Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November

Ricardo Martinez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Tgose are two of my personal pictures. How can I do to keep them with no future problems? This is a biographical page I use for information purposes only. I'm the person depicted in the biography so I'm the legal owner of the material in it, includiong the two (2) pictures you already deleted. Can you help me with that issue? Thanks in advance. 66.176.42.2 (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have lots of issues with this close. It's particularly sloppy work, and it's worse coming from an administrator (

• I wouldn't overturn, though I do find this a little tricky. I would suggest following Harry's ren-nom suggestion, not because of the arguments advanced at the AfD , but because of the sources Ol'Yeller points to on the talk page imply GNG may be met. I wonder if the sock activity was dealt with completely? Rich Farmbrough, 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
• A decision's usually better than a compromise, if that's possible within our rules. However, there are good reasons why DRV will not normally fault a closer who calls "no consensus" on a fraught or contentious debate, not least because a call of "no consensus" gives you the latitude to renominate in early course. That's as good a remedy as a deletion review, to be honest. I wonder whether the technical errors with the close might be because of some kind of error with a closing script, perhaps; I wouldn't assume sloppiness on HJ Mitchell's part without eliminating other possibilities.—S Marshall T/C 00:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No assumption of sloppiness is necessary. Harry apparently never looked back. He didn't watchlist the close, and when the process was "vandalized", he didn't notice. If an admin is so dependent on closing scripts he or she doesn't double check the pagespace and talkspace afterwards, then that's pretty careless closing behavior, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Criteria supporting notability:-

1. Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage

2. Promotes a large number of events--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable

3. Has actively been in business for several years--the longer the organization has been around, the better

4. Large number of well-known and highly ranked fighters

1. Coverage in 83 countries, all the events live on Eurosport.

2. Promoted 7 events in 2011, 6 in Romania and 1 - the final from Germany, 5 shows were World Grand Prix.

3. Yes, SuperKombat's mother is the well known organization Local Kombat (promoted events with K-1 and other European promotions from Croatia, Hungary, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Poland and Czech Republic from 2003 to 2010). Same founder. LK was broadcasted by Fox Sports some events like K-1 Europe's GP in Bucharest - 2010, not only Eurosport.

4. Hesdy Gerges current It's showtime champion, Alexey Ignashov, Ben Edwards, Errol Zimmerman, Albert Kraus, Mighty Mo, Bob Sapp, Carter Williams, etc. all fought in the promotion in 2011. All are known from K-1.

Therefore, what are some users trying to do? To destroy the kickboxing database while MMA has here all kind of obscure promotions pages? Not only from United States, but also from Europe like Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki with no important coverage and with no fighters not even from top 30 in the organisation. While SuperKombat had a lot of fighters from Top 16 this year, coverage in 83 countries, notable fights like the final tournament or Gerges-Verhoeven, shows in other countries too.

Not to mention that some users were deleting important pages of the K-1 history. Take a look, there were redirected but the majority is missing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_K-1_events. Including the K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Bucharest - EVENT ON HD NET you can check commented by Schiavello and the Australian - which was the only World Grand Prix of K-1 in 2010 in Europe, considering in the end Amsterdam organised no show, so we had only an East Europe one. The same destroying (deleting) all the list of events here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Local_Kombat_events. Or deleting the events list of other notable European promotions. Shame! :( Rick Rick, 23:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment I'd like to thank new User:Rickr20 (95 edits, all in MMA) for demonstrating exactly what we're dealing with in these MMA/kickboxing AfD processes. BusterD (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Strangely, that Papaursa user is editing MMA articles, but he is reporting for deletion kickboxing articles, destroying the database. And you support him! I only express my opinion, something is not right here.

• to S Marshall from BusterD: "Thanks for your comments (S Marshall) on the DRV. I've got nothing but respect for HJ, and I acknowledge the wisdom in yours and Rich's words. Can you explain why these pages weren't G4'd right away? The first three clearly meet the criteria. BusterD (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

• The speedy deletion criteria are deliberately narrow, and they deliberately don't leave much room for administrator discretion. (When it comes to deletion, admins are the jury and executioner, but the role of judge has always been reserved for community consensus.) Davewild decided that the new version was not "substantially identical" to the previous version, so it didn't fall within the criteria for an immediate summary deletion. Thus the only options were prod and AfD, and prod's useless when the article is defended by its creator. I can understand why this seems bureaucratic to someone in your position and I have some sympathy with you. I believe that I've reflected on this enough now to add some of those words in bold that we always seem to get in discussions.

  Relist with a semi-protected AfD in the hope that next time we can get an untainted deletion discussion.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Thank you very much because you try to remain objective and you are not influenced. There is place for everybody here, including Papaursa who did great job regarding the whole martial arts or even BusterD who is like a policeman. But in this case I am not sure BusterD is right. It is your choice if you want wikipedia not to have a kickboxing database like it has MMA or boxing. Then, our work will end here. If not, we should be allowed even to recreate for example the K-1 lost events. Rick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickr20 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• to Papaursa from BusterD: "Because this was your nomination, it seems reasonable to notify you, just like the closing admin, that I'm unhappy with the way the outcome was gauged. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 29. BusterD (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

• I do not want anything, only respect please our work as we respect your work. Especially when we came with arguments. I can't believe people deleted K-1 events. And really, if you want WIKIPEDIA only for you we will leave it. Me, Wolf and others (Dutchmen) who already left. You know what Jimmy Wales said. Rick

• Does not really make much sense to appeal a no-consensus close. The closer suggested a renomination after a while; the main thing to decide is how long to wait. Based on what's being said here, though, I wouldn't be surprised at continued lack of consensus. (myself, I don't have enough interest in the subject to try to figure out the merits.) DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is a clear consensus to delete if you exclude the rife gaming and socking. If this process gaming and socking is allowed to continue (and thus be accepted), then I agree lack of consensus will be a problem. Virtually everyone involved with page creation and keep !votes here is a known puppet, a socker, or a SPA. Is this how the pedia truly wants to handle such gaming the system? BusterD (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow renomination at AfD 2 months after a no consensus close. In the renomination, carefully compose a clear response to the reasons that no consensus was reached last time. Trust the closer to know how to discount SPAs; no need to semi-protect an AfD. Nothing to "overturn" here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I put the article up for AfD because I thought it deserved a discussion after being recreated and I strongly feel the events fail notability. Lately there has been a rash of martial arts articles getting recreated shortly after being deleted and I would like to discourage this practice. I think putting it up again will lead to the same results--the sockpuppets, disruptive editors, and SPAs will tie things up with arguments that don't really bear on the issue. I hope that the editors involved received blocks. I think there was a consensus for deleting if you remove the questionable editors, but that's just my opinion. As far as comments about my views go, I have a clear record of voting to delete some events and keep others--it's a novel concept that isn't all or nothing (see
  WP:SPORTSEVENT and has reliable independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I agree with DRV nominator
  reliable sources
  
  I'm seeing several hits in a Google News search and Google News Archive search. I can't read most of them but it indicates to me that a G4 may probably doesn't apply after reading through the arguments made at this article's previous AfD. OlYeller21^Talktome 17:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

  It is possible that the subject(s) pass Wikipedia:Notability based on the non-English sources that editors have not reviewed. Because the discussion was defective, and because the socks tainted the discussion as noted by S Marshall (talk · contribs), a "no consensus" close is arguably justified.
  
  Relist with a semi-protected AfD by the DRV closer to achieve consensus about whether the articles fail Wikipedia:Notability. Like SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I trust the closing admins will discount the arguments by the single-purpose accounts. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Cam Newton eligibility controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Legitimate, valid article that was meant to be created according to the discussion at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr. 198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Neither valid or legitimate. There is a section in
  Cecil Newton, Sr., which didn't happen--and the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Newton, Sr. did not deliver any kind of consensus for this spin-off. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The reason for deletion was

• It's generally not a good idea to try and bad mouth the "closer", the deletion is either valid or invalid, that status of the closer with regard any other deletion is irrelevant. What makes you believe this wasn't nonsense? It's a deletion from 3.5 years ago for which I'm assuming you can't see the content. Don't confuse a believe that the subject is a real subject with what someone may have written under a given article title. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The deleted text is:

I think the text speaks for itself. T. Canens (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The 2008 version is obviously nonsense. Possibly the nominator was referring to the older version from 2006, which was deleted under A7 (and wasn't nonsense). That version did claim that the band had released an album on a notable label (Sympathy for the Record Industry), which is arguably an assertion of significance. Hut 8.5 09:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we seriously going to discuss whether to overturn an A7 (of an article that is extremely borderline at best) from 2006? T. Canens (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator trying to bring into question the deleter is quite clear and specific as to who that was, they only performed the one deletion, the 2008 version. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am willing to Assume Good Faith--not everyone can figure out at first how to read the deletion log. I take the comment as indicating he wants to make an article for the band somehow, and is asking our assistance in earnest. DGG ( talk ) 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is exactly right, I'm very (brand) new to this, and I created this account because I saw that in the history of my favorite band's wiki there was good, quality information. I didn't see the gibberish in the history, so my apologies for missing it. I'm also happy to create or cleanup the page as needed, to the best of my ability. Thank you for your help :) Corn8bit (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe I'm overdoing it, but I'm happy to extend the same assumption as the lister was willing to extend to DJ Clayworth. No need to labour that point further here though. If the user believes an article can be written about the subject meeting the relevant criteria/standards then they are free to do so. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Duke University faux sex thesis controversy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The reason for the deletion was

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• undelete source listed above plus things like Atlantic covering this 2-3 months later make me think we are past NOTNEWS and have sustained coverage. I also think the original discussion was probably better closed as no consensus, but delete wasn't outside of admin discretion. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted (disclosure: nominator of original deletion) - it has had no significant mention pretty much since the event. Now, it is now not the subject of direct commentary, significant coverage or analysis, but has merely been the inspiration for a TV episode - not even a major show but an episode of a show. Brief 1 sentence mention in the article on that show/episode if we cover the episode. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A massive story in the Atlantic 3 months later isn't significant coverage, or is that not long enough past the event? Hobit (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the original AFD - long standing norms on matters are quite content to pass by huge volumes of news that get attention for a short time but really have no place in an encyclopedia. This was one of those. Significant coverage showing any kind of enduring encyclopedic nature was pretty much zero then, and coverage on a show that attributes its plot idea to an old news story, doesn't really change that. If we had an article on the episode, worth a one line mention. "Gave someone the idea for an episode of a tv show" doesn't make the original story itself encyclopedic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic coverage, 3 months later, is IMO, exactly the kind of in-depth, after-the-fact coverage one would want when overcoming NOTNEWS. It takes the event as a starting point and goes into detail about how it illustrates issues with society--the massive increase in female binge drinking, the problem with the culture found at Duke (and other similar schools), etc. Could you explain why you don't find that coverage to be enough? In addition the SVU show is almost certain to spark some additional news coverage of the underlying indecent. Hobit (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is very similar to

WP:NOTINHERITED). It isn't "significant coverage" or coverage of the event either). It just doesn't show (to me) it is encyclopedic. The rest - see AFD rationale. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll just note that if you think the "revisit" was brief you probably didn't look at (or read) the article. It's more than 5500 words, solely on this topic 3 months later. That's a lot of words. An average NYT article is 1200. The industry standard for a "feature" article in a newspaper is 400-1000 words. It seems remarkable to be deleting an article here because it's "just news" when we have sources like that. Hobit (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted. The TV show episode is not significant--every episode of that show is based on a news story. The basic situation has not changed since the AfD.
  Chick Bowen 05:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You may disagree as to the relevance of the TV show episode, but I can't see how you can write "The basic situation has not changed since the AfD" given the Atlantic reference above which was written 2 months after the AfD. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted per FT2. The article cited says: "Truly (the writer of the episode) explained that he always ensures that the twists of his script deviate considerably from what happen in real life... Truly could only milk (the original incident) for four or five scenes—anything more would have felt like a stretch, he said. Caitlin’s murder was resolved well before the episode’s half-way mark... " The fact that the incident provided inspiration for part of one episode of a TV series, altered to be in an office rather than a university and to result in a murder, really does not mean that it has "gone into popular culture." Also, the BLP issues raised in the AfD still apply. JohnCD (talk) 13:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• undelete/allow recreation BLP was not the cause for deletion but rather NOTNEWS and a strong argument has been made that NOTNEWS no longer applies given the Atlantic article and the later use of the idea in a TV show. The primary BLP issue would be the people who are mentioned in the faux thesis, and the article shouldn't mention them by name (and appropriately does not). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted - Rubbish. All of these crime serials, the CSIs to NCIS to Law and Order, crib from the headlines of the day for interesting story angles, it doesn't make the underlying event notable by association. Once in awhile the cribbing makes the local news, but nothing more. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore it was a bad decision in the first place. The various stages of the incident raised very different questions (.i.e. , when it was thought real, and then when it was admitted not to be).It's mot news--it will continue being discussed, at least tin the professional journals, and certainly when the next comparable incident occurs. NOT NEWS has a purpose, but when it reaches things dealing ith basic social or education mores it's over=extended. DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I won't take any issue with Mkativerata's close because it was quite accurate on the basis of the debate before him. I see that, as is happening more and more these days, there are matters that the debate failed to go into.

  Notability isn't inherited from a Law and Order episode to its source incident, and Karen Owen's sex life is clearly of no encyclopaedic interest whatsoever. What is of encyclopaedic interest is the subject of internet privacy, which is of course what the one half-decent source we have is really covering anyway. And, oh look, there's a section of that article called internet privacy#specific cases, which is where coverage of Karen's thesis belongs. (I see that the same section should also mention Jessica Cutler.)

