the A7 was very borderline already. Coupled with the source (and I admit I'm no Bosnia expert), I think there's enough here to require a discussion.
  talk) 17:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore and send to AfD exactly per Tim Song. More sources will be needed that contribute to
  WP:N. But not a speedy candidate at this point. Other option is to recreate the article from scratch with the source (which should make it immune to any speedy) which will result in even more time wasted. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• So what now? It's still deleted. (LAz17 (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
  • In general there will be a 7 day discussion. So we wait until then unless it's really clear (see
    WP:DEL for yet more details. Hobit (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• List at AFD or Incubate in the light of the newly-presented sources. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has been speedily deleted for reasons of non-notability. However there are at least indications of notability (author translated to 3 other languages; article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia; wikilinked by another article) meaning that this is no Speedy-candidate. Please undelete temporarily, so we can discuss its notability or non-notability. PanchoS (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worker Communism Unity Party of Iran (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article has been speedily deleted for reasons of non-notability. However there are at least indications of notability (> 6000 Google hits) meaning that this is no Speedy-candidate. Please undelete temporarily, so we can discuss its notability or non-notability. PanchoS (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carrigan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (1st AfD)

The AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator with the condition that the article was deleted/userfied. Effectively this was a speedy deletion when all the comments were to keep or withdraw (none was to delete). The admin's decision to delete the article over-rode the consensus view. I recommend that the article is re-created. If necessary, the AfD can run to completion to make sure there is an established consensus to delete/userfy or keep.

Note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Nominating a page for AFD while tagged with construction was raised by user:Cirt which dealt with user:Epbr123's inappropriate timing of the nomination to delete for an article with a construction tag and undergoing active improvement. Both users are admins. This is a separate issue to the article being deleted/userfied.

The userfied version was made available at User:Ash/Paul Carrigan. Ash (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second the request for DRV. I verify that Ash's assessment is factual and correct. The nominator for both Afd's (User:Epbr123) has shown a pattern of nominating at least one gay porn bio a day for deletion and while this may, or may not, be against any written policy, it is unfair toward the whole Wikipedia community as there is little time, or energy to deal with the onslaught of deletion reviews. Editors like Ash and myself who are interested in creating and improving articles are instead spending the majority of our time vainly attempting to keep valuable information from being lost forever. -Stillwaterising (talk) 10:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave in userspace - The page is currently in userspace, at
  WP:BLP, it should not be simply moved back into article mainspace until sourcing issues are addressed. As for the matter of the page itself, I personally think it is notable enough for an article, and other editors are free to create a different version than the one in Ash (talk · contribs)'s userspace that is well-sourced, but this particular version is not yet and should not be moved back into article mainspace in its form. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It should be noted that during the
    alternatives to deletion so that the article can be improved instead of deleted. Ash (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Yes, and one of the
      alternatives to deletion is something called Incubation, much akin to having the article in userspace as long as its quality is poor. Cirt (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Incubation is a suggestion that can be made during AfD. The point here is that the article was deleted when the documented consensus was to keep, you have not addressed that matter. Ash (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you have failed to explain why Wikipedia should selectively choose to go against the policy of
          WP:BLP in this particular instance and move a poorly sourced page into article mainspace. Cirt (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Note: Information on incubation can be found at
            WP:Incubation - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
            ]
          • No, I failed to do no such thing; the AfD made no mention of BLP violations. This DRV is not the place to start an AfD discussion. The article was deleted when the documented consensus was to keep. Pointing out my faults does not change that fact. Ash (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave in userspace until at least the article is properly sourced. In my opinion, the subject doesn't appear to be notable and it is inevitable that someone will begin another AfD if the article is restored without additional evidence to notability. Epbr123 (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. I have worked on the page Paul Carrigan, in a subpage of my userspace at User:Cirt/Paul Carrigan. This version is sourced with citations after every single sentence in the page. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• restore Cirt's version. I don't see how there can be objections to it. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• restore Cirt's version. I was the one who originally suggested returning the article to userspace, because it wasn't adequately sourced. Cirt's version is sourced well enough to answer my objections. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Cirt's version and speedy close this unnecessary DRV. This case once again illustrates why filing a DRV over every hypertechnical dispute on where an article should be in the few hours, or days, when it is being sourced before it goes into mainspace is pointless and wasteful.
