Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2006 December 27
2006 December 29 >

28 December 2006

[edit]
Memset Ltd – Deletion endorsed – 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Memset Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

I believe the page about my company (Memset Ltd.) should not have been deleted since it qualifies for notability; we have received a fair amount of press coverage, for example our recently winning the PC Pro Best Web Host 2006 award (which should qualify under "published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"), and our leadership of the carbon neutral hosting movement in the UK. We are also arguably the UK's leading virtual dedicated server provider (coverage in The Register), and were certainly the first in Europe to provide Xen-based Windows virtual machines. Admittedly, the page could use some more information on our contributions to Xen and our Miniserver technology, but I cannot extend it if it is deleted. Khcw77 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist for deletion. Per comments by Khcw77 above, and apparent lack of adherence to deletion procedure (No AfD? - was this a speedy delete?) the initial action should be reconsidered at the least, however given the circumstances of the delete and the tenuous evidence presented by the aforementioned user, the article should be relisted for deletion, not overturned. Sahrin 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:CSD#G11 is absolutely according to deletion procedure, and does not require an AFD. I've not seen this article in particular, but employees of a company itself have a notoriously poor record in producing articles that don't read like blatant advertising. Fan-1967 04:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As noted below, there is no information regarding this delete in article history - that a member of the company is lobbying to have the delete overturned is not proof in and of itself that the article is biased, nor that the article does not merit entry in the encyclopedia. Fan-1967, where you involved in deletion of this article? Do you have more information about its deletion? (Was it a WP:COI or as you noted, WP:CSD#G11 issue? Sahrin 14:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brothers Past – Deletion overturned, article listed at AfD – 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Brothers Past (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Brothers Past has appeared to be speedy deleted instead of having a legitimate AfD review. The band is notable, with a national following in the jamband scene. Other bands on Wikipedia with an equal or even smaller following include RAQ and Railroad Earth. Milchama 22:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion but allow for recreation if proper evidence of notability is given. The band might be notable but the articles never asserted the notability of the band. The 4 speedy deletions (mine being the most recent) do seem to be proper as the articles never demonstrated where the band met WP:BIO. But if you can produce evidence that it meets the criteria, then I'd support recreation. Metros232 22:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually "they have since continued touring aggresively across the United States, boasting over 650 shows since their 2000 formation" is a quite direct assertion of notability according to WP:MUSIC, and also G4 doesn't hold for prior speedies. Edit history restored btw. ~ trialsanderrors 07:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list on AfD. A7 is not asserting notability, and all I see is not having notability. -Amarkov blahedits 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SEERI – restored, now at AfD – 23:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
SEERI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Request undeletion of SEERI and link to Kottayam. Discussion of the importance of this institution with added reasons for keeping it (Gareth Hughes)was under way. The decision to delete was therefore premature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clive sweeting (talk • contribs)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mother Vinegar – Deletion overturned, relisted at AfD – 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mother Vinegar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Hello. I hope I am doing this right (!!). I was surprised to see one of my favorite bands, Mother Vinegar, deleted from Wikipedia. For one, the band has a record deal, an internationally distributed album, and has FM radio and satellite radio play as well as a substantial following. I last saw the band in November at a 1,000 seat venue and the two-night stand was sold out. They have toured with national acts and headlined any venues that other artists on Wikipedia have headlined. However, the main reason I feel they should remain on Wikipedia is because of the band's leader, Karl Engelmann. Engelmann is a primary songwriter for Umphrey's McGee - a very popular band that Rolling Stone called (paraphrased) "the next Phish." Engelmann's other band - Ali Baba's Tahini - is also a popular group that features the guitarist from Umphrey's. All three of these bands dabble in the songbook of Engelmann and perform to much of the same audience. Umphrey's McGee and Mother Vinegar are set to tour theaters in the southeast next spring. I read through the "WP: MUSIC" guidelines and MV seems to fit these. Please note that the article was a "speedy deletion" that I feel was made hastefully. The article was online for over a year, and several other articles link to Mother Vinegar, including the Umphrey's McGee, Ali Baba's Tahini, The Pharmer's Almanac, Karl Engelmann, Amfibian, pages and related pages. This wasn't just a local band who wanted to be on Wikipedia...the band has recieved national coverage, has a substantial live fan base, a record deal & album, and members who are linked to other major projects. Thank you! SEGA 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wipipedia – No consensus to overturn, renomination remains as editorial option – 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wipipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)