  On re-reading that, I think it suffices. I won't trouble to add any words in bold, because anyone who would have any business closing a DRV will know exactly what I mean and what I think should be done.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete, this is now no more "just news" than Claire Swire email. If a suitable place can be found to merge it too, then that is another matter. Rich Farmbrough, 00:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Comment To drive home the point that the
  WP:NOTNEWS
  threshhold has been met for this article, here are some additional references that discuss this topic after it made big news on October 7 and 8 of 2010:

• One Duke Girl's Huge, Massive Mistake: Writing a "F*$% List": May 2011
• Privacy Strikes Back: How to stop cyber-bullies November 2010
• 'Hazards Of Duke' Article Angers Students January 2011: a review of the Atlantic Monthly article referenced by Hobit above

Additionally, I found a serious reference at Forbes which came out a week before the big news cycle of October 7 and 8 of 2010. The Forbes references discusses in detail the privacy aspects raised by S Marshall.

The article could also be beefed up with a background on the faux thesis author from this reference by a local newspaper from her hometown. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain if bettyconfidential is a RS, but in any case, the original article appears to have been posted on or just before Oct 1 based on the comments section. It was updated in May. The other sources do seem to show ongoing coverage however. Hobit (talk) 15:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 30#(X)-related works

• Massive deletion of many categories by a non-admin. Using reasoning not based on any Wikipedia guidelines, and ignoring comments made by others. What is the point of discussion when anybody can close a discussion? Why do we vote on admins? This is another example of the problem of non-admin closes. We allow anybody to close a multiple category deletion. Then a robot goes around immediately and makes hundreds or even thousands of category name changes. So why bother editing categories at all? This will discourage hundreds of editors who see this robot changing their work. There should be a delay between when a discussion is closed and when the robot goes forth wreaking havoc. There is also a problem in that sections of talk pages can not be watchlisted. I can not watchlist just this section: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 30#(X)-related works. So people can not really participate in these discussions. How does one know when there is discussion? --Timeshifter (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI: Non-admins can't make the bot empty pages, as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working is fully protected. There is the edit, which allowed the renaming of these categories. Armbrust ^{Talk to me about my edits}_review 03:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but a non-admin closed the discussion. Anybody could drop into any category discussion and close it. Once a discussion is closed then the process leads to categories being deleted.

Also, the person who initiated the deletion/rename discussion was the person who allowed the renaming of the categories as indicated by the diff you linked to, Armbrust. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and re-close
  WP:NACD. --NYKevin @784, i.e. 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and reclose, same result'Endorse - frankly this seems very much a sour-grapes DRV. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close was a correct reading of the discussion. If a NAC is right there is no point reverting it just so an admin an announce the same result. Doing so discourages non-admins from
  being bold in making correct closures. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • But the
    relevant policy already does that... personally I think this ought to be closed with the same result, but I'm somewhat concerned about the expanding role of NAC in these. --NYKevin @079, i.e. 00:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Relist, but not for the reasons given by Timeshifter — a 2-1 vote isn't enough for consensus here. Best to let this get more input before closing. Nyttend (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original CfD was open for one day short of four weeks - relisting isn't likely to draw any further comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus. So the discussion should have been closed as "no consensus." --Timeshifter (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus that doesn't agree with your POV is still consensus. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close The !VOTE was at least 3-1, and arguably 4-1 with a couple more commenting in ways that suggest acquiescence or even support for deletion. There had been no new comments for almost a month at the time of close. Even if the decision is that this should be relisted, the fact that the closer was a non-admin should have no bearing on the result, and under no circumstances should an admin justify a reclose using the fact it was a non-admin close. Monty₈₄₅ 06:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The non-admin closer made up a rule against the use of the word "related", and then did not follow his own rule in one case. That rule being to substitute "about." So there is no rule, and even less logic. Multiple people pointed out the problem with this rule in one case, but for some reason this does not seem logical to the closer in the other cases. In nearly all the other cases I was the only person who commented specifically. So I don't see where there is some obvious consensus that allows a non-admin close according to
  WP:NAC, and the banishing of a word from category names. It is silly to ban a word. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#Non-admin close creating new category naming guideline. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • We're not here to discuss the merits of the case itself; we're here to discuss the merits of the close. The closer provided a good reason for that inconsistency.
    Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and closers, in general, have discretion for common sense decisions like that. --NYKevin @082, i.e. 00:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I was discussing the merits of the close by a non-admin. That non-admin close was done incorrectly according to

WP:NAC. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Please reread my !vote, my comment here, and your comment. You are complaining that the close was logically inconsistent. I am informing you that those are allowed, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I agree that the NAC was bad, but I don't think this is a very good argument for that case. I'm focused on the number and quality of the !votes, which are the most important criteria here. --NYKevin @226, i.e. 04:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. That nomination is a bit if a mess and is one of the reasons I dislike bundled nominations. Anyway, I agree Eluchil's point that we shouldn't revert a correct NAC just because it was performed by a non-admin (NOTBUREAUCRACY and so on). Although I think there was consensus for the "Death-related art" categories (and, if possible, they should not be relisted), I do not think there was consensus for the others ("(X)-related songs", "Race-related works", "Cancer-related works", "Category:Drug-related works", "Category:Adoption-related works") where the only two commentators are the nominator and the opposer (Timeshifer), and both have reasonable arguments (i.e. neither !vote should be discounted by the closer). Jenks24 (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NACD, non-admin closures should be limited to uncontroversial cases and may be reopened by any administrator. The fact that a review of the decision has been requested indicates that the decision is controversial. I am therefore, in my individual capacity as an administrator, overturning the closure and relisting the discussion.

  I agree with this approach in nearly all cases. However, in this case, the close was requested on Fayenatic london's talk page because no one wished to close the 25-day-old discussion. Whereas there are many admin closers experienced with closing AfDs, there are much fewer admin closers experienced with closing CfDs. I am therefore willing to give non-admins more lenience with the undesirable tasks that admins are reluctant to do, especially when the non-admins have demonstrated that they have carefully read and analyzed the arguments. Fayenatic's closing rationale is solid and an accurate interpretation of the consensus for the "Death-related art" categories.

  However, as Jenks24 (talk · contribs) noted above, the bundled nomination resulted in low participation in all of the CfDs, save for the "Death-related art" categories.

  Endorse the closure of the "Death-related art" categories.

  Relist "(X)-related songs", "Race-related works", "Cancer-related works", "Category:Drug-related works", "Category:Adoption-related works" owing to the insufficient participation. Cunard (talk) 06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

I feel the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. Other than the Nom, only 1 person voted Delete, and their reasoning proved faulty (lack of Reliable in depth secondary sources, of which one was shown). Discussion with the Closer amounts to "It's not my place to agree or disagree. The consensus was that the coverage was insufficient". A rational of "no evidence has been provided that it might have sufficient coverage to satisfy notability requirements" is simply wrong. [4] proves that. It should have been relisted at the very least when, even the closer noted, a distinct lack of !votes on the matter was presented. 2 surely cannot be deemed 'consensus'. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well as the requirement is for sources, providing a single one doesn't answer the concern. There is no quorum in AFD. I have some sympathy that this could have been relisted, but on the discussion in the xFD and what's been presented here so far, I find it hard to believe it would survive for long. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• While I endorse the result of the AfD for the reasons already stated, I would also like to point out that we do have a source. This means a potential alternative outcome that would comply with our rules would be to
  WP:HISTMERGE.—S Marshall T/C 11:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC or relist One very solid source and a few less than great (but reliable etc. even if just dealing with a fire) may or may not meet WP:N. However there is no consensus that they do not meet WP:N. Given the low attendance at the AfD, it should either have been a relist or no consensus as there was no bright line crossed on notability (i.e. neither no sources nor tons of sources). Hobit (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, I find it extremely unlikely that local news sources didn't cover its construction. That would be unheard of in the states--local news always covers major construction. Hobit (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per 82.19.4.7. This really was within admin discretion and for a run-of-the-mill local shopping centre hardly a surprising result. But I'd support restoring the article under a redirect to
  Mkativerata (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Describing the Content of the Article as run-of-the-mill is biased and not what we are talking about. "Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question" (

WP:Google test have no weight at all and should have been discounted. How does that equal a Delete? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC) PS one of the GTests was based upon a faulty db search engine, The Southern-courier (a subsidiary of news.com.au) shows results [5] Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC) [reply

]

The only non-policy argument I can see, looking over the AfD again, is your suggestion that by not being just a shopping centre it's sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. I have no opinion on the subject whatsoever, and, despite your attempts to suggest I was acting improperly by disagreeing with you, I closed the AfD in line with the consensus as I saw it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight ... You believe a GTest IS a valid test of somethings WP:N? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think just looking at those local newspaper hits should give all the necessary answers. --

Mkativerata (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Agree'd thoes hits are not suitable for a Cite, but the fact that they are there, proves the worthlessness of GTests and what weight a GTest should be given. Exit2DOS ^• Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that it's within admin's discretion as many editors see it so I'll just give my opinion (so I won't bold anything). AFD is not a vote count but numbers aren't meaningless. Barring BLP issues I like to see at least 2 editors concur with the nom (3 or more is optimal) before I "hard delete" anything. This may avoid challenges like this one and allows me to, with a straight face, tell someone who comes to my talk page that there was a "community discussion" and the result was delete. The AFD in question here was not a "community discussion", it was a back and forth between 2 editors. I would have relisted this if I came across it in the logs. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A reasonable close, Within discretion. Fully in line with the usual closes on articles in the subject area. and I would have used my discretion the same way had I closed it--except I generally don't close in that area, having a relatively deletionist bias for shopping centers. The possibility remains to write a stronger article with more and better sources, and try again. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Body Sensor Networks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

Thank you very much in advance. (Airuko (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• Hi, can you provide sources that discuss BSN vs. BAN or show that BSN, as a term of art, has some kind of general acceptance? Looking at the AfD, it _sounds_ like one professor is using this term, while others do not. Could you clarify that (ideally with references)? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the sentence BSN and BAN are actually different and often mistakenly used is telling. English is not a prescriptive language, so use defines meaning not visa versa. If the two are used interchangeably, they are interchangeable. I'm slightly worried here that the two might have different translations Japanese (or some other language) which may not be interchangeable.
  Stuartyeates (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I have actually added quite a lot of details and references from other researchers in the community since we started editing the page (and after the deletion mark was put on the page). Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Body_Sensor_Networks&oldid=460896566 for the recent version.

For references from other information sources, please see

- http://www.efytimes.com/e1/creativenews.asp?edid=73192

- https://www.zotero.org/groups/chiarini_thesis_references/items/itemKey/FKAVMNGN#./FKAVMNGN?&_suid=163

- http://www.cms.livjm.ac.uk/pri/otherprojects.html#A_Body_Sensor_Network_and_Gaming_Platform_for_Dynamically_Adapting_Physiotherapy_Treatments

- http://www.media.mit.edu/people/joep

- http://news.bbc.co.uk/chinese/trad/hi/newsid_4120000/newsid_4125700/4125706.stm

- http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1459617

- http://www.startribune.com/business/90362829.html?page=2&c=y

In http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10323325-247.html, the usage of BSN and BAN are clearly defined.

In general, most papers on BANs are network related, and most papers on BSN includes sensors, application, network, biocompatability, energy harvesting, etc. There are quite a lots of work on sensors in the BSN community which may not always have wireless or BAN. If required, more references can be provided. (Airuko (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I've looked through all the references given above and followed about 15 of the dozens of the links from the previous version of the page. None of them discussed BANs and BSNs in a comparative fashion, or as being different things. Of the links I clicked on the only one that mentioned BSNs by name was https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-3-540-70994-7_28 which is a paper / talk from a conference with the term in the title (the term does not appear in the title of the paper, nor the abstract). Of the references above only https://www.zotero.org/groups/chiarini_thesis_references/items/itemKey/FKAVMNGN and http://www.cms.livjm.ac.uk/pri/otherprojects.html mention BSNs (but the latter uses it a LOT). I see no evidence of BSNs and BANs being anything but synonyms.

Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I have to admit that in several research papers, BAN is used instead of BSN, either because in some contexts they are replacable or they are mistakenly used. To be precise, the terms do have different meanings. BAN usually refer to the network architecture (as defined by the IEEE standard). Researchers in this area can usually differentiate between the two terms. In addition to http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10323325-247.html that I gave above, you can also see from the links below:

- http://www.slideshare.net/jassics/body-area-network-8498901

- http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~jain/cse574-08/ftp/ban/index.html

It is also accepted in the field that 'Professor Guang-Zhong Yang was the first person to formally define the phrase "Body Sensor Network" (BSN) with publication of his book Body Sensor Networks in 2006.' as metioned in the link above (which is from a third person across the continent). The term existed since before I started my research on BSN in 2003. There are several terms invented afterward. There is also Body Sensor Area Networks (BASNs) which actually come after in 2009 (http://people.virginia.edu/~bhc2b/papers/HansonEtalComputer09.pdf). I do believe that the majority of people in this research area will be able to differentiate between the two terms (just from the meanings of the words used in the terms themselves). Even if the terms will mutate and eventually become synonyms, I do hope you would allow us to keep and further develop the BSN wiki page to be more complete. This is very important to us as much as wikipedia is important to you. I hope you understand. (Airuko (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

To clarify the points mentioned by

Stuartyeates

, BSN stands for Body Sensor Network. The term Body Sensor Network is used in all the links I gave above, although not all of them are in a relative fasion with BAN (Body Area Network). In the three references given previously, however, BSN and BAN were mentioned as different things. To support my earlier claims, I also would like to add a few more references:

- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070913081044.htm

- http://www.innovation.rca.ac.uk/CMS/files/Innovate5+cover.pdf

- http://www.ece.uah.edu/~jovanov/paper/Jovanov09_TITB_BSN_Editorial.pdf

- http://www.innovation.rca.ac.uk/234/all/1/Body_sensing_network.aspx (Airuko (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

• relist we now have reasonable sources with which to make a better call. I'm not sure what the right organizational scheme is, but we have solid RSes showing that the two topics are different. The nom here may need to be careful with
  WP:COI and should probably indicate what relationship, if any. he/she has with Professor Guang-Zhong Yang... Hobit (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I used to be his student four years ago. I am now working as a lecturer in an university in Thailand and have no any formal link with Prof. Yang (Airuko (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Thanks. If you are going to edit a BSN article (if it gets restored) you should consider making a note of that per
    WP:COI. I don't think it's a clear case of needing to, but I'll leave it to you to read the COI guideline and figure out how best to proceed. Best of luck! Hobit (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Reverse redirect and restart merge discussion, with a note on the talk page of both articles. I see no point in relisting an AfD when deletion is not being considered, but I also think there is not yet consensus that this should exist as a standalone article. DRV is not the best place to discuss this though; article talk space is.
  Chick Bowen 04:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I'm fine with that. You are right, since deletion isn't being considered AfD is probably the wrong place. Hobit (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm really not at all convinced, but
  Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

Sourced reference to Cam Newton and should redirect to that article. l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 22:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• What reference where? They weren't in the deleted redirects and they don't appear in the target article. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No. Derogatory POV-infringing BLP-infringing redirect title. Not a reasonable search term or misspelling. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would probably be deleted at rfd (primarily because there doesn't seem to be consensus to mention this name in the target article), but it was speedied instead of going there.
    We allow POV redirect titles if there's significant coverage outside of Wikipedia; likewise, it's not deletable as a BLP once it's sourced (and five seconds of googling found this one from The Arizona Republic). I know whether there's sufficient coverage out there, but I don't think this can quite be dismissed as the run-of-the-mill attack page that it was repeatedly deleted as. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse. Routine application of BLP principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse own deletion and those of other admins who have deleted the redirects. This isn't a "non-neutral redirect". It's an "attack" redirect against, of all things, a living person. It doesn't matter whether it's sourceable. We don't allow disparagement. G10 says so. Of course, if it is sourceable, it might be mentioned in the article and attributed to those who use the nickname. But our redirects don't have the luxury of attribution. A redirect is an implicit acceptance of the legitimacy of the nickname. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You even tagged the deletion with the applicable CSD criteria. The worst I can say is maybe use a "," instead of "or". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This I disagree with pretty strongly. Please read our guidelines on redirects. We keep non-neutral redirects as a matter of course.
  WP:RNEUTRAL. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Please read G10. Then please tell me where the guideline authorises attack redirects on living persons, as opposed to mere "non-neutral" titles. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • G10 doesn't. But are you seriously claiming that if the article covered the topic/attack, we shouldn't have a redirect to it? Shall we remove Tricky Dick? If not, why not? I think it qualifies as an attack. Where is the line? I'd think the line would be a mention in the article. Where do you draw it? Hobit (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The line is clear. G10 draws it. The redirect disparages the subject. --
      Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I think you dodged the question there. Does Tricky Dick disparage the subject? Is it a G10 candidate? Why or why not? I don't think the line is as clear as you claim. If it were, I'd think you'd G10 that redirect. Hobit (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Tricky" is not an allegation of criminal or unlawful conduct. "Scam" is. Dick's also dead. --
          Mkativerata (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • G10 talks about disparagement, not allegations of criminal conduct. So did you, just three lines up. Would you delete Tricky Dick if Nixon were still alive? How about Shrubya, then? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mkativerata (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • You're still dodging the question. Suppose we didn't have
                Hussein Obama someone will claim it's never meant to be disparaging. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • What if the sky turns red? --
                  Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
                  ]
                  • But you are claiming that all negative nicknames that redirect to the subject should be deleted under G10? That's a pretty broad brush. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • You seem to be under the misapprehension that 'disparaging' or 'attacking' are synonymous with 'negative'. --
                      Mkativerata (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
                      ]
                      • Yeah, I'd say pretty much. I'm having a hard time thinking of a negative nickname that isn't disparaging. Got an example you are thinking of? In any case, I'm happy to change the question to "But you are claiming that all 'disparaging' or 'attacking' nicknames that redirect to the subject should be deleted under G10?" Hobit (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Well the answer to that question is clearly 'yes', because G10 says so. --
                          Mkativerata (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
                          ]
                          • Thank you for clarifying. I've started a discussion here. Hobit (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP talks about removing negative material instead of negative unsourced material. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Yeah, that article is a real problem. Removing an extremely well-known nickname of a dead president? Not exactly our shining moment. Hobit (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Disparaging, non-notable faux nicknames are unacceptable. Consider topic ban if this behavior persists, as the article's talk page shows a bit of a contentious history with this user as well. I just tagged a missed one ("$cam Newton") G10 as well. Tarc (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The emerging consensus here is that WP:BLP takes precedence over WP:RNEUTRAL. I agree that BLP is more important but I do think we need to reword RNEUTRAL to show that derogatory nicknames for a living person are not normally acceptable. As currently worded the issue could cause confusion.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not BLP trumping here, but G10. An admin has made a reasonable G10 call. As for sourcing, a sourced attach is still an attack. The real test is whether the redirect title is covered at the target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Spent too long thinking about this. I'm not comfortable with deleting a sourced redirect as a G10--discussion would be preferred. At the same time I'm certainly not comfortable with the redirect to an article that doesn't actually have the name in it when it is so negative and involves a BLP. So endorse but I hope we all agree that if the term were in the article we'd keep this (or at least leave it to RfD rather than speedy). Hobit (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The name "Scam Newton" is now used in the Cam Newton eligibility controversy article, maybe these redirects can be targeted there instead --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that piece of trash of an article has been quickly, and rightfully IMO, redirected to Cam Newton. There is not a thing to justify a standalone article on this issue. Tarc (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c) No. That has been properly redirected as a
    WP:Coatrack Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well then that means my original suggestion stands - these nicknames should redirect to Cam Newton --l a t i s h r e d o n e (previously User:All in) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be clear by now that nobody else agrees with that (not even Hobit or I, despite our objections above). Respectfully suggest you withdraw your request. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which sock is allowed to do that? LoveUxoxo (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

No clear initial consensus, dubious expertise of original debaters and new information See also User_talk:Mkativerata— Preceding unsigned comment added by Malixsys (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 November 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I was not involved in the AfD, but have gone through it here and believe that the right result was obtained. I appreciate the fact that the closing editor took the time to weigh the merits of the arguments and the evidence, rather than engage in mindless vote counting, entirely as appropriate per
  WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I also found the linked blog entry provided by Malixsys unconvincing, to say the least. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(edit conflict)Please apply and compare your analysis to the closing here, do you agree that "mindless vote counting" is the only possible way to have reached this closure?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn No consensus at discussion, and a wonderful rant by Danny Sullivan (technologist) at the linked blog post. Personally, I don't know Jessie Stricchiola from Eve. But I know Danny Sullivan. He is probably the single most important search engine analyst (who isn't directly working for a search engine). If he says she's notable in the world of search engine marketing, then she is. The rant (between the frothing-at-the-mouth parts) also provides strong arguments that weren't considered in the deletion discussion. This is something like God himself coming down from Ararat and pointing at where Stricchiola's name is engraved on the stone tablets. Undelete. If the reason for deletion was that Wikipedia editors agreed, that would be one thing, but even the closer agreed that didn't happen. If the reason for deletion was that three anonymous Wikipedia editors made strong arguments, well, here is one undisputed subject matter expert making a stronger one. And for what it's worth, he's a Wikipedia editor too, even if he can't figure out how it works. --GRuban (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I recommend this rebuttal to the not-so-wonderful rant. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with that rebuttal is that it being written from the point of view of a Wikipedian. Fine, but that's not why we have articles, not because Wikipedians like them or not. We have articles on people who are notable in their field, not just people whom we personally like. Danny Sullivan is an expert, probably the single most influential expert, on this field. That's why his rant is important, because it is a strong argument on Stricchiola's notability in the field. Not because he can rant, and a Wikipedian can rant, and whoever rants best wins; but because Danny is an expert on search engines, which should beat an expert on our encyclopedia.--GRuban (talk) 16:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GRuban, your argument seems appropriate for Citizendium, but for this insane asylum his C.V. grants him no special privileges, correct? LoveUxoxo (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Closing admins are empowered to weigh strength of argument/position and not just headcount. Weak keep rationales such as "let's be more wiki-friendly to girls" and "her book is on an important topic" don't cut it. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - Substantively, I think it should be "overturn" due to the strength of Danny Sullivan's arguments. But procedurally, it'll probably sit better as a "relist" so the deletion faction doesn't feel there were any improprieties. Moreover, the argument for a relist seems to me to be clear - there was no strong consensus for the original delete, and his post, whatever else you may think of it, does contain a lot of referenced information about notability. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a pity to overturn such a careful close with such a well-thought-out closing statement, but source 1, source 2, source 3. Itszippy's analysis of these sources is flawed because he's under the misapprehension that sources have to be strictly about the subject before they meet the GNG. This is quite wrong, and indeed the GNG specifically says "need not be the main topic of the article". Thus Itszippy's analysis is nowhere near as conclusive as the closing statement suggests. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 13:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The closing analysis by Mkativerata clearly summarised the consensus in the AfD; most telling: "That those delete !votes have stood for between 7 and 13 days without any challenge leads me to conclude that there is a consensus to delete." The original debaters may or may not have had dubious expertise about Stricchiola but some of the "Delete" arguments - for example, DGG's research into how many libraries held her book - suggests a thoroughness neither bettered nor equalled by the "Keep" contingent. Interestingly, the research undertaken by some of those who opted for deletion fully supported Cantaloupe2's initial nom. As for the link to Danny Sullivan's rant, I won't even dignify it with the term "new information". It is pure bitching that does not reflect a constructive attitude to WP nor does it reflect the attitude of those of us who make the effort to practice editing, to search for and learn about the various guidelines and who avoid creating articles unless we're confident, as article creators, that they're well-written and reliably-sourced. ClaretAsh 01:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the "attitude" of his post, which I understand why might offend you and you need not further explain that aspect to me, don't you think the post also contains new information that's relevant, again completely apart from the procedural critique and views he expresses? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it doesn't offend me. Don't worry about that. As for the "new information", I don't see any. What I do see is the procedural critique you mentioned and which, I concede, may be of use to those who look after the various "WP:" guideline/procedure pages. Other than that, all Mr Sullivan has to offer is his own word, as a subject expert, that Jessie Stricchiola is notable according to WP's interpretation of that term. Fortunately, this isn't enough. There are good and obvious reasons for our COI policy. Nonetheless, this doesn't preclude Mr Sullivan, or any other expert, from aiding WP, for example, by providing or recommending sources, or assisting in the search for information. And yes, I will take this opportunity to advertise our

library, as I feel it is greatly under-used. ClaretAsh 11:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• overturn The right outcome for this was keep as the delete !votes were pretty bogus. We've got an NPR interview of her, a source that pretty much solely covers her, two full pages of a book that discusses her and her views, and about 5 other good sources. A "no consensus" outcome would have been within the bounds of admin discretion so I'll suggest we overturn to that. Let's walk the sources listed by ItsZippy.
  • [6] is nearly useless for
    WP:N
  • [7] is conceded to count toward notability.
  • [8] is certainly NOT a mention in passing: this is 1.5 pages of her discussing a client and case.
  • [9] is a NYT article that spends two paragraphs on her.
  • [10] is a CNN article that cites her three times.
  • [11] cites her three times.
  • [12] is an NPR story that spends 4 paragraphs (of radio time) on her and her opinions.

Could a discussion reasonably conclude she's not notable? I suppose so as the coverage is about her opinions and not her per se. But the consensus would have to be really strong, and this was split. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (
  WP:ATD is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  Yet the closing admin has taken the alternate path that editors normally should not follow, and ignored WP:ATD.  I can't see the article, but one search and one click yields this sentence, "Jessie is widely recognized as having been the first to publicize PPC click fraud in 2001 and has been interviewed by numerous trade publications and media outlets on the issue, including NPR, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Wired Magazine, The Washington Post, CNNMoney, CNET.com, CNBC, and The BBC" (emphasis added), so there is a major disconnect here between this sentence and the idea that this analyst not only doesn't satisfy wp:notability, but that the material in the article is objectionable, and the redirect itself is objectionable.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - The closer seems to have adequately examined the relative strength of the arguments made rather than just tallying them up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse deletion. Delete with fire. From the discussion on Hacker News:

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

The BLP was not under discussion but appears to have been deleted as a one event BLPIE from comments in the associated afd - I asked the deleting admin but looking at his activity there is no guarantee he will edit in the next days. The admin asserted he deleted it a6s a BLPIE from comments in this associated afd -

• Overturn deletion, Restore article. BLP1E is not a speedy criterion and no-one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Being Born Again Couture Fashion Show (2nd nomination) suggested deletion of Davina Reichman, indeed some contributors presumed this article should be kept. The deletion looks to have been entirely a mistake. Thincat (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment regarding an associated deletion - IClothing - The admin also seems to have deleted IClothing in a similar manner - so I am attaching that deletion review here also - I am of the opinion (from memory) that there is not much for an article there but there may well be detail for a merge to the parent BLP if its deletion is overturned here.
  Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment regarding IClothing: at least that was deleted under a CSD criterion (
    WP:CSD#G11. It is still cached here where it claims "the world's first iPad compatible clothes". Some might regard this as an indication of importance, others might regard it as bilge water. Perhaps a separate discussion is required. Thincat (talk) 09:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Overturn. "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations." There might be limited exceptions to the principle, but this surely doesn't fall into any of them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am now finding a whole lot of backstory to all this: here and here. Thincat (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn-
  WP:BLP1E still isn't a speedy deletion criteria. Even if it was, the article was ineligible for speedy deletion anyway (barring newly found copyright issues) since it survived a previous AFD. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• overturn out of process deletion. Article not eligible for speedy, no applicable speedy criteria in any case. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is strange. the deleting admin's last edit was on Oct 23 and his last admin action was on Oct 19 and then on Nov 17 he swoops down out of the sky and deletes Davina Reichman and IClothing and then disappears again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Their editing seems very sporadic as does their admin actions, so it doesn't look that unusual for the individual at least. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion, BLP1E is not a CSD. JORGENEV 12:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn article had survived a previous AfD and so could only be deleted by another AfD. This might be justifiable if the AfD on the fashion show had discussed deleting this article as well, but it didn't (in fact several people commenting at that AfD suggested some of the content could be merged to this article). Hut 8.5 15:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Advise the deleting admin to read the XfD (which he linked to) and WP:CSD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I remembered seeing this on IRC. Basically, the deleting admin stated that they are familiar with the subject, who has requested deletion. Logs available by email upon request. T. Canens (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say the admin should have directed her to otrs to request that. Such a request if verified would not be a reason to delete it as he did.
    Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn. At least we now have a reason for the deleting admin's decision, but in my opinion the subject's request alone is nothing like enough to justify speedy deletion of an article that had already survived an AfD. I'm not convinced by the IClothing A7 either given the number of sources cited. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

L.S.,

Recently I noticed that the Wikipedia entry for "Anton Singov" has been deleted. After reading the discussion page it seems like there were both good and disputable reasons for deletion. One of reasons (lack of reliable sources) seems very reasonable to me, the reason that notability is not established is arguable. The article satisfies on point 1 of WP:ANYBIO. The subject of the article has consistently reached top3 and won several first places at the most notable international "electronic sports" competitions in the world such as Electronic Sports World Cup, Dreamhack , Quakecon, Intel Extreme Masters and World Cyber Games Russia. Look for the pseudonym "Cooller".