  talk) 18:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question. Is
  ping 20:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This might be relevant in an AfD, not for a DRV. Try
    WP:RSN where this was last discussed two years ago with the conclusion that it was okay for non-controversial items, such as credibly confirming films acted in but cannot be assumed to be an exhaustive listing. Hm, I note that Epbr123 asked the same question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Reliability_of_IAFD a very short time before you asked this question here. Ash (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Neutral although consensus does seem to be for restoring Cirt's version. Thanks and apologies to Cirt for commendable work on the article and unwarranted accusations respectively. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment If Cirt's userfied verson is moved to main space then the revision history of the orginal article which is including in Ash's userfied version would be lost. Propose moving Ash's version to main space and applying the final version of Cirt's edits. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will be done in any regard, to preserve the history of the page. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not sure how my above comment could have be misunderstood to mean I prefer Ash's versions over Cirt's. I'm for restoring Cirt's version as long as the original revision history is preserved (which is currently associated with Ash's version). - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Leave in userspace until the article can be corrected. JBsupreme (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of this DRV is that the AfD never reached any conclusion to userfy in the first place, discussion was halted by a non-consensus deletion. A DRV is not the place to have the AfD discussion that should have been allowed to complete. Ash (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I have no problem with a problematic BLP being expeditiously moved out of mainspace. That's my position if we're going to discuss things in theory. I see now though that the version Cirt has looks promising so perhaps it can be moved back now. JBsupreme (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks very much, Cirt (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • JB, I'm surprised that in theory you think it's okay to close an ongoing AfD where the consensus was to keep, on the basis that in your opinion there may be a BLP problem and yet you would not discuss any issues you identified in the AfD. I would have thought you would propose a userfy in the AfD rather than believing that personal viewpoint carries more weight that anyone else who contributes in an AfD discussion. Ash (talk) 21:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore Cirt's version without prejudice for another AfD. It's substantially different in terms of sourcing than the userfied/deleted version. If some editors still think it's improperly sourced, they can open another AfD as there seems to be no consensus on the reliability of IAFD.
  ping 02:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore Cirt's version; while I'm no fan of the way this AfD went, Cirt's version is a substantial improvement, meets WP:PORNBIO; and is well-sourced to boot. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This DRV has been open for more than 7 days now and I see that consensus has been reached. Can it be closed now? - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over You (Girlicious song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was originally deleted per discussion from another author stating lack of proper citations,they are an American band but had no American citations and was a non charting single. I agree with why it was ORIGINALLY deleted, HOWEVER i am a new creator and would love to be able to create the page. The song now is currently on the billboard and more information has become available, i have American citations that meet with wiki standards and believe it originally complies with

• The Canadian references thing was a distraction - the editor who raised it was mistaken and later retracted on that point. Notability is notability, whether it be in Canada or the US - but at the time of the AfD there was no real notability anywhere. According to Billboard, "Over You" is currently 62 on the Canadian Hot 100 so that does change the perspective. There is no point recreating the article if it says nothing about the song that is not already covered at Girlicious, but otherwise I would support restoration. I42 (talk) 08:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore, without prejudice to another AfD at editorial discretion. There is a significant change in the circumstances, and the song seems to pass
  talk) 17:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse close, restore as now it seems to meets our inclusion requirements. Hobit (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color symbolism and psychology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article was deleted after minimal discussion (just five votes) on grounds of insufficient sourcing and citation, as well as being unauthoritative within its subject matter (psychology). Request review and possible undelete on grounds that this article is not actually a "hard science" artice despite the "psychology" association; the "connections" and "moods" discussed on the page have been well known for many years, and are not exclusively anglo-centric as asserted in the discussion. Accordingly, arguing from a "citation needed" and strict-constructionist WP Policy mentality on this particular article is well-intentioned, but entirely misplaced. Requesting review rather than working through deleting admin not out of disrespect, but just out of not having time for prolonged discussion today. Ender78 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article has