Note: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or a speedy deletion where they are unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question." For the record, no attempt was made to do this. Amarkov started the DRV and only told me about it after doing so. Nor did he place a {{delrev}} notice on the article as he should have done.--Runcorn 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The second was because I was unaware such a thing existed, and the first I think is weird, so I ignored it. -Amarkov blahedits 23:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF but Amarkov is a regular contributor here and the procedures are clearly stated. It is odd that he is so insistent on sticking to WP:WEB yet feels free to ignore other rules and guidelines that he considers "weird".--Runcorn 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was not a consensus to keep. There were lots of keeps, yes, but most failed to address the point, instead going on about how WP:WEB could not be used as a deletion reason because it isn't a policy. -Amarkov blahedits 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was the closing admin. An AfD is not a vote so the exact number of keeps is irrelevant (for the record it was 9 keeps to 7 deletes); I just addressed myself to the arguments. There had been a previous AfD where another admin had recorded a keep. The reason I marked the second AfD as a keep is that the arguments for delete were weak. The initial reason for the AfD was that it was allegedly in violation of the policy WP:WEB. As was pointed out, this is not a policy; it was proposed as a policy, but rejected. In any case, the notability of Wipipedia was clearly established in the first AfD (in which I took no part) and the proposers of the deletion produced no new evidence to rebut this, while others did provide fresh evidence of notability.
It was also alleged that there was a lot of WP:ILIKEIT. There was one such vote on the first AfD but I saw none on the second. It is true that some of the keeps were from administrators on Wipipedia, but they are substantial contributors to Wikipedia, have every right to participate in an AfD and WP:AGF I took their comments at face value.--Runcorn 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... you just restated what I have a problem with. WP:WEB not being a policy does not mean things can't be deleted because of it. Look at the many articles deleted because of WP:RS. -Amarkov blahedits 20:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but assertions that an article fails WP:WEB are not grounds for deletion. No new arguments were adduced other than those rejected in the previous AfD; on the contrary, there were fresh arguments strengthening the case for keep.--Runcorn 20:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But they weren't rejected, they were just ignored on the grounds of "But WP:WEB isn't policy!". -Amarkov blahedits 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If "they weren't rejected, they were just ignored" in the previous AfD, that should have been raised after the previous AfD, not now.--Runcorn 21:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurdly bureaucratic. "I'm sorry, but since you didn't see this wrong right after it happened, it can't be fixed!" -Amarkov blahedits 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is it absurdly bureaucratic to point out that this is a review of the recent AfD, not one held months ago that has never been challenged? Amarkov himself points out just above this review that old AfDs should not be pursued.--Runcorn 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't believe that these were justified votes. Actually, the following arguements were used for keeping this article:
    • WP:WEB is not a policy.
    • The previous discussion was closed with keep.
    • Informed Consent links and uses information from the website.
    • Removing it might damage Wikipedia.
    • Wikipedia uses content from there and it is often found as a see also.
    • It is a serious effort.
  • I believe that the most of these were nonsensical, while some were completely unreleated to this discussion. The most reasonable arguement was Informed Consent, however, it is a rather trivial website and it uses this encyclopedia only on a single section of it. It is also important to mention that this process was advertised on Wipipedia and most likely drew quite a few of the website's members. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure The "keep" was entirely justified because of the weak arguments for deletion. It is emphatically not the case that the AfD was advertised on Wipipedia. AnonMoos put notes on the talk pages of myself and one other person. As we both monitor the Wipipedia article, we knew about the AfD before AnonMoos told us.--Taxwoman 21:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The arguements for deletion were not "weak", I gave a reason for why it doesn't pass a single WP:WEB criteria, and the nominator mentioned that it isn't verifiable. The invitations, although were directed to certain users, where seen by public and followed by many of the website's members coming to the discussion as well. Michaelas10 (Talk) 21:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This discussion will not be helped by serious factual inaccuracies. It is not true that there were "many of the website's members coming to the discussion as well".