Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 February 24

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
  ]