already been extensively reworked and additional citations added. Additionally, the article has been flagged for further attention within the Visual Arts WikiProject. I notice that there are still certain parties who are attempting to (ab)use policy as a blunt instrument to tell other people how it's going to be, but if the purpose here is to promote quality content, I believe I am taking the right actions and going in the right direction. I welcome those who disagree to provide logical arguments on the page's talk. Ender78 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion There was overwhelming consensus to delete the article. This could not have been closed any other way. Cunard (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were five votes total. That's not overwhelming by any standard of which I am aware. Ender78 (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How many votes would be required for an article to be deleted? Five seems to be enough. Cunard (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've seen votes that went on for months, so long that the vote itself had to be restarted just to bring the matter to an actual resolution. That's the opposite extreme. I would simply say that a fair hearing requires more than five people. Ender78 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The debate went on for over seven days. No one opposed deletion. This is a good close that reflected the consensus of the community. Again, how many votes would be required for a fair hearing? Six? Cunard (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think the fact that you're sustaining the action purely on the basis of process, and trying to bait me into a flamewar with your belligerent and unilateral tone is unfortunate, and precisely what I hoped to avoid by putting it through review rather than trying to work it at a lower level. The article in question is not a very high-traffic page, hence it is no surprise that discussion developed slowly and that it needs more time for a proper discussion to unfold. As a reductio ad absurdum, what would you say if I managed to rope together five people and a rogue admin and deleted Jimbo's page? Would six votes be sufficient in that case? Ender78 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continued endorse deletion, do not restore Having read the comments below, I am convinced that the AfD participants were correct that the article was unacceptable in that it failed the non-negotiable policies of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is that the best you've got? I can regurgitate policy, too. In any case, here's nine different citations I've added to the article, which I have already restored, because talking to some of you people is like conversing with a brick wall.[45]|[46]|[47]|[48]|[49]|[50]|[51]|[52]|[53]
• Endorse closure What, exactly, is supposed to be procedurally incorrect about this AfD discussion? Five participants supporting deletion is plenty, especially when no significant objections were raised, and AfDs should never be left open "for months." The closest thing to a vote to keep was a comment that "throwing it all away would be a waste," and even that user did not disagree with the assertion that the article was unacceptable in its current state. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually read my comment, I specifically state that "for months" is the opposite extreme, intended to illustrate the opposite end of the timeframes under which AfDs have been conducted in the past. I do not advocate leaving one open that long; I am only saying that five votes on a site as large and authoritative as WP does not constitute anything near a plurality. Ender78 (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll further note that speedy deletes aside, seven days is the shortest vote I've personally witnessed, and five votes the smallest number of voters. I note that the admin relisted the article, so that actually underscores the extent to which the article in question is slow-traffic and should've been given a little more time. (better yet, a little TLC.) Ender78 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a vote and 7 days is the current standard, it used to be 5 days and there is no quorum (nor has there ever been one) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Seven days is the standard, and plenty of AfDs are closed after seven days. Three !votes on one side with no opposition is normally sufficient; five !votes, as here, is way more than sufficient.
  talk) 20:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'd point out that seven days, for a more general-interest article, would normally result in more than five votes. The very fact that "the standard" is not necessarily "the hard rule" is to allow some leeway for situations just like this. As for opposition, I missed the close of the vote by mere hours, or there'd be at least one vote against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ender78 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, mostly per Cunard. Having examined the article and purported sources, I concur with his assessment. And speedy close. DRV is not a platform to attack other editors. Period.
    talk) 06:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse. I don't see any departure from correct handling here. Maybe putting a delsort or two on it would have garnered a few more votes but who is to say it wouldn't just have been another bunch of "delete"s? The five voters were not "roped together" and the admin was not "rogue" so I don't see any reason to invoke such empty spectres. Rather than waste time arguing about this I would like to suggest that Ender78 adopts an alternative approach which is more likely to be productive, i.e. to request a copy of the deleted article to be put in his user space so it is available for reference and then start a pair of stub articles for the two subjects that the deleted article was conflating, (e.g.