--Taxwoman 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. An argument was made that it met WP:WEB due to its republishing on a popular BSDM site. "Popular and well-known" must be taken in the context of the audience it serves, and I didn't see much of an argument to debunk that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and move irrelevant philosophical debates to the talk page. Core problem appears to be lack of reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Sockpuppetry isn't relevant. Even if many people were sockpuppets, that doesn't make the keep arguments invalid. "Not a vote" goes both ways. -Amarkov blahedits 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist because the closing didn't pay due respect to the established guideline WP:WEB, which is a reversible error by my standards. This is made clear by the closer's statement above. All contributors are supposed to work within the guidelines, unless there are compelling reasons to ignore them in a specific case. From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#The differences between policies, guidelines, essays, etc.: "A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Because this confusion about what a guideline is has persisted through both AFDs, from at least some participants, the relister should make it darn clear that WP:WEB does apply and is the relevant standard, absent a compelling case for an exception. The argument about redistribution could be the deciding factor, but we need some evidence that they meet the "well known" criteria of WP:WEB - this was discussed somewhat in the first AFD and only the Alexa test has been offerred. Given that I have zero respect for the Alexa test, I don't find that convincing and would want to see independent sources that are reliable establishing that the redistributor is indeed well known. The opionions that it should be kept because it was kept before should be disregarded if they had no other basis; under the policy that consensus can change. GRBerry 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • GRBerry has misinterpreted my comments. A clear case was made in the first AfD and accepted by the previous closer that the article does pass WP:WEB. I fully appreciate that an article that fails WP:WEB should be deleted, but believe that no new arguments have been advanced to change the position of the previous closer. Consensus can change, but there is clearly no consensus for deletion.--Runcorn 22:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop beating Runcorn, this was a perfectly understandable close but this one is more complex than it looks. It needs more input, I think, and less philosophical debate. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per Guy. Let's take another look at this. JDoorjam Talk 23:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Overturn and delete or relist. Most of the "keep"'s piled together aren't worth the matches it would take to set them on fire. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. A dubiuos "keep" decision when the defenders didn't bother to add a single reliable source to the article between 2(!) votes for deletion, only babbling about "popularity in certain circles". `'mikka 08:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'd actually prefer a strait up delete to a relist. Failure to meet notability guidelines is a familiar deletion criterion. The Keep arguments ignored or trivialized WP:WEB rather than asserting (let alone showing) that Wipipedia meets it. Eluchil404 13:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThe issue of WP:WEB seems central in this debate. The argument about Informed Consent which republishes the Wipipedia and which is used to support the assertion that the article passes WP:WEB has not reached any consensus. Those for the keep result maintain that as the UKs most popular BDSM site (as measured by Alexa) IC is "popular and well known". Those againt the article maintain that having an Alexa ranking of only 15,000 IC cannot be considered popular. The issue must therefore be what is the definition of popular and is it reasonable to link the measure of popularity with the global interest in the subject. Linked to this is the subject matter itself, alternate sexuality is never going to produce publications/sources of the seriousness of more mainstream topics. Again, a decision must be made as to how to apply the standards. BalzacLFS 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The debate is not whether Informed Consent is popular or not established by Alexa ranks. A popular porn website might use content from the website too, but it doesn't make it notable. The debate is whether Informed Consent is reliable. As I see it right now, it's a trivial website that consists mostly of webblogs, chat rooms, and web forums, which means it isn't an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you dig deeper into the site you will find plenty of articles about the subect matter other than blogs and web forums but that is not the main point. IC is a community site where people share information and knowledge about the BDSM lifestyle. I accept that it does not meet the standard you might apply to other areas of knowledge but kinky sex does not create those sites in the first place. I'm afraid that IC is as serious as it gets when it comes to altsex and the closest you will find to an on-line publisher/magazine! BalzacLFS 20:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe deletionist feeling was perhaps related to the subject involved. WP does not censor, but the WP articles on the some range of topics are rather innocuous, and Wipi sometimesless so--though still quite mild by web stanards. The Wipi therefore serves as a useful extension of our WP, and maintains roughly similar standards of relevance and quality, though a little freer in the use of some outside links. The notability was shown by the very wide range of referals from outside sites, and as to verifiability--it exists, and everyone can see it and see the notable qualities for themself. The standards are met, and they are met both in the letter and the spirit, and the discussion was fairly judged. 