Would it be possible to restore the history so that the sources can be added? I have already tried to talk to the admin who deleted the article but it seems he has resigned his position as admin.

Thank you for your time. Nieuwebezoeker (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there coverage in third-party reliable sources anywhere? I personally support having e-sports covered in much better detail here, but without reliable independent sourcing it's unlikely to happen. Note that coverage need not be mainstream (though that would be really helpful), but it needs to exist. Hobit (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Hobit, thank you for looking into this. I am not sure what you mean with third-party reliable sources, but I have linked to sources in my above post (some official, some third-party) for the result of the tournaments. This includes third-party coverage from GotFrag (a big North American PC gaming website), the BBC (British Public Service broadcaster), ESReality (one of the biggest Quake related coverage-sites) and Cyberfight.org (Russian competitive gaming site). Nieuwebezoeker (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, what you need to read is
    WP:N. Basically speaking, we need non-trivial coverage of Anton. Something more than "he placed 1st" or "we played against him". The BBC coverage is, for example, just in passing (mentioning him but not discussing him). So I'm afraid those sources won't do. We'd need to see an interview or other coverage in a reliable 3rd party source, that has enough we could write a bio. I don't think any of those sources do that... Hobit (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

This Page Is Waiting To Be Updated With References And Information To Show This Person's Public Status. Please Check DJ_Many Talk Page For The Updated Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.93.81 (talk) 11:21, November 19, 2011‎

• Comment The talk page has been deleted (not by me this time) but didn't look any much better than the original. One of the refs was non-independent (own site). another was a brief profile with no source, and the last was a link to a magazine and I could see nothing about the subject. A Note To The Author: People Here Will Take More Notice Of What You Say If You Type Like this instead, lowercase on ordinary words being the correct way to type (or write) English. This way is far easier to read anyway. Peridon (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the link to the magazine (L3 magazine), there is an item about this person on page 48. I don't think it's possible to link directly to the page, but it is there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The magazine's website links to the various magazine issues [13], though I'm not sure how realiable/significant it is, the magazine seems to use hotmail for email which is usually a bit of a red flag for me. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (Despite Having Been Written In Exactly The Same Style.) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok please review now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Many56 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• A user started to rewrite the patge while it was under review. That's not how it works. Once a decision is made on the deletion review, if the decision is to overturn the deletion, you can edit it then. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humm, an improved article would be handy though for purposes of this DRV. Should they make a copy in user space (deleted when merged if the article is restored), keep it in main space and just replace the DRV notice as they go, or something else? Hobit (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Realistically if someone wants to improve it, it's probably better to usefy, close the DRV then start again when it's complete. Putting a 7 day limit on improvements (which is what DRV would be) to then either decide to delete it again, or userfy at that point seems a bit of a waste of time. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 07:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• When there are more promotional external links than references, I think it is too promotional. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Endorse CSD It's a badly written raw promo based on self-references. If someone rewrites it, sources it, and makes it comply then have at it but this isn't it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

Considered as multilingual name in Cyrillic. The "Гомес" name may mean Gomez or Gomes depending on translation. It was used on mnwiki, ruwiki, ttwiki and, bgwiki.

Clearly transliterated as Selena Gomez in Cyrillic. Namiin Azhar (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC) * Note that above nomination was two refactored to one

• So what? That was considered and given its due weight in the RFD, which led someone to ask why anyone would come to the English Wikipedia and search for the name of an American actress using the Cyrillic characters. Seems like an excellent question to me.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A bit unnecessary, one would think. Peridon (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse we don't have redirects from non-English titles unless the target has a close connection with that language or a culture where it is spoken (
  WP:R#DELETE). Deletion was thus supported by the relevant guideline and the nomination doesn't address this. Hut 8.5 17:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

50/50 Twin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

According to WP:Proposed deletion this article must be undeleted automatically on request. Article was deleted by PROD on 12 May 2008. Although first article may have been written too early in his career, this artist has now released 6 albums. Whether or not he has now achieved sufficient notability should be decided through AfD. The same admin had previously denied a Request for Undeletion [14] on 21 October 2011 Ei1sos (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete as a contested prod and then immediately redirect to The Color Changin' Click#50/50 Twin as a non-notable artist. Since this article is constantly being re-created, protect the redirect until a well-sourced draft is presented to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per
  procedural grounds. I think "redirect & protect" or "keep deleted and salt" are equally good ways to proceed from here. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse original deletion. I hate to say it 3 times already. If the person is suddenly now notable under
  BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm sorry, but this makes not one bit of sense to me. For all I know, not being able to view the older article, it might contain reasonably useful biographical information without asserting notability. If the artist has become notable over the more than three years since the PROD-deletion (which is certainly not "suddenly" in terms of popular music), information about his early career certainly might be appropriate to incorporate in the article. And, frankly, those early speedies look pretty bad to me: membership in a notable band may not satisfy the notability requirements, but it's an assertion of significance sufficient to survive A7. The requesting editor can't write a new article right now, because the article is protected against recreation. This is a bureaucratic snarl that should just be cut away. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Reyk and BWilkins. If he's now notable and was not then it makes much more sense to start a new article. As for the contention that we must undelete if requested, it is long established that all Wikipedia rules
  talk) 00:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The redirect is clearly appropriate, folks. The
  WP:BURO violation is to refuse to create it.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• So create it, without first undeleting. Reyk _YO! 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But then we're invoking IAR when there's a rules-compliant way to achieve the same thing. Part of our job at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed (emphasis mine).—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete per
  WP:REFUND. Our process says we should undelete and I see no reason not to. Perhaps because I'm a horrible writer, but I never understand why people think that having a starting point doesn't help when writing an article. I'd say Either roll up your sleeves and and write the article or allow the person who is willing to do the work to have a starting point if they want it. If having a bad article offends so badly, do the undelete and immediately redirect so the history is available as a starting point... Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn/undelete. The article has never been the subject of a deletion discussion; the last deletion was via PROD; and it's currently protected against recreation. As S Marshall points out, at the very least this should be a redirect. Allow Ei1sos, who's a reasonably experienced editor not involved in the prior versions of the article, a suitable brief interval to create at least an acceptable stub, then take it to AFD if the result isn't sufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If the old history is restored for work, it should be edited in one page: either unprotect in article space or userfy. Please don't split the page history without a good reason. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but only because the article was an unsourced
  WP:REFUND. If someone wants to use it as a starting point for a new article then it can be done in userspace or the incubator. Once that is done, then we can discuss the subject's notability at AFD if somebody wishes to nominate it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think userfying makes sense in this case. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Makes perfect sense, it is the people who are endorsing the deletion that are perpetuating the bureaucracy. It was removed under a non-binding process, bring it back and let the user work on it. JORGENEV 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article|XfD|restore

)

This is a historic photo, one of very few that document an important event in Venezuelan history: the 1992 coup attempt, in which current president Hugo Chávez was involved. It was nominated for deletion with a frankly bizarre reason (that this was merely the record of two men meeting); then the deletion discussion was closed as "delete" even though there was nothing like consensus to do so. I raised the issue both with the nominator (who refused to respond while the nomination was open) and also with the person who closed the discussion, to no avail. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't endorse that. NFCC#8 is too vague for the closer to treat it as a question of fact. It's a matter of opinion, and in a matter of opinion, the closer's opinion isn't the opinion that matters. The FFD discussion is more than just an admin's suggestion box. There was no consensus, and the closer should have found accordingly. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, restore the file. Per S Marshall, NFCC #8 is a decision that requires 1) rational arguments to be set forth about why it applies, 2) an ensuing discussion, and 3) the closer to evaluate the consensus on the NFCC #8 argument as a part of the closing. I really don't see that done there--The one !vote that supports NFCC #8 failure is simply a
  talk) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, the delete vote was vague, but the keep vote was also a well know and documented mistake:
    WP:ITSHISTORIC. That leave us with my well explained nomination (and that was not "bizarre" at all) and the Admin's mission to enforce policy. In the worst case, this could be relisted to attract more !voters, but in the end, it will always be a policy-based judgement, and not a vote counting, and I don't see anyone making anything near of a policy based argument for keeping this image. Calling NFCC#8 "too vague" is a catch-all. --damiens.rf 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Absolutely not. NFCC#8 is not an excuse to purge the encyclopaedia of non-free material. Relevant images almost always enhance the reader's understanding of the topic.—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or bar for non-free content is higher than just "enhancing the reader's understanding". The image should be something that is asked by the text, that conveys relevant information that could not be easily passed with text, and that portrays something that an average reader could not figure out by himself. This picture of two man meeting surely does not pass this bar. --damiens.rf 01:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that was what NFCC#8 meant, then that would be what NFCC#8 said.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You choose to follow the letter and not the spirit. --damiens.rf 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I choose to follow what the guideline actually says, rather than what you appear to think it should say.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well what the policy actually says is ""significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." which is substantially more than your stated above "Relevant images almost always enhance the reader's understanding of the topic". --82.19.4.7 (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, yes, I abbreviated. I believe that relevant images almost always significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic, and I believe that omitting a relevant image is almost always detrimental to that understanding. Many readers relate to pictures better than text.—S Marshall T/C 13:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well abbreviating where it alters the meaning, can be confusing, I've no difficulty seeing why damiens.rf would see your version as out of line with the actual policy. Your latest interpretation suffers the same criticism as you level at damiens.rf, if the policy merely required it to be a relevant image, then that's what NFCC#8 would say. If I replace your wording to damiens.rf view that "I believe that most images aren't required if the text can..." etc. As we don't do prescriptive policy designed to be so tightly written that it covers every possible eventuality (which would be a nonsense anyway), looking to the intent of the policy is important. The intent of the NFCC criteria and how they arose in the first place is of course to provide a greater restriction on what non-free content we can/should use. The idea of merely being to exclude non-relevant images seems somewhat at odds with that. That wouldn't be part of an NFCC, it'd be part of general image policy regardless of free status, we don't include irrelevant free images or text either. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Let's parse what NFCC#8 actually says. The wording is: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I'd break that down into two limbs: significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and then omission would be detrimental to that understanding which is exactly the same thing said the other way around. (The second limb should long ago have been excised for being redundant, see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34#Criterion 8 for a discussion about that.) My position is that relevant images almost always significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic, because there are readers who relate better to pictures than to text, and because even readers who're very comfortable with text benefit from the additional context provided by relevant images. Therefore, I believe that NFCC#8 as written is passed by almost any relevant image. Your point that this makes NFCC#8 virtually meaningless is quite true, and my reply is that meaningless or not, this is what it says, and if we want to make NFCC#8 meaningful, it will be necessary to change the wording. I do think that as written, it's a test of relevance. It's also the only one of the non-free content criteria that does test relevance.