  Colour symbolism and Psychology of colour). It will be important to add the appropriate WikiProjects so that the articles are worked on collaboratively and then I recommend to gently start building the articles up trying to avoid the problems with the original one. Some elements of the original article could be reused with appropriate caution. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • That's precisely what I was trying to avoid. I simply think the article should be restored and re-tagged if quality is deemed lacking. Personally, I found --and find-- it to be a good quick-read on the topics covered, with no deeper scholarly analysis really necessary. I don't understand why you would scrap an entire article that isn't a hard-science article to begin with, on the basis that it needs to be rewritten from scratch to include more scholarly citations. Shouldn't it have been done the other way around, and tag it to the various related WikiProjects first? We both know if I restarted the article, it'd be stubbed within seconds and speedied within minutes, precisely on account of what's already happened. Ender78 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, your invokation of my "five voters and an admin deleting Jimbo" example misses the actual argument and point being put forth, which was explicitly acknowledged to be reductio ad absurdum. (Please read the actual argument before inaccurately attempting to debunk it.) Ender78 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, I can't help but notice --and mention-- that this article is getting railroaded without anyone actually reading the arguments in favor of reconsidering or examining the AfD discussion's flawed arguments, while "Fishsticks" and "Gay Fish" is a cause celebre being mentioned for restoration and protection. That's.....profoundly disappointing, and indicative of the flaws created on WP by "the process" becoming the tail that wags the dog. Ender78 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you've brought this issue to DRV, which is all about analyzing whether process was followed. If you think the accepted process is wrong, you need to obtain consensus to change it elsewhere. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's flexibility in the AfD process precisely because it's not a one-size-fits-all thing. Ender78 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure I understand your argument here. In what way is AfD "not a one-size-fits-all thing"? What sort of extant flexibility in the process do you believe this article was denied? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • AfDs do not automatically close themselves, yes? They're left to thinking human beings, then, for a reason, which would seem to be so that that person could determine if the action proposed truly fits the consensus model at hand. Another interesting factoid: Snied, DanielRigal, and Smocking are all from the UK, all participated in the AfD, and all have participated in this discussion, along with two IPs that have either edited or reblanked the article in question, or participated in the AfD. Ender78 (talk) 05:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have restored the history for discussion I think Endor attempted this, but I did it the right way. The article as it was deleted is visible in the page history. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you; I simply tagged the page as being reviewed, because I didn't want to get into a 3RR kind of situation. Ender78 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and improve. The participants got it wrong. We shouldn't delete articles due to their poor state if they are about real subjects, as was this. Whether "psychology is an actual science" and whether "the rest is just contestable mysticism" are points worthy of coverage in a good article. The nominator even suggests move [some of the content], which means that deletion is not a preferred outcome due to
  WP:BEFORE. The connections between colour, symbolism and psychology and real, historical and academic; the subject is notable, even if the title was confused, and it will likely be recreated in some form, and to best respect our licensing and the importance of attribution, the article should be at least userfied for any interested editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse, but restore I do not see what else a closing admin could have done, and I like others here am not willing to criticize him in the least, as would be implied by overturning. Rather, the discussion reflects the defects of our AfD system, because it did not have sufficient attention form anyone prepared to improve the article: sources can be added, and the article further clarified to indicate the extent to which it represents popular tradition and the extent it represents science. If someone wants to extend it to non-Western traditions that would be good also. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the notion that perhaps seven days in this specific context was a touch hastier than it would be in a busier article, no criticism of JForget was in any way intended or implied. I made sure to mention it as such on his talk. Ender78 (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse, but restore per DGG's reasoning. I was shocked to see this article go and at the meager participation in the AfD discussion. I unfortunately did not become aware of it until after the fact. __