129.25.135.110 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Previous comment added without signing in, but by DGG 18:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's not what verifiability is. It doesn't matter that you can verify it exists, because an article has to say more than "This is a thing. Which exists." You have to be able to verify information about it, and you can not. -Amarkov blahedits 16:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Forgive me if I am missing something obvious here, the article does not contain any information that could not be verified by someone going to the wesite and looking for themselves. If the article was factually incorrect or trying to put across impression of what the site represents them someone would have already edited it to bring it in to line. BalzacLFS 10:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure It's very simple; the main issue was whether the site passed WP:WEB; evidence was presented that it did. The closing admin very reasonably accepted that evidence, so his decision was sensible and should stand. This is not a forum for having a third AfD on an article that has been kept after two AfDs.--Brownlee 11:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure Amarkov says elsewhere on Deletion review (Khaleel Mohammed) "There was disagreement as to whether they did meet WP:PROF. You can't ask for something to be deleted because it didn't meet WP:PROF when others claimed it did." Similarly here, there is disagreement; you can't ask for something to be deleted because it didn't meet WP:WEB when others claimed it did.--R613vlu 22:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The closing admin rightly points out that Amarkov has not followed the proper procedures, in particular to ensure that those with an interest in the article might be able to find out about the DRV. It is also worth pointing out that "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate." It is clear that the balance of the AfD debate was that the article does pass WP:WEB. The whole thrust of those rejecting the "Keep" decision is that contrary to that debate, it does not pass. It is thus a disagreement with the outcome, not with the closer's interpretation. certainly no new information is offered.--Taxwoman 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure. I was the first AfD nominator, didn't find out about the second AfD and still think the article should be deleted as failing WP:WEB. However, there was clearly no consensus to delete in this AfD, and as far as I understand our deletion policy, deletion absent a consensus is only permissible if the core policies WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPOV mandate it. WP:N, alas, is not a core policy, so process was followed correctly (except I'd have labeled the outcome as "no consensus"). Sandstein 00:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per above. While trying to assume good faith, WP:BIAS may apply here considering how much this is being blown out of porportion. The closing admin did nothing wrong and obviously followed proper procedure, as others have clearly explained here. metaspheres 20:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I'm highly disgrunted by the fact that, even though I did not "advertise" the AFD in any sense which would be relevant for the {{afdnewbies}} tag, User:Michaelas10 keeps on constantly accusing me of advertising nevertheless -- and though he has never been able to point to one single concrete example of a "newbie" or "single-purpose account" particupating in the AFD discussion, he nevertheless insists that the {{afdnewbies}} should be kept in the closed AFD discussion, to serve as a constant accusation against me, and perpetual stigma of my supposed personal "guilt" and shame, down into the indefinite future... AnonMoos 00:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not an accusation. You have been told that many times. Stop construing it as one. -Amarkov blahedits 01:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • User Michaelas10 has never said that he doesn't consider me guilty of advertising, and it's hard to fathom his extreme rigorous zeal in keeping a now-irrelevant tag in a closed AFD, based on a purely hypothetical speculative possibility, otherwise... AnonMoos 02:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Um... It's closed. Absolutely no action can be taken on you because a tag is in an AfD. Why would he care about keeping it in to accuse you? -Amarkov blahedits 07:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I really wouldn't claim to know why he does care, but he seems to be grimly determined in the matter. 11:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Relist as above. Ral315 (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of dictators – Speedily closed, AfD was endorsed on December 21. – 20:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
List of dictators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The article was kept after extensive debate around a year ago. Since then the list was extensively improved by a large number of experience wikipedia editors and admins. Over 120 sources were provided, a working definition of dictator was decided upon. Editors painstakingly manipulated font sizes to make the article read well. A system was worked out by Lulu of the Lotus Eaters for discussing controversial entries. Discussions were always productive and lead to quick consensus. The article remained amazingly stable for around a year.