                      Your other point, that the NFCC criteria are there to restrict our choice of non-free content, seems uncontroversial but I do not think it enhances NFCC#8 beyond what NFCC#8 actually says.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                      • I'm not entirely in agreement about the second part being redundant, it's a re-emphasis of the point. The fact that it was felt important to labour the point to my mind is indicative of it trying to impose a standard higher than the one you seem to propose it means. As to the rest about relevance of image, I understood your view point. Others have a different view point and interpret the criteria differently, they don't agree relevant images almost always significantly add to the understanding. Your criticism of the other view point is that "harder" application isn't what the criteria says, but they could equally well argue your "softer" view of it also isn't what it says - i.e. there is merely a difference of opinion in the interpretation of NFCC#8. It is your interpretation of the criteria is what makes NFCC#8 more of less irrelevant, if on the other hand you take believe the criteria are supposed to restrict the free content and the criteria would have been written with that in mind, it's not unreasonable to conclude the spirit of NFCC#8 is stronger than your interpretation. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There was two editors arguing for deletion and one argued for keeping based on the well know failed argument
  WP:ITSHISTORIC. We need good reasons to keep non-free content, not to delete them. --damiens.rf 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hi. I'm not sure you've read
    WP:ITSHISTORIC
    very carefully. It's not a "failed argument" at all. It says:

    "Being historic or one-of-a-kind is not, by itself, sufficient. Being of historical importance can, however, be part of a good argument that an image satisfies criterion 8 (contextual significance), and being unique may be helpful in satisfying criterion 1 (no free equivalent). It is also important to distinguish between an image that is, itself, historic and notable in its own right (such as the photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), and thus is very likely to satisfy criterion 8, and a non-notable image that illustrates an historic event, in which case passage of criterion 8 is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus." (my emphasis)

  • In short, the fact that an image is historic is not necessarily in itself sufficient, but it can indeed be an argument in favor of an image's retention. It can be "part of a good argument that an image satisfies criterion 8." In other words, far from being a "failed argument," it's part (if only part) of a good argument. What's important is gauging "editorial judgment and consensus." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In short, you're still saying an "image is historic" when the case is actually that it's "an image of an historic event". --damiens.rf 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, you'll see that
        WP:ITSHISTORIC (which you keep on citing) covers both types of photo, and admits that there is slippage between them. Frankly, I think this image is indeed arguably "historic and notable in its own right," at least within the Venezuelan context. In any case, there is no doubt that it also "illustrates an historic event." Your argument, such as it is, seems to deny both the former and the latter: you say that this is simply a photograph of two men meeting. As I point out, that's like saying that this image is merely a picture of three men meeting. This is the argument that I think is bizarre. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Weak Endorse- I agree with S Marshall that there was no consensus in this discussion. However, in cases of non-free content I think no consensus should default to delete. Reyk _YO! 00:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Jbmurray is correct, and since it's a matter of interpretation, the only way to decide whether to follow it is by consensus; nobody, correct though they may be, has the right to say "my interpretation is better". If the FfD was not sufficiently attended to get a good consensus, then relist is a possibility DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Police ignorant votes are to be discarded. --damiens.rf 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a typo for policy-ignorant votes. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak overturn to NC (default keep) The nomination gives good reasons for deletion (no idea if they are true as I can't see the picture or its context). One keep !vote gives a reasonable reason to keep (same caveat). One delete !vote which doesn't explain its reasoning. I suspect the image meets NFCC#8 (as I tend to judge #8) because seeing a historical event places it in context and increases the readers understanding thereby. I don't think a consensus for deletion was formed. Was it within admin discretion? I'd have to say no. 2 to 1 with both sides having valid arguments isn't a consensus no matter how you slice it. Weak because I lack context. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn (to no consensus). I think that DGG is right, and it should have been relisted in an effort to get a clearer consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. In the absence of consensus to include disputed nonfree content, such content should be removed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious question: Is that stated somewhere? I know a lot of people treat NFCC that way (closing admins at FfD for example) but I didn't think there was actual consensus on that point. Is there something I'm missing (which is quite likely as I tend to avoid NFCC discussions)? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off the top of my head, I'd say it follows from the
      WP:NFCC enforcement policy, which says that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created" and that "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria" (my emphasis). I've seen it stated in similarly direct terms in various discussions (eg, here [15], where admin Kww says "Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd.") Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Thanks. I think that perhaps an RfC on the topic would be wise. I do agree you make a reasonable case, but none of that (other than one admin's opinion) says quite what you are claiming. Given our deletion policy very clearly states that we default to keeping things, I think it is actually less than clear, so clarification would be good. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Jbmurray is correct. --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion, and since there is no consensus opinion to be found in this XfD, the file ought to have been kept by default, as is policy; there is no rule in deletion policy according to which disputed unfree content is deleted in the absence of consensus to retain it.  Sandstein  07:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (or alternatively relist). Notability does not override the non-free content criteria. –MuZemike 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is there a way to un-delete or otherwise host a deleted file such as this for non-admin review? Any reading on the discussion would depend on NFCC number 8, which is subjective. For any non-admin who hasn't seen the picture, trying to discuss this is like taking a shot in the dark. ThemFromSpace 01:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see the image (actually, rather better quality than the one we had) here. It's the black and white image, with the caption "Hugo Chávez and fellow rebel Francisco Arias Cárdenas, the targets of the intended murder plot." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As anyone can see now, it just shows two men meeting. We don't use non-free content to convey such trivial information. --damiens.rf 18:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the silliest argument I've ever seen on Wikipedia (and I've seen a few). So this is a picture of a man waving a piece of paper in the air, this is a picture of two men smiling at each other, and so on... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have sources mentioning the notability and influence of the real "historic images", which is not the case for the photo being discussed here. In this case, the sources only talk about the event depicted. --damiens.rf 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I really think this should have been deleted, as I think the "no concensus" result doesn't actually reflect what is said in the discussion. My arguement was valid and really showed the article for what it is. That is not the issue here, while the passing view is obviously no consensus to an uninvolved admin - looking a little closer and actually reading the comments in the AFD - you can then see the faults and notice there was atleast some consensus to delete this article.

• Casanova88 said Keep because in his view Aubrey is central to the soap opera therefore should be central to Wikipedia.
• Carrite said keep because we should all "Embrace your inner pop-culture cruft"
• 173.241.225.163 voted keep HOWEVER - per another comment, which wasn't a for or against arguement, just a general question to me. The IP in question is also suspect - as his only contribs are to AFDs...
• Phoenix B 1of3, said said keep because the article should exist as a sourced stub to pass GNG - however I highlighted the results of various google searchs in my nomination and this drew attention to the fact that no RS sources exist - therefore failing GNG in the first place.

All those who offered opinions to remove the article, including me talked about policies and guidelines. There were five in favour of deletion, six including me. There was also one "Procedural keep" in which the editor states the article should be deleted because they felt it was non notable. So that makes seven reasons to delete - This is compared to three keep arguements - three because one of the four was the IP who just voted instead of giving a view. So can you see what I mean that there was some consensus present, because at the end of the day, did those with the keep stance offer valid AFD comments. RaintheOne ^BAM 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want an involved admin closing an AfD debate? I'd think that one would want an "uninvolved admin" being the closer, as that significantly lessens the chances of a conflict of interest arising from an admin who was on the record as holding an opinion on keeping or deleting said article. Additionally, RfA is not a vote. One two three... 00:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant uninvolved in a different way - an admin could involve themselves in the task they are taking on by reading the comments in full. I know RfA is not a vote. However, I struggle to see how you reached your decision other than counting up the bolded words. Otherwise you would have atleast acknowledged that two arguements for keeping, acutally had the editors brand the subject in question as "cruft" and "non-notable" - with one of them adding in capital letter that the article should be removed from Wikipedia and then citing guidelines as to why they beleived so. I also do not think you read my statement above properly either, as you state "RfA is not a vote" - I pointed out what people said, what the general consensus in that discussion was.RaintheOne ^BAM 00:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you counted up the number of arguments for each side, and then used that to frame what your definition of a "general consensus" is. One two three... 06:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before two of you reply to each other further, let's read

WP:AFD, shall we? --George Ho (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey George, I have read the guidelines a couple of times before nominating here. It is the first time I have ever done so because I feel there has been a breach. It is not personal to One, I genuinely think he was just following procedure and closing a relisted AFD, it is just that this one has an odd chain of comments - So I'd like to back up my general belief that we are all here to improve wikipedia and say sorry - but I still think there is an obvious consensus here and I'd like willing parties to give a slice of there time to read the AFD.RaintheOne ^BAM 06:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. As one who voted to delete the article in question, I too am surprised by the outcome. As I mentioned in the AfD discussion, all the keep arguments have been refuted or were based on opinion rather than policy. Raintheone has elaborated on this at better length above so I don't think there is much more I can add. Consequently, I respectfully support Raintheone in questioning the AfD outcome just as I stand by my original view that the article be deleted. ClaretAsh 10:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This was an accurate close, although it could have benefitted from a clearer explanation by the closer, and I would encourage One to be more expansive with his closing statements in future. It's a pity that the correct outcome combined with its policy-based reasoning did not emerge during the AfD, but "no consensus" was the right route to it.

  Where the "delete" voters were right was in their focus on the sources. As a group, they correctly pointed out that there are insufficient sources to sustain an article about the fictional character, and they correctly determined that notability is not inherited from the actress to the character. With the honourable exception of JuneGloom, they then incorrectly construed this lack of sources to mean a "delete" outcome. It does not. What a lack of sources means is there should be no separate article for the character. It does not mean "delete".

  In fact, per

  smerge" to a list of characters for the relevant series. Therefore, there should not be a separate article but Aubrey Wentworth should not be a redlink.

  Because One correctly did not delete the article, interested editors can now get together on the article's talk page and form a consensus about what to do next. If the consensus is in accordance with policy, a merge or redirect will be the outcome. If One had incorrectly deleted the article, then this route would not be available, so his close was correct.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]
  • S Marshall, how do you reconcile your comment on alternatives to deletion with the outcome of WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011)? Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I recall that RFC very well, and thank you for starting it. The reason why I would distinguish that in this particular case is because I see the debate itself as defective. The RFC was about how to deal with merge or redirect !votes at AfD. In this case, there was about half a merge or redirect !vote (the one from JuneGloom) and the matter was not discussed, but per
      WP:ATD, I really do think it should have been. So our role here is not so much to examine a contested close, but rather to correct a defective debate.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The inconsistency I see here is that merge considerations not stated in the discussion effectively receive more weight than explicit merge arguments, since the entire discussion is devalued as "defective". I think that merging was considered and rejected by participants. ClaretAsh wrote that "even a merge is probably unjustifiable" (diff of full comment). Other delete supporters pointed to
        WP:PLOT (Jfgslo) and a lack of reliable sources (Raintheone, Stuartyeates) – problems that will not be solved by merging. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Well, the reason I disagree with that is because One did not close as "merge" or "redirect". He closed as "no consensus". I think that means that in practice, no consideration has really received any more weight than any other, has it? Certainly, in the case of a fictional character who has no inherent notability of her own, a redirect or smerge to the list of fictional characters to the series seems to be the normal outcome per Wikipedian custom and practice, and I think a semi-consensus to this effect emerged after the Pokémon/fictional character Wikiwars of 2006. (I've said "merge or redirect", but in fact I would not see a merge or smerge as correct in this case because the character already has her own very brief section in list of One Life to Live characters, and to expand it would I think give her undue prominence in that list, so strictly, I would see the right outcome as "redirect" rather than "merge".) Early in my first remark I said it's a pity that this outcome did not emerge from the AfD.

          Basically, I feel that the February RFC ought to lead to fewer findings of merge, smerge or redirect in XFD discussions, and more findings of no consensus instead; and I think One's close was generally in line with that. I do think that specifically with fictional-character-related XFDs, our normal custom and practice is to maintain one list for each series or franchise, and I don't think it's too unreasonable of me to say that discussions about fictional characters where this option is not fully discussed are defective.—S Marshall T/C 10:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