  talk) 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion (Disclaimer: It was me who originally nominated the article for deletion). Color symbolism (essentially beliefs) doesn't mate with psychology. The few scraps of content that are valid Wikipedia content (sourcing, original research and notability being key issues in this particular case) should be moved to appropriate existing articles, or new articles if somebody can muster some accompanying content. It seems wrong to me that a fatally flawed article would be restored for the sake of keeping it its own article. Snied (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - I was one of the five people who voted for deletion, but as I mentioned on the vote there is some peer-reviewed scientific research into the subject. Therefore SmokeyJoe has a valid point: if an article about a valid subject can be improved we shouldn't delete it. Unfortunately the content of the article relied almost entirely on original research, some books with titles like Life Colors: What the Colors in Your Aura Reveal and Color Healing Therapy, new-age websites and unsourced blogs. Perhaps the best source in the article was an unpublished paper by an independent researcher who in turn cited mostly unreliable sources, but it seems to be have been removed in later revisions. I think it would be an all-but-empty article if you'd remove all the content with major issues. If a few people who are more familiar with the area can come up with better content and have the sources to back it up (e.g. the Journal of Sports Sciences article on t-shirt color on match outcome), that would be great; but they might as well start from scratch. Perhaps "Color psychology" would be a better title for that article, while "Color symbolism" would be a better place to describe the more cultural aspects. Smocking (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I genuinely mean no offense by this, but both yours and Snied's comments indicate that you really don't understand the topic very well. It's not a topic where you're going to get a great deal of hard-science scholarly papers on the subject, and I'd argue that the example provided in the AfD, that of "Red being associated with success in English Soccer Leagues" is hardly better: is the association created by the color red alone? Or is that association being magnified by other culture-specific elements, that being England's national identity and it's love affair with Football? The point of this article, from my perspective, is to attempt to cover the topic without exhaustively introducing other factors that cannot fully be quantified. I can't say it enough: this is one of those situations where a hard-enforcement take on WP policy is not constructive to the article or the audience. Ender78 (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've said several times you think that you think this shouldn't be required to meet the same standards as other science articles. Which particular standards are you meaning?
      WP:SYNTH. Psychology itself is well studied and understood, is there any study of this from a psychology point of view or not? If there is, then it surely should have academic coverage, if there isn't then we shouldn't be trying to make such a connection. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • In turn, shouldn't you be using your username, Smocking? Or are you Mr. Rigal? Curious that I'm getting anonymously flamed by an UK IP when there's two UK editors with a seemingly vested interest in this article. Frankly, I'm getting a bit sick of the belligerent tone being directed at me for daring to say that maybe an article should be RfD. Some of you folks really need to stop and consider that the reason WP:POLICY exists is not simply for its own sake, not so that an admin can talk of his flawless, never-overturned AfD record. You want your perspective? Ask ANY GRAPHIC DESIGNER AND/OR ARTIST ON PLANET EARTH ABOUT THE TOPIC. USE THE GOOGLE. THERE'S PAGES AN PAGES AND PAGES out there on this basic topic that live under many different names, but all discuss the basic emotions and reactions experienced by people in response to certain colors. Again, your insistence that it be treated in the same manner within the psychology topic as, say,
        Antisocial Personality Disorder. Ender78 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Please try to remain civil. Please try to refrain from making unsubstantiated allegations or insinuations against other editors. Please reread this discussion and ask yourself who is most likely to be described as "belligerent" or "flaming" by an uninvolved reader. I don't think you are helping your case. For the record, I am not the IP editor above and I am not sure what possible "vested interest" I could have in this matter or what my being in the UK has to do with anything. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It has nothing to do with any admin's AfD record. I listed this article for deletion; I am not an admin, and my "record" such as it is would consist of this article only! You'll be able to make a better case if you don't resort to ad hominem attacks and instead concentrate on the issues. I would personally follow Daniel's advice and move the article content over to your user space, invite editors to help improve it and boost it up to the standards required for a standalone article and then create a new one with a more focused name (surely there is some sense of achievement to be had from that process?) Snied (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • All respect, but bull. If, as you say, you're not personally vested in this decision, you would be considering the arguments presented, rather than sticking to narrow policy definitions that have already been demonstrated --repeatedly-- to be less applicable to this subject matter than you have continued to assert. As for "belligerence".....how would YOU interpret the phrase "You speak of the point of the article from your perspective, which tends to suggest that it isn't really based on any real world perspective."? In any case, I don't care: neither of you, nor your probable IP doppleganger, have a right to smug sarcasm. I have provided nine additional links to authoritative sources, in addition to the eleven in the original article, yet you continue to argue on the basis of policies that simply do not apply. What conclusions should your fellow editors draw from that? Ender78 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The policies are as applicable to this article as they are to any other article, due to being the policies. Putting the article in your user space and improving it would be a positive step towards keeping the content. Being rude and throwing around baseless accusations wouldn't. 05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snied (talk • contribs)