The article was a remarkable resource. And a Google search for "list of dictators" shows what a void has been created in the internet itself.

The article comprised hundreds of hours of work by dozens of editors working in good faith. Tens of thousands of words of discusions about the article have also been deleted.

All this on the whim of an admin who knew of the extensive history of the article User:Doc_glasgow. Active contributors to the article such as myself and Lulu of the lotus eaters were not informed of the AfD, which was timed for the holiday season and we were unable to vote. Despite this there were 11 votes to keep against 4 to delete. A strong consensus to Keep.

Admin Doc Glasgow decided to delete in spite of the strong contrary consensus and making no reference to the previous titanic deletion debate in 2005: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. That debate was on a far inferior article which had no sources. The article that had just been deleted was possibly the best sourced article in wikipedia with over 120 sources.

Doc Glasgow along with his friend desysoped former-admin User:172 were active in the previous debate. User:172 spammed over 50 wiki users flattering them and asking them to help him out with the vote. Doc Glasgow was well aware of the previous debate, well aware of his own opposition to the article in that debate. He was also well aware of the immense effort put into improving the article, the relative stability of the article, and its extensive sourcing.

Despite this, he overruled wikipedia policy deleting an article as an admin that he had previously been involved with. Not only did he not recuse himself but deleted the article against the consensus of the vote, using the exact same rationale that he used in the debate a year previously that had been rejected by the community then and now. His remarks in deleting the article are:

The result was DELETE. DELETE Inherently POV, offends against non-negotiable core policy. Most of the discussion can be ignored as it misses the point: the non-neutrality is not in the content but in the existence of this.

With this glib, unprofessional tirade he deleted the hundreds of hours of work against consensus, without declaring his own previous involvement in the article and without noting the immense improvements. The contributors to this AfD and the previous one in fact addressed that very point. It would therefore no be reasonable to delete against consensus because it "offends against a core policy" since that was the very crux of the discussion between experience users and admins.

I implore wikipedia to restore this article its former state. When people contribute to wikipedia they to so from a point of view of one who wishes to share their own knowledge - to codify the knowledge that we all posses. The glib and haphazard erasion of their contributions by admins who do not respect that beautiful impulse which has made wikipedia great, damages wikipedia immensely. If people are not convinced that their work will be considered in a fair and broadly democratic way then they will stop contributing. That is why I also implore wikipedia to strip the deleting admin of his adminship. He did something outrageous, he knew exactly what he was doing, he should of recused himself and shouldn't have deleted the article in any case. juicifer 18:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

juicifer 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I don't think that people understand that "Inherently POV" means "it can not be fixed, with any improvements". Also, 11 people saying "keep" ignores the fact that at least 5 completely misunderstood the argument. And WP:NPOV can not be overruled by consensus. By the way, the keeps weren't saying "Well, it's already NPOV!", they were saying "Yes, it is biased, but YOU have to clean it up!" Even against arguments that it couldn't be cleaned up. -Amarkov blahedits 19:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. It is salvageable with heavy quotation, citation and reference-adding. The existence of the article does not violate NPVO in my opinion, as "dictator" is a qualifiable and citeable description. —Nightstallion (?) 20:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. Closing admin did not pay attention to arguments for keep, and closure reason reads much more like a !vote than a summation of consensus or argument. Article may need tightening up of criteria to avoid difficulties with NPOV, but closing admin's claim of inherently POV is not a consensus view. Argyriou (talk) 20:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion based on Doc's reasoning. We appear in many cases to be applying 20th Century Western values to either historical or non-Western cultures (Oliver Cromwell being a fine example. Dictator is a weasel term in this context. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Three Great Powers – No consensus closure endorsed – 02:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The Three Great Powers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