          • That raises an interesting question: In closing an XfD, is it the closing admins place to make qualitative judgements about the discussion or simply to recognise its thrust? I can see arguments either way. The reasoning behind this deletion review, I think, is that One should have followed the latter course. However, what appears to have happened is that s/he either made a qualitative judgement (justified or otherwise) or merely opted for no consensus as the easy option. ClaretAsh 12:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Qualitative judgments. For example, it's uncontroversial that sometimes a !vote will need to be disregarded, either because the person making it lacks standing (e.g. a sockpuppet for a blocked user), or because it is somehow at variance with our norms (e.g. a !vote of "Keep! The sources are lacking, but who cares?") Closers have to assess the weight to give to each !vote. This is the reason for the epexegesis and tendency towards pleonasm that characterises Wikipedian debates.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It depends whether One meant no consensus for any specific option or the old "no consensus to delete". I think a consensus against a standalone article is pretty clear. Interestingly, I thought that the RfC, by treating merge and redirect separately from keep, would replace imprecise closes like "no consensus to delete, discuss merging on the talk page" with more specific outcomes. Flatscan (talk) 05:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm also curious about which of those possibilities One meant. I see what you mean about imprecise closes, but I'm concerned about the possibility that this makes the closer into an edit-on-demand service. The risk I see is that the closer could potentially be asked to carry out quite complex editing actions (e.g. those involving history merges) as part of the AfD closure process, which doesn't seem entirely fair and may potentially put people off making certain closes. Or do you mean that the closer might say "the consensus was merge" without actually carrying out a merge?—S Marshall T/C 12:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Standard procedure, per
                User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, is tagging with {{Afd-merge to}} and {{Afd-merge from}}. The tags categorize the article into Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion, a subcategory of Category:Articles to be merged. In theory, if no AfD participant implemented the merge, someone patrolling the merge categories would see and process it. The closing admin might be contacted to enforce the AfD outcome if the merge is reverted, but I think that is rare. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • I'm concerned that by your own words, this makes a merge, which was previously an editorial action, into something administrators enforce that others do. The closer decides and others are supposed to do his bidding. Does this not seem unsatisfactory to you? I think many users would agree with me when I say that administrators aren't necessarily elected on the basis of their editorial brilliance...—S Marshall T/C 19:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Since this DRV is due to be closed, I copied this thread and replied on the talk page. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per S Marshall, there is not a really good policy-based rationale to support a delete !vote in the case of a fictional element that can be merged elsewhere. In fact, a "keep" close (or more specifically, the "merge" variant of keep) would have been reasonable reading of the policy-based arguments in the AfD.
  talk) 16:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as an accurate reading of the AFD discussion. We should put a summary end to the repetitive debates over "important" characters on US network soaps; they're covered in more than adequate depth in multiple periodicals which infest the racks of supermarket checkout lines, and (because they don't pretend that scripted content is anything but fiction) are more reliable (and often enough more literate) than the comparable sources we accept as demonstrating notability for professional wrestling characters. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If they are reliable, then why these "supermarket racks" have not been archived in libraries as either print publications or microforms of back issues? Never mind the internet and websites. --George Ho (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Now if you'd checked, you'd have seen some fairly extensive library holdings of the print editions [16] as well as archiving via microfilm edition [17]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Microfilms in only
  UCLA has microfilms; WorldCat's accuracy should be considered. --George Ho (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• One, would you provide a closing rationale, either here or amended at the AfD? Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One has not edited since his last comment here. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. The keeps were rebutted (Casanova88, Phoenix B 1of3), flippant with little discussion of the merits (Carrite), and a vote (173.241.225.163). They never addressed the key issue, a lack of
    WP:RS. I also see consensus against a standalone article, and the unexplained no consensus is particularly troublesome because it forces the merge/redirect discussion (Talk:Aubrey Wentworth#Merge to One Life to Live miscellaneous characters) to restart from scratch. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse - My !vote was the "procedural keep". It seemed to me at the time that, regardless of the merits, there was no policy-based consensus to delete, and that there was unlikely to be during the course of the deletion discussion due to (a) several vocal "keep" editors that at least vaguely strayed into policy-support arguments; (b) a confusing and poorly-written TL;DR nomination, and (c) a lack of significant interest from delete voters despite two re-listings. Long AfDs create inter-editor conflict and rarely benefit the project (particularly with an article this bland and inoffensive) and, with or without policy, articles shouldn't be deleted if the community can't come to a clear consensus to delete. (After all, policy is only a documentation of past consensus.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those of us who opted for delete stated our position and backed it up. My perspective is that we felt we'd said everything that needed saying. In some cases, we went further by responding to the "Keep" supporters. I'd hardly call that a "lack of significant interest". ClaretAsh 08:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant numerically. The delete votes were intelligent and well-reasoned, but you know how it is at AfD - sometimes you see matters where you attract five delete votes in the first hour it's up, and sometimes (as here) you can still count the editors who care on one hand after two re-listings. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse 'no consensus' was the correct interpretation of the consensus at the AFD. JORGENEV 13:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I understand what was meant, that sentence is inherently illogical. Intentional humour? ClaretAsh 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete – The reasons for deletion are much stronger than the reasons for retention, in which the latter showed a significant disregard to the need for secondary sources to satisfy notability. –MuZemike 18:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. This is one of those few closes that strike me as wrong "with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated, dead fish". Flatscan's analysis is exactly correct. T. Canens (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Is this a perfect article? No, it needs to be worked over with a chainsaw. That is an editing issue. The fact that this fictional character has been (essentially) incorporated on not one but two American television soap operas indicates cultural significance. No consensus means no consensus, and that's exactly what that debate was. Deletion review should be a place for the review of deleted articles, not a back door for disgruntled nominators to shop for a better result. You want to delete the piece? Bring it to AfD again after a decent interval, don't go making end runs around the process. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Indicates cultural significance"? Can that be sourced? My interpretation of a character appearing on two separate shows is that some producer majored in marketing. ClaretAsh 07:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to something, probably re-close by another admin who hasn't commented here. A lazy close, made only one minute after the closing admin closed their previous AfD. That gives me no confidence that the admin engaged in any kind of evaluation of the discussion. Such an evaluation was plainly necessary on the face of the debate. Don't get me wrong, some AfDs can be closed that quickly. But not this one. The failure to thoughtfully carry out an administrative function in respect of a contentious discussion is reason to overturn it and have it done properly. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak endorse delete is likely a better reading, but NC is reasonable and within discretion. A closing statement would have been welcome. I'd not oppose a new nomination in the near future. Hobit (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article shouldn't have been deleted. It has all the criterier for

• Closing admin – As said on the AFD and on my talk page, the arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments for retention given. The reasons on the retention side seem to hinge on that
  reliable sources that can indicate notability or otherwise indicating that there might be sources out there without actually making any effort. The arguments for deletion, on the other hand, have taken the time to try and find something significant, which none of them could. It's not an argument for placement of reliable sources, but rather the lack of them altogether. –MuZemike 06:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment- Please take a look at this[18]. This claims that the article is notable. They even mention that she has a wikipedia page. Please restore this article. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Addendum – please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phrasia and User talk:Secret#Sockpuppet/get a life, where there may be possible double-voting via socks here. –MuZemike 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bullcrap, when you reviwed the article, you had no thought of sockpuppetry. You did not do research on the article well. This was a good article, I provided a solitary link providing notability and fanbase of the subject. Your expertise is video game articles so why where you the reviewer? ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am an
      administrator
      , and I have the prerogative to close deletion discussions in the most fair way possible as I see fit. My job with regard to closing deletion discussions is to analyze the arguments brought forth and determine if a consensus for deletion (or else) has been reached and whether it most reflects what most editors feel about the article. I don't need to be a subject-matter expert on every subject in order to do that.

As far as sock puppetry is concerned, no, I did not mention anything about it. That concern was brought up by User:Secret, who has observed similar editing patterns between both accounts. –MuZemike 06:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is wiki worthy, it has been on this site for years and all of a sudden it's not notable enough? By the way, leave my sockpuppet case out of it. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several other editors thought it didn't. Also, if you had used sock puppets to try and votestack in a deletion discussion, then we need to be aware of that. –MuZemike 06:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And sockpuppetry is confirmed by checkuser, Endorse and close. Secret ^account 07:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i wouldn't want to edit and contribute to somewhere I'm not wanted. I'm not the only user here with sockpuppets. I produce a reference and sourced article. It's delete. On the delete repeal, I'm treated like highway garbage. ☼Phrasia☼ (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You blatantly deceived the community by using sock puppets to votestack in the deletion discussion; you knew you were not supposed to do that (about 4 times now), but you went ahead, anyways. You produced an article in which nobody was able to backup any of sources or find any new ones in order to help keep it. Finally, if it is you who feels like highway garbage, consider how the rest of us feels, given your disruption here. –MuZemike 07:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Procedural 1: The article was not properly nominated with reasons for deletion given. The subsequent discussion was based on guessing what the problems might be (apparently notability) and trying to answer them.
• Procedural 2: The closing administrator did not understand his/her obligation to distinguish policy-based consensus from mere headcount of keeps/deletes. See my discussion with closing admin
  here
  .
• Policy: Among the handful of editors involved (six, I think), WP:IDONTLIKEIT was supported by guesswork (maybe the sources just reproduce press releases) and invented "policy" (a business must be notable for 500 years to be notable at all). There was no dispute that the article had at least three independent sources (owners of the sources are identified in the discussion) with significant coverage. No evidence that these three articles, with wholly different content, came from a press release (one press release was identified, but each article contained interviews and information not included in the press release; none of them reproduced text from the press release. On its face, in each case, reliable, independent reporting). But in any case, WP:RS does not say that articles which may be prompted by press releases are not reliable sources (journalists refer to press releases all the time as the basis for reporting: that's why press releases exist). If the community consensus is that Wikipedia should not have pages like this, the correct solution is to change WP:NOTE. A topic with significant coverage in several independent sources is on its face notable, and energy should be directed to improving it. WebHorizon (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Ron Ritzman's nomination explained its reasoning clearly by linking to the deletion review that preceded it; the closing administrator understands his job perfectly well; and User:Ihcoyc nailed it. This material was spam. We can see that you didn't want this deletion to happen, WebHorizon, from the way you replied to every single "delete" !vote: the article must have been important to you. But I'm afraid the consensus was against you. I'm sorry that that's made you unhappy but the appropriate behaviour now is to accept the consensus and move on.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. By practice, the reference to the DRV discussion is an appropriate statement to open an AFD discussion of this sort, probably the most appropriate way. The close accurately reflects the substance of the AFD discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think editors are free to test policy arguments. Can anyone just point to the policy being followed? As I said in the debate, if someone had pointed out a policy reason for the deletion, I've have withdrawn my "keep". If I want to work on Wikipedia articles about social business, social media and B2B marketing, but the articles are going to be deleted because WP:IDONTLIKEIT, better find out sooner rather than later. Why is it so hard for someone to give an actual policy-based reason? (Please refer to [[19]] "Advertising or other spam without relevant content.")WebHorizon (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

The reasons were quite clearly given; no reliable sources to establish notability of the subject. In what way can this reason be better delivered to you? Tarc (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - No other possible outcome from an AfD with a lone call to keep, closing admin closed based on consensus and strength of argument presented. DRV is not for "I disagree" cases. Tarc (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The procedure was perfectly OK--people wanting to see what motivated the DRV can look there. We often call this a technical nomination--nominated at AfD or other process because it's the required next step. What matters is that the issues are discussed at the AfD, and the AfD argument was about just what it ought to be, the substantiality of the sourcing. The conclusions of the community was clear. I & many of us often close by saying "delete" or "keep" or whatever , "according to the consensus," meaning that the consensus was very clear and we don't disagree with it. A fuller explanation is needed when the opinions were divided, and an admin is explaining which set they're following; it's certainly necessary to explain when a close is made that appears to overrule what might reasonably be taken for apparent consensus. But sometimes the job of the closer is very straight forward, as it was here. It remains open to you to find better sources, or wait till they appear, and try again, bearing in mind the criticisms made at the AfD. But after such a clear delete close, the only practical way to avoid speedy deletion as a G4 will be to create the article in user space and ask here if it is OK to restore it. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The only valid conclusion to the arguments provided at AFD. The policies around what it takes for an article to remain on Wikipedia are everywhere ...
  BWilkins ←track) 13:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I can see I'm talking to myself here, but I'm not disagreeing. I am just trying to find out the policy reason for this consensus, and I am surprised it's so hard for anyone to give a clear one. The only attempt here is by Tarc (thanks for trying): "no reliable sources to establish notability of the subject." Just not the case. There are three, national, indisputably independent sources, and in each case the coverage is just obviously "significant" - main subject of article, article contains research, interviews. I just can't find policy which says an article needs more than this, and I'd be grateful if someone could point me to it or even let me know on my talk page. It's hard to pick a topic for an article if this can just be ignored by editors who (for some reason) are hostile to it. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." I understand everyone would prefer me to just go away, but why is it so hard to tell me specifically how the article doesn't conform with this (this - to me - mystery is why I raised the procedural point about the way the deletion was proposed.

If some one was willing to say that Folio or DMN or Crain's are not in fact independent of DeusM or that the coverage in the articles is not significant, at least I could understand where this is all coming from. Anyone?WebHorizon (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Here's an idea: why not stop pissing people off and

BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse own close/call for speedy close to this review. It is clear from the remarks at
  talk) 17:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Rather than simply disagreeing with the consensus, I have been very civilly asking someone to tell me what policy it was based on, other than five editors repeating WP:IDONTLIKEIT in various forms. Clearly it is not based on WP:NOTE as currently drafted. It is telling that nobody will step up and deny that the article was supported by multiple, independent sources.WebHorizon (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Note: I think it's pretty funny that, while

Haymarket Media are not considered (here anyway) reliable, they are apparently considered notable.WebHorizon (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply

]

Yes, the fact that reliability and notability are two completely different concepts is hilarious.

talk) 19:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

In general, of course it's not funny, but in this specific case we attribute notability to publishers of unreliable magazines. Also, as I said at your Talk Page, please let's not make this personal. It's not about your skill as an Admin.WebHorizon (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

Then perhaps you would care to strike out the portion of your comments at the top of this review that directly contradict that statement.

talk) 19:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I am not challenging the value of your two years' service as an Admin. Anyone who is interested in the specific disagreement referred to above (headcount v. policy-based consensus), can follow the link to our earlier discussion. I was seeking to discover whether you had included deletes based on things like notability implies being notable for 500 years and this article might be based on a press release from the perceived consensus. There are plenty of deletes on that page: actual reasons for deletion are scarce. But this isn't at the end of the day about you or me.Regrettably, after posting this, I see Beeblebrox has made some seriously UNCIVIL remarks about me [[20]], closed the discussion, and asked me not to post on his Talk Page again.WebHorizon (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

I'm really sorry this has degraded. All I did at your Talk Page - and here - is try to find out what the notability problem is. I am not deaf to the answer. Anyone is welcome to show me a diff where the question was answered. Do editors think the sources are not independent, not reliable or not numerous enough? If I know, I can see whether the article is fixable. The original AfD was a bog of non-policy reasons (the topic needs to be notable for 500 years, and so on). I am reluctant to drag this through the Reliable Sources Notice Board, which has generally been entirely supportive of properly edited trade magazines, only to find out there's another issue out there. Why the agony? I myself can't believe this dragging on. Someone here must have a simple answer to the question. I thought, as closing Admin, you were the right person to ask first.WebHorizon (talk) 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

to explain it to you very simply, Press releases are not RSs, and publications of whatever repute who reprint them do not make them the more reliable. Good journalists use them as a source for an independently written article. ("based on" not " derived from"). Most trade publications contain a mixture of proper journalism and press release copy. Telling them apart is a matter of judgment and experience, and in matters off judgment like this, Wikipedia relies upon consensus, in this case consensus of the editors at the AfD . How else can we decide? No one is has the right to speak as an authority. The problem with the article can be solved by finding additional sources that are clearly not press releases or derived from them. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates my problem with the way the AfD was handled. Although a press release was identified from the time the company was launched (standard practice to issue a press release), if anyone had looked at the three primary sources for the piece, none contained language from the press release, all featured interviews and information not in the press release, all were different. Nobody adressed those considerations, and WP:RS nowhere says that articles from reliable sources should be discounted if the authors may have had access to press releases. Of course not, because that would cause chaos. Hence my impression that the AfD was closed on a headcount rather than looking at the arguments. But I do thank you for responding DGG. If that is the sole reason for deletion, perhaps it is understandable that I am frustrated?WebHorizon (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]

• Endorse Deletion WebHorizon seems to have a personal interest in this article, arguing for it being kept every step of the way, from speedy deletion onwards. The consensus is clear that the article should not be on Wikipedia. I am involved as the admin who Speedy Deleted it, but I still feel that the deletion was correct, and no indication of notability has arisen since then - nothing that is
  reliably-sourced/significant-coverage. As such, deletion was and is the correct result here. I'd be interested in knowing why WebHorizon is so keen on this article being present - is the editor connected with the company (either directly working for them, or for an agency representing them, etc) - as I type, only 26 out of their 147 edits (including 2 deleted edits) were not about either DeusM or Internet Evolution (both conceived by Stephen Saunders) - so 83% of their edits are about these two subjects (either directly editing the articles, or campaigning for the undeletion of DeusM) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Postscript The

  alternative account of Phantomsteve] 15:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Let's not let an unfair record stand. Compare the percentages of my content edits, ie my edits of articles, not the edits aimed at trying to discover policy reasons for admin actions.WebHorizon (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)WebHorizo n[reply]

Wikipedia:Run to Mommy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Moved, due to process being interrupted: please go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 15.