              • I suppose you require citations to prove that trees are made of wood, then? Please do not communicate with me again. As to rudeness, I give as I get, and if that's not to your liking, tough. I didn't initiate the rudeness. Ender78 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • "He started it!" is not a valid excuse for being incivil. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's what a five-minute Google search turned up on the topic, under the keywords "color association", "color psychology", and "color symbolism": [54] [55]

[56][57][58][59][60][61][62] You'll notice that amongst these links you'll find not only your cherished academic credentials, but also commercial art experts and authorities on color such as Pantone. And these nine links are in addition to the eleven already cited in the article. Still not convinced? In the amount of time it takes you to log out so you can flame me with your IP rather than your handle, you could already have duplicated the search in question. Ender78 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • Wikipedia doesn't require me to login and I don't have an account to login to, so your comments are misplaced. Sorry if asking you to expand on your meaning is in someway offensive to you. If finding the sources is so trivially easy, why do you believe there is a need to suspend the requirement for reliable sourcing? Some of the links there would certainly seem to fail as reliable sources, others not, if they support the content of the article is however a different question. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In regards to usernames, I don't believe you. It's that simple. If you can't read a sarcastic tone in your own words, I cannot help you, and I'm sorry, but I'm simply not part of the "turn the other cheek" crowd. If you're rude with me, I'll be rude with you, without apology. My only interest in this matter is preserving an article that is perfectly relevant within the actual context it would most commonly be searched for, not with any administrator's "win/loss" record as has been asserted by others. I informed JForget that it was not personal, and no disrespect was intended, but that I simply wanted to put the article through additional process as I did not believe that the people participating in the AfD truly understood the subject matter and why the seemingly-applicable WP policies were less pertinent, in context, than was being asserted. As for sourcing, I am not saying that the article should have ZERO citations, only that academic sourcing is both less pertinent AND less crucial to this article than is the norm elsewhere. As it was, the article had ELEVEN cites, and NOT all of them were "new agey", even though what people have called "new agey", again, is simply the nebulous norm in this subject matter, particularly inasmuch as the connotations of each culture can, as already noted, be different in differing cultures. Ender78 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You can believe or not believe whatever you want regarding me, it's really more fool you if you can't differentiate based on freely available information about such matters. I don't believe my comments to be rude and certainly not the intent. As for your comment here ...I did not believe that the people participating in the AfD truly understood the subject matter..., well where might one go to understand the subject? Of course if they didn't understand the issue then the article was lacking. Regarding having ELEVEN cites as with the list above a number on it's own is meaningless, I've seen plenty of articles deleted with far more than that because they are still basically works of
              WP:OR bringing together lots of disparate sources to present the artivle authors point of view on a subject something none of the individual sources support, not that I'm saying that is occurring here since I haven't gone off and read the article or all the sources in detail, my first comment is trying to actually get you to expand on why you think the sourcing requirements appropriate in this case, something I still don't understand your reasoning on. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
              ]
• endorse, but restore. This article has been around for nearly seven years. Why the great rush to delete instead of fix? Agree with
  WP:CIVIL in mind. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• (already voted). Okay, I'll just forget about Ender78's accusations as (s)he already apologized elsewhere. What bugs me though is that this page is still mostly composed of sections like

  "Orange is energy, enthusiasm, 'get-it-done' attitude, and balance. It typically symbolizes Hinduism, Buddhism (monks wear orange because this vibrant yet soothing color aids in renunciation and spiritual focus), cheer, happiness, energy, balance, heat, fire, enthusiasm, nourishment, flamboyance, playfulness, autumn, desire, Sagittarius (star sign), and September. Orange has less intensity or aggression than red and is calmed by the cheerfulness of yellow. Orange is symbolic of the Royal family of the Netherlands. As such, in the Netherlands, Orange symbolizes royalty, and as William of Orange was the Calvinist color, orange symbolizes protestantism, particularly in Ireland (Orange Order)."