The debate on whether the page should be kept or deleted was ended too soon. It was open for about a day, there were many other editors concerned who did not even know it was up for being deleted that would have wanted to express their opinions. I'm asking that the debate be reopened so that more people can express their opinion on the subject matter. Plus, 3 of the 4 people who voted said deleted and only one said keep. Not enough was said on whether it should be kept or delete for the discussion to have ended when it did. I am not asking the outcome be swayed, just that there can be allowed more time to talk about things. Angel Emfrbl 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Closure even though I too disagree with the CA's reasoning of no consensus. The AfD was open for 10 days, longer then the 5 day minimum that is required and proper noticed as placed on the article[1] and WP:AfD[2]. The AfD was also listed on the anime and manga's deletion sorting page on the 22nd[3]. Lack of knowledge about an AfD is not a legitimate grounds to reopen the debate if the debate has been properly noted on the article and WP:AfD. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also note that there were two merge votes, which are treated as keep in determining AfD outcomes. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure I do not see any reversible error on the part of the closing admin; a no consensus close was well within reasonable discretion for this discussion. Merge and redirect is always available as an editorial decision. And after a decent interval (a couple months) another AFD could be done. GRBerry 14:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, AfD rarely produces a definite result with fancruft (or articles entirely relating to fiction if you must), and seeking consensus for merging and/or redirecting is far more productive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure - the AfD had a mix of merge, keep and delete opinions, with no clear consensus. The closing admin was well within his rights to default to keep. Tarinth 22:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Infobox Philippine High School – Deletion endorsed – 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Infobox Philippine High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|TfD)

Restore. Deletion log states "Once this is done (with the blessing of WP:SCH, leave me a message on my talk and I'll delete." ... No blessing from WP:SCH has been attained. Further, deletion of the template has caused errors in various pages. For instance, Xavier School. { PMGOMEZ } 02:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name the errors and it shall be fixed. --Howard the Duck 03:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Find them. Point is, no blessing from WP:SCH was attained. { PMGOMEZ } 03:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me the errors? Point is, it was deleted already and you created a new template, Template:Infobox K-12 School. --Howard the Duck 03:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would prefer bringing it back for the sake of other Philippine High Schools. { PMGOMEZ } 03:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for tracking all my contribs, even if they have no relation to the point at hand. :) { PMGOMEZ } 03:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your new infobox looks exactly like the one that was deleted. And yeah, that's why the Watchlist lets you see other people's contribs. Nothing wrong with that, as a matter of fact, click "the" on my sig and tell me what appears. --Howard the Duck 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I never knew newly created templates could instantly be added to one's watchlist. At any rate, the new infobox solves the prob. :) { PMGOMEZ } 03:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't, but you see other people's contribs. --Howard the Duck 12:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism – Restored and listed at AfD with consent of deleting admin – 21:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

Article was speedy deleted even though I had put a "{hangon}" on it, and was drafting the justification for its preservation. Briefly, the wikipedian who placed the speedy delete did so less than two minutes after I created the article. That is counter to policy, or at least it was the last time I looked. The instructions say I am supposed to advise the administrator who performed the deletion, but they don't say how to determine who that was. Geo Swan 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Moondance magazine – Speedily closed, Afd ongoing – 20:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Moondance magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

New rewrite is in place. Please review. Am trying to follow all admin suggestions carefully. Want good standard to be encouraged and article to be saved. All thanks. --Lysanzia 08:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_28&oldid=1144413872"