{{collapse top|Nothing good is going to come out of a discussion that is interrupted in this way, regardless of who does it.}}

• Thanks, Black Kite (t) 23:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted out-of-process by unilateral admin action while discussion was ongoing. At the time of deletion, debate was approximately 50-50 as to whether deletion was appropriate, indicating a lack of consensus and disagreement that the page was unambiguously inappropriate, as asserted by the deleting admin. The deleting admin deleted the page after !voting delete, invoking

• Endorse deletion. Despite my light-hearted comment at the RfD, this was pretty obviously created simply to knock WQA users down a peg, so G10 does indeed apply. If there's another reason for the redirect's existence, I'd love to hear it. 28bytes (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• To my mind, it's not so much a comment on the users involved as it is general social commentary - similar to
  WP:PITCHFORKS. The title could also potentially be used for an essay, but that would also require the page be created in some form. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The redirect was an implicit statement that if you report someone to WQA, you are a big baby. Which, true or not, has a much higher derision-to-wit ratio than
  WP:PITCHFORKS. If it redirected to an essay, that'd be a different kettle of hammers. 28bytes (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• And changing where it redirected to is a matter for its talkpage, not for unilateral out-of-process deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion. Should we have that redirect? Probably not. Was there a good reason to disrupt the normal process though? No, not at all, it only created much, much more drama than letting the deletion discussion run its course could ever have done. This was not a G10 speedy candidate, not every negative or uncivil comment (or redirect) is a personal attack.
  Fram (talk) 17:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• DRV regulars will be unsurprised when I mention FairProcess here. My position in these cases is always that not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done. Wikipedia's an exercise in collaborative encyclopaedia-building, and the "collaborative" part of that is important. The best way to drive away our members is to make summary decisions that deny them a voice.

  Personally, I don't see any point in that redirect, but the community has not given administrators very much latitude to perform summary deletions at all. We expect that deletions will only take place where certain strictly-defined deletion criteria are met, a prod has expired, or there is a proper consensus in favour of deletion. None of these things obtained. And one other point too: DRV's role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and it clearly wasn't. DRV has always taken a very dim view of "IAR speedy deletions" accordingly.

  In other words, overturn per Fram. Let's have a proper discussion that lasts the full 168 hours with everyone getting their say, so that this redirect can be deleted properly.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - such an attack creation is unworthy of any discussion at all - its close enough to a
  Off2riorob (talk) 18:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Who are you addressing that last comment to? Assuming it's me, I do in fact support its existence - not because I feel everyone at WQA should be attacked, as I don't believe that that's what this redirect does, but because it's a fairly accurate description of some of the behaviour related to WQA. An argument could also be made to redirect this elsewhere, but that argument requires the page to be undeleted. Nevertheless, those are arguments better addressed via RfD. Had this redirect not been deleted out-of-process, there would have been only one week of discussion necessary there to reach consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Should we have that redirect? Probably not." .and.. "Personally, I don't see any point in that redirect" - No it wasn't directed at you. A moments discussion of an attack creation is unworthy.
  Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion It was an attack page, hence speedyable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• G10 requires that it serves no other purpose; in this case, I would argue that it does. I would also argue that it isn't a clear attack. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You could argue it, but you would be incorrect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And why is my interpretation less correct than yours? It's not a clear-cut attack, and therefore whether it's an attack at all is a matter of opinion. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Who runs to mommy? Babies. What is this redirect implying about people who post to WQA?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Babies can't run, and they're not the only ones with mothers. By linking posters at WQA directly with babies, you're the one implying things about them. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn out of process deletion. Satire is not necessarily an attack. Shocking bad form by the deleting admin who voted "strong delete" before deleting it three minutes later. Admin should have the tools removed and once he is familiar with community standards of approppriate admin behaviour be asked to stand at RfA to earn the trust of the community.
  Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion, because one thing we need here is even more ways to belittle our fellow editors. --Conti|✉ 20:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn- Speedy deletion is for uncontroversial and unambiguous cases. This is neither. There is enough debate over whether it actually is an attack page and whether the title is useful in some other way to take G10 off the table. From past MfDs it is established that even long tirades which attack the character and motivations of a clearly identifiable group of editors are OK, so long as they don't name names. This one, which just pokes gentle fun at the tone of one of our notice boards and doesn't mention any editors in particular, is pretty tame in comparison. Reyk _YO! 20:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Gentle fun"? I'm not sure that description really applies here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It does. Reyk _YO! 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn whilst I agree the redirect was not appropriate speedy deletion was not appropriate either. The page did not meet any speedy deletion criterion and Jimbo did not claim that it did. I don't think this falls under G10 since satire is not necessarily an attack and since it is a criticism of part of the project. The deleting admin had previously commented in the discussion (which was far from clear-cut), which means the deletion violated
  WP:INVOLVED as well. Hut 8.5 20:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unnecessary provocative.
  talk) 20:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This isn't a delete/keep !vote. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, as
  Off2riorob (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Doesn't make his comment any more on-topic. Nor yours. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse under G10. (Not to mention that perhaps User talk:Jimbo_Wales would be a more appropriate target) eldamorie (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that he's male,
  Wikipedia:Run to Daddy would likely be a more appropriate redirect for that page. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Or apparently omnipotent,
  Wikipedia:Run to God. Parrot of Doom 14:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• note - the opener of this deletion review has during it, now created the redirect
  Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well, this should be interesting. 28bytes (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, we have had it all today, attacking redirects, attacking templates.

Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

And I wonder who it was started all the dramah? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the redirect - you.

Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually no. I quietly created a light-hearted redirect with no fanfares. Whereas you ran from pillar to post asking all and sundry (and whoever else would listen) to get it deleted, ergo the dramah was all on you sunshine (the dramah you kept on a rolling boil). I notice you haven't done the same thing with Run To Daddy. Is that sexism? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't quietly create it, you created it and immediately went to Malleus's talkpage laughing about it, see what naughty thing I have done, quick before its deleted...

Off2riorob (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

When something is light-hearted it generally involves laughter. Now I know you wouldn't understand that concept. Yet strangely enough that didn't cause any drama either...until you saw it and reacted to it in the time-wasting way you did. Personally I think there's more to it than just this redirect, but my brain doesn't really understand Machiavellian techniques. But sorry bud, the dramah is still down to you...oh and Jimbo of course. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and resume RFD discussion. Not because I think the redirect is beneficial, but because I really do not think it should have been speedied when there was an active discussion going on with no consensus to do so. Before someone says something about "process for process sake" (I am sure there's an essay about that which someone will happily quote at me), I am in favor of resuming the deletion discussion (at which I will probably recommend it be deleted) because I think having his decision overturned here would be a useful message to Jimbo, and would perhaps discourage him from making similar disruptive unilateral decisions in the future. All of this drama would not have happened if he had chosen to trust/respect the community. If he had run across this redirect on his own, and speedied it, I would not have cared; but seeing that there was an active discussion with no consensus (yet), this supervote was a slap in the face of those participating in the discussion. And suggesting that this discussion should take place at
  WT:WQA shows a disappointing willingness to engage in gamesmanship. Redirect discussions belong at RFD. If Jimbo wants everyone to love and respect each other, we should start by respecting the people that were discussing this.

  So yes, as dumb as it might sound, I recommend overturning, undeleting, and continuing the RFD discussion, during which I hope the decision will be to delete. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Endorse deletion It's perfectly reasonable to speedy delete a redirect that was created for the purpose of belittling other editors. Peacock (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Undelete and return to the discussion that had already started. Then allow the community Jimbo "trusts" so much make the correct decision for the community whatever that decision is. His unilateral deletion makes a mockery of "Wikipedia is yours, I trust you" and is a slap in the face of the editors and admins who had already taken part in the RfD. Jimbo, just like any other admin, used his tools to get his own away. Any other sysop who did that would run the chance of getting desysopped pretty smartish. Also, who decided that "run to mommy" is demeaning? It's not if you don't use it. Some editors may feel comforted at the thought of running to their mum. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and return to RfD. This did not meet any speedy deletion criterion because by definition speedy deletions must be uncontroversial and pages must unambiguously meet one or more criteria. If there is an ongoing deletion discussion in which one or more users in good standing have expressed a good faith !vote to keep, then the page can not unambiguously meet any criterion (with the exception of legal issues, of which there were none here. The speedy deletion was therefore out of process. Every out of process speedy deletion harms the project, and it harms it more so than this redirect ever could. As someone who is likely to close a relisted RfD, I should point out here that I am neutral about whether the redirect is good or bad, but I firmly believe the question is for a consensus of editors at RfD to decide, not one administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I suppose there was some drama that I missed behind the creation of this redirect (and
  WP:Run to Daddy), but whatever it was, creating redirects that can only be used to attack those participating in a process that is part of Wikipedia is not helpful. It is quite reasonable to speedy delete such judgment failures. The appeals to bureaucracy above ("Every out of process speedy deletion harms the project") may be useful somewhere, but not when we are discussing a redirect intended to deride WQA. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• MeatballWiki has a lot to say about what you're calling "bureaucracy". In MeatballWiki thinking, a summary deletion of this kind is called a BackRoomDecision. A user with special privileges decides that he knows best, summarily terminates the discussion, implements his decision in despite of the discussion, and then moves on. It's a bruising, damaging thing to do, because it appears so arbitrary and because it rides roughshod over what other, apparently good faith users were saying. We have a process for a reason. The optimum outcome isn't just to delete the redirect, it's to delete the redirect with a minimum of bad feeling.

  Besides, when an admin !votes for deletion and then summarily deletes on his own authority three minutes later, that's simply not to be borne. I really can't see DRV supporting that kind of thing under any circumstances at all.—S Marshall T/C 01:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (
  WP:CONSENSUS about whether it should be kept or deleted, not delete it anyway because you don't like it. The "justification" for speedy deleting this out of process was that it is "Inappropriate and offensive; not welcoming to new editors" - I can think of nothing more inappropriate, offensive and unwelcoming to new editors than speedy deleting something while saying "the rules don't apply to me", which is exactly what has happened here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Dear Wiki folks,

Apologies for the lack of editorial decorum, if I'm not observing proper protocol... it's all a tad confusing to me.

Just noticed the "up for deletion" request by admin [?] and I'm seeking to prevent this from happening. I read that you/someone was/were having difficulties confirming our claims to historical authenticity and would be happy to respond to any and all queries broaching the subject. In spite of KU being a contemporary interpretation of much older Okinawa/Fujian-based practices, which come directly from my teachers[Richard Kim 1917-2000, Kinjo Hiroshi 1919-, et al], I/we are most assuredly fully accredited, widely published and established worldwide.

Alternatively, if there is/are other issues at hand I am willing to do whatever it takes to maintain our site listing.

I can be contacted c/o [email protected] or [email protected]

Sincerely,

Patrick McCarthy McCarthy Sensei (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koryu_Uchinadi&action=edit&redlink=1[reply]

• I moved this DRV nomination from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 3. Cunard (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural advice for nominator Perhaps you would be kind enough to review
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion Providing credentials is not really the issue here. No amount of question-and-answer sessions with the creator of the style will get past the issue of
  reliable sources which are unaffiliated with this ryu. Examples would be: unsolicited article in newspapers, journals or martial arts magazines; television coverage in a documentary or news programme; scholarly discussion in papers by independent martial arts historians; or a few paragraphs in a book (written and published independently). So far, I have found none of these. McCarthy Sensei, I'm sorry to tell you this, but you are not a valid source for this article (at least not insofar as demonstrating notability is concerned). Yunshui 雲‍水 21:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion , without prejudice to re-creation if proper secondary sources can be found. If the significance is as great as the supporters of this article say, then there should be such sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American "Occupy" protests (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closer did not properly interpret

1. Confirmation that the other is not interchangable with another which will allow myself and TParis to rewrite that sentence so that it makes more sense.
2. Better consensus on whether the community feels that it is appropriate to keep this list based on a considered argument of the interpretation of
   WP:NOTDUP, on which this argument appears to hang. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 22:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• Weak Endorse. Not only is the North American list redundant to the
  List of "Occupy" protest locations, making sure all references get ported in. Since a merge is effectively a variant on a keep outcome, I have to agree with the decision of the closing admin to not delete the list history. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just FYI, this list was split from the

List of "Occupy" protest locations one and contains no information that doesn't already exist there. There would be no need for attribution if we were to redirect it back.--v/r - TP 22:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• It's marginal and arguable, but if it was up to me, then I would think that on balance, Panyd's close could stand. What is clear, from precedent, is that there is no overriding rule about a maximum number of lists we can have for one topic. For example
  WP:CLN is that lists, categories and navigation templates need not strictly form part of the encyclopaedia at all; they can consist of ways to find content rather than having to be content in their own right.—S Marshall T/C 22:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

S Marshall - are you aware that this article duplicates content already in

List of "Occupy" protest locations? Why not just have a redirect to that section of the larger list until it is more comprehensive? How many lists should be created? Where is the limit to that kind of madness?--v/r - TP 23:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

A good example of duplicative lists is the relationship between the master

list of tarantulas, and to me, this arrangement would not seem to violate NOTDUP.