  This is not even the worst one. Stuff like that on Wikipedia just makes me sad, because I really believe in working together to create good articles that people can take seriously. You (as in: an editor in general, not anyone in particular) just can't talk like that without damn good sources, say it's science and put it in the psychology category. I don't really care that much about using scholarly articles, as long as the phrasing and claims match the reliability of the sources. The main articles (compare: Orange) of the colors are much more objective and they didn't need any peer-reviewed sources either. Some parts of the page are somewhat okay now, but can't we at least delete the "Common Associations and Connotations of Color" section? That part really makes my eyes bleed and it makes up most of the article. As little as I've contributed to Wikipedia, I've always paid a lot of attention to backing up what I write. To see people apparently making stuff up, googling the words, then listing the hits as sources (even though they are mostly and obviously fringe webpages) and having that material go unchecked for years is just sad. Smocking (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll tell you what makes me sad, pal: People who don't have any exposure to the subject matter regurgitating WP:POLICY to further some silly ideology. If you'd just stop trying to make it conform to your interpretation of policy long enough to think, --or to do some research-- you'd see the material is NOT as bad as is being asserted. But, I'm not going to fight this any further, because it's simply become a battleground for people who look at WP as a big club with sooper-seekrit handshakes than a place where the content is the highest calling. For what you people have wasted trying to tear this article down, you could've fixed it, or failing that, stayed the hell out of my way as I tried to fix it. You're all continuing, because 1.) You want to have "your" way, and 2.) Because at this point, some of you are far more angry at my failure to "Respect Your Authoritah" than anything else.' So, congratulations: An online encyclopedia with thousands of articles that will never be quality now has one less article that could be. Ender78 (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the article needs much work, but I don't see how that work will be possible unless the article (and on going changes to it) is kept visible to all editors and unless such work is treated as a good faith effort. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Support the above proposal. In August and October 2007 this was speedily deleted twice, once per
  WP:CSD#R3 as a recently created implausible redirect, a criterion that technically did not apply as the redirect page was not recently created (although the retargetting was recent) and not implausible given that 4 different users (assuming no sockpuppetry) thought it plausible enough. Given this history, a protected redirect seems appropriate to me. As neither user:Vancouver Outlaw nor user:Kinu have been made aware of this discussion I will put a note on their userpage now. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support the above proposal as entirely logical. The Fishsticks article mentions the term enough to justify this redirect. Also, indefinite protect to keep it from being vandalized and pointed back to Kanye West. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy deletion and retarget to
  WP:CSD#R3 applies only to "recently created" redirects, and redirects with useful page histories are not eligible for speedy deletion. As discussed above, the redirect had a useful page history, and I fail to see how it could've been construed as "recently created." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy recreate and protect per nom. No point keeping this open for 7 days.
  talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Recreate and protect as a reasonable search term. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Homosexuality in animals. Oh wait, that article doesn't contain any mention of fish. OK, retarget to Fishsticks (South Park) it is then. Robofish (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• I am completely agree with your opinion.Seemavibhaji (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC). — Seemavibhaji (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep deleted Having read through the draft and the cited sources, I don't think the subject meets the
  WP:ARTIST standard of notability, either as a poet or as an architectural engineer. As far as I can tell, Srivastava has no poetry book/anthology published, and the only non-online publications cited are in a Surat college magazine. As an architectural engineer, I could not find any scholarly publications or notable projects. None of the listed awards are really notable; a couple are simply honor certificates accorded during a function (Sarasvati Puja) organized by a local school, and at an inter-college debate. The current draft is bloated with self-published citations, and exaggerated import of the awards and associations with various organizations of which Srivastava is a member. The newspapers citations are mainly from the the Sitapur supplement of Lucknow based newspapers, and the coverage is ultra-local (for example, residents of a housing colony in Sitapur organized an event to honour local parents and military-men [63], [64], [65]). I have no doubt that the subject is active in the civil life in Sitapur and is well-known in the community, but he doesn't satisfy wikipedia's notability criterion. Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Relist at AFD. I agree with A Stop at Willoughby that that would be a better venue to judge the notability of the draft article, with wider visibility and participation. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I mentioned in the previous DRV, the sources available are local, city supplements of regional papers, not the regional newspapers themselves. He's active in local social circles and has presided over local events, but that's not something unique or a proof of notability. The Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Prize doesn't appear to be a claim of notability either, the award itself doesn't appear to have any criteria and doesn't receive coverage except in the context of "notable people" having this listed in their many awards. As far as the poetry listing goes, none of it is sourced to our standards. The article continues to read like an inflated resume. Given that, I'm going to stick with the keep deleted position. However, I wouldn't be opposed to a relist at AfD. —SpacemanSpiff 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Addressed to both Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff: does the subject pass
  WP:GNG? Cunard (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I thought about that but I don't think so because: (1) all coverage, except for the Priyadarshini award, is trivial, (2) all the sources are very week. I can expend of this, if/when the article is relisted at AFD. Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Like I said above, the coverage doesn't, IMO, pass WP:GNG, but given the disagreement here, I think that's better addressed through a relist at AfD as an alternative I'd suggested earlier. —SpacemanSpiff 22:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist at AfD. First of all, with only two participants, the original AfD did not really form a binding consensus and could conceivably be treated like a contested PROD. That said, the current userspace draft has been changed substantially since it was deleted at AfD; as such,
  WP:CSD#G4 would not apply upon a move to the mainspace. The rewritten article's sourcing (and whether it establishes notability) should be considered in a new AfD discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• In light of the low traffic of the AfD, and the apparent disagreement over the notability of the subject, which should be addressed by AfD, I'll go with relist.
  talk) 20:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It is clearly mentioned about Indira Gandhi Award at the article User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava, line 2-3 of Awards paragraph that "Ambarish Srivastava could not attend that award ceremoney because he got injured in a road accident at December 2007, so he was honored this award at his home through post office Sitapur" so how his coverage about it was possible in national or regional newspapers? although glimpse of this award is available here at reference no.-8 at above article. Photograph of Indira Gandhi Priydarshini Award, Certificate of award, Approval Letterof the award and letter for delivery also could be viewed all above three images are included in The newspaper clips posted here, It also proves that he was honored with this award. these above scanned images can bee also added separately as citation at User:Spjayswal67/Ambarish Srivastava if allowed.Seemavibhaji (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• work on it a little further, then restore and relist The closing admin should not have closed after the minimal discussion, but should have relisted; however, I think the result would have been the same. There are still some serious concerns with the article. The award would better be proven by 5 newspaper articles already cited, not by photographs of the award, but it would help if English translations were added, at least to the talk page. It would also help if the citation on the award were given so we could tell for which of his rather diverse "outstanding services, achievements and contributions " it was awarded for--I assume it was construction engineering. It would further help if English translations of the names of the various other awards were added, with some indication of their significance. It is possible that President of the Indian Institute of Building Designers Association "IIBD" is notable, but that article was deleted after a minimum discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Institute of Building Designers Association). I think that Looking at it,it had no external references of any sort--if it could be shown to be the leading national professional body, it would be sufficient. I presume the subject did the engineering design of various prominent buildings, and this information should be added--it supports notability of architects, and it might do so here also. I cannot figure out the significance of the poetry --in the absence of some source that it is actually considered notable , that section of detailed listings should be deleted. I do not see the point of relisting it in its present form, because unless it were improved along the lines I tried to indicate, it would probably be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ambarish Srivastava has honored many Senior persons over 60 years old, and he had organised a Deep yagya (pooja) for their good health as well as long life. Mr. Mohan Verma of Danik jagran has witten a special report on this great work and he treated it as a notable work in that report, see here and hear. Six Nos of poems of Ambarish Srivastava were published at Poems of Ambarish Srivastava at 'Anubhuti' of UAE , and twenty one nos. poems at Swargvibha which are prestigious websites. whether these are not online publications which can prove notability. Spjayswal67 (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank Mr. DGG. As per your suggestion i must work on it.Spjayswal67 (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. This  News Title : Ambarish Indira Gamdhi Priyadarshini Award se Sammanit [Ambarish honored to Indira Gandhi Priyadarshini Award]: p. 04. 2007-12-07.