Incidentally, I'm absolutely bloody astonished that all of the above are redlinks! (I found a redirect target for list of spiders later)—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, and in the example you gave, those are lists and articles overlaping. In this case, it is a list and a list overlaping (or rather split).--v/r - TP 19:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I was trying to say—apparently not very successfully!—was that just as the articles are sort of "nested", so could the lists be. Spider, tarantula and Mexican red-kneed tarantula are similar topics at different levels of zoom. I don't see why we couldn't have equivalent lists at different levels of zoom. So coming back to the subject at hand, I don't see why we couldn't have an overall list of occupy protests, a list of European occupy protests, and a list of Greek occupy protests, even though the one might include the other. This doesn't necessarily mean I think it's a good idea to have lots of different lists of these protests; what it means is I don't think it's obviously and clearly wrong, so I feel as if the close was within Panyd's discretion.—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's why we do article

WP:SPLITs. When the top article becomes to large for a reader, we split the articles into smaller parts. In this case, the new article neither expands on the original list nor is the original list too large to enhance.--v/r - TP 13:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I understand that, and I feel its force. The counterargument that I see is that the new list may, if allowed to develop, come to expand on the original list in future. We're not supposed to delete based on the present state of the subject material. We're only supposed to delete if the material would be unsalvageable even after substantial amounts of editor time and skill had gone into it.—S Marshall T/C 14:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not deleting the material. We are allowing it to develop - where it was originally created. When the correct time to split comes, we can split then.--v/r - TP 14:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keeping it short and sweet, I support and have taken part in the Occupy protests and I still hate the articles that are springing up on this. These duplicates are getting ridiculous. We have List of North American "Occupy" protests (which I have since renamed as List of Occupy protests in North America), we have Occupy movement in the United States and we have Occupy movement in North America which all are just a spin off of List of Occupy movement protest locations. Three lists with the same images, links, and references except two include Canada as well as the U.S. All of them need to be merged (or redirected since all the content is already there) into List of Occupy movement protest locations. — Moe ε 23:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Please note that the article Occupy movement in North America appears likely to be headed for deletion, per the AfD occurring for the article. I created the article being discussed here. The intention in creating List of Occupy protests in North America was to create a more concise, easier-to-read list compared to the large list article List of Occupy movement protest locations. Regarding the article Occupy movement in the United States, I've proposed merging that information to List of Occupy movement protest locations in the United States in its AfD discussion. If the above deletion and merge were to occur (as stated within this comment), this would minimize any duplication issues. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I was alright with this one article about North America so we could have article prose about the whole region, but after the third article splintering off, it was really getting redundant. This one article about North America, is worth the keep. Two articles about North America and another about the United States alone, no. If it wasn't obvious, I endorse the closure that was made. I was more or less frustrated with similar articles popping up and most AFDs getting lots of
  WP:GNG-based keep !votes. Hopefully this will be resolved. — Moe ε 14:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• EndorseOverturn and delete Even though I was for deletion on the AFD, I agree with the closing comments on the AFD page and are sufficient to justify the continued existence of the article in question. Jab843 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Jab843 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the policy it is based on? The problem is that the policy does not seem to address, at least from my point of view, lists that are duplicates of lists. If that is correct, than the closing rationale is wrong.--v/r -TP 23:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the list duplicates another list, then there's another guideline that could be applied to it:

criterion for speedy deletion A10. It's not a strict duplication, so the content should probably be merged, but a merge is, effectively, a keep with followup action needed. My endorsement of the close is no longer weak. —C.Fred (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I have revisited this topic and agree that the closing comments were not adequate, and several valid arguments have been shown to where the article should be merged and deleted. Also Moe make a strong argument that should not be looked over. Jab843 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete. First of all, decisions on the structure/breakdown of list articles of this sort are as much routine editing decisions as they are deletion/inclusion decisions, and a closing admin should be more reluctant to set aside the expressed sentiments of the community. Second, the article in question is an utter botch -- its editors seem to believe, for example, that "North America" ends at the U.S. southern border, a notion rejected by those less innocent of geography. It is also less detailed and less comprehensive that the overall list article and the US list article; to prevent redundancy, the opposite should hold for a spinout article. Third, it's structurally inconsistent with the overall article, which uses a Canada/US/Latin America breakdown, a structure that appears to enjoy broader community support. On balance, the discussion appeared to reach a reasonable conclusion of redundancy, and the closer did not make an adequate case for setting that determination aside. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I don't believe the statement above, "that "North America" ends at the U.S. southern border", and never have. A false statement based upon assumption. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Response. Well, by excluding all south-of-the-border sites, even though some were listed in the overall article, you certainly legitimated the rhetorical point. And even when you just stuck empty sections in in response to my comment. you've still missed an important region where protests occurred. Not to mention the obvious POINTYness of adding a section for Greenland. The article was a lousy job, fully justifying the community's 2:1 rejection of it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it only includes the United States and Canada because the only articles written have been in those two countries. We have protests going on in the other countries and have articles on them outside North America, however most countries in North America don't have any individual articles. Mexico had a couple minor protests, Greenland has no legitimate Occupy protest that I know of and the other Latin American countries are like Mexico in terms of the protest with minor ones popping up in some places. I don't believe it's some kind of anti-Latin American sentiment like you are suggesting. — Moe ε 17:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Correct. See the lede sentence in the article, "The following is a list of Occupy movement protests in North America that have articles on Wikipedia." Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not suggesting any anti-Latin sentiment. I'm saying that the article was a lousy job which justified the community's rather clearly expressed rejection. There's no good reason to spin out a more superficial, less complete article from a general treatment, and that the closer didn't provide a sufficient reason to reject the community's expressed opinion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Closer misunderstands
  express 21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Reopen and reclose. I concur that WP:NOTDUP is not relevant and that the keep close should thus be overturned. I think that delete has an edge over no consensus, but the discussion is complicated enough that I'd be happy to punt it to another closer. Flatscan (talk) 05:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The closer's interpretation of NOTDUP is clearly erroneous. T. Canens (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete
  WP:NOTDUP is perhaps the most widely miscited policy on lists. The close here was not in line with local consensus, broader consensus, or common sense. ThemFromSpace 04:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

I redirected this page after a somewhat contentious AfD. User:TRLIJC19 has object to my close, but had trouble with the DRV template which can be pretty tricky for users unfamiliar with it. Therefore I am filing this for him. He has stated Consensus was never reached and is still ongoing debate. Only two people pushed for redirect., but I stand by my reasoning in the close, though I'll be happy to expand upon it if anyone would like. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Redirect None of the !keep votes convincingly addressed the lack of significant coverage of the character (not to be confused with coverage for the actress), the close was more than acceptable.
  Mtking ^(edits) 22:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse, and… The primary issue here is the closing of the AfD. I think that Eluchil404 made a reasonable judgment to reach a compromise decision instead of a no consensus. That said, the article is effectively merged into the character list, so I think the best next step is to discuss at Talk:List of Grey's Anatomy characters whether to split an article on Pope from that article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I endorse that too. The logic is that notability is not inherited from the actress to the character, and the fictional character is not notable, so she should not have her own separate article. However, the material should not be deleted because there is a reasonable
  alternative that the guidelines say we should prefer. Hence neither "keep" nor "delete" are the optimal outcomes. The closer's options included redirect and merge. I might personally have gone for merge over redirect, based on that debate, but in DRV terms this is not strictly relevant: the one can be exchanged for the other without a DRV as a matter of editorial judgment.—S Marshall T/C 22:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the redirect per S Marshall and Spartaz. Even if the article is insufficiently sourced, a non-administrator can mine the history of the redirect for elements to be sourced and either merged or as a basis for a future article that demonstrates that it meets inclusion criteria. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A good, thoughtful close. Per S Marshall. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. The AFD discussion reached no evident consensus, and the decision as to which fictional characters from a well-known work merit individual entries is a standard editing decision where community sentiment should not be set aside without compelling reason. While S Marshall is quite correct in noting that notability is NOTINHERITED from the actress to the character; the situation here is not so simple. The award nomination recognizes the notability of the performance involved, which quite reasonably be shared by the performer and the character performed. I'm also quite baffled by Spartaz's comment, since the close here redirected a at-least-sufficiently-referenced article to an unreferenced one, exactly the opposite situation to the one he describes. I'm bothered by inconsistent treatment in this general area; it seems inappropriate to me to establish stricter sourcing standards for articles on fictional TV characters than for BLPs on reality TV players; practice is much more tolerant of primary sourcing, either explicit or implicit, for the latter than the former, even though BLP policy requires more sensitive scrutiny. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect. It seemed to me that none of the keep !votes addressed the notability issue correctly, and therefore the consensus was that Wikipedia does not currently need an article on this character. Although I personally !voted delete, the redirect result seems entirely appropriate from the discussion. In passing I note that HW raises some good points about inconsistency, which deserve full discussion in some forum, although it happens that I disagree with him. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse good compromise close, consensus against standalone article. I see just enough discussion of merging to the character list to avoid outright deletion, but not enough to close as merge. Flatscan (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kaur (Jermakov) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

This article was deleted despite the discussion with given questions and provided facts. We see that discussion transformed in constructive to political debate. Max Kaur (Jermakov) meets the requirements: This man is involved into Estonian politics for at least 15 years. Former vice-mayor of the town of Maardu. At the moment, this politician is a Chairman of the Law Enforcement Commission of the City Council of the Capital of Estonia (both it is a serious position considering that Tallinn is the Cultural Capital of Europe, 2011). Just to mention - Mr. Kaur was political advisor of the head of the popular party "Centre Party" Mr. Edgar Savisaar (I am not trying to use invalid criteria "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B", but I would like to mention that he was Estonian Prime minister from 1990 to 1992, got most of the votes at Parliament elections in 2011, at the moment - mayor of Capital of Estonia, ). He is most mentioned person of "Centre Party" in press. While the article and the politian we talk about met the requirements of "notability", our opponents started to use such expressions like "youth section of centre party", "small-time politician", "yellow journalism garbage", "his supporters should show up here... but this doesn't mean we need take what they say seriously" etc. It is absolutely non-professional and non-encyclopedic. We aren't discussing people. The article is about the well-respected man who is very famous in Tallinn and the main state of Estonia - Harjumaa, leading Institute of Society Development and giving lectures in ECOMEN institute in Tallinn. Moreover, this person has recommended himself on international area as a solid man, presenting Estonia in serious Worldwide organizations like International Human Rights Movement "World Without Nazism" (has offices Bruxelles, Moscow etc..), making lectures and reports - people of Estonia proud of such persons. I saw a lack of neutralism and justice while discussion. It was very abusively for me to hear such words like "supporter from youth section of party" from participants of so named discussion (it looked like a political debate). With a hope, I ask moderators to return the article. Johannes xz (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Johannes xz (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bgwhite's point was that this individual is on Tallinn City Council (source), which does appear to pass
  WP:POLITICIAN point #2 ("members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city"). In the debate, this point seems to have been ignored rather than refuted, so on the face of it the nominator here may have an arguable case, but I don't know whether, in this case, DRV will prefer the GNG over SNGs. Also, I don't speak Estonian and am not qualified to evaluate the sources. I suggest we ask for input from a randomly-selected editor from WikiProject Estonia who has not previously participated in a discussion about Max Kaur, in the hope that a neutral Estonian speaker will be able to give us a fair assessment of the reliability of the sources used.—S Marshall T/C 22:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I !voted to delete, but it was borderline & I expected a no-consensus close. Spartaz based his decision on the view that the sources were unreliable, which I think also, but not everyone did. I admit I was influenced in considerable measure by the argumentative nature of the discussion, as well as the dubious nature of the sourcing and the attempt to extend mere mentions to something more significant. At present I admit to a developing bias, I think shared by others, that the odds that a borderline article will and should get deleted is a function of the extent of promotionalism in the article and the discussion. It really doesn't matter that we might have articles of borderline significance--there are many places to draw the line, none with much better intrinsic reason than another. There are many ways to argue on the basis of the equivocal phrases in the GNG, which at this point I think worthless in both directions. Depending on whether one judges something notable on whatever one's own criteria actually are, it's usually possible to argue that the sources are or are not significant and third party or generally reliable. I could have argued that point either way for the present article. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, your sources are unreliable. Look: "Article created by the user:Marbella112 is an exact copy of the previously deleted article created by the user:MVK2009. Beagel (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)", ok myth and reality:) - my article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Kaur_(Jermakov)&diff=459151394&oldid=459110057 and MVK2009 article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MVK2009 Marbella112 ( talk ) 18.56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

* Endorse. Not notable, purely promotional article - and the army of sock/meatpuppets didn't really help to form a positive view (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MVK2009). --Sander Säde 08:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear moderators! I would like to ask Your help in making this discussion more neutral and prevent other participants' attempts to give discussion a political colors and accuse respected in society people in using in political technologies. It is obvious that every politician uses political technologies and almost every official has a party affilation - it is obvious,but we also speak about an official, a politician, a public figure, who bring benefit to society - that is the point in article. -- Aleksss19 ( talk ) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Endorse per Sander Säde and

(talk) 03:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse own close I think I noted that the spas/IPs and obvious meatpuppets had been discarded and the established users had sufficiently considered the sourcing and found it wanting. I will admit that I give GNG more weight then SNGs when we are dealing with BLPs because the community is now clearly averse to inadequately sourced BLPs and I believe we have to reflect that in the weight we give competing standards when we close discussions. I did not allow the obvious gerrymandering and COI issues any weight in the close as they are reasons to improve an article not delete.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. Given the state of the AfD and (lack of) proffered sources, deletion is clearly reasonable. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

)